Auto-Control Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

AUTO-CONTROL LABORATORIES, INC. 803
Auto - Control Laboratories , Inc. and Herbert Wildfeuer . Case No.
21-CA-6185. June 297 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled case, 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 Deci-
sion. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 entire rec-
ord in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions, and briefs, 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 hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Auto-Control Laboratories,
Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec-
ommended Order, as so modified :
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, the present paragraph 2(b) and those subse-
quent thereto being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify Herbert Wildfeuer if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni-
versal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces."
2. The telephone number for Region 21, appearing at the bottom
of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended
to read : Telephone No. 688-5229.
153 NLRB No. 74.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding with all parties represented was heard before Trial Examiner
Louis S. Penfield in Los Angeles, California, on February 2, 1965, upon a complaint
of the General Counsel and answer of Auto-Control Laboratories, Inc., herein called
Respondent.1 The issue litigated was whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
Upon the record, including consideration of briefs filed by the parties, and upon
my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Auto-Control Laboratories, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged in the design and manu-
facture of aerospace test equipment and automation controls. During the past year,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, shipped products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Cali-
fornia. Upon the basis of the foregoing, I find that Respondent, at all times material
herein, has been an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that assertion of juridsiction is warranted.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about September 18, 1964, Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the discharge of Benito Cabrera, Tom
Clark, Julius Farcas, Christian Graf, Lucien Mirambeau, Paul Wetzstein, and Herbert
Wildfeuer for engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.
Respondent admits that it terminated the employment of these named individuals on
the date named, but insists that the termination came about because of their continued
refusal to obey orders and to perform assigned tasks, and not because they had
engaged in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent designs and manufactures testing equipment primarily for customers in
the aerospace industry. It employs approximately 70 employees, 35 of whom are
engaged in production work. Its production departments are designed as follows:
machine shop, structural, sheet metal, refrigeration and electrical, and hydraulic.
Joseph Abdo is the president and general manager of Respondent. Clarence Pat-
terson is the plant superintendent. This proceeding is concerned solely with employ-
ees in Respondent's sheet metal department which is under the supervision of Fore-
man Dave Brusius. None of the employees in the sheet metal department, or any of
the other departments, were at any time material to this proceeding, members of, or
seeking to organize on behalf of, a labor organization.
In mid-February 1964, Abdo called together the employees in the sheet metal
department, and expressed to them his dissatisfaction with some aspects of their work
performance. Immediately thereafter, the department employees discussed Abdo's
complaints among themselves, and, through Foreman Brusius, arranged for another
meeting with Abdo which was held on the same afternoon. Employees Mirambeau
and Wildfeuer acted as the principal spokesmen for the employees at this meeting.
They explained to Abdo that the employees felt that if Abdo was asking increased
work performance from them, the employees should receive more pay. Abdo there-
upon agreed to install a system of maximum rates for each job classification, and to
undertake a work review for each employee in his respective classification to deter-
mine if raises were immediately in order. Shortly thereafter, as a result of the classi-
fication and initial review, Wildfeuer, Mirambeau, and Farcas each received wage
increases. At the same meeting Abdo also told the employees that in the future he
would undertake a practice of reviewing individual work performance at 6-month
intervals to ascertain which, if any, of the employees merited increases.2 According
'The complaint issued on November 25, 1964, and is based upon a charge filed with
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on September 18, 1964.
Copies of the complaint and the charge have been duly served upon the Respondent.
2 The employees who testified were somewhat vague as to their understanding of the
manner in which individual merit would figure in these increases . There apparently was
some feeling that after a 6-month interval, progression within a respective classification
would come about almost automatically. It does not appear, however, that this was what
they were told by management, or that Respondent ever contemplated that increases
would be granted after the 6-month interval to any employee whose performance, after
`ull review, did not appear to merit it.
AUTO-CONTROL LABORATORIES, INC. 805
to Respondent, it planned to carry out its periodic wage review in the following
manner: At 6-month intervals, the foreman of the department would review the work
performance of the employees he supervised, the foreman would thereupon discuss
with each employee whether or not he was recommending him for an increase; the
foreman's decision would be reviewed by Superintendent Patterson, and the ultimate
decision on granting or denying a wage increase would be made by President Abdo.3
In the first week of September 1964, a number of the employees in the sheet metal
department asked Wildfeuer if he would inquire concerning the promised wage
review. On September 6, 1964, Wildfeuer told Brusius that since 6 months had
elapsed since the last review, the men were desirous that another one take place.
Wildfeuer continued to press Brusius on the matter during the ensuing 2 weeks, and
was advised by Brusius that the review procedure was underway. During the interim
Brusius had privately reviewed the work performance of each of the employees, and
had submitted to Patterson his recommendation that four of the seven employees in
the department receive raises. These included Wildfeuer, Mirambeau, Wetzstein,
and Farcas. Patterson, however, disagreed with Brusius, and told him that he felt
that no raises were in order at that time for anyone in the department but Wetzstein.
On September 17, Brusius told Wildfeuer that he was now prepared to undertake
a wage review with each employee, and that he would begin with Wildfeuer. He pro-
ceeded to tell Wildfeuer that he would not get an increase because he had been tardy
on occasions, and because he was repeatedly unwilling to work overtime. At the
same time Brusius advised Wildfeuer that, except for Wetzstein, none of the other
department employees would receive wage increases at this time. Wildfeuer pro-
tested the denial in his own case, and requested a chance to discuss it further with
Patterson. Later, on the same afternoon, Wildfeuer met with Patterson who affirmed
what Brusius had told him, and declined to reverse the decision in Wildfeur's case.
Wildfeur still expressed dissatisfaction, and requested that Patterson take up the
matter with Abdo. Patterson agreed that he would try to arrange this. Wildfeuer
does not appear to have discussed the individual cases of any of the other department
employees with Patterson at this time.
Later, on the same afternoon, Wildfeuer reported to the other employees what
Brusius had told him about his own raise, and also that he had been advised that
raises would not be forthcoming foi any others in the department except Wetzstem
absent some further consideration by Patterson or Abdo. On the following morning,
September 18, 1964, the employees were grouped together around a table at the
beginning of the 10-minute morning coffee break. They were discussing what Wild-
feuer had told them, and they asked him if he would check into the matter further
with Brusius. Wildfeuer immediately went to Brusius and told him that the men
wanted to know "if we will get our raise, if Patterson talked to Joe. [Brusius] told
me as far as he knew I should take it for granted no." Wildfeuer went back to the
coffee table and reported this to the men After some discussion, the employees
agreed "we should take it to Patterson or Joe Abdo." Wildfeuer then asked Brusius
if the men might speak to Patterson or Abdo, and Brusius replied that he would seek
to arrange it. As Brusius was leaving the department to go to Patterson's office for
this purpose, the whistle blew signifying the end of the coffee break. Brusius, address-
ing the department employees who were standing together as a group, told them that
they "should go to work."
The employees, however, did not return to work after the whistle blew, but were
still standing where Brusius had left them when he returned with Patterson approxi-
mately 5 minutes later.4 According to the mutually consistent testimony of Wild-
feuer, Mirambeau, and Farcas, when Patterson came back with Brusius he appeared
quite upset, asked the men why they were not working, and stated that he would not
pay them for standing around. Mirambeau told him that the men did not expect
to be paid for not working, and Wildfeuer stated that the men were not working
because "We want to know if we will get a raise which was promised us or not."
3 The details of this procedure were not discussed with or fully understood by the em-
ployees, although they were generally aware that the review was to be initiated through
the foreman, and that his decision would be subject in some manner to review and con-
sideration by Patterson and Abdo
'Patterson testified that be did not return with Brusius until some 15 minutes after
the return-to-work whistle had blown. He states further that they only returned at that
time when another department foreman had advised them that the men were not work-
ing. Brusius was not called as a witness to corroborate Patterson's testimony in this
regard. I credit the mutually consistent testimony of Wildfeuer, Farcas, and Mirambeau
as to the time lapse. However, as set forth below, I do not regard the difference as one
of significance.
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Patterson then asked, "You want to know it now?" and when Wildfeuer replied that
they did, Patterson forthwith announced that they were all discharged. No one of
them recalls Patterson specifically ordering them to return to work. It is the undis-
puted testimony of the three employees that they had no prearranged plan to leave
work, and that their sole reason for not returning when the whistle blew was that
they expected an immediate meeting with Patterson or Abdo to discuss the issue of
the raises. Patterson directed Brusius to make out the timecards for each of the
employees, and thereafter they picked up their belongings and left the premises.
As already noted, Brusius did not testify. Patterson' s version of the confrontation
differs in certain particulars from that of the employees. Patterson conceded that
he was somewhat upset, that he told the men that they would not get paid for standing
around, and that he asked them why they were not working. He states, however,
that in response to his questions, Wildfeuer, as spokesman, and with no dissent
expressed by any of the others, repeated several times, "We are not going to work
until we get our raise."
Patterson claims that he thereupon ordered the men to go back to work. He
acknowledges that he spent no more than five minutes with the assembled group. He
does not claim that he made an effort to find out exactly what the men wanted, that he
undertook to discuss any aspect of the wage review with them, or that he asked or
promised to consider their grievance at a later time He admits that he told the
assembled group that "anyone that does not go back to work is fired," and that he
directed Brusius to prepare their timecards.
The stoppage was not reported to Abdo until after the discharges had taken place.
He states that he went out into the plant before the men had left the premises, but
that he made no effort to talk to them individually or as a group because he did "not
want to refute the supervision in the plant."
Respondent reemployed Cabrera on October 5 and Clark on November 24, 1964.
In November it sent telegrams offering reinstatement to Farcas, Graf, Mirambeau,
and Wetzstein. Mirambeau returned to work in December, but the others failed to
respond to the offers. Wildfeuer, however, was not sent a telegram offering him
reinstatement. Abdo testified that he had not done so because he regarded Wildfeuer
as a poor employee to have back since he "felt that he duped the majority of the
people in this group. They were not aware of what happened and I just did not want
a troublemaker in the plant to be honest about it. That is why I did not offer him a
job back."
Discussion of the Issues and Concluding Findings
The single issue is whether the brief work stoppage on September 18 for the pur-
pose of discussing a raise is to be regarded as protected concerted activity. If so a
violation is established, for it is not disputed that the discharges came about because
the employees participated in this stoppage. Respondent rests its defense solely on
the proposition that ciicumstances existed which stripped the concerted action of the
protection of Section 7.
Respondent's defense rests upon the assertion that it had an understanding with
the employees, reached through an informal collective-bargaining process, concern-
ing the manner in which wage reviews were to be handled, and that the employees
ignored this understanding and refused to obey an order of Respondent to return to
work. It is claimed that by this their concerted action lost its protected character
thereby justifying the discharges. Respondent relies for support of such claim upon
the rationale of the court in N L.R.B. v. Condenser Corporation of America, 128
F. 2d 67 (C.A 3). In Condenser Corporation a group of employees seeking a raise
in wages refused to continue work when a discussion of the issue was not immediately
forthcoming, and subsequently discharges resulted from their work stoppage. The
court held that since the record showed that Respondent had promised to discuss the
raise issue at the end of the day, and there was no showing that such promise would
not be kept, the refusal to work during the working day lost its protected character
and the discharges became lawful. Respondent argues that the facts in the Condenser
Corporation from a later decision of the same court in N L.R.B. v. Kennanetal, Inc.,
182 F. 2d 817 (C.A. 3), in which the court upheld a Board finding that a spontaneous
brief work stoppage to present a grievance was a form of protected concerted activity.
The court in Kennametal stated
The respondent argues that the employees' conduct here was not of the sort
protected by the statute. We disagree. What occurred in this case was cer-
tainly a concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining, the kind of
activity which is expressly protected by Section 7 of the Act. That the employ-
ees suddenly dropped their tools and insisted upon presenting their grievances
during working hours does not detract from the lawfulness of their conduct.
AUTO-CONTROL LABORATORIES , INC. 807
Certainly the statute would have protected them against interference or coercion
if instead of insisting upon immediate discussion of their demands they had then
and there left the plant and formed a picket line outside. In fact, what the work-
men did was more reasonable and less productive of loss to all concerned than
an outright strike.
The language of the Act does not require and its purposes would not be
served by holding that dissatisfied workmen may receive its protection only if
they exert the maximum economic pressure and call a strike. Our conclusion
that a spontaneous work stoppage like this one is protected by the Act is in
accord with Gullett Gin Co. v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F. 2d 499 [125 LRRM
2340]; Carter Carburetor Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 1940, 140 F. 2d 714, 717-
718 [14 LRR Man. 512].
The respondent also relies upon that part of this Court's decision in N.L.R.B.
v. Condenser Corp. of America, 3 Cir., 1942, 128 F. 2d 67, 77 [10 LRR Man.
483], which deals with the discharge of employee Marion Panzarella. There
we held that "Employees cannot insist that their demands be met in the middle
of a working day, when the employer has promised to deal with them as a group
at the end of the day." The employees in the Condenser case had apparently
acquiesced to the arrangement suggested by the employer and then without
reason changed their minds. The promissory element is not present here.
Contrary to the contention of Respondent, I am not convinced that the facts in the
instant case bring it within the rationale of Condenser Corporation, but on the con-
trary I am of the opinion that it closely parallels Kennametal. This record does not
disclose any clearly defined and agreed-upon method of presenting or considering
grievances, which had been achieved either through any collective-bargaining process,
or which existed by reason of any unilateral promise by Respondent. The only so-
called collective bargaining which had taken place occurred some 6 months earlier
when the employees as a group succeeded in winning some concessions from manage-
ment after a meeting with Abdo. At the same time they had obtained an understand-
ing that thereafter they would get periodic wage reviews. However, they never
agreed to any defined procedure for implementation and past experience would lead
them to believe that the conference they were seeking was the next logical step. It
stands undisputed that the stoppage itself was completely unplanned, and there is no
showing that the employees had discussed or considered it as a means of getting what
they wanted through the wage review but only as the first step toward full discussion.
As Mirambeau explained it they wanted "to have an answer," and were just waiting
around for it with the apparent conviction that the meeting they wished would take
place immediately. Under the circumstances the stoppage appears spontaneous, and
less as a defiance of orders to work than as action taken in the unexpressed belief that
almost immediately Brusius would be returning with Patterson or Abdo. Three of
the employees testified that not more than 5 minutes had elapsed between Brusius'
departure and his return with Patterson Although Patterson claims the interval to
be greater, he does not place it at more than 15 minutes. Even accepting Patterson's
version the interval is not so great that it contradicts the reasonable nature of the
apparent belief held by the employees that the discussion they were seeking was
imminent. The consistent stories of all three employees testifying is that Wildfeuer
responded to Patterson's query about the stoppage by telling him that they wanted to
know about the wage review, and that they wanted to know about it then and there.
None recalls Patterson at this time ordering them back to work, but all testified that
he peremptorily discharged them. Patterson's version of this encounter differs only
in his insistence that Wildfeuer told him that the men would not return to work
unless the increases were granted. Not only is Patterson's testimony in this regard
uncorroborated by Brusius, who was not called as a witness by Respondent, but I
regard it as highly improbable that Wildfeuer could have made such a statement with-
out contradiction from the others, in view of the uncontroverted evidence that the
employees had no planned action in mind but were only seeking a further explanation
of the reported denial of the raises. Accordingly, I credit the employees in this
regard.
I am of the opinion, and find, that under all of the circumstances, the entire episode
had the character of a spontaneous work stoppage undertaken by the employees to
present what they regarded as a real grievance to management, that there is insuffi-
cient evidence to establish that there was either outright defiance of an order to
return to work or to show that the stoppage occurred in the face of an agreed-upon
method of adjustment. Accordingly, I find the conduct of the employees to be pro-
tected concerted activity within the meaning of the Act. Contrary to Respondent's
contention, I find the rationale of Condenser Corporation to be inapposite, and as
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
applied to the facts of the instant case the principles set forth in the above-quoted
excerpt from Kennametal to be controlling. The discharges were admittedly occa-
sioned by the stoppage. That a discharge for engaging in protected concerted activity
is unlawful is a princip'.e so well established that further discussion is unwarranted. I
find, therefore, that by the discharges of the seven employees in the sheet metal
department on September 18, 1964, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby it has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section II, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has unlawfully discharged Benito Cabrera, Tom
Clark, Julius Farcas, Christian Graf, Lucien Mirambeau, Paul Wetzstein, and Herbert
Wildfeuer for engaging in protected concerted activities, I will recommend that
Respondent be ordered to offer immediate and full reinstatement to each one not
previously reinstated or offered reinstatement,6 to his former or substantially equiva-
lent position, and make each one whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
because of the unlawful discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
the amount of wages he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date
he was either reinstated or offered reinstatement, together with interest thereon at
the rate of 6 percent per annum, and that the loss of pay and interest be computed in
accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to
which the parties hereto are expressly referred.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the heart of the
rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.& The inference is warranted
that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with
respect to the protection of employees in general. It will accordingly be recom-
mended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.7
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Auto-Control Laboratories, Inc., is, and has been at all material times, an
employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Benito Cabrera, Tom Clark, Julius Farcas, Christian Graf,
Lucien Mirambeau, Paul Wetzstein, and Herbert Wildfeuer as found above, Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5 As noted above the record shows that Cabrera, Clark , and Mirambeau have been rein-
stated . Wetzstein , Graf, and Farcas have been offered reinstatement but have not re-
turned, and the record contains no suggestion that the offers were not bona He. How-
ever , Wildfeuer, at least at the time of the hearing, had never received an offer of
reinstatemen'
6 N.L.R.L.-T. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
7 May Department Stores, d/b/a Famous -Barr Company v N.L.R B., 326 U.S 376;
Bethlehem Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F. 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.).
AUTO-CONTROL LABORATORIES, INC. 809'
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Auto-Control Labora-
tories, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging employees for engaging in concerted activities
for their mutual aid and protection, or in any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Herbert Wildfeuer immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make whole Herbert Wildfeuer, Benito Cabrera, Tom Clark, Julius
Farcas, Christian Graf, Lucien Mirambeau, and Paul Wetzstein for any losses each
may have suffered as a result of his discharge, in the manner provided above in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to an analysis
of the backpay due.
(c) Post at its usual place of business in Los Angeles, California, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall,
after being signed by Respondent, 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. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt by the Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply therewith.9
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision Respondent notifies the Regional Director
that he will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor
Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
8 In the event 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 Ex-
aminer" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be 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 he substituted for the words "a Decision and Order".
8In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d) thereof
shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge employees for engaging in concerted activities for
their mutual aid or protection, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively thru representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Herbert Wildfeuer immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make whole Herbert Wildfeuer, Benito Cabrera,
Tom Clark, Julius Farcas, Christian Graf, Lucien Mirambeau, and Paul Wetz-
stein for any loss of earnings each may have suffered as a result of his discharge.
AUTO-CONTROL LABORATORIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204.
Freeport Marble & Tile Co., Inc . and Stonecutters Association of
North America, AFL-CIO, Boston Local
Freeport Marble & Tile Co., Inc and Journeymen Stonecutters
Association of North America
Freeport Marble & Tile Co., Inc . and Journeymen Stonecutters
Association of North America , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 1-CA-
4573, 1-CA-4680, and 1-RC-7807. June 29, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 10, 1965, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further
found that the 8 (a) (1) violations constituted grounds for setting aside
the election of April 30, 1964. However, having concluded that
Respondent previously refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union in violation of Section 8(a) (5), he recommended that appro-
priate relief be ordered to remedy the refusal to bargain, and that the
Petition in Case No. 1-RC-7807 be dismissed and all proceedings held
in connection therewith vacated. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a brief
in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
153 NLRB No. 63.