R.E.D.M. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1029 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

R.E.D.M. CORPORATION 1029
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.?
I further recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act other than those found in this Decision.
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity on behalf of Baltimore
Building and Construction Trades Council, or any of its affiliated labor organi-
zations, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminating against employees
in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union sentiments and
activities, or threaten them with reprisals if any labor organization organizes our
plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act,
or to refrain from the exercise of any or all of such rights, except to the extent
that such rights 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.
WE WILL offer Charles J. Herbert immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him.
CAPLAN BROTHERS GLASS CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Charles J. Herbert if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
R.E.D.M. Corporation and Faye Fiduccia . Case No. 22-CA-
17J3. November 24, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 26, 1964, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
149 NLRB No. 98.
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Jenkins].
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 Decision,
the exceptions, the brief, 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 Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, R.E.D.M.
Corporation, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
1 The Board includes as part of its Order the Armed Forces provision now appearing in
the Notice to All Employees attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on October 22 and 23, 1963, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint , dated December 5, 1963, against
R E.D M. Corporation , herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , herein called the Act The Respondent filed an answer on Decem-
ber 19, 1963 , in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint,
but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie at Newark , New Jersey,
on March 4 and 5, 1964. After the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Both from the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
R.E.D.M. Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and plant
in Wayne, New Jersey It is engaged at said plant in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of mechanical and electromechanical devices and related products.
During the period of 12 months preceding the date of the complaint herein, the
Respondent caused to be manufactured , sold, and distributed at its said Wayne plant
products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000
were shipped from said plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United
States other than the State of New Jersey.
The complaint alleges, the Respondent's answer admits, and the Trial Examiner
finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
R.E.D.M. CORPORATION
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
1031
International Union of Electrical , Radio , and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
called the IUE , and International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace , and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the UAW, are
labor organizations which admit to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The parties herein stipulated to the following facts:
On December 14, 1962, the UAW petitioned the Board for an election at the
R.E D M. Corporation;
On the 15th of January, 1963, the election was held in which the vote was 82
for no union and 41 for the UAW;
On the 18th of November , 1963, the UAW filed an RC petition in case No.
22-RC-2299; they also filed an RC petition on the 18th of December , 1963, in
22-RC-2333;
On the 4th of February , 1964, an election was held with respect to the con-
solidated petitions;
The initial result of that election was 37 for the UAW, 33 for the IUE, who
had intervened , 8 for no union , and there were 7 challenges ; three 83's were
among the challenges;
Four of the 7 challenges were determined so that the results then were 39 for
the UAW, 35 for the IUE, with 3 challenges , and still 8 no union.
This necessitated a run-off election , which was held this Monday , on the 2nd
of March, 1964.
The tentative results of that are 43 for the UAW, 42 for the IUE, 5 chal-
lenges, 3 of whom are the 83 's, so that the results of this hearing may be deter-
minative of the results of the election.
During 1960 employee Dolores Del Sordo formed an employees ' "shop committee"
for the purpose of presenting grievances to the Respondent . Del Sordo, Paul Burke,
and John Condatorre were the members of the committee
During December 1962, Del Sordo, Burke , and Condatorre met in the Respondent's
"main office " in the plant with Mike Giordano , the president of the local union of
the IUE at the E. B Company in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania .' Giordano told them
that he had heard that the Respondent "was having some problems " and that the
employees wanted a union He asked them to choose the IUE and gave them some
IUE cards . Del Sordo, Burke , and Condatorre distributed the cards to the employees
and were able to obtain signatures on a few cards . For the next 2 days the Respond-
ent permitted Del Sordo, Burke , and Condatorre to "interview" each employee "dur-
ing working hours" and "on company time" for the purpose of explaining "to them
who Mr. Giordano was, and that if they wanted a union would they consider having
the IUE represent them, and if not would they rather keep the shop committee." As
a result of this activity , Giordano decided "to leave it just UAW and no union" in
the forthcoming election. About a week before the election held on January 15, 1963,
Masters addressed the employees . He told them that the Respondent was not "doing
too well"; that "as the company grows the people would grow with it"; that he did
not believe "it was right to have a union come in"; and that "if a union did come in,"
he would "be forced to put the lock on the door ." After this speech , Del Sordo,
Burke, and Condatorre , at the invitation of Masters and Giordano, visited the Phila-
delphia plant . They were shown through the plant , told "what the IUE was doing"
for the employees , and were paid by the Respondent for the time they spent in
Philadelphia.
Soon after the January 1963 election , Condatorre was promoted to a supervisory
position During March, 1963, Faye Fiduccia was selected as a member of the shop
committee . Fiduccia had been an observer for the UAW at the election. On or
about July 15 , 1963, Fiduccia , while at work , received a telephone call from Gior-
dano. He asked her if she would "go along" with him "on getting the IUE in
R.E D M." She replied that she would have to speak to the other members of the
'Del Sordo testified without contradiction that Robert Masters is vice president of the
D B Company and executive vice president of the Respondent The IUE is the bargaining
representative of the employees at the Philadelphia plant
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shop committee, and explained that she had signed "that statement that the UAW
was going to have a right to have an election." He told her, "Well, don't worry
about that .... You go along with us and everything will work out."
About August or September 1963, Condatorre was demoted from his supervisory
position. Shortly thereafter, Condatorre,_Jack Vorte, a gauge inspector, and Burke,
a setup man, during working hours solicited employees at their places of work to
sign IUE cards. On or about September 30 Condatorre asked employee Ruth
Dutcher to sign an IUE card. After being solicited "three or four times" by Con-
datorre, she signed the card but returned it to Fiduccia, telling her, "John told me,
it's your union .... Well, I don't trust John. I am giving you the card." Fiduccia
then went to her supervisor, Leo Crapco, and said, "Leo, ... if John is going around
getting IUE cards signed ... on company time, why can't I go around getting UAW
cards signed?" Crapco did not reply.2
On October 10 two representatives of the IUE went to the office of Myron Bregman,
the Respondent's vice president and general manager. They told him that they had
"over 50 percent of the plant signed up" and asked for recognition. After a card
check and in order "to avoid any sort of labor problems and labor troubles," the
Respondent agreed to recognize the IUE as the employees' collective-bargaining
agent. The following notice, signed by Bregman, was posted in the plant on Octo-
ber 11:
On Thursday, October 10, 1963 representatives of the Local #427 of the
IUE indicated to us that they had over 51% of the eligible personnel of our
shop signed up. We had the cards and signatures verified by the local Chamber
of Commerce representative and found them to be correct.
It is with regret that you people have found that an outside bargaining agent
was needed. However, since you have shown your preference, management has
acceded to your wishes and recognized the IUE as the bargaining agent for this
shop. A contract will be negotiated as soon as possible.
I hope that we will still be able to work together in the future and continue to
co-operate with each other so that REDM Corporation may grow.
After several employees discussed the notice with Fiduccia, she had a conversa-
tion with Crapco. She told him, in substance, that the employees wanted to peti-
tion for an election, and that she was going to promote the UAW in the plant.
Crapco replied, "Don't let me catch you." Later Crapco told Fiduccia that he knew
that Condatorre and Burke "were going around getting IUE cards signed," and that
he bad "to go along with them" to protect his job. As a result of these conversations,
Crapco told Supervisors Eva Homer and Helen Novak "to keep their eyes open ... to
see if there was anybody going around with any petitions or anything ... representing
unions in the place."
Before the start of work on October 14, some of the employees, including Fiduccia,
met in the ladies' restroom. They prepared "a petition" protesting the Respondent's
recognition of the IUE without an election. The petition was circulated and signed
by the employees in the restroom.
On October 14 Crapco instructed Homer to go into the ladies' room during the
rest period at 9 a.m. to find out if the employees were talking about the UAW and
told her, "Go see what Faye [Fiduccia] is doing." 3 Homer reported to Crapco that
the employees "were talking about a union in there"; and that when Fiduccia saw her
(Homer), the employees "stopped talking."
During lunchtime on October 15 Fiduccia was using the public telephone in the
plant to call Tony Marino, a representative of the UAW. Crapco "kiddingly" asked
her if he could listen in on the conversation. Fiduccia told him that she was talking
to Marino and that Marino was connected with the UAW.
2Fiduccla testified credibly to the above. Crapco denied that Fiduccia made this com-
plaint to him He testified, "She mentioned [Condatorre and Burke], about walking
around, but I don't recall if there was any mention of any unions involved . ,. .. I said
that was their job." Crapco's denial is not credited.
8 Crapeo testified that he may have told Homer to "sit" in the restroom ; and that he
directed Homer to go to the restroom after being informed by employees Selvidge and.
Conrad that Fiduccia had "approached" them to sign either the petition or UAW cards.
When confronted with his affidavit, Crapco later admitted that Conrad had informed him
of this activity after Fiduccia' s discharge.
Selvidge testified that "either September or the beginning of October" during work
Fiduccia asked her to sign a union card while at her table. She did not testify that she
told Crapco about Fiduccia' s alleged activity. Fiduccia denied that she solicited Selvidge
to sign a card . Her denial is credited.
R.E.D.M. CORPORATION 1033
During the afternoon rest period 4 on October 15, Florence Ryerson received the
petition and signed it. When the bell rang , she started back to her worktable. As
she passed Judith Harriett's table, Ryerson asked her if she wanted to sign the peti-
tion. Harriett replied that she did and followed Ryerson to the latter's table which
was about 10 feet distant . After signing the petition , Harriett immediately returned
to her table. During the entire incident, which took but a few seconds, the other
employees were still returning to their places of work and had not yet started to work
On the same day Ryerson took up a collection for another employee who was out
on sick leave . Employees came to Ryerson's table during working hours to make a
donation and to sign their names to a piece of paper . 5 After quitting time, Ryerson
gave the petition to Fiduccia while they were in the hallway of the plants
"The first thing in the morning" of October 16 Crapco told Bregman that Fiduccia
had told him that she was going to try to get the UAW in the plant,7 and that he had
seen Ryerson and Harriett "talking together after break time " Fiduccia, Ryerson,
and Harriett were called to the office . Bregman, Crapco , Homer, and Ralph Town-
send, Respondent 's chief inspector , were present . Bregman stated that he was aware
of the petition, and that he had enough problems in the plant without labor trouble.
Bregman questioned the three employees about the petition . Fiduccia admitted that
the petition was being circulated among the employees , but did not admit that she
had solicited employees to sign it during working hours. Crapco said that Fiduccia,
Ryerson, and Harriett had threatened employee Maria Rodriguez. Fiduccia asked
that Rodriguez be brought to the office. When Rodriguez was called to the office, she
denied that she had been threatened and stated that she had only been asked to sign
the petition . Bregman said , "We have our union in here and 1 don't want no more
of this bickering around and everything else." Fiduccia stated, in substance , that the
employees were dissatisfied because they felt they were entitled to an election rather
than have the Respondent recognize the IUE. Bregman answered that he had heard
that the committee was double-crossing him by attempting to bring the UAW into
the plant and that that was why the Respondent "went along . . . getting the IUE."
He said, "I am sorry, they [the employees] voted for the IUE, and that's it." Breg-
man discharged the three employees for passing the petition "on company time." 8
After her discharge Fiduccia returned to the plant for her pay and had a conver-
sation with Crapco. He told her that he knew that Condatorre and Burke were
"going around getting IUE cards," that he knew "the company was in on it," and
that Fiduccia could never prove it.
The Respondent contends that Fiduccia, Ryerson, and Harriett were discharged
for "solicitation on company property during working hours." This contention is
rejected.
Bregman testified that the Respondent did not have "any written rule" prohibiting
solicitation on company time, but that "it was an unwritten rule from the fact that
various people had asked to conduct solicitations of one form or another on com-
pany time , and were refused ." In this connection , he was questioned and testified as
follows:
Q. And I assume that there was, although you have a loud speaker , nothing
was ever said to the employees over the loud speaker with respect to this.
A That's correct.
s The rest period occurs at 2 p m The employees take the break in the locker room or
in the cafeteria . After 10 minutes has elapsed , a bell rings as a signal for the employees
to return to work Depending upon where the employee is when the bell rings , it takes
3 to 5 minutes to get back to his or her duty station.
5 Ryerson testified without contradiction that it was customary to make collections for
sick employees ; that the employees took up a collection for Crapco on one occasion ; and
that on the day in question Crapco knew she was engaging in this activity. Crapco
testified that "after .. . the afternoon break" he saw Harriett talking to Ryerson at the
latter 's table. Homer testified that " in the morning just before the . . . 9 o'clock break"
and "on company time, working hours " she saw Harriett sign a "piece of paper" while
at Ryerson 's table
8 Both Crapco and Homer testified to the effect that they did not see or hear Fiduccia
soliciting employees to sign the petition during working hours
7 Crapco testified to the effect that he also told Bregman that lie had talked to
Selvidge and Conrad , and that they had told hint that Fiduccia had "approached" them.
The contradiction in Crapco's testimony in this connection has been noted above.
8 The above testimony concerning the discharge is based upon credited portions of the
testimony of Fiduccia, Crapco, and Homer. Testimony to the contrary is not credited.
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. And so then you might say that in general the employees were ignorant of
such an unwritten rule9 In fact, no rule existed?
A. Well, if you take a job, to do a particular job, you are supposed to be
working at that.
Q There was no rule.
A. There was no rule as far as a written rule.
Q. And there was none communicated to the employees in general9
A. There was none communicated to employees as a general communication.
Crapco testified that the employees were never notified, either by a posted notice or
by the loudspeaker, that they were not permitted to engage in union activity on com-
pany time.
If the Respondent, in fact, has such an unwritten rule, nevertheless the Respond-
ent discriminated in favor of the IUE in its application The evidence discloses that
the Respondent preferred the IUE to the UAW and practically invited the former to
organize its employees. The adherents of the IUE were permitted to solicit employees
openly on company time. Although Crapco knew of their activity 9 and although
Fiduccia complained to him about it, there is no evidence that he reprimanded them
or took any action such as reporting the activity to Bregman. On the other hand,
as soon as he heard of possible activity on behalf of the UAW, he undertook to spy
upon the employees while they were in the ladies' room during their rest period.
Insofar as the incident involving Ryerson and Harriett is concerned, the employees
were still filing back to their work stations after the break and were not yet at work
when Harriett signed the petition. Although Crapco knew that Ryerson was taking
up a collection for a sick employee and permitted it, he made no effort to learn what
Harriett was doing at Ryerson's table. In his testimony he admitted that Harriett
could have been there in connection with her work.
As for Fiduccia's alleged activity on company time, Crapco's testimony is contra-
dictory. He first testified that he told Homer to spy upon the employees after he got
reports from Conrad and Selvidge concerning Fiduccia's activity. Later he admit-
ted that Conrad told him of this activity after Fiduccia's discharge. As noted above,
Selvidge, called as a witness by the Respondent, did not confirm Crapco's testimony
in this respect. Selvidge's testimony is to the effect that on one occasion Fiduccia
stopped her while she was working and asked her to sign a union card; 10 that on
another occasion during working hours she saw Fiduccia in the restroom "talking
about union, and she had cards in her pocket "
Claire Carrigan testified without contradiction that Fiduccia solicited her during
working hours in the restroom to sign the petition and a card for the UAW, and that
she did not report this to Crapco until after Fiduccia's discharge. However, it is
undisputed that the employees were free to go to the restrooms at any time in order
to smoke or talk.
Since both Crapco and Selvidge have been discredited heretofore, it is doubtful if
the Respondent knew before the discharge that Fiduccia had engaged in the alleged
activity on company time. In any event, the discharge was illegal in view of the
disparate treatment of the adherents of the two unions.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent on October 16, 1963, discharged Fiduccia,
Ryerson, and Harriett because of their activity or suspected activity on behalf of the
-UAW or because of their other concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. I also find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act by spying on the union or concerted activities of its employees during their free
time.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,. occurring-in con-
nection with the Respondents operations' described in section I, above, have a close,
BCrapco testified, "I have seen [Norte , Condatorre, and Burke ] and heard them talk-
ing to people [ during work ], but I was never around if there was any talk of unions "
10 As related above , Fiduccia denied this testimony . She testified that Selvidge came to
her table and asked her for a union card , telling her that she wanted " to match up the
IUE card with the wording of the UAW"; that she (Fiduccia ) replied , "What are you
trying to do to men . . If I had a UAW card with me, I wouldn ' t give it to you on
company time " , and that Selvidge "was allowed to roam the plant . . giving out . . .
IUE cards " Selvidge did not impress me as a credible witness I credit the above testi-
mony of Fiduccia.
R.E.D.M. CORPORATION 1035
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic , and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cei tam unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discharged Faye Fiduccia , Florence Ryer-
son, and Judith Harriett on October 16, 1963. Accordingly , it will be recommended
that the Respondent offer the above employees immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights or privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of the discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to
the date of reinstatement , less her net earnings during such period in accordance
with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together
with interest on such sum , such interest to be computed in accordance with the for-
mula prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716
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. The UAW and the IUE are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
3. By discharging Fiduccia, Ryerson, and Harriett because of their membership
in and activities on' behalf of the UAW, thereby discouraging membership in the
UAW, or because of their other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining , or mutual aid or protection , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. 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 upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that R.E.D M. Corporation , Wayne, New
Jersey, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging protected concerted activities of its employees or membership in
the UAW , or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging employees
or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment
(b) Engaging in surveillance of the union or protected concerted activities of its
employees.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation 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 I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act
(a) Offer the employees named above immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights or privileges , and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section
of the Decision entitled "The Remedy "
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records ,- social security
payment records , timecards , personnel records, and all other records necessary for
the determination of the amount of backpay due under these recommendations.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at its plant in Wayne, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized repre-
sentatives , be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and 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 22, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.I2
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Oider"
3 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Oider, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees or otherwise discriminate against them
because of their concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the Union or protected concerted
activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor orga-
nizations, to join or assist the above union, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that
such rights 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.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them:
Faye Fiduccia
Florence Ryerson
Judith Harriett
All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing members of any labor organization , except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
R.E D.M. CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated----- -------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LOS ANGELES BLDG. & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 1037
Nara.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614
National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No.
Market 4-6151, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council and
Carl Leipzig , General Contractors , Inc. Case No. 21-CC-688.
November 24, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Carl Leipzig, General Contractors, Inc.,
herein called Leipzig, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 21, issued a
complaint dated January 17, 1964, against Los Angeles Building and
Construction Trades Council, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge and complaint and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner
were duly served upon the Respondent and Charging Party.
On January 21, 1964, Respondent duly filed its answer admitting
certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
On July 24, 1964, all parties to this proceeding moved to transfer
the proceeding directly to the Board. The parties agreed that the
original charge, amended charge, complaint and notice of hearing,
answer, and pages 1 through 59, inclusive, of the transcript and Gov-
ernment Exhibit No. 1 in the civil proceeding entitled : "Ralph E.
Kennedy, Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region of the
National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National
Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, and Los Angeles Building and
Construction Trades Council, Respondent, Civil No. 61-41-S, before
the United States District Court, Southern District of California,
Central Division," constituted the entire record in the case. and that
no oral testimony was necessary or desired by any of the parties. The
parties further stipulated that they waived a hearing before a ,Trial
Examiner and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision and Rec-
ommended Order, and desired to., submit this case for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order, directly to the-Board.
1.49 NLRB No. 78.