Captive Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 749 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC. 749
Captive Plastics, Inc. and International Union of Tool,
Die and Moldmakers
Plastic Moulders and Novelty Workers' Union, Local
132, a/w International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO and International Union of Tool,
Die and Moldmakers . Cases 22-CA-5344 and
22-CB-2396
March 15, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On November 16, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Herzel H.E. Plaine issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Union and
Respondent Employer filed exceptions and support-
ing briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Captive Plastics,
Inc., Piscataway, New Jersey, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, and Respondent Plastic
Moulders and Novelty Workers' Union, Local 132,
a/w International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.
AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its officers,
representatives, and agents, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
HERZEL H. E. PLAINS, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding consolidated two cases, one against Respon-
dent Employer (Captive), and the other against Respon-
dent Union (Garment Workers Union or Garment
Workers), on charges filed by the Charging Party (Tool-
makers Union or Toolmakers).'
Captive is in the business of manufacturing plastic
bottles and other plastic containers by the injection blow
molding process. In April 1972, on Board certification of
Garment Workers Union as bargaining agent for Captive's
production and maintenance employees, Captive and
Garment Workers entered into a collective-bargaining
contract.
At the same time, Captive began to install, and hire for, a
tool shop or toolroom in its plant with the capacity to make
and repair the steel forms or molds used by it and others in
the injection blow molding process. Captive obtained its
molds and toolroom work, until its own toolroom became
fully operational, from Lincoln Mold, a company in which
Captive's president had a substantial financial interest.
Captive hired for its toolroom six toolmakers or
moldmakers , who as such had skills and training greater
than and different from the production and maintenance
workers, and who generally performed their work in the
toolroom. Captive's president told the newly hired tool-
makers that Garment Workers was the Union representing
the production and maintenance employees but that they,
the toolroom employees, did not have to join the Union,
and they did not join nor were they asked to join.
In August 1972, Toolmakers Union began an organiza-
tional drive among the toolroom employees and obtained
signed authorization cards from a majority. On January 26,
1973, Toolmakers commenced a strike in which all six of
Captive's toolroom employees participated.
In connection with the strike, and resumption of work
thereafter, Captive is charged with six violations of the Act.
The allegations are:
(1) Captive promised its toolroom employees wage
increases and other benefits if they abandoned their
support of Toolmakers Union and threatened to close the
toolroom if they did not do so, in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
(2) Captive, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2),
recognized Garment Workers Union on January 29, 1973,
as representative of the toolroom employees, when it had
no indication of their support let alone majority support,
and at a time when Toolmakers Union had organized the
toolroom employees, had demonstrated their substantial
support, and had demanded recognition.
(3) Captive violated Section 8(aXl), (2), and (3) when it
incorporated the toolroom employees into the collective-
bargaining contract with Garment Workers Union, a
contract containing a union-security clause , when Garment
Workers had no indication of support among the toolroom
employees.
(4) Captive violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) when it
required its toolroom employees on January 30, 1973, and
February 28, 1973, to become and remain members of
Garment Workers Union pursuant to the union-security
clause in the collective-bargaining contract with Garment
Workers.
(5) Captive violated Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act on
February 28, 1973, by discharge or layoff of two toolroom
1 In Case 22-CA-5344, the charge was filed on March 15, 1973, and 1973 The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
complaint issued on May 4, 1973 In Case 22-CB-2396, the charge was filed (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by Captive , and violations
on May 3, 1973. An order consohdatmg the cases and an amended of Section 8(bXIXA) and (2) by Garment Workers . These are spelled out
complaint against both Captive and Garment Workers was issued May 30, infra
209 NLRB No. 118
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, Harkness and Pasculli, because of their avowed
support of Toolmakers Union.
(6) Captive violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) on April
23, 1973, by a second discharge or layoff of toolroom
employees Harkness and Pasculli because they refused to
join Garment Workers Union.2
Garment Workers Union is charged with two violations
of the Act. The allegations are that:
(1) By entering into an agreement with Captive to
incorporate Captive's toolroom employees into the Cap-
tive-Garment Workers collective-bargaining contract,
when Garment Workers had no indicia of support among
the tool room employees, Garment Workers violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A).
(2) By requesting and requiring Captive to compel its
toolroom employees to become members of Garment
Workers Union and by demanding that toolroom employ-
ees Harkness and Pasculli be discharged because they
refused to join such Union, Garment Workers violated
Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act .3
In defending against the charges, Employer Captive
makes two claims. First, that the toolroom employees were
part of the bargaining unit of production and maintenance
employees by accretion, hence lawfully subject to the
enforced requirement of the union-security clause of the
Captive-Garment Workers contract that they become
members of Garment Workers Union 30 days after
employment. Secondly, that the Toolmakers Union en-
gaged in an unlawful strike against Captive beginning on
January 26, 1973, for the purpose of compelling Captive
and other employers to join an employer association in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act.4
Therefore, Captive contends that the two toolroom
employees Harkness and Pasculli, who continued to stake
for a period after their fellows returned to work and until
the strike ended, were engaged in unprotected activity, that
Captive was under no obligation to reemploy them when
they came back, and that they were replaced. In addition,
it is claimed that when the two employees were later called
back in April 1973 they were lawfully subject to the
contract requirement that they join Garment Workers
Union and their refusal to sign and work under that
condition was a voluntary choice not to return to work.
Garment Workers Union in its defense contends, first,
that it made no agreement with the employer Captive after
the Toolmakers strike began in January 1973 to cover the
toolroom employees under the Captive-Garment Workers
contract and made no demand upon the employer that the
toolroom employees become Garment Workers members,
2 In pertinent part , Section 8(a) makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer-
(1) to interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights [of self-organization , etc ] guaranteed in Section 7,
(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it,
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization,
provided that an employer shall not be precluded from agreeing with a
labor organization (not unlawfully established or assisted by his
actions) to require as a condition of employment membership in the
labor organization if it is the duly designated representative of the
collective bargaining unit employees.
that it only stated a position to the employer that such
employees "are required to become members of our
Union," and that it never requested discharge of a
toolroom employee who would notjoin Garment Workers
Union. Second, Garment Workers agrees with employer
Captive's contention that the toolroom employees became
part of the production and maintenance bargaining unit by
accretion and argues that there could be no question raised
concerning representation of the toolroom employees until
the expiration of the Captive-Garment Workers collective-
bargaining agreement, which is still in force. Third,
Garment Workers argues that because on February 27,
1973, Toolmakers filed a petition for an election governing
the representation of the toolroom employees at Captive,
upon which a hearing was held on March 13 and 15 before
this trial began, the Regional Director should have decided
the representation issue (and not postponed it for the trial
of the unfair labor practice charges in this case) and
thereby would have determined the basic issue in the
unfair labor practice case , as well as in the representation
case. As part of this argument, Garment Workers contends
that the rights of the employees involved were not violated.
The case was tried in Newark, New Jersey, on July 5-6,
and July 16-17, 1973. General Counsel, Captive, and
Garment Workers have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the witnesses and consideration of the
briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Employer Captive is a New Jersey corporation, with its
principal office and plant in Piscataway, New Jersey,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of plastic bottles and other plastic containers
and related products.
In the year preceding filing of the complaint, which was
representative of its operations, Captive manufactured and
sold goods valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from the
Piscataway plant directly to points outside New Jersey.
Respondent is engaged,, as it admitted, in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Garment Workers Union and Toolmakers Union,
respectively, are, as the parties admit, labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 In pertinent part, Section 8(b) make it an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization or its agents-
(I) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights
[of self-organization , etc ] guaranteed in Section 7,
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against
an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) [described in fn . 2, supra 1
4 In pertinent part, Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (u) makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents to engage in, or induce an
employee of a person engaged in commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal
to perform services, or to threaten , coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce , where in either case an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring
any employer or self-employed person to join any employer organization
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC. 751
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Employer Captive's Business-Contract With
Garment Workers Union
At the time of trial, Captive had been in business about 4
years, according to its vice president, Robert Treitler.
manufacturing in the plant at Piscataway, New Jersey,
plastic bottles, containers, and related products. Treitler
joined the Company in February 1972, as vice president
and plant manager, responsible for all operations within
the plant that covered a complement of about 65
production and maintenance workers.
Garment Workers Union began an organizing drive
about that time, culminating in a Board-conducted election
and certification on April 3, 1972, of the Union's Local 132
as bargaining representative for the unit of production and
maintenance employees, excluding office clericals, sales-
men, executives, guards, and supervisors. Following
bargaining, in which Captive's president, John Raymonds,
vice president, Treitler, and Garment Workers business
representative, Eddie Nesbit, were participants, a collec-
tive-bargaining contract was executed on April 7, 1972,
G.C. Exhibit 2, effective retroactively from March 27,
1972, to March 26, 1975.
The contract contained a union-security clause, article
II, which required employees to join Garment Workers
Union and maintain membership as a condition of
employment and required the same of new employees
within 30 days after employment.
B. Installation of the Toolroom
The contract between Captive and Garment Workers,
when executed on April 7, 1972, covered the approximately
65 production and maintenance employees, of whom 3 or
4, said Vice President Treitler, were maintenance mechan-
ics. The production and maintenance employees func-
tioned on the production floor, also referred to by the
employee witnesses as the pressroom from the fact that the
injection blow molding process that produced the plastic
bottles and products was performed in and by presses.
The tooling or molds, inserted in the presses to provide
the shaping of the plastic containers produced, were not
manufactured by Captive at the time the union contract
was executed in April 1972. The molds, made of steel, were
largely if not entirely produced at and repaired by Lincoln
Mold, a company in which President Raymonds of Captive
had a substantial financial interest and took an active part.
(President Raymonds did not testify, and the information
respecting him and his actions in this case came from Vice
President Treitler and the employee witnesses.)
None of Captive's production or maintenance employees
had the skills, special training, and schooling, and
experience required for moldmaking or toolmaking. Never-
theless, President Raymonds, who was himself an experi-
enced toolmaker (Treitler was not), contemplated installing
at Captive his own tool shop or toolroom for producing
and repairing molds for the plastic molding presses.
Indeed, he had apparently ordered the heavy and vaned
machinery needed for such a toolroom5 even before
executing the April 7 contract with Garment Workers,
because the machinery started arriving at the plant in
April-May, and Raymonds began advertising for, inter-
viewing, and hiring, experienced toolmakers or moldmak-
ers in April. The first man hired-Art Kopacz-was hired
a week or 10 days after April? according to Vice President
Treitler. President Raymonds did all the hiring for the new
toolroom. Moldmaker John Harkness was interviewed and
hired in April with an offer that he start immediately by
working temporarily at Lincoln Mold where, Raymonds
told him, Raymonds was a partner. Harkness decided to
delay his start and began work at Captive on May 1, 1972,
on which day new employee William Spies also began
work.
In the first week Harkness and Spies, working with the
production and maintenance employees, set up the
machines for the toolroom. On the following Monday,
May 8, Kopacz who had been working at Lincoln Mold
came in. President Raymonds came into the toolroom,
with Treitler, whom he introduced as company vice
president, and said he was making Kopacz temporary
foreman. He asked employees Harkness and Spies if it was
alright with them, and according to Harkness they
assented.
Over the summer, three additional employees were hired
for the toolroom-toolmakers Alexander Mucho and
Janos Orehocski, and Anthony Pasculli who specialized in
mold polishing-so that by the end of the summer,
according to Vice President Treitler and employee Pasculli,
there were six tool room employees, five, including
Kopacz, who were moldmakers and one a mold polisher.
At the time the contract with Garment Workers was
signed in April 1972, although President Raymonds
contemplated having a toolroom in the plant, as Vice
President Treitler conceded (claiming however that he
himself was unaware of it), there was no mention of it by
Captive at the bargaining negotiations with the Union,
according to Treitler. Garment Workers Agent Nesbit, a
business representative of the union for 25 years, testified
that he services for the Union some 36 shops doing work in
plastics, like Captive, and that some have, and some do not
have, tool, die, and moldmaking departments . Neverthe-
less, he said , he did not ask in the negotiations if Captive
would have a toolroom or toolmakers in the future.
When President Raymonds hired employee Harkness in
April 1972, he showed him around the shop, including the
intended location of the toolroom at the back end of the
plant, where at the time there was no operation and a
milling machine standing as yet uncrated. Raymonds told
Harkness that there was a Union in the shop, but not to
worry about that, the toolroom employees would not have
to join, he was putting a temporary tool shop in at the back
of the building and planning an addition to the building
for a permanent toolroom.
In early September 1972, when President Raymonds
hired employee Alexander Mucho, Mucho asked if there
was a Union in the plant. Raymonds told him the Garment
s Also variously referred to by the witnesses as tool shop, machine shop,
and steelroom.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers Union was in the plant but, that as far as the
toolroom was concerned, you are out of it, you do not have
to belong to this Union, you are a special group not
belonging to the production line. Mucho responded he was
glad to hear it.
Vice President Treitler testified that either he or
President Raymonds instructed the company bookkeeper,
who routinely handled the union dues checkoff and other
contributions to the Union for employees on the payroll
more than 30 days, that she was not to approach the six
toolroom employees I about signing a union checkoff
authorization; and Captive did not notify the Garment
Workers Union by this or other written notice of its
toolroom employees or that it regarded them as covered by
the union contracts The evidence established that in the
first 9 months of the existence of the toolroom, from May
1972 through January 1973 (when the Toolmakers Union
strike began), no toolroom employee was ever asked by
anyone, including the Garment Workers shop steward or
its business representatives, who visited the premises and
came into the plant area, to become a member of the
Garment Workers Union. Under President Raymonds'
instructions to the toolroom employees, if they had any
grievances they were to take them directly to him or, in his
absence, to Vice President Treitler.
C. Operation of the Toolroom
By training, pay and hours, and method of operation, the
toolroom employees were set apart from the production
workers, and constituted a special group at Captive, as
President Raymonds told employee Alexander Mucho,
when he was hired, heading B, supra.
Employee John Harkness described the 4-year New
Jersey state apprenticeship program of combined scholas-
tic and on-the-job training required to become a certificat-
ed journeyman moldmaker or toolmaker (the terms are
used interchangeably). In his case, he obtained his training
and state journeyman's certificate from Union County
Technical School in Scotch Plains, New Jersey, which
embraced 4 years of working in a shop by day and
attending school at night, and successfully completing
courses in algebra, trigonometry, engineering drawing,
blueprint reading, physics, welding, lathe operation,
Bridgeport milling machine operation, grinding machine
operation, advanced inspection, electrical discharge, mold-
making, and tool and diemaking. In addition, as he and
others testified, it took several more years of work
experience as a journeyman to become a first class mold or
toolmaker. All six of the Captive toolroom group were
experienced men when hired, and in some instances had
many years of experience, such as Alexander Mucho with
25 years, and Anthony Pasculli with 20 years of experience.
Vice President Treitler testified there was no toolroom
experience or the special school training among the
6 Initially, Vice President Treitler sought to assert at trial that he had
always regarded the toolroom employees as covered by the union contract
but, under closer scrutiny , his actions plus his Board affidavit given in
February 1973 indicated the contrary, and he conceded that there was
doubt about coverage. He admitted that President Raymonds was of a
different view and did not believe the toolroom employees were covered by
the union contract.
7 On rare occasions , said employee Pasculli, a production worker would
production and maintenance workers and hence there were
no transfers or promotions from the production floor to the
toolroom. The growth of the toolroom came from hiring
outside Captive.
The toolroom employees worked with machinery not
used by or generally available to the pressroom (pro-
duction) employees, such as Bridgeport milling ,machines,
surface grinder, pedestal grinder , turret lathes, tracer
lathes, radial drill press, band saw, and electric discharge
machine.?
The toolroom employees were expected to have, and
had, most of their own hand tools or measuring tools; that
included micrometers, verniers, calipers, height gauges,
and precision blocks. They usually worked at tolerances of
4/10,000 of an inch, and performed directly from blue-
prints.
As Vice President Treitler and the toolroom employee
witnesses testified, the toolroom employees divided their
time between the manufacture of new steel molds and the
repair of damaged molds. This work was done by them
almost entirely in their own room or enclosure, in size
between 30 feet by 30 feet or 40 feet by 40 feet, separated
from the production floor by a chain link fence (from floor
to ceiling), plus one work bench just outside the enclosure
for lack of space inside. On some few occasions when it
was easier to make a simple adjustment or repair of a mold
without taking it out of the press, a toolmaker would be
asked to go into the press room and make the adjustment
in place, but most of the times the mold had to come out of
the press to the toolroom for repair. Only two or three of
the toolroom employees handled this occasional work in
the pressroom and it occupied a very minor portion of their
time , a few hours a month said Harkness , no more than 5
percent of a man's time said Treitler.8
While most of the toolroom work was on molds for the
Captive presses, not all of it was. Employees Harkness and
Mucho testified to doing work that was shipped to Captive
customers, notably the Bristol-Myers Company.
The toolroom employees were the highest paid group in
the plant. Their hourly rate was scaled higher than the
production-maintenance employees, and their gross pay
was additionally higher than the others by reason of the
separate longer time schedule observed by the toolroom.
As Vice President Treitler testified, toolroom employees
regularly worked a 10-hour day for 5 days per week and 6
hours on Saturday, or a 56-hour week. All hours over 8 on
a weekday and all Saturday hours were overtime hours,
hence toolroom employees were regularly paid overtime
for 16 hours per week, plus any additional overtime that
might be requested of them.
On the other hand, said Vice President Treitler, the
production workers worked a regular 8-hour day, 40-hour
week, and since there were three shifts, covering the whole
day, had less opportunity for overtime. If there was
come into the toolroom for a few seconds to use the band saw to cut a
plastic bottle for measuring its thickness
a By choice or inclination , the toolroom employees kept themselves apart
from the production employees on their free time . Thus, although all plant
employees had to use a common timeclock and washroom and had use of a
common eating area, the toolroom employees took their lunches together as
a group away from the eating area and other employees, according to
employee Mucho.
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC 753
overtime for them, it had to be specially scheduled and
approved in each case, unlike the toolroom employees who
had standing, scheduled overtime for 16 hours per week.
In the plant chain of command, the toolroom was also
apart from that governing the rest of plant and had its own
separate supervision. In the first place, all hiring for the
toolroom was done by President Raymonds, whereas Vice
President Treitler, as plant manager, was otherwise
responsible for all other plant hiring assisted by the
production manager, department managers, and plant
manager for maintenance . Treitler testified that acting
foreman of the toolroom, Art Kopacz, an experienced
toolmaker, did the prescreening and evaluating of hires for
the toolroom.
Secondly, apart from himself and President Raymonds,
Treitler named 13 managers, supervisors, and foremen (but
excluded Kopacz who, Treitler contended, was not a
supervisor) as providing the total plant supervision, none
of whom provided any supervision of the toolroom or had
the training or capacity to do so. According to Treitler,
Production Manager John Bungert had overall responsibil-
ity for production on the molding machines or presses,
which are run by molding mechanics, who also install and
remove the molds and make minor repairs to the machines.
Bungert gave his orders and direction to the shift
supervisors but they had no responsibility for or over the
tool shop, said Treitler. Bungert did issue written work
orders which identified for the tool shop molds that needed
repairing, and these were delivered to Acting Foreman
Kopacz, who saw that the needed work was done by his
men. Bungert was not a toolmaker.
Thirdly, subject only to determination by management
of priorities to be given to certain work, the evidence was
clear that Acting Foreman Kopacz provided the day-to-
day supervision of the toolroom. Management decision on
priorities largely meant President Raymonds' decision,
sometimes Vice President Treitler's decision in Raymonds'
absence, and, on priorities in repair of molds, would
include Production Manager Bungert's decision.
Once priorities were decided, Vice President Treitler
conceded and employee testimony confirmed, that Kopacz
determined in his discretion which toolroom employees did
which work, took employees off jobs they might be doing
to assign them other work, checked employees' work,
including going from machine to machine and assisting
with difficult blueprints, received their work, saw to its
delivery, returned to them for correction work not properly
functioning, checked employees' time, made requests of
them that they work additional overtime, kept track of
their work, handled the toolroom paper work, and ordered
tools and supplies for them. Within a $50-per-order limit
he needed no approval for purchases of tools.
Neither President Raymonds nor Vice President Treitler
spent much time in the toolroom, as Treitler testified.
Treitler had overall plant responsibility and greater
responsibility on the production side, so that his visits to
the toolroom were of short duration , on an "in and out"
basis . Raymonds spent time away from the plant on
business for Captive and on other business interests he
had, and while he initially spent more time in the toolroom
than Treitler normally did, as the toolroom became
established he spent even less time there than Treitler. The
employees testified that neither Raymonds nor Treitler
gave them any instructions or supervision on the doing of a
job, and when they had problems they took them to
Kopacz. It has been already noted that when the shop
started out in May 1972 Kopacz was initially introduced as
temporary foreman. On subsequent hires (Pasculli, for
example, in September) Kopacz was described by Presi-
dent Raymonds as the man supervising the toolroom
employees' work, and Treitler testified that Kopacz'
responsibilities did not change but if anything became
greater as the shop expanded (at the time of trial the
toolroom had 17 employees).
It was suggested by Captive that Kopacz was not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act because he did
not hire or fire , because he punched a timeclock and was
paid an hourly wage, and because he did some of the
physical work of toolmaking alongside the other toolmak-
ers. As already noted, Vice President Treitler's testimony
indicated that Kopacz was doing the effective work of
hiring by checking the abilities of new prospects for
President Raymonds; and employees (for example, Hark-
ness and Mucho) obtained wage increases as a result of
Kopacz' intervention on their behalf or reports on their
work. While Kopacz was an hourly paid employee, he was,
as Vice President Treitler testified, the highest paid
employee in the toolroom . It is useful to note that several
other foremen whom Treitler named as having recognized
supervisory status in the production area were (by his
admission elsewhere in the record) also hourly paid. Lastly,
the amount of time Kopacz spent physically engaging in
toolmaking, from the testimony of the employees in the
shop , was relatively little compared to time spent in his
supervisory duties.
The foregoing analysis of the functions and authority of
Art Kopacz, whether he is labeled leadman (as Captive
prefers) or foreman or supervisor , and notwithstanding the
fact that he works part of the time with his hands,
alongside his men , and is paid hourly , marks him clearly a
statutory supervisor, who occupies an intermediate posi-
tion between top management and the rank -and-file
employees, N.L.R.B. v. Edward G. Budd Manufacturing
Company, 169 F.2d 571, 575 (C.A. 6, 1948), cert. denied 335
U.S. 908 (1949); N.L.R.B. v. Gary Aircraft Corporation, 368
F.2d 223 (C.A. 5, 1966), cert. denied 387 U.S. 918 (1967),
leadmen held statutory supervisors; N.L.RB. v. Southern
Airways Company, 290 F.2d 519, 523-524 (C.A. 5, 1961),
working dock chiefs held supervisors under the Act. The
substantial area of discretion enjoyed by Kopacz to make
decisions concerning operations directly affecting employ-
ees under him, without close continued control of higher
supervision, is key to the determination that whether
leadman or foreman he was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. See West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co.,
122 NLRB 738, 743, 744, 752 (1958), holding that several
categories of hourly paid foreman were statutory supervi-
sors; E.E.E. Co., Inc., 171 NLRB 982 (1968), working
foreman who assigned work to other employees held
supervisor under the Act; McCoy Co., 151 NLRB 383, 385
(1965), warehouse leadman , who assigned work to ware-
house employees, held statutory supervisor. If Kopacz were
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not such a supervisor, the toolroom employees would have
been entirely without supervision most if not all of the
time, warranting the conclusion that conferring upon, and
exercise by, him of even a small amount of supervisory
power made him a representative of the employer, Rafael
Vega v. N. L. R. B., 341 F.2d 576, 577 (C.A. 1, 1965), cert.
denied 382 U.S. 862 (1965).
D. Toolmakers Union Organizing, Toorroom
Employees Strike
In August 1972, Toolmakers Union began an organiza-
tional drive among the toolroom employees, as employee
Harkness and Toolmakers President Anthony Callello
testified. By January 1973, at the conclusion of a union
membership meeting the night of January 25, four of the
six toolroom employees had signed cards for membership
in Toolmakers Union, G.C. Exhibits 3a-d (employees
Harkness and Pasculli signed up in August 1972, employee
Mucho in October 1972, and employee Spies turned his
card in at the meeting of January 25, 1973).
Following the union membership meeting on the night of
January 25, 1973, the toolroom employees of Captive went
on strike the following morning, Friday, January 26, 1973,
by staying outside the plant and not going in at the 7 a.m.
starting time. Captive's President Raymonds came outside
and invited employees Harkness and Pasculli into a
meeting in Raymonds' office, where Vice President Treitler
and Foreman Kopacz were also present.
President Raymonds asked what the employees were
doing. Employee Harkness, who acted as spokesman for
the employees (he had been designated acting shop
steward, according to Toolmakers Union President Callel-
lo), replied that the toolroom employees were out for
recognition of the Toolmakers Union as their representa-
tive. Raymonds answered, why do you need a union,
anything you fellows want I give you. Employee Pasculli
spoke of the absence of any sick pay or pension plan, and
President Raymonds said he would give the employees a
pay increase of 25 cents every 3 months, until they were the
highest paid shop in the area, and a 2-week vacation after 1
year, and what did he have to do to get them back to work?
Employee Harkness answered that the employees want-
ed recognition of their Union and offered President
Raymonds the Union's telephone number. (Vice President
Treitler corroborated in his testimony that Harkness said
the men were on strike because they wanted recognition of
their own tool union in the shop, and testified that no
additional or other demand was made on Captive by or on
behalf of the Toolmakers Union.) Raymonds replied, no,
you can stay out for the next 6 months, it would make no
difference. Vice President Treitler said he would close the
toolroom before he would have two unions in one shop,
and President Raymonds said he agreed with Treitler and
would ship his toolmaking work to Connecticut. Harkness
and Pasculli reiterated their commitment to the Toolmak-
ers Union and that they were striking for recognition, and
went back outside, Harkness reporting by telephone to
Toolmakers on what had occurred. At this point the
employees commenced picketing, first with signs made by
Harkness saying "Captive Tool on strike-IUTDM (the
union's initials)," and later with signs supplied by Tool-
makers saying simply "On strike-IUTDM." President
Raymonds came outside and asked Harkness if he had
understood Raymonds' offer, repeating it-25-cent-per-
hour raise every 3 months, highest paid shop in the area,
and 2-week vacation after a year-and told him to think
about it.
Toolmakers had apparently commenced strikes at other
plants in New Jersey, seeking recognition, according to
William Samson who, on a nonprofessional basis, was in
charge of organizing for Toolmakers in Middlesex County
where Captive was located. Samson covered and visited the
picket lines at about 20 plants in Middlesex County but
neither he nor any of the Toolmakers professional agents
made any direct contact with the management at Captive.
On Monday, January 29, 1973, Toolmakers Organizer
Samson and Toolmakers President Callello came to the
picket line at Captive in response to a request for a meeting
by Garment Workers Union Agent Eddie Nesbit. Nesbit
had learned of the strike, the previous Friday, the day it
began. The three met and talked in Nesbit's car outside the
Captive plant. Nesbit asked what was going on and
Callello told him the Toolmakers were on strike for
recognition. Nesbit asked if his people were involved.
Callello replied no, the strike involved only the toolroom.
Nesbit asked how would it affect him, and Samson
indicated that it would not affect the Garment Workers
because the strike was only for the steel tradesmen
(toolmakers) throughout the State. Nesbit told the Tool-
makers representatives that he did not represent the
toolroom employees at Captive, that he represented the
production workers who worked in the press department
and that he would help the Toolmakers by putting pressure
on Captive's President Raymonds to recognize Toolmak-
ers.
Garment Workers Agent Nesbit admitted telling the
Toolmakers representatives he would help them; but,
incredibly, claimed at trial that he had meant he would
help them get recognition at the Lincoln Mold plant, in
which President Raymonds had a financial interest, and
that he (Nesbit) didn't know even at this time, January 29,
1973, that Captive had a toolshop in its plant and
toolmakers operating the shop. The incredibility of these
claims by Nesbit, an experienced representative of Gar-
ment Workers for 25 years, is evident from other parts of
his testimony to the effect that (though he had visited the
Captive plant, including the working floor area, two or
three times in the 9 months since May 1972, and had sent
others to visit for him, and had a shop steward , assistant
shop steward , and shop committee to do representation
work in the plant) he had paid no attention to the newly
installed toolroom or to the new machinery in the
toolroom, different from the machinery in the pressroom,
or to the new employees in the toolroom; that none of his
personal representatives or plant representatives had told
him of the employees in the toolroom; that on his visit to
the Captive picket line the morning of January 29, 1973, he
paid no attention to the strike signs nor did he talk to any
of the picketing employees nor did he know how many
employees worked and how many picketed nor did he ask;
and that thereafter, when he and Garment Workers
claimed contract coverage of the toolroom and its
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC. 755
employees, he made no inquiry as to who in the group
worked and who continued to picket and who and how
many paid union dues.
Following his meeting at the Captive picket line with the
Toolmakers representatives on the morning of January 29,
1973, Garment Workers Agent Nesbit went into the plant.
He claimed he then learned for the first time in the 9
months of its existence, from President Raymonds, that
there was a toolroom in the shop, and that the pickets
outside the plant were employees of Captive (a claim I do
not credit for reasons enumerated above). In any event,
following a meeting the same day with President Ray-
monds, Vice President Treitler, and Captive's lawyer,
Schwartz, Nesbit switched from the position he announced
in the morning to the Toolmakers representatives, viz, of
aiding them gain recognition, to asserting that the
toolroom employees were covered by the Garment Work-
ers contract and belonged in that Union. Nesbit testified
that he insisted that the toolroom employees had to join
the Garment Workers Union. He further testified that
Captive's lawyer, Schwartz, and the two corporate officers
agreed, whereupon he caused a letter to be sent forthwith
to Captive by Garment Workers (G.C. Exh. 4, dated
January 29, 1973). The letter called attention to the fact
that certain employees of Captive had failed to become
members of Garment Workers Union in accordance with
the union-security provision (article 2) of the existing
collective-bargaining contract, that notwithstanding anoth-
er union is picketing for recognition as representative of
these employees, they are within the purview of the
contract, and all six employees are required to be members
of Garment Workers Union. Nesbit testified that Garment
Workers gave cards to Captive's bookkeepers with instruc-
tions they were to approach the employees in timely
fashion and require them to join the union.
Captive immediately composed letters to each of the six
employees of the toolroom (G.C. Exh. 5, dated January 30,
1973), telling them that Garment Workers had advised,
and the company lawyer agreed, that each of the
employees who had walked out of the plant was covered by
the contract with Garment Workers as production and
maintenance employees, that it would be necessary for
each to become members of Garment Workers, and on
failure to do so within 30 days employment would be
terminated. Each was asked to advise Vice President
Treitler if he intended to report to work under the stated
condition.
On the previous Saturday, January 27, the second day of
the strike, President Raymonds had been in touch with
employee Harkness and told him he was fired, that
Raymonds was taking all of Captive's moldmaking work to
Gill Woods Plastics in Greenbrook, and that if Harkness
wanted a job there he could go there with Raymonds'
recommendation. Raymonds also told employee Pasculli
essentially the same thing and that he no longer had a job.
On Monday, January 29, apparently following the
meeting with Garment Workers Agent Nesbit. President
Raymonds got in touch with employee Harkness again and
told him that the toolroom employees were covered under
the Garment Workers collective-bargaining contract with
Captive and were engaged in an illegal strike, that they had
30 days to join Garment Workers Union or be fired, and
that he, Raymonds, was sending out letters to each of the
employees stating what he said.
On Tuesday, January 30, President Raymonds handed
employees Harkness and Pasculli their copies of the letter
requiring them to join the Garment Workers or be fired
(G.C. Exh. 5, supra ), and copies were handed or mailed to
the other employees who returned to work that day or the
next day. Employees Harkness and Pasculli continued out
on strike until Saturday, February 24, 1973, when they too
returned to work following a settlement of the Toolmakers
multiplant strike, approved Friday, February 23 .9
E. Discharges, Layoffs, Other Coercion
Captive's Vice President Treitler testified that in the
meeting of January 29, 1973, that involved himself,
President Raymonds, Captive's lawyer Schwartz, and
Garment Workers Agent Nesbit, he, Treitler, advised
Nesbit that the toolroom employees were picketing
because they wanted the Toolmakers Union, and that they
did not want to join the Garment Workers Union;
nevertheless, it was Nesbit' s position , supported by lawyer
Schwartz, that the employees had no choice, that they were
covered by the Garment Workers collective-bargaining
contract with Captive and had to join Garment Workers.
Treitler further testified that he and President Raymonds
did not oppose this Garment Workers demand (confirmed
in the Garment Workers letter of January 29 (G.C. Exh.
4)), because he and Raymonds both agreed that if the
toolroom employees wanted a union it was better for
Captive to have had them join the Garment Workers rather
than Toolmakers, indeed, he said, both Raymonds and
himself were pleased to have one union rather than two
unions in the shop. Hence , said Treitler, Captive immedi-
ately followed up with its letter of January 30 to the
toolroom employees requiring them to join Garment
Workers if they were to retain their jobs (G. C. Exh. 5,
supra).
Employee Alexander Mucho testified that in response to
a call on Wednesday, January 31, he and fellow toolmakers
Spies and Orehocski went back into the plant and talked
with management. They spoke with Vice President Treitler
and Foreman Kopacz. (It appeared that Kopacz had not
stayed out after the initial part of the first day of the
strike.) According to Mucho, Treitler made it plain that if
they wanted their jobs they would have to apply for
membership in Garment Workers within 30 days, and
Treitler handed them cards to sign for the Union. The
three men went to work, but stalled signing up for the
Garment Workers.
On February 28, Vice President Treitler came into the
shop with Garment Workers cards, according to his
testimony and that of employees Mucho and Harkness (the
9 The settlement provided for restoration of employees to their jobs and element of the settlement was the Union'
s agreement to terminate the strike
that for shops open on Saturday, the employees would return to work the in return for affected employers' agreement to consent elections in their
following day, Saturday, February 24, and for all other shops the employees shops by March 23, 1973 (td ).
would return on the following Monday (G.C Exh 7, page 2) The central
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
latter with Pasculli had been back in the shop since
February 24), and told the employees they would have to
sign cards for Garment Workers Union to keep their jobs
and had to turn them in by the next day or they would no
longer be able to work for Captive. He testified he was
acting pursuant to the company letter distributed January
30 and the 30-day period was almost up. The employees
protested, but Treitler responded that the toolroom was
under the jurisdiction of Local 132 of the Garment
Workers, and having one union would bring some peace to
the shop.70 President Raymonds also came into the
toolroom that same day, according to employee Mucho,
and told the group of employees they would receive a wage
increase and an additional vacation if they did not become
members of Toolmakers Union or refrained from support-
ing it.
Employee Mucho testified that on the following day
(which, he said, was the 29th day of the 30-day period) he,
Spies, Orehocski, and Kopacz, signed cards for Garment
Workers. Vice President Treitler testified that since
January 29, 1973 (the date may or may not be accurate),
Captive has checked off and transmitted to Garment
Workers initiation fees and dues from the toolroom
employees.
On February 28, the same day that Vice President
Treitler delivered his final ultimatum to the toolroom
employees to sign up with the Garment Workers Union or
lose their jobs, Treitler laid off or discharged employees
Harkness and Pasculli. Both employees had previously
returned to work on Saturday, February 24, in keeping
with the terms of the Toolmakers strike settlement, noted
above, and worked that day and the first 3 days of the next
week, February 26, 27, and 28. Foreman Kopacz assigned
them to their usual work, and when they called his
attention to the fact that their timecards were not in the
rack when they reported back, the timecards were restored
to the rack in time for their punch-out Monday, February
26, and use on the succeeding days. President Raymonds
was in the plant February 26 and 27, as Treitler conceded,
but Treitler did not come in until February 28.
That afternoon Vice President Treitler went over to
employee Pasculli's workbench, called Harkness over, and
handed them both layoff slips. According to both men
Treitler told them that this was permanent, they had been
replaced. (Treitler claimed he didn't say it was permanent
but said until Captive had more work and needed more
people.) Treitler pointed to a new man Bob Bessie, a lathe
hand, as one of the replacements. Bessie had reported to
work just a few days before, on February 22, Treitler
testified. And, as the testimony indicated a lathe hand does
not have the skill or work competence of a moldmaker
(Harkness' job) or of a mold polisher (Pasculli's job). The
second so-called replacement, one Jan Kuriata, according
to Treitler, did not report to work until March 5, 1973.
Treitler admitted that in Pasculli's absence Captive was
sending part of its mold polishing work to be done in
outside shops; and that whenever there was more toolroom
work than the employees could handle, it was sent out, to
be done elsewhere, in both situations at greater cost than
having the work done by its own toolroom employees.
On March 15, 1973. Toolmakers filed a charge against
Captive (G.C. Exh. 1(a), upon which the CA portion of the
complaint is based) alleging, among other things, a
discriminatory layoff of employees Harkness and Pascul-
li.ii
On or about April 20, 1973, employees Harkness and
Pasculli received telegrams from Captive to come back to
work. They phoned in and agreed to report Monday, April
23. Both reported in and began working. About 8 a.m.,
Richard Young, the shop steward of the Garment Workers
Union, came to each of them with a card to be signed,
saying it was an authorization to the employer to deduct
union dues for the Garment Workers from the pay of each.
Harkness and Pasculli refused to sign and walked in on
President Raymonds with the unsigned cards. He told
them they had to sign , they said they would not,
whereupon Raymonds told them they would have to get
out, and both employees left the plant immediately.
That afternoon (April 23), Vice President Treitler
telephoned employee Harkness and told him there had
been a misunderstanding in the morning, that Captive was
not telling him to leave but that the Garment Workers
Union was telling him so, and as far as Captive was
concerned he still had a job. Treitler said that Harkness
asked if he had to join the Garment Workers, and Treitler
replied that the Union's steward informed us you did and
said Harkness could talk to Shop Steward Young and get it
straightened out. Treitler then put Young on the phone.
Shop Steward Young told employee Harkness that Captive
was a closed shop, that he had had 30 days to join
Garment Workers Union and since the 30 days were up, he
was terminated. Treitler also left a message , similar to his
message to Harkness, with employee Pasculli's wife, on the
same afternoon, saying that Captive had nothing to do
with forcing Pasculli out, it was the Garment Workers who
caused the discharge.
On May 4, 1973, the Regional Director issued the CA
complaint against Captive based on the Toolmakers charge
of March 15, supra .
Thereafter, Captive again telegraphed employees Hark-
ness and Pasculli that work was available and both
employees reported for work in mid-May (Harkness
thought it was Wednesday, May 16, Pasculli and Vice
President Treitler thought it was Monday, May 14). In any
event, both employees worked for part of the day, and then
voluntarily quit. As Pasculli explained, it appeared that
there was a division in the toolroom, with Harkness and
himself on one side, and the other employees on the other
side and shunning the two of them ; and since they couldn't
see working 10 hours a day in such a cold atmosphere they
left voluntarily and did not return.
Employee Harkness testified that on this last recall and
partial day of employment, no mention was made to
Pasculli or himself of a necessity to join or sign anything
10 Employee Mucho testified that he would not have joined the Garment an election by Captive 's toolroom employees (Case 22-RC-5627), and a
Workers if he had not been told he had to join , that he would not have hearing by the Region was held on March 13 and 15, 1973 (exhibit RU-2(a)
joined "of my own free will " and (b)). Filing of the Toolmakers charge of March 15, supra, and the11 Toolmakers had previously filed on February 27, 1973, a petition for resultant complaint in the case at bar, has halted action on the petition.
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC.
for the Garment Workers Union. It appears that on May 3,
Toolmakers had filed its (CB) charge with the Board
alleging that Garment Workers had attempted to cause
and caused Captive to discriminatorily discharge its
toolmakers; and, under date of May 15, 1973, Garment
Workers gave Captive a letter (G.C. Exh. 6) referring to the
charge and Board investigation of the charge, stating that
though Garment Workers claimed contract coverage of the
toolmakers in the shop it would not insist that Captive
observe the union-security provisions of the contract in
regard to those employees until the Board had resolved the
issue . Vice President Treitler testified that this was the first
time in the history of the dispute that Garment Workers, or
anyone on its behalf, had advised that the Union was not
insisting on enforcing the union-securty clause of the
contract.
F. Concluding Findings
The interference of Employer Captive with the self-
organizational rights of its toolroom employees is manifest.
The toolroom employees notified Captive's President
Raymonds on January 26, 1973, that they were striking to
obtain recognition of their Union, Toolmakers Union. His
response was that they didn't need a union and that
Captive would provide successive wage increases (and
additional vacation time) to make theirs the highest paid
tool shop in the area. When this promised inducement did
not appear to dissuade the employees from their strike for
union recognition, both President Raymonds and Vice
President Treitler turned to threats of closing down the
toolroom and contracting out the toolroom work rather
than recognizing Toolmakers as the representative of the
toolroom employees.
Both the promise of benefits to and threat of reprisal
against its employees to induce them to forego their union
organization constituted interference by Captive with the
self-organizational rights of its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.LRB. v. Exchange Parts Co.,
375 U.S. 405, 409-410 (1964); N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing
Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 617-618 (1969).
The unlawful interference with employee organizational
rights was followed by further unlawful interference and
conduct on the part of Captive and Garment Workers, the
rival Union, by Captive extending recognition to Garment
Workers, as purported representative of the toolroom
employees, and incorporating them under Captive's con-
tract with Garment Workers, when Garment Workers had
no indicia of support from the toolroom employees and
Toolmakers had the openly demonstrated majority support
of the toolroom employees behind its demand for recogni-
tion (and a card majority if it were asked for). Such
recognition of and agreement with a minority union
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act on Employer
Captive's part,'andSection,8(b)(1)(A) on Garment Workers
Union's part, and would have been violations even if the
Employer and Union had entertained good-faith beliefs
that the Union represented the majority , International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union [Bernhard-Altmann Texas
Corp.] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731, 738-739 (1961).
However, in the case at bar, the facts summarized under
the preceding headings demonstrated that neither Captive
757
nor Garment Workers acted in good faith but rather in
unlawful concert by use of direct employer solicitation of
Garment Workers memberships under threats of firing (by
Vice President Treitler) and promise of benefits (by
President Raymonds), followed by enforcement of the
Garment Workers contract provisions designed to main-
tain the assisted status.
The request for recognition of Toolmakers as their
representative by the toolroom employees on January 26,
1973, backed by their visible unanimous support of the
strike for recognition (as well as by signed authorization
cards by a majority), raised a real question regarding
representation of the employees under the Midwest Piping
rule, 63 NLRB 1060 (1945). The employer's duty to
maintain strict neutrality and await Board resolution of the
rival claims was breached by according the advantage of a
contract to Garment Workers, constituting additional
unlawful support of Garment Workers by Captive, in
violation of Section 8(aX2), and interference with self-
organizational rights of employees, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, N.LR.B. v. National Container Corp.,
211 F.2d 525, 536 (C.A. 2, 1954); Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v.
N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 176 (C.A. 8, 1964); Melbet Jewelry Co.,
180 NLRB 107, 110 (1969).
Both Captive and Garment Workers argue that, by
accretion, the toolroom employees had become part of the
bargaining unit of "production and maintenance" employ-
ees, who were the pressroom employees when the contract
was entered into by Captive and Garment Workers in
April 1972. Hence , it is argued that the recognition of
Garment Workers as toolroom representative and giving
effect to the union membership and other union-security
provisions of the contract for the toolroom were not
unlawful acts.
The summary of the evidence, under the preceding
headings, indicates that Captive installed the toolroom,
almost simultaneously with the execution of the Garment
Workers contract (which was the first and only union
contract of the employer), as a separate entity excluded
from the provisions of the contract with Garment Workers.
Captive told the toolroom employees so, when they were
hired, and Garment Workers acquiesced in the arrange-
ment. At the very least, by his own admission, Garment
Workers Agent Nesbit paid no attention to the toolroom;'
and, as the additional proof indicated, Garment Workers
and he made no claim of representing the toolroom in the
first 9 months of its existence and even offered to assist
Toolmakers in achieving recognition as late as the fourth
morning after the strike of the toolroom employees had
begun in late January 1973. It was not until Agent Nesbit
met with Captive's management and lawyer later that day,
that the "accretion" position jointly emerged. The position
was arrived at concededly with knowledge that the
toolroom employees wanted their own union representa-
tion by Toolmakers and did not want to be represented by
Garment Workers; and that Captive' s management felt if
there was going to be a union representing the toolroom
employees it would be better to have them represented by
Garment Workers, so that there would only be one union
in the plant.
As described under heading C, above, by special training
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and qualifications, pay, hours of work, and method of
operation, the toolroom employees were a special and
separate group at Captive, set apart from the production
and maintenance workers of the pressroom where the
products of the Company were turned out. The toolroom
employees made and repaired the steel forms used in the
production process (largely used in this plant, but also for
other plants), and did their work almost entirely in their
own enclave and under supervision, separate from the
pressroom, with no exchange of employees between the
two units or graduation of employees from the pressroom
into the toolroom. As the Board said of a similar toolroom,
in a plant that manufactured power chain saws, "the
toolroom comprises a functionally distinct and homoge-
nous traditional department with a nucleus of skilled
employees who constitute a unit appropriate for collective
bargaining ," McCulloch Corporation, 189 NLRB 76, 77
(1971). The Board, noting the absence of any relevant
history of collective bargaining in the plant (as in the case
at bar), rejected the employer's contention that an overall
production and maintenance unit was the solely appropri-
ate unit for bargaining, id. at 76.12
The Board has made like other holdings, on facts similar
to the facts in the case at bar, that a group of toolroom
employees constitutes an appropriate unit for separate
representation if the toolroom employees so desire,
overruling contentions that an overall production and
maintenance unit is the only appropriate unit, see, among
others, Schick, Inc., 130 NLRB 1501 (1961), and Gemex
Corp., 120 NLRB 46 (1958).i3
The Board has also held that the accretion principle does
not apply (including cases where contracts provide for
accretion to the bargaining unit of future employees of the
contracting employer) when the employee group sought to
be added to the established unit may separately constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit, Melbet Jewelry Co., supra,
180 NLRB 107, 109-110 (1969), saying:
We will not, however, under the guise of accretion,
compel a group of employees, who may constitute a
separate appropriate unit, to be included in an overall
unit without allowing those employees the opportunity
of expressing their preference in a secret election or by
some other evidence that they wish to authorize the
Union to represent them.
Accord: Sheraton-Kauai Corp., 177 NLRB 25, 28 (1969);
and see affirmance of the Board in N.L.R.B. v. Masters-
Lake Success, Inc., 287 F.2d 35 (C.A. 2, 1961). The Board
recently reaffirmed its statement of limitation on the use of
accretion, enunciated in Melbet and Sheraton-Kauai, supra,
in Smith's Management Corp., 197 NLRB 1156.
It would follow, therefore, that since the toolroom
employees at Captive constituted an appropriate unit for
bargaining, it was unlawful for Captive or Garment
Workers to treat them as accreted to the existing unit of
production and maintenance employees when both knew
that Garment Workers did not represent an uncoerced
12 The Board also pointed out in the McCulloch case that other factors,
delineated in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387 (1966), which
might apply if the toolroom employees had been then represented as part of
a broader unit and the case were a proposed severance case , were not
relevant, id at 77, In 4.
13 It is well established Board law, endorsed by the courts, that more
majority of the toolroom employees or any of them, indeed
when both knew that a majority of the employees wanted
representation by the Toolmakers and was opposed to
representation by the Garment Workers.
In sum, by agreeing on January 29, 1973, with Garment
Workers to accrete the unit of toolroom employees to the
unit of production and maintenance employees and to
make applicable to the toolroom employees the union-
security provisions of the Garment Workers contract when
Garment Workers did not represent a majority of the
toolroom employees and when a question concerning their
representation existed, and by thereafter maintaining and
enforcing these provisions, through coercing the toolroom
employees on January 30 and February 28, 1973, to
become and remain Garment Workers members on pain of
discharge and honoring the (forced) checkoff authoriza-
tions, see Local 1424 etc. Machinists [Bryan Manufacturing
Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411, 413-414 (1960), Captive
interfered with the self-organizational rights of the employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(1), assisted Garment
Workers in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and discriminated
in regard to the hire of employees and tenure of their
employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, see
Melbet Jewelry Co., supra, 180 NLRB at 110; Sheraton-
Kauai Corp., supra, 177 NLRB at 25.
In the case of employees Harkness and Pasculli, who
stayed with the Toolmakers strike until it was settled on
February 23, 1973, and resumed work at Captive on
February 24 in accordance with the settlement, it would
appear that their discharge on February 28, allegedly
because they had been replaced and for lack of work, was a
pretext. On February 28, Vice President Treitler made his
drive in the shop to compel the toolroom employees to sign
up with the Garment Workers by the following day, which
was the end of the 30-day period under the union-security
clause. It was obvious that Harkness and Pasculli, as the
avowed advocates of Toolmakers Union, would not sign
and would create a problem for management in succeeding
with its pressure on the other employees, so the two were
dismissed for the claimed reason. There was work that
each was doing under assignment from Foreman Kopacz,
and President Raymonds in the plant in this period. One of
the alleged replacements, a lathe hand, was not a
replacement for either a moldmaker or mold polisher; the
other alleged replacement did not begin work until the
following week (which suggests he was a replacement after
the discharge of February 28); and Captive found it
necessary in the ensuing period after February 28 to get
some of its moldmaking and mold polishing done in
outside shops. Captive's claim of replacement and lack of
work was a sham.
Likewise, there was no substance to the claim by
Captive's counsel that employees Harkness and Pasculli
had engaged in an illegal strike at Captive and were not
entitled to reemployment on February 24, and hence could
be (and were) replaced. The claim was based on the fact
than one unit may be appropriate among the employees of a particular
enterprise , Haag Drug, 169 NLRB 77 (1968), and that a departmental unit
in an industrial plant is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, S D
Warren Company v N.LR B, 353 F 2d 494, 499 (C A 1, 1965), cert denied
383 U.S 958(1966)
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC.
that at some of the plants struck by Toolmakers, though
not at Captive, the Toolmakers made a demand, in
addition to the demand for recognition, that the employer
join an employers' association for dealing with the union.14
The evidence in the case at bar established that no such
additional demand was made of Captive by the employees,
led by Harkness and Pasculh, in their demand for
recognition, nor was any demand made by Toolmakers
professional agents on Captive; and Captive's Vice
President Treitler admitted that the only demand made on
the Company was the demand by the employees for
recognition of Toolmakers. There was no taint of illegality
in the conduct of Captive's toolroom employees. In any
event, Captive accepted employees Harkness and Pasculli
back on February 24, and they worked for 4 days without
any hint of the alleged replacement. Their discharges by
Captive on February 28 was aimed at discouraging
continued support by the toolroom employees of Toolmak-
ers and spurring the remaining employees to join Garment
Workers, and constituted discriminatory discharges in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc., 393 F.2d 871, 872 (C.A. 2,
1968). President Raymonds, contemporaneous promise of a
wage increase to the remaining employees, on the same
day, if they would give up their support of Toolmakers was
further evidence of the discriminatory purpose, and in
itself a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The second discharge of employees Harkness and
Pasculli by Captive on April 23. 1973, after they were
called back and reported for work that morning, was
directly at the instigation of the Garment Workers. When
both employees refused to sign the Garment Workers cards
proffered them by the Garment Workers plant representa-
tive, President Raymonds fired them. In so doing, Captive
again violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by
continuing to recognize Garment Workers and to enforce
the union-security clause unlawfully extended to the
toolroom at a time when Garment Workers did not
represent an uncoerced majority of the unit of toolroom
employees.
Correlatively, Garment Workers violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by seeking and obtaining
from Captive recognition as bargaining representative of
the unit of toolroom employees and agreement to incorpo-
rate them into the Garment Workers collective-bargaining
contract when Garment Workers did not represent an
uncoerced majority of these employees, and by requesting
and requiring Captive to compel the toolroom employees
to become members of Garment Workers and requiring
that employees Harkness and Pasculli be discharged
because they refused to join Garment Workers. N. L. R. B. v.
Revere Metal Art Co., 280 F.2d 96, 99-100 (C.A. 2, 1960),
cert. denied 364 U.S. 894 (1960); N. L.R.B. v. Seine and Lien
Fishermen's Union [Paul Biazevich, et al. d/bla M. V.
Liberator, et al.], 374 F.2d 974, 977 (C.A. 9, 1967), cert.
denied 389 U.S. 913 (1967); MelbetJewelry Co., supra, 180
14 The Regional Director had moved for and obtained m the U S
District Court a temporary restraining order against Toolmakers picketing
to compel employers tojoin an employer organization , Resp. Exhs. 3 and 4.
The settlement of February 23, 1973 (G C. Exh. 7, In. 9, supra ), washed out
the controversy by termination of the strike , agreement that the sinking
employees would return to work and be taken back, and agreement on
759
NLRB at 110; Sheraton-Kauai Corp., supra, 177 NLRB at
25.
The claim of Garment Workers, that it made no demand
on Captive to require the toolroom employees to become
members of Garment Workers, is refuted by the testimony
of the witnesses for both Garment Workers and Captive
and by Garment Workers written demand of January 29,
1973 (G.C. Exh. 4), which was not relaxed until May 15,
1973 (G.C. Exh. 6), after the coerced memberships and
discriminatory discharges had been effected. Garment
Workers further claims that the rights of the toolroom
employees were not violated is obviously without merit,
and the Regional Director was clearly justified in suspend-
ing the pending representation case, 22-RC-5627, until the
unfair labor practice questions raised in the case at bar
were determined and relief given from violations that if left
unremedied would unfairly prejudice the rights of the
affected employees and their ultimate freedom of choice.
In this connection, it should be noted that the record in the
case at bar is far more complete and informative on the
toolroom unit question15 than the record made in the
pending representation case, exhibits Resp. Union 2(a), (b),
and (c), which record was developed without the participa-
tion of the General Counsel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Employer Captive's toolroom employees constitute
an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
2. By unlawfully assisting and supporting the Garment
Workers Union to accrete the unit of toolroom employees
into the unit of production and maintenance employees
represented by Garment Workers, by unlawfully extending
Garment Workers union-security contract with Captive to
the unit of toolroom employees, by enforcing the contract
provisions with coercion and discharges of toolroom
employees, and by promising benefits to and threatening
reprisals against its toolroom employees in order to
discourage their support of Toolmakers Union and to
encourage their membership in Garment Workers Union,
Captive has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully demanding and accepting from
Captive recognition as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the unit of Captive's toolroom employees, by
unlawfully submitting said employees to the terms of the
collective-bargaining contract governing Captive's unit of
production and maintenance employees, by unlawfully
extending the union-security contract to the toolroom
employees, and by requiring and obtaining the assistance
of Captive to coercively enforce its provisions, including
discharges of toolroom employees, Garment Workers
restrained, coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the
toolroom employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
holding consent elections in the struck shops.
15 For example, on such matters as the details of supervision , division of
work between toolmakers and production workers, educational background
and training of toolmakers, hours of work, the hiring of toolmakers, and
information provided them on the question of a union, and other pertinent
items
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that:
(1) Captive and Garment Workers cease and desist from
their unfair labor practices and, because of their disregard
of fundamental employee rights, from in any other manner
infringing upon the rights of the toolroom employees
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act;
(2) Captive cease recognition of Garment Workers as
exclusive bargaining representative of the toolroom em-
ployees, and Garment Workers cease acting as such
representative, and that both desist from applying to the
toolroom employees the union-security provisions of the
contract between them unless and until Garment Workers
is certified by the Board as the representative of said
employees;
(3) Because of the coercion involved and their combined
responsibility for it, Captive and Garment Workers shall,
as a matter of joint and several responsibility, reimburse
the toolroom employees, including former employees, for
all union initiation fees, dues, and other moneys unlawfully
collected from them pursuant to the inapplicable contract
and the unlawful checkoff authorizations, N.L.R.B. v.
Revere Metal Art Co., supra, 280 F.2d 96, 100; Melbet
Jewelry Co., supra, 180 NLRB 107, 110; and similarly shall
make former employees Harkness and Pasculli whole for
any loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of their
discharges on February 28 and again on April 23, 1973. In
accordance with Board policy, there shall be an allowance
of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum added to the
sum due each employee or former employee, computed on
the basis of separate calendar quarters with interest to
begin running as of the last day of the calendar quarter, for
initiation fees, dues, and other moneys exacted or due in
that calendar quarter, until compliance with the reimburse-
ment order is achieved, Salmirs Oil Co., 139 NLRB 25, 27
(1962); and, likewise, backpay due the two discharged
employees shall be computed on a quarterly basis, as
prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and shall include interest at 6 percent,
as provided by the Board in Isis Plumbing and Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962); and
(4) Captive and Garment Workers post and deliver the
notices provided for herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended: 16
ORDER
A. Respondent Captive, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its toolroom employees with loss of jobs,
discharging or laying them off, or threatening or engaging
in other reprisal, because they support or participate in
organizing for Toolmakers Union or other labor organiza-
tion.
(b) Promising wage increases or other benefits to induce
its toolroom employees to forego support of Toolmakers
Union or other labor organization.
(c) Discouraging its toolroom employees from member-
ship in Toolmakers Union or other labor organizations by
promise of benefits, or by layoff, discharge, threats thereof,
or other discrimination affecting tenure and conditions of
employment.
(d) Encouraging its toolroom employees to become
members of Garment Workers Union or other labor
organizations by promise of benefits, or by layoff,
discharge, threats thereof, or other reprisal or discrimina-
tion affecting their tenure and conditions of employment if
they fail to become members.
(e) Contributing support and assistance to Garment
Workers Union or to any other labor organization of its
employees.
(f) Recognizing Garment Workers Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its toolroom employees
for the purposes of dealing with Captive concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment , unless
and until Garment Workers Union shall have demonstrat-
ed its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to
an election conducted by the Board among the toolroom
employees.
(g) Applying the collective-bargaining contract between
Captive and Garment Workers Union to the toolroom
employees or giving the contract effect as to the toolroom
employees, provided that nothing herein shall require
Captive to vary or abandon any wages, hours, or other
substantive feature of its relations with the toolroom
employees established in performance of the contract, or to
prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights they
may have thereunder.
(h) Giving effect to checkoff authorizations executed by
the toolroom employees in favor of Garment Workers
Union.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Gar-
ment Workers Union as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the toolroom employees for the purpose of dealing
with Captive concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, unless and until Garment Workers shall have
demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to an
election conducted by the Board among the toolroom
employees.
(b) Jointly and severally with Garment Workers Union
reimburse the toolroom employees, including former
employees, for all union initiation fees, dues, and other
moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the aforesaid
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings , become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall
conclusions , recommendations, and Order herein shall, as provided in be deemed waived for all purposes.
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC.
contract and checkoff authorizations, and jointly and
severally with Garment Workers Union make former
employees Harkness and Pasculli whole for any loss of
earnings incurred by them as a result of their discharges on
both February 28 and April 23, 1973. The reimbursement
of fees and dues and the payment of lost earnings shall be
made in the manner set forth in the section of this decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
records concerning payroll, personnel, social security
payments, timecards, disbursements, and all other records
necessary to ascertain the backpay and the reimbursement
of union fees and dues owed under the terms of this order.
(d) Post in the Captive plant at Piscataway, New Jersey,
copies of the attached notice hereto marked"Appendix A."17
Immediately upon receipt of said notice, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22 (Newark,
New Jersey), Captive shall cause the copies to be signed by
one of its authorized representatives and posted, the posted
copies to be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Captive to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Deliver or mail forthwith to the Regional Director
additional signed copies of the notice Appendix A, as
provided in the preceding paragraph A 2(d), for posting by
Garment Workers Union at its business offices and
meeting halls in conspicuous places, including places where
notices to members are customarily posted.
(f) Post and maintain at the same place and under the
same conditions provided in paragraph A, 2(d) above, as
soon as forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
attached notice hereto marked "Appendix B."is
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Captive has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Garment Workers Union, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Captive's toolroom employees for the purpose of dealing
with Captive concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, unless and until Garment Workers Union
shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representa-
tive status pursuant to an election conducted by the Board
among the toolroom employees.
(b) Giving effect to, or requesting or requiring Captive to
give effect to, the collective-bargaining contract between
Captive and Garment Workers as applied to the toolroom
employees of Captive.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing the
toolroom employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Captive reimburse the
toolroom employees, including former employees, for all
union initiation fees, dues, and other moneys, paid or
761
checked off pursuant to the contract between Captive and
Garment Workers Union and the checkoff authorizations,
and jointly and severally with Captive make former
employees Harkness and Pasculli whole for any loss of
earnings incurred by them as a result of their discharges on
both February 28 and April 23, 1973. The reimbursement
of fees and dues and the payment of lost earnings shall be
made in the manner set forth in the section of this decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
records necessary to ascertain what is owed in reimburse-
ment of union fees, dues, and other moneys under the
terms of this Order
(c) Post in Garment Workers Union business offices and
meeting halls copies of the attached notice hereto marked
"Appendix B."19 Immediately upon receipt of said notice, on
forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region
22, Garment Workers Union shall cause the copies to be
signed by one of its authorized representatives and posted,
the posted copies to be maintained for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Garment
Workers Union to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Deliver or mail forthwith to the Regional Director
additional signed copies of the notice Appendix B, as
provided in the preceding paragraph B, 2(c), for posting by
Captive at its plant in Piscataway, New Jersey, in
conspicuous places, including places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(e) Post and maintain at the same places and under the
same conditions provided in paragraph B 2(c) above, as
soon as forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 20
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Garment Workers Union has taken to comply
herewith.
17 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
18 See preceding In. 17, supra
19 See fn . 17, supra.
20 See In . 17, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act,
we notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our toolroom employees with
loss of jobs, or discharge or lay them off, or threaten or
engage in other reprisal, because they support or
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
participate in organizing for the Toolmakers Union or
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise wage increases or other
benefits to induce our toolroom employees to forego
support of the Toolmakers Union or other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage our toolroom employees
from membership in the Toolmakers Union or other
labor organizations by promise of benefits or by layoff,
discharge, threats thereof, or other discrimination
affecting their tenure and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT encourage our toolroom employees to
become members of Garment Workers Union or other
labor organization by promise of benefits, or by layoff,
discharge, threats thereof, or other reprisal or discnmi-
nation affecting their tenure and conditions of employ-
ment.
WE WILL Nor contribute support and assistance to
Garment Workers Union or to any other labor
organization of our employees.
WE WILL withdraw recognition from, and wE WILL
NOT recognize, Garment Workers Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of our toolroom employ-
ees unless and until Garment Workers has demonstrat-
ed its exclusive majority representative status in an
election among the toolroom employees conducted by
the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT apply the collective-bargaining con-
tract between ourselves and Garment Workers Union
to the toolroom employees, and we will not give the
contract effect as to them, noting, however, that
nothing in the decision requires us to vary or abandon
the wages, hours, or other substantive feature of our
relations with the toolroom employees established in
performance of the contract, or to prejudice the
assertion by the employees of any rights they may have
thereunder.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the checkoff authoriza-
tions executed by our toolroom employees in favor of
Garment Workers Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Garment
Workers Union, reimburse with interest our toolroom
employees, including former employees, for all union
initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid or checked
off to Garment Workers Union, and wE WILL, jointly
and severally with Garment Workers, pay former
employees Harkness and Pasculli for loss of earnings,
with interest, because of their discharges on both
February 28 and April 23, 1973.
CAPTIVE PLASTICS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building-16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2 100.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act,
we notify you that:
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the toolroom employees of Captive
Plastics, Inc. (hereinafter called Captive) unless and
until we have demonstrated our exclusive majority
representative status in an election among the toolroom
employees conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT give effect to, or request or require
Captive to give effect to, our collective -bargaining
contract as applied to the toolroom employees of
Captive.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
the toolroom employees of Captive in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Captive,
reimburse, with interest, the toolroom employees for all
union initiation fees , dues, or other moneys paid or
checked off to us pursuant to the contract with Captive
and the checkoff authorizations, and WE WILL, jointly
and severally with Captive, pay, with interest, former
Captive employees Harkness and Pasculli for loss of
earnings incurred by them as a result of their
discharges on both February 28 and April 23, 1973.
PLASTIC MOULDERS AND
NOVELTY WORKERS' UNION,
LocAL 132, A/W
INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS'
UNION, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building-16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.