Quiel Bros. Electric Sign Service Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 326 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with more arduous working conditions-
or with a refusal to rehire anyone favoring Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or with closing our plant if the aforesaid Union 's orga-
nizational efforts succeed.
WE WILL NOT post in our plant or distribute to our employees notices inform-
ing them that if the aforesaid Union's organizational efforts succeed "it would
not work to your benefit , but in the long run would itself operate to your
serious harm."
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive
representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and all other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement . The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees , excluding office clerical
employees , floorladies , cutting foreman , guards, and supervisors , as defined
in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of any labor organization.
SAGAMORE SHIRT COMPANY D/B/A SPRUCE
PINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By--------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone
No. 723-2911, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Quiel Bros . Electric Sign Service Co ., Inc. and Local 477, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 21-CA-6026. June 22, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1965, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order and a supporting memorandum.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
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 Trial
153 NLRB No. 28.
QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., INC. 327
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and memorandum, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Quiel Bros. Electric Sign
Service Co., Inc., San Bernardino, California, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order, as so modified :
Immediately after the words "labor organization" in the last para-
graph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, add
the words "except to the extent that this 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 National Labor
Relations Act, as amended."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner David Karasick in Los Angeles,
California, on November 16, 1964, upon a complaint alleging that Quiel Bros.
Electric Sign Service Co., Inc., herein called the Respondent, had engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, herein called the Act.1
Upon the entire record, including consideration of a brief filed by the General
Counsel, and upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a California corporation, with its principal office and place of
business located in San Bernardino, California, is engaged in the fabrication and
installation of electric signs. During the period from July 1, 1963, through June 30,
1964, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, per-
formed services valued in excess of $28,000 for Shel' Oil Company, Wilshire Oil
Company of Calitornia, Mobil Oil Company, and Texaco, Inc., each of which com-
panies annually ships from its places of business in California directly to points
located outside California, products valued in excess of $50,000. During the same
period of time, the Respondent performed services valued in excess of $32,000 for
Michael's Markets, Inc., a corporation engaged in the operation of retail food
markets in the southern California area, with an annual gross income in excess of
$500,000, and annual purchases of goods and materials originating outside California
valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondent in its answer admits, and I find, that
at all times material herein , it has been an employer engaged in commerce and in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 477-, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
I The complaint , issued on August 19 , 1964 , is based upon a charge filed on June 23, 1964.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. The facts
1. Introduction
In 1961 , Ray Quiel , who previously had been an employee of the Valley Neon
Company in San Bernardino , California , entered into business for himself in the
manufacture and installation of electric signs in San Bernardino .2 On October 19,
1961 , after Quiel had established his own shop , he voluntarily recognized the Union
and executed a collective -bargaining agreement with it. At this time , the Union had
entered into a collective -bargaining agreement with only one other sign company in
San Bernardino , Owl Neon Co ., herein called Owl.
On August 8, 1962, the Union entered into collective -bargaining agreements with
four additional sign companies in the San Bernardino area. These companies were
Electric Products Division of Federal Sign and Signal Corp ., Valley Neon , Ontario
Neon Co., and Vaughn Electrical Advertising , herein called Federal , Valley, Ontario,
and Vaughn , respectively . Owl also signed this later agreement with the Union.
Although the agreements were apparently identical in their terms , each company
signed a separate copy of the contract . The contracts which these five employees
executed reflected the union wage rates for the San Bernardino area, which were
lower than the wage rates for Los Angeles . The contract which the Respondent had
signed on October 19, 1961 , contained the Los Angeles wage rates . Because of that,
in August 1962, after the contracts had been signed with the five other San Bernardino
sign companies , Charles Gier , a representative of the Union , informed Ray Quiel
that the San Bernardino wage rate , rather than the Los Angeles wage rate, would
apply to the Respondent and the Respondent would not be expected to pay higher
wages than the other five employers were paying.
2. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority
I find, as the complaint alleges and the Respondent at the hearing conceded, that
all employees engaged in the manufacture , installation , alteration , and dismantling
of electrical and luminous tube displays and neon illumination , including its auxiliary
equipment and structures for the support thereof, stockroom men, and shipping
clerks employed by the Respondent at its San Bernardino , California , plant , exclud-
ing office clerical employees , professional employees , guards , and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The contract executed by the Respondent on October 19, 1961, contained a union-
security clause and was to remain in effect until June 30, 1963, and continue in
effect from year to year thereafter unless either party gave at least 60 days' written
notice in advance of the expiration date of a desire to terminate its provisions. No
notice of termination having been given ,3 the contract by its terms was automatically
renewed and is still in effect.
It may be presumed , and there is no evidence to rebut such presumption ,4 that the
Union had majority status at the time of the execution of the 1961 contract,5 and
that such status continued throughout the duration of the contract and its automatic
renewal.6 Accordingly , I find that , at all times material herein , the Union repre-
sented a majority of the employees in the unit above described as appropriate.
2 In August 1962 the Respondent , which until then had conducted business as a partner-
ship , became incorporated
3 As noted hereafter , the Union 's notice requesting reopening of the contract for the
purpose of negotiating the amendments which are the subject matter of the present pro-
ceeding was given on November 29, 1963
4 Although counsel for the Respondent asserted that the Union no longer represented a
majority at the time of the alleged refusal to bargain , no evidence was offered to support
such assertion . I do not regard as probative in this respect the conclusionary statement
of Ray Quiel who testified that , at the time of the hearing , the Respondent did not have
any employees who belonged to the Union.
8 The fact that only one employee may have then been included in the unit would not
affect the validity of the contract or of the foregoing finding of majority . Louis Rosen-
berg, Inc., 122 NLRB 1450, 1453.
6 Shamrock Dairy, Inc., et at., 119 NLRB 998, 1002.
QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., INC. 329
3. Sequence of events
On November 29, 1963, the Union sent a letter to the Respondent and to each of
the five sign companies in the San Bernardino area who had signed agreements with
it, stating that, pursuant to the 60 days' notice required by the contract, the Union
desired "to open the agreement for the purpose of negotiating an increase in the
wage scales and other changes and additions." On January 21 or 22, 1964,7 Charles
Gier, a representative of the Union, called upon the Respondent and informed Ray
and Gordon Quiel, president and vice president, respectively, of the Respondent, that
a meeting for the purpose of negotiating the contract amendments proposed by the
Union would be held on January 23. The Quiel brothers stated that they would
attend the meeting because they wanted to have something to say about the new
agreement, and Gordon Quiel declared that: "We were the first one to sign the
contract last time, and we'll be the last one to sign it this time."
On January 23, representatives of Federal, Ontario, and Valley, as well as Ray
and Gordon Quiel, met with representatives of the Union. Gordon Quiel stated that
he was there to find out about the new agreement and that if a contract was signed
at all, that the Respondent would be the last one to sign it. The Respondent and the
other employers present agreed that William O'Donnell of Federal would act as
their spokesman during the negotiations. The Union presented its proposals in
writing and a general discussion, in which Ray and Gordon Quiel participated, fol-
lowed. The employers agreed that they would not accept certain proposals of the
Union and that others would be held for future discussion. The meeting ended
without a final agreement having been reached. During the course of the meeting,
Gordon Quiel expressed his dissatisfaction with the provision in the existing contract
regarding travel time, although this was not one of the provisions which the Union
had proposed be amended.
On January 30, the parties again met. In addition to the union representatives,
O'Donnell, the sales manager of Valley, and Ray and Gordon Quiel were present.
At this meeting, offers and counteroffers were exchanged between the parties. The
employers held five or six caucuses at which they discussed between themselves each
of the Union's proposals and decided whether to offer a counterproposal. According
to the undenied testimony of Dooley, the Quiel brothers participated in these discus-
sions and expressed their views on what the employers should or should not offer
the Union with respect to each of the proposals. The Quiel brothers, O'Donnell, and
Dooley unanimously agreed to each of the counterproposals which O'Donnell offered
the Union on behalf of the employers following each caucus which the employers
held. At their last caucus, the employers agreed that they would go no further
and this would be their last offer to the Union. Dooley testified without contradic-
tion that at this point Gordon Quiel stated, "This is it. This is as far as we're going."
Ray Quiel admitted that he and his brother agreed and "just went along" with the
rest of the employers in the last proposal offeied to the Union. When the employers
returned to their meeting with the Union and O'Donnell stated that this was the
employers' final offer, Gordon Quiel commented about the fact that it was "a damn
good wage" which the employers were offering to pay. The union representatives
stated that they would submit the last offer of the employers to the union member-
ship for approval.
At the negotiating session on January 30, the employers requested that a change
be made in the language in two provisions of the existing agreement, one relating to
arbitration and the other to subcontracting. The union representatives stated that
the suggested language would have to be submitted to their legal counsel for approval.
On February 3, the membership of the Union voted to accept the final offer the
employers had made on January 30. O'Donnell was advised that the agreement
reached between the parties on January 30 had been ratified by the union member-
ship and was further advised that the proposed change in language with respect to
the arbitration clause was acceptable except that the Union wished to delete one
section, and the Union asked that the language of the subcontracting clause, which
was uniform in all of its contracts, be retained without change. A short time later
the Union drafted a contract, dated February 1, 1964, embodying the amendments
which had been agreed upon between the parties.8 O'Donnell and Dooley testified
without contradiction that this document contained the agreement which had been
reached by the parties at their last negotiating session on Januaiy 30. Federal, Owl,
Valley, Vaughn, and Ontario each signed the agreement on various dates during
February and March.
'All dates hereafter refer to 1964 unless otherwise specified
8 The agreement provided that it would become effective on February 1, 1964, and
remain in effect through January 31, 1967
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Within the week following February 3, Gier called Ray Quiel and told him that
the members of the Union had ratified the amendments to the agreement and further
told him that the new wage scales which had been negotiated between the parties
were to be effective as of February 1 and should be paid immediately. Quiel
expressed no disagreement. About 2 weeks later, Gier again called and spoke to
Ray Quiel. On this occasion Gier said he had heard that Quiel was not paying the
new wages to his employees, and Gier reviewed what had been agreed to in the
negotiations. Quiel assured Gier that he not only was paying the employees the
wages which had been agreed to during negotiations, but in some instances he was
paying his employees more.
In the latter part of April, Gier brought a copy of the new contract to the Respond-
ent for its signatures. Ray Quiel requested that Gier leave a copy of the agreement
with him so that he might go over it, and stated that he also knew that his brother
Gordon would like to review it before they signed it, and that they would be in touch
with Gier the beginning of the following week. Not having heard from the Respond-
ent by the latter part of the next week, Gier spoke to Ray and Gordon Quiel. Ray
Quiel said that he and his brother had not signed the agreement and that they were
not going to sign it. Gordon Quiel stated that the Respondent refused to sign because
it could not afford to pay the wage scale required by the contract.9
4. Concluding findings
The Respondent contends that its refusal to sign the agreement of February 1,
1964, did not constitute a refusal to bargain because it never agreed to be bound by
the terms of the amendments which were embodied in that agreement
The foregoing facts show that on January 21 or 22, the Quiel brothers told Gier
that they would be present at the negotiating meeting with the Union on January 23
because they wanted to have something to say about the new agreement. The evi-
dence further shows that the Respondent attended both negotiating meetings which
occurred on January 23 and 30; that at these meetings it agreed with the other
employers that O'Donnell would act as their spokesman; that it participated together
with the other employers in considering and discussing the various offers made by
the Union and formulating counteroffers to be presented on behalf of the employers
to the Union; and that the Respondent agreed with the other employers upon the
terms of the final proposal offered on behalf of all of them to the Union. The
Respondent thus actively participated throughout the course of the negotiations and
represented itself as a party to the last offer presented to the Union.
Ray Quiel testified that neither he nor his brother had authority to execute the
agreement without the approval of the board of directors of the corporation. There
is no showing that the Union was ever informed of any such limitation although
the two brothers conducted themselves during the negotiating meetings and there-
after, when the question of the new wage rates was discussed, as cloaked with
ostensible authority to act on behalf of the Respondent. Likewise there is no show-
ing that the matter was ever presented to the board of directors. It is reasonable
to assume that a lack of authority to accept would contemplate an equal lack of
power to reject. Yet there is no evidence that the Quiel brothers' refusal to sign
the agreement required or received authorization by the Respondent's board of
directors.19 On these facts, I cannot find that Ray and Gordon Quiel required the
approval of the Respondent's board of directors to execute the agreement on behalf
of the Respondent.
The fact that the agreement reached was subject to ratification by the membership
of the Union provides no justification for the Respondent's refusal to sign the draft
embodying its terms.11 The record shows that the Respondent and the other
O Ray Quiet testified that he told Gier that the Respondent could not sign the contract
because the Union could not furnish the Respondent with employees when it needed them.
Gier admitted that such it conversation had occurred, but could not recall that the Re-
spondent had advanced this as a reason for its refusal to sign the agreement. In view
of the conclusions reached hereafter, I regard it as immaterial whether the Respondent
assigned its inability to pay the wage scale called for by the new agreement or the Union's
inability to furnish it with adequate help when needed, as the reason for its refusal to
sign the contract, for in any event it now defends its refusal, not upon such grounds, but
upon the ground that it never came to an agreement with the Union.
10 The record shows that the corporate stock is wholly owned by the two brothers, their
wives, and their mother, and that decisions in the day-to-day operations of the business
are made by Ray and Gordon Quiel alone.
11 Colony Furniture Company ( see Aaron Newman , Daniel Newman, Paul Newman and
Carl Newman, a Partnership, 21-CA-4549, 4906), 144 NLRB 1582.
QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., INC. 331
employers involved understood that the agreement would have to be ratified by the
Union's membership and assented to such a procedure. The Union, on the other
hand, was reasonably led to believe that the Quiel brothers, by their conduct, were
empowered to conclude an agreement on behalf of the Respondent. In like manner,
the reservation of the change in language of the arbitration and the subcontracting
clauses in the contract provide no defense to the Respondent's refusal to execute
the agreement, since Ray Quiel admitted that these were provisions in which the
Respondent was not interested and that its main concern was with the wage rates.
Accordingly, I find that Ray and Gordon Quiel held themselves out as having
authority and actually did have authority to negotiate and to agree on the amend-
ments to the contract on behalf of the Respondent; that they joined with the other
employers in making the final offer to the Union on January 30; that the Union
accepted such offer upon ratification by its membership; that an agreement between
the parties with respect to such amendments was thereupon consummated; and that
the Respondent's refusal in the latter part of April to sign the contract, dated Feb-
ruary 1, 1964, embodying such amendments, constituted a refusal to bargain in vio-
lation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE AFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices as
set forth above, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act, refused to bargain with the Union, the duly designated representative of its
,employees in an appropriate unit, I shall recommend that the Respondent, upon
request by the Union, execute the agreement, dated February 1, 1964, the agreement
to be effective from that date to at least the next renewal date as provided therein
following signature, but, if no request to execute is made, that the Respondent bar-
gain, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the previously described appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. I shall also recommend that,
upon request by the Union that the foregoing agreement be executed, the Respondent
give retroactive effect to the terms of said agreement, including but not limited to
the provisions relating to wages and other benefits, and make whole employees for
any losses suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal to execute the agreement.12
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All employees engaged in the manufacture, installation, alteration, and dis-
mantling of electrical and luminous tube displays and neon illumination, including
its auxiliary equipment and structures for the support thereof, stockroom men, and
shipping clerks employed by the Respondent at its San Bernardino, California, plant,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2. The Union, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, has been at all times on and after November 29, 1963, and now is, the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing, in the latter part of April 1964, to be a party to and
be bound by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, dated February 1,
1964, the Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
12 Ogle Protective Service, Inc. and James L. Ogle, an Individual, 149 NLRB 545;
Mixermobile Manufacturers, Inc., 149 NLRB 592.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By the foregoing conduct the Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , it is recommended that the Respondent , Quiel Bros . Electric
Sign Service Co., Inc., San Bernardino , California , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
( a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment , and other terms and conditions of employment , with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the previously described appropriate unit.
( b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any 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, as modified by the Labor -Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request by Local 477, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, execute the agreement, dated February 1, 1964, the agreement to be
effective from the date to at least the next renewal date as provided therein following
signature , but if no such request to execute is made, bargain , upon request , with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the previously
described appropriate unit.
(b) Upon request by the Union that the foregoing agreement be executed, give
retroactive effect to the terms of said agreement , including but not limited to the
provisions relating to wages and other benefits , and make whole employees for any
losses suffered by reason of the Respondent 's refusal to execute the agreement.
(c) Post at its plant in San Bernardino , California , copies of the attached notice 13
marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's authorized
representative , be posted by the Respondent 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 to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.15
"Since notices are customarily framed in the language of the statute and because of
their technical nature are often difficult for employees to understand , I am recommending
that the notice in this case embody the simplified form which appears in the Appendix.
14 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "as
ordered by" shall be substituted for the words "as recommended by a Trial Examiner of"
in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words " a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals , Enforcing an Order of" shall be substituted for the words "as ordered by".
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS, LOCAL 104, ETC. 333
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As Recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, sign the agreement, dated February 1, 1964, which
was submitted to us by Local 477, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, and we will pay our employees all wages and grant them any
benefits they may have lost since February 1, 1964, because of our refusal to
execute the agreement.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 477 as the exclusive
representative of our employees, if no request is made to sign the agreement
of February 1, 1964.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refuse to become or
remain, members of Local 477, or any other labor organization.
QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104,
AFL-CIO and the Fresno Guide, Inc. Case No. 20-CD-138.
June 20,1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by The Fresno
Guide, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D) by International Stereotypers and Electrotypers
Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers. Pursu-
ant to notice, a hearing was held on July 1, 1964, at Fresno, California,
before Hearing Officer James C. Paras. The Employer, the Stereo-
typers, and Fresno Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 159,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Pressmen, appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties filed briefs which
have been duly considered by the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Jenkins].
153 NLRB No. 12.