American Map Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1174 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Map Company, Inc. and Local 923, Retail , refusal to reinstate him in the manner set forth in the
Wholesale & Department Store Union , AFL-CIO. Remedy section of the Administrative Law Judge's
Case 2-CA-13319 Decision."
August 18, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
PENELLO
On February 25, 1975 , Administrative Law Judge
John F . Corbley issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun-
sel filed a reply brief , supporting the Administrative
Law Judge 's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order , as modified herein?
i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding that at all relevant
times the Union enjoyed majority status , we rely solely on the fact that the
Union possessed valid authorization cards from a majority of the unit em-
ployees.
2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that a bargaining order is
warranted here to remedy the extensive and pervasive unfair labor practices
committed by Respondent . However, in our recent decision in Trading Port,
Inc, 219 NLRB 298 (1975 ), we reexamined the policies and principles set
forth in the Board's Steel-Fab decision (212 NLRB 363 (1974))-relied on
here by the Administrative Law Judge-and decided "that an employer's
obligation under a bargaining order remedy should commence as of the
time the employer has embarked on a clear course of unlawful conduct
. " Accordingly, we shall modify the remedy herein by requiring the
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union as of May 9 , 1974, the
date of the Union 's demand for recognition . We choose that date rather
than May 1, 1974 , when the Respondent embarked on its unlawful course,
because that was when the Union requested bargaining supported by a
majority of the employees , and because all of the Respondent 's unfair labor
practices otherwise were individually remedied by our adoption of the Ad-
nunistrative Law Judge's recommended Order . We do not find an 8(a)(5)
violation inasmuch as none was alleged in the complaint and inasmuch as,
in the circumstances of this case, the prescribed remedy provides a full and
complete remedy for the unfair labor practices on which the bargaining
order is based.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Amer-
ican Map Company, Inc., New York , New York, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in said recommended Order, as so
modified.
Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(a) and
(b):
"(a) Offer to Michael Scibelli immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if it no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as the result of his discriminatory
layoff, in the manner set forth in the `Remedy' sec-
tion of the Administrative Law Judge 's Decision.
"(b) Offer to Tommy Smith , Vance Davis, and
Jose Vargas immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or , if they no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as the result of the discriminatory
JOHN F. CORBLEY , Administrative Law Judge : A hearing
was held in this case at New York, New York , on October
30 and 31 and November 1, 20, and 21, 1974, pursuant to a
charge filed by Local 923 , Retail , Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as
the Charging Party or the Union) on May 16, 1974, and
served by registered mail on Respondent on or about May
17, 1974 ; a first amended charged filed by the Union on
May 24, 1974, and served by registered mail on Respon-
dent on or about May 28 , 1974; a second amended charged
filed by the Union on June 19 , 1974, and served by regis-
tered mail on Respondent on or about the same date and a
complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board on August 20, 1974 , which was thereafter also
duly served on Respondent.
The complaint alleges that a unit of Respondent's
mounting , drafting, shipping, and receiving employees is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of the Act and that a majority of the em-
ployees in that unit designated and selected the Union on
or about May 7, 1974 , as the exclusive representative of
said employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act , variously , by: keeping the
activities of its employees under surveillance ; warning its
employees against joining or assisting the Union and
threatening them with discharge or other reprisals if they
did so; laying off and refusing to reinstate employee Mi-
chael Scibelli because he joined the Union and engaged in
concerted activities ; by refusing to reinstate certain em-
219 NLRB No. 186
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY
ployees, claimed to be unfair labor practice strikers, be-
cause they participated in the allegedly unfair labor prac-
tice strike and in other concerted activities; and, finally,
that Respondent engaged in all the foregoing activities in
order to destroy the Union's claimed majority in the afore-
described appropriate collective-bargaining unit thereby
precluding the holding of a fair election in such unit and
requiring instead the entry of an order to bargain with the
Union . In its answer to the complaint , the Respondent de-
nies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
For reasons which appear hereinafter , I find and con-
clude that Respondent has violated, and is violating, Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, in most of the particulars
alleged in the complaint , that the unit described in the
complaint is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, that
the Union enjoyed majority status in that unit and that the
entry of a bargaining order is appropriate.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel.
Each party was given full opportunity to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence , and to file
briefs . All parties presented oral argument at the conclu-
sion of the hearing . A brief has subsequently been received
by the Respondent and a letter memorandum from the
General Counsel, both of which have been considered.
Upon the entire record ' in this case , including the brief
and letter and my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue
of, the laws of the State of New York.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
an office and place of business , sometimes referred to here-
in as its plant , at 1926 Broadway in the city and State of
New York. At said plant Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein , engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of maps.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint,
which year is representative of its annual operations gener-
ally, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business
operations , manufactured , sold, and distributed from its
plant maps valued in excess of $50 ,000, of which maps
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant in
interstate commerce directly to customers located in States
of the United States other than the State of New York.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and I find , that Local 923, Retail,
1 Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
1175
Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. BACKGROUND AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
A. Respondent's Relevant Hierarchy
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
LeRoy Brown, Joseph Scali, and Robert Weeks are super-
visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Inas-
much as Brown was the foreman in charge of Respondent's
mounting department, Scali was in charge of Respondent's
office department and Weeks was Respondent's vice presi-
dent at all times material herein and inasmuch as there is
no indication that their duties or authority changed be-
tween such times and the issuance of the complaint, I con-
clude that they were also supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2( 11) of the Act at all times material herein.
Lewis M. Andrews, Jr., is the president of Respondent.
He is also admitted to be a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act and I so find. In view of the
foregoing and because the record shows that Andrews in
May 1974 exercised the authority to hire employees and to
impose an order through his supervisors that no union
business would be discussed during working hours, I fur-
ther conclude that Andrews was, at all times material here-
to, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act and an agent of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act.
B. The Appropriate Collective-Bargaining Unit
As will appear, the bargaining unit was determined in a
representation proceeding which was initiated after the
Union's organizational drive among Respondent's employ-
ees was underway. While some of the events in this drive
occurred prior to the advent of the representation proceed-
ing and virtually all of the events in question here occurred
before the Regional Director's decision issued in that pro-
ceeding, it is useful to make certain observations and find-
ings in respect to that proceeding at the outset of my deci-
sion herein because of the relationship of the two cases.
On May 8, 1974, the Charging Party filed with Region 2
a petition in Case 2-RC-16513 for an election in a unit
described as:
All shipping employees, receiving, packers, map
mounting employees plant clericals employed at the
Employer's factory located at 1926 Broadway, N.Y.C.,
excluding all office clericals, secretaries, cartographurs
[sic] guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined in
the Act.2
It may be noted that this requested unit does not include
employees in Respondent's drafting department.
The scope and composition of the requested unit was
disputed and a hearing was held on May 29 and June 3,
2 This petition apparently supplanted an earlier petition in Case 2-RC-
15606 filed on May 2, 1974, for a somewhat smaller unit by Local 585,
Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, which, as will ap-
pear, was replaced by the Charging Party after a merger action took place.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1974, before a Hearing Officer of Region 2. Thereafter, the
Regional Director issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in that proceeding on June 28, 1974, followed by
an "Erratum" on July 2, 1974. The Regional Director
found the following unit to be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees in the
mounting, drafting and shipping and receiving depart-
ments employed by the Employer at its New York
City location, excluding office clerical employees,
sales employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Thereafter, on or about July 10, 1974, the Respondent
filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., a request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction
of Election in Case 2-RC-1613, arguing essentially that the
appropriate unit should also include office employees.
On or about July 26, 1974, Robert Volger, Deputy Exec-
utive Secretary for the Board issued, by direction of the
Board, a telegraphic order denying the Respondent's re-
quest for review on the grounds that it raised no substantial
issues warranting review.
On September 4, 1974, the Regional Director issued an
order vacating direction of election and cancelling election
and approving withdrawal of petition pointing out that the
complaint herein had issued on August 20, 1974, and that
said complaint sought the entry of a remedial order requir-
ing Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union.
The Regional Director further concluded that this request-
ed order, if granted, would preclude the existence of any
question concerning representation (which would have
been posed by the election petition).
The Board has a policy, binding on me,3 that it will not
normally permit relitigation in an unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding of its unit determination made in a prior represen-
tation proceeding involving the same unit and parties.4
This policy is predictably not ironclad. It admits of certain
obvious exceptions whereby parties are provided with op-
portunity to present evidence which is newly discovered or
previously unavailable. No effort was made in this pro-
ceeding, however, to relitigate the Regional Director's unit
determination, which, in any event, by force of the Board's
denial of the Respondent's request for review has now been
affirmed by the Board .5
I, accordingly, likewise affirm that the above-described
unit, found appropriate by the Regional Director, is an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
On May 3, 1974, the employees included in said unit
were as follows: Shipping and Receiving Department-Nich-
olas Ambrose, Carlos Bergin, Ronald Coleman, Vance Da-
vis, Michael Scibelli, Clyde Warren; Mounting Depart-
ment-Toney Joseph, Roberto Martinez, Radames
3 The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 119 NLRB 768, 773
(1957).
4 E.g., Preform Company, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 9 (1974). See Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U .S. 146, 162 ( 1941); Sec. 102.67(g) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended.
5 Sec. 102 .67(g) of the Board 's Rules and Regulations.
Martinez , Tommy Smith, Jose Vargas ; Drafting Depart-
ment-Louis Ercole , Thomas Strico , Sara Nehoshtan, Nan-
cy Richardson , Arja Simola; and Shipping Clerical-Floyd
Wesley.
As of May 3 , 1974, the shipping and receiving depart-
ment foreman was Michael Glevina . He was excluded
from the unit by the Regional Director as a supervisor. The
foreman of the drafting department is Frank Lombardo
who, the parties agreed in the representation proceeding, is
also excluded from the unit as a supervisor . The foreman
of the mounting department is LeRoy Brown , admitted
herein to be a supervisor . Consistent with the foregoing, I
also exclude Glevina , Lombardo , and Brown from the ap-
propriate unit (as of May 3 , 1974, and subsequently) as
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The unit complement was the same as above on May 27,
1974-i .e., I day before the beginning of the strike and 2
days before the commencement of the hearing in Case 2-
RC-16513-with the exception of Scibelli whose separa-
tion from employment on May 17, 1974, is alleged to be an
8(aX3) violation. Supervisor Glevina was discharged on
May 23, 1974.
C. The Union's Organizational Campaign
Michael Scibelli, who was to become a leader of the
movement to organize the Union at Respondent's plant,
began his most recentperiod of employment with Respon-
dent in January 1974, and was employed in the shipping
and receiving department'
Beginning in April 1974, Scibelli and other employees
began to discuss the possibility of joining a union. Follow-
ing these discussions Scibelli contacted the AFL-CIO on
April 24 , and was referred to Local 585 , Retail , Wholesale
and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, hereinafter re-
ferred to as Local 585. On April 26, Scibelli spoke to
Grund , then an. organizer for that local at the local's office.
After having a discussion with Scibelli about the possibili-
ties of organizing Respondent 's plant , Grund agreed to
meet with Scibelli and other employees at a later date.
On May 1, Scibelli, his foreman Mike Glevina, Vance
Davis , and Tommy Smith met with Grund and Ms . Dolan,
a union officer , in a coffee shop apparently in the same
building as that in which Respondent 's place of business is
located . The matter of organizing Respondent's plant was
again discussed and the Respondent employees present de-
cided to proselytize their other coworkers.
On May 1 and 2 Scibelli gave out Local 585 authoriza-
tion cards to employees Ronald Coleman and Carlos Ber-
gin.
These union activities came to the attention of
Respondent's officials at or about this time or earlier. As
the result, on May 3 , LeRoy Brown, the mounting depart-
ment foreman , addressed a gathering of employees of
his department including Roberto Martinez , Radames
Martinez , Toney Joseph , and Tommy Smith . Brown told
those present that they should not get involved with a
union because a union had tried to organize Respondent's
6 All of the events described hereinafter occurred in 1974 , unless other-
wise noted.
r Scibelli had also been employed by Respondent on two prior occasions.
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY
employees previously and all the employees who were in-
volved with the union on that occasion had been fired.
Brown went on to explain that he had not worked with
the Union hence had managed to continue his employment
with Respondent . Brown then asked if any of the employ-
ees present were getting involved with the Union. None
admitted that they were.
There had, in fact , been an earlier attempt to organize
Respondent's employees into a union . Thus, a Board-con-
ducted election had been held in a unit of Respondent's
employees including "mounting and shipping and receiv-
ing clerks" in Case 2-RC-12007 on May 10, 1962. The
petitioning labor organization in that case was Office Em-
ployees International Union, Local 153, AFL-CIO. On
May 18 , 1962, the Regional Director for Region 2 certified
that a majority of the ballots cast in that election had not
been cast in favor of any labor organization appearing on
the ballot.8
Also, about this same time, that is , in late April or about
May 1, employee Nicholas Ambrose spoke to Comptroller
Scali and inquired what was going on in the shop. Scali
responded that the employees were trying to form a union.
Scali added that Ambrose should not get involved with the
Union because Ambrose could lose his job as the result of
such involvement?
8 The foregoing findings as to the incident of May 3 , 1974, are based on
the credible testimony of Scibelli in this regard , as essentially corroborated
by the testimony of Tommy Smith . In his testimony Brown admitted that
Tommy Smith had informed Brown of the employees ' interest in bringing a
union into the shop and Brown further admitted that he was aware of the
earlier Board election and that he informed the mounting department em-
ployees , on the day in question , of his opposition to unions. While giving a
somewhat different version of what he said on this occasion and denying
that he mentioned the prior election Brown did not deny making the re-
marks set forth above , attributed to him by Scibelli.
While Roberto Martinez testified that he also vaguely recalled this inci-
dent and stated that Brown did not mention "about people losing their job
if they joined a union" he did not deny that Brown made the remarks as
found above . To the extent , that this may be considered a denial , however,
I discredit it. Martinez was not a very convincing witness. His testimony on
direct examination was contrary to his prehearing affidavit and his testimo-
ny on redirect that he did not remember a similar remark by Brown at a
later meeting , to be discussed, contradicts his denial on direct that Brown
made such a remark.
Scibelli appeared to be sincere in his manner while testifying . While Tom-
my Smith was somewhat less so , he testified with self -confidence and, I
believe , in a generally straightforward manner.
9 The foregoing findings are made primarily on the basis of the credible
testimony of Ambrose in this regard as supplemented , in part , by the testi-
mony of Scali . Scali admitted his participation in the conversation and also
admitted that he told Ambrose not to get involved with the Union . I do not
credit Scali 's further testimony that he told Ambrose not to get involved
until he knew what the Union was all about.
A considerable issue arose at the hearing in respect to the credibility of
Ambrose . Ambrose , who was described by his current supervisor , Quildon,
as being a little retarded , I found to be a soft-spoken , retiring , and very
sensitive person, who had some difficulty remembering dates which did not
coincide with significant events in the case and in recalling the identities of
other persons present at certain incidents in which he was involved . Howev-
er, his recollection of other dates which did coincide with events was accu-
rate . Further , he was vigorously cross-examined for more than 2-1/2 hours
and stuck essentially with the details he recalled on direct examination in
respect to this and other incidents although occasionally adding other de-
tails which were consistent with his testimony on direct . In this cross-exami-
nation a number of matters were brought out in respect to Ambrose's per-
sonal life including his hobbies and membership in fan clubs . An offer of
proof was also made, and rejected, that he reads obituary columns and goes
to funerals . I find nothing in these hobbies nor indeed in Ambrose's
1177
A short time after the foregoing incident involving Scali,
Vice President Weeks spoke to Ambrose and told Ambrose
not to get involved with certain employees who were start-
ing a union or Ambrose would possibly lose his job.10 Am-
brose understood that the employees to which Weeks made
reference included Scibelli and Tommy Smith who, Amb-
rose believed (correctly), were active union advocates."
On May 6, Barbara LaFarr, a clerical employee, spoke
to Scibelli in the shipping department and suggested that
Scibelli stay away from the "troublemakers" who were in-
claimed interest in funerals, assuming he has such an interest , that would
render him incapable of testifying in respect to this or other incidents which
will appear. Further this incident and the others about which Ambrose
testified concern fairly simple and brief conversations for which a profound
comprehension is unnecessary.
Ambrose's comprehension , in my judgment , was more than adequate to
understand them and to relate them . I reach this conclusion not only based
upon his performance on the stand before and during intensive cross-exami-
nation but also on the basis of his work history. In the latter regard, while
there was some testimony by Respondent's witnesses that Ambrose works
slowly and has not done well at extra tasks (such as inventory), the fact
remains that he has been employed by Respondent for more than 10 years
and that his principal function requires a certain measure of responsibility.
This function which Ambrose has been carrying on for about 6 years, in-
cludes the writeup and stamping of packages to be delivered to
Respondent's customers by the U.S. Post Office and private carriers, such as
United Parcel Service (Ambrose also makes trips to the Post Office with
packages each day). Proper completion of these delivery records obviously
requires accuracy. Yet, significantly, of all the efforts made to raise a ques-
tion as to Ambrose's credibility, no effort was made to show that he has
made any errors in his principal function , just described . Hence, in the
absence of such an effort and in view of his long service in this function, I
conclude that his performance of it is satisfactory and that he is capable of
making such writeups and otherwise completing such assignments with ac-
curacy. Finally, as the General Counsel correctly pointed out at the conclu-
sion of the hearing, Ambrose was reluctant to participate in the strike which
occurred in late May 1974 and to give testimony at the hearing because of
his long association with Respondent and its owners . That he should appear
at the hearing and testify against his employer in such circumstances indi-
cates that his testimony is also entitled to belief for this reason.
Scali was a very intelligent witness, but on a number of occasions his
answers included speculation and the drawing of inferences, a practice
which he was asked to discontinue but nonetheless repeated. This in my
judgment detracts from his credibility if only for the reason that his answers
became couched in terms of what he believed should have happened rather
than his recollection of what did happen I have not, therefore , credited his
somewhat different version of his conversation with Ambrose on this occa-
sion and I have not credited him in other instances , as will appear.
I fix the date of the foregoing incident at a time before Ambrose would
have signed an authorization card (that is, before he would have direct
knowledge that a union campaign was on). This date would be on May I or
earlier, inasmuch as the first authorization cards were passed out on May I
and 2 . 1 do not believe-and have not found-that it occurred 2 weeks
before May 1, as Ambrose vaguely recalled , because the union campaign at
Resepondent's plant was not really in progress at that time.
1 These findings are also based on the credible testimony of Ambrose in
this regard . I do not credit Weeks' denial that he made these remarks to
Ambrose on this occasion . I found Weeks to be a somewhat glib witness
and I was not impressed that he testified sincerely. Thus, while Weeks ad-
mitted to a conversation with Ambrose in August 1974 wherein Weeks told
Ambrose that he, Weeks, is personally opposed to unions and Weeks further
admitted at the hearing that he is still opposed to unions , he nonetheless
claimed that he, a corporate vice president, did not know that he was called
to testify in this proceeding because a labor union had brought charges
against his employer.
ii There was also testimony by Ambrose, denied by Weeks; that Weeks
on another occasion offered Ambrose $ 10 not to join a union . Ambrose also
testified that he , Ambrose, wrote a letter memorializing this conversation
and gave the letter to Scibelli . However, Ambrose testified that Weeks was
joking on this occasion and that he , Ambrose, understood the offer to be a
joke . 1, accordingly, find it unnecessary to resolve this credibility question
and make no unfair labor practice findings in respect to this alleged inci-
dent.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
volved with the Union. When Scibelli asked LaFarr who
the troublemakers were , LaFarr mentioned Vance Davis.
Scibelli then told LaFarr that she should not blame Davis
and others because he, Scibelli, was the one who originally
contacted the Union. LaFarr told Scibelli that she, LaFarr,
was going to tell Scali about this. Scibelli told LaFarr that
she could tell anyone she pleased.12
Later that same day LaFarr told Scali that Scibelli told
her that he, Scibelli, had contacted the Union. Scali ex-
pressed surprise at this.13
Also on or about May 6, action was taken to merge Lo-
cal 585 with the Charging Party.
On May 7, a meeting was held at the Charging Party's
office. Present for the Union were Dolan, Grund, and an-
other organizer, Waites. The employees of Respondent in
attendance were Scibelli, Tommy Smith, Roberto Marti-
nez, Radames Martinez, Vance Davis, Carlos Bergin, Ron-
ald Coleman, Nicholas Ambrose, Clyde Warren, and Jose
Vargas. Also present was Shipping Foreman Glevina, who
was later found to be a supervisor in the Regional
Director's decision in the representation case proceeding.
Either Grund or Dolan explained to the employees that
the two unions (Local 585 and the Charging Party) had
merged and that it was necessary that each employee sign
another authorization card. There ensued some conversa-
tion about the significance of the card, about which more
will be said in my "Concluding Findings." Employees also
asked questions. During this conversation Glevina stated
that he was in favor of the Union. Thereafter, Wailes, the
union representative, passed out blank authorization cards
(for the Charging Party) to the employees who completed
and signed them and returned them to Wailes. All the em-
ployees mentioned above, including Glevina, signed au-
thorization cards for the Charging Party at this meeting.
On May 9, acertain letter dealing with the Union was
passed out by Respondent to its employees at the plant.
Scibelli was asked to return this letter to Ms. Krieger, a
clerical employee, as a sign of support of Respondent. Sci-
belli returned the letter to Krieger along with a union leaf-
let that he, Scibelli, was distributing. Scibelli also gave a
union leaflet to Scali on this occasion and told Scali that
since Scali now had a copy of the union leaflet Scali didn't
need to ask the "girls" (apparently the clerical employees)
for one. Scali replied that he had never taken such a leaflet
from the girls, but that they had given it to him.
On May 9, 1974, the Union sent Respondent a mailgram
advising Respondent that the Union represented a majori-
ty of Respondent's employees and requesting that a meet-
ing be arranged to negotiate a contract. Respondent did
not, however, recognize the Union at that time, nor has it
done so since.
On or about May 15, Foreman LeRoy Brown left work
with employee Stephanie Sims14 and they accompanied
each other down the street to a nearby subway entrance.
i2 These findings are based on a composite of the testimony of Scibelb
and LaFarr in this regard.
13 These findings are based on the credible testimony of LaFarr in this
regard . Scali admitted learning of Scibelli 's interest in the Union early in
May 1974 and that he obtained this information from LaFarr. He did not
deny that LaFarr told him that Scibelli had contacted the Union.
' Sims' married name is now Green.
Sims had heard some discussion concerning the Union and
asked Brown what the Union was about and what good
would it do. Brown responded that the Union was sup-
posed to bring in better benefits but he felt the existing
benefits were good enough. Brown went on to say that
people had been trying for a number of years to establish a
union at Respondent's plant but that those who tried to do
so got fired. When Sims asked if this could be done, Brown
told her it was done all the time. Brown also said that three
people were going to be fired on the ensuing Friday (May
17) and that the guy who was starting the Union, Mike
Scibelli, would be one of them.15
On May 16, Brown addressed a meeting of the mounting
department employees. Brown told the employees that they
should not discuss union activities at work. He also re-
minded them that people who had tried to organize a
union before had been fired. Tommy Smith took umbrage
at Brown's remarks and told Brown that no one had the
right to tell him, Smith, what he, Smith, could talk about at
any time whether he was at work or any other place. Brown
again reminded Smith about employees previously losing
their jobs but Smith remained adamant.'
15 These findings are based on the credible and full testimony of Green
(nee Sims ) in this regard Green testified with a certain quiet self-confidence
and created a favorable impression on the stand.
Green 's most recent employment with Respondent was on a temporary
basis from March to May 1974. During this period Green was approached
by Scibelli about joining the Union but she declined to do so stating that she
was a part-time employee and the Union did not concern her She did not
engage in any union activities.
Green 's credibility was attacked essentially on three bases : one, that she
did not testify to an earlier period of employment with Respondent during
the fall of 1973; secondly, that she was not present on May 10 when she
testified she had a conversation with LaFarr about her (Green 's) impending
layoff; and, finally, in respect to Green's March reemployment, she denied
being interviewed by Scab at that time.
I reject each of these items as a basis to discredit Green 's credibility. She
was not specifically asked about any prior employment with Respondent.
As to her discussion with LaFarr about her impending layoff, Sims did not
clock in to work on that Friday, May 10, hence I conclude she was not
present that day. However , she had some difficulty recalling precise dates of
certain events (e.g., placing the incident involving Brown "in the middle of
the week" when she was laid off (i e., the week ending on Friday, May 17)
In view of the lapse of time between the events in question here and her
testimony (5-1/2 months) I do not deem this unusual and conclude that the
instant discussion with LaFarr (which was not denied by LaFarr) occurred
on or about May 9, 1974 As to Green' s denial that she spoke with Scali
when she went to work in the spring of 1974, 1 again do not find it unusual
that she could not recall this, assuming Scala s testimony that she spoke to
her at such time is accurate . The conversation, if any, was not a lengthy one.
Thus. Scah testified he told her that her assignment was temporary and
asked her if she knew what to do, to which last she responded in the affir-
mative . LaFarr did not deny Green's other testimony (in reference to
Green 's rehire) that LaFarr spoke to her, Green , when she came to work in
March and that LaFarr had her fill out tax forms at that time . Scala also
confirmed Green's testimony that she had been recommended for work with
Respondent by her friend . Diane Bryant.
I do not credit Brown 's denial of this conversation. I did not find Brown
convincing or sincere in his manner . Further, he admitted knowing which
subway Green and other employees would take home, although in his direct
examination he denied that he walked with anyone to the subway (giving as
a reason the fact that he drove to work). When it developed on cross-
examination that he must go through this subway entrance to get to where
his car is parked , he claimed that this subway was a different one than that
which employees used . Finally, Brown 's theme that employees who start
unions are fired by Respondent was already mentioned by Brown to the
mounting department employees , as I have found, and would be mentioned
to them again by him, as will appear
i6 The foregoing findings are made on the basis of the credible testimony
of Smith in this regard and are corroborated in part by Brown . I do not
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY 1179
Late in the afternoon on May 17, Scali told Foreman
Glevina in Scali's office that business was slow and that
someone would have to be let go. Glevina was opposed to
this and pointed out to Scali that they (obviously the ship-
ping department) were "doing Miller Freeman" (apparent-
ly a group of orders) and had a busy year coming up. Glev-
ina, Scali admitted, also mentioned to Scali then or
sometime that day that the Business Control Atlases
(BCA's), about which more will be said hereinafter, were
coming in. But Scali insisted that someone had to go and
Scali asked who was "the last one on the list." Glevina
responded "Scibelli." Glevina then went and told Scibelli
that he was being laid off.
Scibelli then asked Glevina whether he, Scibelli, was
being laid off or fired. Glevina could not answer the ques-
tion so he went back to Scali about it. But Scali would not
give Glevina an answer. Scibelli then went to see Scali and
asked him the same question. Scali at first avoided the an-
swer, but, on being pressed by Scibelli, told him that he
was being temporarily laid off.17 Scibelli's services were
ended that day and he has not been rehired.
On May 23, after 4 in the afternoon, Glevina was sum-
moned to Andrews' office and Andrews told Glevina that
he had had enough of Glevina. When Glevina asked An-
drews to explain, Andrews stated that Glevina was slowing
down the work and "trying to join the Union." Glevina did
not deny his interest in the Union but said that work was
slowed down because Vance Davis had been off sick a
couple of days and Scibelli had been laid off. With this,
Glevina left Andrews' office and went to Scali's office.
Glevina there reported to Scali that he was discharged and
Scali gave Glevina his paycheck. While Glevina was away
from his work station and was talking to Andrews, Floyd
Wesley deposited a stack of orders in the shipping depart-
ment bin to be completed by the department.
After the other employees had gotten off work that day
Glevina recounted to them the circumstances of his dis-
charge.
On May 24 a meeting of the employees was held at the
Union's office. Representing the Union were Grund,
Waites, and Skier, the president of the Union. Scibelli,
Glevina, Vance Davis, Nick Ambrose, Tommy Smith, Ro-
berto Martinez, Ronald Coleman, and Toney Joseph were
also present. At this meeting the employees discussed the
discharge of Scibelli and Glevina. Glevina repeated to
those present that Andrews had told Glevina that Glevina
had been discharged for union activities. The employees
then expressed the opinion that Respondent had apparent-
ly been discharging the employees responsible for the
Union and that such conduct might continue . The remarks
of Brown that this had happened before were also men-
tioned by the employees in this discussion. Grund advised
credit Brown's denial that he mentioned that employees who had previously
attempted to organize a union were discharged . Nor do I credit Roberto
Martinez ' attempt to corroborate Brown's denial . Martinez ' testimony in
this regard is directly contradicted by his pretrial affidavit . Toney Joseph, a
Respondent witness, also testified in respect to this incident and, although
Joseph did not-recall any mention by Brown of a prior Board election, he,
Joseph, did not contradict Smith 's version of the incident.
17 The foregoing findings in this paragraph are based on the credible and
undisputed testimony of Scibelli in this regard.
the employees that he didn't want to tell them what to do
about the problem but that they should do what was best.
The sentiment of the employees was that they should go
on strike. Skier thereupon informed them what the Union
would try to do for them and that the Union would try to
get them better benefits. A vote was taken and the employ-
ees present voted unanimously to go on strike."
The strike began on May 28, a Tuesday,19 and was ac-
companied by picketing which continued for 4 days, May
28 through May 31. The pickets included Tommy Smith,
Jose Vargas, Nicholas Ambrose, Michael Glevina, Michael
Scibelli, Vance Davis, Roberto Martinez, Radames Marti-
nez, Clyde Warren, Ronald Coleman, Carlos Bergin, and
Toney Joseph. They patroled at the front entrance and the
delivery entrance of Respondent's place of business and
carried signs, sandwich fashion, which bore the following
inscription:
PLEASE DO NOT
PATRONIZE
AMERICAN MAP CO. INC.
1926 B'WAY
NON UNION
REFUSES TO BARGAIN
RWDSU
130 W 42 ST . CH 4-0847
On May 30, a payday which occurred during the week in
which the strike was going on, the striking employees de-
sired to obtain their paychecks. Grund, who was with the
strikers that day, went upstairs to the floor on which the
Respondent has its offices and spoke to Andrews. Andrews
instructed Scali to get the checks. While Scali was gone
Grund told Andrews that if Andrews would agree to sign a
contract with him Grund could give Andrews a "very, very
sweet deal." Grund stated that this would not cost the com-
pany any more than it was now paying and that the com-
pany would be off the hook for 3 years 2° Andrews did not
accept this offer.
On or about May 31 Clyde Warren and Nicholas Am-
brose, both of whom had been on strike, asked Scali about
obtaining their jobs back. Warren was promptly reinstated.
When Ambrose spoke to Scali after Warren had been rein-
stated, Scali declined to reinstate Ambrose. Scala told Am-
brose that his old job had been filled. Scali also asked Am-
brose what jobs he could do in the shipping department to
which Ambrose responded that he could write up United
Postal deliveries and make trips to the Post Office.
Shortly thereafter, but on the same day, Ambrose also
spoke to Andrews about returning to work. It does not
appear that Ambrose attached any conditions to this re-
quest. Andrews told Ambrose he was sorry that he could
not give Ambrose his job back because it was being per-
18 These findings are based on a composite of the testimony of Scibelli,
Smith, and Waites is this regard.
19 Monday, May 28 , was observed as the Memorial Day holiday.
30 These findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Andrews
in this regard , Grund did not testify, being unavailable because of a recent
heart attack. While evidence was adduced that Grund was not authorized
by the Union to negotiate contracts this would not alter the possibility that
he could obtain ratification of his offer to Andrews by a union officer with
such authority
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formed by someone else 2' Andrews also stated that it
would help for Ambrose not to picket anymore if Ambrose
wanted his job back. Andrews added that he, Andrews,
was not going to give in to the Union and would not let it
win and Andrews pointed out to Ambrose that the work
was still going on even though the employees were on
strike.
On May 31 the striking employees met and decided to
call off the strike.
On June 4 they went up to Andrews' office and, through
their spokesman Tommy Smith, asked for their jobs back
without appending any conditions to such request. An-
drews told them that their jobs were filled but that they
would be called.22
With this the employees left the premises . The group
who sought their jobs back included all of the strikers (ex-
cept for Warren, who had already been reinstated)."
Most of the striking employees have subsequently been
reinstated . Their department and dates of reinstatement
follow : Mounting Department-Toney Joseph , June 18;
Radames Martinez , August 27; Roberto Martinez , October
28; Shipping Department-Clyde Warren, May 31; Nicho-
las Ambrose, August 22; Ronald Coleman, July 22; Carlos
Bergin, July 22.
Employees Scibelli, Smith , Vargas , and Davis have not
been reinstated nor has Supervisor Glevina.
IV. CONCLUDING FINDINGS
A. The Allegations in Respect to LaFarr,• Her Status
The complaint alleges that Barbara LaFarr is
Respondent's agent and a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act . I find , on this record , that she is neither.
LaFarr is a clerical employee who works under the direc-
tion of Scale . She does typist's work and also handles pric-
ing assignments . She does not have a separate office and
she is paid time and a half for overtime . While there is
some testimony that she had instructed employees as to
their duties and informed at least one employee, Green
(Sims), of the latter 's layoff, I conclude on the basis of the
record, as a whole, that LaFarr carries out such functions
as a conduit of Scali's admitted supervisory authority. Any
other instructions she was shown to have given employees
appear to be no more than those of leadman (or, more
21 At the time the work of Ambrose was being performed by strike re-
placements Quildon and Reiche along with other shipping department work
which they were handling.
22 The findings as to the Ambrose-Andrews interview are based on the
credible testimony of Ambrose in this regard. I do not credit Andrews'
denial that he, Andrews, suggested that Ambrose 's chances of reinstatement
would improve if he ceased picketing . Andrews did not deny making com-
ments about his intentions with regard to the Union nor the fact the work
was continuing despite the strike.
The credibility of Ambrose has previously been discussed at length in this
decision . I was not as favorably impressed with Andrews , whom I found to
be a somewhat uncooperative witness . I note particularly on cross-examina-
tion, Andrews, after first indicating he had little , if any, knowledge of the
identity or numbers of strike replacements , actually had considerable infor-
mation on this subject.
23 These findings as to the end of the strike are based on a composite of
the testimony of Smith and Scibelli in this regard but primarily upon that of
Smith.
properly, leadperson ) or those of the most senior employee
in the department (which she was) to those junior to her.
While there is testimony by Green (Sims) that LaFarr
told Green that she (LaFarr) was aware of Green' s discus-
sion with Scibelli about the Union and that Respondent
had "ways" of finding out about such matters, there is no
indication that Respondent has ever ratified such conduct
on the part of LaFarr. The same is true in respect to com-
ments made by LaFarr to Ambrose in respect to the
Union.
Having concluded that LaFarr is neither a supervisor
nor an agent of Respondent , I shall recommend that those
allegations of the complaint (par. 9) dealing with her al-
leged acts of surveillance and any allegations that she
threatened employees with reprisals if they supported the
Union (par. 10) be dismissed. °
B. The Allegations of Independent Violations of Section
8(a)(1)
I conclude on the basis of my findings of fact, supra, that
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
following conduct of its supervisors:
1. Brown's statement to the mounting department em-
ployees on or about May 3, 1974, that they should not get
involved with a union because all the employees who did
so during an earlier union organizing campaign were dis-
charged by Respondent.
2. Scali's warning to employee Ambrose, at the end of
April or the beginning of May 1974, that Ambrose should
not get involved with the Union because Ambrose might
lose his job as the result.
3. Weeks' warning to Ambrose (a short time after the
above-mentioned Scali incident) that Ambrose should not
get involved with employees who were starting a Union or
Ambrose would possibly lose his job.
4. Brown's statement to Green (then Sims), on or about
May 15 , 1974, that those who sought to establish a union at
Respondent's plant invariably got fired.
5. Brown 's reminder to the mounting department em-
ployees, on or about May 16, 1974, that anyone who had
previously sought to form a union at Respondent's plant
had been discharged.
C. The Separation of Scibelli
The General Counsel contends, as the complaint alleges,
that Scibelli was laid off because of his union activities.
Respondent takes the position that Scibelli was laid off in
an economic cutback. For reasons which appear herein-
24 In reaching this conclusion I also rely on the record of the hearing in
Case 2-RC-16513, received in evidence herein. In so doing I attach no
weight to the testimony of Radames Martinez , a mounting department em-
ployee who testified in the representation case , that he was hired by LaFarr.
Such would be contrary to the logical , hence more credible , testimony of
Scale in that proceeding wherein he stated that mounting department and
shipping department employees were hired by him after consultation with
the foreman of those departments , Brown or Glevina . Radames Martinez
elsewhere testified in that proceeding, with patent incredibility , that no one
gave orders in the shipping department. In any event, even if I were to credit
the testimony of Radames Martinez that LaFarr hired him, that isolated
exercise of supervisory authority would be insufficient to establish that La-
Farr was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY
after, I agree with the General Counsel.
The prima facie case in support of this aspect of the com-
plaint is substantial. Thus, it is undisputed that in April
1974 Scibelli originally contacted a union to represent
Respondent's employees and that he thereafter actively
participated in the organizational campaign. And it is clear
that Respondent knew of Scibelli's activities. For Scibelli
so informed LaFarr who told Scali. Indeed Scibelli distrib-
uted union literature to Scali.
Respondent's animus against the Union is well demon-
strated by Brown's often repeated warning that in the past
Respondent had discharged employees who had tried to
organize a union-a warning which was consistent with
those given by Scali and Weeks to Ambrose to dissuade
Ambrose from joining a union.
Scibelli's layoff was specifically predicted by Brown who
told Green (Sims), 2 days before its occurrence, that the
guy who had then started the Union-Scibelli-would be
fired the following Friday (May 17).
Respondent argues essentially that Scibelli was laid off
due to an economic cutback. More particularly it points
out in its brief that within days of Scibelli's most recent
reemployment in January 1974 another shipping depart-
ment employee, Vance Davis, went into the hospital for a
hernia operation. When Davis returned to work in April,
Scibelli then became the seventh man in that department
whose complement had stood at six just before Scibelli was
taken on in January. Thereafter in May 1974, says the
brief, there was a substantial fall off in the orders handled
by the shipping department and Scibelli, as the most re-
cently hired employee in that department, was laid off.
The record supports Respondent's economic defense to
the extent that it shows a decline in the dollar volume han-
dled by that department in May and both Scibelli and
Glevina gave testimony indicating that the work had
slowed up somewhat. However, on the full record, a num-
ber of considerations appear, totally aside from the Gener-
al Counsel's substantial prima facie case, which undermine
the Respondent's economic defense.
To begin with, a serious question arises as to why Scibelli
would be laid off in mid-May even though the work had
slackened somewhat at that particular time. For despite the
fact that Vance Davis had returned to work in April, he
was still unable to undertake all aspects of shipping depart-
ment work, particularly lifting. Indeed Davis was out sick
for several days during the week following Scibelli's sepa-
ration, as Glevina credibly testified. Further, seven em-
ployees is the normal complement of Respondent's ship-
ping department. That is, the complement had stood at
seven, on the average, from April 1973 to the time of
Scibelli's departure. And the complement had returned to
that figure at the time of the hearing, as Scali admitted.
Also, when Scali directed Glevina to lay off Scibelli,
Glevina who was opposed to this action, pointed out to
Scali that the Business Control Atlases or BCA's (which
Respondent sends once a year to certain customers) were
due to come in shortly from the publisher. Glevina also
pointed out that a busy year of work was coming up for the
shipping department. Scali rejected the advice of Glevina,
his shipping department supervisor, on this occasion (not-
withstanding his testimony in the representation case that
1181
he would be guided by the recommendations of Glevina in
hiring and firing matters ) and insisted on Scibelli's separa-
tion . The BCA's, which had been promised for delivery
throughout May, as Scali admitted, did begin to arrive dur-
ing the following week . In fact more than 15,000 of them
were received by June 18. Glevina's prediction of a busy
year is borne out by the credible testimony of his eventual
replacement, Quildon , who stated that there was a backlog
of orders in the shipping department when he began work
at the end of May 1974 and the backlog continued until the
time of his testimony on November 21, 1974. -
Finally , for several weeks at about the time of Scibelli's
discharge certain customary shipping department work-
that of putting maps in plastic bags-was not being per-
formed by shipping department personnel but had been
assigned to the clerical force.25
In all the circumstances , I conclude that the General
Counsel has established by a compelling preponderance of
the evidence that Scibelli was laid off not because the work
had slackened but rather because of his union activities 26 I
so find and further conclude that Respondent has thereby
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.27
D. The Nature of the Strike; Efforts of the Employees To
Obtain Reinstatement
The evidence is undisputed that the employees, who
were present at the meeting at which the strike vote was
taken, voted unanimously to strike in protest of the layoff
of Scibelli and the discharge of Glevina. The testimony of
the witnesses who attended that meeting is clear and con-
sistent on this point. And the strike occurred shortly after
Scibelli and Glevina were discharged. While it later devel-
oped that Glevina was found to be a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, this does not change the nature of the
protest nor its validity insofar as Scibelli, an employee, was
concerned. It also appears that the strike would be utilized
for the additional purpose of furthering the Union_'s efforts
to obtain recognition. Thus, at this same meeting at which
the vote was taken, Union President Skler discussed with
the employees what the Union would try to do and what
benefits it hoped to obtain for them.
Thereafter, picket signs were prepared and were carried
which, as previously noted, asked that passersby not pa-
tronize the Respondent because Respondent was nonunion
and refused to bargain with the Union. And, as I have
found, Grund sought to obtain a contract from Andrews
while he and Andrews were talking during the middle of
the strike.
Primarily based on the legend of the picket signs, the
foregoing efforts of Grund, and the claimed failure of the
Union or the employees to communicate to Respondent
their protest over the discharge, Respondent contends that
the strike was merely for the purpose of pressuring Respon-
25 This work is performed by Clyde Warren, as Scah admitted.
361 attach no weight to Scale's conclusionary testimony that Scibelli was
not discharged for this reason.
27 Brown 's statement to Green (Sims) is a virtual admission that Scibelli
was to be separated for this reason . Cf. Chef Nathan Sez Eat Here, Inc, 181
NLRB 159 (1970), enfd 434 F.2d 126 (C A. 3, 1970).
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent to recognize and bargain with the Union and was,
therefore , an economic strike and not an unfair labor prac-
tice strike, as the complaint alleges . I disagree.
Again there can be no question that the strike had as at
least one of its purposes the protest of the discharge of
Scibelli and Glevina . For the employees voted to strike for
that reason.
But even assuming , arguendo, that this purpose should
have been communicated to Respondent , its contention
that the protest was not made clear is unpersuasive. That
purpose was fairly obvious in the circumstances.
Thus the strike occurred shortly after Glevina was dis-
charged explicitly because of his union activities and only
10 days after Scibelli was laid off, as I have found , for the
same reason . While the legend on the sign did not specifi-
cally address the matter of these two separations , it unmis-
takeably protested Respondent 's attitude toward the
Union (i.e., "non-union" and "refuses to bargain") which
had been demonstrated to the employees by these involun-
tary separations.
In any event, the Board has long held that in a strike and
picketing situation it will not determine the objectives of
these activities merely on the basis of a picket sign legend
but rather on the basis of all the surrounding circum-
stances 28 These circumstances unquestionably included
the separations of Scibelli and Glevina of which Respon-
dent was well aware . Particularly in view of this awareness,
Respondent's claimed rejection of the strike as an econom-
ic one was made at its peril. While there might be a signifi-
cant issue as to the unfair labor practice strike nature of
picketing in protest of a supervisor's discharge , there can
be no question of the validity of such a strike to protest the
separation of Scibelli, an employee , who I have found-as
the employees felt-was laid off because of his union activ-
ities.
I, accordingly , conclude that the strike with its attendant
picketing had several objectives which were , inter alia, not
only that of pressuring Respondent to recognize the Union
but also to protest the unlawful layoff of Scibelli . Since one
of these objectives was the protest of an unfair labor prac-
tice, the strike was, in substantial part, an unfair labor
practice strike and I so find.29
From this it follows that the strikers , as unfair labor
practice strikers , were entitled to reinstatement upon appli-
cation, regardless of the fact that they may have been re-
placed3°
The complaint alleges that Ambrose made an uncondi-
tional offer of reinstatement on May 31. I have already so
found . The complaint further alleges that Respondent re-
fused on that date and has since continued to refuse to
reinstate Ambrose to his former or substantially equivalent
position of employment , because Ambrose participated in
the strike and other protected concerted activities . I agree
with these allegations in part.
28 E.g., Penny Construction Company, Inc., 144 NLRB 1298 (1963).
29 N.L.R.B. v. Birmingham Publishing Company, 262 F .2d 2 (C.A. 5,1958).-
General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 662, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. N L. R B,
302 F.2d 908 (C A D.C., 1962), cert . denied 371 U.S. 827 (1962).
30 Id.
Respondent's attitude towards Ambrose 's request for re-
instatement is well demonstrated by Scali's unnecessary
query of Ambrose , when Ambrose applied for reinstate-
ment , as to what Ambrose could do . Such attitude is also
illustrated by Andrews' subsequent advice to Ambrose-
when Andrews refused to restore Ambrose to his job-that
it would help if Ambrose ceased picketing.
I therefore conclude that Ambrose 's request for rein-
statement was denied by Respondent because Ambrose
participated in the strike and its attendant picketing and
that by refusing to reinstate Ambrose at that time Respon-
dent violated Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
However , since the record shows that Ambrose returned
to work on August 22 and that he performs the same work
as he did before (at a higher salary), I conclude that he has
already been reinstated to his former or substantially
equivalent position.
The complaint further alleges , inter alia, that Tommy
Smith on June 4 , 1974, on behalf of all the strikers again
including Ambrose (but excluding Clyde Warren, who was
already reinstated ) requested Andrews to reinstate said em-
ployees to their positions of employment but that Andrews
on that date refused to reinstate such employees, and has
subsequently refused to reinstate them , except Toney Jo-
seph , because of their participation in the strike and in
other protected concerted activities , thereby violating Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act . I find that these allegations
have merit , again in part.
When, as I have already found , Tommy Smith uncondi-
tionally requested reinstatement for himself and each of
the other strikers on June 4 , 1974, Andrews replied that he
would not reinstate them because their jobs were filled.
This reason was, of course, invalid because the employees,
as unfair labor practice strikers, were entitled to reinstate-
ment upon application regardless of the fact that they may
have been replaced 31 I, accordingly , conclude, based on
the entire record , and particularly Andrews' antipathy to-
ward the Union and toward the strike (as shown, inter alia,
by Andrews' remarks to Ambrose when the latter had pre-
viously applied for reinstatement on May 31) that
Respondent 's refusal to reinstate the strikers was due to
their participation in the strike and their support for the
Union . I further conclude that by Respondent's refusal to
reinstate these employees at Smith's request on June 4,
1974, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the
Act.32 These employees were:
Nicholas Ambrose
Carlos Bergin
Ronald Coleman
Vance Davis
Toney Joseph
Radames Martinez
Roberto Martinez
Michael Scibelli33
Tommy Smith
Jose Vargas
However, the complaint concedes that Joseph was subse-
quently reinstated, as indeed the record reflects. I so find.
31 The replacements and dates of hire are: Mounting Department-Clar-
ence Clark , May 30; Richard Jefferson , June 3 ; (,acey Simons, May 31;
Shipping Department- Earle Quildon , May 28; Gregory Jones, June 3; Wil-
liam McClean , May 31; Richard Reiche , May 28 ; Sam Jackson , June 3.
32 Manuel San Juan Company, 211 NLRB 812 (1974).
33 Inasmuch as Scibelli 's layoff was in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) and (I) of
the Act, it follows that he continued to be an employee within the meaning
of Sec. 2(3) of the Act
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY 1183
The record further indicates that other employees have Respondent advances three contentions in its brief why
likewise been reinstated . The reinstated employees and these cards should be rejected as proof of the Union's ma-
their dates of reinstatement appear below: jority. It urges (1) that the participation of Glevina, later
Toney Joseph June 18
Ronald Coleman July 22
Carlos Bergin July 22
Nicholas Ambrose August 22
Radames Martinez August 27
Roberto Martinez October 28
Inasmuch as the record indicates that these employees
have been reinstated to their respective departments (ship-
ping or mounting) and there is no indication that their jobs
are in any way dissimilar to those which they performed
before, other than at increased wages , I conclude that they
have been restored to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions of employment.
However, Scibelli, Davis, Smith , and Vargas have not
been reinstated and I will recommend an Order requiring
that they be.
E. The Appropriate Unit; Proof of the Union 's Majority in
That Unit
I have already concluded that the following unit-found
by the Regional Director in Case 2-RC-16513 and there-
after affirmed by the Board-is an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees in the
mounting, drafting and shipping and receiving depart-
ments employed by the Employer at its New York
City location , excluding office clerical employees,
sales employees , guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
I have likewise already found that the unit consisted of
17 employees on May 3, 1974. And I conclude that it con-
tinued to consist of those same employees as of May 9,
1974, when the Union made its demand for recognition to
Respondent and on the morning of May 28, 1974, the day
the strike commenced.
As of May 9, 1974, the Union represented at least 10
employees of the 17-hence a majority-by virtue of the
execution on May 7, 1974, by each of these 10 employees
of an authorization card , which on its face clearly desig-
nates the Union as his exclusive representative for purpos-
es of collective bargaining with his employer.34 These em-
ployees were : Scibelli, Smith , Ambrose, Roberto Martinez,
Radames Martinez, Davis, Bergin , Coleman , Warren, and
Vargas.
74 The card , which is also an application for membership in the Union
recites , inter alia:
I do hereby irrevocably designate , authorize and empower this Local
Union (923) exclusively , to appear and act for me and in my behalf
before any board, court , committee or any other tribunal in any matter
affecting my status as an employee or as a member of this Local Union
and exclusively to act as my agent to represent and bind me in the
presentation , prosecution, adjustment and settlement of my grievances,
complaints or disputes of any kind or character arising out of the em-
ployer-employee relationship , as fully and to all intents and purposes as
I might, or could do , if personally present.
found to be a supervisor by the Regional Director, in the
meeting at which the cards were signed , invalidates all such
cards. It says (2) that all the cards were obtained by the
Union on the misrepresentation that they were not bind-
ing, hence are invalid on this basis as well . Finally Respon-
dent argues (3) that Warren's card is invalid because Glev-
ina previously solicited another card from Warren for
Local 585 and that Vargas' card must be discounted be-
cause, being unable to speak English, he must be deemed
to be unaware of what he was signing. I reject each of these
contentions.
While Glevina has been found to be a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act by the Regional Director, a finding
affirmed herein , it does not appear that the employees con-
sidered him as such at the time . Indeed the Union took the
position in the subsequent representation proceeding that
he was not a supervisor . Moreover, the meeting at which
the cards were signed was held at the union office and the
employees signed their cards after a discussion in which
many employees as well as Glevina participated along with
the representatives of the Union . Further , as Glevina credi-
bly testified, he never told the employees that he was acting
for the Respondent when he made statements favorable to
the Union . In fact Respondent 's opposition to the Union
was well known to the employees as the result of Brown's
antiunion remarks to the mounting department and Scali's
and Weeks ' warnings to Ambrose . In these circumstances I
am convinced that the signing of the authorization cards
(including that of Warren) at this meeting was the free and
uncoerced act of each of these employees . But even if I
were to entertain doubts because of Glevina 's presence at
this meeting, the conclusion that the execution of the card
was the free act of each employee-without employer in-
terference-is conclusively established by the consistent
act of each of them (plus Joseph) in joining the unfair labor
practice strike 3 weeks later at a time when Glevina had
been discharged because of his union activities. For the
employees would have known, because of Glevina's dis-
charge for union activities , that such activities were disap-
proved of by Respondent.
The participation of them all (along with Joseph) in the
strike which, as I have found, was at least partially in fur-
therance of the Union's demand for recognition , also indi-
cates that, as of the morning of May 28, 1974, the Union
possessed, in support of such continued effort to obtain
recognition, a majority of 11 in the unit of 17 employees.
We need not tarry long with the contention that Grund
misrepresented the purpose of the card. The card on its
face clearly designates the Union as the employee's exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative. It is also an appli-
cation for membership. The full testimony of Scibelli
makes it clear, and I find, that the Union representatives
told the employees at this meeting that the card was not
binding insofar as membership dues were concerned (until
the Union was recognized by Respondent). The union rep-
resentatives further stated , as Scibelli credibly testified,
that the card was an authorization of the Union to repre-
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sent the employees for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that the Union would seek recognition on the basis
of the cards.
I have already disposed of the question whether
Warren's execution of the card was his free act. Insofar as
Vargas is concerned, his card , again , is on its face a clear
designation of the Union to be his collective -bargaining
representative . While the card is in English , and Vargas
spoke Spanish , I am not convinced in all the circumstances
that this is sufficient to invalidate an otherwise certain de-
signation . For Vargas also speaks some English , as his for-
mer coworker, Toney Joseph , who is himself bilingual in
English and Spanish , credibly testified. Moreover , as Sci-
belli credibly testified , Roberto Martinez , Radames Marti-
nez, and Carlos Bergin translated for Vargas at the meeting
of May 7 when Vargas signed his card. Finally, Vargas also
participated in the strike and carried a picket sign.
I therefore, conclude that the Union had been validly
selected by a majority of the employees as their exclusive
bargaining representative in what has been determined as
the appropriate unit and that the Union had secured such
status when it demanded recognition on May 9, 1974, and
when the employees struck on May 28 . I further conclude
that it is of no significance whether the Union may have
subsequently lost its majority because it must be presumed
that, but for Respondent's unfair labor practices , that ma-
jority would have been retained 35
F. Whether the Variance Between the Unit Originally
Requested and the Unit Eventually Found Appropriate
Precludes a Bargaining Order,- Whether a Bargaining Order
Is Otherwise Appropriate
Having concluded that the Union enjoyed a majority of
at least 10 in the appropriate unit when the Union de-
manded recognition on May 9, and that the Union pos-
sessed a majority of 11 in that same unit when the strike
occurred on May 28, two questions remain to be answered
before the Union is entitled to a bargaining order . The first
concerns the variance between the unit originally sought
and that found appropriate. The second is whether a bar-
gaining order is appropriate in all the circumstances.
The variance in the unit
It is clear that the unit for which the Union filed its
election petition on May 8 did not include the drafting
department, whereas an appropriate unit does include em-
ployees of that department . However , the Union has never
withdrawn its demand for recognition and has actively
supported the General Counsel 's complaint seeking a bar-
gaining order in the unit , now found appropriate, which
includes the drafting employees.
Hence it is manifest that there is an appropriate unit
which includes the employees originally sought (as well as
others) and that the Union seeks that unit 36 Hence , I reject
33 J C. Penney Co., Inc., 160 NLRB 279, 287 ( 1966), enfd . 384 F.2d 479
(C.A. 10, 1967).
36 It is also clear that, although the Union did not originally petition for
that unit , it had secured a majority card showing in it before demanding
any suggestion in the Respondent 's brief that the Union
has never requested recognition in the appropriate unit.
But regardless of the fact that, as I have held, the Union
now actively seeks recognition in an appropriate unit
which is broader than that which it originally petitioned
for, the question remains whether a bargaining order may
be justified in that broader appropriate unit. In its brief
Respondent contends that such a bargaining order is not
justified because it has not refused to bargain in such
broader unit.
I reject this argument if only for the reason that it does
not meet the thrust of the complaint.
Thus, Respondent has not been charged with a refusal to
bargain. The complaint has rather been drawn-apparent-
ly consistent with Board's recent decision in Steel-Fab,
Inc., 212 NLRB 363 (1974) -to seek a bargaining order on
the basis that the Respondent 's alleged violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1)-if proved-have dissipated the
Union's majority in the appropriate unit and have created
an atmosphere in which a free and fair election cannot take
place in that unit. No violation of Section 8(a)(5) has been
alleged.
The question then which is placed squarely before me is
whether the violations of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1)-which I
have found-have , as the complaint alleges , dissipated the
Union's majority and created the proscribed atmosphere in
what is an appropriate unit so that the only appropriate
remedy for the Respondent's misconduct in that unit is a
bargaining order . I must answer that question in the affir-
mative.
For the Respondent 's 8(a)(1) violations are all in the na-
ture of warnings that an employee 's allegiance to the
Union might well result in his discharge. Consistent with
the warnings , there followed the layoff of Scibelli and the
refusal to reinstate all but one 37 of the unfair labor prac-
tice strikers-in each instance because of the employee's
support for the Union and all cases in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. And such 8(a)(3) and ( 1) miscon-
duct on the part of the Respondent thereby directly affect-
ed a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit (10
out of 17). It seems to me to go without saying that no free
and fair election can be held in a unit where the majority of
the employees , at one point or another , have lost their live-
lihoods for periods of several weeks or months or longer3s
because they have exercised their lawful rights to join and
support a labor organization.
Hence I conclude that no free and fair election can be
held in the appropriate unit and I shall recommend a bar-
gaining order. 9
But even if I am in error in concluding that the matter of
unit variance is irrelevant to the issues of this case, the
entry of a bargaining order is nonetheless justified on an
entirely different basis. That is, in my judgment, the mis-
conduct of the Respondent in discriminating against the
majority of the unit employees in violation of Section
recognition and continued to have ma jority support in it at the time the
strike began
37 Clyde Warren.
38 As of the time of the hearing , Scibelli, Smith , Davis, and Vargas had
still not been reinstated by Respondent.
39 N L R 8 v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act along with its aforementioned
8(a)(1) violations is so pervasive as to require the entry of a
bargaining order as the only available and effective remedy
for Respondent's unlawful acts.40 For by these unlawful
acts Respondent destroyed the Union's majority and to
permit it thereby to avoid its bargaining obligation would
enable it to benefit from its unfair labor practices. I also
note that the entry of a bargaining order is warranted in
such circumstances even without inquiry into the question
whether a bargaining demand was made in the appropriate
unit in which such an order is to be directed 41
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations in sec-
tion I, above , have a close , intimate , and substantial rela-
tion to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time employees in the
mounting, drafting, shipping and receiving depart-
ments employed by the Employer at its New York
location , excluding office clerical employees, sales em-
ployees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
4. At the time it demanded recognition on May 8, 1974,
and thereafter, and again when the employees went on
strike on May 28, 1974, the Union was, and is now, the
exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. The strike which began on May 28, 1974, and ended
on June 5, 1974, was an unfair labor practice strike.
6. By laying off Scibelli because of his union activities
and refusing to reinstate all of the remaining unfair labor
practice strikers when an unconditional request for rein-
statement was made on their behalf on June 4, 1974, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act in other respects set forth in the body of this Deci-
4o E.g., Mock Road Super Duper, 156 NLRB 983, 986-987 (1966), and
cases cited therein (particularly Editorial "El Impartial" Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
278 F.2d 184, 187 (C.A. 1, 1960). The Board 's policy of entering a bargain-
ing order in such situations is cited with apparent approval by the Supreme
Court in Gissel, supra at 613 and 614.
41 See J.C. Penney Co. Inc., 160 NLRB 279 (1966), enfd . 384 F.2d 479
(C.A. 10, 1967), also cited with apparent approval by the court in Gissel,
supra at 614.
1185
Sion, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondent did not engage in any other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint , other than as found
herein.
THE REMEDY
The recommended Order will contain the conventional
provisions for cases involving findings of interference, re-
straint, coercion, unlawful layoff, and unlawful refusal to
reinstate unfair labor practice strikers in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and involving a finding that
no fair election can be held among an employer's employ-
ees in the unit found appropriate. This Order will require
Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor prac-
tices found, to take certain affirmative action to remedy
these unfair labor practices , and to post a notice indicating
its compliance with these requirements.
Thus, Respondent will be directed to offer Michael Sci-
belli reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges. He will be made whole for any loss of earn-
ings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
that which he would have earned from the date of his un-
lawful separation to the date of Respondent's offer of rein-
statement, less his net earnings, if any, during such period
to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with 6-percent inter-
est thereon as prescribed by Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Having found that the strike which began on May 28,
1974, was an unfair labor practice strike and that the Re-
spondent continues to refuse to reinstate Smith, Davis, and
Vargas, I shall recommend that Respondent offer such em-
ployees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if nec-
essary, persons hired on and after May 28, 1974 (except, of
course, already reinstated former strikers ). I shall further
recommend that Respondent make Smith, Davis, and Var-
gas whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's unlawful refusal to reinstate
them to their former positions by payment to them of a
sum of money equal to that which they normally would
have earned from June 4, 1974 (the day the unconditional
application for reinstatement was made in behalf of them)
to the date of Respondent's offer to them of reinstatement
less their net earnings , if any, during such period. As to
those former strikers who have already been reinstated, I
shall recommend that Respondent reimburse them for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's initial refusal to reinstate them upon uncon-
ditional application being made (for Ambrose on May 3),
1974, and the others on June 4, 1974) by payment to them
of a sum of money equal to that which they would have
earned from their offers of reinstatement to their actual
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reinstatement by Respondent , less their net earnings, if
any, during such period . The backpay provided for em-
ployees discussed in this paragraph shall be computed on
the basis of the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Co., supra, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent as
prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., supra.42
Further, I shall recommend an Order requiring the Re-
spondent to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the unit hereto-
fore found appropriate, for the reasons, in the alternative,
that no free and fair election may now be held in that unit
or because the pervasiveness of Respondent 's unfair labor
practices in that unit indicate the propriety of such a reme-
dy.
Finally, it will be recommended because of the nature of
the unfair labor practices in which Respondent has en-
gaged (see N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532,
536 (C.A. 4, 1941)) that Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER43
Respondent American Map Company, Inc., New York,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, Local 923, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by lay-
ing off any of its employees, by refusing to reinstate them
because of their union or strike activities or in any other
manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment in order to discourage union membership or
other concerted activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they join or
support the aforementioned labor organization or any
other labor organization or in any other manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Michael Scibelli, immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as the result of his discriminatory layoff in
the manner set forth in the Remedy section herein.
(b) Offer to Tommy Smith, Vance Davis, and Jose Var-
gas immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each
of them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suf-
fered as the result of the discriminatory refusal to reinstate
him in the manner set forth in the Remedy section.
(c) Make each of the following employees whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
initial refusal to reinstate him in the manner set forth in the
Remedy.
Nicholas Ambrose Radames Martinez
Carlos Bergin Roberto Martinez
Ronald Coleman Toney Joseph
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 923,
Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of all its employees in the unit set forth below with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement . This unit,
which is an appropriate unit within the meaning of the Act,
is:
All full-time and regular part-time employees in the
mounting , drafting and shipping and receiving depart-
ments employed by the Employer at its New York,
New York, location, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, sales employees, watchmen, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(f) Post at its New York, New York, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."44 Copies
of this notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 2, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor prac-
tices not found herein.
42 Manuel San Juan Company, Inc., supra.
a In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order which follow herein shall, as provid-
ed in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board
and become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
K In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY 1187
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evi-
dence it has been decided that we, American Map Compa-
ny, Inc., have violated the National Labor Relations Act
and we have been ordered to post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as em-
ployees , certain rights including the rights:
To self-organization
To form, join or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative
of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection or
To refrain from any or all such activities.
Accordingly , we give you, our employees , these assur-
ances:
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge if you join
or support a union.
WE WILL NOT lay you off , refuse to reinstate you or
otherwise discriminate against you in respect to your
jobs , tenure or other terms and conditions of employ-
ment because you have joined or supported Local 923,
Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization or because
you have engaged in a lawful and protected strike.
WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with your
rights above as guaranteed by the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Michael Scibelli to his
former or substantially equivalent position .with full
seniority and all other rights and privileges, as the
Board has found that he was laid off because he
joined and supported the above-named union.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Tommy Smith, Vance
Davis, and Jose Vargas to their former or substantially
equivalent positions with their full seniority and all
other rights and privileges, as the Board has found
that they were not reinstated after the strike because
they joined in it and supported the above-named
union.
WE WILL make up all pay lost ( plus 6-percent inter-
est) by the following employees as the result of lay off
or their failure to be reinstated when they first made
application:
Michael Scibelli Ronald Coleman
Tommy Smith Radames Martinez
Vance Davis Roberto Martinez
Toney Joseph Jose Vargas
Carlos Bergin Nicholas Ambrose
WE WILL bargain, upon request, with Local 923, Re-
tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the following appropriate unit at our
place of business at 1926 Broadway, New York City,
New York:
All full-time and regular part-time employees in
the mounting, drafting and shipping and receiving
departments employed by us at the above location
but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act.
AMERICAN MAP COMPANY, INC.