Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc.

MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 901 Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc. and Display, Fixture, Smoking Pipe, Plastics and Production Workers Union, Local 2682, affili- ated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters , AFL-CIO and District 50, United Mine Workers of America , Party to the Contract Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc., Bent Glassworks, Inc., and Glass Guild, Inc. and Display, Fixture, Smoking Pipe, Plastics and Production Workers Union, Local 2682, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters , AFL-CIO and District 50,• United Mine Workers of America, Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. -2-CA-8007 and 2-CA-8094. February. 7, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER- On November 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, that the Respondents had-engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease: and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth inthe• Intermedi-, ate Report attached hereto: Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions- of Section- 3 ('b) of the- Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire recbrd•in.the case;' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. • • ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of 'the Trial Examiner with the provision that paragraph 2(d) read : "Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." 1 ' The following paragraph is added to the notice: Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office (745 Fifth Avenue, New York 22, New York; Telephone Number Plaza 1-5500) if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Display, Fixture , Smoking Pipe, Plastics and Production Workers Union, Local 2682, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 135 NLRB No. 97. 902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AFL-CIO, herein called Local 2682 or the Carpenters Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Director for the Second Region, issued his consolidated amended complaint, dated August 30, 1961, against Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc., herein called Respondent Madison, and against Bent Glassworks, Inc., herein called Respondent Bent, and against Glass Guild, Inc., herein called Respondent Glass, and herein collectively called the Respondents. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondents (1) laid off seven-named employees for specified periods because of their membership in and assistance to Local 2682; (2) warned and directed employees to refrain from remaining members of and giving any as- sistance or support to Local 2682 or they would close down their operations; (3) threatened employees with discharge and other reprisals if they remained members of Local 2682 and gave any assistance and support to it; and (4) thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. In their duly filed answer, Respondents admit the layoff of the seven-named employees for the specified periods but deny, generally, all unfair labor practice allegations. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Louis Libbin, the duly designated Trial Examiner, at New York, New York, on October 9 and 10, 1961. All parties appeared and were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to engage in oral argument before the close of the hearing . Respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint, made before the close of the hearing and upon which I reserved ruling, is hereby denied in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein made. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS Respondents, New York corporations with their principal 'office and place of business in the Borough of Queens in New York, New York, are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of mosaic tile trays, bent and decorated glass, and related products. At all. times material herein, Respondents have been affiliated businesses with common officers, ownership, directors, and operators, who formulate and administer a common labor policy affecting the employees of Respondents. During the past year, which period is representative of their operations generally, Respondents manufactured, sold, and distributed products, valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to points located in States other than New York. Upon the above-admitted facts, I find, as Respondents admit in their answer, that Respondents constitute a single integrated business enterprise engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The admitted evidence shows, and I find, that the Charging Party, herein called Local 2682 or the Carpenters Union, and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called District 50, each are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the issues Prior to May 1961 , Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc., herein sometimes called Respondent Madison, operated a plant in Bronx, New York, where it manufactured mosaic tile giftware such as ashtrays , cigarette boxes, cheeseboards , and other table items. At the same time, Bent Glassworks , Inc., herein sometimes called Respondent Bent, operated a plant in Queens , Long Island, New York, where it manufactured glassware items. The production and maintenance employees at the Bronx plant, herein sometimes called mosaic employees , were covered by a contract with Local 2682, herein sometimes called the Carpenters Union, the Charging Party herein. This contract contained a 30-day union-security clause and was for a term ending February 28, 1962 . The employees at the Queens plant were covered by a contract with District 50 This contract contained a 60-day union -security clause. About the middle of May 1961 the Madison operation began moving from the Bronx plant to the Queens plant, occupied by Respondent Bent . At that time there were 3 male and 5 female production mosaic workers at the Bronx plant; about MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 903 50 to 60 production and maintenance employees were employed at that time by Respondent Bent. The move took about 2 weeks before a temporary setup was arranged at the Queens plant. During this period the female mosaic workers were laid off and the male employees were used in the actual physical move of 'the plant to Queens. About June 2 the production of mosaic work was resumed at temporary quarters in the Queens building occupied by Respondent Bent, and the female workers were then recalled,' the Bronx plant was completely shut down. All seven mosaic employees then working at the Queens plant were members of Local 2682. The issues in this case arose out of the controversy concerning the union mem- bership and representation of the mosaic employees working at the Queens plant as a result of the transfer of the Madison operation from the Bronx. These issues were whether Respondents discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the mosaic employees and threatened them with economic reprisals because of their continued adherence to Local 2682 in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1 ) of the Act. B. Sequence of events 3 In May 1961, prior to the commencement of the move of the mosaic operation from the Bronx plant , Respondents' officers met with District 50 representatives to inform them of the contemplated move. District 50 was represented at this meeting by a shop committee, Vincent Giordano, the president' of the Local who was also employed by Respondent Bent as a maintenance worker at the Queens plant, and Jim Lawler, a national representative. The Respondents were represented by Presi- dent Fox and Vice President Mildwoff . The question arose as to which union would represent the mosaic workers when they would be employed at the Queens plant. District 50 took the position that its contract covered all the employees working on the premises and that the mosaic workers would have to become members of District 50.3 Fox asked under what circumstances the mosaic workers would be accepted as members and whether their seniority and other rights would be re- spected. Mildwoff asked if District 50 would waive the initiation fee. District 50 agreed to accept the mosaic workers as transferred employees , with no initiation fee, and without loss of seniority, on condition that they become members of District 50 as soon as they started to work at the Queens plant . District 50 remained adamant on this condition. Fox replied that the employees should be given the privilege of making up their own minds and that the Respondents were not going to get involved in the employees' union selection .4 When the transfer of the mosaic operations to the Queens plant was about com- pleted, Giordano received permission from Mildwoff to talk to the mosaic employees about joining District 50. Early in June he talked to the three male employees who were engaged in the physical operation of setting up the mosaic department , explained about District 50 representing all the employees on the premises and that the ` mosaic employees would be accepted into membership without an initiation fee and without loss of seniority if they signed up then. He also asked them to sign dues checkoff cards. At that time, they indicated a willingness to do so . On June 6, he again spoke to the three male employees and also to two of the female mosaic workers present at the same time. He told the female employees that District 50 would ber the only union at the plant, that they would be accepted into membership without initiation fees and with no loss of seniority if they joined within a few days, and that otherwise they would have to come in as new employees and pay an initiation fee and start as new employees with respect to seniority. Marie Henry, the shop stewardess of Local 2682 who had just been recalled to work that day, replied that she would take it up with her union delegate and listen to what he told her. None of the mosaic workers signed the proffered checkoff cards. Giordano then reported to Mildwoff, Respondents' vice president, complaining that Mildwoff had agreed to notify the mosaic employees that they would have to join District 50 before they could work in the Queens shop. Mildwoff urged Giordano to give it a little time, explaining that it was up to the union committee to do that and that he did not want to get involved. Giordano also contacted Lawler, 1 Only four female employees resumed work at the Queens plant. Forelady Jackson, the fifth female employee , did not resume work because of pregnancy. 2 Unless otherwise indicated , the factual findings in this section are based on credited evidence and testimony which is either admitted or uncontradicted 'The contract with District 50 contained a 60-day union-security clause 4 The findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of the mutually consistent testimony of Giordano, Fox, and Mildwoff, the only witnesses who testified with respect to this meeting '904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD District 50's national representative, who came to the plant and conferred with Respondents' representatives. Lawler explained what he thought should be done with respect to approaching the mosaic employees, all of whom were members of Local 2682. ' Mildwoff thereupon had all the mosaic employees assembled during working hours .in the office of Keating, Respondents' factory superintendent. Also present were Keating and Giordano, the president of District 50. Mildwoff told the employees that District 50 had offered to waive the initiation fee and to accept them as full :fledged members, without loss of seniority, if they became members right away. Giordano then spoke up, stating that he had been telling the employees the same .thing, and pointed out that if they did not join immediately they would be treated as new employees required to pay an initiation fee and having no seniority. The only ,employee who said anything was Marie Henry, the shop stewardess of Local 2682. She stated that she was not going to make any commitments until she had first spoken to her union delegate. - During the next few days, Giordano and Lawler spoke again to the mosaic employ- ees in an unsuccessful effort to get them to join District 50, at once. President Fox had been ill in 1961 until about the middle of May. On Thursday morning, June 8, he was at home and made a telephone call to his office. Prezioso, president of Local 2682, told Fox over the telephone that his workers were being -threatened by management,, Fox replied that he knew nothing about it. Marie Henry, the stewardess of Local 2682, was then called to the telephone. Fox stated, -"Marie, . I'm having a lot of trouble and I'm not well, and I would like for you ,all to join this other union so we can get this cleared up." Marie Henry replied that Mr. Fox "would have to talk it over with my president," that "we have a contract" and that "we 'are going to live up to that contract." Mr. Fox stated that "we should use commonsense about this," that "we all worked for a living," and that he will have to close down the shop if they.did'not,join this union. Marie'Henry replied that -she could not help that and that Mr. Fox "will have to take it up with Mr. Prezioso." 5 When the employees were paid on June 9, the checks received by the female mosaic -employees did not include pay for Memorial Day when they were on layoff status. Marie Henry took the matter up with Larry Dolnick, the production manager or -foreman of the mosaic department. •Dolnick stated that Mr. Mildwoff did not author- ize the holiday pay. Marie Henry replied that she felt they were entitled to it, and -asked for permission to speak with Mr. Mildwoff. Dolnick thereupon accompanied Henry to Mildwoff's office. Marie Henry asked Mildwoff why they did not get their holiday pay. When Mild- woff indicated that he did not think it was proper for them to receive that pay, Marie Henry stated that she would have to speak to her union and to Mr. Prezioso. Mild- woff thereupon exclaimed' that he did not want to hear Mr. Prezioso's name or the -Union mentioned again, and threatened to close down the Madison operation and get rid of the Madison employees. Mildwoff then authorized the bookkeeper to give -the female mosaic employees a check for the holiday pay. The hours for the mosaic employees at the Queens plant were from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. On Friday, June 9, Dolnick'asked the mosaic employees to work one-half hour overtime. About 3:30 that same afternoon Mildwoff told Dolnick that there was no business and to lay off all the mosaic workers'. ' 'Dolnick remonstrated that they had orders to get out and that there was a certain amount of work to be done. Mildwoff retorted that he was ordering Dolnick to lay off all the employees. Dolnick 6-The findings in the preceding paragraph relating to the telephone conversation between Fox and Marie Henry are based on the credited testimony of Marie Henry. On direct -examination, Fox denied telling Marie Henry, either directly or indirectly, which union to join or threatening her with any consequences if she did not join one or the other -union. He recalled speaking to Marie Henry over the telephone and testified that "I think" that "she asked me for advice . . . that's my recollection at this time I may be mis- taken And I told her that she had the God given sense that was due to any human being, that she ought to be able to use her own judgment This is the only thing that I recall " On cross-examination , he admitted that during the telephone conversation with Marie Henry he "might have" said something to her about "union trouble" but that he ,did not "exactly recall." In response to a question by the General Counsel as to whether he did not tell Marie Henry that he "would close down all operations if this union trouble persisted," Fox further admitted that "I may have said that. I may well have said that. -It was not very far from any of our minds " In view of Fox's admittedly poor recollection as to just what was said in this telephone conversation and his admissions as to what he "may well have said ," I credit the testimony , of Marie Henry and find that, in substance , Fox made the statements set forth in the text. MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 905, did as he was ordered, and informed the mosaic employees that they were being laid. -off indefinitely at the end of the day's work. All the laid-off mosaic workers were- still members of Local 2682. ,On Monday morning, June 12, Bernard Ulano, attorney for Local 2682, had a conversation with Lee Epstein , attorney for Respondents, with respect to reinstating the mosaic employees . Epstein agreed to see what he could do about it. Epstein then telephoned Mildwoff who agreed to reinstate the male employees , stating that he had work for the men but not for the women . Epstein relayed this information to- Ulano. The three male mosaic employees resumed work at the Queens plant on Monday afternoon , June 12. On Wednesday, June 14, Giordano and Lawler , representing District 50, met with Respondents' President Fox and Vice President Mildwoff. Only the male mosaic, employees were working, the female employees still being in a layoff status. During. the meeting Giordano made the comment that the other union had a shop stewardess, having reference to Marie Henry, and that he did not know why she was not working at the plant when her people were there . At that point Fox stated that he did not want to hear her name mentioned, that they planned to rehire some of the employees. when it got busy, but that he would not rehire Marie Henry "because since she became- shop stewardess her head got a little too big for her." Respondents admit in their answer to the complaint that of the four female employ- ees who were laid off on June 9, two were first recalled on June 22 , one was recalled, on June 29, and Marie Henry was not recalled until August 2, 1961. C. Discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of employment The General Counsel contends , as alleged in the complaint, that the layoff of all: mosaic workers on June 9, 1961 , as well as for the periods admitted by Respondents, was motivated by the employees' continued adherence to Local 2682 and refusal to. joint District 50. The Respondents contend that the layoffs were due to lack of- orders and lack of business and that the employees were recalled in accordance with. seniority as soon as work became available . President Fox testified that the period in May-June is definitely a slack time , and that the July-August trade shows are in, preparation for the Christmas trade which runs from August to the latter part of- November and accounts for 65 to 70 percent of the annual volume of business. Elstein, Respondents' controller, testified that business is at one of the lowest ebbs. in June because it is right after the spring season and before the beginning of the- fall season , that in June 1960 there were only two or three production employees on, the payroll, and that only about 5 percent of the total years' business is done during- the combined months of May and June. However, Dolnick, who continued to be production manager of the mosaic depart- ment after its transfer to the Queens plant, credibly testified that when he was, ordered to lay off all the mosaic workers on June 9, 1961, there was enough work on hand to fill orders for immediate delivery to keep all the mosaic workers busy for at least another week. Moreover, the record further shows that during slack periods. mosaic workers are to some extent engaged in building up inventory . Thus, Fox admitted that in June or July the mosaic workers were engaged in the manufacture- either of samples or inventory in anticipation of some activities in August and Sep-- tember. And Elstein admitted that Respondent Madison also manufactures items. that are put in stock as standard items in the mosaic line, and that such items were not manufactured in May 1961 because of the moving operations but were begun to be manufactured again after they got set up in the Queens plant. Finally, the- fact that sufficient work was available to reinstate the three male employees the following Monday afternoon is proof positive that the shutdown of the entire mosaic- operations on Friday afternoon, June 9, was not primarily motivated by lack of work. On the other hand, the record shows that upon the transfer of the mosaic opera- tions from the Bronx to the Queens plant, Fox and Mildwoff found themselves in the middle of a controversy between District 50 and Local 2682 for the representation and membership of these workers . I have no doubt but that Fox and Mildwoff had' no preconceived intentions of favoring District 50 in this controversy or of coercing- the mosaic employees into joining District 50 but desired to have the unions and the employees settle this matter among themselves. Giordano , president of District 50, admitted that he had the mosaic employees ready to sign up with his union until Marie Henry came into the picture and insisted on consulting her union delegate- before making commitments. When the Respondents were unsuccessful in having the matter settled by the unions. themselves or by some outside authority , Fox and Mildwoff became agitated by the- `906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD continuance of the union controversy in the plant and were irritated with Marie Henry's conduct in this connection. Thus, in the June 8 telephone conversation, Fox informed Marie Henry that he was ill and was having a lot of trouble, pleaded with her to use commonsense about this matter, and expressed a desire that they all join this other union, referring to District 50, so that they could get all this trouble cleared up. When Marie Henry persisted that Fox would have to take the matter up with her union president and that they intended to adhere to their contract, Fox stated that he would have to close the shop down if they did not join the other union . Fox admitted at the hearing that the thought of closing down all operations "if this union trouble persisted" was "not very far from any of our minds" at that time. The following day, June 9, when Mildwoff at first turned down Marie Henry's grievance concerning the failure of the female mosaic workers to receive pay for Decoration Day, Marie Henry stated that she would have to take it up with her union and Prezioso, the presi- dent. At this point, Mildwoff became so exasperated that he warned her not to mention her union or Prezioso's name again and threatened to close down the mosaic operation and to get rid of the mosaic employees . That afternoon, despite Production Manager Dolnick's remonstrance that there were orders to be gotten out and a certain amount of work to be done, Mildwoff ordered Dolnick to lay off all the mosaic workers indefinitely. Mildwoff admitted in his pretrial affidavit that "on that Friday I was so agitated by the demands of both unions that I decided to shut down the whole mosaic operations until there was some clarification and peace." The following Monday afternoon the three male employees were reinstated . Counsel for Respondents conceded at the oral argument that the record supported a finding that the layoff was discriminatory as to these three employees . Finally, it was not disputed that at the meeting with District 50 on June 14, Fox told Giordano that he did not want to hear Marie Henry's name mentioned again, and that while he planned to recall some of the employees he did not plan to rehire her "because since she became shop steward her head got a little too big for her." Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am con- vinced and find that, while business was slack , Respondents' decision to close down the mosaic operations and to lay off all the mosaic workers on June 9 , 1961, was primarily motivated by the union controversy in the plant created by the mosaic workers' continued adherence to their own union , Local 2682, and their failure to be- come members of District 50. The General Counsel is willing to concede that upon being employed at the Queens plant the mosaic workers became part of the unit covered by District 50's contract, which contained a 60-day union-security clause. However, during this 60-day period the mosaic workers had a statutory right to refuse to join District 50 and to remain members of Local 2682, without being penalized for exercising that right. Respondents' conduct in shutting down the mosaic operation and laying off the mosaic workers, for the periods herein set forth ,e because of this union controversy penalized the mosaic workers for exercising this right. It is im- material that Respondents were caught in a controversy between two unions and had in good faith, albeit unsuccessfully, sought to have the controversy resolved . For, it has long been settled that the Act permits of no immunity because of economic pressures or the exigencies of the moment .7 By the foregoing conduct, Respondents discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Emilio Diaz , Frank Campos, Henry Naylor, Addis O'Neil, Rosa Morales, Anne Mosely, and Marie Henry, thereby discouraging membership in Local 2682 and encouraging membership in District 50, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. D. Interference, restraint, and coercion I find, as alleged in the complaint, that under the circumstances disclosed by the record Respondents independently interfered with, restrained, and coerced the em- ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, (a) by President Fox's statement to Marie Henry during the telephone con- versation of June 8, that he would have to close the shop down if they did not join the other union, referring to District 50, and (b) by Vice President Mildwoff's conduct on June 9 in warning Marie Henry not to mention her union or the president's name 9 They were recalled on the following date: Diaz, Campos, and Naylor on the afternoon of June 12; O'Neil and Morales on June 22 ; Mosely on June 29 ; and Marie Henry on August 2 7 See, a g., N L R.R. v Star Publishing Co , 97 F. 2d 405, 470 (C.A. 9) MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 907 again while at the same time threatening to close down the mosaic operation and to get rid of the mosaic employees. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the mosaic employees were discriminatorily laid off for the periods previously specified, I will recommend that Respondents make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to the amount he or she normally would have earned as wages from 7 a.m. on June 12, 1961, to the time of reinstatement or the date of Respond- ents' offer of reinstatement, as previously specified, less his or her net earnings .during said period, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. I will also recommend that Respondents preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay. The circumstances under which Respondents violated the Act in this case and -the entire record convince me that no danger exists that Respondents will commit .other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. I therefore will not recommend .a broad cease-and-desist order. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 2682 and District 50 are each labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 2. -By discriminating with respect to hire and tenure of employment and thereby discouraging membership in Local 2682 and encouraging membership in District -50, and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under -the Act, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc., Bent Glassworks, Inc., and Glass Guild, Inc., New York (Queens), New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging or encouraging membership in a labor organization by dis- criminatorily shutting down an operation or -laying off any of their employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or -tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) Threatening employees with the closing of the plant and loss of their jobs if they did not join a designated labor organization, or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to-the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified, by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. - 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: 908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) 'Make whole Emilio Diaz, Frank Campos, Henry Naylor, Addis O'Neil, Rosa Morales, Anne Mosely, and Marie Henry in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Intermediate Report. (b) 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 records, as set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Intermediate Report. (c) Post at its place of business in New York (Queens), New York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall after being duly signed by the Respondents' representatives, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20' days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.9 8 In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " 8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read • "Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discourage or encourage membership in a labor organization by discriminatorily shutting down an operation or laying off any employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the closing of the plant and loss of their jobs if they did not join a designated labor organization, nor will we in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL make whole the following employees for any loss of earnings suf- fered as a result of their layoffs: Emilio Diaz Rosa Morales Frank Campos Anne Mosely Henry Naylor Marie Henry Addis O'Neil MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC., BENT GLASSWORKS INC., AND GLASS GUILD, INC., Employer. Dated-- ----------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.