Point Blank Body Armor

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1993

312 N.L.R.B. 1097 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1097
312 NLRB No. 167
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR
1 Respondent District 6 has excepted to some of the judge’s credi-
bility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an
administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing the findings.
We find without merit Respondent District 6’s contention that the
Board’s holding in RCA Del Caribe, 262 NLRB 963 (1982), war-
rants reversal of the judge’s finding that Respondent District 6 and
Respondent Employer violated the Act by executing a new collec-
tive-bargaining agreement on June 1, 1990. In RCA Del Caribe, the
Board held that a rival union’s filing of a representation petition
does not, by itself, demonstrate that the incumbent union has lost
majority support, and thus the subsequent negotiation and execution
of a new collective-bargaining agreement between the employer and
the incumbent union in that case was not unlawful. The present case
involves more than knowledge that a rival union has filed a petition
for an election with the Board. Here, the Respondent District 6 and
the Respondent Employer received copies of a petition—signed by
a majority of unit employees—declaring they no longer desire rep-
resentation by Respondent District 6. Thus, as both Respondents had
objective evidence of a loss of majority support for Respondent Dis-
trict 6, their negotiation, execution, and maintenance of a new col-
lective-bargaining agreement was unlawful. See S.M.S. Automotive
Products, 282 NLRB 36, 41 (1986).
We also find without merit Respondent District 6’s contention that
certain undated signatures on the employee petition might be stale,
as virtually all such signatures appear below other signatures dated
between April 20 and 24, 1990.
2 Respondent District 6 asserts in its exceptions that the judge’s
rulings, findings, and conclusions demonstrate bias and prejudice. On
careful examination of the judge’s decision and the entire record, we
are satisfied that these contentions are without merit.
3 We shall modify the recommended Order and notice to include
language contained in the remedy section of the judge’s decision,
and to conform the recommended Order with the remedy and notice.
Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and Local 107, Inter-
national Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union,
AFL–CIO
District 6, International Union of Industrial, Serv-
ice, Transport and Health Employees (Point
Blank Body Armor, Inc.) and Local 107, Inter-
national Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union,
AFL–CIO. Cases 29–CA–14999 and 29–CB–
7687
October 28, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On July 8, 1993, Administrative Law Judge Eleanor
MacDonald issued the attached decision. Respondent
District 6, International Union of Industrial, Service,
Transport and Health Employees (Respondent District
6) filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and record in light of the exceptions1 and
brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,2
findings, and conclusions and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Point Blank Body Armor,
Inc., Amityville, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, and the Respondent, District 6,
International Union of Industrial, Service, Transport
and Health Employees, New York, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph A,1(b).
‘‘Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with District 6 dated June 1, 1990. How-
ever, nothing contained herein shall be construed
as requiring the Respondent Point Blank to vary
the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive
terms of employment established in the contract
or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of
any right that they may have thereunder.’’
2. Substitute the following for paragraph C,1.
‘‘1. Jointly and severally reimburse those employ-
ees who remained or became members of Re-
spondent District 6 after the execution of the con-
tract of June 1, 1990, for sums paid by them or
deducted from their earnings for initiation fees,
dues, assessments, or other obligations of mem-
bership in District 6, with interest thereon as set
forth in the remedy section of the judge’s deci-
sion.’’
3. Substitute the attached notices for those of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT recognize District 6, International
Union of Industrial, Service, Transport and Health Em-
ployees as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of our production and maintenance employ-
ees unless and until District 6 demonstrates its major-
ity status in a Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our collective-bargain-
ing agreement with District 6 dated June 1, 1990.
However, nothing contained herein shall be construed
as requiring us to vary the wages, hours, seniority, or
other substantive terms of employment established in
1098 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The record is hereby corrected so that at p. 88, L. 22, the correct
name is ‘‘Mr. Perry’’; at p. 117 and throughout the colloquy that
follows, the statements were not made by Mr. Greenwald but were
made by Mr. Perry.
the contract or to prejudice the assertion by our em-
ployees of any right that they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from District 6 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of our production and maintenance em-
ployees unless and until District 6 demonstrates its ma-
jority status in a Board-conducted election.
WE WILL jointly and severally with District 6 reim-
burse, with interest, those employees who remained or
became members of District 6 after the execution of
the contract of June 1, 1990, for sums paid by them
or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees,
dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership
in District 6.
POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR, INC.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive representative of
the unit employees of Point Blank Body Armor, Inc.
for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and
until we demonstrate our exclusive majority status pur-
suant to a Board-conducted election among unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Point Blank dated June 1, 1990.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Point Blank re-
imburse, with interest, those employees who remained
or became members of District 6 after the execution of
the contract of June 1, 1990, for sums paid by them
or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees,
dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership
in District 6.
LOCAL 107, INTERNATIONAL LADIES’
GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION, AFL–CIO
Elias Feuer, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard Kirschner, Esq. (Richard Kirschner & Associates,
P.C.), of Washington, D.C., and William Perry of New
York, New York, for Respondent District 6.
Carol MacKenzie, Esq. (Portnoy, Messinger, Pearl & Associ-
ates, Inc.), of Westbury, New York, for Respondent Point
Blank Body Armor, Inc.
Lester Kushner, Esq., of New York, New York, and Leonard
Greenwald, Esq. (Lewis, Greenwald, Kennedy, Lewis, Clif-
ton & Schwartz, P.C.), of New York, New York, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Brooklyn and New York, New York, on
July 27 and 28 and September 24, 1992. The complaint al-
leges that Respondent Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, entered into
a collective-bargaining agreement with District 6 requiring
membership as a condition of employment and the deduction
of dues for District 6 notwithstanding notice that District 6
no longer represented the employees. The complaint alleges
that Respondent District 6 engaged in the same conduct in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Respond-
ents deny that they engaged in any violations of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and District 6 in November
1992, I make the following1
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent Point Blank, a New York corporation, with its
principal office in Amityville, New York, is engaged in the
manufacture of protective clothing and devices. Respondent
Point Blank admits and I find that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act. I find that Local 107, International Ladies’ Gar-
ment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, and District 6, Inter-
national Union of Industrial, Service, Transport and Health
Employees are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Summary and Background
District 6 and Point Blank have been parties to successive
collective-bargaining agreements for a unit of:
All production and maintenance employees employed at
the Employer’s Amityville facility, but excluding all of-
fice clerical employees, professional employees, engi-
neers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On April 9, 1990, Local 107 filed a petition to represent
the unit which had heretofore been represented by District 6.
The collective-bargaining agreement between District 6 and
Point Blank was due to expire on June 4 or 14, 1990. On
1099POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR
2 For some reason, Kushner called District 6 ‘‘Local 6.’’
3 The number of unit employees was established by stipulation of
the parties.
4 Schwartz is not an attorney.
5 Schwartz stated that she had first seen the memorandum dated
April 26, 1990, in early September 1992.
6 The memorandum of agreement typed according to Schwartz’ in-
structions was introduced into evidence as G.C. Exh. 15.
7 The memorandum of agreement dated June 1, 1990, was intro-
duced into evidence as G.C. Exh. 6. There are a number of sub-
stantive differences between the document prepared by Schwartz and
the document signed on June 1, 1990.
April 27, 1990, Local 107 faxed to District 6 and Point
Blank a petition signed by a majority of the unit employees
which stated that they did not wish to be represented by Dis-
trict 6. On June 1, 1990, Point Blank and District 6 entered
into a memorandum of agreement containing the terms of a
successor collective-bargaining agreement including a union-
security clause. The General Counsel contends that at some
time after the receipt of the employees’ petition but other-
wise not specified, William Perry, the president of District 6,
and Richard Stone, the president of Point Blank, signed a
memorandum of agreement which was backdated to show
falsely that it had been signed on April 26, 1990. Point
Blank presented no witnesses at the instant hearing. William
Perry of District 6 testified that the memorandum had in fact
been signed on April 26.
B. The Facts
The evidence shows that on April 9, 1990, Local 107 filed
a petition to represent the unit employees in Case 29–RC–
7607. On April 27, 1990, Lester Kushner, Esq., of the legal
department of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’
Union, AFL–CIO, wrote to President Stone at Point Blank,
stating that Local 107 ‘‘represents a majority of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees employed by Point Blank
. . . and has filed a representation petition.’’ The letter of
April 27, further informed Stone that attached to it was a pe-
tition executed between April 20 and 24, 1990, by a majority
of the unit employees stating ‘‘that they do not want to be
represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Local 6,
International Federation of Health Professionals.’’2 The letter
requested Stone to refrain from negotiations with District 6.
Kushner sent copies of the letter and petition by mail and fax
to Stone, William Perry and their respective current attor-
neys. Point Blank stipulated that it received the letter by fax
and certified mail. The record shows that the Postal Service
delivered the letter by certified mail to Perry’s office on May
3, 1990, and that it was transmitted by fax to Perry’s office
in the afternoon of April 27, 1990.
The petition states in both English and Spanish that ‘‘the
undersigned employees of Point Blank Body Armor, Inc.
give notice that we do not want to be represented for the
purposes of collective bargaining by Local 6, I.F.H.P.’’ The
petition, which was introduced into evidence along with the
W-4 forms and dues-checkoff authorization forms executed
by unit employees, contains the signatures of 85 of the 129
unit employees employed during the week ending April 28,
1990.3
Amy Schwartz testified pursuant to a subpoena by the
General Counsel. Schwartz is a staff member of Portnoy,
Messinger, Pearl & Associates, Inc., the labor relations con-
sultant to Point Blank at the time of the events relevant to
the instant case.4 One of Schwartz’ duties was to assist other
staff members in their work representing Point Blank.
Schwartz testified that on April 26, at 2 p.m., she was at
the Point Blank premises accompanying Murray Portnoy of
her firm at a meeting with Stone. At this afternoon meeting,
she did not see any memorandum of agreement dated April
26, 1990, nor was there any reference to a meeting between
Stone and William Perry earlier that day.5
Schwartz testified that on May 29, 1990, at 3:15 p.m., she
attended a meeting at the District 6 office with Mark Portnoy
of her firm. Stone was there for Point Blank and William
Perry and his son Guy Perry were there representing the
Union. Schwartz had been informed by Mark Portnoy that
the meeting was for the purpose of working out an agree-
ment. During the meeting, William Perry talked about the pe-
tition filed by Local 107, and he stated that the ILG had no
chance of winning; Perry was going to beat the whole prob-
lem and it was not an issue to worry about. Then Perry told
the management representatives the minimum amount that
could be given to the employees and what the ‘‘bottom line’’
should be in the employer’s offer. The parties discussed the
scholarship fund and wages. Schwartz said there was give
and take over the proposals during this meeting concerning
the proposals and the amount of the scholarship fund. The
meeting lasted about 1 or 1-1/2 hours. At the end of the
meeting there was substantial agreement on the terms and the
format of an agreement which was to be executed at a meet-
ing to be held on June 1.
Following the meeting of May 29, 1990, Mark Portnoy
asked Schwartz to prepare a document that would be used
at the June 1 meeting. Schwartz took an old typed document
as a model and wrote a handwritten note to a typist instruct-
ing the typist what changes to make and what wage increases
to insert.6 The memorandum of agreement that was then
typed was dated May 29, 1990.
Schwartz attended the meeting on June 1, 1990, at the
Point Blank premises. Members of the employee committee
were present, as well as William Perry, Stone and Ruth
Thompson, business agent of District 6. Schwartz recalled
that negotiations took place on this occasion, and she be-
lieved one of the issues concerned the amount of the scholar-
ship fund. Eventually, a document was signed but it was not
the memorandum of agreement prepared by Schwartz; it was
a typed document dated June 1, 1990, which Schwartz had
not seen previously.7 Schwartz did not see or hear reference
to any agreement dated April 26 on this occasion.
Point Blank employee Lucrazi Mirchi testified that on a
day in June 1990 she and other members of the employee
negotiating committee attended a negotiation session. Stone
and a man she had never seen before were talking about a
raise. The man wanted 75 cents but Stone said that was too
much money and agreement was reached on 50 cents. At the
conclusion of the meeting, Mirchi and the other employees
signed a document at the direction of Ruth Thompson, busi-
ness agent for District 6. This document is the memorandum
of agreement of June 1, 1990. It was also signed by William
Perry and Stone. District 6 Business Agent Thompson testi-
fied that she was present when this memorandum was signed
and also at a later date when the complete collective-bargain-
1100 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8 At the instant hearing, Thompson testified in response to ques-
tions posed by counsel for Respondent concerning the purported
April 26 document and meeting. Following this testimony, her testi-
mony concerning the document and meeting was striken by stipula-
tion of all the parties. I note that the brief submitted by counsel for
District 6 nevertheless relies on the striken testimony of Thompson;
this is a grave error.
9 Hart Motor Express, 164 NLRB 383, 385 (1967); Presbyterian
Community Hospital, 230 NLRB 599, 602 (1977).
ing agreement based on the memorandum was executed by
Stone and William Perry.
The June 1 memorandum of agreement requires that unit
employees shall remain or become members of District 6 in
good standing, with membership in good standing defined as
the tendering of union dues. The memorandum also provides
for dues checkoff and the remittance of dues to District 6 by
Point Blank.
William Perry testified that he and Stone had negotiated
the terms of a successor collective-bargaining agreement in
February, March, and April 1990, both in face-to-face meet-
ings and over the telephone, and that they signed a memo-
randum of agreement on April 26, 1990. Perry could not re-
call how many meetings he had with Stone before April 26,
and he was not able to say if it was more than one meeting.
A few days before April 26, Perry telephoned Stone and the
two men agreed to meet. Perry testified that Stone arrived at
his office in midtown Manhattan before 10 a.m. on April 26,
and that this meeting lasted for 20 to 30 minutes; the meet-
ing was short because the terms and conditions of the con-
tract had already been worked out. After signing the memo-
randum, Stone left. Perry stated that in addition to Stone,
Business Agent Thompson was with him throughout the
meeting. Neither Stone nor Thompson corroborated this testi-
mony of Perry about an April 26 meeting and the signing of
a memorandum.8 Further, Perry’s affidavit given to a Board
agent on August 21, 1990, states that Stone telephoned him
on April 26, 1990, and suggested that they ‘‘try to see if we
could come to some type of agreement.’’ The affidavit states
that Stone arrived at Perry’s office 1 hour later and that the
two then ‘‘started to get down to business to see if we could
achieve a new three year agreement.’’ According to the affi-
davit, negotiations ensued on wages, fringe benefits, scholar-
ships, working conditions and various other items back and
forth. After about 2 hours, we had an understanding . . . of
what an agreement should be.’’ The affidavit goes on to de-
scribe a telephone call from Perry to his then attorney and
the preparation of a memorandum of agreement which was
signed that day. It is clear that Perry’s affidavit given 4
months after the purported meeting of April 26 differs in sig-
nificant and material respects from his testimony about that
meeting given at the instant hearing.
Perry acknowledged that Thompson had reported to him
that on April 25, 1990, Stone had refused to negotiate with
District 6 because of the pendency of the Local 107 petition.
He nevertheless maintained that the very next day, by pre-
arrangement, Stone came to his office and signed a memo-
randum of agreement. Perry also acknowledged that he had
testified at the hearing in the representation case on July 3,
1990, and that he had presented contracts between District 6
and Point Blank at that hearing in order to gain intervenor
status. At the hearing on July 3, 1990, Perry did not refer
to nor did he present the memorandum dated April 26, 1990,
along with the other contracts between District 6 and Point
Blank.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
As I observed Perry testify, I concluded that Perry was un-
cooperative and did not want to give any information at all
in response to questions posed by counsel for the General
Counsel. Perry routinely denied everything suggested to him
on cross-examination until he was confronted with documen-
tary evidence, often signed or initialed by him, that required
him to change his testimony. Further, Perry’s testimony
about the memorandum dated April 26, 1990, is at odds with
his affidavit given in August 1990, and is at odds with con-
clusions which may reasonably be drawn from other evi-
dence that on April 25, Stone said that he would not nego-
tiate with District 6. Finally, neither Stone nor Thompson
corroborated Perry’s testimony about the purported April 26,
1990, memorandum. I conclude that Perry is not a credible
witness and I shall not rely on his testimony. Thus, I do not
credit any testimony or evidence about a purported memoran-
dum of agreement dated April 26, 1990. I find that the docu-
ment dated April 26 was not executed on that date and that
it was produced at some unknown time to evade the results
flowing from the fact that on April 27 the employees made
it known that District 6 no longer represented a majority of
employees in the bargaining unit.
I shall rely on the testimony of Schwartz who testified
forthrightly, accurately and as completely as her recollection
permitted. I shall also rely on the testimony of Mirchi and
on the record evidence in making my findings of fact herein.
The parties stipulated that for the months of June and July
1990 Point Blank deducted dues from the wages of unit em-
ployees and remitted the amounts to District 6. After July
1990, the Employer deducted the sums and placed them in
escrow. As of July 3, 1992, the escrow balance was
$31,967.05.
I find that on April 27 both District 6 and Point Blank re-
ceived by fax the letter from Kushner and the employee peti-
tion informing them that a majority of unit employees did
not wish to be represented for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining by Local 6. In early May, the Postal Service deliv-
ered copies of the letter and employee petition to District 6
and Point Blank by certified mail. Thus, no later than the
first week of May 1990, both Point Blank and District 6 had
knowledge that District 6 no longer represented a majority of
the employees in the bargaining unit.9 Despite this knowl-
edge, Point Blank and District 6 nevertheless negotiated and
concluded a collective-bargaining agreement on June 1,
1990, which required unit employees to be members in good
standing in District 6, and Point Blank deducted and remitted
dues to District 6. Point Blank thus violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act, and District 6 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Hart Motor Express, supra.
The brief submitted by Respondent District 6 attacks the
reliability of the employee petition in several respects, all of
which I find to be without merit. First, contrary to the Re-
spondent’s brief, counsel for the General Counsel established
the size of the unit for various weeks in April 1990 by stipu-
lation at the instant hearing, and counsel for the General
Counsel introduced W-4 forms and dues-checkoff authoriza-
tions to show the signatures of unit employees. Second, the
presence of dates from 1985 through 1988 next to many of
1101POINT BLANK BODY ARMOR
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
11 If this 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 read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
the signatures shows that the signatories placed their dates of
hire next to their signatures. Third, I do not find any reason
not to count names which were not dated; the list was faxed
and mailed April 27, 1990, and the signatures could not have
been affixed later than that date. Finally, the approximate
number of eligible voters as determined by the Regional Di-
rector for purposes of an election is not controlling herein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By recognizing District 6 as the representative of its
unit employees, by executing a contract when it knew Dis-
trict 6 no longer represented a majority of the unit employees
and by maintaining the contract in effect, Point Blank vio-
lated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
2. By including in the contract a union-security clause,
Point Blank violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
3. By executing and maintaining such a contract in effect,
District 6 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent Point Blank will be ordered to withdraw all
recognition from Respondent District 6 as the representative
of its unit employees, and Respondent District 6 will be or-
dered to cease acting as such representative, unless and until
District 6 shall have demonstrated its majority status pursu-
ant to a Board-conducted election among the employees.
Both Respondents will be ordered to cease giving force and
effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of June 1, 1990.
However, nothing contained herein shall be construed as re-
quiring Respondent Point Blank to vary the wage, hour, se-
niority, or other substantive terms of employment established
in the contract or to prejudice the assertion by the employees
of any right that they may have thereunder.
As it has been found that the contract contains a union se-
curity and checkoff provision, both Respondents must be re-
quired jointly and severally to reimburse those employees
who remained or became members of Respondent District 6
after the execution of the contract for sums paid by them, if
any, or deducted from their earnings, if any, for initiation
fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership
in District 6. Interest on all sums to be paid pursuant to this
decision shall be paid in the manner prescribed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
A. The Respondent, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., Am-
ityville, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Recognizing District 6, International Union of Indus-
trial, Service, Transport and Health Employees, as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees for collective bargaining
until District 6 shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election.
(b) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement
with District 6 dated June 1, 1990.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from District 6,
International Union of Industrial, Service, Transport and
Health Employees, as the exclusive representative of its unit
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless
and until the Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election
among the unit employees.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of reimbursement due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its facility in Amityville, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix A.’’11 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions
as set forth in (b) above, and as soon as they are forwarded
by the Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Union’s
notice marked ‘‘Appendix B.’’
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
B. The Respondent, District 6, International Union of In-
dustrial, Service, Transport and Health Employees, New
York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Acting as the exclusive representative of the unit em-
ployees of Point Blank for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing unless and until District 6 shall have demonstrated its ex-
clusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted elec-
tion among the unit employees.
(b) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent Point Blank dated June 1, 1990.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
1102 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 If this 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 read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount
of reimbursement due under the terms of this Order.
(b) Post at its union office in New York, New York, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix B.’’12 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees and members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient cop-
ies of the notice for posting by Point Blank at all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
C. Both Respondents shall be ordered to:
1. Jointly and severally reimburse those employees who
remained or became members of Respondent District 6 after
the execution of the contract of June 1, 1990, for initiation
fees, dues, assessment, or other sums if any, received by Re-
spondent District 6 in payment of their membership obliga-
tions, together with interest thereon as set forth in the rem-
edy section of this decision.
2. Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have
taken to comply.