Skouras Theaters Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 157 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

SKOJJRAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 157
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in their rights to self-organization, to form or join labor organizations, including
the above-named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All office clerical employees of the Employer at its Fenton, Missouri,
terminal, excluding professional employees, guards, supervisors, as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
WE WILL offer Rosetta Whitehead and Shirley Fredricks immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole employees Rosetta Whitehead, Shirley Fredricks, and
Antoinette Langford for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
VON DER AHE VAN LINES, INC.,
Employer:
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion 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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. Main
4-2167.
Skouras Theaters Corporation and Sidney Jackson , Jr. and The
International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees and
Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada,
Local 642, Party to the Contract
The International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees
and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada,
Local 642 and Sidney Jackson , Jr. and Skouras Theaters Corpo-
ration , Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. 22-CA-1896 and 22-
CB-722. October 12,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
155 NLRB No. 19.
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the comply int and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.'
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 [Members Fanning, 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 Exam-
iner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and
modifications.2
- 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 Company, Skouras Theaters
Corporation, New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, and Respondent Union, The International Alliance of The-
atrical Stagehand Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the
United States and Canada, Local 642, Palisades Park, New Jersey, its
officers, agents , and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraphs A, 2, (a) and (b) to the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, the present paragraphs A, 2, (a) and
(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered:
1 Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record , excep-
tions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2In view of the fact that the Respondents herein have operated under a discriminatory
hiring and referral practice for many years , and in view of the special circumstances
which show that employment is and has been under the effective control of the Respondent
Union, we deem it necessary and proper to invoke special remedial measures to insure
that the Respondent Union operates a nondiscriminatory hiring and referral system. To
achieve this objective , we shall direct the Respondent Union to keep permanent records
(i.e., at least for 3 years ) of its hiring and referral operations which will be adequate
to disclose fully the basis on which each referral is made. These records are to be made
available to the Regional Director or his agents . If a nondiscriminatory referral system
is to be maintained , its records should, for example, indicate the date and time of em-
ployer requests for workers , and should include the type of qualifications requested.
Out-of-work or availability lists should be maintained , indicating the date and time an
individual requested a referral and the jobs for which he is qualified . Seniority in referral
should be based on nondiscriminatory standards.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 159
"(a) Keep permanent records of its hiring and referral operations
which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on which each referral
is made.
"(b) Upon request of the Regional Director of the Board or his
agents, make available for inspection, at all reasonable times, any rec-
ords relating in any way to the hiring and referral system."
2. Add the following as the third and fourth indented paragraphs
to the notice entitled "Appendix A":
WE WILL keep permanent records of our hiring and referral
operations which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on
which each referral is made.
WE WILL, upon request of the Regional Director for Region 22
or his agents, make available for inspection, at all reasonable times,
any records relating in any way to the hiring and referral system.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Max Rosenberg in Newark, New Jersey, on November 12 and 13, 1964, on com-
plaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and answers
of Skouras Theaters Corporation, herein called Skouras or the Respondent Com-
pany, and The International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees and Moving
Picture Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 642, herein called the
Union.1 At issue is whether the Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the
Act, and whether the Company violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) by certain conduct
to be detailed hereinafter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral
argument. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and the Com-
pany, which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, including their
demeanor while testifying on the stand, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY
Respondent Company is a New York corporation which is engaged in the opera-
tion of 32 motion picture theaters in the State of New York, and 14 in the State of
New Jersey, including 7 theaters which are located in Bergen County in the latter
State. The motion picture films which are exhibited in the Company's theaters are
normally produced in the State of California or in foreign countries, and are sent to
laboratories where positive prints are prepared. The prints are disseminated by the
distributor to various exchange centers throughout the United States where they are
obtained by motion picture theater operators under a film rental license. One such
exchange center is located in the State of New York, from which Skouras licenses
films for exhibition in its theaters in the States of New York and New Jersey. Films
which are shown in the New Jersey theaters are transported by a delivery service
from the New York exchange center to those theaters. The parties stipulated that,
during the 9-month period ending on August 1, 1964, the Company's gross revenues
approximated $8,555,352, of which amount approximately $1,295,002 was received
from theaters located in the State of New Jersey. During the same period, the
Company paid approximately $425,000 in license fees for films transported directly
from the New York exchange center for exhibition in theaters located in New Jersey
and, in addition, paid approximately $1,500,000 in fees for films exhibited in New
York.
I The complaint, which issued on September 30, 1964, is based upon charges filed and
served on March 12, 1964.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent Company contests the jurisdiction of the Board to proceed in this
matter, contending that the operation of its theaters is a purely intrastate activity
without any substantial impact upon interstate commerce. For the reasons set forth
in Combined Century Theatres, Inc., 120 NLRB 1379, and Motion Picture Operators
Union of Essex County (Stanley Warner Corporation), 126 NLRB 376, I find no
merit in this contention. As the Respondent Company's annual gross volume of
business exceeds $500,000, which is the applicable retail enterprise jurisdictional
standard,2 I find that the Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The contentions
The complaint alleges that, at all times material herein, the Union and the Com-
pany were parties to, and maintained and enforced, an exclusive referral arrange-
ment, agreement, understanding, or practice which required as a condition of employ-
ment that all motion picture projectionists employed by the Company at its theaters
in Bergen County, New Jersey, be referred by the Union for such employment .3 The
General Counsel contends that, pursuant to said arrangement, agreement, under-
standing, or practice, the Company conditioned permanent employment upon refer-
ral by, and membership in, the Union; granted preference for temporary employment
to union members; and refused to employ Sidney Jackson, the Charging Party,
because he was not a member of the Union and had not been referred by that labor
organization, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The General
Counsel further contends that the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) by
referring projectionists for employment with the Company, pursuant to the exclusive
arrangement, agreement, understanding, or practice, only if they possessed member-
ship in the Union, and then only in accordance with their union seniority based upon
the period of time in which they had been members in good standing; by giving
preference to union members in referring them for temporary jobs; and by refusing
to refer Jackson for employment with the Company because he lacked union mem-
bership. The Union and the Company deny that they are privy to any exclusive
referral arrangement, agreement, understanding, or practice. The Union asserts
that Jackson was not dispatched for work with the Company because he had never
requested a referral for such employment. The Company contends that it offered
to employ Jackson, without regard to his status as a member of the Union, provided
that he demonstrated his proficiency as a projectionist, but that Jackson failed a test
given to him for that purpose.
B. The evidence
There is no serious evidential dispute concerning the existence of an arrangement,
agreement , understanding, or practice between the Union and the Company pursuant
to which the former became the exclusive source of supply for projectionists and
stagehands at the latter's theaters in Bergen County, New Jersey? Since 1931, these
parties entered into successive collective-bargaining agreements covering the employ-
ment of those job classifications The latest agreement, which was executed in June
1962 and carried a terminal date of June 1965, contained neither a union-security
nor an exclusive referral provision. However, it is undisputed that, until the passage
of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the contracts between the parties included a closed-
shop clause under which the Company obligated itself to hire only union members.
Andrew Snyder, who served as the Union's president from 1934 until May 1964,
testified that it was the practice for any motion picture exhibitor who acquired a
theater in Bergen County to "call the union, and request a committee to come over
and see them and talk about hiring men from the union " According to Snyder,
he conducted the initial negotiations for the referral and employment of projectionists
in 1931 with Louis Weber, the Company's attorney, and "It was an understood fact"
that the Union was to supply those skills to the Company. Snyder stated that,
' See Motion Picture Operators Union of Essex County, supra, 381.
The General Counsel does not contend, nor do I find, that a contract In effect between
the Union and the Company during the events in question contained an exclusive referral
or hiring clause.
6 The Union's Jurisdiction Is restricted to the geographical limits of Bergen County.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 161
between 1931 and the date of the hearing, all of the projectionists employed by the
Company were referred by the Union, and the Company never obtained their
services from outside sources. Louis Weber, who has represented the Company in
its labor negotiations with the Union for many years, testified that he was unaware
of any agreement or understanding, tacit or otherwise, pursuant to which his client
obligated itself to hire exclusively through the Union, and was unacquainted with
the Union's referral procedures. However, Weber acknowledged that the Union had
supplied projectionists for employment by the Company since 1931, that the Union
was responsible for referring competent men for work in the theaters; and that
"wherever there was a need for a projectionist, they [the Union] had an obligation
to supply a competent man." Moreover, Weber admitted that, on July 15, 1963, the
Company sent a letter to the Union over the signature of the former's president,
Salah Hassanein, which recited, "We have had a business relationship with your
Local Union for more than thirty years duration. Throughout this period, you have
furnished members of your Local to render services to the theaters within your juris-
diction and within the job classifications embraced within your Charter. The furnish-
ing of such personnel has been and is now within your control.. . [Emphasis
supplied.] Finally, at the conclusion of his testimony, Weber candidly conceded
that the Company had always looked exclusively to the Union for "help" because
"This is our source of supply." Salah Hassanein testified that there was no agree-
ment "between the union and us as to men we employ." However, he readily
admitted that "There is no source of supply for projectionists outside of unions" and
that, whenever the Company was in need of projectionists in Bergen County, "it
always looked to Local 642 to supply these projectionists," and the Union uniformly
did so. Syros Lennes is the zone manager for Skouras who answers directly to
Hassanein and who supervises the operations of all theaters which Skouras main-
tains in Bergen County. Lennes testimonially admitted that it had uniformly been
his practice to hire "union people" exclusively and that the Union was the sole
source of supply for projectionists because "they are like the employ [sic] agency."
Based upon the foregoing testimony, I find that, at all times material to this pro-
ceeding, an agreement, understanding, arrangement, or practice existed between
Skouras, on the one hand, and the Union, on the other, pursuant to which Skouras
bound itself to look to the Union as the exclusive source of supply of projectionists
for work in its theaters located in Bergen County, and that the Union undertook
exclusively to furnish the requisite men.
With respect to the Union's practice of referring projectionists for employment,
Andrew Snyder testified that the Union had dispatched men to the Company over
the years for both permanent and temporary employment. Snyder stated that perma-
nent positions became available only when new theaters were constructed, or when a
permanently employed projectionist retired or died, in which event the positions
would be filled by the Union through the utilization of a union seniority list. Snyder
explained that, when a projectionist is admitted to the Union, his name is placed on a
seniority list and he commences to acquire union seniority from the date of acquisi-
tion of membership. When a permanent assignment becomes available, the most
senior member on the list is referred for employment. Snyder observed that the
seniority list was devised as "a guide within the local union as a fair way of choosing
members for jobs" and pointed out that nonmembers could not acquire union
seniority and hence could never be referred for permanent employment as a projec-
tionist.5 Snyder went on to explain that, on occasion, temporary vacancies in the
Company's theaters occur due to sickness or vacation periods, in which event non-
union as well as union projectionists are dispatched. In this connection, Edward Paul,
the Union's business manager, who is charged with the duty of assigning men for
temporary work, testified that he selects the men on the basis of ability and refers
both nonunion and union projectionists. However, he conceded that, where he is
convinced that the abilities of both classifications are equal, preference is accorded
to a union man for referral. Paul stated that, in his experience, Skouras has never
employed temporary help which had not been procured from union sources.
Syros Lennes, the zone manager of Skouras' theaters in Bergen County, testified
that while his duties include hiring and discharging employees, he has never had
occasion to hire a permanent or temporary projectionist. During the course of his
examination, Lennes was questioned as to whether he had informed Jackson, when
5 Snyder testified that, in all his years as president of the Union, he never experienced
an occasion on which a projectionist who was not a member of the Union had sought a
referral.
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the latter sought employment with the Company in September 1963, that it was
necessary that Jackson be a union member before he could obtain employment with
the Company, and Lennes replied in the negative. However, the General Counsel
introduced into evidence a sworn statement which Lennes submitted to the Board.
In the course of his examination by the General Counsel concerning the statement,
Lennes admitted stating that he informed Jackson that Skouras had never employed
"a man who was not a member" of the Union; that it had been the practice to
hire only union people," and that he had instructed Jackson "to go to the union to
become a member and then the union will send him to a job." Lennes also acknowl-
edged that he had been told by members of the Union that assignments to theaters
were made by the Union on the basis of union seniority.
In view of the foregoing testimony, as well as Lennes' sworn statement which I
received as an admission against interest with respect to Skouras, and which I accept
as positive evidence and probative of the facts contained therein,6 I find that the
Union and the Company maintained and enforced an exclusive referral agreement,
understanding, arrangement, or practice pursuant to which permanent employment
as a projectionist in Skouras' theaters in Bergen County was available solely to mem-
bers who were selected for referral and employment based upon their union seniority.
I further find that the Union and the Company accorded preferential treatment to
the referral and employment of temporary projectionists who were members of
the Union.
I turn next to the General Counsel's contention that the Union refused to refer
Jackson for employment as a projectionist with the Company, and that the Company
declined to hire him, because he lacked union membership.
Sidney Jackson is a Negro. At the outset, it should be noted that the General
Counsel neither contends nor suggests that the disparate treatment which Jackson
assertedly received at the hands of the Union and the Company was attributable to
the color of his skin. Jackson had owned and operated a motion picture theater in
Hopewell, Virginia, until 1952 when he sold the enterprise and moved to New Jersey.
He delved into the possibility of joining the Union as early as 1953 but learned that
admission was restricted to the immediate family of union members. Having made
the social acquaintance of Syros Lennes at Skouras' Plaza Theater sometime in 1953
to inquire whether he could obtain membership in the Union and employment with
the Skouras chain. After being assured that union membership was not attainable
at the time, Jackson placed the matter at rest and obtained a job as a truckdriver.
Events abided until 1963, when Jackson sustained a back injury. Upon advice of
his physician, he was instructed to seek less arduous work, as a result of which his
thoughts again turned to permanent employment in a projection booth. In September
1963, Jackson once more called upon his friend, Lennes, in search of permanent
employment as a projectionist with Skouras. According to Jackson's testimony,
Lennes asked the former whether he was a member of the Union and upon receiving
a negative reply, Lennes remarked that Jackson could obtain a job only if he was a
union member, and remarked that "Even if you was a union member, I couldn't
hire you because the union does all the hiring and sends me my men." Lennes
then commented that "You won't find any colored people in this union," expressed
regret that this circumstance existed, and indicated that he had communicated with
the Company to correct this inequity. Lennes inquired as to Jackson's qualifications
to operate a projection machine, and the latter replied that it had been 12 years
since he had operated his own theater in Virginia, but that he had pursued a course
of evening studies in the operation of projection equipment at the YMCA during
1963, which evoked the response from Lennes that "You should be qualified. Even
a twelve year old kid could operate a projector. You don't have to be that smart."
Lennes added that there were positions available for projectionists "because they
were opening new theaters all the time," although Jackson conceded that Lennes did
not state that any jobs were available in the Skouras chain and did not mention the
names of any other theaters at which work could be obtained. According to Jackson,
Lennes "did not make the statement that he could use me. He didn't say that he could
use me personally. He said he would love to hire me and he would hire me if he
could." The conversation terminated with Lennes instructing Jackson to visit Andrew
Snyder, the Union's president, and Edward Paul, the business manager, to inquire
into the requirements for the acquisition of union membership.
Later that day, Jackson telephoned Snyder to seek information regarding the
acquisition of membership in the Union. Snyder set forth the basic qualifications
and stated that Jackson would be required to appear before the Union's executive
8 See Grove Shepherd Wilson & Eruge, Inc., et at., 109 NLRB 209, 213-215.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 163
board which met the third Tuesday of each month in order to perfect his member-
ship. Jackson presented himself at the next board meeting which was held on
September 18, 1963. In addition to Snyder and Paul, Howard Clutterbuck, the then
secretary of the Union, and Fred Lamartin, the Union's vice president, attended the
meeting. Snyder inquired whether Jackson had any previous experience with
projection equipment and Jackson replied that he had operated his own theater in
Virginia. At this juncture, Lamartin interjected and asked Jackson if the latter
would be dissatisfied if he paid the Union's initiation fee but did not obtain employ-
ment. Inasmuch as Jackson was unaware that the fee totaled $500, he responded
in the negative. Snyder then explained that an initial application must be accom-
panied by the payment of $250 and that, if the application was accepted, another
similar payment was required after which the Union would administer a reasonable
test to determine Jackson's qualifications as a projectionist. If Jackson passed the
test, his application would be voted upon and, in the event that Jackson was accepted
into membership, his name would be placed on a waiting list. When Jackson asked
about the benefits which would flow from union membership, Snyder stated that
"there was no benefits and there was no jobs" available at that time and that
Jackson "would have to wait about ten years or until someone died or . . . until
they built some new theaters." A member of the executive board then remarked
that a Negro had applied for membership about 10 years previously but had failed
to complete his application and that "If he had followed it up, he probably would
have had a job by now." Jackson then inquired as to the position he would occupy
on the waiting list if he were admitted to membership, and Snyder commented that
"we wouldn't do any juggling with the names" and refused to answer Jackson's
inquiry concerning the waiting list because "this was union business." At this point,
Jackson agreed to process his application and pay the initiation fee when due, and
Clutterbuck indicated that an application form would be sent to Jackson in a few
days. Before leaving the meeting, Jackson requested that his name be immediately
placed on the waiting list, but was told "that I would have to be a union member
first and then I would be placed on the waiting list, after I became a member."
Shortly after his encounter with the executive board on September 18, 1963,
Jackson telephoned Lennes to apprise the latter of the outcome of his efforts to
obtain union membership. During the conversation, and according to Jackson's
testimony, Lennes stated that "there was a closed shop which existed" and suggested
that Jackson enlist the support of the Congress of Racial Equality, better known as
CORE, or the Urban League, in his quest for employment as a projectionist. On
October 16, 1963, Jackson received a letter from the Union requesting certain
information in support of his membership application, including some form of veri-
fication that he had operated a theater in Virginia. Jackson received his application
on January 24, 1964. In late January or early February, in company with Wilbert
Powell, a representative of CORE, Jackson called upon Lennes at his office in
Bergenfield, New Jersey. During the ensuing conversation, Lennes again reported
that positions as a projectionist were available "because they were opening new
theaters all the time" and repeated that "he would love to hire me, he believed I was
qualified, but he could not even if he wanted to because the Union does all the
hiring and firing." Lennes added, "I cannot even fire a man. I have to write to
the executive board and file a complaint." During this period, Jackson again spoke
to Snyder. Jackson stated, "I want you to be very honest with me-I thought you
seemed to be a reasonable man-if there was a waiting list and if $500 was the
fee, that is a lot of money to pay to join a union if there was no jobs available and
none in sight." Snyder replied that there were no jobs then available and that
union members who were on the waiting list were out of work.
On March 12, 1964, Jackson filed the instant charges against the Union and the
Company. In the meantime, he had arranged for a meeting with the Union's
executive board on March 17. Accompanied by representatives of CORE, Jackson
met with the board which refused to permit the representatives to be present during
the session. After a preliminary discussion between Union Vice President Clutter-
buck and Jackson concerning the filing of unfair labor practice charges against the
Union, Jackson questioned the board concerning the number of members who
appeared on the waiting list and Clutterbuck replied that this was "union business"
and refused to divulge the information. Snyder then asked whether Jackson was
prepared to submit his application and Jackson turned the completed form over to
the board. After looking over the form, Clutterbuck handed it back to Jackson
and stated that the application was incomplete because it did not contain the support-
ing signatures of three members of the Union, and Clutterbuck displayed a copy of
-212-8 0 9-6 6-vol. 155-12
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union's bylaws which contained this requirement for membership.? Jackson
protested that he did not personally know any members of the Union who would
be willing to support his application, and inquired whether the executive board
would append their signatures to the application. Clutterbuck informed Jackson
that they could not legally do so because they were members of the board. At this
point, the application was returned to Jackson. According to Jackson, he was
prepared to deposit $250 as part of the initiation fee at this meeting, but never had
the opportunity to do so. Jackson admitted that, at no time during his conversations
with the executive board, did he mention Lennes' observation that jobs were available
because new theaters were constantly being constructed.
Following this meeting, Jackson once again spoke to Lennes about the possibility
of permanent employment as a projectionist, and Lennes once again stated that he
would like to hire Jackson "but he couldn't because the union sent him all his men
and ... because the union had a closed shop." Lennes also repeated that jobs were
available because "new theaters were opening all the time." Jackson conceded that
Lennes did not specify the location of the theaters at which employment was
available, and Jackson did not question Lennes concerning their location. After
this conversation with Lennes, Jackson telephoned Snyder and requested that his
name be placed on the union waiting list. Snyder instructed Jackson to embody this
request in a letter to Clutterbuck. Jackson did so, but received no reply.
Sometime in April 1964, according to Jackson's further testimony, he was sum-
moned to the office of Louis Weber, Skouras' attorney, for a meeting with Saiah
Hassanein , the president of Skouras. Also present at this conference was a repre-
sentative of CORE. Hassanein opened the conversation by remarking that "he
wasn't prejudiced, that he was a Mohammed, or something to that effect, and that I
could see that he wasn't prejudiced at all. It did not make a bit of difference to
him what color a projectionist is." At this point, Hassanein showed Jackson a copy
of the letter which the former had sent to the Union on July 15, 1963, and which
recited in pertinent part that "Recently events throughout the country engendered the
focusing attention to the broadening of job opportunities in various lines of endeavor
and industries, and we want to affirm what our experience with you has always shown
that we have no objection and never have to the employment of any qualified
person without regard to race, color, creed or religious nailiation " Hassanein then
stated that, if Jackson withdrew the charges which he had filed with the Board,
the former would arrange to have a test administered to Jackson to determine the
latter's qualification to operate a projection machine. Hassanein assured Jackson
that, if the latter passed the test, he would be offered the next available job in the
Skouras chain in Bergen County at which time Jackson "would sign a statement
agreeing to join the union." However, Hassanein made it clear that he would not
discharge any projectionist in order to make way for Jackson, and Jackson agreed
that such action would be unfair. A test was promptly arranged and was conducted
by Joseph Kelly, the Company's chief engineer, on April 20 at the Company's
Closter Theater. Jackson failed to pass the test. In this connection , it should be
noted that the General Counsel concedes that the test which Kelly administered to
Jackson was entirely fair and reasonable, and that Jackson failed the test.
Wilbert Powell, a representative of CORE, testified that he received a visit from
Jackson in the latter part 1963 to seek the assistance of that organization in obtaining
a position as a projectionist. In late January or early February 1964, Powell and
Jackson called upon Lennes to inquire into the possibilities of employment for
Jackson in Skouras' theaters. During the conversation, Lennes stated, "Believe me,
I am trying to help Mr. Jackson, but my hands are tied. I would be willing to
give Mr. Jackson a job right now, but I can't." When Powell asked why Lennes
could not hire Jackson, Lennes replied that, although Jackson was qualified as a
projectionist, all projectionists must be dispatched by the Union because a "closed
7 To attain membership in the Union , an applicant is required to present himself to the
Union's executive board and submit a completed application form which has been en-
dorsed by three members of the Union , and to tender the sum of $ 250 which is applied to
the initiation fee. After consideration by the Union, the application is transmitted to
the International for approval. If so approved, the form is returned to the Union where
it is reported to an examining committee The committee then administers a test to the
applicant, the results of which are conveyed to the membership. In the event that the
applicant passes the test , his application is referred to the membership for acceptance or
rejection , which is determined by majority vote. After admission to the Union, the
applicant is required to fulfill his initiation fee obligation by the payment of an addi-
tional $250. It should be noted that the General Counsel does not contend that the
Union's procedures for acquisition of membership offend any provision of the Act.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 165
shop" existed. Powell then asked whether any jobs were available, and Lennes
stated, "Sure, we have theaters being built every day." However, Powell admitted
that Lennes did not specify at which theaters employment was available.
In the main, Lennes' testimony was supportive of Jackson's. Lennes testified that
he received a visit from Jackson in September 1963 during which Jackson sought
employment as a projectionist. Lennes advised Jackson that there were no openings
at the time in the Skouras chain, and suggested that he contact the Union to
ascertain whether any jobs were available in other theater circuits. Lennes acknowl-
edged that he gave the Board a sworn statement in which he averred that he told
Jackson that he would hire the latter if a job was available and suggested that Jackson
become a union member in order to obtain employment as a projectionist because
"all projectionists come from the union and the union determines if a man is quali-
fied." According to Lennes, this advice was tendered to Jackson during each of
their conversations between September 1963 and April 1964. However, Lennes
denied that he informed Jackson that the Company and the Union were parties to a
closed-shop arrangement, and denied that he told Jackson that the latter was a
qualified projectionist. Rounding out Lennes' testimony, he stated that only two
theaters had been acquired in the preceding 2 years within the territorial jurisdiction
•of the Union.
Andrew Snyder testified that Jackson appeared before the Union's executive board
in September 1963 in quest of an application for membership in the Union at
which time Jackson indicated that he had owned and operated a theater in Virginia.
Snyder initially testified that Jackson did not manifest a desire to obtain permanent
employment as a projectionist until after he had taken the test which the Company
administered on April 20, 1964. However, Snyder gave testimony in response to
an order of a United States district court enforcing a subpena in which Snyder con-
ceded that Jackson's purpose in appearing before the executive board in September
1963 was to obtain a permanent position as a projectionist in Bergen County.
Snyder further testified that Jackson failed to perfect his application for union
membership when he appeared before the executive board on March 17, 1964,
because he was unable to pay the initiation fee.
Salah Hassanein testimonially related the circumstances surrounding his meeting
with Jackson in April 1964. Jackson informed Hassanein that the former was
desirous of obtaining a job as a projectionist with Skouras and that he had made
efforts to join the Union but he was unwilling to expend $500 on the initiation fee
without a definite assurance that he would obtain employment. Hassanein informed
Jackson that "if that was his intentment of having a job, and in view of the fact that
he was trying to get a job as a projectionist, that I would agree to hire him at union
scales at the first opportunity that made itself available, regardless of whether he
joined the union or not, provided, A., that he passed the test which would be based
purely and simply on the New York City License Bureau standards, and B., that
after we gave him a job, he would make an application to the union, and that the
fact, whether they accepted his application or not would in no way impair his job
in our company." As indicated above, such a test was administered to Jackson
which he was unable to pass.
Based upon the foregoing testimony, which is largely uncontroverted, I find that
Jackson visited Lennes in September 1963 in search of permanent employment as a
projectionist in the Company's theaters in Bergen County. During this visit, I find
that Jackson was informed by Lennes that no jobs were available in Skouras' theaters,
and Lennes inquired whether Jackson was a member of the Union. When Jackson
replied that he was not, Lennes remarked that Jackson could not obtain employment
in Bergen County unless he attained union membership and was referred by the
Union for employment. Although Lennes stated that motion picture exhibitors
"were opening new theaters all the time," I find that Lennes did not specify the
theaters at which employment was available and Jackson did not press Lennes for
that information. I further find that, during this conversation, Lennes suggested that
Jackson get in touch with the Union and make application for membership, and that
Jackson presented himself to the Union's executive board on September 18, 1963,
in response to this suggestion and stated that he sought permanent employment as a
projectionist. At the meeting, the executive board delved into Jackson's qualifica-
tions as a projectionist and explained the Union's internal procedures for the acquisi-
tion of membership. Jackson was thereupon told that, if he attained union member-
ship, his name would be put on a "waiting list" because there were no jobs available
at the time and union members were then out of work, although the board refused
to indicate the position on the list which Jackson would occupy. At the conclusion
of the meeting, the board refused to register Jackson's name on the list until he
became a union member.
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that, shortly after this meeting with the executive board, Jackson again spoke
with Lennes who remarked that the Union maintained a "closed shop" and suggested
that Jackson enlist the support of CORE.s On October 16, 1963, Jackson received
a request from the Union for certain information in support of his application for
membership and, on January 24, 1964, he obtained an application form from the
Union. In late January or early February, Jackson spoke with Lennes concerning
potential employment and, while Lennes mentioned that exhibitors "were opening
new theaters all the time," Lennes at no time indicated where those openings were
and at no time stated that jobs were available with Skouras. During this period, I
find that Jackson telephoned Snyder to investigate the availability of permanent work
and that Snyder replied that there were no jobs to be had and that even union mem-
bers were unemployed. I further find that, on March 12, Jackson filed the instant
charges and, on March 17, he appeared before the Union's executive board in con-
nection with his application for membership. Jackson submitted his application
form which did not contain the names of three members of the Union as required'
by the Union's bylaws, and the application was rejected. I find that, following this
meeting, Jackson again contacted Lennes and the latter stated that he would like to,
hire Jackson but he was unable to do so "because the union sent him his men
and . . . because the union had a closed shop." While Lennes also stated that jobs
must be available because "new theaters were opening all the time," Lennes did not
specify the jobs he had in mind and Jackson did not question him along this line-
In this connection, I accept Lennes' undenied testimony that only two theaters had
been opened in Bergen County during the preceding 2 years.9 I further accept
Lennes' uncontroverted testimony that, at all times material to this proceeding, no,
permanent positions as a projectionist were available in the Company's theaters in
that county. I find that. after this conversation, Jackson telephoned Snyder to
request that his name be placed on the waiting list, but the Union failed to comply
with this request.
I further find that, in April 1964, Jackson met with Salah Hassanein in connection.
with his search for permanent employment as a projectionist with Skouras. During
the meeting, Hassanein stated that he bore no prejudices against the employment
of Negroes as projectionists and showed Jackson a letter which he had sent to the
Union as early as July 1963 in which Hassanein affirmed the Company's policy
favoring equal opportunity for employment in Skouras' theaters. Hassanein then
suggested that he would arrange for a test to be administered to Jackson by the
Company's chief engineer, and assured Jackson that if the latter passed the test he
would be offered the first available permanent position as a projectionist regardless
of whether Jackson acquired union membership. I find that Hassanein told Jackson
to apply for membership if he successfully demonstrated his proficiency in the pro-
jection booth, but guaranteed Jackson that his job security would in no way be
impaired in the event the Union rejected his application. The General Counsel
concedes, and I find, that the test which the Company administered to Jackson was
fair and reasonable, and that the test results demonstrated that Jackson was not
qualified for employment as a projectionist in Skouras' theaters.
C. Analysis and conclusions
I have heretofore found, based upon substantially uncontroverted testimony, that
the Union and Skouras maintained and enforced an exclusive referral agreement,
understanding, arrangement, or practice pursuant to which permanent employment
as a projectionist in Skouras' theaters in Bergen County, New Jersey, which encom-
passes the Union's territorial jurisdiction, was available only to members of the
Union who were selected for referral based upon their seniority within the Union.
I have further found that the Union and Skouras, pursuant to the aforesaid exclusive
referral agreement, understanding, arrangement, or practice, accorded preferential
treatment to the referral and employment of temporary projectionists who were union
members. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that the Union and Skouras violated'
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A), and 8(a)(3) and (1), respectively.10
Whether Jackson failed to obtain permanent employment as a projectionist with
Skouras because he was not a union member presents a sterner question. Although
8I do not credit Lennes' denial that he mentioned to Jackson that a "closed shop"
existed in view of Lennes ' admitted statements concerning the exclusive nature of the
referral system which prevailed between the Union and the Company.
0I also accept Lamartin 's undisputed and corroborative testimony that Skouras had'
built but two theaters in Bergen County within the preceding 34 years.
10 See J. J. Hagerty, Inc., 139 NLRB 633; Motion Picture Operatora Union of Eseew
County ( Stanley Warner Corporation ), 126 NLRB 376.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 167
the General Counsel argues for this conclusion, I am not convinced on this record
that a case of statutory discrimination against Jackson has been made out. It is a
fundamental proposition in the administration of the Act that an individual does not
suffer discrimination within the meaning of the statute unless he himself is deprived
of employment status for reasons related to membership or nonmembership in a
union or because of his participation or nonparticipation in other activities protected
under the Act." Stated differently, a proper claim of individual discrimination may
be founded only upon a "concrete victimizing instance." 12 To support a finding of
discrimination respecting Jackson, it is not enough that an unlawful referral agree-
ment, understanding, or practice existed; it must also be shown that, in its applica-
tion, this illegal referral procedure resulted in actual discrimination against him.
I have heretofore found, based not only upon the testimony of Lennes, but the
testimony of Jackson as well, that Lennes repeatedly advised Jackson that there were
no permanent jobs available in the Company's theaters in Bergen County during
the times material, and I have found that no such jobs in fact existed during that
period. Moreover, the General Counsel conceded, and I have also found, that
Skouras administered a proficiency test to Jackson which was fairly given and which
Jackson failed to pass. In view of these findings and concession, I conclude that
Jackson was not denied employment with Skouras pursuant to the illegal referral
procedure because he lacked membership in the Union. Nor do I conclude, as alterna-
tively urged by the General Counsel, that the Company discriminated against Jackson
without regard to the maintenance and enforcement of that illegal referral procedure.
In my judgment, the unhappy combination of lack of work and lack of proficiency
resulted in Jackson's failure to attain job placement with Skouras, and that combina-
tion is not the type of "concrete victimizing instance" of discrimination contemplated
under the Act.13
Accordingly, as I find that Jackson was not denied employment for reasons relat-
ing to his membership or nonmembership in the Union, I conclude that the Union
and the Company did not violate Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A), and 8(a)(3) and (1),
respectively, by virtue of the fact that Jackson failed to obtain employment.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union set forth
in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent
Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, it will be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent Union cease maintaining or enforcing
any exclusive agreement, understanding, arrangement, or practice which conditions
referrals for permanent employment with Respondent Company upon membership
in the Union and which prefers union members with greater union seniority, and
which affords preference for temporary employment with Respondent Company to
union members over nonunion members.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent Company cease maintaining or
enforcing any exclusive agreement, understanding, arrangement, or practice which
"Cf. Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177, 188; Republic Steel Corpo-
ration v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 7, 10-12.
32 See Phelps Dodge Corp . v. N.L.R.B., supra.
' In his brief, the General Counsel urges that , as a remedial matter, I order the Com-
pany to employ Jackson "if qualified ." I can only conclude that this unique prayer for
relief constitutes a tacit admission by the General Counsel that Jackson failed to obtain
employment with Skouras during the times material , not because he lacked union mem-
bership, but because he lacked the qualifications to operate Skouras' projection machines.
In any event, I have heretofore found that the Union and the Company maintained and
enforced an illegal exclusive referral system and I have ordered that they cease and
desist therefrom . Should Jackson qualify to operate those projection machines at some
future date, the Union would be under a duty to refer him for available employment, and
the Company would be obligated to hire him, under the terms of the order without regard
to union membership.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions the hiring of permanent employees upon their membership in the Union
and their union seniority, and which affords preference for temporary employment
with Respondent Company to union members over nonunion members.
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by
Respondents, which evince an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in
general, I deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the
entire record in the case, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Skouras Theaters Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees and Moving
Picture Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 642, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing exclusive agreements, understandings, arrange-
ments, or practices which condition referrals for permanent employment with
Respondent Company upon membership in the Union and which prefers union
members with greater union seniority, and which affords preference for temporary
employment with Respondent Company to union members over nonunion members,
the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
4. By maintaining and enforcing exclusive agreements, understandings, arrange-
ments, or practices which condition the hiring of permanent employees upon their
membership in the Union and their union seniority, and which affords preference for
temporary employment with Respondent Company to union members over nonunion
members, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in
this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that:
A. Respondent The International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehand Employees
and Moving Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 642, Palisades Park,
New Jersey, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Maintaining or enforcing any exclusive agreement, understanding, arrange-
ment, or practice which conditions referrals for permanent employment with Respond-
ent Company upon membership in the Union and which prefers union members with
greater union seniority, and which affords preference for temporary employment
with Respondent Company to union members,over nonunion members.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices in Palisades Park, New Jersey, and at all other places where
notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A." 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent Union,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
1s In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a 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
Order."
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION, ETC. 169
(b) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (a)
above, as soon as forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B."
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 22 signed copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A" for posting by Skouras Theaters Corporation at its
theaters located in Bergen County, New Jersey. Copies of this notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 22, shall be returned to the Regional Director
forthwith for appropriate disposition, after being signed by the Respondent Union's
representative.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.15
B. Respondent Skouras Theaters Corporation, New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and enforcing any exclusive agreement, understanding, arrange-
ment, or practice which conditions the hiring of permanent employees upon their
membership in the Union and their union seniority, and which affords preference for
temporary employment with Respondent Company to union members over nonunion
members.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its theaters located in Bergen County, New Jersey, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B." 16 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Company's representative, be posted by it for 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.
(b) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (a)
above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A "
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 22 signed copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B" for posting by the Respondent Union at its offices in
Palisades Park, New Jersey, and at all other places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Copies of this notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 22, shall be returned to the Regional Director forthwith for appropriate
disposition , after being signed by the Respondent Company's representative.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.17
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) by refusing to refer
Sidney Jackson for employment with the Respondent Company, and that the
Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to employ
Jackson, because Jackson was not a member of the Union.
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
1e See footnote 14.
Ti See footnote 15.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any exclusive agreement, understanding,
arrangement , or practice which conditions referrals for permanent employment
with Skouras Theaters Corporation upon membership in our union and which
prefers union members with greater union seniority, and which affords prefer-
ence for temporary employment with Skouras Theaters Corporation to union
members over nonunion members.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except in the
manner permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGEHAND EM-
PLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 642,
Labor Organization.
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 National
Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No. Market
4-6151.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS
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 maintain or enforce any exclusive agreement, understanding,
arrangement, or practice which conditions the hiring of permanent employees
upon their membership in the Union and their union seniority, and which affords
preference for temporary employment with our company to union members over
nonunion members.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the Union, 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 by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
SKOURAS THEATERS CORPORATION,
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 National
Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No. Market
4-6151.
Niskayuna Consumers Cooperative , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters, Butcher Workmen and Affiliated Crafts of North
America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-
CA-2437. October 192,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 20,1965, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision
in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had
155 NLRB No. 23.