Crusader-Lancer Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 1, 1963144 N.L.R.B. 1309 (N.L.R.B. 1963) Copy Citation CRUSADER-LANCER CORP. AND R. D. SPICKLER CO., INC. 1309 Crusader -Lancer Corp . and R . D. Spickler Co., Inc. and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-40992. November 1, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On July 15, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged, in and were 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 Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and a "reply" in letter form to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.2 i The Respondents contend in their exceptions that the Trial Examiner's refusal to grant their request for a second continuance of the hearing to enable them to retain counsel, de- prived them of an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing , and that this was preju- dicial error . We find no merit in this contention for the following reasons, ( 1) The Re- spondents ' request for a 1-week continuance for the same purpose had previously been granted; ( 2) Respondents ' president or his assistant was present throughout the hearing and took an active part in the proceeding ; and (3 ) although they presented no witnesses on the Respondents ' behalf, they did cross -examine the General Counsel ' s witnesses. On September 13, 1963, the Union filed with the Board a motion to strike exceptions and brief filed by the Respondents on the grounds that (1) the Union attorney was not served with copies, and (2) the documents in question contain unsupported and ir- relevant assertions The motion is hereby denied The exceptions and brief were served on the parties , as required by the Board 's Rules and Regulations , and, while the exceptions and brief do contain assertions not supported by the record , the Board had not relied on such assertions. 2 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph therein, the following paragraph: Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents , Crusader -Lancer Corp . and R D Spickler Co , Inc, their officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 144 NLRB No. 131. 1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an original and an amended charge filed by the above-named labor organiza- tion on February 20 and 21 , 1963, respectively , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued, on April 1 , 1963, a complaint and notice of hearing, naming Crusader-Lancer Corp . alone as the Respondent . On March 20 and April 19, 1963, respectively, the same Union filed second and third amended charges. On May 21 , 1963, General Counsel issued an amended complaint and further notice of hearing , this time naming R. D. Spickler Co., Inc., as an additional Respondent. Letters dated April 5 and June 5 were received in answer to the complaints. The amended complaint alleges and the letters in answer deny that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . Pursuant to notice , hearing was opened on June 3, 1963, in Putnam, Connecticut , before Trial Examiner Benjamin B . Lipton. At the opening of the hearing George Ford , assistant to the president of Crusader- Lancer Corp ., appearing for the Respondents , requested and was granted a week's adjournment "to secure proper legal counsel ." Continuance was granted upon Ford's definite commitment , as the record shows, to be prepared to proceed on Monday, June 10. On June 10 the hearing resumed before Trial Examiner C. L. Whittemore. At the opening session , in addition to Ford , appearance on behalf of the Respondents was entered by R. D. Spickler , Sr. Spickler requested "additional time to get the funds together in order to get counsel ." He explained that the attorney who "has been representing the company for a period of seven or eight weeks" had withdrawn and "will not re-enter the case without payment of a fee." Both General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party objected to any further continuance. The objection was sustained and the hearing proceeded , Spickler participating fully in the proceed- ings that day. He withdrew at the end of that day, and on June 11, the final day of the hearing, Ford participated on behalf of the Respondents. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally , and to file briefs . A brief has been received from General Counsel. Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Respondent Crusader -Lancer Corp . is a New York corporation with principal office and place of business in Mamaroneck , New York. It also operates a plant in North Grosvenor Dale, Connecticut , where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of immersion heaters and related products . Said Respondent received materials having pan annual value of more than $50,000 at its Connecticut plant di- rectly from points outside that State . It annually ships products valued at more than $50,000 from plant directly to points outside the State of Connecticut. Respondent R. D. Spickler Co., Inc., is also a New York corporation with principal office and place of business at the same address in Mamaroneck, New York, where it is also engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of water heaters and related products . At this plant it receives materials with an annual value of more than $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New York. From the same plant it ships products with an annual value of more than $50,000 directly to points outside the State of New York. The two Respondents are engaged in affiliated businesses with common officers, ownership, directors , and operators and constitute a single integrated enterprise. Their directors and operators formulate and administer a common labor policy affecting the employees of the two concerns. The complaint alleges, the Respondents conceded at the hearing , and it is here found that the two Respondents constitute a single integrated enterprise and joint Employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Only events at the Connecticut plant are herein involved. I. THE CHARGING UNION United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondents at their Connecticut plant. CRUSADER-LANCER CORP. AND R. D. SPICKLER CO., INC. 1311 M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and issues All of the issues involved herein developed shortly after the employees at the Connecticut plant began self-organization in February 1963. Since the Respondents offered no evidence on their own behalf at the hearing, all findings below rest upon undisputed testimony and documents. The alleged violations of the Act occurred after R. D. Spickler, Sr., directed S. J. Mullet, a "superforeman" in charge of the assembly section, in mid-February to tell all employees that if they persisted in their organizational efforts he would have trailers, within 72 hours after the current contract was filled, "pick up all the equip- ment" and "move out of the plant completely." Mullett declined to carry out this directive, and within 2 weeks his employment at the plant was terminated. It is General Counsel's claim that the Respondents: (1) unlawfully discharged employees Canto and Deloge in February to discourage union activity; (2) through their responsible agents threatened employees with economic reprisals; (3) kept under observation union meetings; (4) after the Union had established itself as the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining refused to bargain with the Union by (a) refusing to provide certain data essential to negotiations and (b) insisting as a condition for future bargaining a 120-day "moratorium"; (5) by their unlawful conduct caused an unfair labor practice strike in April; and (6) in May, refused to reinstate, after an unconditional offer to return to work, 21 named unfair labor practice strikers. B. Relevant events As noted above, the following findings are based upon uncontroverted evidence: (1) Employees Robert Deloge and Charles Carito led the organizational campaign, each obtaining union authorization cards from Union Representative John Gould on February 11, 1963. Both employees distributed cards and solicited signatures upon them the next day at the plant. By the afternoon of February 12 almost all of the 21 employees had signed such cards. (2) During the day of February 12 Plant Manager Apelian approached Deloge, accused him of going behind his back to organize, and asked him to destroy the cards. Deloge declined. Apelian then said that if they persisted in organizing the Company would move back to New York. (3) The signed cards were received by Gould on February 13. The next day he telephoned to Plant Manager Apelian, informed him of the Union's majority rep- resentative status, and told him he was sending a letter. (4) It is conceded that management received the Union's letter dated February 14, claiming exclusive representation and requesting a meeting to negotiate an agree- ment. It does not appear that the Respondents replied, in writing, to this letter. On February 13, however, Apelian had told Gould that he could not answer because questions of this kind were handled by the New York office. (5) On both February 13 and 14 Welding Superintendent Dionne and Plant Manager Apelian stood near Carito the greater part of each day watching him. Carito protested such surveillance and said to Dionne, "I know you're looking for some reason to get rid of me because of the Union." He suggested that if his work was unsatisfactory on this new job-to which he had just been transferred-he would willingly go back to his original work where he had no complaints. Dionne walked away. Later on April 14 Carito was called into Apelian's office and was told that someone from the Internal Revenue Service was "putting a lien" on his week's pay- check. Carito promptly called the agent and made arrangements to take care of his debt. (6) Late in the shift of February 15 a foreman from another department came to Carito and handed him a discharge slip signed by Apelian. Canto asked this foreman what it was for. The foreman said he had no idea, he had merely been instructed to give it to him. Carito then asked his supervisor, Dionne. Dionne said he knew nothing about it. When Carito protested that Dionne knew as well as he did that it was because of his union activity, and that he had been doing his work properly, Dionne replied, "Yes, you have been keeping busy. This is not my decision. It's Frank's (Apelian). I don't know what's back of it." Carito tried to locate Apelian, only to discover that he had left the plant an hour earlier. (7) Deloge became ill that weekend, and was under a doctor's care. His wife called the plant Monday morning to report his illness. Monday night Deloge tele- phoned Supervisor Martell, conceded to be a management representative, who told 1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him he had better stay in bed and rest . He recovered and reported for work on Wednesday, February 20, but found no card in the rack. He went to Apelian' s office, who told him he could not go to work without a doctor' s slip. With Apelian's per- mission he telephoned his wife and asked her to communicate with the doctor. Apelian told him to go home and come back the next day with the slip. Deloge protested that he had already lost time, and needed and wanted to work since he was able. Although while in the office Apelian received a telephone call from the doctor confirming the illness , information which was given by Apehan to his superior, Bean, in Deloge's presence, the manager gave Deloge his discharge slip. According to the credible testimony of former Foreman Mullett, while Deloge was out ill he heard Spickler tell Apelian that "that was good enough reason to release him from the plant." It is also Mullett's unchallenged testimony that at no time during his service had he ever heard of failure to bring in a doctor's slip as a reason for discharge. (8) At a meeting of union members held in a local hall on March 14, Supervisor Martell came in, sat down, and insisted that he should remain. Only after consider- able protest did he finally agree to leave. Upon Gould's advice the members at this meeting agreed to hold a strike in abeyance and permit a State mediator to try to persuade the Company to recognize and negotiate with the Union. (9) The State representative prevailed upon Bean, a plant official, to meet with Gould on March 15. At this meeting Bean explained that he was "new on the scene" and that as soon as he was able to "contact" Spickler he was sure all problems could be solved. Gould agreed to come back later. (10) Late in the afternoon Gould returned to the plant, but was told by Bean that he had been unable to reach Spickler. Late that night Bean telephoned Gould, said he had still been unable to communicate with the president, but suggested that if Gould would come to the plant the next day he hoped they could have "definite answers." (11) The next morning Bean informed Gould that Spickler would not be available until the early part of the following week. Gould assured Bean that unless a meeting could be definitely arranged by the following Tuesday, the employees would strike. (12) After other delays and postponements by management, the State mediator finally arranged for a meeting of the parties on March 20. After agreement was reached as to a card check or other methods of proving majority, Spickler refused to sign it. (13) Gould drafted another proposed agreement concerning proof of majority and took it to the plant the next day, March 21. Apelian informed the union repre- sentative that Bean had quit that morning. He said that Spickler was on his way to the plant and another meeting would be held. (14) On March 22 Gould and Spickler signed the following agreement: It is agreed between The Crusader-Lancer Corporation, North Grosvenordale, Connecticut, and The United Steelworkers of America as follows: 1. The Company recognized the Union as sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all of its production and maintenance employees excluding executives, super- visors, the shipper and persons excluded by the Labor Management Relations Act 1947. 2. The Company agrees to meet promptly with the Union for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. The Union agrees that in these negotiations its economic proposals shall be based upon the ability of the Company to pay. The Company shall submit its records to the Union if neces- sary to verify any claims of lack of ability to pay. The Union will grant to the Company, if justifiable, some kind of economic moratorium in these negotiations. 3. This agreement in no way affects the pending unfair labor practice charges which have been filed by the Union. (15) On the same day Spickler requested that the Union waive negotiating meetings during the week in order not to interfere with production, offering instead to meet each weekend thereafter until agreement was reached. The union representative con- sented to this arrangement. The first such meeting was held on March 30. As a result of this meeting Deloge and Carito were permitted to return to work the next day, April 1. (16) Shortly before March 30 Gould telephoned the Company and asked that there be ready for that meeting a list of the employees, their rates of pay, their seniority, and the dates of their hire. It was not ready. Spickler told Gould that he could have it as soon as prepared, early the following week. He called. Ford told him on April 4 that it would be ready for the meeting scheduled for April 6, but that it had been prepared. Gould said he would come by the plant on April 5 and pick it up, CRUSADER-LANCER CORP. AND R. D. SPICKLER CO., INC. 1313 since he needed it in advance of the April 6 meeting. Gould went to the plant, was told by Ford that the list was ready but locked in Spickler's desk to which he had no key. Gould waited for Spickler's arrival. When Spickler arrived he informed Gould that Ford was mistaken, they did not have the data, but that it was on the way by mail from the New York office. Gould waited for the mail arrival-but no letter came. Thereupon Ford sat down with Gould and gave him a few names and facts-about 10 percent of the data requested and promised. Gould suggested that since that day was payday, much of the pay data would be available on that subject, and said he would come back later. He did so, but again Ford said the list was not ready. (17) At the negotiating meeting on April 6 Gould again asked for the previously requested information. He was informed that Ford had been busy and had not prepared it. At this meeting, after the company representatives stated that they could not afford to meet any of the financial proposals by the Union, Gould pointed out that under the law they would be required to submit financial verification of their claim. He made a formal request for such information (18) On April 8 Gould sent Spickler the following letter: At our meeting on April 6, 1963 you suggested that we make some arrange- ments for examination of the company's present financial position. This would be in accordance with Point 2 of the Agreement between the Company and the Union dated March 22, 1963. I have discussed this with the Sub-District Director of our Union and he informs me that you should submit to him for our analysis a detailed financial report of the company at the present time. I would appreciate your complying with this request as soon as possible so that we might resolve the various problems which exist between the company and the Union at the present time (19) Although the Respondents' officials conceded that this request was received, no answer was sent to the Union, nor was any statement of financial condition ever submitted by the Respondent. (20) On April 11 Gould called Ford to confirm the negotiating meeting scheduled for April 13. Ford not only told him that the wage data list previously requested was not yet ready but also that Spickler would not be available to meet on the 13th. Gould pointed out that this violated the verbal agreement made by Spickler and that a strike was probable. Ford simply said that he was "powerless" in the matter. No future date for a meeting was suggested by the Respondents. (21) Gould reported these events to Deloge and Carito, then president and vice president, respectively, of the local. It was decided that unless a definite meeting date should be arranged by the following Tuesday, April 16, the employees would strike because of the Company's unfair labor practices. (22) No meeting date was set by the Respondents, and on April 16 the 21 em- ployees listed herein went on strike. (23) On April 17 the State mediator arranged a meeting. Ford represented the Company, with a letter from Spickler authorizing him to serve as the Respondent's spokesman. Gould again pointed out that information he had previously requested had not yet been furnished. (24) The parties again met on April 18. Gould asked for the wage and financial information. The Company did not produce it. Unable to obtain such information, Gould finally proposed, orally, to waive most of its earlier economic requests and re- open such matters for further negotiations 120 days later. Ford declared that this proposal was plainly fair and said that if Spickler rejected it, he would resign. (25) On April 19 Ford told Gould that Spickler had rejected his proposal and had instructed him not to discuss anything further unless and until the Union signed a full "moratorium." Upon Gould's request Ford then presented him with the following: Moratorium Conditions 1. Length of moratorium is 120 days, from date of acceptance by Union and Company. 2. Any agreement or contract between the Union and Company will not take affect f sic] until the completion of the period of moratorium. 3. There will be no strikes, stoppages, sabotage, malingering, slowdowns or grievances during the period of the moratorium. 4. There will be no wage increases, bonus, or any financial change in any man- ner during the period of moratorium. 5. The moratorium shall be prepared in writing, acceptable to the counsel of the company before signature. 1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This is not to be construed as a contract but only an indication of our willingness to provide employment or continued negotiations. Upon being faced with this document, Gould asked what the last two words-"con- tinued negotiations" meant. Ford explained that he had been directed to tell him that he could not "discuss any item" with hun unless and until he had agreed to the "moratorium" as presented. (26) Gould informed Ford that he believed that making this "moratorium" proposal, as a condition of any further negotiations, was a violation of the Act, and said that there appeared to be no other way than to continue the strike. (27) The same day the Union filed with the Board its third amended charge. (28) By letter of May 18 Gould informed Respondent Crusader-Lancer that the strike had been called off as of Monday, May 20, and that all employees on strike, individually and collectively, desired "to return to work immediately on an un- conditional basis." The Respondents concede that this letter was received the morning of May 20. (29) The 21 employees listed below, named in the complaint, are conceded by the Respondents to have been in strike status on the date of the unconditional offer to return to work: Joseph Sniadack Maurice Raymond Joseph Cloutier Howard Newth Normand Tessier Sheldon Jackson David Woodward Joseph Carito, Sr. Anthony Kruzel, Jr. Ralph Gibson Charles Canto Frank Lopez Joseph Mancini Francisco Rivera Phillip Menard Robert Deloge Fred Ramig Ronald Zannini Ernest Reali Andre Asselin Eugene Gauthier (30) At the hearing the Respondents conceded that at least 12 of the above- named employees presented themselves for work at the plant the morning of May 20, but that all were refused reinstatement . So far as the record shows, the Respondents failed to reply to Gould 's letter of May 18. (31) On May 25 the Company offered one striking employee, Anthony Kruzel, Jr., reinstatement, but he declined the offer. (32) On June 3 , the day the hearing in these proceedings opened and was im- mediately continued , Crusader-Lancer sent 12 of the employees listed above a letter asking them to report for work on June 12 . When the hearing resumed on June 10, Spickler stated that the date June 12 was an error, and actually should have been June 5. (33) In any event, on June 4, Ford communicated with Deloge, head of the local, and told him to have the employees return to work the next morning, June 5 (34) When the employees arrived at the plant the morning of June 5, they found it closed and not operating . During the afternoon of the same day the plant reopened to permit entry of a few nonstriking employees, but none of the strikers. (35) At the close of the hearing on June 11, 1963, only 1 of the 21 employees who had unconditionally sought reemployment-Kruzel-had been offered rein- statement. C. Conclusions In the long history of Board cases it is doubtful if there can be found an account of a more thorough "run-around" given by an employer to a union and his employees than is revealed in this record. The foregoing facts lead inescapably to the following conclusions: (1) In the absence of any evidence submitted by the Employer to the contrary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondents discharged the two union leaders, Carito and Deloge, to discourage union membership and activity. (2) The Respondents concede and it is concluded and found that at all times since February 13, 1963, the Union has been and is the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all employees in a unit consisting of all produc- tion and maintenance employees at their North Grosvenor Dale, Connecticut, plant, exclusive of executives, the shipper, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (3) In the absence of any evidence submitted by the Employer to the contrary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that since February 13, 1963, the Respondents have refused and failed to bargain in good faith with the Union by the following conduct: a. Failing and refusing to furnish the Union , upon repeated requests, with data relating to the financial condition of the Company and related matters necessary for the conduct of negotiations. CRUSADER-LANCER CORP. AND R. D. SPICKLER CO., INC. 1315 b. Insisting on April 18 and thereafter, as a condition precedent to further negotia- tions on any subject, that the Union sign the "moratorium" agreement described herein. (4) The strike began on April 16, 1963, was caused and thereafter prolonged by the Respondents' unfair labor practices. Therefore all strikers, upon unconditional offer to return to work, were entitled to immediate and full reinstatement to their jobs. (5) By failing and refusing to reinstate the employees listed herein, except Kruzel, on and after May 20, 1963, the Respondents further discriminated in regard to employment to discourage union membership and activities. (6) By the above-described refusal to bargain, by the discriminatory discharges of Carito and Deloge and the refusal to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers, by Apelian's threat to Deloge on February 12 of the plant removal if organizing continued, and by the attempted surveillance of a union meeting by Martell on March 14, the Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. It appears to the Trial Examiner that the "moratorium" issue requires scant dis- cussion. While General Counsel concedes that the subject itself may not have been inappropriate for an employer to raise in negotiations, it clearly was violative of the principles of good-faith bargaining to require, as the Employer here did, as a condition of future bargaining, that the Union, in effect, cease for a period of 120 days-a period of 4 months-to represent the employees in any matter relating to wages, hours, working conditions-and even grievances. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondents 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondents unlawfully discharged employees Carito and Deloge and unlawfully refused to reinstate, upon an unconditional offer to return to work, certain unfair labor practice strikers. It will be recommended that the Respondents offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and priv- ileges, all such strikers named herein, except Anthony Kruzel, Jr., who declined reinstatement on May 25, 1963. It will be recommended that the Respondents make whole all such employees, including Kruzel, for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that he would have earned as wages, absent the dis- crimination, from May 20, 1963, to the date of offer of reinstatement. Employees Carito and Deloge, also, shall be made whole for loss of earnings from the date of their discriminatory discharge to the date of their recall. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the extended and continued nature of the Respondents' unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondents Crusader-Lancer and Spickler constitute a single integrated enter- prise and joint Employers within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondents employed at their North Grosvenor Dale, Connecticut, plant, exclusive of executives, the shipper, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a 727-083-64-vol. 144-84 1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act the above-named labor organization has been since February 13, 1963, and now is, the exclusive representative of all employees in the said appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. 5. By refusing, since February 13, 1963, to bargain in good faith with the said labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By discriminating as to their tenure of employment against employees Carito and Deloge, and by refusing immediately to reinstate the employees listed herein, thereby discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondents, Crusader-Lancer Corp. and R. D. Spickler Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees at the North Grosvenordale, Con- necticut, plant, exclusive of executives, the shipper, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. (b) Refusing to provide said labor organization, upon request, with data from their own records necessary for the conduct of negotiations. (c) Requiring, as a condition precedent for future bargaining, the cessation of all negotiations for an unreasonable period of time. (d) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization by laying off, discharging, or refusing to reinstate any employees because of their union membership or activities; or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (e) Threatening employees with economic reprisals to discourage membership in any labor organization , or engaging in surveillance of union meetings and meeting places. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except as such might be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization, as provided by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the above- described appropriate unit, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to the 21 employees listed herein (except Anthony Kruzel, Jr.) to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- CRUSADER-LANCER CORP. AND R. D. SPICKLER CO., INC. 1317 cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the deter- mination of the amounts of backpay due and interest due and the right of reinstate- ment under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at their plant in North Grosvenor Dale, Connecticut, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re- spondents' representative, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the service of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.2 i In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order 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 be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 2 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read* "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE OF 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in and activity on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of our employees because of their union membership and activities, or in any other manner discriminate against them in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic reprisals to discourage mem- bership in any labor organization, nor engage in surveillance of union meetings or meeting places. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except as such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion, as provided by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit described below, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement: All production and maintenance employees of our North Grosvenordale, Connecticut, plant, exclusive of executives, the shipper, professional em- ployees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to the following named employees: Joseph Sniadack Maurice Raymond Joseph Cloutier Howard Newth Normand Tessier Sheldon Jackson David Woodward Joseph Carito, Sr. Frank Lopez Ralph Gibson Charles Carito Phillip Menard Joseph Mancini Francisco Rivera Ronald Zannini Robert Deloge Fred Ramig Eugene Gauthier Ernest Reali Andre Asselin 1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL make the above-named and Anthony Kruzel , Jr., whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. CRUSADER-LANCER CORP . AND R. D. SPICKLER CO., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of ,their right to full reinstatement upon application 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. Anyone having any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 24 School Street, Boston 8 , Massachusetts , Telephone No. Lafayette 3-8 100. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO and Western Electric Company, Incorporated and Diesel Construction Company, Inc.; New York Telephone Company; Communications Workers of America , AFL-CIO; Fischbach and Moore, Inc.; Local 1190, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Parties in Interest. Case No. 2-CD-240. November 1, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On July 12, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondent 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 Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a supporting brief. Western and Telco filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. 1 Respondent contends that (1) the complaint should be dismissed because the Trial Examiner failed to make an independent determination that its members are entitled to perform the work in dispute ; ( 2) In any event, the case Is moot because the disputed work at the Pan American Building , which gave rise to this proceeding , was completed prior to the Board 's issuance of its Decision and Determination of Dispute herein, Local Union 144 NLRB No. 130. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation