Carlton Paper Corp.

CARLTON PAPER CORP. 153 Carlton Paper Corporation, Interstate Paper Convert- ing Corp., Better Methods, Inc. and International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America and Local Union No. 84, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Party in Interest. Case 29-CA-723 October 10, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On June 2, 1967, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam- iner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom- mended that such allegations be dismissed. There- after, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs., Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified below. 1. For the reasons set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, we agree with his conclusion that the Respondents did not lay off or refuse to rehire employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The Trial Examiner also found, and we agree, that the Respondents participated in soliciting Local 84 authorization cards during that union's organizing campaign at the Respondents' new plant in Secaucus, New Jersey, and that they recognized Local 84 without adequate evidence of its representative status, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 3. The Trial Examiner found, and our dissenting colleague agrees, that the Respondents violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to recognize District 50 on and after June 7, 1966, as the representative of an appropriate unit of their produc- tion and maintenance employees, and by refusing thereafter to bargain for such employees. We reject that finding because, upon the facts set forth below, we are persuaded that there is a substantial and material variance between the appro- priate unit as defined in the complaint (and in which alone District 50 established its numerical majority) and the unit which was actually defined by District 50 when it made its bargaining requests. Because of certain differences between us and our dissenting colleague as to what the record affirma- tively shows on the disputed refusal-to-bargain issue, we deem it appropriate to begin by setting out the relevant facts we find supported by the record. On June 7, 1966, the Respondents were doing business in Brooklyn, New York, at two locations separated by about 5 miles. They were then in the process of combining their operations and moving all of them to a single new plant being prepared for occupancy at Secaucus, New Jersey. At the larger of the two Brooklyn plants, herein called the Carlton Plant,2 Respondents employed, on June 7, about 34 production and maintenance em- ployees, 12 of whom were then represented by Teamsters Local 27 under a bargaining contract effective until September 30, 1967.3 At the smaller plant, herein called the Better Methods plant, the Respondents employed two or three production and maintenance employees. The unit alleged and found to be appropriate is one that includes all Respondents' production and main- tenance employees at both plants who were not covered by the Respondents' bargaining contract with Teamsters Local 27. That unit contained, on June 7, a maximum of 25 employees, 16 of whom had previ- ously signed cards designating District 50 as their bargaining representative. On June 7, Pohmer and Rosario, representatives of District 50, called on Jackowitz, president of all three corporations, at the Carlton plant. They advised Jackowitz that a majority of the "Carlton employees" had designated District 50 to represent them, offered to submit the designation cards to a neutral third party for a check, and asked Jackowitz to recognize I The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the at this location were carried on Carlton's payroll At the smaller plant, record, including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the the operations were conducted under the name of Better Methods issues and the positions of the parties 3 Some of the Teamster-represented employees were classified as 2 At the Carlton plant, the operations were conducted under the shipping and receiving employees, and the others as drivers and name of Carlton and Interstate , two of the three corporations which warehousemen. together form the single Employer in this case . The 22 unit employees 173 NLRB No. 26 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and bargain with District 50 for the Carlton em- ployees.4 Jackowitz rejected the demand on various grounds, among them that a decertification election of another union had been held within the preceding year Jackowitz also stated, as additional grounds for rejecting the demand, that the Respondents were moving to a new plant in Secaucus, New Jersey, and he had already so notified the employees and that he (Jackowitz) had been informed that another union, Teamsters Local 84, was going to seek to represent the employees at the new location.5 Jackowitz finally stated that he would consult his attorney, and the meeting thereupon ended. Thereafter, on the afternoon of June 7, District 50 filed a representation petition with the Board. In that petition, District 50 described the requested unit as extending to all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Carlton plant "including shipping and receiving employees. " [Emphasis supplied.] On June 8, District 50, in a letter to Jackowitz, again demanded recognition and bargaining for a majority of the production and maintenance em- ployees at the Carlton plant and renewed the offer of a card check by neutral party. Jackowitz met with Respondents' attorney some- time after June 8. He was then advised that the election conducted in August 1965 would not consti- tute a valid basis for a refusal to recognize District 50, but that he could lawfully withhold recognition on the ground that the unit for which District 50 sought recognition was inappropriate because it included employees covered by the contract with Local 27, that this factor and the impending consolidation of the three Respondent corporations raised doubts about District 50's majority status; and that in light of the impending move to Secaucus and Respondents' information that another local was going to seek jurisdiction at Secaucus, a jurisdictional dispute might arise. Thereafter, at a conference held at the Board offices relating to District 50's RC petition, District 50's representatives were advised that the Board could not entertain the petition because of the provisions of Section 9(c)(3) of the Act. District 50 then requested permission to withdraw the petition. The Regional Director approved this withdrawal request on June 29. On July 7, District 50 filed a new representation petition with the Board describing the unit sought in the same terms as those contained in its June 7 petition. On July 21, Respondents terminated their Brook- lyn operations, transferred some of their production and maintenance employees, including all those cov- ered by Local 27's contract, and dismissed the remainder by letter advising them that Respondents would consider for jobs at the new location all those who filed application .6 On July 26, as the Trial Examiner found, the July 7 representation petition was withdrawn by District 50, "apparently because it specifically included ship- ping and receiving employees regarded by the Region- al Office as covered under the Local 27 contract." There is no evidence that District 50 made any other efforts to obtain recognition from Respondents be- fore it initiated this proceeding. At the hearing in this case, District 50 disclaimed any intent to represent any of the employees covered by Local 27's contract, explaining that its reference to shipping and receiving employees in the above- described representation petitions was meant to cover only certain employees, other than those represented by Local 27, who also sometimes did shipping and receiving work. Pohmer testified that he had made clear this reservation as to the scope of the requested unit in the course of his June 7 meeting with Jackowitz. Accepting this testimony, the Trial Exam- iner found that District 50 had "expressly disclaimed representation of any Local 27 employees" on June 7, when it initially demanded recognition, and on that basis he rejected Respondents' defense that District 50 had demanded bargaining in an inappropriate unit. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we find that the Trial Examiner clearly erred in according credence to Pohmer's testimony on this highly disputed and critical issue of fact and therefore improperly resolved the ultimate 8(a)(5) violation issue in this case. In crediting that part of Pohmer's testimony just referred to, the Trial Examiner asserts in his Decision, that "Rosario generally corroborated Pohmer's testi- mony and Jackowitz did not deny its essentials." Examination of the record shows, however, that the Examiner's characterization of the testimony of Rosario and Jackowitz is clearly wrong. In fact, the 4 Although the Trial Examiner found that Pohmer also told Jackowitz at this conference that District 50's bargaining demands explicitly excluded employees represented by Local 27, we show below that this finding has no record support 5 Jackowitz testified that he told Rosario and Pohmer he had received a telephone call from a representative of Local 84 to the effect that Local 84 was going to seek representation of "our employees when they started to work out there ." The testimony of Rosario and Pohmer differs on what Jackowitz stated to them, but it appears that neither of them testified , as the Trial Examiner found , that Jackowitz at this time claimed to have a contract with Local 84, and we therefore reject this finding of the Trial Examiner. Our dissenting colleague joins us in the refection of this finding 6 Although Respondents ' failure similarly to transfer a group of other production and maintenance employees was alleged to be violative of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act because most of those not transferred had signed cards for District 50, the Trial Examiner dismissed that allegation , finding that Respondents did not know who District 50's adherents were and that there was , moreover , no affirmative evidence of discriminatory motivation As indicated above , we, unlike our dissenting colleague, adopt this finding of the Trial Examiner CARLTON testimonial description of the June 7 discussion given by these two witnesses differs considerably from that of Pohmer's.7 We note particularly that Jackowitz and Rosario both denied in their testimony that Local 27's representative status was mentioned during the meeting. Rosario further testified, contrary to Pohmer, that he had never informed the latter prior to the June 7 meeting of Local 27's representation of Carlton employees and that he himself did not learn of Local 27's existence at Carlton before a meeting held with Board agents in connection with one of the two petitions District 50 had filed.8 None of this relevant testimony is mentioned by the Trial Exam- iner. Nor does his Decision otherwise reflect any consideration of: (1) the material inconsistency be- tween Pohmer's testimonial assertions that he had been informed of Local 27's representative status by Rosario before the meeting of June 7, and Rosario's admission that he did not learn of Local 27's existence until some time after June 7; and (2) the strong corroborative support of Jackowitz' testimony provided by the fact that neither the letter sent by District 50 to Respondents on June 8, nor the representation petitions which District 50 filed in June and in July, disclaimed any interest in repre- senting employees represented by Local 27. In the above circumstances, and as the totality of other facts evidenced by the record preponderates against according credence to Pohmer's testimony with regard to the unit for which District 50 requested recognition, we cannot and do not accept Pohmer's testimony that he explicitly told Jackowitz that District 50 was not seeking to represent any of the employees in the unit covered by Local 27's contract.9 As nothing in District 50's other external acts or statements were such as to clearly manifest to Respondents an intent to exclude from the unit Local 7 Indeed, on some matters as to which the testimony of these witnesses differed, the Trial Examiner credited Jackowitz and made findings of fact consistent with his testimony. 8 Rosario was the only District 50 representative with whom the employees herein had had any contact prior to June 7. 9 In making our own evaluation of all the relevant evidence in this case to resolve this disputed issue of fact , we have taken into account that the Trial Examiner 's crediting of Pohmer may have been based, in part, upon his consideration of demeanor , a factor to which we customarily accord great weight in considering exceptions to the credibility rulings of a Trial Examiner . The weight given that factor is diminished , however, where, as here , the Trial Examiner 's Decision omits reference to highly relevant testimony on a critical matter and mistakenly characterizes the state of the record . Cf. Valley Steel Products Co., Ill NLRB 1338; Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). 10 In reaching this conclusion , we have not ignored the fact that none of the 16 designation cards submitted in evidence in this case was signed by any employee covered by Local 27's contract , and that the representation petitions filed by District 50 described the number of employees the unit sought as 23, which is the approximate number of employees contained in the unit for which District 50 now contends it made its bargaining demand . As Respondents never saw the employees' authorization cards until the hearing herein , and as District 50's petitions defined the scope of the requested unit as specifically including "shipping and receiving employees ," we do not regard these PAPER CORP. 155 27 represented employees, we are compelled to find in accord with Respondents' contentions that District 50's bargaining requests, as addressed to the Respon- dents, defined the unit for which recognition was requested as including shipping and receiving em- ployees represented by Local 27.10 Because Respondents plainly had no legal obliga- tion to comply with a demand that they bargain with District 50 for a unit including employees for whom Local 27 held a valid contract, applicable precedent precludes our finding the alleged violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.11 We shall therefore dismiss the 8(a)(5) and (1) allegations of the com- plaint.l2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and Local Union No. 84, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By urging employees to become members of Local Union No. 84, and by according the aforesaid labor organization recognition as exclusive representa- tive, of employees at a time when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices as defined in Section 8(a)(3) or (5) of the Act. facts as sufficient to put the Respondents on notice that District 50 was seeking recognition in a more limited unit than its express demand made it appear. 11 See Sportswear Industries, Inc., 147 NLRB 758; C. L. Bailey Grocery Co., 100 NLRB 576. 12 In the context of our findings , we consider inapposite to the instant case the reasoning in Benson Wholesale Grocery Co., 164 NLRB No. 75, quoted by our dissenting colleague. Although the union in Benson had ambiguously defined the unit when it first requested bargaining , it sufficiently clarified its unit definition a few days later when it filed its representation petition . Moreover, the demand of the Union in Benson was followed by serious employer unfair labor practices designed to undermine and to destroy the Union 's status as the majority representative of any appropriate unit of its employees. Although, under our dissenting colleague's separate view, this case may be comparable to Benson in the latter respect, it is not under the facts as we have found them . Unlike our dissenting colleague we have found the 8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint unsupported by the record. Although we have found that Respondents did violate Section 8(a)(2) by unlawfully assisting and recognizing Local 84, this 8(a)(2) conduct occurred at Respondents' new plant at a much later date, and in our view, is too remote from Respondents ' failure to honor District 50's bargaining demand , either to support a finding that Respondents lacked any genuine doubt of District 50's majority status in an appropriate unit, or to justify a bargaining order running to District 50 as a remedy for the 8(a)(2) violation so found. 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Carlton Paper Corporation, Interstate Paper Conver- ting Corp., and Better Methods, Inc., Secaucus, New Jersey, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the following action: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing Local Union No. 84, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of their employees, for the purposes of collective bargaining, and giving any force or effect to their recognition of the aforesaid labor organization as exclusive bargaining representative, unless and until the Board shall certify it as such representative. (b) Urging or encouraging employees to become or to remain members of the aforesaid labor organiza- tion. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local Union No. 84, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the collective bargaining representative of their employees, unless and until the Board shall certify the aforesaid labor organization as such representative. (b) Post at their place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey, in both English and Spanish,13 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."l 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by the Respondents' authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 13 The record indicates that a substantial number of the Respon- dents ' employees are familiar only with the Spanish language. 14 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (c) Notify the Board's Regional Director for Re- gion 29, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBER ZAGORIA , dissenting in part: I agree with the finding that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. I cannot, however, agree with the dismissal of the Section 8(a)(3) and (5) allegations of the complaint. 1. It is undisputed that on July 21, after com- pleting the transfer of most of the physical equipment and operations to the new plant, Jackowitz laid off 14 of the 22 Carlton production and maintenance employees, gave them 2 weeks' vacation pay, and informed them that if they filed applications for reemployment in the Secaucus plant, they would be considered for employment. The balance of the work force, including all those covered by the Local 27 contract, were transferred to the Secaucus operation. In the ensuing weeks, several of the laid-off em- ployees applied for jobs in Secaucus, but were told there was no work available. In the meantime, however, the Respondents were hiring new employees from New Jersey, Brooklyn, and other communities in the New York area. Moreover, although the Respondents finally sent letters on November 4, and telegrams on November 11, offering reemployment to the laid-off employees at their old rates of pay, the record indicates that the Respondents were then hiring new employees at a higher starting rate than the old rates being offered to the former employees. The Respondents assert as the reason for the layoffs their concern for the transportation problems that the employees would incur if they transferred from their jobs in Brooklyn to work at the new plant in Secaucus. The Respondents, however, although they notified the employees about the pending move in advance did not notify them of this purported concern about their transportation problems nor give them any indication of a possibility that it might result in their layoff. Moreover, as noted above, the Respondents retained other Brooklyn employees to work in Secaucus, including all those in the unit represented by Local 27, hired new employees in Secaucus, at least some of whom resided in Brooklyn, and later offered reemployment to the laid-off em- ployees. It is apparent, in my view, that these facts demonstrate that the Respondents were not in fact motivated in effectuating this layoff by concern over the employees' alleged transportation problems. The Respondents also argue that the selection of Decision and Order " the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order." CARLTON PAPER CORP. 157 employees for transfer to the new plant was made on the basis of an evaluation of their skills, ability, and employment records, and that the Respondents had no personal knowledge of the identity of the District 50 card signers. Aside from the bare assertion, however, the Respondents adduced no evidence in support of their alleged nondiscriminatory evaluation of the affected employees. In addition, it is clear, in view of the District 50 recognition demand on June 7, that the Respondents knew that District 50 had general support among the production and mainte- nance employees, in which unit all the laid-off employees worked. The record further establishes that all 14 laid-off employees had signed District 50 cards, whereas only 2 of the production and main- tenance employees retained by the Respondents for transfer were District 50 adherents In summary, the evidence, including the violation of Section 8(a)(2), in which the majority opinion concurs, establishes that the Respondents were op- posed to the organization of their employees by District 50. The evidence also establishes, as detailed by the Trial Examiner's Decision, that the Respon- dents had predetermined to recognize Local 84 rather than District 50 as such representative at Secaucus. Finally, the undisputed evidence establishes that the Respondents laid off and refused to rehire a dispro- portionate number of District 50 adherents, ad- vancing conflicting reasons therefor which are not supported by the record, and at least one of which- the asserted concern for transportation difficulties- was patently false. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from all these circumstances, and I would so find, is that these 14 employees were denied employ- ment at Secaucus, because of their known or sus- pected adherence to District 50, and that this was done in order to permit the Respondents to advance a colorable claim that their employees at Secaucus desired to be represented by Local 84 rather than by District 50, thereby effectuating the Respondents' predetermination to recognize Local 84 as such representative. The Respondents thus discriminated against these employees to discourage membership in District 50, in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and thereby interfered with their right to representation by the union of their choice, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act., 5 2. The dismissal of the 8(a)(5) allegation by my colleagues is based on their finding that District 50 was seeking recognition in a unit which included employees represented by another union. I do not agree that the facts or Board law support this result. As the Trial Examiner found, on June 7 District 50 representatives requested recognition for a unit of "all production and maintenance employees including those doing shipping and receiving work," and they "specifically disclaimed representation of employees covered by the existing agreement with Local 27." I do not agree with the majority view that the Trial Examiner's credibility finding in this one respect should be upset, as I cannot agree that the factors on which they rely constitute a preponderance of the relevant evidence on the record considered as a whole. 16 Moreover, in rejecting the request for recognition, Jackowitz did not assert any doubt as to which employees District 50 was seeking to represent, nor indicate in any way that he had a contract covering a shipping and receiving unit. My colleagues also point to the fact that the representation petitions filed by District 50 included "shipping and receiving employees" in the unit descriptions. As both Rosario and Pohmer testified, however, they intended at all times to represent only production and maintenance employees, including those who sometimes did shipping and receiving work, and the record shows that production and maintenance employees at Carlton sometimes did shipping and receiving work. It should be noted, in addition, that the petitions state the number of employees in the unit as 23, and the record indicates that the Respondents employed approximately 22 production and maintenance employees at the Carlton plant. In light of all these considerations, I am convinced that the record shows, as the Trial Examiner found, that District 50 did request recognition in an appro- priate unit. If Jackowitz was confused as to which employees District 50 was seeking, he could easily have resolved the confusion. As the Board has stated in a comparable situation, "a simple inquiry on that point, which good faith would seem to require, would undoubtedly have clarified such confusion."'? The Respondents, however, made no such inquiry but, instead, chose to ignore District 50's request for recognition, to get nd of most of the District 50 adherents, and to assist and grant recognition unlaw- fully to another union. The majority opinion refers to the advice Jackowitz received from his attorney that the unit sought by District 50 appeared to be inappropriate. It is significant, in my view, that Jackowitz never voiced this opinion to District 50. I would find, therefore, not only that District 50 sought an appropriate unit, but also that the Respon- dents did not refuse to recognize District 50 because of doubts as to the scope or appropriateness of the unit sought. Moreover, the Respondents' other defenses are without merit. It is clear that the ground they initially 5 Rosen Sanitary Wiping Cloth Co., Inc., 154 NLRB 1185 . 17 Benson Wholesale Company, Inc , 164 NLRB No. 75. 16 Cf. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD asserted for refusing recognition-the election con- ducted within the preceding year-did not excuse the refusal to bargain.' 8 There is likewise no merit in the Respondents' reliance on the asserted representation claims of Local 84. That organization had made no recognition demands before June 7 and, according to the testimony of Coffey, president of Local 84, his union did not begin to organize the Respondents' employees until July 1966. I would likewise find no merit in the Respondents' contention that they had a good-faith doubt as to District 50's majority status. As the Trial Examiner found, Jackowitz's refusal to recognize District 50 was not based on any doubts as to unit or majority. Moreover, Jackowitz's refusal to grant recognition because of an asserted rival union claim was made before Local 84 sought recognition, and the Respon- dents thereafter unlawfully recognized Local 84, while District 50's demand for recognition was pending. As the Trial Examiner found, this conduct evidenced a "predetermination" of Jackowitz to deal only with Local 84, and the record is "completely devoid of indications that Respondents' refusal was based on any good-faith doubt of the District 50 majority." Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing facts, and particularly the fact that, subsequent to the refusal to recognize District 50, the Respondents engaged in substantial unfair labor practices which undermined District 50's support, dissipated its ma- jority, and precluded the holding of a fair election, I would find that the Respondents' refusal to recognize District 50 was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.' 9 Moreover, even if District 50's bargaining demand were as flawed as my colleagues conclude, I would still enter a bargaining order to remedy the Respondents' other substantial unfair labor prac- tices.2 0 policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that' WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from Local Union No. 84, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of our employees, for the purposes of collective bargaining. WE WILL NOT urge or encourage employees to become or remain members of Local Union No. 84, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. CARLTON PAPER CORPORATION, INTERSTATE PAPER CONVERTING CORP., BETTER METHODS, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 212-596-3535. 18 Conren, Inc, d/b/a Great Scot Super Market, 156 NLRB 592, enfd. 368 F 2d 173 (C A 7) 19 Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd . 185 F 2d 732 (C.A D C.), cert. denied 341 U. S. 914. 20 Bryant Chucking Grinder Co., 160 NLRB 1526 , 1530, enfd. 389 F.2d 565 (C A 2), cert. denied 392 U. S. 908. The Respondents urge that no order should issue directing them to bargain with District 50 on the ground that it no longer represents a majority in the appropriate unit. It is the Board 's established policy, however, to issue a bargaining order in a case in which it finds that an employer unlawfully refused to bargain, even where the union has lost its majority status, if such loss is attributable , as it would be herein, to the employer 's unfair labor practices Joy Silk Mills, Inc., supra, Frank Bros. Company, 44 NLRB 898, affd 321 U. S. 702. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION WILLIAM J. B ROWN, Trial Examiner' This proceeding un- der Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, came on to be heard before me at Brooklyn, New York, on February 15 to 17 and March 7 to 9, 1967. The underlying charge of unfair labor practices was filed September 9, 1966,1 by the above- indicated Charging Party, hereinafter referred to as District 50 and the complaint herein was issued November 28 by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board acting through the Board's Regional Director for Region 29. It alleged , in addition to jurisdictional matter, the commission of unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and 1 Dates hereinafter relate to the year 1966 except where otherwise noted. An earlier charge in Case 29-CA-668 , filed July 22 had been dismissed by the Regional Director on August 26 CARLTON PAPER CORP (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondents' duly filed answer admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, denies the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. At the hearing the parties appeared as noted above2 and participated with full oppor- tunity to present evidence and argument on the issues 3 Subsequent to the close of the hearing briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondents on May 9, 1967, and have been fully considered 4 On the entire record herein and on the basis of my observation of the witnesses I make the following- FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that Carlton Paper Corporation and Interstate Paper Converting Corpora- tion, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Carlton and Inter- state, are and have been at all material times New York corporations with their principal offices and places of business at 163 Carlton Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, prior to July 22 and at 650 New County Road, Secaucus, New Jersey, thereafter. Better Methods, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office at material tunes prior to July 22 at Dean Street, Brooklyn, New York, and thereafter at the Secaucus, New Jersey, location. The pleadings also establish that in the year preceding issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, Respondents sold and distributed pro- ducts valued in excess of $50,000 and shipped by Respondents in interstate commerce to points outside the States of New York and New Jersey. I find, as Respondents concede, that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The pleadings and evidence establish and I find that District 50 and Local 84 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Introduction to the Issues Carlton and Interstate have been, for some 14 years preceding the events here involved, engaged at the Carlton Avenue plant as jobbers and processors, respectively, of paper products sold primarily to the garment trades. Better Methods 2Pro forma appearances were also noted for Messrs. William J. Pohmer, International Representative of District 50, and Charles H. Coffey, President of the above-indicated Party in Interest, hereinafter referred to as Local 84. 3 At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, I dismissed , on Respondents' motion , allegations relating to unfair labor practices committed through David Provenzano, son-in-law of Respon- dents' Vice President , Bernard Jackowitz, and employed by Respon- dents as an installer -salesman , for want of evidence that he was a supervisory employee or otherwise an agent for whose acts Respond- ents were answerable. 159 has been at all material times engaged in the assembly of a garment pattern copying machine known as the RR-50 Copy Maker, invented by William Jackowitz, Respondents' presi- dent, and initially developed in a pipe manufacturing plant owned and controlled by the family of Frank Cutri, Respon- dents' plant manager, and subsequently manufactured in Better Methods plant at Dean Street, Brooklyn, located some 5 miles from the Carlton-Interstate Brooklyn operations. At all material times William Jackowitz has been president of Respondents, Bernard Jackowitz has been their vice president, Al Forman their secretary, and Frank Cutri, their plant manager. The evidence indicates the supervisory status of William Jackowitz and Frank Cutri. It also establishes the supervisory status of Andrew Singleton,5 employed for some 19 years in the Carlton-Interstate operations prior to the move to New Jersey and thereafter in the combined Carlton-Better Methods operation. The Carlton Street operations were con- ducted in a four-story plus basement budding dependent on truck transportation for receipt and shipment of goods whereas the Secaucus operations are conducted in a single- story plant with a railroad siding required, according to President Jackowitz' testimony which I credit in this regard, fewer employees than were needed prior to the move. Although the bulk of Respondents' business, measured in terms of sales volume, consists of the jobbing of paper products, it appears that the bulk of the manpower require- ments were those of Interstate, which acted as a converter of paper products and requires the use of several machines for cutting, winding, and otherwise processing paper products useable in the garment trades and for the baling or compressing of wastepaper.6 In September 1963 Carlton and Interstate, as a single employer, signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 679, United Independent Workers of America, for a 2-year term expiring September 16, 1965, and covering production and maintenance employees. Following a decertification elec- tion conducted by the Board's Regional Office on August 17, 1965, Local 679 was decertified on August 25, 1965. During the pendency of the Local 679 agreement, Carlton entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with Paper Products and Miscellaneous Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 27, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, extending for a term from October 1, 1964, until September 30, 1967, and covering a unit which included drivers, helpers, ware- housemen, shipping clerks, and Hilo operators. Sometime during 1965 it was decided to move the opera- tions of Carlton, Interstate, and Better Methods into a single integrated plant to be built in Secaucus and sometime during that year employees were informed of the prospective move. In the summer of 1965, Charles Coffey, president of Local 84 4 On May 10 Respondents , by letter with copies to other parties, called my attention to certain precedents in addition to those cited in its brief 5 Singleton is employed on a salary basis and has authority to make effective recommendations as to employment relations and to direct the work of employees He substitutes for Cutri in the latter 's absence a The testimony of Jackowitz indicates that the accumulation of wastepaper runs to 3 or 4 tons per day 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD heard of a new construction project in Secaucus and later7 observed the progress of Respondents' construction and solicited unrepresented8 employees. It appears from his testimony that he did not communicate with Respondents' officials until sometime in July. Shortly before June 3, Interstate employees Luis Esquilm and Carmelo Garcia9 communicated with District 50 Representative Carlos Rosario and on that date Rosario, in a park near the Brooklyn plant, solicited and obtained 14 District 50 authorization cards from employees of Respondents.' 0 These authorization cards (Gen- eral Counsel's Exhibits 4 to 7, inclusive, and 9A to I) are unequivocal applications for membership in District 50 and authorizations for representation by that Union. On June 7, apparently about noon, International Respresen- tatives William Pohmer and Rosario called on Jackowitz, claimed to represent a majority of production and mainten- ance employees, including those doing shipping and receiving work but not represented by Local 27, and asked recognition and a date for negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement. The evidence indicates that Jackowitz declined recognition on the grounds that Local 679 had been decertified within the year and that he was soon to move to Secaucus where Local 84 was interested in representing employees. Pohmer accused Jackowitz of having a "sweetheart" deal with Local 84. Soon after the discussion Pohmer and Rosario went to the Board's Regional Office and filed a representation petition (Respon- dents' Exhibit 1) in Case 29-RC-497 for a unit described as "All production and maintenance employees [of Carlton and Interstate, District 50 then being unaware of Better Methods' existence] , including shipping and receiving employees"; the petition excluded i e., truckdrivers. On the following day, by letter of Charles Retty, regional director, District 50 repeated its demand for recognition and renewed an offer made the previous day by Pohmer and Rosario to submit to a card check by a neutral person Soon thereafter District 50 was asked by Board officials to withdraw its petition in view of the provisions of Section 9(c)(3) of the Act, and the withdrawal was approved by the Regional Director on June 29. A second representation petition filed by District 50 on July 7 was subsequently withdrawn, apparently because it specifically included shipping and receiving employees regarded by the Regional Office as covered under the Local 27 contract. In the meantime the transfer of machinery and employees to the Secaucus plant had commenced and on July 21 employees, except those selected previously for transfer, were 7 Local 84 had represented the employees of the business formerly occupying the Secaucus area on which Respondents built after demolition of the former buildings. 8 Coffey talked to some of Respondents' employees represented by Local 27 and did not seek to represent them , confining his organiza- tional interests to production and maintenance workers 9 Esquilin , one of Respondents ' senior employees , worked in Brooklyn on the pneumatic gun used to separate stamped out paper cuttings made by the Miehle press which was operated by Garcia 10 The 14 employees signing District 50 cards on June 3 are Conrado Sanchez, Moises Mojica, Aurelio Maza, Julio Sanchez, Saturnino Ramos , Ramon Hernandez , Luis Esquilin , Juan Jiminez, Librado Medina, Andrew Abreu, Julio Flores, Humberto Nunez, Carmelo Garcia and Radames Aviles Morales . Cards were signed by employees Marcos Betancourt and Harry Cintron some time later. Rosario spoke in both Spanish and English and translated the authorization cards . With respect to Mojica 's card, the authenticity of which was challenged by Respondents on the basis of a comparison of the signature thereon with signatures on his IRS W -4 form and on paper signed at the hearing , it does appear that substantial variances appear in the signatures . Nevertheless I accept his testimony that he signed the dismissed from employment at the Brooklyn operation with the information that if they felt they could work in Secaucus they would be considered for employment there on applica- tion. The laid-off employees received 2 weeks' vacation pay owing to them. Employees covered under the Local 27 contract as drivers and shipping and receiving clerks were not laid off but were transferred to the Secaucus operations. On the day following the closing of the Brooklyn plant District 50 filed unfair labor practice charges under Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act in Case 29-CA-668; on August 26 the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on these charges on the grounds that investigation failed to disclose any violation of the Act. On or about August 8 production commenced at the Secaucus plant, operations prior thereto having been related to the movement and set up of machinery and on August 17 the Company executed a recognition agreement with Local 84.i1 It appears that subsequent bargaining on conditions of employment broke down upon disagreement on welfare provisions followed by the issuance of the complaint in the instant case On September 9 the charge was filed in the instant case. On November 4, by letter, and again on November I1 by telegram Respondents offered employment at Secaucus to 10 Brooklyn layoffs not theretofore taken to Secaucus. On November 28 the complaint herein issued. There is no evidence of organizational activity on behalf of District 50 carried on in the plant nor is there evidence or even allegations of interrogation or surveillance on the part of Respondents concerning the identity of District 50 supporters. B. The Refusal to Bargain As noted above, District 50 made its initial bargaining demand on June 7 when Pohmer and Rosario met with Jackowitz. At that time Respondents' production employees (apparently all on the Interstate payroll) numbered 22,12 and District 50 had secured authorization cards from 14 or 16 of the production workers which was clearly a majority in any conceivable appropriate unit Pohmer testified that he told Jackowitz that District 50 represented a majority of Respon- dents' employees and asked for recognition and a date for commencement of negotiations, and that Jackowitz replied that in view of the election conducted within the preceding year he did not have to recognize any union and, further, that, as employees had been notified a year ago, he was moving the plant to New Jersey where he had a contract with Local 84. District 50 card on June 3 1 believe that the apparent signature discrepancies are attributable to lack of experience in acquiring an established signature 11 The agreement refers only to Better Methods as the employer party but it appears to have been regarded as applicable to all production and maintenance employees except supervisors, office clericals, guards, and employees covered by the Local 27 agreement 12 Payroll records and testimony of Jackowitz indicate that these employees were Julio Flores , Juan Ramon Jiminez , Librado Medina Mendez, Aurelio Maza Vasquez, Moises Mopca Negron , Harry Cintron, Julio Sanchez, Conrado Sanchez , Radames A . Morales, Ramon Hernandez , Humberto Nunez , Andrew Abreu , Luis Esquilin , Marcos Betancourt , Carmelo Garcia, James Carter, David DeStefano, Lide Bridget, Saturnino Ramos Marin, Samuel Byers , Victor Concepcion and Harry Morton The latter was a driver represented by Local 27. In addition Better Methods employees at Dean Street included Elson and Francisco Mendez and Foreman Carl Sorrano. CARLTON PAPER CORP 161 Jackowitz further stated, according to Pohmer, that he wanted to get rid of the Brooklyn employees as they were no good. Pohmer "flashed" the 14 authorization cards Rosario had obtained and offered to submit them to a cross-check by a neutral person but Jackowitz refused the offer. Pohmer made it clear, he testified, that he wanted representation of all production and maintenance employees, including those doing shipping and receiving work but excluding any covered by the Local 27 contract of whose existence he was aware prior to the visit, and he told Jackowitz that any contract in effect at the New Jersey operation must be a "sweetheart deal." Pohmer also testified that he specifically requested bargaining with respect to the matter of the plant relocation and its effect on employees. Rosario generally corroborated Pohmer's testi- mony and Jackowitz did not deny its essentials except that his testimony respecting Local 84 is that he informed Pohmer and Rosario merely that Local 84 had communicated with him concerning representation of Respondents' employees on completion of the move to Secaucus I found Pohmer a credible witness and find, in accordance with his testimony that on June 7 he informed Pohmer that he was in possession of cards from a majority of Respondents' production em- ployees, offered a card check by a neutral person, and demanded recognition and bargaining, particularly with respect to the impending move and its effect on employees. I find also that he specifically disclaimed representation of employees covered by the existing agreement with Local 27. It also appears that Jackowitz did not base his refusal of recognition on any genuine doubt as to District 50's majority status among the Brooklyn production employees but rather, primarily, on the basis of his mistaken belief that he did not have to recognize any labor organization for such employees in view of the decertification of Local 679 within the preceding 12- month period. Following the meeting between District 50 representatives and Jackowitz on June 7, Jackowitz consulted Attorney Kornblum and was advised that he could withhold recognition because (1) District 50's claim sought an inappropriate unit in view of the fact that shipping and receiving employees were covered by the Local 27 agreement and (2) the impending move to New Jersey might give rise to a jurisdictional dispute among contending labor unions in view of the representation claims of Local 84. In view, however, of the testimony of Local 84's representative that his first contact with Respon- dents' employees took place in July and his first approach to Respondents' supervisory staff occurred in August, I find and conclude that any refusal to recognize District 50 in June was not based on any representational claims of Local 84. With respect to the alleged impropriety of District 50's claim vis-a-vis Local 27's representation of shipping and receiving employees, I credit Pohmer's testimony that he expressly disclaimed representation of any employees represented by Local 27. This situation is not, as General Counsel's brief suggests, a runaway shop situation, inasmuch as the evidence indisputably establishes that the decision to relocate was both based entirely on sound business efficiency considerations and antedated by about a full year the advent of District 50 on the scene. On the other hand, neither is it a case governed by the precedent in H K. Porter, Inc., 47 LRRM 1394, cited by Respondents in view of the circumstances of that case in which the dismissal of a representation petition was sustained in view of the indications that few if any employees had indicated a desire to relocate in the new operation. The question in the instant case is whether or not District 50 was entitled to represent employees in bargaining relative to terms and conditions of employment in Brooklyn and as to the effect of the move on employees then represented by District 50, as well as on terms and conditions of employment applicable in the New Jersey operation. While it cannot be doubted that the successful organiza- tional efforts of District 50 came at a time when they presented genuine difficulties for Respondents in view of the impending move, there does not appear to be any reason why a labor organization such as District 50 which has secured majority status in an appropriate unit, is not entitled to bargaining notwithstanding such employer difficulties.' 3 The hardships and selection of employees would themselves be appropriate considerations in the bargaining. The fact that Respondents appear to have contemplated, as hereinafter discussed, employee representation by another Teamsters local, would be a hardship of Respondents' own making. The evidence indicates that District 50 was the statutory represen- tative of a majority of employees at the time of its demand and by refusing to treat it as such Respondents unlawfully refused to bargain thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion I appraise the evidence as completely devoid of indications that Respondents' refusal was based on any good-faith doubt of the District 50 majority. I believe Respondents' reliance on the Board's recent decisions in The Pierce Governor Company, Inc., 164 NLRB No. 2, and McLoughlin Manufacturing Corporation, 164 NLRB No. 23, is misplaced. In Pierce Governor the evidence indicated that there was extensive bargaining on the subject of the effects of the plant relocation on existing employees Similarly in McLoughlin Manufacturing, the Board noted that the union's intransigent attitude in earlier bargaining had been a determining factor in the decision to close (subsequently, to relocate) the plant and that, in fact, the union failed to request bargaining with respect to interim employment. In the present case, District 50 made it clear from the outset of its contact with Respondents that it sought bargaining on the effect of the move on the employees represented by District 50 as well as on the move itself. The fact that bargaining with respect to the decision to relocate would be virtually impossible would not preclude bargaining respecting the selection of employees for transfer and their terms and conditions of employment both before and after the move. C. The Discriminatory Layoffs The complaint alleges that Respondents, on or about July 21, laid off 14 employees Juan Jiminez, Luis Esquilin, Librado Medina Mendez, Aurelio Maza Vasquez, Moise Mojica Negron, Julio Sanchez, Harry Citation, Julio Flores, Radames A. Morales, Conrado Sanchez, Ramon Hernandez, Humberto Nunez, Andrew Abreu, and Saturnino Ramos (incorrectly 13 It would be unrealistic to expect Respondents to bargain with respect to the decision to relocate in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been committed to relocation. But the effect on employees as well as conditions of employment at the new location were clearly bargainable matters. 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD listed in the complaint as Ramos Saturnino), and recalled Saturnino Ramos and Harry Cintron on August 17 and 24, respectively. It further alleges that the layoffs and refusals to recall were in reprisal for the employees' membership in and assistance of District 50. Respondents deny these allegations As noted above, 13 of the foregoing signed cards for District 50 on June 3 and Harry Cintron signed a District 50 card on the following day.14 General Counsel has conceded that there is no direct evidence of knowledge on the part of Respondents as to the identity of the District 50 supporters but relies on the "small plant" doctrine as enunciated in A P. W. Products Co, Inc., 137 NLRB 25, Manbeck Baking Company, 130 NLRB 1186, and Don Swart Trucking Co, Inc, 154 NLRB 1345. The Board has, in these cases and others, held that employer knowledge of the identity of those engaged in organizational activity on behalf of a labor organization may be inferred from the relatively small size of an employer's plant. It appears, however, both on the basis of the Board's approach to those cases and in principle that such an inference may properly be made only where the organizational activity takes place in or adjacent to the plant. There is no indication of any in-plant union activity in the instant case. Furthermore, Jackowitz, when confronted on June 7 with District 50's claim, naively inquired of Pohmer and Rosario as to who were the employees who had brought District 50 into the plant. I conclude that on June 7 Jackowitz had no knowledge of the identity or the number of District 50 supporters. The question presented herein is whether or not Jackowitz somehow acquired such knowledge by July 21 or, alternatively, whether the discharge of virtually all production employees on July 22 was in reprisal for the virtually unanimous support of District 50 among employees. It appears from the evidence and from a stipulation of the parties that the decision to relocate to Secaucus was made in good faith for economic considerations and was communicated to employees about a year prior to the actual move. Pohmer and Rosario testified that in the course of the June 7 discussion at the plant Jackowitz said that he wanted to get rid of all the Brooklyn employees as they were no good, or were a bad bunch. Jackowitz denied thus referring to the Brooklyn employees and I credit his denial in this regard. The evidence indicates that Jackowitz was genuinely apprehensive concerning the transportation problems that Brooklyn em- ployees would have in the event they were selected for work at Secaucus and felt that they were generally suited only for local, i.e., Brooklyn, employment. On July 21 employees were notified by letter that the move to Secaucus was nearing and that their services were no longer required at the Brooklyn plant. They were paid accrued vacation pay at that time and were advised that if they felt they could possibly arrange to work in New Jersey they might apply for work there and would be given every consideration. Notwithstanding the general layoff five Carlton-Interstate employees were transferred immediately to Secaucus. They were Garcia, Betancourt, Byers, Carter, and Bridget. The two Mendez brothers, who in Brooklyn had worked at Dean Street on the Better Methods payroll and developed skills in the assembly of the RR-50 Copy Maker were also transferred. Garcia was the instigator of District 50 organization and 14 The District 50 cards of Betancourt and Cintron (Exhs. 9-J and K) bear date of August 5, 1966 This is clearly erroneous as their reverse side bears the Regional Office date-time stamp of July 19 1 credit Betancourt had signed a District 50 card prior to the June 7 visit of Pohmer and Rosario. There is no indication in the evidence that Respondents knew how many of Brooklyn employees had signed District 50 cards nor who they were Furthermore I credit Jackowitz's denial of knowledge of the identity of District 50 supporters except as to Aurelio Maza who attended a meeting on July 22 as a supporter of District 50, at which Jackowitz was present. By that time, however, the selection of employees for transfer had certainly been effectuated. Appraising the evidence in its totality I find and conclude that the selection of employees for transfer to Secaucus was made on the basis of nondiscriminatory considerations related to the availability of dependable transportation from Brooklyn to the Secaucus jobsite or on the basis of needed skills or abilities of those selected for transfer. In this regard I am impressed by the complete absence of direct evidence of animus on the part of Jackowitz against District 50 or against employees who supported it. Jackowitz appears to be com- pletely umnhibited in his discussion of events and it seems to me that if his selection of employees for transfer were motivated by anti-District 50 animus, there would almost inevitably have been some anti-District 50 remarks at some stage of the rapid-fire events occurring between June 7 and July 22. I credit Jackowitz's denial of knowledge of the identity of District 50 card signers at the time of his selection of employees for transfer. I conclude that the evidence does not preponderate in favor of the conclusion that the employees named in the complaint as discriminatees were laid off or refused recall in reprisal for their membership in or support of District 50. D. Assistance To and Support of Local 84 Local 84 had represented employees of the business formerly located on the Secaucus site as well as those of neighboring concerns. Although Jackowitz testified that a representative of Local 84 telephoned him in June and stated that Local 84 intended to organize Respondents employees in Secaucus, Coffey testified that although he had been observing the progress of the construction he knew of no production employees at the Secaucus site by June 7, and that it was not until sometime in July when the building was nearing completion that he undertook organizational efforts. I find and conclude that at the time of the June 7 demand of District 50 Jackowitz knew of Local 84's existence but had received no demands from it for recognition nor had any reason to believe that Local 84 represented or even had solicited any of Respondents' employees as in fact it had not. I further credit Pohmer's testimony that in the course of the June 7 discussion at the Brooklyn plant, Jackowitz claimed to have a contract with Local 84 covering the Secaucus plant and that this presaged the recognition subsequently accorded to Local 84. James Carter testified that he received a Local 84 card from Cutri about July 11, apparently while working there on temporary assignment as he was still employed at the Brooklyn operation. According to his testimony Cutn instructed him to fill it out. Byers, according to his testimony, was also while on Rosario's testimony that he received them on June 4 from Garcia and conclude that they were signed prior to the initial bargaining demand of June 7 CARLTON PAPER CORP 163 temporary assignment in New Jersey given a Local 84 card by Cutri who said that Local 84 was a good union and he should fill out the card. Carmelo Garcia testified that Singleton praised Local 84 and said that its representative was a good man. I credit the accounts of Carter, Byers, and Garcia and find that Respondents' supervisors assisted and cooperated in securing authorization cards for Local 84 in the Respondents' premises in Secaucus. It appears that at the time of the signing of the recognition agreement on August 17 Local 84 had cards from only nine employees, three of which were the fruits of Respondents' assistance to Local 84. At that time, Respon- dents concede, they employed 13 or 14 production employees. Under all the circumstances of the case I find and conclude that the recognition of Local 84, particularly in the light of the assistance given it by supervisory encouragement in the shop and the clearly evident predetermination of Jackowitz as early as June 7 to contract with Local 84, amounted to unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondents described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY In view of the findings set forth above to the effect that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce it will be recommended that they be required to cease and desist therefrom and take such affirma- tive action as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. District 50 and Local 84 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees of Respon- dents, exclusive of warehousemen, shipping and receiving employees, truckdrivers and helpers, represented by Local 27, office clerical employees, field service employees, salesmen, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4 At all times from and after June 7, 1966, District 50 has been the exclusive representative of employees in the aforesaid unit for purposes of collective bargaining 5. By refusing from and after June 7, 1966, to bargain collectively with District 50 as representative of employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By urging employees to become members of Local 84, and by according Local 84 recognition as exclusive representa- tive of employees at a time when Local 84 did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 8. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]