Hope Industries, Inc.

HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. 853 Hope Industries, Inc. and Angelo Maldonado Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca and Angelo Maldonado. Cases 22-CA-4483 and 22-CB-1966 August 10, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On March 28, 1972, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent Employer and Respon- dent Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions, and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent Hope Industries, Hawthorne, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent Local 867, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a complaint i issued by the General Counsel on October 4. The complaint alleges, in substance, that Hope Industries, Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent Company or Hope, during May and June required its employees to execute dues-deduction authorizations in favor of Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereafter referred to as Respondent Union or Teamsters, and warned its employees they would be discharged if they failed to execute such authorizations; that about June 3 Hope notified its employees of its intention to deduct the union dues and initiation fees from their wages and pay them to Teamsters, although said employees had not authorized such deductions or payments; and that about June 3 Hope discharged Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanab- na, and Diomedes Gonzales and has failed and refused to reinstate them because of their refusal to execute dues- checkoff authorizations, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. The complaint alleges further that Teamsters during May and June threatened Hope's employees that it would cause Hope to discharge them unless they executed dues- checkoff authorizations on its behalf, and that since about June 3 it has requested and required Hope to refuse employment to the above-named employees because they failed to execute dues-checkoff authorizations on its behalf, in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2) of the Act. In their duly filed respective answers, Respondents denied committing the alleged violations and pleaded that they acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of a labor contract entered into between them on November 1, 1969. Hope pleaded further that the alleged dischargees were terminated after they informed it that they were not going to work any more and left the premises. All parties were represented and were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to file briefs . Briefs received from the General Counsel and Hope have been duly consid- ered.2 Upon the entire record3 in the cases, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE 1 It appears that a majority of the employees of Respondent Employer are Spanish-speaking and do not speak English We therefore order that the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision be posted in English and Spanish. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: These matters, proceedings under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, were heard in Newark, New Jersey, on January 17 and 18, 1972, 1 Based on a charge filed in Case 22-CA-4483 on June 8, 1971, and a charge in Case 22-CB-1966 filed on July 28, 1971 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1971 unless otherwise noted 2 An untimely filed brief from Teamsters has been returned pursuant to At all times material herein Hope has maintained a plant in New Jersey where it has been engaged in the manufac- ture, assembly, sale, and distribution of truckbodies and related products. In the course and conduct of its business operations during 1970 it caused to be purchased, transferred, and delivered to its plant truck parts and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported to said plant in interstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey. Hope admits, and I find, at all times material an order of the chief Trial Examiner 3 The opposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the transcript is hereby granted as moved 198 NLRB No. 115 854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herein, that it has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters admits, and I find, at all times material herein, that it has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Hope was organized under the aegis of Bogue Electric Company pursuant to the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program to train disadvantaged groups to make them competitive employee-wise and to provide employment for them. Both corporations have the same officers, and Hope's business records, including its payroll, are kept by and at Bogue Electric which is also responsible for Hope's debts. At the time it was organized in 1969, Hope's welding, panel wiring, and assembly departments began operations on the premises of Bogue Electric in Patterson, New Jersey, and its employees in those departments were trained by Bogue Electric personnel. In the spring of 1970 Hope moved its operations to Hawthorne, New Jersey, where it continues to function. The SBA's 8(a) Program contemplates that, at the end of a certain period, Hope will become independently viable and through a divestiture agreement a completely separate entity. Currently, Bogue Electric is a major subcontractor of Hope and the Army Mobility Command in St. Louis is the only customer of Hope. George Hewitt is vice president and general manager of Hope. It also appears that a collective- bargaining agreement was entered into between Hope and the Union on November 25, 1969, effective November 1, 1969, through October 31, 1972, which contains a union- security clause, a checkoff provision, and a grievance procedure. At the time the contract was executed Hope employed six part-time employees. During May 1970 it had 23 production and maintenance employees. B. The Issues The issues are: Whether Hope (1) in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) threatened to discharge its employees unless they executed dues-deduction authorizations in favor of Teamsters, and discharged Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanab- ria, and Diomedes Gonzales for their failure and refusal to execute such authorizations, and (2) whether Hope notified its employees of its intention to deduct their union dues and initiation fees from their wages, although not author- ized to do so, and to pay them to Teamsters, thereby 4 He also signed a checkoff authorization later on during 1970 While previously employed by Bogue Electric he had also been a member of Teamsters 5 Luis Rivera corroborated Moran's testimony that the employees were neither aware of nor told that they had to pay union dues According to Bernardo, he visited the plant on October 19, 1970, and obtained membership applications and dues-deduction authorizations from a group of 12 or 13 employees, including some who already were Teamsters rendering unlawful assistance and support to Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2). Whether Teamsters in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) threatened to cause the discharge of those employees who refused to sign dues-deduction authoriza- tions and caused Hope to discriminate in regard to their hire and terms and conditions of employment by discharg- ing the above-named employees because of their refusal to execute such authorizations. C. The Alleged Threats and Discharges Leandro Moran testified as follows: He began working for Hope as an inspector in September 1970 shortly after having been laid off by Bogue Electric. On October 19, 1970, Bernard Bernardo and James Walker, Teamsters business representatives, visited Hope's plant for the purpose of soliciting membership applications. Moran, who speaks English as well as Spanish, acted as interpreter for those Spanish-speaking employees who comprise a majority of Hope's employees and do not understand English. Pursuant to instructions from the Teamsters representatives, he explained to the employees that they were being requested to sign union membership applica- tions, and he signed one himself.4 All he told them was that the cards were membership applications, that they would get a fair contract, and that Teamsters would represent them. He did not mention union dues nor did he state that there was a bargaining contract which required the signing of membership applications. He was neither advised nor aware of the existence of a union contract and was assured by the union representatives that they would return within 30 days and advise them of any developments relating to the Union.5 The following month he was notified by Hewitt that Teamsters had designated him to be shop steward. Not hearing from the Teamsters representatives for about a month he called Bernardo and Walker in November 1970 on separate occasions to come to the plant and advise the employees about any union developments, but neither one appeared. In March, Walker informed him by telephone that he and the employees were in arrears for union dues. When he asked how that could be, he was told that there was a union contract. Moran then asked to see the contract and he was referred to the Company's file where he could see one. There, for the first time, he became aware of and saw Hope's copy of a contract. Later that month Walker came to the plant and while meeting with the employees, he read off the provisions of the contract. After Moran translated them into Spanish, the employees expressed their dissatisfaction with its provisions, particu- larly the lack of any hospitalization insurance and only six paid holidays, and they refused to sign membership applications and dues-deduction authorizations, as re- quested by Walker. In May, Bernardo and Walker visited members and also the alleged dischargees, Torres. Rivera, Maldonado, and Sanabna, as new members At that time he asked Moran to explain in Spanish to the non-English- speaking employees that the top half of the card to be signed was an application for union membership while the bottom half was an authorization for dues deduction The membership application was printed on a card which was connected by a perforated line to another card containing the dues-deduction authorization All the employees signed both cards at that time HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. 855 the plant and through Moran told the employees either to sign up, referring to the membership applications and dues-deduction authorizations , or be terminated, and that they would not have any nonunion people working there .6 On June 2, Walker again visited the plant and spoke to the employees with Moran acting as interpreter. Once again he asked the employees to sign membership applications and dues-deduction authorizations . When no one signed, Walker told them to sign or be terminated, and that the plant could be closed.? Moran testified further that Hewitt in a conversation with him on June 2 stated that the employees would be given a week to decide whether to sign , and if they continued to refuse to do so they would be terminated. During the following morning on June 3 , Maldonado, who had been absent the previous day and unaware of what had been told to the other employees, was called to Hewitt's office and told through Moran , as interpreter, either to sign the membership application and dues- deduction authorization or be discharged.8 That afternoon the employees upon receiving the envelopes containing their wages found two slips enclosed . One in English and the other in a Spanish translation advised each of them that a specified amount of money for union dues and initiation fees was to be deducted from their wages until all arrears were paid up. After discussing among themselves what course to take , about 12 employees, including Moran, left the plant about 2 p.m. without advising Hewitt, and went to the Board's Regional Offices to seek advice concerning dues deductions. They remained at the Region- al Office until about 4 p.m. and then left. They did not return to the plant that afternoon because it was so close to their 4 : 30 p.m . quitting time. The following morning they reported for work at their usual starting time. There, they found that their timecards had been removed from the rack except for four cards-those of Moran , Foreman Ritchie, and employees Juan Cassareigo and Fred Tyler. He (Moran) then approached Hewitt and asked about the missing cards and was advised that the employees whose timecards were missing from the rack had quit and were no longer employed.9 Three of the employees , Theodore 6 Both Walker and Bernardo testified about a meeting with the employees in May as follows Walker stated he met with the employees to make arrangements to collect the back dues and so advised them through Moran They, however, refused to pay any dues because of their dissatisfaction with the terms of the contract Bernardo testified he and Walker met with the employees and told them through Moran that they had to join Teamsters and pay an initiation fee, that if they signed the checkoff forms Hope would deduct the dues from their wages and send them to Teamsters, otherwise they would have to pay the dues directly to Teamsters, and that the majority of the employees stated they wished to take the cards home and fill them out 7 According to Walker, he returned to the plant on June 2 and advised the employees that Hope would improve their contract terms after the dues problem was resolved, but they refused and demanded that the terms of the contract be improved in their favor before they would pay any dues He also denied telling the employees they would lose their Jobs if they failed to sign the checkoff authorizations However, his pretrial affidavit specifically states that during the early part of 1971 he visited the plant and informed the employees that they would have to pay union dues, that the new employees would have to sign union membership applications and dues- deduction authorizations, and that when they refused he advised them they would have to sign the cards in order to continue working for the Company A few days later he again visited the plant and while meeting with the employees, Hewitt appeared and told them they would have to sign the Popoff, I FranciscoI Emmelo, ands Hector IRobledo, there- upon volunteered to sign the cards if they could return to their jobs. Hewitt replied that he was agreeable but he would have to call Teamsters to obtain its approval and told the three employees to return that afternoon.10 When they returned, Hewitt advised them that they could sign up and resume working, which they did. After June 4, new employees were told by Moran pursuant to Walker's instructions that they were required to sign both a union membership application and a dues-checkoff authoriza- tion. Other testimony reveals that each of the seven alleged dischargees corroborated Moran's testimony to that effect that at one time or another in their meetings with Teamsters representatives they were threatened with the loss of their jobs unless they signed cards for union membership and dues checkoff; that on June 2 according to Rivera the employees asked Hewitt why dues deductions were going to be taken from their wages and were told they would be suspended if they refused to sign the cards; that Juan Matos, Diomedes Gonzales, and Generoso Gonzales stated that they never signed any union cards; it and that Maldonado, Sanabria, and Torres testified that they signed membership applications only in October but never signed any other cards. In explanation of the Teamsters demand that new cards be signed by those employees who had already signed them on October 19, 1970,12 Bernardo testified that Teamsters kept the signed membership applications and, after detaching the dues-deduction authorizations, sent them by letter of October 27, 1970, to Hope with instructions explaining the procedure to be followed with respect to handling the dues,13 and that when Teamsters received no dues deductions from Hope he visited Bogue Electnc to find out why, and there saw the authorizations and the covering instructions and was told by Bogue Electric personnel that they had neglected to make the deductions because ;they; were) having' too fast a changeover. Thereaf- ter, he was advised by Bogue Electric that the authorization cards had been misplaced or lost, and he then demanded membership application and checkoff forms pursuant to the contract or they would be terminated Bernardo testified that on June 2 he and Walker met with the employees and told them that no dues were being paid, that Hope had misplaced the checkoff authorizations. that their failure to pay dues would cause their termination, and that they refused to pay back dues stating they would quit and walk off before doing so " Maldonado corroborated Moran's testimony relative to his conversa- tion with Hewitt 9 Hewitt testified that during the afternoon of June 3. his foreman advised him that the employees had left because of the slips placed in their pay envelopes, that he then directed the timekeeper to remove their cards because they were no longer employed as far as he was concerned, and that he began hiring new employees is Bernardo testified without contradiction that Hewitt called him to report that the employees had just left the plant , and was told that the Union would not object to the reinstatement of those employees who had previously refused to sign checkoff authorizations if they did so now i i Each of them began working for Hope after October 1970 11 The membership applications of 15 employees, including those of Rivera, Maldonado, Sanabria, and Torres were produced and admitted in evidence i i Hewitt testified to receiving the authorizations and forwarding them to Bogue Electric 856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD new authorizations from the employees to replace those which had been lost. D. Conclusions 1. The conduct of Hope The undenied testimony of Moran, Rivera, and Maldo- nado establishes that Hewitt threatened the employees that they would be terminated if they refused to sign the dues checkoffs. The Board has repeatedly held that dues checkoffs must be made "voluntarily," and that employees have the right under Section 7 of the Act to refuse to sign such authonzations.14 Thus, the threats by Hewitt clearly coerced them in the exercise of their rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Hewitt's threats also served to foster and support Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(2). Zidell Explorations, Inc., 175 NLRB 887. Hope's announced intention to start deducting union dues from its employees' wages, as indicated in the notifications en- closed in their pay envelopes, without their authorizations (as found, infra) also coerced them and served to support Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2). The General Counsel contends further that the alleged dischargees were fired because of their refusal to execute checkoff authorizations. Hope claims that they quit when they left the plant without notifying or consulting him during the afternoon of June 3. It appears, however, that Hewitt was informed by his foreman that the employees left because of the notifications placed in their pay envelopes. Even assuming as testified to by Bernardo that on June 2 the employees threatened to quit and walk off the job before paying union dues, they nevertheless continued on the job until the following afternoon when they decided to seek advice at the Board's Regional Office. There is no evidence that a decision was reached by them at that time to quit their jobs, nor did they advise management to that effect. By going to the Board's offices they engaged in protected, concerted activity. Their failure to return to the plant that afternoon was due to the fact that it was so close to their regular quitting time. However, they reported for work the following morning at the usual starting time. It is significant that Hewitt was willing to permit them to resume working if they signed dues authorizations, and that he did so after obtaining the approval of Teamsters with respect to the those employees who volunteered to sign such authorizations. In view of Hewitt's previous threats, this tends to establish that the real reason for regarding the dischargees as terminated was their refusal to sign the checkoff authorizations. I, therefore, find that the dischargees were terminated because they engaged in protected, concerted activities on the afternoon of June 3, and refused to sign checkoff authorizations, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 2. The conduct of Teamsters Teamsters asserts that 15 employees, including Maldona- do, Rivera, Torres, and Sanabna, signed checkoff authori- zations as well as union membership applications on October 19, 1970, and that the authorizations have been misplaced or lost. However, with regard to the signing of the authorizations, Moran testified that he neither was instructed to tell the employees in Spanish to sign the authorizations nor did he ask them to do so, and several employees corroborated Moran's testimony that they were told to sign only the membership applications. Maldonado, Rivera, Torres, and Sanabria also denied that they ever signed anything other than the membership applications. The Teamsters agents not knowing any Spanish were in no position to deny whatever Moran actually told the employees, but claim that Moran was instructed to tell the employees to sign both cards. Only one witness, Arthur Bolds, an English-speaking employee, testified that he signed both a membership application and dues authoriza- tion on October 19, 1970, after receiving a request in English to sign both cards. However, it appears that he had been a member of Teamsters for the preceding 4 years while working for Bogue Electric, immediately prior to being hired by Hope. Nor did he state that he saw any other employees signing checkoff authorizations. Oddly enough, the covering letter sent by Teamsters to Hope was produced but not the authorizations. Hewitt's testimony about receiving the authorizations was vague and he was unable to identify any of the employees whose cards he received. Nor was anyone from Bogue Electric called to testify about the authorizations. Furthermore, the membership applications of Rivera, Maldonado, Torres, and Sanabria indicate that initiation fees of $10 were paid by each of them on October 19, 1970. According to Teamsters, the initiation fee was only $10 for members signing up at that time, and subsequently was to be raised to $35. Yet, the notification slips placed in their envelopes state that they owed $35 for initiation fees, and no credit was given for the $10 which receipt was acknowledged on October 19. No explanation was given for this inconsisten- cy. Based on the foregoing facts and the demeanor of the witnesses, I credit the testimony of Moran and the above- named dischargees that they did not sign dues authoriza- tions on October 19, 1970, or at any time thereafter.15 Apparently, there is no claim that the other dischargees, Matos and the two Gonzaleses, who were hired after October 1970, ever signed checkoff authorizations. It is undisputed that on several occasions Teamsters demanded that the employees sign dues authorizations. The evidence is in conflict as to whether they were threatened with discharge for refusing to do so. On these occasions Moran, who was used as interpreter by Team- sters, testified that he was instructed to inform the non- English-speaking employees that unless they signed the authorizations they would be terminated, and stated that he conveyed that threat on more than one occasion. Several employees testified that he transmitted the threat to them. Nor is there any evidence to contradict what he actually told them. 16 Based on his demeanor and the manner in which the alleged threats accord with the 14 International Harvester Co, 95 NLRB 730, 737 15 Nor would it affect the results reached infra even if they had signed authorizations 16 It is also pertinent to note that on these occasions Moran was also the acknowledged shop steward HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. followup action taken by Hope, I credit his testimony as to what he was instructed to tell the employees and what he actually told them. As indicated above, the Board had repeatedly held that dues-checkoff authorizations must be made voluntarily, and that employees have the right under Section 7 of the Act to refuse to sign checkoff authoriza- tions. Any conduct, expressed or implied, which coerces an employee in his attempt to exercise this right clearly violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). International Union of Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 601, AFL-CIO (Westinghouse Electric Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062. See also International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America (Ruberoid Company), 173 NLRB 87. I therefore conclude that Teamsters by their threats violated Section 8(a)(I)(A) of the Act.17 It also appears that the dischargees were fired following the unlawful threats by Teamsters to have them terminated for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations. Hewitt readily agreed to reinstate them provided they would sign such authorizations and Teamsters did not object. The link between the discharges and Teamsters with Bernardo in which he asked for permission to reinstate those employees who agreed to sign checkoff authorizations. Upon obtain- ing it, he immediately reinstated the three employees who volunteered to sign the authorizations. Patently, this establishes that the discharges were not only motivated and caused by Teamsters but also completely controlled by it. Other evidence supporting this conclusion is contained in Hewitt's reply to the employees on June 2 that he could do nothing about Teamsters threat to have them discharged for failure to sign authorizations cards, and that he would give the employees I week to think about whether or not to sign, otherwise they would lose their jobs. I, accordingly, conclude that Teamsters caused Hope to discriminate against the dischargees because of their refusal to sign checkoff authorizations in violation of Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent Hope's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times material herein, Respondent Hope has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. At all times material herein, Respondent Teamsters 17 The General Counsel also contends that inasmuch as Teamsters failed in its answer to deny par. 17 of the complaint, alleging that Teamsters threatened that it would cause Hope to discharge the employees who did not execute checkoff authorizations, it, therefore, admitted that allegation pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations. I find this argument 857 has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening to discharge or cause the discharge of Hope's employees if they refused to sign checkoff authorizations, thereby restraining and coercing them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, Hope violated Section 8(a)(1) and Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By discharging employees for engaging in protected, concerted activity when they left their jobs to seek Board advice and for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations, and by notifying them that dues would be deducted from their wages although not authorized, Hope violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. 5. By causing Hope to discharge employees for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations, Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Hope unlawfully discharged Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Genero- so Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanabna, and Dio- medes Gonzales, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, and that Respondent Teamsters caused their discharge, I shall recommend that Hope, unless it has already done so, offer them immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly and severally with Teamsters make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of their unlawful discharges. Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis and in a manner consistent with the Board's policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The General Counsel also requests that Hope be ordered to cease and desist from recognizing Teamsters unless and until certified by the Board and from giving effect to the current collective-bargaining agreement or any renewal thereof.18 This request is based on the unlawful threats of Hope and Teamsters to the employees and on their discharges, which it is asserted has adversely affected Teamsters ability to represent the unit employees. He submits that such conduct can be used to shed light upon the unfair labor practices occurring with the 10(b) period in fashioning a remedy, and in support cites Arden Furniture, 164 NLRB 1163, 1164, fn. 4, where the Board stated that a contract presumptively lawful when entered into may be set aside only upon a finding that the union's ability to represent the employees in the daily administra- tion of its contract has been adversely affected by unlawful unavailing This issue was fully litigated at the hearing without any objection by the General Counsel 18 At the time the contract was executed , Hope employed only a few part-time employees and had not begun full operations. 858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assistance or domination within the 10(b) period, and that this in turn depends upon the nature and impact of such conduct. I find no substantial support for such a finding herein based on the violations found during the 10(b) period. In the event that such relief is found not warranted herein, the General Counsel requests in view of the contract's automatic renewal clause that, upon the con- tract's expiration, Hope be ordered to withdraw and withhold recognition from Teamsters unless and until it is certified by the Board. Inasmuch as the employees have recourse under the Act to move to end Teamsters representation, should they so desire, there is no compel- ling need to impose an automatic termination of its representation. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 19 ORDER A. Hope Industries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to discharge employees for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations. (b) Notifying employees that union dues and initiation fees will be deducted from their wages although not authorized by them. (c) Discharging employees for participating in protected, concerted activities and/or for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Unless it has already done so, offer to Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanabria, and Diomedes Gonzales immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly and severally with Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of their unlawful termination of employment by paying to each of them a sum of money computed in the manner specified in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after 19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 20 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records, and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its offices in Hawthorne, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 20 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2i B. Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to cause Hope Industries, Inc., to discharge employees for refusing to sign checkoff authori- zations. (b) Causing Hope Industries, Inc., to discharge employ- ees for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Hope Industries, Inc., or any other employer in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Hope Indus- tries, Inc., make whole Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Ra- dames Sanabria, and Diomedes Gonzales for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of their unlawful termination of employment by paying to each of them a sum of money computed in the manner specified in the section of this Decision entitle "The Remedy." (b) Post at its offices wherever maintained, and at its meeting hall, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."22 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon- to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 21 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 22 See In 20, supra HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for Region 22 for posting by Hope Industries, Inc., if willing, at all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.23 23 See fn 22, supra APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found after trial that we violated Federal law by threatening to discharge employees for refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorizations, discharging employees for engaging in protected, concerted activities and/or refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorizations, and notifying employees that union dues and initiation fees would be deducted from their wages although not authorized: WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge or discharge you for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations. WE WILL NOT discharge you for engaging in protected, concerted activities. WE WILL NOT notify you of our intent to deduct or deduct union dues or initiation fees from your wages unless authorized by you. WE WILL immediately offer, if we have not already done so, to reinstate Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanabria, and Diomedes Gonzales to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and jointly and severally with Local 867, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, make them whole for any wages they may have lost because of their unlawful discharge. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 859 We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100. APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found after trial that we violated Federal law by threatening to have employees of Hope Industries, Inc., discharged for refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorizations, and then causing their discharge: WE WILL NOT threaten to have employees of Hope Industries, Inc., discharged for refusing to sign dues- checkoff authorizations. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Hope Industries, Inc., to discharge its employees for refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorizations. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner coerce or restrain employee-members in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. LOCAL 867, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. • Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.