Mr. Glass, Inc.

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Glass, Inc. and Local 810, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Case 29-CA-3976 September 4, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On April 18, 1975, Administrative Law Judge John F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Re- spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Mr. Glass, Inc., Elmont, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F . CORBLEY, Administrative Law Judge : A hearing was held in this case on January 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1975 at Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to a charge filed by Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , sometimes here- inafter referred to as the Teamsters or Local 810, on Au- gust 19, 1974, and served by registered mail on Respondent on or about August 19, 1974, and on a complaint and no- tice of hearing, issued by the Regional Director on October 31, 1974, which was thereafter duly served on Respondent and also on Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88, Re- tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, the Party to the Contract , sometimes hereinafter referred to as Local 88. The complaint , which was amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, variously, by: recognizing Local 88 on or about July 31, 1974, in a collective-bargain- ing unit of the employees of all seven of Mr. Glass, Inc.'s,t shops, even though, allegedly, Local 88 did not then and has not thereafter ever represented an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees; entering into a collective-bar- gaining agreement with Local 88 on or about August 12, 1974, and thereafter enforcing said agreement, which was effective from August 1, 1974, to July 31, 1977, requiring membership in Local 88 as a condition of employment and establishes the rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the aforedescribed unit of Respondent's employees; permitting representatives of Local 88 to conduct union business on the premises of certain of Respondent's shops during working hours in Au- gust 1974, said union business including the solicitation of employees to join Local 88; encouraging and soliciting em- ployees during August 1974-through Respondent's own supervisors and agents-to sign designations for Local 88 and otherwise inducing said employees to support and as- sist Local 88 rather than any other labor organization; threatening employees during the month of August 1974 that they would be discharged or suffer other reprisals if they did not become and remain members of Local 88 and if they did not assist it and support it; transferring employ- ee Michael McLaughlin from its Flushing shop to its El- mont shop on or about August 14, 1974, allegedly because he joined and assisted the Teamsters and engaged in other concerted activities; interrogating employees during Au- gust 1974 concerning their membership in, activities on be- half of, and sympathy for the Teamsters; warning and di- recting employees during August 1974 to refrain from becoming members of or assisting the Teamsters; on sever- al dates during August 1974, creating the impression among its employees of surveillance by it of the meeting places, meetings, and activities of the Teamsters; requiring employees to pay dues and other moneys to Local 88 as a condition of employment pursuant to said agreement; and by deducting moneys from employee wages for union dues and other obligations of the employees to Local 88 arising from said agreement. In its answer to the complaint, which was likewise duly filed and was amended at the hearing, the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. For reasons which appear hereinafter I find and con- clude that Respondent has violated the Act essentially as alleged in the complaint. At the hearing the General Counsel, Teamsters (the Charging Party), Respondent and Local 88 (the Party To The Contract), were represented by counsel although the two attorneys representing the Teamsters were not present during the entire trial? The parties were given full opportu- nity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file briefs. The General Counsel, counsel 1 The style of the name of the Respondent was corrected on the record at the hearing pursuant to an amendment of the complaint and was agreed to by all parties 2 They waived participation for those times when they were not in atten- dance 220 NLRB No. 20 MR. GLASS, INC. for Respondent, and counsel for Local 88 each made a closing argument. Briefs have subsequently been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent and have been considered. Upon the entire record 3 in this case including the briefs and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York. At all times material herein Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business at 1481 Hemp- stead Turnpike, Elmont, in the county of Nassau, State of New York, herein called the Elmont shop, and various other places of business which are at: 132-15 Northern Boulevard, Flushing, in the Borough of Queens, city and State of New York, herein called the Flushing shop; 761 65th Street in the City and State of New York, herein called the Brooklyn shop; 132 Tenth Avenue, in the Bor- ough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, herein called the Manhattan shop; 1255 Westchester Avenue, in the Borough of Bronx, city and State of New York, herein called the Bronx shop; 1033 Northern Boulevard, Roslyn in the county of Nassau, State of New York, herein called the Roslyn shop and 3036 Jericho Turnpike, East North- port, in the county of Suffolk, State of New York, herein called the East Northport shop, being engaged now, and at all times material herein, at said locations in the retail and wholesale installation and service of automobile glass, anti- theft devices for automobiles, audio equipment for auto- mobiles, and related products. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of its annual operations gen- erally, Respondent in the course and conduct of its busi- ness operations, derived gross revenues therefrom in excess of $500,000. During the same 1-year period which is repre- sentative of its annual operations generally, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its places of busi- ness, safety glass, automobile window glass, antitheft de- vices, audio equipment, and other goods and materials val- ued in excess of $50,000 of which goods and material valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its places of business in interstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than the State in which it is located. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that Respondent is, and has been at all times material here- in, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 3 On March 17, 1975, 1 issued an order upon all the parties to show cause in writing to me at my office in Washington, D C., on or before March 27, 1975, why the transcript in this proceeding should not be corrected in cer- tain particulars The parties did not respond to this order It is therefore ordered that certain errors in the transcript of this proceeding are hereby noted and corrected. 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 105 Teamsters (the Charging Party) is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Local 88 (the Party to the Contract) is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. BACKGROUND AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS A. An Overview of the Case To facilitate an understanding of the detailed sequence of events which follows, a brief synopsis should be helpful. Unless otherwise noted, all dates appearing hereafter in this decision occurred in 1974. In July, Local 88 obtained signed authorization cards from a majority of the employees in Respondent's Brook- lyn, Manhattan, and Elmont shops. The solicitation of these cards is not alleged to have been unlawful. The sum total of the cards was less than a majority of the employees in all seven of Respondent's shops even if two additional but disputed, cards (executed by employees of the Bronx shop in early August, as I will find) were added to the total. Local 88 then filed a petition with the Brooklyn Region of the NLRB on July 22, 1974, in Case 29-RC-2710, for an election in a unit of the Brooklyn shop employees. Thereaf- ter, on July 25, representative of Local 88 met with officials of Respondent and discussed the recognition of Local 88. On August 1, Respondent signed what purports to be an "all employee" collective-bargaining agreement with Local 88, but no representative of Local 88 signed that instru- ment. Withdrawal of the election petition in Case 29- RC-2710 was approved by the Regional Director on Au- gust 8. Between August 1 and August 12 Local 88 representa- tives solicited and obtained more authorization cards from employees at Respondent's Bronx, East Northport, Flush- ing and Roslyn shops. These newly solicited cards gave Local 88 a clear majority of Respondent's employees in all seven shops. However, the complaint alleges that Respon- dent unlawfully assisted Local 88 in obtaining this group of cards and the General Counsel asserts that all these cards are invalid. If he is correct then Local 88 never obtained a valid majority in the seven-shop unit. On August 12 Respondent and Local 88 executed a col- lective-bargaining agreement which covered the employees of all seven shops and which contained a 30-day union- security provision. Shortly after August 12, the Teamsters attempted to organize Respondent's employees and, de- spite the execution of the aforementioned collective-bar- gaining agreement, met with some success. It is alleged that the Respondent during late August unlawfully interfered with or discouraged efforts by some employees to join or assist the Teamsters at that time. The principal question to be decided is whether Respon- dent unlawfully recognized Local 88. In urging that it did, the General Counsel proceeds essentially on two theories. 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD First he contends that Respondent's recognition of Local 88 in a seven-shop unit actually occurred on or about July 31 or August 1-at a time when Local 88 clearly did not represent a majority of Respondent's employees in that unit. In the alternative, the General Counsel argues that, even if no recognition occurred on or about August 1, the subsequent recognition of Local 88 pursuant to Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement with Local 88, executed on August 12, was unlawful because Local 88 never represented a free and uncoerced majority of the employees in the seven-shop unit. B. Respondent's Hierarchy The following individuals occupied the positions set op- posite their names and were, at all times material hereto, supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and Respondent's agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Hyman Maslin, president of Respondent; Morris Potashnick, vice president of Respondent; Joseph Dilorio, regional manager of the East Northport, Roslyn, and Flushing shops (and corporate stock shareholder); Marc Maslin, Bronx shop manager (also a corporate stock shareholder, son of Hyman Maslin, and member of the board of directors in 1974); Paul Markowitz, Brooklyn shop manager (also a corporate stockholder); Frank Ar- nold, Elmont shop manager; John Daley, East Northport shop manager; William (Bob) Arnold, Flushing shop man- ager; Angel Lopez, Manhattan shop manager; and Wil- liam Goldstein, Roslyn shop manager. C. The Collective-Bargaining Unit; Local 88's Card Showing The unit covered by the August 12 collective-bargaining agreement consisted of all employees of the Respondent's shops at Brooklyn, Manhattan, Elmont, Bronx, East Northport, Flushing, and Roslyn, New York, excluding of- fice clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Since this unit includes all of Respondent' s manual em- ployees (glaziers, glass installers, and mechanics) with the usual exclusions and in the absence of any dispute in this regard I concluded that this unit is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Inasmuch as the unit described in the contract instru- ment signed by Respondent on August 1 (although not signed by Local 88) also included "all . . . Employees .. . except for the following exempt categories: Supervisory help, foremen, plant guards and office help," I conclude that the latter unit which thus included all employees ex- cept supervisors,' guards and office employees was the same unit set forth above for which Respondent recog- nized Local 88 pursuant to the August 12 agreement. For purposes of analyzing the General Counsel's conten- tions in respect to what General Counsel says was ° It does not appear from the record that Respondent employed any so- called foreman other than the individuals who it admitted were supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and have been so found in Sec. 1I1,(B) of this Decision. Respondent's unlawful recognition of Local 88 (on or about July 31 or August 1 or no later than August 12), it is helpful to establish at the outset which employees were included in the foregoing unit on those dates. As of August 1, the following employees were included in that unit: at Brooklyn: Vernard Suber, Roberto Aguilar, John Bergamaschi, Jr., Thomas Childs, and Manuel Class Ponce; at Elmont: Emery Kautz; at Manhattan: William Childs; at Bronx : Peter Lefas, Buenaventura Pina and Il- defonso Lecleres (also known as Ramos); at East North- port: John Van Meel and Robert Gonnelly; at Roslyn: Vincent Ferraro, Ernest Gonnelly, James Heard, Walter Plaza and Michael Ruscillo; and at Flushing: Michael Mc- Laughlin and Robert Nigri.5 The same employees continued to be included in the unit on August 12 and at all times between August 1 and 12. This means that the appropriate unit consisted of at least 19 employees between August 1 and 12 inclusive, the only issue being whether another individual, Roy Bissoon, should also be included, even though he was not actually at work during this period. Bissoon was employed at the Brooklyn shop as an auto glass installer through the payroll period ending July 19. On or about the latter date Bissoon had to travel to one of the Caribbean islands because of a family matter. At the time he left, Bissoon informed the Brooklyn shop manager, Markowitz, that he, Bissoon, thought he would be away for 3 or 4 weeks after which he expected to return to work for Respondent. When Respondent's president, Hyman Mas- lin, was so advised by Markowitz, Maslin accepted the ar- rangement without comment. Bissoon did not, however, come back until November when he began work immedi- ately at the Brooklyn shop, after notifying Markowitz that he was available. During Bissoon's absence Respondent did not make any entry in its records that Bissoon had quit, was laid off or discharged, or that he had a leave of ab- sence. While it is true that Respondent had no policy at that time in respect to leaves of absence, its president, Hyman Maslin, in his full testimony admitted that, if a man asked for a leave of absence, the man would be replaced by a new hire or a transfer but only until the absent employee came back to work. This would suggest, and I find, that the job would be held for the employee during his absence. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that Bissoon did return, as he said he would (although later), and was promptly rehired, I conclude that Bissoon was given an excused leave of absence from July to November and had during that period a reasonable expectation of reemploy- ment in the foreseeable future.' I, accordingly, conclude that, at all times pertinent hereto, Bissoon was an employee within the meaning of the Act and was included in the seven-shop collective-bargaining unit. Consequently the complement of the appropriate unit 5 The parties agreed to exclude Robert Lachow as a temporary employee and I exclude him on this basis . German Cruz who had been employed in the Brooklyn shop prior to July 26 was no longer employed after that date. e 1 do not believe that other testimony by Maslin-that Bissoon would not have been reemployed if the Brooklyn complement were full-changes this result. For Maslin also stated that even if that had occurred, Bissoon might still have been taken back at another of Respondent's shops-all of which are in the collective-bargmmg unit. MR. GLASS, INC. 107 stood at 20 during the period August 1 through August 12 inclusive. As previously noted in July, Local 88 obtained authori- zation cards from most of the employees in the Brooklyn, Elmont, and Manhattan shops. In the absence of any con- tention that these cards were invalidly solicited, and in view of the circumstances that all cards of this group were received in evidence without objection and that each is, in haec verba, a designation of Local 88 to be the collective- bargaining representative of the employee whose signature appears on the card,? I conclude that all cards in the group are valid and may be properly counted in support of Local 88's representation showing . They are seven in number, being those of Bergamaschi , Thomas Childs, Suber, Agui- lar, Class (Ponce), William Childs, and Kautz.s Local 88's card count therefore stood at 7 undisputed cards in a unit of 20 as of August 1, which is less than a majority. Two other cards (those of Lefas and Lecleres (Ramos)) are dated in July but their validity is disputed and will be discussed subsequently in this Decision. Even including the cards of Lefas and Lecleres-giving Local 88 a tentative card count of 9 as of August 1-would still leave Local 88 short of a majority on that date. By August 12, Local 88 had obtained 19 cards in the 20 man unit, but the validity of 12 of these is disputed, as will appear. If, indeed, 9 or more of these 19 cards are invalid, Local 88 never represented an uncoerced majority of the employees in the seven-shop unit.' D. The Events in Question 1. The initial organizing campaign; the demand for recognition and the Employer's response German Cruz, a former member of Local 88, began em- ployment at Respondent's Brooklyn shop about June 1974. Upon learning that Respondent's employees were not rep- resented by any labor organization, Cruz telephoned Pat Crisci, a business representative of Local 88. Cruz signed a membership card for Local 88 on July 8.10 Thereafter, Cris- ci and John San Filippo, another representative of Local 88, began organizing Respondent's employees. On July 18, Bergamaschi,ll Thomas Childs, Suber, Aguilar, and Class-all employees of the Brooklyn shop-executed de- signation cards for Local 88 12 and separate dues-checkoff 7 Each of these cards was signed by the employee in the presence of Local 88's business representative , Pat Crisci. 81 do not count the card of Cruz who was separated from employment sometime before July 26. 9 When the facts of the organizational campaign are recited subsequently in this decision, it will be noted that all employees (with one exception not pertinent), who signed cards for Local 88 signed two cards each-one card being an authorization of Local 88 to represent the employee in collective bargaining and the other being a checkoff authorization To avoid confu- sion between these two kind of authorizations, the authorization of bargain- inp representative will be referred to as a designation ° Cruz left Respondent's employment sometime on or before July 26 11 Bergamaschi's designation is dated July 16, and his dues checkoff is dated July 18, but the discrepancy, if any, has no significance except to support the conclusion appearing hereinafter that the dates appearing on the cards are not necessarily accurate. 12 The designation is both an authorization for Local 88 to represent the card signer and the signer's application for membership in Local 88 authorizations. Kautz, who is regularly employed at the Elmont shop, but who has worked at both Brooklyn and Elmont also signed a designation and dues-checkoff au- thorization on July 18 at one of these locations. On the same day William Childs, the only rank-and-file employee at the Manhattan shop, signed designation and dues- checkoff authorization cards for Local 88.13 On July 22, Local 88 filed a petition with the Brooklyn Region in Case 29-RC-2710 for an election among the employees of Respondent's Brooklyn shop (only). This pe- tition described the unit as consisting of all installers, me- chanics, and helpers at the shop. On July 24, after Respondent received a copy of the election petition, its president, Hyman Maslin, and Vice President Morris Potashnick, contacted Respondent's then attorney, Schonbrun, and instructed Schonbrun to call Lo- cal 88. Schonbrun did as he was instructed and arranged for a meeting between Respondent and Local 88, which was held at Schonbrun's office on July 25, Present at this meeting were Schonbrun, Hyman Maslen, and Potashnick representing Respondent and Irving Grossman, Local 88's president, and Crisci, representing Local 88. Grossman mentioned the election petition and suggested that Respon- dent grant Local 88 recognition without an election, inas- much as Local 88 already had cards from all or almost all the employees of the Brooklyn shop. Schonbrun asked Grossman to show proof that these employees had desig- nated Local 88, but Grossman refused. Schonbrun asked Grossman what shops had been visited and Grossman mentioned the Brooklyn and Bronx shops. He added that he would later visit the shops at Roslyn, East Northport, Elmont, and Flushing. There followed a discussion of the question whether Lo- cal 88 should represent a unit of all seven shops. In this discussion Potashnick made the statement that if there were to be a union it could not be in one shop but would have to be in all of them. Maslen concurred in this com- ment. Grossman presented certain draft contract proposals at this meeting, the participants reviewed them line by line and Respondent's representatives suggested certain changes. No decision was reached at this meeting, howev- er, on any matter. Maslin and Potashnick told the Local 88 representatives that Respondent first desired to have a dis- cussion with all of its stockholders about the cost of a col- lective-bargaining agreement before deciding on recogniz- ing or entering into a contract with Local 88. Grossman suggested a quick resolution of the matter and stated that, if a contract were signed, he wished that it be effective as of August 1. Grossman left a copy of his draft proposals with Schonbrun who had also taken notes of the various wages and benefits discussed at the meeting.14 13 As will appear, Crisci also obtained designation cards from two of the Bronx shop employees which bear the same date However, inasmuch as the validity of these and all cards subsequently executed is disputed, the two Bronx cards will be discussed in the next subsection of this Decision 14 These findings are made primarily on the basis of the full and credible testimony of Hyman Maslin as generally corroborated and in some instanc- es extended by the testimony of Potashnick Schonbrun, who was apparent- ly recovering from an illness at the time of the hearing, did not testify. The testimony of Maslin and Potashnick is not precisely denied by Grossman. Continued 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 30, a meeting of Respondent's officials was held at the office of Schonbrun. In attendance were Hyman Maslin, Potashnick, Schonbrun, Marc Maslin, Markowitz, Dilorio, and Respondent's accountant, Mel Feld. The participants at this meeting reviewed the question of recognizing Local 88 and also considered Local 88's con- tract proposals. In respect to the bargaining unit Potash- nick advised those present that he felt that it would be difficult to operate Respondent's business if the union rep- resented only one shop. This opinion was based on the fact that Respondent occasionally transfers employees from shop to shop to accommodate shifts in its business. The participants then discussed which employees at all seven shops had already signed designations for Local 88 or which would be expected to do so. The conclusion reached was that out of 23 or 24 employees thought to be eligible for inclusion in the unit at all seven shops, Local 88 would receive a majority (at least 12 employees). The participants then agreed that Respondent would recognize Local 88 as the representative of Respondent's employees at the seven shops and negotiate a contract with it.15 Maslin and Potashnick then instructed Schonbrun to get in touch with Grossman and advise Grossman of Respondent's decision to recognize and bargain with Local 88. On July 31, Schonbrun advised Maslin that Schonbrun had spoken to Grossman that day and informed Grossman of Respondent's decision to recognize Local 88 but that he proposed contract required further revision. Schonbrun then drafted a collective-bargaining agreement recognizing Local 88. More precisely, article I thereof, specified, as pre- viously noted, that Respondent recognized Local 88 "as the sole and exclusive collective-bargaining agency of all its employees" excluding guards, foremen, supervisors and office help. The proposed agreement also contained provi- sions dealing with wages, hours, and other terms and con- ditions of employment as well as arrangements for making contributions to Local 88's welfare fund. On August 1, Potashnick, on behalf of Respondent, read, signed, and dated the draft contract at Schonbrun's office. Grossman was expected to be present at Schonbrun's office at that time to execute the agreement but Grossman did not appear. A copy of the agreement although Grossman 's version is somewhat different and was concentrated on that aspect of the discussions dealing with the Brooklyn shop Cnsci s denial that terms, conditions, "or anything else" with respect to non- Brooklyn's locations were discussed at this meeting is not credited Crisci's credibility will be discussed hereinafter. e5 These findings are primarily based on the credible testimony of Hyman Maslin in this regard . Hyman Maslen, whose testimony has previously been credited in this Decision , I found to be a particularly candid witness who testified in a straightforward manner. The testimony of Potashnick partially corroborated and extends the testimony of Hyman Maslin. To the extent that Potashnick's testimony disagrees with that of Hyman Maslen , I do not credit it. I found Potashneck defensive and argumentative during several phases of his testimony including this aspect of it, and also evasive, as the record shows, in respect to Respondent's deliberations on the unit question. Potashnick's testimony in this regard is also partially at odds with his pre- hearing affidavit. Hyman Maslen's testimony is also corroborated in part by that of his son, Marc Maslen To the extent that Diloreo's testimony is contrary, I do not credit it. I will discuss Ddorio's credibility later in this Decision None of the other participants at this meeting testified at the hearing was given to him later on August 1 or 2, according to his undisputed testimony. Also on August 1, a representative of Local 206, Glass Handlers Union, spoke to Hyman Maslin at the Elmont shop. Maslin advised the Local 206 representative that Re- spondent had a collective-bargaining agreement, stating "Where were you yesterday? Today we have an agree- ment?" On August 2, Crisci and San Filippo came to the Elmont shop and spoke to Hyman Maslin. Crisci told Maslin that he, Crisci, intended to visit Respondent's other shops and talk to the employees. Maslin consented to this proposal. Also on August 2, Hyman Maslin instructed all of Respondent's store managers to tell their employees that Respondent had recognized Local, 88 and that Local 88 representatives would be visiting the shops. Maslin further advised the managers to permit such visits. On August 7, Hyman Maslin was advised by Schonbrun that Local 88 had received the proposed contract signed by Potashnick on August 1, but that Local 88 desired to make further revisions. Schonbrun also told Maslin that he, Schonbrun, had agreed to this procedure. Between August 1 and 12 representatives of Local 88 visited various locations of Respondent's in an effort to organize those Respondent employees who had not already signed designations for Local 88. 2. Organization of the Bronx, E. Northport, Roslyn, and Flushing shops Bronx: On some date between July 18 and 25 Crisci and San Filippo spoke to Lecleres and Pina at a bowling alley across the street from Respondent's Bronx shop and gave them Local 88 literature. Pina told the Local 88 representa- tives that they were not interested in joining the Union at that time." This visit by the Local 88 representatives was observed by Marc Maslin. On July 31 or thereafter but before the Local 88 repre- sentatives visited the shop on a second occasion, as will appear, Marc Maslin had spoken to Lecleres, Pina, and Lefas (the Bronx shop employees) and told them that the Respondent was unionized, that employees of the Brook- lyn shop had joined Local 88, and that the Respondent had recognized Local 88 for all its shops. On or about August 1 or 2, Crisci and San Filippo again visited the Bronx shop and Lefas and Lecleres signed cards designating Local 88 as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative and authorizing Respondent to checkoff dues in favor of that union. They did so in the presence of Marc Maslin . Pina was not present when this incident took place but the Local 88 representatives left a designation and a checkoff authorization to be signed by him.17 16 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Pina in this regard except for the dates. The dates are established from the credible testimony of Crisco that he went to the Bronx shop after organizing the Brooklyn shop on July 18 and the credible testimony of Hyman Maslen that Grossman told him at the July 25 meeting with Respondent that Local 88 representatives had already visited the Bronx shop. 17 The findings as to the substance of this incident are based on the credi- ble testimony of Marc Maslin in this regard The date is fixed on the basis of the following facts Respondent made its decision to recognize Local 88 MR. GLASS, INC. 109 The designation and checkoff authorizations of Pina were handed to Pina by Marc Maslin when Pina returned to the shop. Maslin told Pina to sign the cards if Pina were interested. Maslin also told Pina that the other shop em- ployees (Lecleres and Lefas) had already signed their cards. Pina did not sign the cards immediately but instead took them home with him. After keeping them for about a week he signed both on August 9, kept them for a few more days, then gave them to Marc Maslin.18 Maslin returned the cards to Crisci. on the evening of July 30 and, as Maslen testified , he informed the Bronx shop employees of this decision the day before Local 88 representatives signed up Lecleres and Lefas. Pina testified that he received his cards and kept them at home for a week before signing them on August 9, which meant that he obtained his cards on or about August 2 after those cards had been left for him by the union representatives . Reconciling the testimony of Pina with that of Marc Mashn it is apparent that Lefas and Lecleres must have received and signed their cards on August I or 2. Neither Lecleres nor Lefas testified. While Marc Maslin was apparently in error when he testified that he also saw Pina sign a card, I do not think this serves as a basis to discredit Maslen For Maslen was not as certain on this point as he was with respect to seeing Lefas and Lecleres sign their cards, a lack of uncertainty shown by the different wording of his testimony in respect to seeing Pina sign I do not credit the testimony of Cnsci that the cards of Lecleres and Lefas were signed on the dates appearing thereon (July 18 in each instance) My determination to discredit him is based on several factors but primarily my conclusion that the dates appearing on many cards were not put there by the employees, hence said dates are of questionable reliability Thus, Crisci further testified that the dates appearing in the designations and checkoff authorizations of Ruscillo and Ferraro (at Roslyn) are inaccurate and he testified that he, Crisci, dated some cards (i.e , the checkoff authorization of Lefas, Robert Gonnelly , Aguilar and Kautz and the designation of Aguilar), and indeed , his initial "P" appears on all these cards but the designation of Aguilar. It also appears that he dated other cards as well . For dates in his admitted handwriting consistently show the number "4" (as in "74") made with a continuous motion resulting in what appears to be a script "P." The latter distinctive number appears also on both cards (designation and check- off) of Nigri (Flushing), the checkoff authorization of Thomas Childs and Vernard Suber (Brooklyn ), and William Childs (Manhattan), Vincent Ferra- ro (Roslyn), both cards of Heard and Plaza (Roslyn) and the designation of Ernest Gonnelly (Roslyn). Indeed, Plaza, Heard , Ernest Gonnelly, and Fer- raro credibly testified that they did not date one or both of their cards So also did McLaughlin and Nigri. Contrary to the testimony of Crisci the date on the designation of Aguilar appears in yet a different handwriting where the "4" (in "74") looks like a printed "Y" and the upper loop of the "8" (in "18") goes from left to right (unlike Crisci's which is the opposite) and Crisci's initials do not appear in this designation although they do, else- where, as noted, where he admittedly entered dates. Curiously, the "Y" shaped "4" also appears in the dates on the designation cards of Lecleres and Lefas (Bronx) and Suber (Brooklyn). Finally, the checkoff authoriza. tion of Lecleres is dated "August 6" whereas his designation is dated "July 18" Basically, I was not impressed with Crisci as a witness because his testi- mony was given with what seemed to me an air of uncertainty This uncer- tainty is demonstrated, inter aha, by his testimony , later changed and even- tually denied, that he told the employees at the Roslyn , Flushing and East Northport shops, when attempting to organize them , that he would show them "a copy of what we have for Brooklyn" (referring to the August 1 contract proposal signed by Potashnick). In sum , in view of Crisci's admissions that some dates were entered on cards by him, the obvious similarity to his handwriting of dates appearing on yet other cards, and the credible testimony of many card signers that they did not date their cards, I conclude that a great many cards were not indeed dated by the individuals who signed them , hence the dates appearing on them are not reliable . In view of the above and my impression of Crisci as a witness, I likewise do not rely on his testimony that the cards of Le- cleres and Lefas were executed on July 18, as they show (viz, his testimony that all card dates are accurate except for those of Ruscillo and Ferraro) is These findings as to Pina are based on his credible testimony as not denied by Maslin East Northport: In late July employee Van Meel asked Potashnick for a raise. Potashnick told Van Meel that he, Potashnick, could not do anything for Van Mee] at that time because, a union organizing campaign was going on. Potashnick further advised Van Meel that if the Union came in and after a contract were signed most of the em- ployees would probably get a raise. In the first week of August, Respondent's regional man- ager, DiIorio, told East Northport store manager, Daley, in the presence of the two East Northport employees, Van Meel and Robert Gonnelly, that the Union had visited the Brooklyn shop and would be coming to the East Northport shop. Shortly thereafter but still in the first week of August and before August 9, Daley received a telephone call at the shop. After hanging up he told Van Meel and Robert Gon- nelly that he had just spoken to Maslin, that they were now in the Union, that some people were coming over and that the employees had to sign cards. Van Meel objected to this and Daley called Maslin back. After completing this call Daley told Van Meel and Gonnelly that Maslin said the employees ought to sign cards and that it was for their own good. Van.Meel stated he did not wish to sign until he saw what he was signing. Daley said this was up to Van Meel. That same day Crisci and San Filippo visited the East Northport shop and, in the presence of Daley, sought to have Van Meel and Gonnelly join Local 88. These union representatives told Van Meel and Gonnelly that Local 88 had already organized Respondent's Brooklyn employees, that Local 88 already had a majority and, in answer to a question by Van Meel, the Local 88 representatives stated that Van Meel would have to join the Union or lose his job in 30 days. Van Meel and Gonnelly declined to sign on this occasion saying they first desired to see a contract or some other proof of benefits. About 2 days later Crisci telephoned Robert Gonnelly and told Gonnelly that he, his brother, and some other employees had been accepted for raises. Then Crisci asked Gonnelly if he had signed a card, but Gonnelly replied in the negative. Van Meel also spoke directly to Hyman Mas- lin on the telephone about this same time and Maslin told Van Meel that Van Meel had to sign a card for Local 88 or he would be out of a job in 30 days. On August 9, Crisci and San Filippo returned to East Northport, and, with Daley in the general area, spoke again to Van Meel and Gonnelly. The Local 88 representa- tives showed Van Meel and Gonnelly the August 1 draft proposal signed by Potashnick, which they said was a con- tract, and repeated to the employees that Local 88 had a majority signed up. Thereupon, on August 9, both Van Meel and Robert Gonnelly signed designations and dues- checkoff authorizations for Local 88.19 19 These findings are made on the basis of the credible testimony of Van Meel, as corroborated essentially and extended by that of Robert Connelly. Daley and San Filippo did not testify. I do not credit the testimony of Cnsci to the extent that it disagrees with these findings. I have already discredited Crisci heretofore in this decision, pointing out that a basis thereof was his self-contradictory testimony as to representations he made to employees at the East Northport, Roslyn, and Flushing shop when he was solicting them to join Local 88 (in respect to whether he told them that Local 88 had a contract covering the Brooklyn employees) I also discredit his testimony Continued 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Roslyn: In the first week of August, DiIorio, Respondent's regional manager, held a meeting with the employees of the Roslyn shop (Heard, Plaza, Ferraro, Rus- cillo, and Ernest Gonnelly) on two occasions and spoke to them about Local 88. Dilorio told the Roslyn employees variously, on these occasions, that a Brooklyn shop em- ployee had called in a union, that the Respondent could not be half union and half non-union, that the Roslyn shop was now a union shop and that a representative of the union would be coming to the shop with cards to be signed. Plaza asked Dilorio how the employees could be in a union if no union representative had come to the shop and the employees knew nothing about it. Dilorio replied that the union only needed a certain percentage to be in the shop2° On or about August 7, Crisci and San Filippo visited the Rosyyn shop. All five employees as well as Dilorio and Shop Manager Goldstein were present. Dilono and Gold- stein told the five employees that the Local 88 representa- tives wanted to speak to them. After introducing them- selves, Crisci and San Filippo discussed various union benefits. They also told the employees that Local 88 al- ready had signed a majority of Respondent's employees, that the job was now union and it had become a union shop. When the employees expressed surprise at this, the Local 88 representatives stated that they had gotten a ma- jority from the other shops. Heard, Plaza, Ferraro, and Er- nest Gonnelly then inquired what would happen to them if they did not join the Union. Crisci and San Filippo re- sponded that the employees had 30 days to join the Union and if they did not join they could no longer work at the shop and would lose their jobs. They specifically told Fer- raro that if he wanted to make trouble they could take care of him. When Plaza asked the cost of dues, they explained Local 88's dues and initiation fee arrangements . Crisci then distributed union cards to the employees but none were signed at the time.21 The Local 88 representatives then left. that he told Van Meel , in the presence of Gonnelly, that Van Meel would have 30 days to join the Union "if" Local 88 had a contract . For not only does the latter testimony disagree with that of Van Meel, but Cnsci s claimed statement would not have been responsive to Van Meel's question which dealt with the necessity for Van Meel to sign a card at the time the question was asked ; i.e., a time when Local 88 had not contract with Re- spondent (said contract not being executed until August 12 or 3 days after Van Meel signed his card on August 9 ). Van Meel impressed me as a sincere witness who testified in a straightforward manner . He was also a disinterest- ed witness to the extent he is no longer employed by Respondent. While Robert Gonnelly was not as self-assured as Van Mee] , he impressed me as a sincere witness, whose testimony was generally reliable. 20 These findings are based on a composite of the credible and generally corroborative testimony of Plaza, Heard , and Ferraro in this regard . Dilono acknowledged the two meetings but disagreed with the other witnesses as to what transpired . To the extent his testimony disagrees, I do not credit it. I was not favorably impressed with Dilorio as a witness . He was defensive and somewhat argumentative on cross-examination . And he hesitated be- fore answering a question put to him by the General Counsel as to whether he ever told the Roslyn employees that Respondent was now union. His testimony as to the July 30 meeting of Respondent 's principals, to the limit- ed extent that he claimed to recall that meeting , differed significantly from that of Hyman Maslin and somewhat from that of Potashnick , and Marc Maslen. The employees impressed me as sincere witnesses who testified in a straightforward manner 21 The foregoing findings as to this incident are based on a composite of the credible and corroborative testimony of the employees I do not credit Crisci's testimony insofar as it is inconsistent with these findings. I have already commented on Crisci's credibility and particularly in re- Heard and other employees continued to press Dilorio with questions about the necessity for them to join a union. Dilorio, who at first told them that no one would lose his job, as long as he, Dilorio, was boss, eventually said that the matter was out of his hands, that the Union had a majority and the employees had to sign22 On or about August 9, Heard asked Store Manager Goldstein whether the employees had to sign against their will to which Gold- stein replied that, as far as he knew, they did 23 About the same time, but before August 12, Ruscillo telephoned Hyman Maslin to inquire whether or not he, Ruscillo, had to sign a card. Maslin answered Ruscillo in the affirmative, giving as the reason the fact that Respon- dent had a "contract" with Local 88 requiring membership. Maslin warned Ruscillo on this occasion that if Ruscillo did not sign, Ruscillo would not work after a 30-day peri- od24 On August 9, Crisci and San Filippo again visited the Roslyn shop. Goldstein who was present at the time asked the Local 88 representatives to speak to the employees one at a time because the shop was busy. Crisci showed the employees 25 the draft agreement signed by Potashnick on August I and told the employees that this was the contract. They also told Ruscillo that he had to sign the cards in 30 days or he would no longer be able to work at the shop 26 On this occasion, that is on August 9, Plaza, Heard, Rus- cillo, and Ernest Gonnelly signed cards and gave them to the Local 88 representatives. One or both of the cards signed by Plaza, Heard, and Ernest Gonnelly were not dat- ed by the signer. Ruscillo dated his cards, incorrectly, Au- gust 8. When Ferraro returned to the shop, Plaza told Ferraro that Ferraro had to sign a card or he would lose his job in 30 days. Plaza also told Ferraro that the other men had already signed cards. Ferraro signed both cards and mailed them in on August 9 or 10. The date, August 8, appearing on Ferraro's cards was placed there by someone else.27 Flushing: In late July or early August Crisci and San Filippo visited the Flushing shop and told the shop em- ployees McLaughlin and Nigri that they were trying to or- ganize Respondent's employees into Local 88 and that the shop was going union28 About a week later, or sometime on or about August 7, 12, or 13, Crisci and San Filippo again visited the Flushing shop. They told Nigri that the shop was union. McLaugh- lin, who was out on the road when the Local 88 representa- tives came by, returned to find them speaking with Nigri and Shop Manager Arnold about benefits. With Arnold gard to his testimony about the need of employees to join the union in 30 dais. 2 These findings are based on the credible testimony of the employees in this regard. I do not credit the testimony of Dilorio where it is inconsistent with these findings 23 Heard credibly so testified Goldstein did not testify. 24 These findings are based on the admissions of Maslen. 25 Ferraro was absent at the time 26 These findings are based on the credible and generally corroborative testimony of the employees, in part corroborated by that of Crisci. Where Crisci's testimony is contrary I do not credit it. 27 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Ferraro in this regard . I do not credit Cnscis testimony that he saw Ferraro sign his card. 8 These findings are based on the credible and mutually corroborative testimony of McLaughlin and Nigh in this regard MR. GLASS, INC. 111 standing close by, Crisci told McLaughlin and Nigri that Local 88 had a contract and that the employees had to sign cards for Local 88 or they would be out of a job in 30 days. When Nigri speculated that this was just another way of telling him to sign or he would not have a job, the Local 88 representatives told him that was right . The Local 88 repre- sentatives then showed Nigri the August 1 draft agreement, told him it was a contract, and showed him Potashnick's signature . Nigri signed the cards for Local 88 that day and returned them to Crisci. Someone else filled in the date August 7 and other information on the card.29 McLaughlin , however, stated that he had to make a tele- phone call before signing. McLaughlin then telephoned Hyman Maslin and told Maslin that he, McLaughlin , felt that he was being rail- roaded into joining a union and he did not want it. Maslin responded that McLaughlin had to sign a card and join Local 88 or he would be out of a job in 30 days. Mc- Laughlin protested and said he did not like unions and did not think he was going to have to join . Maslin replied that he did not like unions either but this would have to be done . McLaughlin thereupon signed cards for Local 88 and gave them to Crisci. Someone else entered the date "August 7." 30 As noted, I have found that the cards of Nigri and Mc- Laughlin were signed when they were solicited by the Lo- cal 88 representatives on August 7, 12, or 13. The cards were dated August 7, and as noted, Crisci testified that all cards dates were accurate-testimony I have heretofore discredited . Nigri and McLaughlin thought the cards were signed on August 12 or 13-several days before they re- ceived a pay raise on August 16. Both testified that they did not fill in the dates on the cards. I find it unnecessary to resolve the question as to the date these cards were signed , but conclude simply that both cards were signed on the same day, which was August 7, 12, or 13. The signifi- cance of the variance, if any, will be considered in my "Concluding Findings." 3. Execution of a collective-bargaining agreement by Respondent and Local 88 On August 12, Respondent and Local 88 entered into a collective-bargaining agreement at Schonbrun's office. This agreement was signed by Potashnick on behalf of Re- spondent, and Grossman on behalf of Local 88. By its terms the agreement deals with wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and is effective from August 1, 1974, to July 31 , 1977, with an automatic renewal provision .31 The agreement provides for Respondent's rec- 29 These findings are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin and Nigri in this regard and primarily that of McLaughlin. I do not credit Crisci's testimony to the extent it is contrary. Arnold did not testify. Mc- Laughlin impressed me as an intelligent witness and he testified with convic- tion. While he briefly became testy at one point on cross-examination I do not conclude that this detracted from his overall credibility . Nigri was a sincere witness whose recollection of events was not quite as certain as McLaughlin's. 30 The findings in respect to McLaughlin are based on his credible testi- mony in this regard . The telephone call was confirmed by Hyman Maslin. 31 Although the Brooklyn shop was organized prior to the other shops, it was stipulated , and I find, that no contract benefits went into effect for the ognition of Local 88 as the exclusive collective -bargaining agent for all of Respondent 's employees in all its present and future locations excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors. This agreement also contains a union -security clause which establishes , as a condition of employment, mainte- nance of membership in Local 88 for all current employee- members and the requirement that all nonmember employ- ees become members of Local 88 on the 30th day after the execution of the agreement or the 30th day after their em- ployment if hired subsequent to the execution of the agree- ment. The agreement provides for monthly deductions from employee wages by Respondent of Local 88 dues, fees, and assessments and remittance of these moneys to Local 88. The agreement also contains a provision requiring Respon- dent to pay $30 each month per employee to Local 88's welfare fund. This agreement including its union -security and checkoff provisions has remained in full force and effect since at least August 12, 1974. 4. The Teamsters organizational campaign ; Respondent's and Local 88's reaction thereto Within a short time after August 12, Local 810 of the Teamsters began visiting Respondent's shops in an effort to organize its employees. Hyman Maslin learned of Local 810's visits from Dilorio and Markowitz and Maslin in- structed his managers that the employees could only talk to the Local 810 representatives after hours or off the prem- ises.32 Similarly, Potashnick met Local 810 representatives Gould and Rosa at the Flushing shop in mid-August and advised them that they could talk to employees after work but not during working hours. He also told them that Re- spondent already had a contract with Local 88.33 More specifically , on or about August 14, Local 810 rep- resentatives Gould and Rosa spoke to Van Meel at lunch- time outside of the East Northport shop and gave them some union literature. This was observed by Daley, the shop manager. After the Local 810 agents left and after lunch Daley asked Van Meel what they wanted and what was going on. Van Meel replied that his was none of Daley's business. The next day, on or about August 15, Van Meel tele- phoned Respondent's Brooklyn shop and spoke to employ- ee Thomas Childs. The purpose of this call was to learn about the organization of the Brooklyn shop by Local 88. Van Meel also called the Flushing shop where Potashnick answered the phone . Van Meel told Potashnick that he would like to speak with employee McLaughlin . Potash- nick said to Van Meel, "You have been a busy fellow, haven't you?" When Van Meel told Potashnick that he did not know what Potashnick was talking about, Potashnick accused Van Meel of "calling people up, like Tommy Childs." After Van Meel admitted this, Potashnick asked what was going on . Van Meel stated that nothing was going on but there were a few things which he, Van Meel, Brooklyn shop prior to their going into effect at the other shops. 32 Maslin so admitted. 33 Potashnick so admitted. 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wanted to get straight.34 On or about the late afternoon of August 14, Local 810 representative Gould came to the Flushing shop and spoke with employees Nigri and McLaughlin outside the shop. Gould discussed with the employees their right to "pick the union they wanted" and gave them Local 810 literature cards. McLaughlin requested additional literature so that he could pass it out to other employees. On August 15, McLaughlin signed a card designating Local 810 as his collective-bargaining representative.35 On the latter date McLaughlin visited Respondent's Bronx shop in the morning and, during a break, gave Local 810 cards and literature to employee Lefas. McLaughlin told Lefas that the employees should have a fair chance to decide which labor organization they wanted to represent them. McLaughlin said that, if Lefas agreed, he should sign a card for Local 810. Employee Pina also participated in this conversation. Shop Manager Marc Maslin, who was standing close by, asked McLaughlin what sort of material he was passing out and McLaughlin told Maslin that it was Local 810 li tera ture.36 McLaughlin then left the Bronx shop and returned to the Flushing shop. Local 88 Representative Crisci learned of McLaughlin's activities and reported to Local 88 President Grossman that Local 810 was active.37 That same morning Grossman and Crisci came to the Flushing shop and confronted McLaughlin, while Store Manager Arnold was watching some 10 feet away. Gross- man asked why he was trying to cause "trouble." Mc- Laughlin denied that he was starting any trouble but only sought to do what was right for him. Grossman then asked McLaughlin specifically why he was passing out literature for Local 810 to which McLaughlin repeated that he was only doing what he thought was right and that he, Mc- Laughlin, thought he had the right to choose which union he wanted. Grossman threatened McLaughlin with dis- charge if McLaughlin passed out any more literature for Local 810. Grossman also directed Crisci not to give Mc- Laughlin his Local 88 union book and card. Grossman then went to the office at the shop but re- turned and spoke again to McLaughlin about 20 minutes later. He told McLaughlin that he, Grossman, had learned that McLaughlin had two children. Grossman said that to show McLaughlin that he, Grossman, was "a nice guy" he would give McLaughlin a Blue Cross policy. Grossman then did so and also gave McLaughlin a Local 88 union book and card.38 By about the second week of August, Arnold, the Flush- ing shop manager, reported to Hyman Maslin that Mc- 34 These findings in respect to Van Meel's activities are based on his credible testimony in this regard. Potashnick did not deny the incident in. volving him. Daley did not testify. 35 The findings as to these activities are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard, as corroborated in part by the credible testimony of Nigri. 36 These findings are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard. 37 Crisci credibly so testified. 18 These findings are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard . His testimony was not denied by Grossman. Laughlin was passing out literature for Local 810.39 On or about August 19, Crisci spoke to Hyman Maslin and sug- gested to Maslin that McLaughlin be transferred from the Flushing shop (where McLaughlin had been working) to the Elmont shop for a little while because of McLaughlin's activities in support of Local 810. Maslin agreed to do this and, on or about the same day, Maslin told Arnold to send McLaughlin to Elmont on the following day.40 On or about the afternoon of August 19 Arnold told McLaughlin that McLaughlin was to work at the Elmont store on the following day and that this transfer was being made at the instruction of Hyman Maslin. The Elmont shop would involve a much longer trip from McLaughlin's home to work than would the trip to work at Flushing-a fact known to Respondent. Also on or about August 19, near 5 p.m., Potashnick spoke to McLaughlin at the Flushing shop and asked Mc- Laughlin if Arnold had told McLaughlin where to go the following day. McLaughlin told Potashnick that Arnold had directed McLaughlin to go to Elmont.41 On the next day, on or about August 20, McLaughlin went to work at Elmont. That afternoon Crisci and San Filippo visited the Elmont shop. Crisci asked McLaughlin, "See what happens when you cause trouble?" Crisci added, however, that he would see what he could do about Mc- Laughlin's situation. Crisci then went to speak with Hyman Maslin in the office. Shortly thereafter Crisci came out of the office and asked McLaughlin where McLaughlin want- ed to work. McLaughlin said he wanted to work in Flush- ing. Crisci left again but shortly returned and told Mc- Laughlin that McLaughlin could go back to the Flushing shop the next morning. Not long after this Hyman Maslin came out of the office and inquired of McLaughlin wheth- er Crisci had told McLaughlin where to go to work in the morning. When McLaughlin replied in the affirmative, Maslin confirmed McLaughlin's transfer back to Flushing and told McLaughlin that the latter had Crisci to thank for this. Maslin advised McLaughlin that McLaughlin should just get back to work, and let the unions decide the matter for themselves. He warned McLaughlin to keep his nose out of trouble and not get involved.42 Sometime about the third week of August Crisci came to the Flushing shop and showed McLaughlin the August 12 contract between Respondent and Local 88. Crisci advised McLaughlin to let the Unions fight their own fight and 39 Maslin so admitted. 40 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Hyman Maslin in this regard . I do not credit Crisci's denial that he made this request of Maslin. 41 These findings are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard. and are not denied by Potashnick. Based on the sequence of events and Potashnick 's admission that he was aware at this time of Local 810's organizational campaign, I conclude that , when Potashnick spoke to McLaughlin about the latter 's impending transfer to Elmont . Potashnick was already aware of McLaughlin's support of Local 810. In making this finding. I also rely on Potashnick's acknowledgement at the hearing of a statement in his pretrial affidavit that he was aware that an employee was active on behalf of Local 810 during working hours at the Flushing shop and that he. Potashnick, received a call from someone he knew to be with Local 810 asking for McLaughlin. Potashnick said he told the caller to speak to McLaughlin after hours. 41 The findings as to the events of August 20 are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard as corroborated in part by Crisci. MR. GLASS, INC. 113 suggested to McLaughlin that the latter not get involved 43 or put himself in trouble.44 At some time in late August, Potashnick confronted Mc- Laughlin and demanded that the latter make a loan repay- ment of $50 at that time. McLaughlin stated that he did not have the money to which Potashnick retorted " See, if you cause trouble for me, I can cause trouble for you." 45 On or about August 22, employee Van Meel telephoned the Brooklyn shop. Shop Manager Markowitz answered the telephone and Van Mee] asked to speak to employee Thomas Childs. After Childs got on the phone, Van Meel told Childs that there was going to be a meeting of Local 810, that most of the employees would be there and Childs should also come. Childs responded that he would think about it. On or about the same day, Regional Manager Dilorio telephoned Thomas Childs and asked Childs if Childs had received a telephone call from Van Meel. When Childs admitted this, Dilorio said he wanted to know about the Local 810 meeting. Childs also admitted that one was to be held. Dilorio told Childs that Childs could do what he wanted to do but he further asked Childs, "What about Pat and Local 88?" Childs responded that he was satisfied with them. Childs did not attend the meeting.46 On the evening of August 22, Local 810 held a meeting attended by some of Respondent's employees at Local 810's headquarters on East 15th Street in New York City. The following morning Dilorio spoke to Van Meel at the East Northport shop in the presence of Shop Manager, Daley. Dilorio asked Van Meel who had attended the Lo- cal 810 meeting and what was said. When Van Meel did not respond, Dilorio told Van Meel not to "do those guys' dirty work for them." Van Meel rejoined that he didn't know what Dilorio was talking about. Dilorio then told Van Meel that he, Dilorio, knew who had attended the meeting and Dilorio warned Van Meel not to get in- volved.47 Also on or about August 23, Dilorio spoke with employ- ee Ferraro at the Roslyn shop and stated that Local 810 had a meeting but observed that one showed up 48 On or about the same date Dilorio spoke with Heard and the other employees at Roslyn, stating that he had heard that Local 810 had a meeting and inquiring whether the Roslyn employees had attended. Heard said they didn't know anything about it. Dilorio pressed to see if they did know anything about it. Heard repeated his answer that they did not.49 47 On the evening of August 20 , McLaughlin met with Local 810 Repre- sentatives Gould and Rosa after seeing them during the day at the Elmont shop. He prepared a statement of these events for them that same evening and signed it the next day . The dates of the sequence of events involving McLaughlin from August 19 are fixed on the basis of his recollection of the timing of the meeting with Local 810 representatives and giving them a statement. 44 These findings are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard. 45 These findings are based on the credible testimony of McLaughlin in this regard and are not denied by Potashnick. 46 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Childs in this regard , and this testimony was not denied by Dilorio. r These findings are based on the credible testimony of Van Meet in this regard, which was not denied by Dilorio. 8 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Ferraro in this regard, which was not denied by Dilorio. Several days after August 23, Hyman Maslin telephoned employee Van Meel at the East Northport shop. Maslin told Van Meel he wanted to know what was going on and he asked Van Meel if the latter had been to a meeting, which Van Meel admitted. Maslin continued that there were rumors that Van Meel was trying to organize another meeting, which Van Meel denied. Maslin then warned Van Meel that if Van Meel did not like to work for Respondent, Van Meel could always leave. Van Meel responded that he did not know what Maslin was talking about. Maslin also asked Van Meel why Van Meel had called Tommy (Childs) and Michael (McLaughlin). Van Meel replied that he was just trying to find out some things for himself. Later on the same day as this telephone call from Maslin to Van Meel, Local 88 Representatives Crisci and San Fi- lippo visited the East Northport shop and asked Van Meel what he was doing. He stated he wasn't doing anything. They then asked Van Meel why Van Meel was calling peo- ple up and trying to arrange a meeting. Van Meel denied that he was trying to arrange a meeting and stated that he was calling people up to get a few stories straight. They also told him they would take care of getting him a $5 raise.50 Also in August about once per week Dilorio told Van Meel at the East Northport shop that Van Meel should not get involved "in this kind of business." 51 Concluding Findings The Alleged Unlawful Recognition of Local 88 on August 1 or Thereafter As noted the General Counsel's 8(a)(2) case proceeds, essentially, on two theories, first that Respondent recog- nized Local 88 in a seven shop (20 employee) unit on Au- gust I at a time when Local 88 clearly had less than a majority card showing (9 out of 20, even counting Lefas and Lecleres who signed up on August 1 or 2) or, in any event, that Respondent's execution of the August 12 collec- tive-bargaining agreement recognizing Local 88 occurred at a time when Local 88's then card majority was not free and uncoerced. I find for the General Counsel on both theories. There can be no question that Respondent recognized Local 88 in a unit of all of Respondent's employees on August 1. The recognition provision, of the instrument signed by Potashnick on that date clearly so stated and further provided for the exclusion of at least one "exempt employee [viz, supervisor] in each branch shop." This agreement also provided a 30-day union-security provision. - Respondent and Local 88 assert , however, that recogni- tion has no meaning if not accepted and they point out that Local 88 did not sign the August 1 agreement but instead proceeded to organize Respondent's employees at various shops including Flushing, East Northport, and Roslyn. 49These findings are based on the credible testimony of Heard in this regard which was not denied by Dilorio. These findings are based on the credible testimony of Van Meel in this regard, which was not denied by Hyman Maslin or Crisci. 1 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Van Mee], which was not denied by Dilorio. 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD They further contend that Local 88 did not sign any agree- ment until August 12 which was after employees at these other shops were organized and Local 88 had, in all, 19 cards. Contrary to Respondent and Local 88, I-conclude that Local 88 did accept recognition before organizing a majori- ty of Respondent's employees even though Local 88 did not sign the August 1 agreement. Thus, Crisci and San Filippo told the employees of the East Northport shop (Van Meel and Donnelly) in the first week of August and before August 9 (when the employees signed their cards for Local 88) that the shop was union and they had to join Local 88 within 30 days or lose their jobs. On or about August 7 (but before the Roslyn employ- ees signed cards for Local 88 on August 9) Crisci and San Filippo told the Roslyn shop employees (Ernest Gonnelly, Plaza, Heard, Ruscillo, and Ferraro) the same thing. On or about August 7, 12, or 13 (before the Flushing shop employees signed cards) on one of these dates, Crisci and San Filippo repeated these same statements to the Flushing shop employees (McLaughlin and Nigri). While the precise date in August when each of these statements occurred is not clear, one such statement (whichever one) at one of these shops had to have been made by Crisci and San Filippo before the same statement was repeated at the other two shops (because the state- ments were made to the employees in separate shops and Crisci and San Filippo obviously could not be in more than one place at one time). Whenever the first such statement was made (i.e., on or before August 9), the only basis for it must have been Local 88's acceptance of the August 1 grant of recognition, because at the time of the first such statement Local 88 did not represent a majority of Respondent's employees. That is, since the employees of these three shops total nine, since no card was shown for Bissoon (who was out of the country at the time) and Pina (from the Bronx) did not sign his card until August 9 and did not turn it in until later, this means that at the time the first such statement was made I 1 out 20 employees had not signed up for Local 88. Other conduct by Local 88 also suggests its acceptance of recognition after August 1 and before August 12 even though Local 88 did not sign the August I instrument. Thus, Local 88 representative Crisci told Robert Gonnelly, after August 1 and before August 9, that Robert (East Northport) and his brother Ernest (Roslyn) and other em- ployees had been accepted for raises.52 Also on August 7, Schonbrun advised Hyman Maslin that Local 88 had re- ceived the August 1 instrument and desired to make revi- sions in it. Such revisions appeared in the August 12 agree- ment.53 In view of all the circumstances, particularly the insistence of Local 88 representatives between August I and 12 that employees had 30 days from that period within which to join Local 88 or lose their jobs, it is also signifi- cant that the August 12 agreement, which contained a 30- 52 The agreement, as ultimately executed on August 12, contains a specif- ic provision dealing with wage increases. So also does the August I instru- ment. 53 These revisions did not change the scope of the unit set forth in the August 1 instrument, merely its wording. day union-security clause, was made effective August I and not August 12.14 I, accordingly, conclude that at some date between Au- gust 1 and 12 but before Local 88 had a majority card showing, Local 88 accepted recognition in all of Respondent's shops as offered to it in the August I instru- ment signed by Potashnick. Inasmuch as Respondent granted exclusive recognition and a 30-day union-security shop to Local 88, which Local 88 accepted at a time when it was a minority union, I con- clude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) 55 of the Act.56 But even if the foregoing conclusion be in error, I none- theless find that when Respondent executed the agreement of August 12, Local 88 still did not represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees in the seven-shop unit. In reaching the latter conclusion I find invalid all the cards-executed in the Bronx shop (Lefas, Lecleres and Pina), the East Northport shop (Van Meel and Robert Gonnelly) the Roslyn shop (Ferraro, Ernest Gonnelly, Heard, Plaza, and Ruscillo) and the Flushing shop (Mc- Laughlin and Nigri)-12 cards in all. This means that Re- spondent at no time had a valid card showing of more than seven employees in a 20-man unit. I discount those 12 cards for the reasons which follow. An employee's designation of a collective-bargaining representative must be made free of employer interference and, as the Supreme Court observed: Normaly [sic], the conclusion that [employees'] choice was restrained by the employer's interference must of necessity be based on the existence of conditions or circumstances which the employer created or for which he was fairly responsible and as a result of which it may reasonably inferred that the employees did not have that complete and unfettered freedom of choice which the Act contemplates. 57 The Respondent's interference here by its active and passive assistance to. Local 88 invalidates these 12 cards. These acts of assistance which invalidated those cards and which in each instance I also find to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, are set forth below. By almost every such act Respondent explicitly assisted and support- ed Local 88 hence said actions require little, if any, inter- pretation here. . Thus, at the Bronx shop, Shop Manager Marc Maslin told employees Lefas, Lecleres, and Pina, on or about July 31 (but before any of them signed cards on August 1 or 2, and also before Local 88 had a majority card showing) that the shop was unionized and that Respondent had recog- nized Local 88 for all its shops.58 At some point after Mas- 54 By the same token it is significant that the August I instrument had a 30-day union-security clause. 55 International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. N. L. R. B. [Bernhard- Altmann Texas Corp.], 366 U.S. 731, 737-739 (1961). 56 To the extent that this finding is contrary to the testimony of Crisci and Grossman, I discredit them. I have already commented on the credibility of Crisci. I was likewise unimpressed with Grossman as a witness . His testimo- ny was characterized by self-serving declarations, argumentativeness, eva- sion, and histrionics, much of which is shown by the record. 57 N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). 58 Master-Lake Success, Inc., 124 NLRB 580, 593 (1959), enfd. as modi- fied, 287 F.2d 35 (C.A. 2, 1961). MR. GLASS, INC. 115 lin made this statement Marc Maslin actually handed Pma his card.59 In apparently offering Pina a choice not to sign, Maslin did not withdraw his prior statement that the unionization of the shop was a fait accompli. At the East Northport shop, Shop Manager Daley told employees Van Meel and Robert Gonnelly (in the first week of August but before August 9 when they signed cards) that Hyman Maslin said that they had to sign union cards and it was for their own good .60 Daley's further state- ment to Van Meel that this was up to Van Meel was effec- tively countermanded by Hyman Maslin himself who told Van Meel, again before August 9, that Van Meel had to sign a card or be out of a job in 30 days61 At the Roslyn shop, Regional Manager Dilorio, in the first week of August before the employees signed on Au- gust 9, told them that the Roslyn shop was then a union shop and that a representative of the Union was coming with cards to be signed.62 After first telling the employees that no one would lose his job for not signing, Dilorio changed his mind before the employees signed their cards and stated that the employees had to sign. On or about August 9, this statement was essentially repeated by Shop Manager Goldstein to employee Heard. Also Hyman Mas- lin told Ruscillo in early August that Ruscillo had to sign a card or Ruscillo could not work after a 30-day period.63 On or about August 7, 12, or 13 but before the Flushing employees, Nigri and McLaughlin, signed cards on one of those dates, Arnold stood by while Crisci told McLaughlin in the presence of Nigri that the employees had to sign cards or be out of a job in 30 days.64 Before McLaughlin signed his card Hyman Maslin repeated this threat over the telephone to McLaughlin.65 Against the background of Respondent's explicit assis- tance and support of Local 88 I also conclude that by pro- viding Local 88 access to its shops to organize its employ- ees, Respondent has further violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act66 39 Id 60 Id 61 See Nitro Super Market, Inc, 161 NLRB 505, 515 (1966) 62 Master-Lake Success, supra. 63 See Park Inn Hotel, Inc., 139 NLRB 669, 680-682, 684 (1962). 64 By permitting this statement to go unchallenged, Arnold-whosejob as shop manager necessarily placed him in control of employees ' continued employment-must be deemed to have accepted the statement as Respondent's position in the matter . As the statement was thus in effect adopted by Arnold , this meant the employees were threatened with dis- charge if they did not sign . Nitro Super Market, Inc, supra. Even assuming that Nigri signed merely on the basis of the Union 's threat that he would otherwise lose his job, this would still be sufficient to invali- date Nigri's card I Posner Inc., 133 NLRB 1573, 1575, 1589 (1961) Further, if McLaughlin or Nigri did, in fact , execute their cards on August 12 or 13, after the August 12 contract was executed, their cards could not, in any event, be counted towards Local 88's majority when the contract was execu- ted. 65 Nitro Super Market Inc., supra 66 See Nitro Super Market, Inc., supra. Local 88 at the hearing and Re- spondent in its brief contend, in essence , that all the Respondent did in the present case was render Local 88 lawful cooperation as opposed to unlawful assistance. See Longchamps, Inc, d/b/a Steak and Brew of Huntington 205 NLRB 1025, and cases cited in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision therein . The instant Longchamps case and the others, however, involved sterile situations where, unlike here, the employers involved, for all practical purposes, merely made their premises available to a union for organizing purposes and management did not accompany the organizers nor urge em- Inasmuch as Respondent executed a contract with Local 88-which contract contains union-security provisions-at a time when Local 88 did not represent an uncoerced ma- jority of Respondent's employees in the unit covered by the agreement, I conclude that by the execution of said agree- ment and Respondent's admitted subsequent enforcement of these union-security provisions vis-a-vis deductions of moneys from the wages of its employees as union dues and other obligations, Respondent has violated, and is violating Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.67 The Conduct of Respondent During the Course of Local 810's Organizing Campaign A. The Transfer of McLaughlin Hyman Maslin admitted that when he directed the transfer of McLaughlin from Flushing to Elmont-where McLaughlin worked on or about August 20-Maslin did so at the request of Crisci because of McLaughlin 's activi- ties on behalf of Local 810 . This transfer worked a hard- ship on McLaughlin because Elmont involved a signifi- cantly longer trip from McLaughlin's home . I, accordingly, conclude that Respondent thereby discriminated against McLaughlin in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. B. The Interrogations Against the background of Respondent's extensive, forceful, and unlawful assistance to Local 88, I conclude that it coercively interrogated its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following acts or conduct of its supervisors and agents: 1. Daley's questioning of Van Meel, on or about August 14, in respect to Van Meel's meeting with, and receipt of union literature from, Local 810 representatives on that date. 2. Potashnick's questioning of Van Meel, on or about August 15, in respect to Van Meel's activities, after Van Meel had been observed by Daley in the foregoing inci- dent. 3. Dilorio's questioning of Thomas Childs, on or about August 22, wherein Dilorio asked Childs about a phone call from Van Meel and a then pending Local 810 meet- ing.68 4. Dilorio's questioning of Van Meel, on or about Au- gust 23, in an effort to learn who had attended the Local 810 meeting the previous evening. 5. Dilorio's questioning of Heard and other employees of the Roslyn shop, or on about August 23, in respect to the identity of attendees at the Local 810 meeting the pre- vious evening. 6. Hyman Maslin's questioning of Van Meel a few days after August 23, about Van Meel's attendance at a meeting and the reasons why Van Meel was telephoning employees plo4ees to support the Union. 6 Longchamps, Inc, 200 NLRB 783, 785-786 (1972) 68 Although Dilorio told Childs that Childs could do what he wanted in respect to the 810 meeting, Dilorio reaffirmed Respondent's position in the matter by asking Childs "What about Pat [Crisci] and Local 889" 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thomas Childs and McLaughlin. C. The Threats I further conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following threats of its supervisors and agents: 1. Hyman Maslin's warning to McLaughlin on or about August 20 (and after Maslin agreed to retransfer Mc- Laughlin back to Flushing at Crisci's request) that Mc- Laughlin should let the Unions decide the matter for them- selves and that McLaughlin should keep his nose out of trouble and not get involved. 2. Potashnick's statement to McLaughlin in late August that if McLaughlin could cause trouble for Potashnick, Po- tashnick could cause trouble for McLaughlin. As I have held, Potashnick was aware of McLaughlin's activities on behalf of Local 810 at least as early as McLaughlin's trans- fer to Elmont in August 21. I am unpersuaded by Potashnick's explanation that the trouble he spoke of in- volved McLaughlin's absences and possible desire to leave Respondent before repaying a loan. As McLaughlin credi- bly testified, these absences occurred in July and Mc- Laughlin had at that time been discharged (for 1 day), but has worked continuously thereafter and was still employed at the time of the hearing. 3. Dilorio's warning to Van Meel on August 23 (after discussing with Van Meel the Local 810 meeting the night before) that Van Meel should not get involved. 4. Hyman Maslin's statement to Van Meel a few days after August 23 (after discussing with Van Meel the latter's Local 810 activities) that if Van Meel did not like to work for Respondent, Van Meel could always leave. 5. Dilorio's several warnings to Van Meel in August not to get involved "in this kind of business." 69 D. 8(a)(1) Violations Against the background of events, I conclude that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the follow- ing actions of its supervisors and agents wherein they creat- ed the impression of surveillance of employees' activities in respect to Local 810: 1. Potashnick's statement to Van Meel on August 15 (af- ter Van Meel had been observed receiving Local 810 litera- ture and began making telephone calls in respect to the organization of Respondent's employees) that Van Meel had been a busy fellow and was calling people up. 2. Potashnick's statement to McLaughlin, described, su- pra, on or about August 20, in respect to McLaughlin's "causing trouble." 3. Dilorio's statement to Van Meel on or about August 23, that he, Dilorio, knew who had attended the Local 810 69 In concluding that the foregoing actions of Respondent were unlawful warnings against employees' engagement in union activities, I have consid- ered and indeed find that, inasmuch as such warnings arose in the context of the employer-employee relationship, each such admonition carried with it an implicit threat of discipline should the employee ignore the warning. The vice in #4 is the implication that if Van Meel was not satisfied to work without assisting Local 810, Van Meel had better leave Respondent's em- ployment. meeting the night before. 4. Dilorio's statement to employee Ferraro, on or about August 23, that Local 810 had a meeting and no one showed up. 5. Dilorio's statement to Heard and other Roslyn em- ployees on or about August 23 that he, Dilorio, heard that Local 810 had a meeting. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO and Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By recognizing and bargaining with Local 88 on and after August 1, 1974, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 4. By executing a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 88, on August 12, 1974, by continuing since that time to recognize that labor organization and to give effect to the instant collective-bargaining agreement which con- tains, inter alia, provisions for union-security and dues checkoff, Respondent has assisted and supported a labor organization and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I)(2) and (3) of the Act. 5. By assisting Local 88 to organize its employees and insisting that its employees join Local 88 , all in the manner set forth in the body of this Decision, Respondent has vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 6. By discriminatorily transfering Michael McLaughlin to its Elmont shop on or about August 20, 1974, Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 7. By coercively interrogating its employees, by threat- ening them in respect to their activities on behalf of Local 810, and by creating the impression of surveillance of such activities, all in the manner set forth in the body of this Decision, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY The recommended Order herein will contain the conven- k MR. GLASS, INC. 117 tional remedial provisions for conduct found to have vio- lated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. I shall recom- mend that Respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act including the posting of an appropriate notice to its employees wherein Respondent will assure them of its cessation of such prac- tices and its intention to take the recommended affirmative action. More specifically, in respect to Respondent's unlawful recognition of Local 88-since I have found that Respon- dent recognized that labor organization in an overall unit at a time when Local 88 did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in that unit , that Respondent thereafter entered into a collective-bargaining contract with that Union and that Respondent has continued to recognize it and continued in effect and enforced the union-security provisions of that contract by requiring em- ployees to pay dues and other fees to Local 88 , all in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act-I shall rec- ommend that Respondent be required to withdraw and withhold recognition from Local 88 as the collective bar- gaining representative of its employees and to cease giving effect to that contract. I shall further recommend that Re- spondent be required to reimburse all its employees for moneys paid by or withheld from them on or after August 1, 1974, for initiation fees , dues or other obligations of membership in Local 88 .70 In accordance with the Board's decision in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962) interest should be included in such reimbursements and said interest should be computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America, 138 NLRB 1142 (1962). It will also be recommended in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices in which Respondent has engaged (see N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941) ), that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 71 Respondent, Mr. Glass, Inc., Elmont, New York, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership and activities on behalf of Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization by discriminatorily transferring employees or discriminating in any other manner in regard to any term or condition of employment of any of 70 Longchamps, Inc., 200 NLRB 783 (1972). 71 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. Respondent's employees in order to discourage union membership or activities. (b) Giving effect to its contract, signed August 12, 1974, and effective August 1, 1974, or any modifications, exten- sions, or renewals thereof or any other contract, agreement, or understanding entered into with Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any successor thereto relating to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or any other terms or conditions of employ- ment, unless and until said labor organization shall be cer- tified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees, provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall be con- strued to require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wages, hours, of any other substantive factors of its rela- tions with its employees which Respondent has established in the performance of said contract or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have there- under. (c) Recognizing said Local 88 or any successor thereto as the representative of any of its employees for the pur- poses of collective bargaining unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the National La- bor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of such employees. (d) At any time when said Local 88 has not obtained a certification from the National Labor Relations Board and further obtained a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent containing a lawful union-security clause, in- forming its employees that Respondent is a union shop; telling them that they must join Local 88 or lose their jobs; advising them that joining that Union would be for their own good or otherwise assisting that Union to solicit em- ployees to designate that Union as their collective-bargain- ing representative. (e) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their own or their fellow employees' union membership, activities, or sympathies; warning them or advising them that they may not engage in such activities; creating the impression that it has ways and means of identifying em- ployees who participate in union activities or in any other manner interfering with, restaining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. (f) Continuing to give effect to checkoff authorizations executed by its employees in favor of Local 88 and contin- uing to deduct from the wages of its employees union dues and initiation fees pursuant to said checkoff authoriza- tions. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Reimburse all of its employees, present and former, for moneys paid by or withheld from them on or after August 1, 1974, for initiation fees, dues, or other obliga- tions of membership in Amalgamated Workes Union Lo- cal 88, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth in that section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Withdraw or withhold recognition from said Local 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 88 or any successor labor organization as the representa- tive of Respondent's employees for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of Respondent's em- ployees. (c) Post at all its shops 72 copies of the attached notice, marked "Appendix." 73 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 72 See J. M Baiter Co, Inc, 212 NLRB I (JD) (1974) 73 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we, Mr. Glass, Inc., violated the National Labor Rela- tions Act and we have been ordered to post this notice. The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as employ- ees, certain rights including the right to self-organization, to form, join, or help unions, to bargain through a repre- sentative of your own choosing or to act together for col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities. Accordingly, we give you these assurances: WE WILL NOT interrogate you concerning your union membership, activities, or sympathies or those of your fellow employees. WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisal for joining or supporting Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT try to make you, our employees, be- lieve that we have ways of finding out whether any of you participated in union activities. WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with your rights outlined above. WE WILL NOT transfer you to other locations or take any other reprisal against you because you join, sup- port or engage in organizational activities on behalf of Local 810, named above, or any other union. WE WILL cease giving effect to our contract with Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88, Retail, Wholesale and Department Union, AFL-CIO. WE WILL cease recognizing said LOCAL 88 as your representative for collective bargaining. WE WILL reimburse all our present and former em- ployees for all initiation fees, dues or other obligations of membership paid by them on or after August 1, 1974, to said Local 88 together with interest at 6 per- cent per annum. MR. GLASS, INC.