Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc.

98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc., and Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union No. 445, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO. Case 29-CA-6167 April 28, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDAI.E On November 29, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Norman Zankel issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Union filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law' Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Produc.ts, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings t'he Administrative Law Judge found that, whenever in the past no agreement had been reached by the time a multiemployer contract ex- pired. Respondent Farmingdale Iron Works Ilnc (herein FIWI, had signed -year stipulations extending the term of the expiring agreements The exhibits introduced at the hearing show that the stipulation signed in 1967 was for a 2-year term, while the multiemployer contract ultimately negotiated had a 3-year term, and was adhered to by FIW. he stipula- tion signed in 1970 was for a 3-year term. as was the multiemployer con- tract negotiated in that year to which FIW adhered. The stipulation signed in 1973 was for 2 years. as was the multiemployer contract negoti- ated in that year and subsequently adhered to by FIW. Thus, in each year in which the multiemployer contract was subject to renegotiation the record shows that FIW abided by the terms of the signed stipulations until a new mulhiemployer contract was negotiated. at which time FIW put into effect the terms of the multiemployer contract Although the du- ration of the stipulations varied. the Administrative Law Judge correctly found that FIW had always treated the stipulations as binding obligations to implement the terms of the new multiemployer contracts upon the completion of bargaining. 2 he Administrative Law Judge fiound, and we agree, that Respond- ent Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc. (herein JCIW), is an alter go of FIW. In so conluding, he fould, inter alia, that JCIW "was not actually organized until the New Yorkl State Labor Relations] Board disavowed the existence of a contract " The State Labor Board decision relating to the existence of a contract between FIW and the Union was issued on September 23. 1977 Contrary to the Administrative l.aw Judge. howev- er. the record clearly discloses that JCIW was incorporated on August 22, 1977. approximately I month before the State abor Board's decision Moreover, we note that the Administrative Law Judge found that ait work was transferred to JCIW on September 20. 1977. 3 days before the State Labor Board decision Accordingly, in affirming the Admilistrative Law Judge's conclusion that JCIW is an alter ego to FIW, we place ini reliance on any inference that JCIW was frnecd il response Ito the State labor IBoard decisionl We also place ino reliance on the facls that JCIW and FIW are represented by the same legal counecl and use the sanme ac- 249 NLRB No. 3 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge found, inter alia, that Respondent FIW violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by repudiating its collective-bargain- ing obligations and failing to make contractually required contributions to benefit funds. Respond- ents contend that any remedy for these violations, as well as the others found, 3 is barred by Section 10(b) of the Act, which provides that "no com- plaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor prac- tice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge ... ." With regard to the repudiation of the contract as a whole, the Administrative Law Judge found that until September 1977 Respondents did not convey a clear and unequivocal intention to repudiate the multiemployer contract negotiated in 1975 and that the charge filed on January 16, 1978, therefore, was timely with respect to the total repudiation of FIW's collective-bargaining relationship with the Union. In so doing, he relied, inter alia, on the fact that FIW took steps inconsistent with a claim that it was not bound by the contract. The Administra- tive Law Judge found particularly significant the fact that FIW, as late as July 5, 1977, participated in arbitration proceedings, pursuant to the contrac- tual grievance procedures, concerning work assign- ment and FIW's failure to utilize the hiring hall. He emphasized that FIW produced its payroll rec- ords through July 5, 1977, at the arbitration hear- ing, and thereafter allowed the Union to inspect other records relating to the work assignment and hiring hall grievance. We agree with the Adminis- coultant and the same bank Nonetheless, we agree with the Administra- live Law Judge that the other factors relied on by him establish JCIW's altr go status. Respondents have excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that JCIW purchased a motor vehicle "having a value of S70,10)." Al- though Respondent now asserts that the ehicle in question was a passen- ger vehicle worth not more than $7.000. the figure cited by the Adminis- trative Law Judge reflects a stipulation entered into at the hearing by all parties In these circumstances, we find no basis for overturning the Ad- miimstrative Law Judge's finding with regard to this purchase. In any event. we note that other record evidence indicates that JCIW's out-of- state purchases were more than de minimis regardless of the actual value of the vehicle in question and we therefore adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings that JCIW is engaged in commerce. Finally, in view of our adoption of the Administrative Law Judge's finding that JCIW is an alter ego of FIW, an employer which meets our discretionary jurisdictional standards. we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the Board's jurisdiction attaches to JCIW. :' With regard to Respondents' argument that Sec l(0h) bars complaint allegatitns concernling the transfer of work to JCIW and wage increases for those employees who wellt to JCW, ill violation of Sec 8(a)(1),(3. and (5). we note that this conduct clearly loccurrcd within the (Xb) period We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that these viola- tils are ot timle barred We find withiout merit Respondents' apparent argument that l:1W is il hlonger hbligated to bargain with the Union by vlrtue oif FIW's asserted repudia tion of its bargaining obligation motre than 6 months befre tIh filing if the charges herein, in siewi of our find- ig that such totial alltd titeqcUItocal repudiatoitl did ol o tIccur until Sep- tember 177. within the Il(h) pcriod FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. trative Law Judge that FIW's conduct outside the 10(b) period did not constitute an unequivocal re- pudiation of the bargaining obligation sufficient to begin the running of the 10(b) period as to FIW's overall bargaining obligation. However, with regard to the payment of benefit fund contributions, FIW clearly violated the con- tract well before the 6-month period preceding the filing of the instant charges. Thus, as a result of monthly reports from the fund trustees, the Union was aware that none of the contributions due after June 1976 had been made.4 In these circumstances, Respondents contend that any complaint as to the failure to make these contributions is barred by Section 10(b). While we do not agree that a com- plaint as to these payments is barred in its entirety, we find that Section 10(b) precludes any Board remedy for FIW's failure to make fund payments due before July 16, 1977, the commencement of the 6-month period before the filing of the charge. The Board previously has considered the appli- cation of Section 10(b) to the unilateral discontinu- ance, in the face of a bargaining obligation, of benefits which formerly were granted on a periodic basis. Thus, the Board has held that each denial of a merit increase to employees whose evaluations previously would have entitled them to such an in- crease constituted a separate and distinct violation of the Act which could be remedied upon the filing of a charge within 6 months after the denial of that particular increase.5 The Board further has held that the unilateral decision to discontinue making benefit fund contributions, like the failure to make periodic wage increases, constitutes a vio- lation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.6 Accordingly, we conclude that each failure to make the contrac- tually required monthly benefit fund payments con- stituted a separate and distinct violation of Re- spondents' bargaining obligation and, therefore, that any benefit fund payment due after July 16, ' We note that, although the Administrative Law Judge relied on Re- spondents' participation in arbitration proceedings as evidence that Re- spondents' intentions were equivocal with respect to both the cessation of fund payments and the total repudiation of the contract, the fund pay- ments were never the subject of an arbitration hearing. a General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 196 NLRB 137 (1972), enfd. 476 F.2d 850 (Ist Cir. 1973). See also Allied Products Corporation. Richard Brothers Division, 218 NLRB 1246 (1975). In both cases, merit wage re- views and increases were suspended during initial bargaining with a newly certified union. It is well settled that an employer is obligated to maintain the status quo during both initial negotiations ad, as here, the term lf all existing collective-hbargaiting agreement Electri-Fex Compa- ny, 228 NLRB 847 (1977), enfd 570 F2d 1327 (7th Cir 1978). cert. denied 439 U S. 911 (1978) a Peerless Roofing Co.. Ltd., 247 NLRKB No. 72 (1980); Wuyrlne Olive Knoll Farms. Inc.. l'h/a Wayne'i Dairy, 233 NRHB 260 (1976) (employer obligated to continue making pension ad health and welfare colt ribu- tions even after the expiration of the collective-balgaining agreement pro- viding thile basis for such contlribhutions) 1977, is subject to the Board's remedial powers. 7 We shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order accordingly. 8 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respond- ents, Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc., Farmingdale, New York, and Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc., Bayshore, New York, their officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(e): "(e) Make all benefit fund payments due on or after July 16, 1977, to the Union, as required in the 1975--78 collective-bargaining agreement." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. I Cf. Continental Oil Company, 194 NLRB 126 (1971) (adherence to method of allocating overtime established more than 6 months before filing of complaint does not constitute a unilateral change within the 10(b) period and, therefore, is not a continuing violation). See also Ron*-it Teller. Inc., 96 NLRB 608 (1951) (no complaint may issue based upon bare presumption of continuity of an unlawful practice-suspension of wage reviews-which occurred prior to the 6-month period). 8 The Administrative Law Judge recommended that contributions due to the various contractual benefit funds, as well as other matters subject to the make-whole directives of his recommended Order, bear interest as, set forth in, inter alia, Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) However, because the provisions of employee benefit fund agreements are variable and complex, the Board does not provide at the adjudicatory stage of a proceeding for the addition of interest at a fixed rate on unlaw- fully withheld fund payments. Merryweather Optical Company, 240 NLRB No. 169, fn. 7 (1979). We leave to the compliance stage the question of whether Respondent must pay any additional amounts into various bene- fit funds in order to satisfy our make-whole remedy. These additional amounts may be determined, depending upon the circumstances of each case, by reference to provisions in the documents governing the fund and, if there are no governing provisions, by evidence of any loss directly attributable to the unlawful withholding action, which might include the loss of return on investment of the portion of funds withheld, additional administrative costs, etc., but no collateral losses. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPI.OYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- nity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union 99 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choice To engage in activities together for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from the exercise of any or all such activities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Shopmen's Local Union No. 445, Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit: All production and maintenance employees engaged in the fabrication and/or manufac- ture of all ferrous and non-ferrous metals, iron, steel and other metal products or in the maintenance of machinery and equipment employed by us at our Farmingdale and Bayshore, New York locations, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and all su- per\ isors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT unilaterally transfer bargain- ing unit work to other locations or otherwise change your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment without prior bargaining with the above-named Union. WE WIl.L NOT unilaterally withdraw recog- nition from any labor organization which is your collective-bargaining agent. WE WILL NO unilaterally refuse to honor and abide by the terms of any collective-bar- gaining agreement which is in effect between us and a union which represents you. WE WI.l.L NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the free exercise of any of the rights set forth above. WE WILL apply the terms of the 1975-78 collective-bargaining agreement with the above-named Union to our employees who were in the appropriate bargaining unit per- forming ornamental iron operations between July 1, 1975, and June 30, 1978. WE WIL.L make vhole each employee in the appropriate bargaining unit between July 1, 1975, and June 30, 1978, by paying each of them, with interest, all moneys due under the terms of the 1975-78 collective-bargaining agreement referred to above. WE WILL pay to the above-named Union all moneys due on or after July 16, 1977, as bene- fit fund contributions under the terms of the 1975-78 collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL bargain with the above-named Union about the effects of our decision to transfer our ornamental iron work from our Farmingdale to our Bayshore. New York, fa- cility. FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. JERRY CARDULLO IRON WORKS, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE NORMAN ZANKEL, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me on December 11-14, 1978, in Farmingdale, New York, and on July 18 and 19, 1979, in Brooklyn, New York. The original charge was filed on January 16, 1978, and was amended on February 21. On June 20, 1978, the Regional Director for Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc. (FIW), and Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc. (JCIW), hereinafter jointly referred to as Respondents or individually by their separate names or initials, violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. The charge and its amendment were filed by Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO, hereinafter called the Union. In essence, the complaint alleges that FIW and JCIW, as a single employer or by virtue of an alter ego or successorship relationship, refused and failed to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union by refusing to honor a collective-bargaining agreement alleged to exist between the parties. Further, it is alleged that FIW dis- continued the ornamental iron operations and unlawfully shifted that function to JCIW, which allegedly had been organized for the express purpose of evading Respond- ents' collective-bargaining duties. Finally, the complaint alleges that FIW unilaterally withdrew recognition from the Union, and that JCIW has unlawfillly failed to grant the Union recognition as the collective-bargaining agent of the ornamental iron employees of JCIW; and that both Respondents have unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment of those ornamental iron employees. Respondents filed a timely answer which admitted cer- tain allegations, but denied the substantive allegations of the complaint and also denied that they had committed any unfair labor practices. Respondents interpose three affirmative defenses: (1) that the instant proceeding is improperly brought be- cause a decision of the New York State Labor Relations Board had resolved the Union's representative status and that such adjudication is entitled to comity; (2) that the instant action is barred by the Act's statute of limitations; and (3) that no contract existed between the parties which could effectively be the basis of a remedial order herein. All issues were fully litigated at the hearing; all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full op- FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. 101 portunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to in- troduce evidence pertinent to the issues, and to engage in oral argument. Counsel for all parties submitted post- hearing briefs. All arguments oral and written have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record, my observation of the wit- nesses and their demeanor in the witness chair, and upon substantial, reliable evidence "considered along with the consistency and inherent probability of testimony" (Uni- versal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 496 (1951)), I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION FIW, a New York corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business at 105 Florida Street, Farm- ingdale, New York. At all material times herein, FIW has been engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of structural and ornamental iron and steel building materials and related products. During the calendar year immediately preceding issu- ance of the complaint, a representative period, FIW pur- chased and caused to be transported and delivered to its Farmingdale location iron, steel, and other goods and materials exceeding $50,000 in value, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to FIW from other entities located in the State of New York, each of which other entities had re- ceived said goods and materials directly from States of the United States other than New York. FIW admits, the record reflects, and I find thai it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The record reflects that since on or about September 21, 1977, JCIW, a New York corporation, has main- tained its principal office and place of business at 237 North Fehr Way, Bayshore, New York. At all material times herein, JCIW has been engaged in the manufac- ture, sale, and distribution of ornamental iron and steel building materials and related products. JCIW contends it does not meet the Board's statutory and discretionary jurisdictional standards. The record contains evidence that during the period December 1, 1977, through November 30, 1978, a representative period, JCIW performed services valued at least at $13,000 for entities which themselves are engaged in in- terstate commerce and meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. Counsel for the General Counsel, relying upon the validity of the assertion that JCIW is an alter ego, successor for, and/or single employer with FIW, abbre- viated and curtailed his presentation of additional finan- cial evidence relative to JCIW. Before concluding pres- entation of such evidence, however, it was established that JCIW had purchased $2,548 worth of iron fittings from outside New York State and purchased a motor ve- hicle assembled outside of New York State having a value of $70,100 from a Ford Motor Company dealer- ship. As I shall find, infra, that JCIW is an alter ego of FIW, I conclude the General Counsel's evidence relative to ju- risdiction over FIW provides sufficient basis to assume jurisdiction over JCIW herein. As an alter ego, the Board's jurisdiction attaches to JCIW. Accordingly, I find that JCIW is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. S. Brooks Electric, Inc., et al, 233 NLRB 889 (1977); Joseph E. Cote, d/b/a J. E. Cote, et al., 101 NLRB 1486 (1952). In the alternative, I find that the operations of JCIW satisfy the Board's statutory jurisdiction. The Board, with court approval, has held that a business "affects commerce" within the meaning of the Act if the effect of its operations on commerce is more than de minimus. Al- though the proven volume of JCIW's out-of-state busi- ness hardly can be described as extensive, the dollar amount of such purchases of iron fittings and its motor vehicle clearly exceeds the de minimus standard. N.L.R.B. v. Suburban Lumber Company, 121 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1941), cert denied 314 U.S. 693. Suburban Lumber was quoted with approval in N.L.R.B. v. Aurora City Lines, Inc., 299 F.2d 292, 231 (7th Cir. 1962), which held that the purchase of $2,000 worth of mald ials from out-of-state sources was more than de minimus. See also Lamar Hotel, 127 NLRB 885, 886 (1960), and Somerset Manor, Inc., 170 NLRB 1647 (1968). The parties agree, the record reflects, and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALL..EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Scenario of Events' The Union and FIW began a collective-bargaining re- lationship sometime in 1967. FIW and the Union entered into a series of collective-bargaining agreements. The most recent undisputed agreement between those parties expired on June 30, 1975. Throughout its relationship with FIW, the Union had been organized as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining agent for a unit of FIW's pro- duction and maintenance employees, including plant cler- icals, who were engaged in the fabrication and/or manu- facture of all ferrous and nonferrous metals, iron, steel, and other metal products, including plastic products at FIW's Farmingdale, New York, facility.2 The unit ex- plicitly excluded employees involved in erection, installa- tion, or construction work. The record shows that Frank Cardullo, president of FIW, and Meyer Tessler, the Union's business agent, signed a stipulation which extended the parties' most recent agreement from July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976. The instant allegations evolve from the claim of FIW that no contract existed between it and the Union since July 1, 1976. Substantially all the controlling and essential facts are undisputed. Thus, the facts recited in this section are a composite of the credited tes- timony of the General Counsel and the Respondents where they agreed or which otherwise appears uncontradicted Where variations deemed material exist, they are discussed and resolved. Although only the facts considered relevant to the issues are recited, I have considered all matters litigated and arguments of counsel made upon them. Accordingly, omit- ted matter is deemed not credible, irrelevant, or superfluous 2 In agreement with the parties, I find this particular group of employ- ces an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS H()OARD FIW was not a member of the multiemployer bargain- ing association with which the Union had negotiated the aforementioned contracts. Nonetheless, an historical pat- tern developed by which the collective-bargaining rela- tionship between FIW and the Union had been main- tained. Thus, the Union and the Allied Metal Industries, Inc., a multiemployer association which assumed, inter clia, responsibly for negotiation of contracts with the Union, periodically met with the Union to negotiate suc- cessor agreements. Each of these agreements constituted the pattern upon which various independent employers such as FIW continued their contractual relationship with the Union. If ever negotiations between the em- ployer association and Union had not culminated in an agreement at the expiration of a particular contract, so- called extension "stipulations" had been signed between the Union and the independent employers. Normally, those "stipulations" extended the terms of the expiring agreement for I additional year. Those "stipulations" contained specified modifications and changes which would be effective during the term of the extension. No new agreement had been fully negotiated between the employer association and the Union by June 30, 1975. The Union struck the employer-members of the as- sociation and also the independent employers. That strike began in July 1975 and continued until January 1976. Tessler testified, without contradiction, a that in early July 1975 he visited Cardullo and presented him with a blank stipulation. According to Tessler, whom I credit because of related admissions (noted infra) by Cardullo and because FIW was later picketed, Cardullo refused to sign the stipulation. Thus, the Union began a strike at FIW on July 5, 1975. That morning Tessler telephoned Cardullo. Tessler asked Cardullo to visit him to sign an extension stipulation. Later that day, Cardullo went to Tessler's house. There, Cardullo and Tessler signed a I- year extension stipulation (G.C. Exh. 9). It is that docu- ment which FIW claims is the terminal agreement be- tween it and the Union. As indicated, the July 5 stipulation extended the par- ties' contractual relationship for an additional year, ex- plicitly bearing the typewritten dates July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976. The remaining substantive portions of the stipulation are handwritten. With reference to duration, the stipulation provided "If a longer term contract is ne- gotiated in the industry then the parties shall adopt and accept the changes made for the period after the first year." Some of the quoted words apparently ran off the right side of the xeroxed copy of the stipulation received in evidence. I have adopted Tessler's oral statement of the full text relative to the duration. Respondents, through Cardullo's testimony, urge that the Union, through Tessler, engaged in some sort of chi- canery when the stipulation was presented for signature. Thus, Cardullo testified he had signed only a -year ex- tension on July 5, and that no other explanation was pro- vided by Tessler on that date. Tessler testified he dis- cussed each item of the stipulation with Cardullo on July 5. Specifically as to duration, Tessler testified he advised Cardullo that the ultimate termination date would coin- " Cardullo was not asked to deny this aspect of Tessler's testimony, cide with whatever date would be negotiated between the Union and the multiemployer association. I credit Tessler. His explanation is consistent with the parties' collective-bargaining history. His description of the dura- tion language comports with that history and is identical to the typewritten copy of the stipulation (Resp. Exh. 6) which purports to be a conformed, but unsigned, copy of the July 5 stipulation. I find Cardullo's testimony (and Respondents' position) self-contradictory as to the use to be made of the July 5 stipulation. As indicated immediately above, Respondents refute the use of that stipulation for any purpose other than to show FIW was contractually bound to the Union only through June 30, 1976. To so find requires the con- clusion that the stipulation did not contain the paren- thetical language quoted above when Tessler presented it to Cardullo for signature. Cardullo's testimony implicitly suggests the Union engaged in such an alteration. Indeed, Cardullo explicitly claimed that the typewritten version of the stipulation is not the same as the handwritten doc- ument. Despite this claim, Cardullo admitted that he did not compare the language of the typed stipulation to the one he signed on July 5. I consider such unfounded charges, in the surrounding circumstances, elements which adversely impact upon Cardullo's veracity. As al- ready stated, Tessler's testimony regarding the duration provision of the July 5 stipulation is inherently consistent with prior dealings between the parties. It is logical that the stipulation would contain a reference to a longer contract term. Based upon the foregoing discussion concerning the duration language of the July 5 stipulation, I find that FIW entered a I-year extension agreement with the Union by which FIW agreed to be further bound in ac- cordance with what would be negotiated between the multiemployer association and the Union. After the Union settled its strike with the multiem- ployer association members in January 1976, those par- ties signed a new collective-bargaining agreement. That agreement was effective retroactive to July 1, 1975. The contract was to continue in effect through June 30, 1978. The Union prepared copies of the newly negotiated 3- year agreement for signature of the various independent employers which had signed extension stipulations. Sometime during the spring of 1976 Tessler requested FIW to sign the full agreement. It is undenied that FIW has not complied with this request. Despite this, FIW contributed to the various union benefit funds through June 30, 1976. Apparently, FIW maintained in effect all other terms and conditions of the expired 1975 agree- ment, together with the July 5, 1975, extension stipula- tion, until July 1, 1976. Cardullo consulted his attorney, William C. Morrell, Esq., during July 1976. Cardullo apprised Morrell that he signed the July 5, 1975, extension agreement but re- fused to sign the conformed typewritten copy. Cardullo also told Morrell he declined to sign the full 3-year agreement when it was presented during the spring of 1976. He asked Morell's opinion as to the legal obligation of FIW to the Union. Morrell advised Cardullo that a representation petition should be filed with the New FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. 103 York State Labor Relations Board to obtain an election among the affected employees. On August 18, 1976, FIW filed a representation peti- tion signed by Cardullo with the New York State Labor Relations Board. That board conducted two hearings upon the petition, but did not issue a decision until Sep- tember 23, 1977. In its decision, the state labor board found no contract bar, and ordered an election among the employees of FIW. An election was conducted on October 7, 1977. The results were inconclusive. Objec- tions were later filed. The state labor board ultimately vacated all its proceedings on October 19, 1978, appar- ently because the Board asserted jurisdiction in the in- stant matter. The 3-year agreement signed by the Union and the multiemployer association contains a grievance and arbi- tration procedure. The Union used this procedure with the participation of FIW. Thus, on July 5, 1977, an arbi- trator chosen by FIW and the Union conducted a hear- ing over the Union's contention that FIW had improper- ly assigned bargaining unit work to nonunit employees in violation of the contract. Both FIW and the Union ap- peared at the hearing and were represented by counsel. FIW delivered its payroll records from July 1, 1975, to July 5, 1977, the date of the arbitration hearing. Thereaf- ter, FIW complied with the Union's request for inspec- tion of the records relevant to that arbitration proceed- ing. Additionally, the record reveals FIW failed to make payments to the Union's welfare, pension, and sick leave funds after May 1976. Thus, the Union began a series of arbitration proceedings against FIW to collect the fund contributions it claimed to be due from FIW. FIW par- ticipated in these arbitrations. Attempts at settling the issues were made. Meanwhile, in August 1977, the Union had initiated another arbitration proceeding claiming FIW failed to pay the wage provided in the 1975-78 collective-bargain- ing agreement. The parties selected an arbitrator. On De- cember 27, 1977, Arbitrator Edward Levin conducted a hearing upon the wage rate grievance. The Union's counsel, Ms. Erenstein, asked Morrell for certain docu- ments the Union had subpenaed. Morrell said he would comply with the subpena only for the period July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976. Morrell asserted that the New York State Labor Relations Board had ruled the parties had only a -year contract. Morrell claimed he was not obligated to produce records for any period of time beyond that 1 year. Further, it is undisputed that Morrell said FIW did not recognize that it had a collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Union for any period in excess of I year from July 1, 1975. (Morrell was, of course, referring to the state labor board's decision that there was no contract bar to the employer's representa- tion petition). Concurrent with the activity described above was the inception of JCIW. As earlier indicated, FIW originally fabricated both structural and ornamental iron and steel products. During such operations, Frank Cardullo (here- inafter called Frank) was president and his son, Jerry Cardullo (hereinafter called Jerry), was vice president. At that time Frank, his wife, Jerry, and two other sons each owned 40 shares of FIW stock. Jerry's job at FIW was to "run" the ornamental iron operations. He had full responsibility for that work. He made price estimates, field measurements, and customer contracts. He general- ly supervised the ornamental iron operations for FIW. JCIW was incorporated in September 1977. JCIW began functional operations on September 21, 1977, with the same equipment and employees formerly used to per- form the ornamental work at FIW. For the first 2 months of JCIW's operations, it used order and invoice forms bearing the FIW designation. Many of the custom- ers of JCIW were identical to those of FIW. Documents in evidence reflect that the first group of jobs performed by JCIW had been estimated and contracted by Jerry while working for and in the employ of FIW. Undeni- ably, the specific work performed by Jerry and the four employees who came to JCIW from FIW was identical to that at FIW. It is conceded that FIW did not notify the Union concerning the elimination of ornamental work, nor the relocation of unit employees. The initial capital of JCIW was in the form of an in- terest-free loan for $11,000 from Jerry's mother. That money was derived from a joint account between Jerry's mother and Frank, his father. Morrell is the attorney for JCIW and FIW. Both corporations use the same ac- countant, maintain their bank accounts at the same bank, and are represented by the same labor counsel in the in- stant proceedings. It is admitted that JCIW consistently has failed and re- fused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of any JCIW em- ployees. B. Analysis 1. The affirmative defenses a. The contract and comity issues I perceive Respondents' affirmative defenses numbered 1 and 3 to be interwoven. In the third affirmative defense it is asserted no contract existed between the Union and either Respondent after June 30, 1976, the expiration date of the FIW-Union July 5, 1975, extension agree- ment. In the first affirmative defense, it is urged that the state labor board's finding that no contract bar existed to a representation election effectively disposes of the pres- ent contract issue and should be given full force and effect by the NLRB. As indicated, supra, it is true that the state labor board declared no contract existed between FIW and the Union after June 30, 1976. However, that decision had been vacated after the NLRB assumed jurisdiction over the instant matter. Against such a backdrop, I find Re- spondents' "comity" defense anachronistic. Whatever substance this defense may have had, if any, is vitiated by the order vacating the state labor board's decision. Even Respondent's brief suggests effective abandonment of this particular defense. Thus, though Respondents have made numerous other arguments in their defense, the comity issue is not separately argued. The case of Oxford Structures, Ltd., Debtor-In-Posses- sion, 245 NLRB No. 151 (1979), provides guidance in re- 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solving the first affirmative defense. The Oxford case contains dissimilar, but analogous, facts. In that case, the Board adopted pro forma the observation of Administra- tive Law Judge Giannasi that revocation of a disaffir- mance of a collective-bargaining agreement undercut the "very premise of Respondent's defense." In Oxford, an alleged alter ego contended it had no bargaining obliga- tion to a union because a bankruptcy judge had entered an order disaffirming the existence of a collective-bar- gaining agreement between the union and the alleged alter egos predecessor. The disaffirming order was later set aside. I conclude that the Oxford case supports my conclu- sion that once another forum has vacated or set aside an order or decision which might have impacted upon NLRB jurisdiction, there no longer exists any reasonable basis upon which it can be concluded that the action of such other forum should be accorded any recognition. Accordingly, I find there is no merit to the first affirma- tive defense. I now turn to the third affirmative defense by which Respondents claim no contract existed after June 30, 1976. Whether a contract existed after that date is a ques- tion of fact to be determined from the surrounding cir- cumstances. In N.L.R.B. v. Strong, d/b/a Strong Roofing & Insulat- ing Co., 393 U.S. 357, 361 (1969), the Supreme Court ob- served that the Board may, "if necessary to adjudicate an unfair labor practice, interpret and give effect to the terms of a collective-bargaining contract," citing N.L.R.B. v. C & C Plywood Corp., 385 U.S. 421 (1967). Moreover, the Court stated "The Board is not trespass- ing on forbidden territory when it inquires whether ne- gotiations have produced a bargain which the employer has refused to sign and honor, particularly when the em- ployer has refused to recognize the very existence of the contract providing for the arbitration on which he now in- sists [emphasis supplied]." 393 U.S. at 361. To determine the issues herein it is appropriate to use the normal rules of contract offer and acceptance. Pitts- burgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 202 NLRB 880, 888 (1973); North Coast Counties District Council of Carpen- ters, etc. (Cotati Cabinet Shop, Inc., d/b/a Cotati Cabinet Manufacturing Corp.), 197 NLRB 905 (1972). Professor Walter H. E. Jeager observes that the formation of con- tracts depends "merely upon manifestations of assent . . . [and] it is not true that an intention to accept is of any importance except where the acts or words of the of- feree are ambiguous" (Williston on Contracts, 3d ed. §66, p. 213. Moreover, "the nature of the particular acts or conduct and the surrounding circumstances are to be considered to determine whether there was in fact a con- tract." 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts §25, p. 360. Respondents agree that the contract issue may be de- termined by resort to the above-stated general principles. However, Respondents urge that the July 5, 1975, I-year extension agreement is so ambiguous that it cannot be the foundation of a contract for any longer term. Addi- tionally, Respondents strongly suggest that there existed improper compulsion upon Frank to sign the extension agreement. The General Counsel relies upon Kevin Steel Products, Inc., 209 NLRB 493, 499 (1974), remanded on other grounds 519 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1975), as authority for the proposition that the 1975 extension stipulation comprised a lawful contract notwithstanding the fact that some spe- cific terms remained for future negotiations. He argues that the extension agreement cannot be voided for vagueness. I agree with the General Counsel that Kevin Steel controls the disposition of the contract issue. First, I conclude that Respondents have expounded a circuitous argument. The thrust of the defense is not clearly apparent. On one hand, Respondents impliedly suggest the extension stipulation was signed "under duress." The logical result of such a contention is a dec- laration that even the extension stipulation is void ab initio. However, Respondents do not explicitly make this argument. Instead, they concede the viability of a 1-year agreement. I consider these contrary contentions. Second, Respondents' defense is based upon a falacious premise that there is an ambiguity in the extension agree- ment. As noted, Respondents urge that the ambiguity arises from an uncertainty in the reference to an "indus- try contract to be negotiated." I find that the quoted lan- guage provides sufficient definitive parameters to bring the instant matter within the ambit of Kevin Steel. In Kevin Steel, the Board was confronted by a re- spondent employer's contention that an agreement was not legally binding because it was too vague and indefi- nite. Specifically, the agreement did not particularize the wage rates and other terms that would apply to that em- ployer after the union reached an agreement with other employers in the area. The Kevin Steel agreement in question provided only that the respondent would be bound by whatever terms and conditions were negotiat- ed with such other employers. This precise situation at- tends the instant proceeding. In Kevin Steel, the Board, citing its Decision in Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 270 (General Sheet Metal Co.), 144 NLRB 773 (1963), held that the extension agreement was not void for un- certainty. In the latter cited case, there exists yet another factor present herein. In both cases, the executory terms were to be negotiated by the union with a multiemployer association of which the respondent employer was not a member. Thus, the Kevin Steel and Sheet Metal cases, in combination, compromise a context virtually factually in- distinguishable from the instant matter. In skeletal form, the contract issue is relatively simple. Confronted with an economic strike in July 1975, FIW signed an extension stipulation as it had done in the past. (The documentary evidence shows that Frank had signed such agreements on January 22, 1970, and August 22, 1973.) As already indicated, this had been industry practice. Other than the fact that a strike was in progress at FIW when the July 5, 1975, extension agreement was signed by Frank, the record is bare of any evidence of coercion or duress. Thus, FIW was not subjected to any pressure other than that which is normally found result- ing from legitimate economic muscle flexing. According- ly, I find that insufficient evidence exists upon which to conclude that the extension agreement was void in its in- -------- __ FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. 10s ception. In these circumstances, I conclude that the Gen- eral Counsel's decisional authority supports his position. In Sulimmer Home For the Aged, 226 NLRB 976 (1976), the Board observed, in footnote 3, that: . . .Kevin Steel deals with the situation in which parties signed or accept an interim agreement stipu- lating that the agreement will be supplemented or superseded by other agreements to be negotiated in the future. The Board in such instances has upheld the validity of such interim agreements against the contention that they are voided for uncertainty. Such a result is clearly in accord with familiar con- tract law principles. I adopt the Board's statement quoted immediately above as exceedingly applicable herein. It provides the result which I conclude was the clear intention of the parties when the extension agreement was signed. The credited testimony shows that Tessler specifically ex- plained that the duration of the extension stipulation would be supplemented by the multiemployer contract. This fact, then, was known to Frank when he affixed his signature to the extension agreement. These facts, cou- pled with the bargaining history between the parties, lead me to conclude, as I do, that on July 5, 1975, a complete collective-bargaining agreement was signed between FIW and the Union. Any other result defies both logic and realism. The facts herein clearly reveal that FIW and the Union actually continued their collective-bar- gaining relationship uninterruptedly even beyond the 1 year provided by the extension stipulation when they took part in the various arbitration proceedings described hereinabove. This tends to confirm, by the parties' con- duct, a mutual understanding of the full import of the contract between them. Upon all the foregoing, I find no merit to the third af- firmative defense. b. Statute of limitations Respondents claim that all the "operative facts" oc- curred outside the Board's statute of limitations con- tained in Section 10(b) of the Act. In relevant part, that section provides that "no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made." The charge in the instant proceeding was filed by the Union on January 16, 1978. Thus, I am precluded from making unfair labor practice findings on any matter which occurred earlier than July 16, 1977. The General Counsel contends that it was not until December 27, 1977, that there was a clear repudiation of any existing collective-bargaining agreements between the parties. It is this December date which is claimed to be the effective time from which the 6-month statute should be computed. Respondent FIW admittedly "negated" its obligation to the Union by certain conduct in August 1975 when FIW refused to sign the typed copy of the extension stip- ulation. During the spring of 1976, and at all times there- after, FIW refused to sign the full 3-year agreement ne- gotiated with the multiemployer association. An addi- tional fact not heretofore mentioned is that, by letter dated October 7, 1976 (Resp. Exh. 9), Morrell advised the union attorneys that FIW claimed that no moneys were due the Union for contract contributions beyond June 30, 1976. Morrell's letter did not explicitly claim that no contract existed beyond that date. Each of the foregoing incidents occurred long before the 10(b) date. Respondents claim that the instant proceedings are time barred because these events provided the Union with ample notice of principal violations of the Act. Resolution of this issue presents another factual ques- tion. It must be decided whether or not the pre-10(b) date conduct is such as would reasonably provide notice to the Union that bargaining obligations to it had been flouted. The General Counsel contends that the 10(b) period did not begin to run until the employees affected by the unilateral activity were put on notice of it, actual- ly or constructively. As this contention is in accord with clear Board precedent, I agree with the General Coun- sel's position. See, e.g., Southeastern Michigan Gas Com- pany, 198 NLRB 1221 (1972); Wisconsin River Valley Dis- trict Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Skippy Enterprises, Inc.), 211 NLRB 222 (1974), and Alabaster Lime Company, Inc., 194 NLRB 1116 (1972). The answer to the question at hand further depends upon whether it can be said that the indicia of illegality manifest by Respondents' actions were unequivocal. Ellis Tacke d/b/a Ellis Tacke Compa- ny, 229 NLRB 1296, 1301-02 (1977). I find that the following evidence strongly militates toward the conclusion that the General Counsel and the Union should not be precluded from succeeding in the assertion that the only clear indication of repudiation of the bargaining obligation was provided by FIW within 6 months of when the instant charge was filed: (a) In ap- parent contradiction to Morrell's October 7, 1976, refer- ences to cessation of fund payments on June 30, 1976, FIW participated in the various arbitration proceedings during 1977 and moreover delivered its payroll records from July 1975 through July 5, 1977, at the arbitration hearing, and (b) FIW thereafter continued to permit in- spection of even later documents. I conclude that the ac- tions of FIW between June 30, 1976, and into December 1977 did not demonstrate with the requisite certainty the intention of FIW to totally repudiate its bargaining obli- gations. Instead, two events, in my view, conceivably comprise an unequivocal repudiation of the bargaining obligation sufficient to begin the operation of Section 10(b). The first is the removal of the unit work from FIW and transfer to JCIW on September 20, 1977. The record re- veals that the Union was virtually instantaneously aware of this operational change. It is clear that the change was accomplished without consultation or discussion with the Union. I cannot conceive of a more forceful manner in which a labor organization might become aware that an employer has repudiated, or is seeking to repudiate, its bargaining obligations. The second incident is the one urged by the General Counsel. He argues that Morrell's oral remarks on De- 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cember 27, 1977, form the basis of a clear repudiation. I agree. On that date, as earlier indicated, Morrell clearly asserted that the state labor board's decision relieved FIW of the responsibility to produce any records beyond the I-year period of the extension stipulation. On that date also, Morrell bluntly and unequivocally announced that FIW did not recognize that any agreement existed between it and the Union in excess of that I year. I conclude that the alleged unfair labor practice upon which the instant complaint is based occurred with the removal of the bargaining unit work from FIW. Al- though that date is approximately 3 months earlier than the date the General Counsel would have me adopt for purposes of the 10(b) issue, it nonetheless is comfortably within the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the charges herein. Accordingly, I reject Re- spondents' arguments that the Union had actual knowl- edge of the contract repudiation as early as August 1975. To so find would place a serious undue burden upon prospective litigants. In the instant case, the Union easily could have been lulled into a false sense of security, and important employee rights would have been eliminated. I find that the various actions taken by FIW in furtherance of some contractual provisions are simply inconsistent with its present claim of repudiation at the early dates now claimed by Respondents to be "operative" herein. Impliedly, Respondents argue that the Union effectively has waived its right to represent the instant unit employ- ees. Presumably, the bases of such argument are that the Union (1) acquiesced in the refusals by FIW to sign the typed extension stipulation and the full 3-year multiem- ployer agreement, and (2) participated in the state labor board's representation hearings and election. I reject Re- spondents' implications. The first basis has been disposed of hereinabove. As to the second, I consider the Union's conduct in the state labor board's proceedings to be at least as much a means of protecting its interest in remain- ing bargaining agent as it might be a contrary indication. To encumber the Union with the burden suggested by Respondents requires that the Union possess a fair degree of clairvoyance. It would have had to know in advance that JCIW would be later established. The Union would have had to anticipate the alter ego relationship between FIW and JCIW which I shall find, infra. Thus, I view the Union's state labor board activities as a method by which it was protecting its right to continued representa- tion of the affected employees. To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the Union's conduct which clearly shows its pursuit of bargaining authority. I refer, of course, to the various arbitration proceedings and efforts to recover overdue fund contributions. In Tide Water Associated Oil Company, 85 NLRB 1096, 1098 (1949), the Board long ago announced it is "reluc- tant to deprive employees of. . . rights guaranteed them by the Act in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of a waiver of such rights." Upon the forego- ing, I conclude that no such unambiguous conduct rea- sonably can be attributed to the Union. Upon all the foregoing I find the instant proceedings are timely and there is no merit to the second affirmative defense. 2. The underlying dispute a. The relationship between the Companies The General Counsel and the Union, contrary to Re- spondents, contend that JCIW is the alter ego of FIW, or, at the minimum, that it is FIW's successor. I conclude JCIW is an alter ego of FIW. There are factors present which conceivably negate such a conclu- sion. Those items are: (a) the virtual absence of a direct showing that that the labor relations policies and prac- tices of both corporations are uniformly controlled; (b) the two corporations are located at separate geographic locations; and (c) the corporations function with separate bank accounts, separate corporate officials, and separate letterheads and invoices since November 1977. I am, however, persuaded that an alter ego relationship exists by the following more impressive factors: (1) FIW owns the physical premises which houses JCIW and its operations; (2) JCIW was organized to perform exactly the same ornamental work formerly performed by FIW; (3) the ornamental work of JCIW is performed with the identical employee complement and supervision (Jerry) at FIW; (4) JCIW operates with the machinery and equipment transferred from FIW; (5) to a great extent, JCIW services the same customers at FIW for ornamen- tal work; (6) the capital contribution to JCIW came from the bank account of FIW's owner; (7) the two corpora- tions are represented by identical legal counsel and use the same accountant; (8) JCIW and FIW use the same bank for their business accounts; and (9) the initial work of JCIW was estimated and planned by Jerry while on the payroll of FIW. In substance, the items enumerated above clearly dem- onstrate that the sole significant difference between JCIW and FIW is that the former is nonunion, whereas the latter had a bargaining obligation to the Union herein. Where the asserted alter ego continues to run an oper- ation almost exactly as the entity from which it was nur- tured, the Board consistently has held that entity to be an alter ego. Cagle's Inc., 218 NLRB 603, 604 (1975); Air- port Limousine Service Inc., etc., 231 NLRB 932, fn. 2 (1977); Crawford Door Sales Company, Inc., and Cordes Door Company, Inc., 226 NLRB 1144 (1976); P. A. Hayes Inc. and P. H. Mechanical Corp., 226 NLRB 230, 236 (1976). The instant case is not unlike the situation in H. S. Brooks Electric, Inc., et al, 233 NLRB 889. There it was concluded that a corporation constituted the disguised continuance of a predecessor organization where it was formed to avoid the financial strain of a collective-bar- gaining relationship. I find it implausible to accept Re- spondents' descriptions of the events by which FIW stopped producing ornamental iron products and JCIW began to do so. The subtle informality of organizing JCIW is eloquent in its simplicity. It loudly belies the seeming innocence of the event. The testimony of Frank and Jerry Cardullo, mutually corroborative in this regard, simply is illogical and incredible. For example, the record shows that the four employees who left FIW to go to JCIW had extremely long tenure with FIW. Thus, employees Summell, Cruz, Montavani and Capar- - ------- FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. 107 elli had worked for 19, 14, 10, and 6 years, respectively. Despite this, Frank testified to conversations with those employees in which he encouraged them to accept Jerry's offer of employment at JCIW. The ease with which the employees were permitted to leave FIW for their work at JCIW provides grounds to infer that Frank was a willing and active participant in the assumption of the ornamental work by JCIW. This inference is but- tressed by the earlier noted fact that JCIW's capital con- tribution emanated from Frank's bank account. Jerry himself testified that there is no written agreement to repay the unsecured, interest-free $11,000 contribution. In any event, the record shows that at the time of the instant hearing JCIW has repaid none of that money. In a similar vein, Jerry's testimony of the organization of JCIW is improbable. Jerry claimed that months before he actually incorporated JCIW he advised his mother that he would set up an ornamental business. Jerry claimed that he did not advise Frank of such a decision until the end of August or September. Both Frank and Jerry testified that they had had business disagreements. Thus, Jerry asserted that he spoke to the accountant as early as May 1977 and to his attorney in July-both before speaking to Frank. It simply is incredible that nei- ther the accountant nor attorney would have at least ad- vised Jerry to consult his father regarding his plans, which were anticipated to totally decimate an entire phase of the FIW production operations. Ornamental work comprises approximately one-third of the total pro- duction operations of FIW. To permit so substantial a portion of a business to be eliminated in the casual manner portrayed by Respondents is illogical. It simply defies industrial reality. Jerry's own testimony tends to diminish the purported spontaneity of the organization of JCIW. Jerry testified that he had problems with Frank at FIW concerning pricing and volume. According to Jerry, he wanted more ornamental work at a lesser price to customers, but Frank wanted less work at higher prices. Jerry testified this was a perpetual problem. It existed, in Jerry's words, "when I started working with my father ... once I started taking care of the railing part of the business." This testimony is contradictory to that of Frank, who testified that, when he consulted Morrell in July or August 1976, FIW had been the recipient of continuous dunning by the Union for overdue benefit payments. Events themselves contradict Jerry's assertion. Thus, JCIW was not actually organized until the state labor board disavowed the existence of a contract between FIW and JCIW. As if to confirm the state labor board's decision, JCIW was formed. I find the organization of JCIW a sham. The oper- ations of JCIW were a department of FIW. Nothing ma- terial has changed. I conclude that there is substantial evidence in this record to find, as I do, that JCIW is but a disguised continuance of FIW. Indeed, JCIW virtually exists at the sufferance of FIW. This conclusion is reached by noting that JCIW was fully capitalized with funds given by Jerry's mother and a building owned by his father, who also contributed personnel and operating equipment. In sum, I find the essential ingredients of an alter ego described by the Board in the Crawford Door case, supra, to be satisfied herein. In view of my finding that JCIW is the alter ego of FIW, I deem it unnecessary to engage in an in-depth dis- cussion and analysis of the alternative theory that JCIW is a successor company. It suffices, based upon my factu- al findings concerning the operation of JCIW, to declare that I would also conclude and find that JCIW is a suc- cessor employer to FIW, particularly because it appears that the employing industry remains the same. La-Ron Corporation d/b/a Precision Carpet, Inc., 223 NLRB 329 (1976); Lincoln Private Police, Inc. as Successor to Industri- al Security Guards. Inc., 189 NLRB 717 (1971); Mainte- nance Incorporated, 148 NLRB 1299(1964). b. The refusals to bargain As it has been found above that JCIW is the alter ego of FIW, and as the parties agreed upon the basic unit de- scription at the 1'earing, I hereby conclude that the fol- lowing unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees engaged in the fabrication and/or manufacture of all ferrous and nonferrous metals, iron, steel, and other metal products, or in the maintenance of machinery and equipment, employed by Respondents at their Farmingdale and Bayshore, New York, shops, ex- clusive of office clerical employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Inasmuch as I have found FIW contractually bound to the Union until June 30, 1978, I now find JCIW was sim- ilarly bound by virtue of its status as alter ego. In Eastern Washington Distributing Company, Inc., 216 NLRB 1149, 1153 (1975), the Board stated: The existence of a prior contract, lawful on its face, is sufficient to raise a dual presumption of majority, first that the Union had majority status when the contract was executed and second that the majority continued at least through the life of the contract. To rebut the foregoing presumption, Respondent must demonstrate either that the Union did not enjoy majority support at the time of the refusal to bargain, or that there was reasonable doubt based upon objective consider- ations for believing that the Union had lost its majority status when bargaining was refused. Impressions. Inc., 221 NLRB 389 (1975). Such an assertion, however, must be raised in a context free of unfair labor practices. In the instant case, I conclude that any diminution of majority support can be traced directly to Respondents' conduct by which FIW admittedly unilaterally withdrew recogni- tion from the Union and JCIW began to work with the former unit employees. Accordingly, I conclude that at no time herein did Respondents have a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status. Inherent in the General Counsel's position that Re- spondents violated Section 8(aX5) of the Act by with- drawing recognition from and by thereafter refusing to bargain with the Union is the proposition that Respond- ents neglected their bargaining obligation by failing and 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refusing to notify and bargain with the Union with re- spect to the transfer of the unit employees from FIW to JCIW. Additionally, it is explicitly alleged that Respondents unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union by having unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the or- namental iron employees. In The Bell Company, etc., et al., 225 NLRB 474, 482 (1976), Administrative Law Judge Maloney, in his Board-approved Decision, noted that: . . . an alter ego . . . is obligated to remedy all unfair labor practices committed by [its predeces- sor] and honor the contract which was in effect at the time of transition of enterprise .... [F]ailure to do so . . . amounts to a repudiation of a collec- tive-bargaining relationship, and as such, constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act. . . .See C & S Industries, Inc., 158 NLRB 454. As noted, Respondents admit that recognition had been withdrawn from the Union. However, Respondents' post-hearing brief argues that the record is entirely bare of evidence supporting the allegation that unilateral changes in working conditions were made. I disagree. During his cross-examination, Jerry testified that JCIW paid the four employees who came from FIW 25 or 50 cents more per hour than they received at FIW. There is no evidence that the wage rate had been negotiated be- tween Respondents and the Union. Additionally, it is clear that Respondents discontinued contributions to the contractual benefit funds. I conclude that, by each of the foregoing acts, Respondents further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Laramee's Transit, Inc., 224 NLRB 56, 65 (1976), P. A. Hayes, Inc., 226 NLRB 236. In the circumstances herein, I also find that Respond- ents' conduct discriminated against the ornamental iron- workers in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Re- spondents' conduct effectively deprived those employes of the benefits of their collective-bargaining agreement. See Herman Brothers Pet Supply, Inc., et al., 138 NLRB 1087 (1962). St. Regis Paper Company, 239 NLRB 688, 693 (1978). These findings and references to case authori- ty are based upon my conclusion that the record as a whole establishes a discriminatory motivation on the part of Respondents. Specifically, I find that the entire sce- nario of events was prompted by an express desire to ex- tricate FIW from its collective-bargaining obligations to the Union. I find that the events herein portray a well orchestrated and sophisticated method of accomplishing that goal. No extensive analysis or discussion is needed to find such activity is unlawful under the Act when done in the midst of an existing obligation to bargain. In sum, I find that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of proving each and every violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act alleged in the Com- plaint. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc., and Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc., are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc., is, and at all times material herein has been, an alter ego of Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc., and also a successor employer to FIW. 3. Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International As- sociation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 4. A collective-bargaining agreement existed between Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc., and the Union effective July 1, 1975, through June 30, 1978, and between the Union and Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc., as an alter ego of FIW. 5. All production and maintenance employees engaged in the fabrication and/or manufacture of all ferrous and nonferrous metals, iron, steel, and other metal products, or in the manufacture of machinery and equipment, em- ployed by FIW and JCIW at their Farmingdale and Bay- shore, New York, shops, exclusive of office clerical em- ployees, guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Act. 6. By ending ornamental ironwork at the Farmingdale location, transferring that operation to the Bayshore lo- cation, and transferring the ornamental ironwork from FIW to JCIW, Respondents discriminated against em- ployees and refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the Act. 7. By refusing and failing to honor, maintain, and give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of July 1, 1975-June 30, 1978, among the parties, Respondents dis- criminated against employees and refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 8. By unilaterally withdrawing recognition from the Union Respondents refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 9. By unilaterally changing wage rates and withhold- ing contractual benefit fund payments, Respondents dis- criminated against employees and refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the Act. 10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that FIW and JCIW have engaged, and are engaging, in certain unfair labor practices, I shall rec- ommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. Having found that Respondents have refused to recog- nize and bargain with the Union, the recommended Order will provide that, upon request, they bargain col- lectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining rep- FARMINGDALE IRON WORKS, INC. 109 resentative of the employees in the unit found appropri- ate herein. Inasmuch as I have found that Respondent failed and refused to acknowledge the existence of the 1975-78 col- lective-bargaining agreement, a natural consequence of that dereliction is the deprivation from the employees of negotiated benefits. I find it appropriate, therefore, that the recommended Order provide for Respondents to make all benefit fund contributions required by that con- tract to the Union on behalf of the employees who were in the bargaining unit for the appropriate period of time. Walter E. Heyman d/b/a Stanwood Thriftmart, 216 NLRB 852 (1975); Harold W Hinson d/b/a Hen House Market No. 3, 175 NLRB 596 (1969). I have found Respondent's failure to bargain as to the decision to transfer unit work from FIW to JCIW consti- tutes an unlawful refusal to bargain. Thus, it is appropri- ate that the recommended Order require Respondents to cease and desist from unilaterally transferring unit work or otherwise making unilateral changes in unit employ- ees' terms and conditions of employment without con- sulting their designated bargaining agent. Normally, to ensure genuine bargaining over the deci- sion to transfer unit work from one location to another, the Board provides for restoration of the status quo ante. Stone & Thomas, 221 NLRB 573 (1975), and cases cited therein. Such restoration customarily entails an order that the unit work unlawfully transferred be relocated to its former facility. I perceive no useful purpose for an order of relocation in the instant matter. The record con- tains no evidence that the transfer from FIW to JCIW imposed any hardship upon the four affected unit em- ployees. At the time of the hearing, each remained in the employ of JCIW and had maintained that position for at least 15 months. I take official notice that the atlas mile- age distance between the Farmingdale and Bayshore facilities is approximately 20 miles. Accordingly, the order will give Respondents the option of not physically returning the ornamental iron operations to the Farming- dale facility so long as Respondents comply with all other aspects of the remedial order. Weltronic Company, 173 NLRB 235, fn. 1 (1968). In accord with Board practice and equitable consider- ations, the recommended Order will not require the re- scission of wage increases provided the unit employees when they became employed by JCIW. Of course, if those wages were not as high as the negotiated wages in the 1975-78 contract, then Respondents shall make whole those employees for those losses suffered by fail- ure of Respondents to maintain the terms and conditions of that collective-bargaining agreement. All reimburse- ment and make-whole directives of the instant recom- mended Order shall be with interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Finally, I conclude that the conduct herein found to be unlawful is not so egregious as to warrant a broad order. See Hickmott Foods Inc., 242 NLRB No. 177 (1979). Accordingly, Respondents will merely be ordered to refrain from engaging in unfair labor practices by con- duct of a like or related manner to that by which they have been found to have violated the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 4 Respondents Farmingdale Iron Works, Inc., and Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc., their officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the ornamental ironworkers in the unit found approrpiate herein with re- spect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment: (b) Unilaterally transferring unit work to other loca- tions or otherwise changing the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of unit employees without prior bargaining with the Union, or any other labor organization those employees may select as their representative. (c) Unilaterally withdrawing recognition from the Union in an unlawful manner. (d) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. (e) Unlawfully refusing to honor and give effect to any valid collective-bargaining agreement between them and the Union, or any other lawfully designated collective- bargaining representative. (f) In any like or related manner, interfering with, re- straining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of their employees in the unit found appropriate with re- spect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (b) Apply the terms of the 1975-78 collective-bargain- ing agreement to their ornamental iron operations and employees retroactively to July 1, 1975. (c) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union over the effects of the decision to trans- fer the ornamental operations from the Farmingdale to the Bayshore facility. In this connection, Respondents shall have the option of maintaining the ornamental oper- ations at the Bayshore facility so long as they comply with all other aspects of this Order. (d) Make whole all unit employees for all losses they may have suffered as a result of Respondents' conduct found to be unlawful herein. This make-whole provision shall be implemented in accordance with the formula set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (e) Make all benefit fund payments to the Union as re- quired in the 1975-78 collective-bargaining agreement. I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections therelo shall he deemed waived fr all purposes 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec- ords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (g) Post at its Farmingdale and Bayshore, New York, facilities copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondents' representative, shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."