Victorville & Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 289 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

VICTORVILLE GLASS COMPANY
Nick Augustine and Irving Gould d /b/a Victorville
Glass Company and Glaziers and Glassworkers
Local Union No. 636. Case 3 1-CA-2068
September 22, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On April 19, 1971, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that Respondents cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions,
with a brief in support, to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
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
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent
with this Decision and Order.
The Trial Examiner concluded that Respondents
were estopped from denying their membership in a
multiemployer (Association) bargaining unit and,
consequently, were bound by the terms of the
multiemployer agreement negotiated between the
Association and the Union. This conclusion rests
upon his finding that Respondents gave the Union
reasonable grounds to believe that an agreement had
been reached regarding Respondents' membership in
the Association. In support thereof, the Trial Examin-
er relied on two incidents, both of which occurred
after agreement had been reached on the new contract
between the Association and the Union. These two
incidents involving a statement from one Respondent
on behalf of the other Respondent to a union agent
and a conversation concerning membership by
Respondent in the Association are insufficient, in our
opinion, to sustain the General Counsel's burden of
proof that Respondents were members of such
Association.
Respondents took no part in the negotiations and,
289
indeed, were not considered to be members of the
Association during negotiations and final agreement.
In fact, Respondents did not make certain payments
to the Association required of its members. Further-
more the two incidents relied upon by the Trial
Examiner appear even more inconsequential when
viewed against Respondents' continued refusal to
bind themselves clearly and unequivocally to the
Association, despite repeated efforts by the Union
and the Association to secure Respondents' consent.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that
Respondents did not evince a clear and unequivocal
intent to join the Association and therefore did not
violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when they
refused to sign and honor the collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated by the Association and the
Union. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in
its entiretv.1
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
1 The Trial Examiner recommended that certain additional allegations
in the complaint be dismissed , noting that the General Counsel made no
attempt to litigate these allegations No exceptions were filed to that
recommendation
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner: Based on a charge
filed on September 21, 1970,1 as amended on October 29,
1970, by Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 636,
hereinafter referred to as the Charging Party or the Union,
the complaint herein was issued on December 8, 1970. Said
complaint, as amended during the course of the hearing,2
alleges that Nick Augustine and Irving Gould, d/b/a
Victorville Glass Company, hereinafter referred to as the
Company or the Respondents, engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondents, by their
answers, in effect deny that they committed the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint .3
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in San Bernardino,
California, February 9, 1971, before me. Appearances were
entered on behalf of all of the parties. Briefs were received
from the General Counsel and Charging Party within the
I Based on a charge filed in Case 31-CA-2131, Carter F Collier and
June E Brown , d/b/a Victorville Glass Company, were named as
additional Respondents in the caption of the complaint as issued . Collier
and Brown purchased the business of Victorville Glass Company on
October 1, 1970 Based on a representation that a settlement was effected
with Collier and Brown, the complaint was amended to delete said persons
as Respondents (as well as all allegations therein with respect to them) and
Case 31-CA-2131 was dismissed
2 See fn. 1
3 The answers are letters from each of the two individuals which are
construed as denials of the allegations of unfair labor practices and of their
membership in the Association referred to in the complaint
193 NLRB No. 42
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time designated therefor; no brief was received from either
of the Respondents.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Therefore, it is found that the Association and the
employer members of the Association, including Respon-
dents Augustine and Gould, d/b/a Victorville Glass
Company, have been at all times matenal herein an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
It was stipulated by the parties and it is found as follows:
Respondents Augustine-Gould, a partnership consist-
ing of Nick Augustine and Irving Gould,4 at all times
material herein until on or about October 1, 1970,
engaged in business at 15313 Seventh Street, Victorville,
California, where under the name of Victorville Glass
Company they sold glass and installed and glazed glass
for the public including commercial enterprises and
business enterprises with whom they did more than an
insubstantial amount of business.
It was stipulated by the parties and it is found as follows:
Riverside-San Bernardino Counties Glass Dealers
Association, hereafter referred to as the Association,
has been at all times material herein, and is now, an
unincorporated association of employers located in the
counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, California,
where said employers sell glass and install and glaze
said glass for the public including commercial enterpris-
es and business enterprises.
The Association exists, in part, for the purpose of
bargaining on a multiemployer basis with the Union
concerning wages, hours, and working conditions of
employees employed by the Association's members and
by employers authorizing the Association to represent
them.
For the calendar year ending December 31, 1969, the
employers whose employees are employed in the
multiemployer bargaining unit under the Union
Contract in the normal course and conduct of their
businesses described above received gross revenue in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods or
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from distributors
located in California who in turn received said goods or
materials directly from suppliers located outside the
State of California.
For the calendar year ending December 31, 1969,
Respondents Augustine-Gould in the normal course
and conduct of their business operations described
above . . . purchased and received goods or materials
valued at $40,817 from distributors located in Califor-
nia who in turn received said goods or materials directly
from suppliers located outside the State of California.
Respondents deny that during the time material herein
they were members of the aforesaid Association and
testimony was elicited from Augustine in support of their
said denials. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions
set forth hereinbelow, it is concluded that with respect to
the issues involved in this proceeding Respondents were
members of said Association during the time material
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by the Respondents , the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Bargaining Unit Involved Herein
All glaziers and glassworkers employed by the employer
members of the Association, including those employed by
Respondents, d/b/a Victorville Glass Company, during the
time matenal herein, excluding guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
At all times material herein the Union has been
designated or selected by a majority of the employees in the
unit described above and at all times material herein has
been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Background Information
The findings of fact set forth in this section entitled
"Background Information" are based on stipulations or
undisputed testimony.
In October 1968 Respondents acquired the business
known as Victorville Glass Company. The predecessor
owner was a member of the Association and as such was
bound by a contract negotiated between the Association
and the Union, which according to its terms was for a 5-
year period ending July 25, 1970. Shortly after acquiring the
business, Respondents, rather than remaining subject to
their predecessor's Association contract, insisted upon
individually executing a contract which was signed by both
Augustine and Gould on November 7, 1968. The contract
was one that had been negotiated earlier with an
association called the Glass, Glazing and Mirror Contrac-
tors of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as the LA
Association. The aforesaid LA Association contract which
the Respondents signed also terminated on July 25, 1970,
according to its terms.
On June 25, 1970, the Union mailed a letter to the
Respondents as well as to the then members of the
Association notifying them of the termination of the then
existing contract and the desire to begin negotiating "a new
agreement to become effective July 1, 1970." Enclosed with
the letter was a copy of the agreement which had been
negotiated (apparently a short time prior thereto) between
the Union and the LA Association. Said letter stated that
4 Despite this stipulation, Augustine testified that he purchased Gould's is not set forth in either of the answers ( letters) filed by the Respondents
interest in the partnership at a time prior to that matenal herein This claim
VICTORVILLE GLASS COMPANY 291
the enclosed agreement was its proposal for a new
agreement to be effective July 1, 1970. Said letter offered
the Company the choice of accepting the proposed
agreement or, if it was not acceptable, the Union indicated
that it would be willing to negotiate a new agreement.
On July 23, 1970, representatives of the Association and
the Union conferred with respect to a new contract between
the parties and arrived at an agreement. Said agreement
was subsequently set forth in a letter dated August 7, 1970,
addressed to the attorney for the Union and signed by the
attorneys for the Association. It appears that the attorney
for the Union executed his acceptance of the provisions
contained in said letter of August 7 by fixing his signature
thereto on August 26. The letter (which set forth the
agreement arrived at on July 23, 1970) recited that the
parties agreed to the provisions in the Union's proposed
contract (the LA Association agreement) subject to certain
modifications set forth in said letter.
C. Resolution of the Issues Herein
Johnny Rich, the union business representative, testified
that subsequent to the letter of June 25 (which notified the
Company that its contract was terminating on July 25 and
that the Union desired to negotiate a new agreement) he
had a number of conversations with Augustine and Gould.
Rich testified that at the end of June or the first of July he
met with Augustine in the latter's office and asked him if he
had received the aforementioned letter of June 25; that
Augustine said he had received it but had not had the time
to study it; and that he told Augustine he would check with
him later. Rich also testified that he had a second
conversation with Augustine about July 7; that he asked
Augustine if he had read the proposed agreement; that
Augustine said he had but that he had also been
approached by the Association and had not decided what
he wanted to do, but would advise him "in plenty of time";
and that he told Augustine he would check with him later.
About July 12 or 13 Rich again visited the Company's
office and spoke to Gould. His testimony as to his
conversation with Gould is as follows:
A. I asked Mr. Gould if he had decided what they
were going to do yet; that Mr. Augustine had said he
had been approached by the Association.
* * * *
THE WITNESS: He said that they felt they had decided
to go along with the Association; but that he wasn't sure
yet.
And I explained to Mr. Gould that the time was
growing short; that the agreement was just about to
expire in a few more days, and that I needed a
commitment from him one way or another.
He further testified that on or about July 17 he had a
subsequent conversation with Augustine in the latter's
office in which Augustine asked him for an extension of the
existing agreement because he had a prospective buyer
whom he was supposed to meet on Wednesday (July 22);
that he told Augustine he did not need an extension
because the agreement did not expire until the following
Sunday; that Augustine said he would know by Wednesday
whether he had sold the business or not; and that he told
Augustine he would check with him later.
Rich also testified that on July 24 he called the Company
and spoke to Gould. His testimony with respect to their
conversation is as follows:
I asked Mr. Gould if Dan had told [sold ] his business.
And he said, "I don't think so, but I'm not sure.["]
And I told him that the contract was ending on the
weekend and that I had to have something from him
now or I would have to take economic action against
him come Monday morning.
And he said that Danny had instructed him to tell me
that he was going to go along with the Association.
And he asked me if there was going to be any problem.
And I said, "No, if you are represented by the
Association, there is no problem."
And he said, "Well, we don't want a strike."
And I said, "If you're represented by the Association,
there will be no problem."
And he told me that Danny would like to talk to me and
asked if I would come back up Monday morning; asked
me if I would come back up Monday morning, that
Danny would like to talk to me.
And I told him yes, that I'd be there early.
Augustine's testimony does not contradict any of the
above testimony of Rich. Augustine testified that he told
Rich that he would not sign the LA Association agreement,
but that he wanted to see the agreement negotiated by the
Association. His testimony as to what he stated to Rich is as
follows:
THE WITNESS: I said that I would definitely not sign
this contract; that I wanted to see the other contract;
that if it's the same way, then I'm going to go non-
Union.
And at that time he says, "Well, it's your choice; and
if you do, I will pull the men out."
TRIAL EXAMINER : All right.
Then, around July 17 you had another talk with
Rich; didn't you? That was when you asked him for an
extension of your then-Union contract?
THE WITNESS: When I had the buyer, yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER: All right.
THE WITNESS: And I don't think he showed up.
Augustine testified that he did not tell Gould to inform
Rich that he wanted to go along with the Association, but
that he did tell Gould or the secretary to tell Rich that he
(Augustine) wanted to see him on Monday (July 27). Gould
was not called as a witness ; Augustine testified that Gould
was ill in Cleveland, Ohio. Augustine further testified that
in the latter part of 1969 he purchased Gould's interest in
the partnership with the understanding that Gould would
continue to draw the same amount of money from the
partnership; that all of the arrangements between him and
Gould were oral and that there were no books or records
which showed the transfer to him of Gould 's interest.
The above-outlined testimony of Rich as to his conversa-
tions with Augustine and Gould is credited. It does not
appear necessary to determine whether or not Augustine
did, in fact, purchase Gould's interest in the partnership,
inasmuch as it is found that in the circumstances the Union
was entitled to rely on the statement made to Rich by
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gould that Augustine instructed him to say that "he was
going to go along with the Association." 5
On Monday morning, July 27, in accordance with
Augustine's request relayed through Gould, Rich went to
the Company's office to meet Augustine. When he arrived
there, Gould told him that Augustine had gone to have his
car repaired and had left word for him, Rich, to meet
Augustine at the office of Everett Cisco, president of San
Bernardino Glass Company and president of the Associa-
tion. According to the credited testimony of both Rich and
Cisco, Rich asked Cisco if Augustine had arrived and was
informed that he had not. It appears that Cisco did not
know that Augustine was to be there. It further appears that
Rich spent a considerable portion of the day waiting for
Augustine at Cisco's office and checking back with Cisco to
determine if Augustine had arrived. Augustine never
arrived at Cisco's office. Augustine testified that he spent a
considerable portion of time that day getting his car
repaired, and that he had wanted to meet Rich at Cisco's
office "Because he was coming to tell me he was going to
close me up, and I was trying to get time to see that other
contract." However, there is no evidence that he communi-
cated such a purpose to either Cisco or Rich.
Cisco testified that for a considerable period of time he
had been trying to get Augustine to become a member of
the Association and had invited Augustine to several
meetings ; that Augustine accepted the invitations, but
never attended any of the meetings . Cisco further testified
that on July 28, the day after Augustine was supposed to
meet Rich in his (Cisco's) office, Augustine called him on
the telephone. Cisco's testimony as to their conversation is
as follows:
A. He said, "Mr. Cisco, I would like to join your
organization."
Q. And what did you say to him?
A. I said that I could not approve his membership
in the organization, because the contract had been
negotiated the twenty-third or fourth and this was the
twenty-eighth, three or four days before
But I told him that I would call our attorney and ask
him if his name could be put on the list that I had
already given-previously given the Union.
Augustine testified that the above-quoted testimony of
Cisco is only partially true. His version of their conversa-
tion is as follows:
THE WITNESS: The way it was is he said to belong to
the Association, first I have to get approved. And he
says, "You're supposed to come down to several
meetings. And you never showed up. But I can take care
of that. Don't worry about that." And then he says -
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, why did he say that to you?
THE WITNESS: Because I wanted to see the other
contract. See, there is two contracts.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, why did he tell you that if
you only wanted to see the contract? Why did he tell
you you had to come down to some meetings, but that
he could take care of that?
who I am, and I never came down to any meetings. He
meant it as a joke, because I kept promising to come
down to meetings and I never was able to make it. And
I apologized for not making it. But that is just hearsay
conversation. I mean, I don't think he meant anything
by it. He called several times, and I promised I would be
down, but I never did make it.
Q. (By Mr. Robin) What else was said in that
conversation, if anything?
A. He told me first he wanted to find out if I could
join the Association before he can ever even let me look
at the contract.
He says, "Why look at a contract if you can't even
join our Association?" And he says, "I'll check."
So then he calls me back and he says he talked to
somebody from Local-I don't know whether he talked
to Leroy Rich or somebody else. I forget who he talked
to. And he said he didn't care-I think it was Mr.
Rich-he didn't care who we belonged to.
So at that time he told me that as soon as the contract
come due he would let me know; that he checked and
Leroy said-yes, it was Leroy-that Leroy said he
didn't care whether he joined that Company or our
Company. It didn't make any difference, as long as he
joined one of them. [Sic]
He says, "Now, when we get our contract, we'll let
you look at it." I think that's the way the conversation
went.
Cisco testified on cross-examination that in his conversa-
tion with Augustine (on July 28) Augustine did not tell him
"that he wanted to see the contract before he made up his
mind as to what he was going to do," as Augustine testified,
but that Augustine "merely said he wanted to join" the
Association. Cisco further testified that after his conversa-
tion on July 28 with Augustine, he called the attorney for
the Association and told him that he had received a request
from Augustine to become a member of the Association
and that the attorney told him he would check into it with
the attorney for the Union.
Rich testified that on July 28 or 29 he called Cisco and his
testimony is as follows:
I asked Mr. Cisco if Mr. Augustine had ever shown
up Monday; and he said no, he had not.
And I asked him if he had talked to him since then;
and he said yes.
I asked him what Mr. Augustine wanted,
He said that Mr. Augustine wanted him to-Mr.
Augustine told him that he wanted to join the
Association.
And he said he could not do that himself, but he
would get ahold of the guy who could do it.
THE WITNESS: He said that the other And I asked Mr. Cisco if he had done this.
associations-the the other people in there should know And he said, "Yes, I called the authority [attorney]
5 Particularly the circumstances of Gould's ostensible partnership the Respondent had carved out the decision "to go along with the
interest and the succeeding events which caused the Union to believe that Association "
VICTORVILLE GLASS COMPANY 293
for the Association and told him that Victorville Glass
wanted to be a member."
Leo Geffner, attorney for the Union, testified that at the
meeting of July 23 between the Union and Association,
during which the contract was negotiated, the attorney for
the Association stated that he did not have a complete list
of the members of the Association and that they would all
be identified in a complete list at a later time along with a
letter incorporating the terms of the agreement arrived at at
said meeting.
Cisco testified that, after he talked to the attorney for the
Association about Augustine's request, he received a call
from said attorney who informed him that he had conferred
with the attorney for the Union and obtained the Union's
approval to have the Company's name (Victorville Glass
Company) listed among the members of the Association.
The aforementioned letter of August 7 written by the
attorney for the Association (which set forth the modifica-
tions of the LA Association agreement) contained a list of
members of the Association which included Victorville
Glass Company. Cisco further testified that sometime in
August he called Augustine and told him that his
Company's membership in the organization had been
approved.
The above-outlined testimony of Cisco, Rich, and
Geffner (relating to the inclusion of the Company's name
among the members of the Association listed in the letter of
August 7) is credited and those portions of Augustine's
testimony contradicting that of Cisco are not credited.
Cisco was an impressive witness as contrasted with
Augustine. Moreover, that portion of Cisco's testimony
which is contradicted by Augustine dovetails with that of
Rich and Geffner, whereas there is little in the record to
support Augustine's version of his conversation with Cisco
on July 28.6
It is concluded from the above-credited testimony that
Augustine did notify Cisco that he wished to join the
Association and that Cisco, through the attorney for the
Association, obtained the Union's approval of the Compa-
ny's inclusion among the members of the Association. It is
further concluded that based on the representation made
by Gould to Rich and the representation in the aforesaid
letter of August 7, the Union had reasonable grounds to
believe that an agreement had been reached between the
Union and Respondents that the Company was to be
considered as a member of the multiemployer bargaining
unit represented by the Association and that the Respon-
dents were to be bound by the contract arrived at between
the Union and the Association on July 23. It is also
concluded that by reason of the actions of Gould and
Augustine (Gould's statement to Rich of Augustine's
decision to join the Association and Augustine's request of
Cisco that he be included among the members of the
Association) the Respondents are estopped in this proceed-
6 A letter dated September 17, from the attorney for the Association to
the attorney for the Union, would tend to support Augustine's version, but,
for the reasons set forth hereinbelow, it is considered to be of little
probative value
7 Although the record discloses that Respondents did not make certain
payments to the Association required of its members, it is concluded that
this does not alter the appropriateness of the finding of an estoppel
8 Robertson was not called as a witness in view of the credited
ing from denying their membership in the aforesaid
multiemployer bargaining unit. Cf. American Sign & Neon
Company, 176 NLRB No. 147.7 Consequently, it is also
concluded that Respondents were bound by the terms of
the Association agreement until the sale of the Company on
October 1, 1970.
In arriving at the above conclusions, the Trial Examiner
has not overlooked the aforementioned letter from the
attorney for the Association, Barton W. Robertson, to the
attorney for the Union, dated September 17, 1970, in which
he stated that he "was in error" when he informed him in
the letter of August 7 that Victorville Glass Company was a
member of the Association. There is nothing in the record
to indicate what the basis was for Robertson's statement as
to his errors
It appears that in the middle of September Rich
discovered that Respondents were not complying with the
Association agreement and that he confronted Augustine
with this fact. It further appears that Augustine replied that
he was not signed to an agreement and was not a member
of the Association. Rich showed him the August 7 letter in
which the Company's name was listed as a member of the
Association and Augustine insisted that he had signed
nothing and was not a member.9 Augustine called the
attorney for the Association and the attorney was advised
of the problem. The attorney asked for time "to get the
matter straightened out." Shortly after that Rich called the
attorney for the Association who informed him that
Victorville Glass Company's name had been included in
the letter of August 7 through error and that he had sent a
letter to that effect to the Union's attorney (the aforemen-
tioned letter of September 17). It does not appear that said
letter of September 17, without more, is of sufficient
probative value to negate the appropriateness of the above
conclusions (as to the Company's membership in the
Association and Respondents' obligations with respect to
the Association agreement).
It is concluded that by failing and refusing to abide by or
to honor the terms and conditions of the Association
agreement, Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. American Sign & Neon Company, supra.
There are allegations in the complaint (par. 9 and 10)
with respect to a stnke commencing on September 21, 1970.
It does not appear that the General Counsel attempted to
litigate the issues with respect to said allegations and no
mention is made in his brief of said allegations. Conse-
quently, it is concluded that the General Counsel
abandoned that portion of the complaint and the
recommended order will provide for the dismissal of said
allegations.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
testimony of Cisco, who was president of the Association at the time, as to
the reason for including the Company's name in the letter of August 7,
there is nothing in the record from which a reason can be inferred for
Robertson's confession of error or an assessment made of the validity of
his confession.
9 It is noted that the record does not indicate that members of the
Association were required to sign the contract negotiated by the
Association
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the Association and the Union on July 23, 1970, for the
period between the effective date of said agreement and
October 1, 1970, and that they make whole those persons
who were their employees during said period for any loss of
wages or other employment benefits which they failed to
receive as a result of Respondents' unfair labor practice.
Since it appears that on October 1, 1970, the Respondents
sold the Victorville Glass Company business, it does not
appear that it would be appropriate to require the posting
of a notice at Respondents' former place of business.
However, it will be required that copies of the attached
notice be sent to those persons who were employees of
Respondents for the period during which the Respondents
were bound by the aforesaid agreement between the
Association and the Union.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
1. By failing and refusing to abide by or to honor the
terms and conditions of the Association agreement for the
period from its effective date to October 1, 1970,
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondents engaged in an
unfair labor practice it will be recommended that
Respondents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, it will be recommended
that Respondents forthwith give retroactive effect to the
terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at between