Nassau Printing Machinery Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

NASSAU PRINTING MACHINERY 1
Nassau Printing Machinery Co., Inc. and Carlos Mack-
ey. Case 29-CA-2586
September 14, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On April 13, 1972, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, General Counsel filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-
exceptions and a brief in support of its exceptions and
in opposition to the exceptions of the General Coun-
sel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions
and briefs and finds, consistent with Respondent's
exceptions, that the complaint should be dismissed.
The Board has therefore decided to affirm the Trial
Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to
the extent consistent herewith:'
As noted by the Trial Examiner, this case in-
volves "a small mom and pop machine shop which is
benevolently if informally operated" by members of
the Signorelli family. The Signorelli women own the
stock and one or more of them perform the corporate
record-keeping functions. The elder Signorelli and his
two sons work at the plant and manage its day-to-day
operations. The Charging Party, Carlos Mackey, is a
former employee who voluntarily quit his job after a
5-year tenure and thereafter filed the 8(a)(3) charge
initiating this proceeding.
The complaint alleged that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing to com-
pensate Mackey in accord with the terms of its bar-
gaining agreement with District 15 of the IAM
because Mackey was not a member of that Union.
The Trial Examiner sustained the complaint, finding
that Mackey was a member of the unit and that he
was discriminated against insofar as (1) no payments
were made in his behalf to the union pension and
welfare plans and (2) he received overtime credit at
time-and-a-half, rather than the double time rate
1 In In. 2 of his Decision , the Trial Examiner inappropriately departed
from the performance of his judicial functions to voice objections to the
reprimand administered to him by the Board in Fotochrome, Inc., 146 NLRB
1010, In 1 , a totally unrelated case. We disavow his comments for the same
reasons as were expressed in Fotochrome, supra, and by reason of their inap-
propriateness here.
called for by the contract. Conceding that it had not
compensated Mackey nor provided benefits for him
equal to those described in the contract, Respondent
claimed that its sole reason for not doing so was that
Mackey was not intended by either party to have been
covered by the contract and that, since the exclusion
was not for discriminatory reasons, Respondent is
guilty of no violation of either Section 8(a)(1) or (3)
of the Act. We find merit in the Respondent's excep-
tions.
As reflected in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
more critical evidentiary facts were depicted, in the
main, by two witnesses-Michael Signorelli, the elder,
and Carlos Mackey. Both of them were characterized
by the Trial Examiner as "truthful" witnesses who
were nonetheless "incapable of clear and coherent
communication." The factual picture which emerged
in large part from their testimony and in some part
from other credited evidence, plainly reveals that
throughout the 5-year period of his job tenure Mackey
enjoyed a unique and unusual relationship with his
employers of a kind not shared by Mackey's fellow
workers. Mackey rented a house from Signorelli un-
der an arrangement whereby Mackey's rent was de-
ducted from his pay. Mackey was chauffeured to and
from work by one of Signorelli's sons. Signorelli had
frequent occasion to "fire" Mackey or send him home
because he was too drunk to work, but always rehired
him. During periods when Mackey was on absent-
employee status, Mackey was nevertheless credited
for hours he didn't work. During periods of on-the-job
status, Mackey worked longer and different hours
from those regularly scheduled for other employees.
When hired, Mackey was given the job title of
machinist-helper, but in fact he was assigned to do a
variety of odd jobs both inside and outside the shop,
including but not limited to giving machinists a hand
in moving machinery from one plant to another. As
appears in the record, neither the character of his
work assignments nor the title given his job was ever
changed throughout the course of his employment.
The union contract-one dated some 3 years af-
ter Mackey was initially hired-concededly excluded
the machinist-helper classification. There was never a
demand by the Union for his inclusion, and there is
no allegation in the complaint of any 8(a)(5) violation
by reason of the Union having been denied any re-
quest to represent Mackey as a part of the recognized
unit. The complaint and the Trial Examiner's findings
appear to rest on the theory that Respondent failed to
give Mackey a job title falling within the unit de-
scribed by the contract but his proper job classifica-
tion would put him in the unit and therefore failure
to give him the contractural benefits occurred because
Mackey was not a member of the Union. The Trial
Examiner found the theory supported by evidence
199 NLRB No. 2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
establishing that Respondent designated two other
employees, whose assigned tasks were in many re-
spects similar to many, if not all, of those assigned to
Mackey, by job titles which brought them within the
bounds of the contract unit as interpreted by the par-
ties. The result was that both these employees ac-
quired union membership, inasmuch as the contract
contained a compulsory union-shop provision which
required that employees covered by that contract had
to join the Union within 30 days as a condition of
continued employment. The Trial Examiner also re-
lied on testimony that Signorelli once told Mackey
that if he stopped coming to work drunk, he (Signorel-
li) "would put Mackey in the Union."
We find the Trial Examiner's rationale unpersua-
sive. There is no question that Respondent treated
Mackey differently than other individuals whom it
employed, but there is no evidence that Respondent
did so for any union-connected reason. Nor was the
effect of Respondent's unequal treatment of Mackey
either to encourage or discourage the exercise of his
Section 7 rights. The record instead shows that Mack-
ey was treated by the Employer as a nonunit employ-
ee, historically and with the tacit assent of the Union,
because of the personal circumstances of his employ-
ment, rather than his membership or nonmembership
in District 15 of the IAM. Mackey neither sought nor
avoided membership, and the Union at no time ex-
pressed an interest in his status. There are often em-
ployees who have special status for one reason or
another-the casual nature of their employment
hours, their personal or family relationships to the
owners, or the like-who are, by agreement, excluded
from bargaining units and from contract coverage.
There is nothing illegal in such arrangements, unless
the exclusion is shown to have been caused for stat-
utorily proscribed reasons. Nor is a different conclu-
sion required by the fact that if we were asked to rule
on the question in a representation proceeding or
upon petition for unit clarification, the similarity of
the duties of such persons to those performed by oth-
ers might lead us to include such persons in a unit.
Here, the only testimony that any mention had
ever been made of Mackey's lack of membership in
the Union was the remark of Signorelli that if Mackey
stopped coming to work drunk, Signorelli "would put
him in the Union." However, in context, the meaning
of this remark not only fails to establish any illegal
intent underlying his exclusion from contract cover-
age, but instead negates such an intent. For it is clear
that what Signorelli intended was that if Mackey
could solve his drinking problem, he could have reg-
ular employee status, so that he would be covered and
get the benefits of the contract, whereupon he would
be subject to the union-security clause and thus put
"in the Union." If this testimony is to be afforded
weight, therefore, it establishes that he was excluded
from the benefits applicable to other employees be-
cause of his drinking habit-a reason clearly unrelat-
ed to his lack of union membership.
Thus, in the absence of any proof that Mackey's
exclusion from the contractual unit was discriminato-
rily motivated, we find no violation of either Section
8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3) of the Act, and we shall dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was
brought before the National Labor Relations Board upon:
1. A charge against Nassau Printing Machinery Co.,
Inc., herein Nassau or the Respondent, by Carlos Mackey
filed on October 27, 1971.
2. A complaint issued by the General Counsel against
Nassau alleging Nassau discriminated between union and
nonunion employees in the application of the terms of a
collective-bargaining contract in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, dated December 3, 1971.
A hearing was held before me at Brooklyn, New York,
on March 13, 1972. Upon the entire record in this case and
from my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I
make the following:
Findings and Conclusions
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Nassau, a New York corporation, maintains its princi-
pal place of business at Elmont, New York, where it is
engaged in moving, repairing, and erecting machinery for
various business enterprises. During a representative 12-
month period, Nassau performs services valued in excess of
$50,000 for enterprises which are located outside the State
of New York or which produce and sell goods valued in
excess of $50,000 annually outside the State of New York.
Nassau is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Eureka Lodge No. 434 of Distnct Lodge No. 15, and
District Lodge No. 15, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein Lodge
434 and District 15, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
NASSAU PRINTING MACHINERY 3
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Evidence
1. Background
Nassau is a family-owned corporation and the shop is
managed by Michael Signorelli, who has no formal title. His
two sons, Michael B. and George, work at the plant as
machinists. His wife Marion is president of the corporation
and with the two daughters-in-law operates its office, locat-
ed at 150 Central Avenue, Farmingdale, New York.
Nassau and District 15 entered into a collective-bar-
gaining contract (G.C. Exh. 2) which was effective from
June, 1969, to May 31, 1971.1 The unit covered by this
bargaining contract is described therein as:
ARTICLE 1.... all Production and Maintenance em-
ployees in the bargaining unit, as set forth in Article 7,
Subdivision (D) of this Agreement.
Article 7 (D) covers the following classifications:
OUTSIDE MACHINISTS
OUTSIDE LEADMEN
INSIDE MACHINISTS
INSIDE FOREMEN
SPECIALIST (on Kelly's small automatic and job
presses).
INSIDE CLEANERS
OUTSIDE CLEANERS
This contract in addition to its wage provisions also provid-
ed for:
1. Eleven paid holidays.
2. Three days sick leave with pay.
3. Ten days paid vacation for employees working 1250
hours in the past and preceding year.
4. Double time for overtime.
5. A contribution by the Employer of $35 per month for
each employee to the District 15 welfare fund.
6. A contribution by the Employer of $2.40 per day to
the District 15 pension plan.
The contract also contained a union-security clause requir-
ing all employees in the bargaining unit to become members
of District 15.
2. The issues
The complaint alleges Nassau refused to provide the
contract benefits set forth above to employees who were not
members of Lodge 434 or District 15, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Nassau alleges that (1) all employees in the bargaining
unit received the same benefits and (2) Mackey was not
included in the bargaining unit and was not, therefore, enti-
tled to the benefits.
3. The job classification of Mackey
An immediate difficulty presented in reviewing the tes-
timony in this case is that much of it is confused, contra-
dictory and unintelligible. It is, however, free from the taint
of perjury which so commonly is found in proceedings
brought under Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act .2 I found
the witnesses truthful, but particularly with respect to Mi-
chael Signorelli and Mackey, incapable of clear and coher-
ent communication.
Mackey testified that he started working for Nassau in
1966; that he was employed as a machinist's helper and that
so far as he knew he was employed as a helper when he quit
in October, 1971? Machinist's helpers were not covered by
the collective-bargaining agreement. It is the contention of
the General Counsel, however, that Mackey was in fact
employed as a cleaner and entitled to all the rights and
benefits of the contract as they applied to cleaners. Mackey
received $3.43 per hour.4
Mackey further testified that he worked at taking a
machine apart, keeping some parts for junk and putting
some parts on the truck. He also cleaned and painted parts,
worked on the truck, helped load and unload the trucks, and
changed tires. He stored parts in the bins, first making sure
they were clean, and ground burrs off parts. His outside
work consisted of helping a machinist in moving machinery
from one plant to another. This might require removing
parts, loading machinery on the trucks, jacking and winch-
ing the machinery, lashing it down and then when the desti-
nation was reached, unloading the machinery and
reassembling it. He worked with George Signorelli and Al
Read, both of whom were machinists. Two other employees,
Richard Prete and Abe Ward, did work similar to the work
he was doing. Prete, as I understand the testimony, was a
member of District 15 and Signorelli "put" Ward in. Both
received the contract benefits provided for cleaners.
George Cerullo, a machinist employed by Nassau, tes-
tified that he had opportunity to observe Mackey at work
and that he loaded the truck, polished and painted parts and
that on outside jobs he would help in the loading and un-
loading and the disassembling and assembly of machinery.
He would always work under the guidance of a machinist
and, in general, performed the same work as Prete and
Ward.
Joseph P. Armao, secretary-treasurer of Lodge 434,
was called by Nassau and testified that it was the duty of
outside and inside cleaners to clean parts, paint parts, and
grind off burrs.
Michael Signorelli, called by the General Counsel un-
der Rule 43-B, testified that he and his sons ran the plant
as "one happy family" and that each had supervisory au-
thonty as defined in the Act. He hired Mackey as a laborer
and helper in 1966 and stated he cleaned and stored parts,
helped in loading and unloading trucks, and did general
maintenance work in the shop. When he was sent out it was
with a machinist whom he helped in loading and unloading
2 The Board takes a reasonably tolerant view toward perjury in its proceed-
ings stating that "two witnesses may give different accounts of the same
factual situation without committing perjury, because differences may rea-
sonably be expected when truthful witnesses give their version of events in
which they are emotionally involved." Fotochrome, Inc, 146 NLRB 1010. In
that case witness A testified that witness B initialed a contract in his presence
Witness B testified that he never initialed the contract at any time and that
the initials were a forgery The Trial Examiner was reprimanded for intimat-
ing that one of the witnesses was lying under oath.
7 Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1971
i It was stipulated that the contract was extended from May 31, 1971, ° The contract rate for inside cleaners was $3 .23 and $3 78 for outside
through October, 1971. cleaners
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machinery and in disassembling and assembling it. Al-
though he admitted Mackey cleaned parts he did not con-
sider him a cleaner, but a helper, the same classification he
applied to Prete and Ward who did the same work.'
Michael R. Signorelli, the son of Michael, testified that
Mackey was employed as a cleaner and a polisher and that
his classification was cleaner.
4. The discrimination against Mackey
The claim of discrimination rests on the alleged failure
of Nassau to provide Mackey with the following contractual
benefits:
1. Payments to the welfare fund and pension plan
maintained by District 15.6
2. Paid holidays as required.
3. Paid vacation as required.
4. Sick leave.
5. Double time for overtime.
It is, as I understand the record, conceded that no
payments were made to either the welfare fund or the pen-
sion plan on behalf of Mackey and that the only reason
given was that he was not a member of District 15.
I find no evidence that Mackey was not given the same
holidays as the other employees. In fact, considering the
nature of his work, it would have been impossible for him
to work on days when the other employees were not work-
ing. Nor is there evidence that he was not paid for these
holidays.
The contract called for a 37-1/2-hour week with the
work day starting at 8 a.m. and ending a 4 p.m. with one-
half hour for lunch. Mackey testified that he arrived at the
plant at about 7:30 a.m. and frequently did not leave until
4:30 or 4:45 p.m. particularly if he was on outside work.
Since there was no timeclock at the plant, his exact report-
ing and quitting times cannot be established. Marion Signo-
relli, president of Nassau, testified that she kept the time
records and credited the men with whatever hours they gave
her. She did testify that when Mackey had earned overtime
it was credited at time and one-half against time which was
credited to him but which he did not work.? Mackey's time
sheets for 1971 B show weeks in which he did not receive full
pay (presumably due to absenteeism) but show no weeks in
which he received more than 40 hours. It is, therefore, im-
possible to determine from the time records whether or not
he was fairly credited with overtime. (The same would be
true for the other employees assuming their records were
kept in the same form .) The other employees were given
double time credit for overtime worked.
Mackey testified that during his employment in 1971
he estimated he worked 3-1/2 to 4 hours of overtime each
S Prete and Ward , however, did receive the contract benefits, one of the
inconsistencies nowhere explained
6 Articles 19 and 21 of the contract . An additional difficulty provided by
the case is the fact that the administration of the contract was characterized
by laxity if not by complete neglect . Although Mackey was employed for 5
years, he was never required tojoin District 15 and he testified that he "never
seen" a union representative in that time
7 The contract required double time for overtime Mrs Signorelli testified
that she credited Mackey with time and one-half instead of double time,
because he was not covered by the contract
'G C. Exh No. 5
week. This is purely speculation based on the fact that he
often started before 8 a.m. and worked later, but there is
evidence that in the operation of this "happy plant" the
other employees, including the Signorellis and Cerullo, also
started before 8 and worked after 4. Cerullo testified that he,
too, had his overtime credited against time he took off,
which was the way he wanted it, but at double time rate.
Michael Signorelli testified that he hired Mackey, fired
him, or sent him home on frequent occasions because he
was too drunk to work, always rehired him, and rented the
house in which Mackey lived to him. (The rent was deduct-
ed weekly from Mackey's pay.) Signorelli, in fact, testified
that he told Mackey that if he would stop coming to work
drunk, he (Signorelli) would put him in the union.' As to
overtime, Signorelli's testimony agreed with that of his wife,
that Mackey was credited with overtime against the time he
took off. Apparently Mackey's overtime credits never ex-
ceeded his time-off debits for he never received cash pay-
ments for overtime.
The time records also indicate that Mackey received I
week's vacation in 1971. The contract required two. Mackey
testified that when he asked for his vacation Signorelh told
him he was not entitled to any because he was not a member
of the union.
Signorelli testified that he felt Mackey was not entitled
to vacation pay because he was not a member of the union
and gave him the 1 week's pay when he quit in October as
an act of charity and to stop the argument.
The records do not indicate that Mackey received any
sick pay in 1971. Neither is there any evidence that Mackey
was sick at any time other than Signorelli's testimony that
he was sent home drunk on occasion. Signorelli did testify
that Mackey was not entitled to sick pay because he was not
a member of the union and also because he was not charged
with the time lost through drunkeness.10
In his opening statement the General Counsel stated
that he intended to prove, in addition to the other grounds
of discrimination, that Mackey was not paid the contract
rate for cleaners. This issue was not specifically alleged in
the complaint and the only evidence in the record indicates
that Mackey was paid $3.43 per hour. The contract rate was
$3.23 for an inside machinist and $3.78 for an outside clean-
er. What the record does not show is the basis on which
Mackey's rate was computed nor the rate of pay of the two
union members, Ward and Prete, who did comparable
work.
I do not, therefore, consider this issue fully litigated
and make no finding thereon.
B. Conclusions
It is lamentable that this "mom and pop" machine
shop, benevolently if informally operated, should fall into
the tentacles of federal bureaucracy but we are confronted
with the record. The General Counsel has been given an
almost impossible task, in view of Nassau's recordkeeping
9 Signorelli's testimony as to Mackey's dunking was corroborated, at least
in part , by Cerullo, who also testified that all the men in the shop drank. The
distinction between dunking and drunkeness , however, is not a narrow one.
While the former may be tolerated, the latter may not, at least on the job
10 G C Exh 5 indicates that Mackey was not paid for a full week on several
occasions during 1971 but does not establish the reason.
s
NASSAU PRINTING MACHINERY
laxities and the failure of Lodge or the District to police the
contract for violations, to make a firm case.
As to Mackey's proper job classification, we have no
job descriptions to rely upon but only the oral testimony,
not free from contradiction, of the witnesses. Nor is the
Examiner helped by Mackey's testimony that he was hired
as a helper and remained a helper and Michael B.
Signorelli's testimony that he was a cleaner. Since I have no
definition of helper to provide any criteria for Mackey's
work, the sole issue is whether he could be classified as a
cleaner.
I find that he can, by reason of the general testimony
that he assisted in the disassembling of machinery and,
more particularly, that he did perform the cleaning opera-
tions on machine parts and removed the burrs when re-
quired.I I
With respect to discrimination in his terms of employ-
ment, I find Nassau engaged in such discrimination by fail-
ing to make payments on his behalf to the Pension Plan and
Welfare Fund and by granting him only one vacation for
the year 1971 when the contract entitled him to two. Ac-
cordingly, I find that in this respect, Nassau violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. I further find that Nassau violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act by crediting Mackey with only 1- 1/2
hours for overtime worked instead of the contract rate of
double time.12
I find that the General Counsel has not sustained his
burden of proof with respect to the allegation that Nassau
discriminated against Mackey by failure to grant him sick
leave or to pay him for holidays, in the absence of evidence
that he was denied sick pay or holiday pay.
Upon the foregoing findings, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating against Mackey, employed in the
bargaining unit, by not making payments to the pension
plan and welfare fund of District 15, by refusing to grant
him 2 weeks vacation, and by crediting with 1-1/2 hours
worked in overtime instead of double time, all as required
by the contract between District 15 and Nassau, Nassau
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
3. Nassau did not violate the Act by denying Mackey
either sick pay or holiday pay.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Nassau cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices found above.
Because an order directing Nassau to make payments
to the welfare fund and the pension plan would only enrich
those funds without benefit to Mackey and since direct
payment to Mackey of said sums due the fund and plan
would enrich him beyond his entitlement,13 no affirmative
11 This grinding is disputed but both Mackey and Michael B. Signorelh
testified that he did some grinding Michael testified , in fact, that Mackey
was a cleaner and polisher.
12 These facts are not in dispute.
13 Armao testified that Mackey , on his length of service , would have ac-
5
order will be recommended.
I shall recommend that Nassau offer the sum of I
week's pay with interest to Carlos Mackey to make him
whole for the loss of I week's vacation by reason of the
discrimination practiced against him. Interest on said sum
to be computed from October 9, 1971, with 6 percent inter-
est from said date.
With respect to the loss resulting from a proper compu-
tation of Mackey's overtime, I know of no formula which
could be expected to provide an equitable remedy. It is true
that Nassau's bookkeeping procedures are largely respon-
sible for making such computation impossible, but it is also
true that the employees, including the union members, ac-
quiesced in its method of timekeeping and may have prof-
ited by it. If one is to accept the benefits of informal working
conditions, one must also accept the hazards.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:14
ORDER
Respondent, Nassau Printing Machinery Co., Inc.,
Elmont, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to make payments to the welfare fund or
the pension plan maintained by District 15 as required by
said contract on behalf of any employee in the bargaining
unit because he is not a member of said labor organization.
(b) Refusing to grant any employee in the bargaining
unit the vacation pay and the overtime rate provided for in
said contract because he is not a member of said labor
organization.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing any employee in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer Carlos Mackey 1 week's vacation pay for the
year 1971 with interest at 6 percent per annum thereon to
be computed from October 9, 1971.
(b) Post at its place of business at Elmont, New York,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appen-
dix."t5 Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being duly
signed by their representatives, be posted by them imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for a
period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspic-
uous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by them to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered
by any other material.
quired no vested rights in the Pension Plan
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
15 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."
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what
steps he has taken to comply herewith.16
It is further recommended that the complaint, as to all
allegations not found to have been in violation of the Act,
shall be dismissed.
16 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
of any employee in the bargaining unit because he is
not a member of Eureka Lodge 434 or District 15.
WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to grant to any employee
in the bargaining unit the vacation pay and the
overtime rate provided in any collective-bargaining
agreement with said union.
WE WILL offer Carlos Mackey the sum of 1 week's
vacation pay due him for the year 1971 with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum from October 9, 1971.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to make payments to the
welfare fund or the pension plan of District Lodge 15,
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers , AFL-CIO, as required by our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with District 15, on behalf
Dated By
NASSAU PRINTING MACHINERY CO.,
INC.,
(Employer)
(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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3750.