Teleservice Co. of Wyoming Valley

TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1053 for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith a It is finally recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision the Respondent notify said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the terms hereof, the Board issue an order requiring it to take such action. In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees tnat: WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bar- gaining unit described below: All production and maintenance employees including shipping and receiv- ing employees and truckdrivers at our Huntington Park plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, eudds, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named Union to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees in the above-described unit. CADILLAC STEEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered. defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5206, if they have any ques- tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Teleservice Co. of Wyoming Valley, John Walsonavich t/a Serv- ice Electric Company, Service Electric TV Cable Company, Inc., Tamaqua TV Cable Company, Inc., and Service Electric Cable T.V. Inc.' and United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of North Amer- ica, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL- CIO. Case No. 4-CA-3150. November 214 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On May 28, 1964, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- 1 The name of Respondent appears as amended at the hearing. 149 NLRB No. 101. 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed what purported to be exceptions 2 to the Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Decision and also an answering brief to the Respondent's brief. The Charging Party also filed exceptions to the Decision. Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Deci- sion and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications set forth below. 2 The Board received a document filed by John Walsonavich , Respondent' s president, which was intended to serve as exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision . The docu ment was rejected by the Board 's Associate Executive Secretary on the ground that it was untimely filed. Thereafter, Walsonavich attempted to refile it claiming that he had mailed it "in plenty of time" for delivery in Washington , DC., on August 12, the dead- line for filing exceptions . He requests that the Board accept it , notwithstanding the fact that the deadline was not met . The envelope in which it was enclosed bears an Allen- town, Pennsylvania , postmark, dated August 12, 1964 We have carefully considered the matter and are satisfied that the Associate Executive Secretary was fully warranted in rejecting Respondent 's document , and we deny the re- quest for permission to refile it. In so deciding, we have borne in mind the admonition of the courts that the Board's Rules and Regulations , especially regarding the filing of exceptions , are not to be applied in a rigid manner . See N.L.R.B. v. Marshall Mainte- nance Corp., 320 F. 2d 641 (CA. 3 ), for a complete discussion of the court decisions bearing on this problem . We do not apply our Rules in such spirit in this case Walsona- vich, after withdrawal of the counsel who had represented Respondent at the hearing, acted as Respondent's representative of record , and received, at his request, two exten- sions of time to file exceptions . The second extension was granted only after he had hied a document which was wholly inadequate under the Board's Rules . At that time ne was advised in writing as to the form and nature of the matters to be included in his exceptions and was given an additional 28 days in which to file perfected exceptions. He was specifically informed that if the exceptions were not received by the Board's Washington offices on or before August 12, 1964, they would not be accepted Moreover, earlier, Walsonavich had been sent copies of all pertinent rules and regulations govern- ing the filing of exceptions and briefs . Notwithstanding the foregoing, the exceptions riled by Walsonavich, which he seeks to refile with the Board , contain no citations of the record or of applicable authorities in support of his exceptions , and as indicated, they were received in the Board 's Washington offices after the time for filing had ex- pired. Walsonavich has not come forward with any evidence that the delay was caused by any circumstances other than the fact that he apparently mailed the exceptions in Allentown , Pennsylvania , on the very day they were due in Washington , DC He has not come forward with any evidence to support his allegation that they were thus mailed in plenty of time "to be received" by the Board 's Washington offices on the same day. As no extraordinary circumstances appear to justify the untimely filing of the exceptions, and as the exceptions involved are deficient in form, we deny Walsonavich 's request for permission to refile them at this time. The exceptions are rejected. TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1055 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following modifications : Paragraph 1(f) is redesignated 1(g) and a new paragraph 1(f) is included as follows : "Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the representative of employees in the certified unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment." Substitute for paragraph 2(a) the following: "Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described in the Board's certification with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement." The following paragraphs are inserted in the Appendix following the fourth indented paragraph which concludes "... as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act." WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers Inter- national Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, as the representative of all of the employees of the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar- gaining unit is : All our construction, maintenance, and line installation employees at Bethlehem, Wilkes-Barre, Mahanoy City, and Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, operations, excluding all officers, office clerical employees , guards, watchmen, and all super- visors as defined in the Act, and all carpenters on the payroll of Service Electric Company at Mahanoy City. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case, heard before Trial Examiner George L. Powell at Wilkes -Barre, Penn- sylvania, on March 31, April 1, 2, 8, and 9, 1964, pursuant to a charge filed Novem- ber 1 , 1963, and a complaint issued February 18, 1964, presents two issues : Whether 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent 1 engaged in surveillance and interrogated its employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires; 2 and whether cthe Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Charging Party as the representative of the majority of its employees. Respondent answered the complaint on February 24, 1964, join- ing issue only with respect to the 8 (a) (1) allegations in the complaint relating to June 1963, and then on the first day of the hearing, March 31, 1964, Respondent served the General Counsel and the Charging Party with another answer which denied the essential allegations of the complaint.3 But at the hearing the Respond- ent, appearing by its president, John Walsonavich,4 admitted that he refused to bar- gain with the Charging Party commencing on or about October 1, 1963, and continu- ing to date.5 This refusal to bargain was based upon two contentions, i.e., that the unit was inappropriate and that the Union had not properly won in the Board- conducted election Upon the entire record 6 in the case including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT John Walsonavich has been at certain times material herein, an individual pro- prietor located in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, and doing business under the,trade name and style of Service Electric Company. - .Teleservice Company of Wyoming Valley is, and has been at all times material herein, a Pennsylvania corporation located in Wilkes-Barre,.Pennsylvania. Service Electric TV Cable Company, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a Pennsylvania corporation located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Tamaqua TV Table Company, Inc., is and has been at all times material herein, a Pennsylvania corporation located in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. 1 At the close of the hearing, General Counsel moved to amend the complaint and add a new corporation to which Respondent Walsonavich testified and admitted in his answer of March 31, 1964. The motion was granted and the complaint was amended to add "Service Electric Cable T.V. Inc" 'Because of testimony adduced by his witnesses, General Counsel moved to amend his complaint to add (a) threat of reprisal to sell; (b) unilateral wage increases; (c) con- stant harassment of employees; and (d) Respondent-sponsored petition against the Charging Party, as additional 8(a)(1) violations Motion granted over Respondents objections but leave given Respondent to renew the motion at a later time or move for additional time to prepare his case. i General Counsel moved for a summary judgment according to the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.20, urging the answer on March 31, 1964, was untimely filed and must be rejected Charging Party joined this motion, and, as an additional reason, moved for a directed judgment as it had' never even received the February 24, 1964, letter in accordance with the Board's Rulea and Regulations. Respondent stated that be had a copy of the Board's Rules and Regulations but argued that his letter of February 24, 1964, was a proper answer and all he was doing on March 31, 1964, was amending his answer The Trial Examiner, although very conscious of the importance of maintaining prescribed rules for the course and conduct of an unfair labor practice trial, denied the motions of the General Counsel and the Charging Party for the reasons that all witnesses were present and it appeared that only a slight delay would be caused in the case by re- ceiving the March 31, 1964, answer and permitting Respondent to fully litigate the case 4 By letter dated April 27, 1964, the 'Trial Examiner was notified that Attorney Sandor Yelen no longer represents Respondent in the case. 5 Record excerpt page 30: TRIAL EXAMINER: Now,'do you deny in paragraph 7 that-the Union did not ask you to bargain from October 1st, 1963, on? Did the Union ask you to bargain from October 1st, 1963, and continue to date? Mr. WALSONAVICH: The answer to that question is no because of new evidence to be filed. In other words, they did ask to bargain-if you want that answer-they did ask to bargain TRIAL EXAMINER: That is what I wanted 'Mr. WALSONAVICH: But, I refuse to bargain on the grounds that 80 percent of the employees had signed affidavits asking me not to bargain which I have proof right here 6 General Counsel 's motion to correct transcript , dated May 7, 1964, not being opposed by Respondent and being in accord with the recollection of the Trial Examiner , is hereby granted and the record is corrected as noted therein. TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1057 Service Electric Cable T. V. Inc., has been since July 19, 1963, a Pennsylvania cor- poration with its principal office at Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania. The aforementioned companies are and have been at all material times herein affiliated businesses, with common officers, ownership, directors, and operators and constitute a single integrated business enterprise; the said owners and operators for- mulate a common labor policy affecting the employees of said companies. All are referred to herein as Respondent. At all times material herein Respondent has been engaged in receiving television signals from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York, and, by means of coaxial cable, engaged in carrying the signals to customers located in and near the respective cities of the various component companies of Respondent. At all times material herein, Respondent has also operated a microwave relay facility at Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, which transmits television signals picked up from other areas to receiving antennas located in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. During the course and conduct of its business, Respondent annually receives in excess of $500,000 for its services and purchases in excess of $20,000 worth of goods and equipment from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Respondent is, and I find that it at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Industrial Workers of North America of The Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf; Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, herein called Charging Party or Union, is an organization of employees for the pur- pose of representing employees with employers regarding collective bargaining for wages, hours, and working conditions. It has engaged in collective bargaining for employees in the Pennsylvania area and has signed collective-bargaining contracts. It has a constitution and bylaws which provides for its internal management.? I find, on the basis of the above facts, that the Charging Party is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. - III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The following is a chronological list of events leading up to this case: February 1963-Organizing activities of the Charging Party. February 27, 1963-Petition for representatives filed in Case No. 4-RC-5369. March 22 to 26, April 1, 1963-The hearing was held in the representation case. May 8, 1963-The Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the representation case June 6, 1963-Election held with two challenges which was sufficient to control the outcome of the election and objections to the conduct of the election were filed by the petitioning union (Charging Party)-later withdrawn. July 31, 1963-Supplemental decision on the challenges issued in which it was noted that the Charging Party won the election. August 10, 1963-Respondent, by its counsel, filed a petition for reconsideration. August 23, 1963-Board denied the petition for reconsideration. September 4, 1963-Board denied Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the August 23, 1963, Order. September 6, 1963-Respondent asked the Board for reconsideration of its denial. September 11, 1963-Board denied petition for reconsideration. September 23, 1963-Respondent filed objections to the conduct of the election. September 26, 1963-Petitioner withdrew its objections. September 27, 1963-Regional Director certified the Charging Party as the collective-bargaining representative. October 7, 1963-Respondent, by counsel, asked for reconsideration of the certificate. October 21, 1963-Board denied this request. October 22, 1963-Employer requested leave to file affidavits. November 1, 1963-The charge in instant case was filed. December 18, 1963-Board issued an order allowing the filing of affidavits pro- vided they are filed by December 30. None were ever filed. 7 These facts are taken from the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Frank Drozak, agent of the Charging Party. 770-076-65-vol. 149-68 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD February 13, 1964-Board affirmed the certification of representatives. February 19 and March 6, 1964-Action by Board's Associate Executive Secre- tary notifying Respondent there was nothing more to be done and the certifi- cation of representatives stands. The General Counsel called 10 witnesses by subpenas. B. Credibility As noted above, the witnesses called by the General Counsel were called by sub- pena. Each of them appeared to be testifying to matters that he would personally rather not discuss, but inasmuch as they were under oath they testified . It was obvi- ous that there was a great deal of respect and admiration held by each of the employees for John Walsonavich , their employer . They gave straightforward tes- timony without an appearance of evasion even when the testimony would seem detri- mental to their own pride. From my close observation of these witnesses I am convinced that the stories they related were true and correct to their best informa- tion and they are credited as against denials and conflicting testimony by witnesses for the Respondent unless specifically otherwise noted. John Walsonavich finished his formal education with completion of high school. Since 1945 he has been engaged in community antenna systems , as involved in the instant case, and is a self-styled millionaire . He is a man of obvious tremendous energy and aggressiveness . He has a great store of initiative and imagination and is apparently undaunted by any obstacle in his path toward providing a successful com- munity antenna service. He has a deep feeling of personal friendship and loyalty to each of his employees and this undoubtedly has motivated him and has colored much of his activities involved in the instant proceedings . Much of his activities appears to be motivated by his absolute disbelief that his loyal employees could ever possibly select a union to represent them in dealings with him. As will be noted below in greater detail , Walsonavich , since a week before the election in June 1963, has con- tinually and continuously kept talking to his employees about their union activity, and, in certain instances , his employees have even signed statements to the effect that they did not want the Union to represent them. However, these statements were made, as they testify, to get their employer off their backs. Nine employees , the most senior of whom , Edward Tomcavage , has 14 years' service with the Respondent , testified to a wide variety of actions taken by Walsona- vich. According to these employees , Walsonavich's campaign of harassment com- menced shortly after the filing of the Union's petition for an election and continued up to and including the date of the trial. Thus, shortly after the petition was filed in February of 1963, Walsonavich engaged in the following activities: The 8 (a) (1) activities 1. He polled the employees individually as to their union sympathies . This was ultimately admitted by Walsonavich but only after he was confronted with his own affidavit. 2. He created the impression of surveillance and attempted to get employees to report union activities back to him. 3. He made a number of employees supervisors , in order to keep them from vot- ing in the election, and then dropped the plan. 4. He threatened to curtail production and to farm out his work. Just before the election in June 1963, and thereafter, Walsonavich 's antiunion cam- paign continued by the following types of activities: a. He told employees he would sell the business if the Union got in. b. On the election day, he told employees to vote "No" if they knew what was good for them. c. He admitted granting unilateral increases to all employees , labeling these increases bonuses d. He gave the so-called bonuses to four employees in return for which these employees were to forget the Union. e. He threatened to kill employee DeBalko because of his union adherence. f He started the circulation of a petition disavowing the Union , through his agent, McLaren.8 8 On March 30, 1964 , the day before this trial opened, McLaren brought around another petition for the employees to sign saying, "John [Walsonavichl wants you to read it" (Wonsock's testimony ) Walsonavich , later the same day, brought around the same peti- tion for Wonsock to sign. TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1059 g. Shortly before the trial of this case, he took a poll of individual employees regarding their union sympathies. As an example of the credited testimony , employee Wonsock testified that right after the petition was filed Walsonavich began questioning the employees in the first week in March 1963 about their union activities . Walsonavich fired Tomcavage, DeBalko, and Wonsock from Teleservice and put them under Service Electric Com- pany , then he told the three employees , according to Wonsock's credited testimony, .. if we would forget about the Union activities that he could straighten everything out . and he told us that he had a detective checking us out as far as what we were doing about the Union. And, he told us that he received information from a company employee, and he then said that the information came from a detective." Thereafter, continued Wonsock, "off and on at various times he [Walsonavich] stopped and questioned us about the Union." He would ask them, "If we were stay- ing away from the Union or we were affiliating with the Union ." As to how often this occurred, Wonsock said , "Oh, it was a chain of events that just kept continuing." For example, in May 1963 , before the election, Walsonavich told Wonsock , ". . . if this Union gets in here there is no telling what I will do .... I am liable to come up and shoot you and your family while you are sleeping." Although no actual new evidence was produced at the hearing , the Respondent claimed that there was a hole in the door of the room where the election was held and this should have voided the election . This evidence admittedly was available as of June 1963 when the election was held, and there is no evidence that it was used as the basis for objecting to the original election. Moreover, as noted above, the Respondent also raised a unit problem, but submitted no evidence in support of its position. C. The refusal to bargain The Merits The technical aspects of Respondent's refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act remained essentially unchallenged . In the face of the outstand- ing Board certification , Respondent flatly indicated , as noted earlier, that it will not bargain with the Union and any attempts to get bargaining by the Union would be futile. This violates Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and I so find. The three defenses he raises to this issue , i.e., (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) inappropriate unit; and (3) a majority no longer want the Union, lack merit. As to (1), the hole in the door does not constitute newly discovered evidence being avail- able, as it was , at the time of the election ; as to (2), the Board has passed on the unit question and it cannot be raised at this proceeding . There must be an end to litigation ; as to ( 3), the Board certification extends a minimum period of 12 months during which time no change in the representative can be made by the employees. A grant of wage increases by an employer to its employees without first discussing the matter with the collective-bargaining agent of the employees is a refusal to bargain in good faith and violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent's action in granting wage raises to four employees violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. D. The 8(a)(1) activities The Merits It is true that an employer lawfully may be opposed to a union of his employees. But cases are too numerous to mention in which the Board and the courts have found that interrogation of employees as to their union activities ; spying on their union activities ; affecting their terms and conditions of employment because of their union activities; threatening them with loss of employment, or physical harm, because of their union activities ; promising money benefits conditioned on their refraining from engaging in union activities and giving benefits therefor ; and sponsoring or helping employees to circulate antiunion petitions, violates Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act because it interferes with , restrains , and coerces employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act.9 O Section 7 reads as follows: Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be aftected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment as authorized in section 8(a) (3). 1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, Walsonavich's interrogation of employees, his polling them as to their union sympathies , his attempt to spy on their union activities , his juggling of employ- ees and supervisors , his threats to curtail production and to sell his business, his promises of benefit, in return for promises to refrain from union activity , his giving them wage increases for repudiating the Union , and his assistance in circulating a petition disavowing the Union is a clear violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. His was an abrasive and insidious pressure on each employee to change his position and give up his union , and it was a calculated attempt to effectively stop the Union from ever being able to exercise the position of the duly elected bargaining agent for his employees . I find from all of his evidence that Respondent has deliberately and maliciously interfered with, coerced, and intimidated the employees in the exer- cise of their Section 7 rights and in so doing has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. E. General Counsel's special plea General Counsel makes a plea for an extraordinary remedy. ' Based upon the fact that Respondent had deliberately failed to bargain with the Union for a period of over 6 months , and had used the time gained thereby to attempt to undermine the Union, the General Counsel requested that Respondent should be required to bar- gain with the Union for a period of 1 year commencing with the date of any settle- ment agreement or compliance with this Decision . The General Counsel argues under the rule in Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785, 786 that "if he [Respondent] dilly dallies or subtly undermines the Union 's strength" the employer may erode the union's strength and thereby release himself from the duty to bargain. In the Mar-Jac case, the employer bargained only for 6 months and through its refusal to bargain it took from the union a substantial period of time in which the union wac at its greate st ctrength Under those circumstances , the Board granted the union a perioa or at least a year of actual bargaining from the date of the settlement agreement . In the present case, the Union was the certified collective-bargaining agent from September 27, 1963. Since then, the Employer has refused to engage in any bargaining, but rather has attempted to undermine the Union 's stren h through a variety of violations of Section 8(a)(1). Certainly, under the facts in this case, I find merit in this position urged by the General Counse'_ and will so recommend. Further, after listening to the testimony in this case , I am of the firm opinion that the policies of the Act will be effectuated if the Board ' were to seek an injunction under Section 10(j) of the Act . Such an injunction would require the Respondent to bargain with the Union under penalty of contempt by a U.S. District Court. The injunction should also prohibit any further questioning of employees as to their union activities. I will so recommend. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, found to constitute unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce 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 Respondent has engaged in certain conduct interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act and constituting unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action in order to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) -of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees concerning their union activities and their extent of union organization in the plant, by assisting employees in withdrawing from the Union and sponsoring petitions repudiating the Union , by creating the impression of surveillance and attempting to get employees to spy on union activities of employ- ees for him, by giving benefits through individual bargaining to employees rather TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1061 than through their majority representatives, by threats to curtail production to keep employees from voting for the Union, by threats of physical harm, and by changing working conditions because of the Union, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain with the certified Union the Respondent has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recom- mended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Talking to any one of its employees with respect to his allegiance to the Union or any other labor organization. (b) Promising benefits to its employees or threatening them with reprisals in order to induce them to withdraw their support or activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization. (c) Polling employees with respect to their union desires. (d) Assisting employees to withdraw from the Union or sponsoring petitions repudiating the Union (e) Engaging in surveillance or creating the impression of surveillance. (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Bargain in good faith with the Union for the unit described in the Board's certification, and if wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment are agreed upon reduce them to writing and sign them. This bargaining shall take place if necessary for 1 year from the date of this Order and during this period Respondent shall meet with and bargain with the Union at reasonable times and places. (b) Post in conspicuous places at its plant or place of business in Pennsylvania, where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed, be posted by Respondent imme- diately upon receipt theieof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there- after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " il In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT talk to our employees concerning their desires to form, join, or assist any labor organization including the United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees nor threaten them with reprisals in order to induce them or others to withdraw their support or activities on behalf of the above -named or any other labor organization. 1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT get anyone else to do what we have promised not to do in the preceding paragraph. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Industrial Workers of America of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or to remain members of United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such membership except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, JOHN WALSONAVICH T/A SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY, SERVICE ELECTRIC TV CABLE COM- PANY, INC., TAMAQUA TV CABLE COMPANY, INC., AND SERVICE ELECTRIC CABLE T.V. INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700 Bankers Security Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone No. Pennypaker 5-2612, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Peerless Distributing Company and Frank Murphy and Local 7-389, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 7-CA-3975 and 7-CA-3975(2). November 24, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On November 13, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding, among other things, that Respondent discriminated against Charles Chapman, Frank Murphy, Howard Duffey, and Admiral D. Pinnell in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act and directing that Respondent make whole the above-mentioned employees for loss of pay resulting from the discrimination. On April 13, 1964, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 of the Board issued a backpay specification, and on May 6, 1964, Respondent filed an answer. Upon appropriate notice issued by the Acting Regional Director, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner George A. Downing for the purpose of determining the amount of backpay due the four claimants. On June 22, 1964, the Trial Exam- iner issued his Supplemental Decision, which is attached hereto, in which he found that the discriminatees are entitled to the following 1 144 NLRB 1510. 149 NLRB No. 96.