Henry Spen & Co., Inc.

138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Henry Spen & Company, Inc. and Local 854, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 2-CA-9621. December 15, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On July 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and recom- mended that the allegations of the complaint pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, with supporting briefs; the General Counsel filed a brief in support of part of the Decision; and each party filed a brief in answer to the exceptions filed by the other. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom 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 Trial Examiner's Decision,' the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Union had obtained valid authorization cards from a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit by October 15, 1963, the date of its oral request for recognition. However, even if the cards of Morales (whose card the Trial Examiner included in determining the existence of a majority) and Lugo (whose card the Trial Examiner did not evalu- ate because he found it not to be necessary to the majority) should be considered to have been invalidly obtained due to misrepresenta- tions, the valid card signed by Torruellas on October 16 or 17, 1963, may properly be counted to give the Union a majority as of 1 The following inadvertent errors in the Decision are hereby corrected: In section III, B, second paragraph, first sentence , the date should read "October 11" ; in section III, E, 3, c, third paragraph, third sentence, the date should read "October 15". 150 NLRB No. 21. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 139 the date it was signed. Since the Union's request for recognition was clearly of a continuing nature, the Respondent's refusal to bar- gain would have begun no later than October 16 or 17, 1963? 2. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the totality of the Respondent's conduct subsequent to the Union's demand is indica- tive of bad faith, and that its failure to accord recognition to the Union violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act .3 In so finding, we do not consider it necessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's more particularized conclusions that the Respondent "could not in good faith refuse" to accept the Union's offer of a quick election by an impartial agency, or that Respondent's insistence upon either the submission of membership cards or a Board election was "clearly arbitrary." 3. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent's delay in process- ing a loan application of a striking employee constituted a reprisal against the employee's protected activity, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). In our view, the relevant evidence is insufficient to sup- port the inference drawn by the Trial Examiner that the delay in approving the loan was for a retaliatory purpose. Accordingly, we set this finding aside. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order rec- ommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the fol- lowing modifications : 1. Delete subsection 1(a) of the Recommended Order, and redes- ignate subsections 1(b) and 1(c) as 1(a) and 1(b), respectively. 2. Delete the final sentence of the Recommended Order and sub- stitute the following : "IT IS FURTI-TER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act by conduct other than that found to be violative herein, be, and it hereby is, dismissed." 2 Scobell Chemical Company v . N.L.R.B., 267 F. 2d 922 (C.A. 2 ). Unlike his colleagues, Member Leedom relies only on the findings of the Trial Examiner as to the Union's ma- jority status 3 Subsequent to the hearing in this case , Respondent moved that the Board take notice of a petition , allegedly signed after the hearing by most of its employees , which declares that the employees do not wish to have the Union as their bargaining agent. On the basis of the petition, Respondent requests that the Trial Examiner 's 8(a) (5 ) findings be vacated, or, in the alternative, that the hearing be reopened to permit the introduction of the petition into evidence. The request is hereby denied. The fact that the employees may have subsequently revoked the Union's authority to act in their behalf can have no effect on the need for a bargaining order in this case, since , at the time of its request for recognition , the Union validly represented a majority of the employees . Franks Bros. Company v . N L.R B , 321 U.S. 702. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Delete the third indented paragraph in Appendix A attached to the Decision, reading : "WE WILL NOT take economic reprisals against any employee for engaging in the protected activity of a strike or for engaging in any other protected concerted activity." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on October 16 and December 24, 1963, by Local 854, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 2 (New York, New York ), issued his complaint, dated December 19, 1963 , against Henry Spen & Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent . With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges , in substance, that: ( 1) on October 14, 1963, Respondent discharged 11 named employees , and thereafter failed and refused to offer to reinstate them because of the union and concerted activities of various employees; (2) since October 14, 1963, Respondent has refused, upon request, to recognize and bargain with the Union which was designated as bargaining represen- tative by a majority of the employees in a specified appropriate unit; (3) from October 15 to November 1, 1963 , Respondent's employees went out on a strike, which was caused and prolonged by Respondent 's unfair labor practices; (4) during the strike, agents of Respondent engaged in reprisals against its employees because of their strike and concerted activity; and (5 ) by the foregoing conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, as amended at the hearing, Respondent denies the appropriateness of the unit alleged in the complaint, the majority representative status of the Union , and all unfair labor practice allegations ; it affirmatively avers that the 11 employees were laid off for economic reasons and that its refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union was based on a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority representative status. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at New York, New York, at various intervals between February 10 and March 17, 1964. All parties were represented by counsel , appeared at the hearing, and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce rele- vant evidence, to argue orally, and to file briefs . On March 15, 1964, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which I have fully considered. For the reasons hereinafter indicated , I find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5), and has not violated Section 8(a) (3 ), of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The Respondent, a New York corporation, maintains plants in Brooklyn, New York, and Butler, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of tow trailers and related products . During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative period of its annual operations , Respond- ent manufactured, sold, and distributed products at its Brooklyn , New York, plant and furnished services, valued in excess of $100 ,000, which had a substantial impact on the national defense. Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the undisputed evidence in the record clearly shows, and I find that Local 854, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, the Charging Party in the instant case, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 141 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background 1 1. Prior organizational efforts In December 1960, a different local of the Teamsters attempted to organize Respondent's employees, and on December 8, 1960, filed a representation petition with the Board for an election among the employees at the Brooklyn, New York, plant (2-RC-11146). At a hearing held before the Board on this petition on Janu- ary 9, 1961, the Respondent contended that the"only appropriate unit was one com- prising the employees of both the Respondent's Brooklyn and Butler, New Jersey, plants. On April 4, 1961, the Board issued its decision, in which it rejected Respond- ent's contention and found appropriate a unit confined to the production and mainte- nance employees of the Brooklyn plant. Thereafter, an election was held and the petitioning union lost. 2. The Shop Committee; Respondent's relationship therewith Sometime after the 1961 election, Respondent recognized a Shop Committee, herein sometimes called the Committee, as the representative of the, production and maintenance employees at the Brooklyn plant only.2 The Shop Committee comprised a group of five employees, elected by the production and maintenance employees at the Brooklyn plant, and dealt with Respondent with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions, thus constituting it a labor organization within-'the meaning of the' Act. Respondent recognized the Shop Committee under the following circum- stances: Some employees told Respondent that 80 percent of the employees had voted by secret ballot that they wanted the Shop Committee to represent them. Respondent did not ask to see the ballots or for any other proof but, relying on this oral statement, recognized the Shop Committee as the representative of the Brooklyn plant production and maintenance employees. Thereafter, the employees adopted a set of bylaws, a copy of which they gave to Respondent. Executive Vice President Brinster testified that when the bylaws were submitted, "we looked them over, sat down together and reviewed them and said they appear to be pretty sensible. It is okay with us to operate under these bylaws. We have' no objection:" Thereafter, Respondent met with the Shop Committee about once a month and took up matters pertaining to wages, hours, and working conditions. Sometime in 1963 the Shop Committee found that the employees had lost faith in the Committee as an effective bargaining agent. Shop Committeeman Murphy resigned in July 1963, and Vice President Grande automatically assumed the position of the presidency. Sometime between July 15 and the first part of September, the Shop Committee met with Brinster and Detwiler, Respondent's vice president and assistant general manager, respectively. The Committee pointed out that the employ- ees had no faith in the Committee and that they planned to dissolve the whole Com- mittee, and asked if Brinster would talk to the employees "and show reassurance that the Committee 'does have a leg to stand on in the Shop." Brinster agreed to do so. Shortly thereafter, Brinster called a meeting of all'the,production and maintenance employees at the'Brooklyn plant. He tried to "build up the Committee." He prom- ised that he was trying to work out the benefits they were seeking but pointed out that it would take time. He assured them that the Committee did represent the employees, that the Committee had a function, that he. has respect for the Commit- tee and really believes in it, that he wants to make a go of'it, and that he feels that to let something like that "go down the drain" after it had been built up "would be a shame." 1 Unless otherwise indicated, the findings in this section are based on credited testimony and evidence which is either admitted or undenied. 2 Lawrence Brinster, Respondent's executive vice president, testified at 'one point that the Shop Committee was organized before the 1960-61 organizational efforts of the Team- sters Local. At another point, he testified that the first election of the Committee was held in June of either 1960 or 1961. However, in view of the testimony of two committee- men and the 1961 Board's decision which states that there was no bargaining history at the Brooklyn plant, I find that Brinster was in error to the extent that his testimony contradicts the findings in the text. , 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter, the Committee tried to function. In September a meeting was called to elect new committeemen. Only about 50 percent of the employees showed suffi- cient interest to attend the meeting. Of those who attended, none would accept any nominations. President Grande got disgusted and walked out. Thereafter, when Assistant Plant Manager Detwiler asked Grande if the Committee was making any headway with the men, Grande reported what had occurred at the meeting and explained that he "had had enough" and did not "want any part of it." Detwiler urged Grande to try again and see what he could salvage and "not let this thing just go off and forget about it." Grande made a few further attempts "but they were futile." Thereafter, Detwiler continued to ask Grande how he was making out, and Grande replied, "Not so good." About October 7 or 8 he asked Grande whether they had elected a Committee and when they could get together, pointing out that there were items he would like to discuss. Grande replied that he felt it was futile, that he had made a number of attempts to get the Committee together, and that the members were not interested. Brinster also inquired of the Committee members as to whether they were getting any response from the employees, and was given a negative response. On Wednes- day, October 9, Brinster asked Committeemen Grande and Massaro about the status of their Committee and whether they were going to elect officers and be active, stat- ing that there were things he wanted to discuss with them but he did not know whether they were representing the men at this point. They both voiced the opinion that the Committee was dead because they could not get enough employees together to elect officers or representatives. At that point, Brinster saw Jack Murphy, the former president, approaching, and asked Murphy if he knew the feeling of the men in regard to the Committee. Murphy replied that he did not but that he could find out. Brinster told Murphy to find out and to inform him at an early date whether or not the Committee was functioning. On Friday, October 11, Brinster met Murphy in the shop and asked if he had an answer about the Committee and whether they could have a meeting. Murphy replied that he would have to ask the committeemen and see how things worked out with them and that perhaps they could have a meeting in about 2 weeks. Brinster then asked if it was Murphy's opinion that there was no Committee existing. Murphy replied, "Well, if that's the way you want to read it, that's the way it is." Brinster then asked Grande and Massaro if they had any dis- cussions with the men about the Committee. They replied that there did not seem to be any interest in the Committee and reaffirmed their opinion of the preceding Wednesday that the Committee was dead for all intents and purposes. B. Union organizational campaign; summary of relevant conduct Self-organization among Respondent's production and maintenance employees at the Brooklyn plant began again in the week of October 7, 1963. About 5 p.m. on Tuesday, October 8, an employee committee, consisting of former Shop Committee President Murphy, Prizzi, and Fenimore, met with Union President McDonough and other union representatives at the Ad Way bar, located near the Brooklyn plant, to discuss the organization of the Brooklyn plant employees. The next day, the union representatives left union authorization cards for the employees to distribute. Begin- ning with Thursday, October 10, the employee committee began soliciting employee signatures to the union authorization cards. Murphy, Prizzi, and Fenimore were the only employees who engaged in such solicitation; they admittedly tried to keep the union campaign secret and solicited in a secretive manner. However, on the very first day, October 10, Foreman Mike Picolla, hereinafter found to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, told Arthur Terry, an employee in the fabricating department over which Piccola had jurisdiction, to make sure he knew what he was doing before signing a union card if he intended to sign one. Terry replied that he had a mind of his own and "if I am going to sign it I am going to sign it." s On Friday, November 11, the employee organizing committee gave Union Presi- dent McDonough the signed union cards which they had collected. He told the employee committee that he believed he had signed cards from "a sufficient majority of the employees" and that he would send a telegram to Respondent requesting "a meeting to show recognition of the employees." The employees stated that no steps should be taken which would result in a long delay such as occurred in the 1960- 1961 campaign, that this time they "wanted it quick" and to "get it done fast," and recommended calling an immediate strike. They finally decided to call a meeting after work on Monday, October 14, of all the employees to find out how the employ- ees felt. 3 The findings as to this conversation are based on the credited and undenied testimony of Terry. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 143 Early Monday afternoon, October 14, the Union sent Respondent a telegram, stating that "we represent your employees" and requesting "an immediate appoint- ment to negotiate a labor contract." That same afternoon, Respondent "laid off" 11 employees, under circumstances hereinafter detailed. Vice President Brinster also telephoned the Union's office that afternoon and read to McDonough the tele- gram which Brinster was sending to the Union, in which he acknowledged receipt of the Union's telegram and advised it was being forwarded to Respondent's attorney who will contact the Union's office. After work that day, October 14, the employees met with the union representatives, as planned the previous week. Also present were a majority of the laid-off employees. About 45 employees were present, including the laid-off employees. The layoffs were discussed. Some employees expressed the view that the layoffs were because of the Union's telegram received by Respondent; others stated they believed the layoffs were due to work being slack; and still others expressed different opinions. McDonough stated that the Union would try to get the jobs back for the laid-off employees, and explained the benefits of unionization and the procedure of organizing, including the alternatives of petitioning for an election versus strike action. The employees informed McDonough of the 5-month delay involved when a different union had petitioned for an election in the 1960-61 campaign; they expressed the view that because of the layoffs and the delay involved in a petition for an election of the type they had in the 1960-61 campaign, a strike was necessary. The employees unani- mously voted to strike the next day. The next morning, Tuesday, October 15, as the employees came to work, the strike was in progress. Employees picketed with signs, stating that employees of Respondent were on strike and giving the Union's name. Strike headquarters was set up in the backroom of the Ad Way bar, a block from the Brooklyn plant. That afternoon, at McDonough's request, Brinster and Respondent's President Spen met with union rep- resentatives and an employee committee. McDonough claimed that the union repre- sented a majority of Respondent's employees and requested a meeting to negotiate a contract. Respondent's representatives and attorney refused to recognize or agree to meet with the Union under the circumstances hereinafter detailed. During the period of the strike, which lasted until November 1, further efforts of the Union to obtain recognition and a meeting date were unsuccessful, as hereinafter more fully detailed. By November 1, 1963, all but one of the strikers had returned to work. C. The issues The principal issues in this case are whether (1) Respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the 11 named employees who were "laid off" on October 14, 1963, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, (2) Respondent's conduct on and after October 15 amounted to a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and (3) during the strike Respondent engaged in conduct independently violative of Section 8(a)(1), of the Act. Also involved are issues as to (1) the appropriateness of a unit confined to the production and maintenance employees of the Brooklyn, New York, plant, (2) the supervisory status of three named foremen, and (3) the validity of certain authoriza- tion cards for the purpose of determining the Union's majority representative status at relevant times. D. Alleged discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of employment The complaint alleges that "on or about October 14, 1963, Respondent discharged" 11 named employees, that since that date Respondent has failed and refused to rein- state, or offer to reinstate, said employees to their former or substantially equivalent positions of employment, and that Respondent took this action "because various of its employees joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activity for mutual aid and protection" and "in order to undermine the Union and to destroy its majority status among the employees." Respondent's answer denies these allega- tions and avers that "the decision to `lay-off' said eleven employees was based solely on the lack of sufficient work on hand and available to said employees." 1. Respondent's case Respondent put in a strong case in support of its position. This consisted of the testimony of Executive Vice President Brinster and Assistant General Manager Det- wiler, accompanied by visual charts prepared from Respondent's records, which in substance is as follows: 775-692-65-vol 150--11 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD About 95 percent of Respondent's business is derived from contracts with the various governmental agencies. As early as April 1963, Respondent began to see a trend in its business indicative of a substantial drop in new orders from the various governmental agencies. In addition, production on other jobs was held up because of the many changes ordered by the Government procurement office. However, Respondent was anxious to keep the work force intact in anticipation of receiving orders on jobs with respect to which bids were outstanding and of approvals on jobs as to which prototypes and samples were in progress or had been submitted. One of the jobs which Respondent was extremely anxious to get was an order for 378 muni- tions trailers. Respondent had first bid on this job in March or April, but it turned out that Respondent was not the lowest bidder. However, in the latter part of August when a revised price was requested, Respondent had an opportunity to submit a new bid at a lower price and was hopeful of obtaining the job. This was regarded as an ideal job for the plant because it would afford work for every department, including fabricating, welding, assembly, painting, machine shop, and shipping. By the middle of September, it became apparent that if Respondent did not get the munitions trailer job and did not get some of the prototypes which were in process completed and accepted within the next month or so, there would have to be a layoff of about 16 or 17 men. As it turned out, Respondent failed to achieve either objec- tive. Meanwhile, employees were kept busy on maintenance, cleanup, and other nonproductive work. On Monday, October 7, Brinster received a memorandum from Rainer, the contract officer in the procurement office in San Antonio, Texas (from which the munitions trailer order would emanate), stating that the require- ments for the munitions trailer job had been canceled. At Brinster's directions, Respondent's Sales Engineer Diffendorfer immediately contacted Rainer in San Antonio and that same day left on Brinster's desk a note, stating that he had talked to Rainer, that the latter indicated a possibility of negotiating with Respondent if the requirement continues, and that "we'll know more by Friday." When it thus appeared that the munitions trailer job was fading out of the picture and the maintenance and cleanup work was running out, meetings were held to discuss the necessity for the reduction in the work force. A preliminary discussion to that effect was'held on Wednesday, October 9, and a special meeting was called for Friday, October 11, "to discuss exactly what was the situation at that moment." Detwiler instructed Plant Superintendent Hausen to come to the Friday meeting prepared to make recommendations as to the number of men not needed to carry on the available work. The Friday meeting consisted of a morning and an afternoon session, and was attended by Brinster, Detwiler, Hausen, and Foreman Cruz. Early that morning, Brinster instructed Sales Engineer Diffendorfer to telephone the contract officer in San Antonio and get the final word on the munitions trailer job. In the morning session, a discussion was held to determine how many men would have to be laid off if the final word on the trailer job was negative. The figure recommended at that session was 15 or 16. Brinster asked Hausen and Cruz to make a careful review of everything that was left to be done so as to lay off the least number of people. The afternoon session lasted from 2 to 3 o'clock. When the meeting adjourned, Diffen- dorfer was still trying to make contact with San Antonio. The working hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Not having heard from Diffen- dorfer by 4:30 p.m., Brinster informed Detwiler that if the layoff became necessary, it would obviously have to be set up for Monday morning. He told Detwiler to have another meeting set up for Monday morning, October 14, and to instruct Hansen and Cruz to have a layoff list prepared for review at the Monday morning meeting. As Brinster was preparing to leave his office about 5:30 p.m. that day, Diffendorfer came in and dropped a note on his desk with the comment "There it is." The note stated that "San Antonio says they are cancelling entire requirements on trailers due to mechanical problems and weld failure." About 11 a.m. on Monday, October 14, Brinster met with Detwiler, Hausen, and Cruz, and a final decision was reached to lay off 11 men. Except for one employee, the selections for layoff were made in the order of their plantwide seniority standing. The one exception was Lopez, a timekeeper, because he was the only one qualified for that work. Only three of the laid-off employees had more seniority than Lopez, and that consisted of not more than 2 months. It was almost noon when the decision on the exact list of employees to be laid off was reached. Brinster then told Detwiler to instruct Falls, Respondent's comptroller, to prepare checks for the full workweek ending the following Wednesday night, in lieu of notice. Brinster then instructed Hausen to pick up the checks at 1 p.m. and to distribute them to the men. Hansen indicated his intention to dismiss the men immediately upon delivery of the checks so that they could turn in their tools and be checked out without causing a jam at 4:30. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 145 That afternoon the foremen informed the 11 men of their layoff for lack of work, gave them their checks, and told them to leave work immediately. In the latter part of December, when certain welding work became available, Respondent notified the two welders, Oregan and Bosback , in the group of laid-off employees that Respondent desired to reemploy them. One of them, Bosback, was in fact reemployed in January 1964. The remaining laid-off employees have neither been recalled nor replaced. 2. The General Counsel's contentions and concludings findings The General Counsel contends in her brief that Respondent 's true motive in lay- ing off and failing to recall the 11 employees was discriminatory and that, in any event, the timing of the layoffs was calculated to undermine the Union's campaign. More specifically, the General Counsel argues that the layoffs were undertaken as a reprisal measure, after the Respondent learned of the Union's telegram requesting recognition. Alternatively, the General Counsel further argues that in any event Respondent knew of the Union's organizing campaign prior to that day, that it therefore could have planned the layoff sooner, held it in abeyance, and effectuated it when it learned that the Union's campaign "was successful or nearing success." The employee organizers first began distributing union authorization cards and soliciting employee signatures on Thursday , October 10 . The solicitation was admit- tedly carried on secretively . The Respondent 's knowledge of the Union's campaign to which the General Counsel has reference is based on the statement of Foreman Picolla to employee Terry on October 10 that Terry should make sure he knew what he was doing before he signed a union card if he intended to sign one , as previously found. The strongest evidence refuting the General Counsel's theories appears in the testimony of Jack Murphy, one of the three employee solicitors and a chief wit- ness for the General Counsel . On cross-examination, Murphy credibly testified that about 3 weeks before the strike of October 15 he received information from an unimpeachably reliable source employed in Respondent's main office to the effect that a layoff of 15 to 17 employees was contemplated because of a slowing down in the amount of available work. While no names were mentioned, Murphy was fur- ther informed that the layoff would be made in accordance with seniority . Murphy further credibly testified that when he received this information , he discussed it with another member of the Shop Committee and with two other employees who would be regarded as leaders by the remaining employees , that they wanted to try to save the employees whose layoffs were contemplated, that they knew they "needed a lit- tle outside help" because they felt that the Shop Committee was not sufficiently strong for that purpose, and that it was as a result of this information which he had received from this unimpeachable source that he first discussed the question of try- ing to organize the employees in a union. With respect to the timing of the layoffs in relation to the receipt of the Union's October 14 telegram, stating that the Union represented Respondent 's employees and requesting an immediate appointment to negotiate a contract , the dates on the tele- gram indicate that it was delivered to Western Union by the Union at 1:25 p.m. and that it was transmitted by Western Union to Respondent's teletype service at 1:54 p.m. Brinster testified that this telegram was not called to his attention until about 3 p.m., after the employees had already been notified of the layoffs . The testimony of the General Counsel's own witnesses shows that while some men were notified of their layoff after 1:54 p.m ., the process of notifying the employees that they were being laid off actually began before that time and therefore before the receipt of the telegram on Respondent's teletype service. Thus, Union President McDonough admitted on cross-examination that at 1:30 or 1:45 p .m. employee Fenimore tele- phoned him to inform him about the layoff . And Fenimore, an employee solicitor, also admitted on cross-examination that he might have telephoned McDonough from the plant at that time , and that he told McDonough about other men being laid off but did not say anything about himself at that time because he was one of the last men to be informed of the layoff. In addition , Brinster had instructed Superintend- ent Hausen to come up at 1 p .m. to pick up the checks and to give them out to the men. In any event, the final decision as to whom and how many were to be laid off and the instructions to inform the men of the layoff as soon as the checks were drawn were made at the meeting held on Monday morning, October 14, before the Union even sent its telegram to Western Union , as previously stated. The General Counsel also relies on the fact that the manner in which the layoffs were effected differed from that used on a prior occasion about 2 years earlier when about 15 employees were laid off. Thus, on the prior occasion , the employees were laid off at the end of the workweek on Wednesday, about one-half hour before the quitting time, and Respondent had informed the Shop Committee about the intended layoffs before they were effectuated . Brinster credibly testified that as a result of 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD comments made by laid-off employees in the past that it was better to start looking for a new job on a Monday morning, it was Respondent's policy to try to notify an employee of his layoff at the end of the calendar week, in this case, Friday. As Respondent had not received the final word on the munitions trailer job until after the end of the workday on Friday, the layoffs could not be effected until Monday. Moreover, on the prior occasion, according to Brinster 's further credible testimony, the Shop Committee had complained about the abruptness of the layoff and the absence of any prior notice. In view of these considerations and a desire to be as lenient as possible, Brinster credibly testified that he decided to effect the layoffs on Monday and to pay the employees for the full workweek. He further credibly tes- tified that the decision to dismiss the employees as soon as they were given their checks was due to Superintendent Hausen's desire to have sufficient time to check the employees out without causing a jam at the end of the workday at 4:30 p.m. The experience gained on the prior occasion, when a large group of laid-off employ- ees had not been dismissed early, may well have prompted Hansen to propose this procedure on this occasion . Brinster further credibly testified that the reason he had not discussed the layoffs with the Shop Committee was because it did not appear to him that the Committee was functioning any longer. That there was in fact no functioning Committee in existence at that time is affirmatively attested by the General Counsel's own witnesses, Committeemen Murphy and Grande. More- over, Murphy admitted that when Brinster asked him about 3 or 4 days before October 15 to call a Committee meeting for the purpose of a general discussion with Respondent, Murphy replied that he would have to see how things worked out and that it would take about 2 weeks. The foregoing explanations offered by Respond- ent appear to me to be reasonable and persuasive. The General Counsel has advanced no convincing grounds for rejecting them. Accordingly, I accept them as the true and real basis for Respondent 's conduct. The General Counsel further points to an alleged inconsistency in Respondent's position when she asserts that , about 2 months before the layoffs , Brinster assured the assembled employees that there would be no layoffs. On that occasion, Brinster told the men that two of his former employees were now working for one of his competitors, that he had heard that these men had carried trade secrets to this com- petitor which made it possible for the latter to underbid Respondent on jobs, and that these two former employees were frequenting Respondent 's shop and telling the employees that Respondent was in bad financial straits and they should quit and work for this competitor before Respondent went bankrupt. Brinster testified that during the course of this talk he told the men, in substance, that in view of Respond- ent's backlog of about $2 million scheduled over the next 6 to 8 months, there would be no layoffs if Respondent were successful in its bids for new contracts, as he hoped they would be. Of the approximately 10 employees who testified as witnesses for the General Counsel with respect to Brinster's talk, not more than 1 or 2 testified that Brinster stated, without any qualifications, that there would be no layoffs. The remaining witnesses qualified their testimony on cross-examination and indicated that Brinster stated that he was going to do everything in his power to keep everybody working, or that he was trying to get contracts so there would not be any layoffs, or that "he was expecting more contracts to keep the guys in work to do," or that he was trying to get more work so that the people would not have to be laid off, or that he was working on new contracts and hoped to get these contracts so that he would not have to lay off, or that he had bids in for more work and was working on some large contracts with hopes of getting them and would do everything in his power to keep full employment. The foregoing clearly demonstrates that the preponderance of the evidence warrants the finding , which I herein make, that on this occasion Brinster assured the employees that, in substance, the Respondent had bids in for more jobs, was working on getting more contracts , and would do everything in its power so that there would not be any layoffs. I find nothing in Brinster 's speech which is inconsistent with the subsequent events and Respondent 's conduct in effect- ing the layoffs. Finally, the General Counsel contends that, both at the time of the layoff and thereafter, there was sufficient work available to warrant retaining all the employees. In support of this argument , she points to the fact that Respondent knew in Sep- tember 1963 that it was low bidder on a large contract for a lubrication unit, that at the time of the layoffs two of the men were told by their foremen that they would be recalled in a few weeks , and that after receipt of the lubrication unit con- tract in January 1964 Respondent subcontracted about one-quarter of it. Brinster explained that there is an automatic 60-day time limit allowed to the Government to accept a proposal even if it is the lowest bid , that the Government may then request additional time before awarding the job, and that in the case of the lubrication unit HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 147 job two or three extensions were requested with the result that Respondent was not awarded the contract until January 1964. He further pointed out that therefore, even though Respondent was low bidder on this job in September, he could not proceed to process any of it until he actually got the physical award because "good business sense dictates you don't put money into a job that you don't have. And you don't have it until you have a contract." That this was no mere pious statement or subterfuge is borne out by the example in connection with the munitions trailer job, where Respondent's competitor, Stewart Avionics, was at first the low bidder but did not end up with the contract. Indeed, President Spen testified that, after a few extensions on the lubrication unit job, there was talk by the Government of canceling out half of the requirements and a possibility even of canceling out the whole requirement, and that there was a review in the Defense Department to deter- mine whether the items were actually needed. At the time of the hearing in this case, Respondent was still working on the prototype on this job. The prototype, which does not require the work of many people, was scheduled to be completed about July 1964, and the shipments of completed units scheduled to begin in October. However, proposed schedules are not always maintained, as the protoype may fail of approval and require changes, as has in fact occurred in the past. But until the prototype is completed and approved, Respondent cannot commence the manufactur- ing. As for the subcontracting of the component parts for the lubrication unit, President Spen testified that this was done because it was cheaper and in order to meet delivery schedules after approval of the prototype. He further explained that it had always been Respondent's practice to subcontract work on the outside when- ever it was cheaper to do so. Respondent did not replace any of the laid-off employ- ees. The foregoing, which was not contradicted, appear to me to be valid and con- vincing explanations. In addition, the General Counsel's own witnesses corroborated the testimony of Respondent's witnesses that there was a slowdown of available work at the time of the layoffs. Thus, employee Eldiidge testified that about the middle of September he was concerned about the slowing down of available work, that he asked Foreman Cruz what other work would be available, that Cruz replied that if the legal prob- lems were straightened out there would be some more aluminum tanks to work on, and that the first time he saw any more aluminum tanks was about the middle of January 1964. He further testified that when his work slows down, it means that other work in the shop before his has slowed down too. Murphy testified that in the latter part of September and early part of October there was a slack period, that during that time the men in his area were principally engaged in cleanup work, paint- ing, and repairing, and that he noticed men in other areas of the shop doing that same type of work. Upon consideration of all the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am convinced and find that the preponderance of the credible evidence does not sustain the allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by its conduct in laying off and not recalling the 11-named employees. Accordingly, I will recommend that this allegation be dismissed. E. Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that the production and maintenance employees of Respondent's Brooklyn, New York, plant, with the usual exclusions, constitute an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The Respondent contends that the only appropriate unit is one comprising the production and mainte- nance employees of both its Brooklyn and Butler, New Jersey, plants. In a decision issued by the Board on April 4, 1961, upon a petition filed by another Teamsters Local (2-RC-1146), the Board decided the unit issue as follows: The plants, located 35 miles apart, produce equipment for the military air- craft and missiles. The Butler plant is primarily a machine operation supplying component parts for the Brooklyn plant. It was operated by another employer prior to a merger 5 years ago. The Brooklyn and Butler plants employ, respec- tively, approximately 50 and 20 employees. There is no bargaining history or evidence of interchange of employees. Each plant has separate and immediate supervision and hiring. The main office at the Brooklyn plant handles all rec- ords and purchases. In view of the geographic separation, the separate imme- diate supervision, the lack of interchange of employees, the absence of bargain- ing history, and the fact that no labor organization seeks a broader unit, we find, notwithstanding some degree of interrelation between the Employer's two plants, that a unit confined to the employees at the Brooklyn plant is appropriate. 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With one important exception, the facts disclosed by the present record show no significant changes in the operations or history of the two plants which would war- rant a different finding. Thus, the record shows that the Butler plant is separately supervised, except for a weekly visit of a few hours by Vice President Brinster, and hiring and firing is handled exclusively and independently by the Butler foreman. Assistant Plant Manager Detwiler testified as follows: The Butler plant "houses the machine shop. It does the machine shop type of work whereas the Brooklyn plant does the structural or sheet metal and forming type of work ... the degree of pre- cision does not exist in Brooklyn as it exists in Butler. We have an ability to hold close tolerances," which has "developed over the years" and is due to the machinery and the skill of the manpower in Butler. "There is no interchange of employees" between Brooklyn and Butler because "we operate with two different fields of endeavor. They could be in juxtaposition physically, but we would not even then, if they were located across the street or alongside of each other, be able to swap one man from the Brooklyn operation to the Butler operation . It's a difference in skill. A difference between toolmakers and hole punchers ...." The number of employees at Butler "is not necessarily correlated with Brooklyn." The work in Butler "is not" interchangeable with the work in Brooklyn. The Brooklyn plant neither has the machinery, equipment, nor the type of employees capable of doing the type of precision work done at Butler, and that same situation has always existed. The one important exception is that there now is a bargaining history. However, this bargaining history lends further support to the finding of an appropriate unit confined to the employees of the Brooklyn plant alone. Thus, as previously found, the Respondent has recognized and bargained with the Shop Committee as the rep- resentative only of its Brooklyn plant employees? The Butler plant employees have never been represented by the Shop Committee, nor have they participated in any of the elections or functions of the Shop Committee. The Union made no attempt to organize the Butler plant employees; nor did the Butler plant employees participate in the 1963 strike called by the Union. Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find, as alleged in the complaint, that all production and maintenance employees of Respondent employed at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, exclusive of office clerical employees , managerial employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 2. The Union's status as exclusive bargaining representative a. Supervisory status of foremen Jenaro Cruz, Mike Picolla, and Bob Moll have the title of foreman at the Brooklyn plant. The General Counsel contends that these three foremen should be excluded from the appropriate unit as supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent contends that the three foremen do not possess the authority which would render them supervisors within the meaning of the Act and that therefore they should be counted in determining the number of employees in the appropriate unit. The Brooklyn plant is comprised of three separate buildings, separated by a street, and referred to in the record as the old building , the new building, and the annex. The production and maintenance employees work in all three buildings. Most of the employees work with leadmen and group leaders, who admittedly are also full- time production and maintenance employees. Above the leadmen are the three foremen, each of whom is in charge of specific sections of the plant. Above the foremen is Plant Superintendent Hausen, who is in charge of production at the Brooklyn plant. Hausen is responsible to Assistant Plant Manager Detwiler, who is also in charge of engineering and other departments not part of the production and maintenance unit. Detwiler is responsible to Executive Vice President Brinster. President Spen is primarily in charge of sales. Brinster, Detwiler, and a large number of employees testified as to the duties and authority of the foremen; neither the foremen nor Plant Superintendent Hausen, their immediate superior, were called as witnesses. The testimony shows that the foremen, who are assisted by the leadmen, are in charge of designated areas where they sometimes perform some physical work. They each have a desk in their respec- tive departments where they spend some time doing paperwork . They have the 4 It is true that any benefits granted to the Brooklyn plant employees as a result of negotiations with the Shop Committee were also extended by Respondent to the Butler plant employees. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 149 responsibility to, and do, assign work to employees and see that production schedules are kept. They transfer employees from section to section and give them permission to take time off. They have the authority to recommend the hiring, discharge, wage increases, and promotion of employees to Superintendent Hausen who will give weight to such recommendations. In fact, Hansen refused to listen to an employee's request for a raise and insisted that he take it up with his foreman who was most familiar with his work and who would then in turn make a recommendation to Hausen. Brinster described the authority and duties of the foremen as follows: These men are delegated by the plant superintendent or foreman, Mr. Hansen, to carry out certain responsibilities in laying out the work for the men, assigning work for the men, seeing that production schedules are kept, working on proto- types, to train the people, helping in the inspection to see that the job was made according to the print and requirements, and generally to assist Mr. Hansen in the carrying out of his responsibilities. He admitted that the foremen can recommend the hire and discharge of employees and that Superintendent Hansen will give weight to such recommendations. Detwiler admitted that the foremen "may in the course of their work recommend to Mr. Hausen that one person is more proficient than another." He also admitted that Foreman Cruz and Picolla were required to be present at the meetings to determine the number of employees to be laid off on October 14. Other than Hausen, who has an office in one of the three separate buildings but spends most of the time in the plant, the foremen are the only persons in charge of employees. The ratio of admitted supervisors to employees scattered over the 3 separate buildings would thus be I to 65 before the October 14 layoffs and 1 to 53 after the layoffs. Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I am convinced that the preponderance of the evidence clearly warrants the finding, which I herein make, that Foremen Cruz, Picolla, and Moll possessed, and in fact have exercised, the authority which constitute them supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. b. The card majority The General Counsel and the Respondent agree in their respective briefs that, excluding the 11 laid-off employees and the 3 foremen, 26 employees would consti- tute a majority of those in the above-found appropriate unit as of October 15, 1963. The Respondent further concedes that as of the time that the Union met with Respondent on the afternoon of October 15, the Union had received authorization cards signed by 27 of the nonlaid-off employees in the appropriate unit, and that 14 of these cards are valid designation cards which Respondent does not contest. Four of the contested thirteen cards are attacked by Respondent solely on the ground that the employees signed them in blank, that is, that the employees did not fill in the requested information such as the date, age, address, occupation, wage, and the name and address of Respondent. The printed portion of the card states that it is an "Application for membership" and that the signer authorizes the Union to represent him in negotiating agreements as to wages, hours, and working conditions. Three of these four employees 5 credibly testified, without contradiction, that they had signed these cards before the October 15 strike, that at the time they signed the cards they wanted the Union to represent them, and that they participated in the strike. The fourth employee, Thomas Pagan, credibly testified, without contradic- tion, that he signed the card before the strike, that he participated in the strike, that he was on the employee committee which attended the October 15 meeting between representatives of the Union and Respondent, and that he picketed. I find that the fact that these cards were signed in blank does not, under the circumstances, invali- date them for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status. One card is attacked on the ground that the employee signed it in blank and that by working during the strike he repudiated the Union. This employee, Amos Eldridge, Jr., credibly testified, without contradiction, that he signed the card on October 10, that at the time he signed it he wanted the Union to represent him, and that he was out on strike only 2 hours. The Board has held that the "fact that certain employees crossed the picket line to work does not invalidate their cards so far as a determina- tion of majority status is concerned." 6 I find this to be a valid card for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status. 5 Allen Holmes, George Robinson, Victor Morales e Sierra Furniture Company, 123 NLRB 1198-1199. 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Another card is attacked on the ground that the employee signed it in blank and that the balance of the requested information on the card appears in different colored ink and different handwriting. This employee, Angello Fiorito, credibly testified, without contradiction, that he signed the card on October 10, that at the time he signed it he wanted the Union to represent him, and that he participated in the strike. I find this to be a valid card for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status: Two cards are attacked on the ground that they were signed on October 14 but had been predated to October 10 These employees 7 credibly testified, without contradiction, that they signed the caid during the day on October 14, that at the time they signed it they wanted the Union to represent them, and that they partici- pated in the strike. In addition, one of the employees, Bronson, also credibly testified that he engaged in picketing. I find these to be valid cards for the purpose of deter- mining the Union's majority status as of October 15. The card of employee Britt is attacked on the ground that the requested informa- tion had already been filled in before he signed it. Britt credibly testified, without contradiction, that he signed the card in the plant on October 14, that at the time he signed it he wanted the Union to represent him, and that he participated in the strike. I find this to be a valid card for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status. The cards of employees Frank Grande and Thomas Orefice are attacked on the ground that they allegedly signed under compulsion. Grande credibly testified, with- out contradiction, that he signed the card at the union meeting on the night of Octo- ber 14 after the men had voted to go out on strike, that he read the card before signing it, that he wanted the Union to represent him at the time he signed it, that he par- ticipated in the strike, and that he engaged in picketing activities. Orefice credibly testified, without contradiction, that he also signed the card at the union meeting on the night of October 14, that he signed it of his own free will, and that he participated in the strike. I find that Grande and Orefice did not sign the union authorization cards under any compulsion, and that these are valid cards for the purpose of deter- mining the Union's majority status. A 12th card, that signed by employee Ismael Morales, is attacked on the ground that he signed it in blank and also allegedly under compulsion. Morales credibly testified, without contradiction, that he signed the card about October 11, that he had not read the card but that he knew what it was and that he knew that signing it meant that the Union was going to represent him, that employee Murphy had told him that the other employees had signed and he signed because he wanted "to back up the men" and "to be with the men," and that he signed the card voluntarily. He further credibly testified that he attended the union meeting on the night before the strike, that almost all the men were present at the meeting, and that he was out on strike for about 2 weeks. In answer to a question on cross-examination as to whether he wanted the Union to represent him at the time he signed the card, Morales testified "No, sir." 8 Whatever reliance Morales may have originally placed on Murphy's statement, he saw for himself that almost all the men were at the union meeting the night before the strike (October 14) and supported the Union by their unanimous strike vote. His continued adherence to and support of the Union from that night on, and his failure to revoke or repudiate his designation either that night or thereafter, because he wanted "to back up" and "be with the men" was therefore based on his own inde- pendent observations beginning with the union meeting on the night before the strike. With respect to his testimony at the hearing that he did not want the Union to represent him when he signed the card, "it is well settled that an employee's sub- jective state of mind in signing a union card cannot negate the clear statement on the card that the signer is designating the union as his bargaining agent." 9 I therefore find that at all times at least since the night of October 14, Morales' designation of the Union as bargaining representative was not because of any alleged compulsion or misrepresentation, and that therefore his union authorization card is a valid card for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status as of October 15. I have hereinabove found that 12 of the 13 union designation cards attacked by Respondent are valid cards for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status as of October 15. As these 12 together with the 14 concededly valid cards total 26 or a majority of the nonlaid-off production and maintenance employees in 7 Irwin Holmes and Samuel Bronson 8 Morales was still employed by Respondent at the time of the instant hearing and he testified in the presence of Respondent's officials. 9 Gary Steel Products Corporation, 144 NLRB 1160. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 151 the appropriate unit as of October 15,10 I find it unnecessary to determine the validity of Respondent's attack on the remaining designation card, that of employee Ramon Lugo.11 c. Concluding findings As the Union was designated by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit by October 15, 1963, I find that at all times on and after that date the Union has been, and is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-found appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.12 3. The requests and refusals As previously found, early in the afternoon of Monday, October 14, the Union sent Respondent a telegram, stating that "We represent your employees. Request an immediate appointment to negotiate labor contract." When this telegram came to the attention of Vice President Brinster, he consulted with Joseph Eckhaus, attorney for Respondent and a member of its board of directors. Brinster then telephoned the Union's office and told Union President McDonough that he was referring the Union's telegram to Respondent's attorney and was sending the Union a telegram to that effect. The telegram which Brinster sent that afternoon to the Union stated, "We acknowledge receipt of your wire. Will forward wire to our attorney, Mr. Joseph Eckhaus ... He will contact your office after review." At the union meeting held that night, the Brooklyn plant employees unanimously voted to strike. The next morning, Tuesday, October 15, the strike was in progress as employees arrived for work, with strikers patrolling in the area of the Brooklyn plant with picket signs. a. The meeting on October 15 About 1:30 p.m. on October 15, the first day of the strike, McDonough saw Brinster outside the plant and suggested that they get together and talk this thing over to see if they could resolve the situation. Brinster agreed, and told McDonough to give him about 10 minutes to take care of a few things and then to come up to his office with his people. The Union was represented at this meeting by President McDonough, Secretary-Treasurer Zappi, Recording Secretary Dapolito, and an employee committee consisting of John Murphy, Thomas Pagan, and Carmine Prizzi. Respondent was represented by Vice President Brinster and President Spen. McDon- ough did most of the talking for the Union, and Brinster did most of the talking for Respondent. There is no serious dispute, and I find, that at least the following transpired at some time during the course of this meeting: McDonough claimed that the Union represented a majority of the employees, and asked for recognition and a meeting to negotiate a contract. When Brinster questioned his claim, McDonough indicated that the proof was outside on the sidewalk in the number of men on strike, and asked Brinster and Spen to look out the window.13 Brinster stated that he was not familiar with the labor laws and would like to call his attorney. Brmster then telephoned Eckhaus, informed him of the presence and requests of the Union's representatives, and had McDonough speak to Eckhaus. McDonough introduced himself, requested a meeting to resolve the situation, and indicated that he was available any time of day or night, including Saturday and Sunday. He was unable to get a commitment from Eckhaus on a definite meeting date. Eckhaus stated that he would advise his client not to recognize the Union unless McDonough first submitted proof in sup- port of his majority claim, and asked him to submit the signed union cards -to "the boss," Brinster and Spen. McDonough refused on the ground that they could be 10 Respondent concedes in its brief that another valid union designation card was signed during the strike on October 16 or 17 by employee Armando Torruellas n Brinster testified that at the time of their layoff on October 14, the 11 "laid- off" em- ployees did not have a reasonable expectation of reemployment in the foreseeable future However, even if the "laid-off" employees were to be counted, the Union was still desig- nated by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit because, as Respondent con- cedes in its brief, 6 of the 11 laid-off employees signed valid union authorization cards prior to October 15. 12I find that any subsequent possible numerical loss of majority status is attributable to Respondent's unfair labor practices in refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union, as hereinafter, found, and therefore must be disregarded. Franks Bros. Company v. N.L.R.B , 321 U.S. 702; Medo Photo Corporation v N.L R.B., 321 U.S. 678, 687. 13 Brinster testified that he walked through the plant that morning and counted only 15 nonsupervisory employees at work. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD used to hurt the men, inasmuch as he did not have 100 percent of the men signed up, and stated that he had the proof out on the sidewalk. The telephone conversa- tion ended with McDonough stating that he would be downstairs picketing and that all Eckhaus had to do was to set a time for a meeting and McDonough would be there. McDonough then turned the telephone back to Brinster, who spoke to Eck- haus for a few minutes and hung up. McDonough also refused to comply with Brmster's request to produce the union cards as proof of the Union's majority. The meeting ended with Brinster or Spen stating that they would be in touch with McDon- ough after they consulted further with their attorney, and with McDonough replying that he could be contacted "downstairs on strike" or at "strike headquarters" and giv- ing the telephone number of "strike headquarters." The chief matter in dispute as to what transpired at this meeting revolves around the subject of an election. Thus, McDonough testified that he told Brinster and Spen, as well as Eckhaus in the telephone conversation, that he would agree to a consent election to be held before the Board within a week or 10 days, that they would not agree to a consent election but insisted only on a Board-directed election through normal channels by the filing and processing of a petition, and that, bearing in mind what the employees told him had happened in such an election a few years earlier, he refused because of the inordinate delay involved in that type of an elec- tion. On the other hand, according to the composite testimony of Brinster and Spen, Brinster told McDonough that they would recognize an NLRB election through the normal channels, McDonough stated he did not want an NLRB election because it would be "a long drawn out" procedure and that even a consent election would take a week to 10 days, and McDonough wanted a "quickee" election such as could be held under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association in 2 days. Eckhaus did not testify. The only other persons who testified with respect to this meeting are the three members of the employee committee, who were called as witnesses by the General Counsel. As not one of these obviously friendly employee witnesses cor- roborated McDonough's version, I do not credit his testimony but accept the version of Brinster and Spen, as herein set forth. b. Further efforts Later that same day, October 15, on the advice of the Union's attorney, McDon- ough sent Respondent the following telegram: We advised you yesterday that we represent a majority mf [sic!] your employ- ees and desire to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with you. If there is any doubt in your mind concerning our majority status after the overwhelm- ing support for the union demonstrated today in response to the strike called to protest your unfair refusal to recognize Local 854 and your unfair "lay-off" of employees yesterday, we stand ready to demonstrate documentary proof of [sic!] that a majority of your employees have designated this union as their col- lective bargaining representative. Please call the undersigned to arrange for a meeting for the purpose of collective bargaining at which meeting we will present such documentary proof. Eugene McDonough Local 854 Axtel 7-1420. On Wednesday, October 16, McDonough approached President Spen in front of the plant and invited him to come to strike headquarters. When Spen arrived there about an hour later, he engaged in a conversation with McDonough and another union official about the benefits already accorded to Respondent's employees and the fact that there were not many items left for negotiation. McDonough stated that the only economic demands the Union would make would involve hospitalization, pensions, and a normal across-the-board wage increase. During the course of the conversation, they tried to get Spen "to resolve this situation by having a consent election so the people can go back to work pending the consent election." Spen refused, stating that his attorney had advised him not to go to a consent election. McDonough explained that the reason the employees were opposed to an election resulting from the regular Board procedure of filing a petition was because that could be "dragged out" for 4 or 5 months. Spen, however, refused to change his position.14 14,The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of McDonough. Spen admitted that he appeared at the strike headquarters upon invitation, on Wednesday, October 16, and that he had a conversation with McDonough and another union official about the benefits received by Respondent's employees . He did not deny the conversation with respect to a consent election , set forth in the text. To the extent that his testimony may be regarded as a denial, I do not credit it. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 153 On Thursday, October 17, the Union received at its office a letter from Eckhaus, addressed to McDonough and dated October 15. The letter stated that McDon- ough's last telegram to Respondent had been referred to Eckhaus. The letter then summarized Eckhaus' version of his telephone conversation with McDonough on October 15, and stated that "I again wish to advise you, as I did yesterday, that I will be happy to arrange an appointment to enable you to furnish the proper docu- mentary proof in support of your claim that you have been designated as their col- lective representative by a majority of my client's employees." The letter then con- cluded with a report which, McDonough felt, obliquely accused the Union of plug- ging the locks of the plant and molesting and preventing employees from going to work. Because he felt that these were insinuations of "criminal" conduct, Mc- Donough referred the letter to the Union's attorney for whatever action was deemed necessary. Sometime during the first week of the strike, McDonough was told that a message was left in his office to call Eckhaus. Thereafter, McDonough called back numerous times, and each time was told that Eckhaus was not in. During the period from October 17 to 24, McDonough called Eckhaus' office about six times, each time leaving his name and office number. Eckhaus never returned the calls. On one occasion, he was able to speak to Eckhaus' brother and partner. On that occasion, McDonough told him that he had been trying to get in touch with his brother, Mr. Joseph Eckhaus, for 3 or 4 days with reference to the Henry Spen matter, asked if he would "please" have his brother call McDonough, and gave him the telephone number of the strike headquarters. However, Eckhaus made no further attempt to communicate with McDonough, and McDonough never succeeded in talking to him.15 On October 30 the Union's attorney sent Eckhaus the following telegram. Re: Henry Spen & Company-Local 854, I.B.T. on behalf of our client Local 854 I attempted to reach you today in order to set up a meeting at which time Local 854 will make available to you documentary proof fo [ sic!] its status as majority representative of your employees. As indicated by telegram to your client from Local 854 dated October 15, 1963, this proof will be available at any time you will be available to receive same. Please contract [sic!] the under- signed immediately for purpose of arranging such a meeting. No reply was received to this telegram, and Eckhaus made no attempt to telephone the Union's attorney. Nor did Respondent at any time itself file a petition for an election with the Board. C. Concluding findings It is well settled that "it is a bargaining representative's duty when an employer in good faith questions its majority status, to offer, and it is the employer's duty to accept, some reasonable method for ascertaining the truth of the representative's claim." N.L.R.B. v. New Era Die Co., 118 F. 2d 500, 504 (C.A. 3). However, the employer "is not entitled to dictate any arbitrary method of proof." N.L.R.B. v. Moltrup Steel Products Company, 121 F. 2d 612, 618 (C.A. 3). "When adequate proof is available in a reasonable manner, its offer cannot in good faith be refused." N.L.R.B. v. George Groh & Sons, 329 F. 2d 265 (C.A. 10); N.L.R.B. v. Dahlstrom Metallic Door Company, 112 F. 2d 756, 757 (C.A. 2). The cases further hold that a union's refusal to show the signed cards to the employer is "proper, since to do so would have deprived the employees of the secrecy of choice." George Groh, Moltrup Steel, and New Era Die, supra. Some of the methods which have been held to con- stitute reasonable and adequate 'methods of ascertaining the truth of a union's major- ity claim which an employer may not in good faith reject are: (1) having the union cards checked against the employer's payroll by an impartial third party or agency, (2) holding a consent election, and (3) having a third party conduct a secret election. George Groh and Moltrup Steel, supra; N.L.R.B. v. Economy Food Center, Inc., 333 F. 2d 468 (C.A. 7); The Solvay Process Company v. N.L.R B., 117 F. 2d 83, 86 (C.A. 5); and Florence Printing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 333 F. 2d 289 (C.A. 4). In the instant case, at the very first meeting between the parties on October 15, Union President McDonough refused the requests of Respondent's Attorney Eckhaus and Vice President Brinster to submit the signed cards to "the boss," as "was proper," but instead offered to prove the Union's majority status by having a quick election conducted by an impartial agency such as the American Arbitration Association because that would obviate the inordinate delay involved in Board procedures for an 15 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited and undenied testimony of McDonough. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election, as previously found . This was an obviously reasonable and adequate method of ascertaining the truth of the Union's majority claim, which Respondent could not in good faith refuse. Respondent's insistence upon the submission of the membership cards to Respondent or an election by the Board through normal chan- nels as the only acceptable methods was clearly arbitrary . Under these circum- stances, the Union's refusal to comply with Respondent 's requests did not justify the refusal of Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union . What was said in a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applies with equal force to the facts in this case. "If the company had any doubts when it was approached by the union , it could have agreed to the private election suggested by the union or it could have itself petitioned the Board under section 9 (c) (1) (B) for a representation election." Florence Printing Co., supra, at 292. But this is not all . Respondent still had additional courses to pursue. Thus, as previously found, McDonough almost immediately thereafter yielded to Respondent's request and in his telegram of December 15 announced the Union's willingness and readiness to submit the requested documentary proof if Respondent would only arrange a meeting for that purpose. But instead of arranging such a meeting, Eck- haus merely advised McDonough by letter, dated October 16, that he "would be happy to arrange an appointment" for that purpose . However, Eckhaus never made good on this statement . Not only did he not arrange such an appointment but, except for one unsuccessful telephone call to the Union's office, never even attempted to arrange such an appointment . McDonough had given Brinster the telephone num- ber of the Union's office and of the strike headquarters at the Ad Way bar, located a few streets from the plant . Eckhaus had the telephone number of the Union's office. In their telephone conversation with Eckhaus on October 15, McDonough stated that he would be downstairs picketing and that all Eckhaus had to do was to set a time for a meeting and McDonough would be there, as previously found. At that same meeting, McDonough also told Brinster and Spen that he could be contacted "downstairs on strike" or at "strike headquarters," also as previously found. Thus, Eckhaus could have readily communicated with McDonough either directly or through Brinster to inform McDonough of a date for a meeting for the purpose of submitting the requested and proffered documentary proof of the Union 's majority. Yet, despite McDonough's repeated calls to Eckhaus' office, where he left his name and telephone number each time, and despite his urgent plea to Eckhaus ' brother to have Eckhaus return McDonough's call, Eckhaus made no further effort to com- municate with McDonough . Indeed, McDonough made a still further concession when on October 17 he tried to persuade President Spen to agree to a consent elec- tion so that the employees could return to work pending the holding of such an election, as previously found. But Spen refused on the ground that his attorney had advised not to go to a consent election, also as previously found. Finally, the Union's attorney also made efforts to have Eckhaus arrange a meeting to enable the Union to submit the requested documentary proof of its majority claim. After having unsuc- cessfully tried to contact Eckhaus, the Union's attorney sent him a telegram on Octo- ber 30 in which he reiterated the Union 's readiness to submit the requested documen- tary proof in support of its majority representation claim whenever Eckhaus was available and requested that Eckhaus "please contact the undersigned immediately for the purpose of arranging such a meeting ." Eckhaus never responded to this tele- gram, and never attempted to communicate with the Union's attorney. It is clearly apparent that Respondent had a number of additional adequate and reasonable courses to pursue if it did in fact have a good -faith desire to ascertain the truth of the Union's claim . Thus, Respondent could readily have arranged a meeting to see and check the proffered signed union cards, the very proof it had requested; it could have agreed to go to a consent election; and it even could have noncoercively asked the strikers if they wanted the Union to represent them (Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591). Respondent steadfastly pursued none of these courses. In sharp contrast is the treatment accorded by Respondent to the Shop Committee with which, the record clearly demonstrates , Respondent preferred to deal . Thus, as previously found, only 2 years earlier Respondent recognized the Shop Committee as the bargaining representative of the Brooklyn plant production and maintenance employees on the mere oral assertion that 80 percent of the employees had voted for it in a secret ballot election . • Respondent continued to recognize the Shop Committee as late as September and October , 1963, despite the fact that Brinster knew at that time that the employees no longer wanted the Shop Committee to represent them. Instead, as previously found , Brinster addressed the assembled employees to "build up the Committee," assuring them that he respected and believed in the Committee and wanted "to make a go of it," and pleading with them not to let it "go down the HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 155 drain." Thereafter, Brinster continued his inquiries and expressed interest in the progress of the committeemen's efforts to maintain the Committee as a functioning organization, all as previously found. "The undeniable fact is that a majority of the employees had authorized the Union to bargain collectively for them and Respondent took no reasonable steps to ascertain the facts" (New Eia Die, supra ) but "took the chance of what they might be" (Dahl- strom Metallic, supra). Indeed, the record warrants the conclusion that Respond- ent "assiduously avoided giving the Union any opportunity to substantiate its claims. Such conduct is not indicative of good faith ." 16 N.L R.B. v. Philamon Laboratories, Inc., 298 F. 2d 176, 180 (C.A. 2). I find that by refusing to recognize and negotiate with the Union on and after October 15 , 1963, Respondent refused to bargain within the meaning of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).17 F. Interference, restraint, and coercion during the strike 18 The Alabama-Williams Association is a Respondent-endowed fund used for the purpose of loaning money to employees. The president of the Shop Committee is automatically the employee-trustee of this Association; Plant Superintendent Hansen is the Respondent-trustee. When an employee desires a loan, he fills out a printed application form which he signs and submits to the president of the Shop Committee. If the president approves the loan, he and two other committeemen sign the appli- cation. The president then submits the application for the approval and signature of Superintendent Hausen, who, in turn, then sends it upstairs to the comptroller. If the comptroller determines that the applicant is in good standing in the sense that he had no other upaid loans outstanding and had not been in default on any prior loans, and that funds are available, he then issues a check payable to the applicant, which is sent down for the signatures of Hansen and the president of the Shop Com- mittee. The latter then gives the check to the applicant. In October 1963 Frank Grande was the employee-trustee by virtue of being presi- dent of the Shop Committee. Before the strike, employee Migliozzi had filled out an application for a $50 loan, payable at $5 a week, for the purpose of a car pay- ment. Grande received Migliozzi's signed application on October 14, the day before the strike. When Grande received the application, it already contained the required signatures of two other committeemen. Grande approved and signed the application, and placed it on Superintendent Hausen's desk when he was ready to leave for the day. The next day, October 15, both Grande and Migliozzi joined the strike and were on the picket line. When Migliozzi's check was not forthcoming during the week, he began pressing Grande because he needed it for the car payment. So either during the latter part of the first week of the strike or early in the second week, Grande went into the office and asked Hansen about the check for Migliozzi's loan. Hansen stated that "they were not sending it down." Grande exclaimed, "What do you mean they are not sending it down!" Grande then explained that the loan association was supposed to operate independently of other considerations. But Hansen insisted that "upstairs" would not send it down. Grande was picketing during the entire first week of the strike in front of the plant. Migliozzi also picketed. Both of them continued to participate in the strike for its duration. Migliozzi did not receive his check until November 12, about a week after the strike ended and he and Grande had returned to work. On all prior occasions when the Shop Committee president submitted an approved application on Hausen's desk at the end of the workday, it took no more than a day or two before the applicant's record was checked and a check was issued and signed by Hansen and the Committee president. If the normal practice had been followed in Migliozzi's case, Grande would have received the check by Wednesday, October 16, for submission to Migllozzi. Respondent offered no explanation either at the hearing or in its brief for its deviation in this case from the past established practice. 16 In my view of the instant case, I deem it unnecessary to reply on, and therefore have not considered whether on this record any weight should be accorded to, the admitted fact that Respondent's representatives knew that a majority of the Brooklyn plant production and maintenance employees were not working in the plant during the strike period in October. 17 As the Respondent's conduct in this respect clearly prolonged the strike, I further find that the strike was converted into an unfair labor practice strike beginning with the meet- ing on October 15, 1963. Is The factual findings in this section are based on the credited and uncontradicted testi- mony of Frank Grande and upon uncontested documentary exhibits. 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD When Respondent's counsel objected at the hearing to the introduction of the testi- mony with respect to the foregoing events on the ground that it was not relevant to anything alleged in the complaint, the General Counsel pointed to paragraph 15 of the complaint 19 and contended that Respondent's failure to approve Migliozzi's loan until after the strike had ended was in reprisal for his strike activity. Despite this statement, Respondent did not call Hausen or the comptroller or any other person with direct knowledge of the events as witnesses to explain why the check was not issued and delivered in the same expeditious manner as it had been before the strike. The Respondent's representatives were the only ones who knew the true reason for the. failure to issue the check until about a week after the strike. Under these circum- stances, Respondent's unexplained failure to call such persons as witnesses warrants the inference, which I herein make, that their testimony would have been adverse to Respondent20 Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find that Respondent's refusal and failure to issue the check to striker Migliozzi from the Alabama-Williams fund while the strike was in progress was an act of retaliation because he joined with his fellow employees in the protected concerted activity of striking. By such conduct, Respond- ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exericse of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section IH, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Respondent 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 Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent refused to recognize and negotiate with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I will recommend that, upon request, Respondent recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. My finding (see footnote 17, supra) that the strike was converted into an unfair labor practice strike does not require any additional remedy, as Respondent immediately reinstated all strikers who desired to return to work. 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. Local 854, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees of Respondent employed at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, managerial employ- ees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. At all times on and after October 15, 1963, the above-named Union has been, and still is, the exclusive representative of all the employees within the aforestated appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, within the mean- ing of Section 9(a) of the Act. 19 This paragraph alleges that Respondent "engaged In reprisals against his employees because they engaged in the strike and concerted work stoppage described above in paragraph 14." 2OInterstate Circuit, Inc. v. U.S., 30'6 U.S. 208, 226; Dandridge Finishing Company, Inc., 142 NLRB 1141, 1145; Michael Benevento and John Benevento d/b/a M. Benevento Sand & Gravel Co., 131 NLRB 358, 364, enfd. 316 F. 2d 224 (C.A. 1). HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC. 157 4. By refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as such exclu- sive representative at all times on and after October 15, 1963, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By such conduct and by the refusal and failure to process a loan for a striking employee in retaliation for his joining his fellow employees in engaging in a pro- tected strike activity , Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. The strike which commenced on October 15, 1963, was on and after that day prolonged by Respondent's unfair labor practices in refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union , and hence was an unfair labor practice strike. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by its conduct in laying off and not recalling 11 named employees. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I hereby recommend that the Respondent , Henry Spen & Company, Inc., Brooklyn , New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Taking economic reprisals against its employees for engaging in the protected activity of a strike or for engaging in any other protected concerted activity. (b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Local 854, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America as the exclusive representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees at its Brooklyn, New York , plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, managerial employees , guards, and all super- visors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right is affected by the provisos in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclu- sive representation of the employees in the aforestated appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its place of business in Brooklyn , New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 21 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.22 221 In the event that this Recommended Order shall 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 is 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." ' In the event that this Recommended Order is 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." 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3 ) and (1) of the Act by discharging and failing to recall 11 named employees. APPENDIX A 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 Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with Local 854, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed contract. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at our Brooklyn, New York, plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, managerial employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. WE WILL NOT take economic reprisals against any employee for engaging in the protected activity of a strike or for engaging in any other protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, 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, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have any ques- tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local #1082, and its Agent, George Tarr [E. L. Boggs Plastering Company] and Jones & Jones, Inc., and Progressive Plastering & Lathing Contractors ' Association International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers, Local # 1082 and Jones & Jones, Inc., and Progressive Plaster- ing & Lathing Contractors ' Association. Cases Nos. 21-CB- 1969, 21-CB-201f, 21-CC-549, V-CC-567, and 21-CB-2091. De- cember 15, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 27, 1963, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain 150 NLRB No. 19.