Fotomat Corp.

FOTOMAT CORPORATION Fotomat Corporation and Local 966, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 29-CA-2639 and 29-CA-2768 March 2, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On October 16, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin B . Lipton issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and supporting arguments. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the ru. ings, findings,' and conclu- sions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Fotomat Corpora- tion, Hicksville, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings In In I of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently stated that the charge in Case 29-CA-2639 was filed and served on December 6 and 8, 1972 In fact, the charge was filed and served on December 6 and 8, 1971 2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge' s finding that Respon- dent herein violated Sec 8(a)(3) and, derivatively, Sec 8(a)(1) by discharging the entire unit of five drivers because of their effort to obtain union representation We also adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent's stated reason for the discharges, to wit, the discriminatees' unauthorized invitation to union agents to meet with them on the nonpublic premises of Respondent , was pretextual, as explicated in the attached Decision However, we disavow the Administrative Law Judge's reliance upon N LR B v Buinup & Sims, Inc, 379 U S 21, which we find distinguishable from the instant case Therefore , we do not adopt his conclusion that the discharges independently violated Sec - 8(a)(1) DECISION STATEMENT'OF THE CASE 59 BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was tried before me on June 19 and 20 , 1972, in Brooklyn, New York, upon a complaint by the General Counsel I alleging certain violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Briefs submitted by General Counsel and Respondent have been duly considered. Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent is engaged in the retail sale and distribution of cameras, film, film processing, and related photographic materials. It maintains numerous retail outlets, offices, and places of business, variously situated in the United States. This proceeding particularly involves the "area office" located in Hicksville, New York. During the year preced- ing issuance of the consolidated complaint, Respondent derived gross revenues from its operations valued in excess of $500,000. During the same period, it had a direct inflow in interstate commerce in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce , and that the Union is a labor organization, within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Basic Issues 1. Whether Respondent's discharge of five named employees, consisting of its entire complement of drivers, was discriminatory and unlawful. 2. Whether Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, upon request. 3. Whether a bargaining order under the Gissel case 2 is justified, based on union authorization cards of all the employees (drivers) in the alleged appropriate unit, in view of the serious nature of the asserted unfair labor practices. Respondent denies the violations alleged , and contends: (a) The five drivers were terminated for violating company rules by permitting "unauthorized personnel" to enter upon company property (i.e., when they held an organiza- tional meeting with union representatives on Respondent's i In Case 29-CA-2639, the charge by the Union was filed and served by registered mail, respectively, on December 6 and 8, 1972 In Case 29-CA-2768, the filing and service of the charge took place on February 24, 1972 The consolidated amended complaint on both cases was issued on April 19, 1972 2 NLRB v Gisse! Packing Co, 395 U S 575 202 NLRB No. 3 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD premises); and (b) it was under no duty to bargain "since the drivers had been terminated for cause and no bargaining unit existed." B. Essential Facts The drivers, or routemen, operated from the area office in Hicksville. Their function was to pick up exposed film and other photographic material from, and make deliveries to, Respondent's retail outlets in the New York area. Their working hours were from 1 to approximately 8 p.m. After 5:30 p.m., a receptionist was usually the only employee present at the area office, other than the drivers returning from their routes. During the material period, the five drivers consisted of Jerome Alopari, Thomas Crean, Robert Patafio, Santo Sciabbarrasi, and Robert Taub. Their immediate supervisor was Jane Rousseau, an "administrative assistant." James G. Martin, regional director, was in overall charge of the area office. On November 29, 1971,3 Crean made the initial approach to the Union in a telephone call to John Agathos, secretary-treasurer. It was agreed that representatives of the Union would come to the area office on December 1 to meet with the drivers. 1. December 1 Agathos testified that about 5:30 p.m. he appeared at the area office and asked to see Crean. The receptionist told him Crean was on his route. Agathos waited outside. He was later met by Crean, who told him the other drivers were still out. When all the drivers had returned, they gathered in the reception room together with Agathos and two other union agents who had arrived-Joseph Faicco and Glen McCarthy. As described by Agathos-"we decided to go downstairs . . . to have a little meeting amongst ourselves." In the basement,4 for 30-40 minutes they discussed organizational procedures, and each of the five drivers signed authorization cards, which the Union retained. Faicco arranged to meet the drivers about 1 p.m. the next day outside the area office. Crean testified that he alone invited the men downstairs, and had no advance permission of management. The receptionist, Colleen Carmody, was in the presence of the group when they initially conferred in the reception room and in the adjoining "sorting room."5 She testified that 2 days earlier Crean told her a meeting with the Union would take place on December 1; before the meeting date, she revealed this information to Margaret Terlikosky, an area trainer and assistant supervisor; and she first learned from Crean on December 1 that the meeting would be held downstairs. Terlikosky testified she was at the reception desk about 6:30 p.m. on December 1, and told "the man" (Agathos) that Crean would be back about 7 p.m. She worked late that night and was aware of the meeting with the drivers downstairs. Alopari testified that on December 3 All dates are in 1971, except as otherwise specified 4 On the basement level, an "inventory room" was used to contain valuable materials and was securely locked behind a steel door I am not impressed that any of the items, such as used snow tires, which lay elsewhere in the basement were of consequential value There is no claim or evidence that anything was missing 5 No door or "divider" separated the two rooms In the sorting room 1, when he returned from his route , he worked on the premises with two of the independent processors helping to carry out film. He finished his job , punched out, and then joined the others in the reception room before they went downstairs .6 2. December 2 An election petition for a unit of drivers was filed with the Board in Case 29-RC-1873 and, on the same date, a, copy was served on Respondent by registered mail. Between 9 and 10 a.m., Terlikosky spoke with Rudolph Pusey, store supervisor, and Deborah Shuppe, an area trainer. As Terlikosky testified, in substance, she told them she heard that union representatives were in the area office with the drivers the night before. Pusey indicated he was going to tell Martin, the regional director, and walked away. Shortly thereafter, Terlikosky was summoned to Martin's office, where Shuppe and Pusey were present. Martin asked her "if anyone had been in the office" the previous night, and she replied, yes. Then he inquired if she was aware that unauthorized personnel were not allowed in the building. She could not recall her answer. About 1 p.m., Union Agents Faicco and McCarthy met with the five drivers outside the area office. There each driver made out a duplicate authorization card for the Union. The entire group then entered the outer office of Martin.? Faicco told the "secretary" he was a business agent of the Union and wished to see Martin. When asked the purpose, he stated that the Union represented the drivers and he wanted to discuss recognition. On request, he supplied his business card. After a period of waiting, the "secretary" indicated that Martin had no time to see them that day as he had other engagements. In these circum- stances, I find that Martin was made aware of all the information given the "secretary," as well as the identity of the persons waiting in his outer office. About 7 p.m., the front office receptionist, Carmody, was questioned by Attorney Haber for Respondent. She confirmed that the union men came in the night before and held a meeting with the drivers downstairs. However, she did not know what occurred at the meeting. About 8 p.m., after Alopari returned from his route, he was told by Supervisor Rousseau, in substance, that "we were not going to get the union in and we were going to get fired for it." 8 3. December 3, et seq. On December 3, each of the five drivers was called into Rousseau's office and discharged by her "for having unauthorized personnel on the premises." Rousseau testified that the decision to discharge the drivers was made by Martin and a corporate vice president in California, after telephonic discussions, about 12 to 1 p.m. that day. there were closed bags which, for the most part, contained exposed film 6 The record is not clear as to the time of the meeting, or whether it was held after all the drivers had clocked out While Respondent asserts that the meeting occurred on company time, it does not rely upon this as a basis for the discharge 7 Martin had a separate entrance to his office from outside the building 8 Undenied testimony of Alopari FOTOMAT CORPORATION 61 Later that day, Carmody told one of the independent film processors that the drivers were not working because they were fired for union activity. Shortly thereafter Martin cautioned Carmody not to say that, as they were terminated "because of unauthorized personnel." She then stated "that it wasn't all the boys that invited the union man in, it was only one." Martin rhetorically asked, "Were they all downstairs at the meeting?" On Monday, December 6, the Union established a picket line at the area office.9 During the day, Agathos had a conversation with Martin outside the building. He told Martin the Union represented the drivers and he would like to sit down with him to negotiate a contract. Martin replied that he was going to his lawyer's office next door. C. Concluding Findings Respondent devoted a considerable part of its defense seeking to establish the existence of a company policy and rule to the effect that employees who invite or permit unauthorized personnel to enter on company property are subject to immediate discharge. Respondent completely failed to support this position, and it is clearly refuted in the record that such a rule applied to the employees at the area office. The drivers' testimony, as well as that of Carmody, the receptionist, shows that they were never informed and were entirely unaware of such a rule.10 However, it is not critical whether there was actually a rule against unauthorized personnel entering beyond the reception room of the area office.ii The real issues are whether, under the Act, the drivers were discharged for discriminatory reasons, and whether, by such conduct, Respondent interfered with their protected rights. In its defense, Respondent took the insistent position that, when the discharges were effected on December 3, it did not know the identity of the "unauthorized personnel" who met with the drivers on December 1, and was completely unaware that these persons were union repre- sentatives. Martin testified that the only time he knew these were union representatives in the area office was about 10 days later when he was so advised by a Board agent, and that theretofore it had never entered his mind.12 In his telephone conversations with high executives of Respondent in California, during which the discharge decision was reached, there was no mention that the "unauthorized personnel" on December 1 were or might have been the same union people who appeared at his office with the drivers on December 2. Rousseau, equivocal 9 The transcript at p 28 , 1. 14, is hereby corrected to read "Is there an allegation here of an unfair labor practice strike9" The answer was negative to Ultimately in the hearing, at my request, Respondent furnished part of a manual distributed to the sales girls, or "Fotomates," in its retail outlets The particular rule states in entirety "At no time will the Fotomate allow a person or persons to enter the store without permission from the Area Manager " My finding , in short, is that this rule would not on its face be applicable to the drivers. Respondent relies on various other grounds' That the drivers were instructed not to take "riders" on their vehicles, and that the vehicles displayed a sign to such effect, was credibly denied by the drivers, and is over-reaching to establish the rule claimed . That, on or before December 1, a "Better Business Bureau" sign was posted on a wall in the reception area, stating "No soliciting , peddling, things like that" (as described by Rousseau), was credibly denied by Carmody, the receptionist regularly present in this room Even assuming such a sign was posted before December 1,-(a) it could not reasonably be construed by the employees as in her testimony, admitted that she became aware on December 2 that the people who visited the night before were union organizers . When they came in to, see Martin on December 2, she could "tell by looking at them" that they were union organizers, as they were "tough-looking characters," they "weren't very pleasant at all," and she had asked them to leave. Especially in light of the evidence earlier shown, I can only find that this is a clear case of calculated dissimulation and prevarication on the part of Martin and Rousseau. There can be no doubt on this record that Respondent knew or surmised, when it decided to discharge the drivers, that they had met with union agents within the area office on December 1. The evidence is ample that Respondent seized upon the pretext of a purported rule violation to discharge the drivers, and that in reality it was motivated by the immediate discovery of the drivers' effort to obtain union representation. The following factors are particularly noted: (a) Rousseau's general threat, made to Alopari (after one of the conversations with the California executives), that all the drivers would get fired, and the further union animus shown in Rousseau's testimony; (b) the drastic decision to eliminate all its drivers (and the later claim there was no duty to bargain because no bargaining unit existed); (c) the significant timing of such action following upon its knowledge of the drivers' union activity and the Union's approach to Respondent; (d) the false and generally unreliable testimony of Martin and Rousseau; and (e) Respondent's failure to question the drivers, and the flimsy basis upon which it ostensibly concluded that the drivers violated company policy. The stated misconduct for which the drivers were discharged took place, albeit on plant premises, in the context of an organizational meeting with the Union-a basic protected activity under Section 7 of the Act.13 The essential law is well defined in N.L. R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21. Section 8(a)(1) is violated if an employee is discharged for misconduct arising out of a protected activity where it is demonstrated that the misconduct never occurred despite the employer's honest belief, or that the employer's asserted belief was not in good faith. "A protected activity acquires a precarious status if innocent employees can be discharged while engaging in it, even though the employer acts in good faith." Id at 23. I find here, for the reasons described above, that the alleged rule did not exist, and the purported misconduct did not occur. Even if it did occur in some respect, it does not constitute such misconduct as would reasonably justify discharge. It a union no-solicitation rule, and (b), if it were so intended, it was vague, restricted solicitation on nonworking time, and did not convey the "unauthorized personnel" policy invoked by Respondent Respondent cites a section of the New York Penal Law in arguing that the union agents on December I engaged in "criminal trespass," as to impute a greater degree of responsibility on the drivers This is rejected as without merit In sum, I find that Respondent's evidence and arguments scarcely substantiate its broad assertions of the grounds for discharge. i i Presumably, an employer would have such a right of exclusion, even without prior announcement : in certain circumstances union agents may be barred from company premises See Central Hardware Co v N L R B, 405 U.S 1061;NLRB v Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U S 105 12 Martin was aware of a previous abortive attempt to organize the "Fotomates" in the retail outlets 13 Corr,veau & Roughier Cement Block, Inc, 171 NLRB 787, 788 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was shown that Crean alone invited the union agents to the basement for the purpose of the organizational meeting. The mere presence of the other four drivers at the meeting provides no ground to deprive them of their Section 7 rights. Carmody, the receptionist whose function was to see that unauthorized persons do not enter beyond the reception area, was not disciplined. Respondent conducted no investigation and had no honest basis for deciding which, if any, of the drivers were responsible. The Respondent's good faith is clearly lacking in its conclusion to discharge all five of the drivers as a group. Upon all of the foregoing and the entire record, it is found that the discharge of the five drivers violated Section 8(a)(3) and, independently, 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Refusal To Bargain The complaint alleges an appropriate unit of all drivers employed at the area office. Respondent denies this allegation, but has offered no alternative unit or evidence on the question. I find the alleged unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On December 6, as previously described, the Union presented the demand for recognition and bargaining on behalf of the employees in the appropriate unit. As of such date, there were employed by Respondent in the unit-Al- opari, Crean, Patafio, Sciabbarrasi, and Taub. It is uncontested that union authorization cards were executed by all these employees on December 1. Accordingly, it is held that, on and since December 1, the Union has been, and is now, the statutory bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. On and since December 6, Respondent has failed and refused to accord recogni- tion, as validly requested by the Union. As detailed herein, Respondent engaged in serious violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), which I find were calculated to defeat the Union's organizing efforts and destroy its majority status among the employees. These unfair labor practices, in my opinion, are clearly in the category of pervasive and extensive violations within the terminology of the Gissel case.14 The effects of such conduct preclude a fair representation test in a Board election in the forseeable future without the continuing impact and recurrence of Respondent's coercion. In these circumstances, the use of traditional remedies is ineffectu- al, and consideration is validly given to the signed authorization cards as a more reliable measure of the employees' representation desires. Therefore it is conclud- ed that, by refusing the Union's bargaining request and engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(5), and that a bargaining order is necessary and appropriate to protect the majority selection of the Union through written authorizations, and otherwise to remedy the violations committed. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- 14 N L R B v Gissel Packing Co., 395 U S. 575. And see Restaurant Associates Industries, Inc, 194 NLRB No. 172 scribed in section I , above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A broad cease-and-desist order is warranted , particularly in view of Respondent's patent discriminatory conduct.i5 It has been found that Respondent unlawfully dis- charged Alopari, Crean, Patafio, Sciabbarrasi, and Taub. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent offer these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned, absent the discrimination , less net earnings during such period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will be further recommended that Respondent preserve and upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, all payroll records , social security payment records , timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Jerome Alopari, Thomas Crean, Robert Patafio, Santo Sciabbarrasi, and Robert Taub on December 3, 1971, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and, independently, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. All drivers or routemen employed by Respondent at its area office in New York, excluding all office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in Section 2( 11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. Since December 1, 1971, the Union has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all employees in the 15 N LR B v. Express Publishing Co, 312 U S 426 ; N LR B v Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F 2d 532 (C.A 4) FOTOMAT CORPORATION 63 appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 6. By failing and refusing, at all times on and after December 6, 1971, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 7. By the foregoing, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend the following: 16 ORDER Respondent, Fotomat Corporation, Hicksville, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 966, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organiza- tion, by discharging or terminating employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, described above. (c) Threatening employees with discharge, and in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- named labor organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. (b) Offer Jerome Alopari, Thomas Crean, Robert Patafio, Santo Sciabbarrasi, and Robert Taub immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. (c) Notify the above-named employees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to reinstatement upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. (e) Post at its Hicksville, New York, office and facilities, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.18 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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. 17 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 18 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 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice; and we intend to carry out the order of the Board, and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise punish you, in order to discourage membership or support for Local 966, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge, or other reprisal, in order to stop you from joining or helping a union. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the above-named Union, as your exclusive bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed employees in the National Labor Relations Act, which are as follows: To engage in self-organization To form, join or help unions To bargain collectively through a representa- tive of their own choosing 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all these things. Since it has been found that we unlawfully dis- charged Jerome Alopan, Thomas Crean, Robert Tapafio, Santo Sciabbarrasi, and Robert Taub, WE WILL offer to give them back their regular jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, give them substantially equivalent jobs, and WE WILL pay all the above-named employees for the earnings they lost because of the discrimination against them, with 6 percent interest. WE WILL notify the above-named employees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training 'and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL upon request, bargain collectively with Local 966, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit, and put into a signed agreement any understanding reached. The appropriate unit is: All drivers or routemen employed at the New York area office, excluding all office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. FOTOMAT CORPORATION (Employer) 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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212- 596-3535.