Mak-All Manufacturing Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 95 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MAK-ALL MANUFACTURING INC. 95
Mak-All Manufacturing Inc. and Local 810, Steel , Metals, Alloys
and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case No. 2-CA-8018. August 13, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 12, 1962, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
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 recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its own.
1 The General Counsel contends that Foreman Billeci's statement that "he had gotten
the employees . . . a coffee break and hoped to get them a lunch room " constituted a
promise of benefit , and, as it was made in the context of other untair labor practices,
violated Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act. We do not agree, for it appears from the record
that Billeci 's remark was made well before the advent of the Union and not in context
of Respondent 's unfair labor practices found herein
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding upon a complaint issued August 4, 1961, against Mak-All Manu-
facturing Inc., herein also called the Respondent or the Company, involves Section
8(a)(1) and (3) allegations and was initiated by a charge filed June 19, 1961, by
Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein also called the Charging Party or the Union. The hearing was
conducted on various dates between October 9 and 17, 1961, at New York, New
York, before Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman. The General Counsel and the
Respondent presented oral argument and the Respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
13 8 NLRB No. 8.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Mak-All Manufacturing Inc., a New York corporation, with its principal office
and place of business at Long Island City, New York, is engaged in the manufacture
of mechanical components and related products on behalf of other enterprises and
in providing and performing services on various types of products. During the year
ending September 1961, the Respondent in the course and conduct of its business
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess
of $50,000 were shipped directly to points outside the State of New York. During
the same period, the Respondent in the course and conduct of its business purchased
and caused to be delivered at its Long Island City plant raw materials, including
steel, tin, and aluminum, valued in excess of $50,000, of which amount about
$35,000 was purchased at points outside, and in excess of $15,000 was purchased
at points inside, the State of New York. It is found that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
In its essence, the General Counsel's contention is that the Union sought to
organize the Respondent's employees beginning about early May 1961, that the
Respondent countered the organizational activities with certain conduct alleged to
be illegal, and discharged William Nolan and John Colon on May 12 and June 16,
respectively, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent
adduced testimony to the effect that some of the events testified to by the General
Counsel's witnesses did not occur and denied any violation of the Act.
In early May, Colon and employee Walter Williams contacted the Union. Shortly
thereafter Colon met with union organizers on the street in front of the plant, and
union cards passed among them. On this day, according to Colon, he overheard
a conversation between employee Morris Laffer and Rudolph Martiny, an officer
of the Company, which was supposed to have occurred in the plant office about
5 or 6 feet from where Colon was at the time. Further, according to Colon, Laffer
told Martiny that the unionman had given Colon cards and that Colon had distrib-
uted the cards among the men, and Martiny stated that he knew about it and told
Laffer to return to work. Both Laffer and Martiny denied that the event occurred.
The plant office consists of a wood panel base and a glass section above it which
does not reach the ceiling. The door to the office is always open. Aside from the
unfavorable impression made by Colon, Laffer, and Martiny as witnesses, the Trial
Examiner is not convinced that the event occurred. In the setting presented Laffer
and Martiny could see Colon and it would be exceedingly unlikely that in a tone
of voice which Colon could hear Laffer would inform Martiny of Colon's activities
and Martiny would acknowledge his awareness of Colon's activities when to their
knowledge the subject of the conversation, Colon, would have in effect been present.
Early in the Union's campaign to organize the Company's employees representa-
tives of the Union stationed themselves daily in front of the Company's premises.
Prior to the advent of the Union the Company announced a morning coffee break
period between 10 and 10.10. Thereafter during cold weather employees had their
coffee inside and during warm weather some of the men usually went outside to have
their coffee on plant grounds. With the advent of the Union, Foreman John
Billeci told Williams that the Company was paying for the coffee break time and
did not want him to go outside.' Billeci admittedly instructed other employees not
1 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of employee Williams who Impressed
the Trial Examiner favorably as a witness. Billed did not so impress the Trial Examiner
and his testimony is not credited. Billed testified that be did not remember the incident.
The substance of Billeci's testimony as to the coffee break is that the restriction against
leaving the building during that period occurred prior to the advent of the Union because
of a complaint from a neighbor as to cleanliness-a situation which was undoubtedly also
brought about (and probably more markedly) when employees had their lunch outside the
building and which so far as appears was not at any time prohibited-but that some of
MAX-ALL MANUFACTURING INC. 97
to leave the building during the coffee break and also asked Mike Viviani, who is
in charge of the power-press department and a supervisor,2 to pass these instructions
along to the employees.
During the course of the Union's campaign Billeci asked Williams if he had
decided to join the Union. Williams replied that he had not reached a decision.
Billeci declared that Williams would be better off if he did not join the Union, point-
ing out that in the event of a fall-off of work in the power-press department a man
who was classified as working in that department would not be transferred to other
work.3 Billeci admitted that in the course of discussing with the employees the
benefits unions had brought to other shops, he pointed out that he had gotten the
employees at this shop a coffee break and hoped to get them a lunch room. Viviani
admittedly asked employees whether they wanted to sign up with the Union .4
B. The conclusions
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
It is found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Billeci's
change of practice in prohibiting the employees from having their coffee break out-
side the plant when the union organizers were present,5 Billeci's interrogating
Williams as to his union membership and declaring that if the employees at the
Company were organized , men would not be transferred to other work if their work
fell off, and by Viviani's interrogation of employees as to their union interests.
2. The discharges
a. William Nolan
William Nolan was hired on February 15 and discharged on May 12, 1961. On
the morning of his discharge Nolan, Colon, and employee Ralph Valvano were in
the lockerroom talking about the Union. As Nolan was telling Valvano, who was
then a new employee, about the union cards, Viviani entered the lockerroom. When
Colon and Valvano saw Viviani they started to walk away. Viviani then approached
Nolan and told Nolan that he, Viviani, would report to Martiny that Nolan was
trying to hand out cards and stated further that Nolan would be discharged. At
the close of business that day, Martiny handed Nolan his check stating that Viviani
had told him about Nolan and the Union and that Nolan was discharged .6
Martiny's version of the discharge incident, which is not credited, is that he told
Nolan that he was sorry to layoff Nolan, that things were slow in the shop, that
Nolan was one of the last hired in the department, that Nolan should look for
another job, that if Nolan should fail to find another job he should stop by as
possibly they might rehire Nolan if they should get busy. Martiny also testified
that Nolan was selected because Nolan was slow in his work, he would walk away
from his machine, and his production was below the average that was expected of
employees in the power-press department. During the course of the hearing the
the men drifted out while the union representatives were there and that he then again
told the employees not to leave the plant.
2 The Respondent contests the status of Viviani contending that he was a setup man
in the power press department. Billeci admittedly told Viviani to spread the word among
the men about not leaving the building during the coffee break, and also admittedly de-
clared at a meeting of the employees that Viviani had authority to assign men to various
operationt in the power press department. Williams' credible testimony shows that
Billeci alto announced at an employees' meeting that Viviani was in charge of the power
press department and that the men would take orders from him without question.
3 This finding is based upon employee Williams' testimony. For reasons already given
above Billeci's denial Is not credited.
'The General Counsel relies upon the testimony of employee Vincent Rodriguez to
establish that the Respondent through Viviani threatened loss of Christmas bonuses and
overtime If the Union were successful In organizing the employees. Aside from the Trial
Examiner's view of Viviani as a witness, Rodriguez is not considered sufficiently reliable
to base a finding upon his testimony.
6The complaint alleges that this conduct also constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act. As the remedy would be the same under both sections of the Act, the Trial
Examiner is of the view that the above finding Is sufficient.
6 These findings are based upon Nolan's credible testimony. Viviani and Martiny did
not give it favorable impression as witnesses and their denials are not credited . Valvano
too did not give a favorable impression. However, to the extent that Valvano's and
Colon's testimony is in accord with that of Nolan, their testimony is credited.
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent asserted that Nolan's discharge was brought about by a decline in
business and that Nolan was selected for termination upon a consideration of the
following factors, he acted peculiar or in a disturbed fashion in the shop, lateness,
absence, refusal to work overtime, and poor production.
The Respondent did not adduce ordinary business records as to such matters as
order backlogs, production, and total number of employees, which could have de-
cisively disposed of the issue of the need for employees. The Respondent did disclose
from its records the hire and termination date of certain employees at times in 1961
and Martiny and Billeci gave testimony as to their work assignments. The principal
types of work assignments involved, in declining order of skills required, are drill
press operator (machine department), and power-press operator and assembly work
(power-press department). There appears to be some interchange of work assign-
ments between the departments. There is testimony by the Respondent's officials
that the number of employees fluctuates with work orders throughout the year, and
that the business experiences a summer seasonal decline.
From these records and this testimony it appears that Nolan was hired on Feb-
ruary 15 and terminated on May 12, and that Nolan was considered a power-press
operator in the power-press department. The following employees were terminated
around the time Nolan was discharged on May 12. James Gatto who had been
hired on February 7, was terminated on May 3. Gatto was a machinist helper or
drill-press operator in the machine department, who had also done some power-press
work. R. Trani was terminated on May 12, after about a week's employment which
began on May 4. According to Billeci, Trani worked on the drill press in the
machine department and, according to Martiny, worked in the power-press depart-
ment and also did some assembly work. Alvarez Domingo was employed from
January 1 through May 18, and worked on the milling machine and drill press in the
machine department, and at the power press in that department John Nevarez
was employed from April 6 through May 19. According to Billeci, Nevarez was
employed in the power-press department, and according to Martiny at one point in
his testimony Nevarez was a power-press operator and at another point in his testi-
mony Nevarez was a machinist helper in the machine department. The following
persons were hired around the time Nolan was terminated on May 12. As already
noted, Trani worked in the power-press department and was hired on May 4. Ralph
Valvano was hired on May 10 and was terminated on May 19 due to illness Valvano
had been hired to do assembly work in the power-press department and when he
returned to work in July he was given other work assignments. George Cruz, who
had been employed by the Company several times before, was rehired on May 12.
Cruz worked until May 19 when he was terminated as he was unreliable in appearing
for work due to illness. Cruz had only power-press department experience. R. Winn,
who had worked for the Company before, was rehired on May 15 to work in the
power-press department and continued in the Company's employ until September 15.
Jack Taylor was employed by the Company on May 17 and was working for the
Company at the time of the hearing. Billeci testified that Taylor was hired to do
drill press and also milling work in the machine department, but that Taylor works
in the power-press department. According to Martiny, Taylor was hired as a sheet
metal man but this work did not materialize and Taylor was put to work in both the
power-press and machine departments?
It thus appears that on the issue of the need for employees at the time of
Nolan's discharge raised by the Respondent, that the weight of the evidence pro and
con is not substantially more significant on either side. Further, the Respondent
had stronger proof on this issue, namely, records such as order backlog, production,
and total number of employees, and did not choose to adduce these records.$
As to the reasons given in selecting Nolan for discharge, it appears from the
above that Nolan had more seniority than Nevarez and Valvano; there are no busi-
ness records in evidence showing that Nolan was below average in his production
which records would also reflect upon his conduct in the shop; despite the position
the Respondent took as to Nolan as an individual at the hearing, according to
4 Two others were hired on May 17 but as it is possible to explain their hire for non-
business reasons , they have not been considered
No reliance is based upon employee Williams ' testimony that he had told counsel for
the General Counsel in one of his interviews sometime before the hearing that things were
slow at the plant during April, May, and June , and that he, Williams , attributed that to
the volume of work . There is no evidence that Williams then swore that this was the
fact and lie did not so testify at the hearing This is not, however , the situation as to
Williams' testimony regarding work in the power press department in June which is
pertinent in the Colon case and which will be there considered
8 See Interstate Circuit, Inc ., et al v U S , 306 U S . 208, 226
MAK-ALL MANUFACTURING INC. 99
Martiny, at the time of Nolan's discharge Martiny invited Nolan to seek reemploy-
ment with the Company; there is no evidence to substantiate assertions of latenesses,
absences, or that Nolan refused to work overtime. In fact, Viviani admitted that
if an employee does not want to stay to do overtime work, the employee just goes
home, and Billeci admitted that Rodriguez had refused overtime on many occasions
and that he was still in the employ of the Company.
Accordingly, in view of the Respondent's opposition to the Union as shown by its
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1), Nolan's known activity on behalf of the
Union, and the Respondent's unsubstantiated reasons for discharging Nolan, it is
found that Nolan was discharged for the reason Martiny gave Nolan at the time of
the discharge-that Viviani had reported to Martiny on Nolan"s union activities,
and that such discharge of William Nolan on May 12, 1961, was in violation of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
b. John Colon
John Colon was hired on March 13 and discharged on June 16, 1961. About
June 5, employees Colon, Rodriguez, Jerry Attilas, and certain officials of the
Union met with company officials at the latter's office and sought recognition in
behalf of the Union.9 Billeci admitted that he knew that Colon and Rodriguez dis-
cussed the Union with some of the men in the power-press department.
There appears to be no dispute that at the time Billeci discharged Colon on June
16, Billeci stated the reason for the termination was that things were slow. Billeci
testified that Colon was let go because of a decline in work at the time in the power-
press department, that he knew that Colon had been among the employees who had
met with the Company concerning recognition, and that although he did not neces-
sarily follow seniority at,all times, because of Colon's union activity he checked his
records, determined that Colon had the least seniority in the power-press department,
and therefore selected Colon for termination.
In addition to the material given above in the Nolan case, the hire and termina-
tion records and the testimony show as follows. Colon worked in the power-press
department and also in the machine department, and was hired on March 13 and
discharged on June 16. Robert Hall, who had been in the Company's employ since
before the beginning of 1961, apparently left for Army camp on June 16. He was
thereafter reemployed for I day only on July •10, when, according to Martiny, he
quit. According to Martiny, Hall worked in the machine department, and accord-
ing to Billeci, Hall was employed in the power-press department. C. Cortnoir was
hired on June 7 and was terminated on June 19. Billeci places Cortnoir in the
power-press department and Martiny places him in the machine department. Of
greater significance on the issue of the need for employees, is employee Williams'
credible testimony that of about 12 presses in the power-press department, about 5
were working in June.
The above-described hire and termination records and the testimony concerning
work assignments which follows, disputes Billeci's explanation that Colon was
selected for termination because he had least seniority in the power-press department.
Colon, as already noted, was hired on March 13, discharged on June 16, and worked
in the power-press and machine departments. Winn, a power-press department
employee, who had been previously employed from January 9 through February 24,
and from March 6 through April 28, was reemployed on May 15 and remained
an employee until September 15. Manuel Santana, who worked both in the machine
department and the power-press department, was hired on April 10 and was still
employed at the time of the hearing. Taylor was hired on May 17 and was with
the Company at the time of the hearing. Billeci testified that Taylor was hired to
work in the machine department, but that he works in the press department. Ac-
cording to Martiny, Taylor was hired as a sheet metal man, and works both in the
machine and power-press departments. Cortnoir's period of employment was from
June 7 through 19. According to Martiny, Cortnoir worked in the machine depart-
ment; and according to Billeci, Cortnoir worked in the press department. Billeci
testified further that in the next week or so after Colon's discharge on June 16, the
two other power-press operators, Hall and John Dorsch, were let go because things
were slow. Hall, whom ^Martiny described as working in the machine department,
G According to Colon, shortly after this meeting, Lester Wojnar, president of the Com-
pany, who was present at the recognition meeting, called Colon to the office and asked
Colon if he would forget about the Union If Colon received a pay increase and Colon
replied in the negative. In view of the comments made concerning Colon as a witness
and without regard to the Trial Examiner's observations of Wojnar as a witness, Colon's
testimony is not credited
662353-63-vol 138-8
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as already noted, worked until June 16 when he apparently left for Army camp,
he then returned to work on July 10 only and, according to Martiny, quit. Dorsch
who, according to Martiny, worked in the machine department, remained in the
Company's employ until July 14.
Doubts are also cast upon the bona fides of the Respondent's explanation of
Colon's discharge by its unsupported assertions that, among other factors, it con-
sidered in discharging Colon were quality of work performance, lateness, absences,
and uncooperativeness regarding overtime work.
Based upon the foregoing, particularly the Respondent's illegal opposition to the
organization of its employees, Colon's known activity on behalf of the Union, and
the Respondent's unsubstantiated reasons for selecting Colon for discharge, it is
found that the Respondent discharged John Colon on June 16, 1961, in violation of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
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. By descriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of William
Nolan and John Colon, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees as to their union interest and membership , declar-
ing that if the employees were organized in a labor organization certain employees
would not be transferred to other employment in the event of a decline in work,
and changing its practice in prohibiting employees from having their established
coffee break outside the plant when union organizers were present, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in
-violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the manner described in paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law, it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from this conduct.
Having also found that the Respondent discriminated with regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of William Nolan on May 12 and John Colon on June
16, 1961, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent offer each of them
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
-for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from
the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net
earnings to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling
Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344.
As some of the employees involved are Spanish-speaking people, it is intended
that the notice hereinafter recommended to be posted be presented in both English
and Spanish and that the Regional Director provide copies in Spanish properly
translated.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character
striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recommended
that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
MAK-ALL MANUFACTURING INC. 101
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent,
Mak-All Manufacturing Inc., Long Island City, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware
Fabricators and Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by engaging in discrimination in regard to their hire or tenure or
any term or condition of employment, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by engaging in the conduct described in
paragraph 2 of the conclusions of law.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist a labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer William Nolan and John Colon immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole in the manner set forth
in a section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant at Long Island City, New York, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
10 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
11 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 TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys
and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by engaging in discrimination in regard
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to our employees ' hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment,
except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
Wit WILL NOT question our employees as to their union interest or member-
ship, tell our employees that if they were organized into a union and there was
a slack in work some employees would not be transferred to other work at the
shop, change our practice of permitting our employees to have their coffee break
outside when union organizers are present , or in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to join or form a labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or pro-
tection , or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
WV, WILL offer William Nolan and John Colon immediate and full reinstate-
ment 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 pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
MAK-ALL MANUFACTURING 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 after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 745 Fifth
Avenue, New York 22, New York, Telephone Number, Plaza 1-5500, if they have
any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local 107, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common
Laborers' Union of America , AFL-CIO; and Northwest Arkan-
sas Building Trades Council , AFL-CIO and Texarkana Con-
struction Company. Case No. 26-CP-3. August 13, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 27, 1961, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report, finding that Respondent had not violated Sec-
tion 8 ( b) (7) (C) as alleged in the complaint and recommending that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety , as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions
with a supporting brief. 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 brief , and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
138 NLRB No. 10.