Independent Assn. of Steel Fabricators

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc.; Achilles Construction Co., Inc.; Greenpoint Orna- mental and Structural Iron Works, Inc.; Heuser Iron Works, Inc.; Ikenson Iron Works, Inc.; Kuno Steel Products Corp.; Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc.; Master Iron Craft Corp.; Melto Metal Products Co., Inc.; Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc.; The Peele Company; Roman Iron Works, Inc.; Spigner and Sons Structural Steel Co., Inc.; S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc. and Paxton Metalcraft Corp., Division of Apex Industries, Inc.; Koenig Iron Works, Inc.; Trojan Steel Corp.; G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc.; Roma Iron Works, Inc. and Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc. and Roma Iron Works, Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, and Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehouse- men, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Party to the Contract Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Asso- ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFLCIO and Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel- pers of America. Cases 29-CA-4853, 29-CA- 4922, 29-CA-4772, 29-CA-4921, and 29-CB- 2461 August 11, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On March 14, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in these consolidated proceedings. Thereafter, Respon- dents filed exceptions with supporting briefs and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 231 NLRB No. 31 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondents Independent Associ- ation of Steel Fabricators, Inc., New York, New York, and its Employer-Members (listed in the caption hereof), their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. ] Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. The Administrative Law Judge, in crediting Local 455 President Colavito over Association President Spigner with regard to a private conversation in August 1975, noted that a statement made by Spigner concerning "The Teamsters" was "probably referring to Local 810," whereas the record reflects that, at least in this context, Spigne. was referring to Teamsters Local 819. We nevertheless find that the Administrative Law Judge's crediting of Colavito is supported by other substantial evidence in the record. 2 In adopting the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, we do not rely on his statement in sec. Ill, J, par. 8. that the withdrawal of authorization to bargain by the 17 Employers constituted a violation of Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act. Although the Administrative Law Judge correctly noted that the withdrawal was untimely, this would not, in and of itself, be a violation of Sec. 8(a)(). Rather, the untimely withdrawal followed by the Union's demand that bargaining continue in the multiemployer unit and the Employers' subsequent refusal combined to form the basis for an 8(aX5) refusal to bargain. Furthermore, we do not rely on the intimation of the Administrative Law Judge in sec. Ill, J, par. 5, that the unfair labor practices of the Association and its Employer-Members contributed to a finding of an untimely or ineffective withdrawal from the multiemployer unit, inasmuch as we would find the withdrawal to be untimely and ineffective even absent any unfair labor practices. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on various days between June 7 and July 11, 1975, upon a consolidated amended complaint based upon four separate charges and amendments thereto filed by Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, here called Local 455, and upon a complaint against Local 455, based upon a charge filed by Local 810, International Brotherhood of 264 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Local 810.1 The consolidated amended complaint in the four cases against the named Employers and the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., herein called the Association, alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(aX ) of the Act; unlawful assistance to Local 810 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act; discriminatory discharge and refusal to reinstate striking employee members of Local 455 upon their unconditional offer to return to work, in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act; and refusing to bargain with Local 455 by untimely withdrawal from the Association and other actions in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The complaint against Local 455 (Case 29-CB-2461) alleges threats of violence and destruction of property in violation of Section 8(b)(lXA) of the Act. The respective answers of all Respondents in all the cases denied the commission of unfair labor practices, while admitting other matters such as jurisdiction of the Board over Respondents and subject matter. Upon the entire record,2 and upon consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties, and upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESSES OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS The Association, which at all times material herein has maintained an office and place of business in Brooklyn, New York, performs, and has performed, among other things, the function of negotiating and executing collective- bargaining agreements with Local 455, on behalf of its members who are the named individual Respondent Employers and other employers engaged in like or similar businesses. Each of the individually named Respondent Employers, all members of the Association, are corporations maintain- ing offices and facilities in the city of New York and its environs, State of New York, and each is engaged in some branch of the business of manufacturing, selling, distrib- uting, and installing various products made of iron, steel, and other metals and related products. During the year immediately preceding the issuance of the consolidated amended complaint herein, the employer-members of the Association derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and caused to be transported to their places of business iron, steel, metal products, and other goods and materials of a value in excess of $50,000 of which goods and materials, items of a value in excess of $50,000, were transported and delivered to their places of business directly from States other than the State of New York. I The charge in Case 29-CA-4921 was filed as Case 2-CA-1404 on December 18, 1975, and the complaint in that case was issued January 28, 1976. The charge in Case 29-CA-4772 was filed December 18, 1975, and the complaint in that case was issued February 9, 1976. The original charge in Case 29-CA-4853 was filed February 6, 1976, and the first amended charge in that case was filed March 1, 1976. The original charge in Case 29-CA- 4922 was filed as Case 2-CA-14106 on February 9, 1976, and the first amended charge in that case was filed March I, 1976. On April 27, 1976, a consolidated amended complaint in all of the foregoing numbered cases was 0 Additionally, other enterprises located in the State of New York, each of which other enterprises had received said goods and materials in interstate commerce directly from States in the United States other than the states in which they were located also sold items and shipped the same to Respondent Employers of a value in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, it is admitted, and I find and conclude, that Respondent Association and Respondent Employers here- in, and each of them, are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It is admitted, and I find, that Local 455 and Local 810 are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues As above noted, Respondent Employers are engaged in the various branches of the iron and steel construction and fabrication business. They are scattered over various parts of the city of New York and virtually all of its boroughs and also in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island and north of New York City in Rockland and Westchester Counties. Respondent Employers' employees have been represented for various lengths of time by Local 455, the relationship in some instances going back over a quarter of a century. For the most part, each of these Respondent Employers has dealt with Local 455 individu- ally and has, with perhaps some exceptions, been economi- cally too weak to do more than accept a more or less standardized contract evolved by Local 455, with each contract varying to the extent that the shops had individual problems which required specialized clauses in their various contracts. The employees in the shops of Respondent Employers, and other employers like situated, are basically production and maintenance employees and in some instances there are plant clericals. These general classifications broadly describe the employees represented by Local 455 in the various shops under contract. At the same time, for a number of years past, another group of employers, also engaged in the same industry but whose end product or basic work might have varied somewhat from those of the Employers named herein as Respondents, had formed an association named "Allied Building Metals Industries, Inc.," herein called Allied, which has negotiated multiemployer collective-bargaining agreements with Local 455 for a number of recent years. It is evident from the record that some Respondent Employ- ers had, at various times, been members of Allied. issued, superseding all complaints in any of the cases theretofore issued. On May 20, 1976, an amendment to the said consolidated complaint was issued. The complaint in Case 29-CB-2461 was issued June 4, 1976, based upon a charge filed by Local 210 on April 14, 1976. That case was ordered consolidated at the heanng by the Administrative Law Judge because it concerned matter directly connected with one of the defenses of Respon- dents in the four other cases, as hereinafter related. 2 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected. 265 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD However, before the formation of the Association herein, all Respondent Employers had been dealing independently with Local 455. As is well known, the years 1974 and 1975 were very bad years, economically, for the building and construction trades industry with which all Respondent Employers herein are closely allied. In addition, the contracts which Local 455 termed "the standard independent contracts," and to which Respondent Employers herein were signato- ries individually, evidently did not have a number of provisions which Respondent Employers herein desired to have and which would have, evidently, benefited them economically. In view of the recession in the construction industry, and in view of the fact that Allied, as a multiemployer bargaining association, had received what Respondent Employers herein consider more advanta- geous contracts, early in 1975, Respondent Employers herein decided to form the Association in order, among other things, to be able to exercise and use the additional economic "clout" which they presumed they would have if they bargained on an associationwide basis, rather than as individuals, in order to obtain a contract equally as beneficial as that enjoyed by the members of Allied. In early 1975 the Association was formed as a trade association to deal not only with Local 455 but also with other unions representing various employees of Respon- dents. In fact, in the most recent renewal year Respondent Spigner had requested the same benefits, as an individual employer, that were received by the members of Allied, but had not been able to obtain them. After the formation of the Association, on April 24, 1975, its president, Irving D. Spigner, notified Local 455 (after Local 455 had notified the individual Employers that their contracts were due to expire on June 30, 1975), that the Association had been formed and that it was authorized to bargain on behalf of the members of the Association and listed the membership of the Association. Thereafter, Local 455 and the Association began bargaining, but at the expiration of the individual contracts on June 30, 1975, inasmuch as no agreement had been reached, the employ- ees of the various Employers who were members of Local 455 went out on strike. Thereafter, some further bargaining took place but, by reason of the inability to reach agreement, all but five of the employer-members of the Association, named as Respondents herein, notified Local 455 through the Association that the Association was no longer authorized to bargain with Local 455 on their behalf. Additionally, some of the members of the Association during all this time and, assertedly, even before the times during which bargaining began in the late spring of 1975 began to encourage their employees to leave Local 455 and join Local 810, for the reason that these Employers felt that they could obtain more advantageous contract terms from Local 810 than they could from Local 455. It is also gainsaid that Local 810 is, and at all times material hereto has been, actively attempting to organize employees of employers engaged in the same industry as the members of the Association herein. As a result, a number of the 3 Herbert Bernstein, et al., a co-partnership d/b/a Laura Modes Company, 144 NLRB 1592 (1963). members of the Association who are Respondents in the instant proceeding ultimately signed collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810 and, in the complaint herein, are accused of having done so despite the fact that their employees had not chosen Local 810 as their bargaining representatives. These cases shall be dealt with in detail hereinafter. It is also alleged in the complaint that some of Respondent Employers' employees, when instructed by the business agents and various officials of Local 455, made unconditional offers to return to work during what the General Counsel claims to have been an unfair practice strike, and the various Respondent Employers to whom such applications were made refused discriminatorily to reinstate such employees. Respondent Employers named herein and the Associa- tion defend on a number of bases. They contend that their withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining with Local 455 came only after impasse was reached in bargaining. Although admitting the Board has held that impasse alone does not warrant withdrawal from multiemployer bargain- ing, Respondents contend that other factors, together with the impasse, created an unusual situation which warranted withdrawal. Among the factors cited by Respondents are (1) that Local 455 was never in favor of and, in fact, sought to break up the Association because it did not desire to give to the Association members the beneficial terms and conditions enjoyed by the members of Allied; (2) that Local 455 never bargained in good faith with the Associa- tion and, accordingly, association bargaining constituted a fruitless endeavor which would never have been brought to fruition because of the alleged plan of Local 455 not to come to an agreement with the Association on behalf of the Association's members; (3) alleged violence during picket- ing by Local 455 and its members was so extensive and pervasive that not only should it be considered as a factor, along with the impasse and the reluctance and refusal of Local 455 to bargain in good faith, but also, even assuming that Respondents refused to bargain in good faith with Local 455, and even assuming that the withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining through the Association was untimely and therefore improper, the Board should withhold a bargaining order.3 Additionally, Respondents contend that there was no discriminatory refusal to reinstate any of the employees because the offer made to return to work was not unconditional, but was conditioned upon the Employers signing and becoming a party to the agreement ultimately entered into between the few remain- ing members of the Association who dealt singly with Local 455 after the withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining of the vast majority of the Association members who are Respondents in this proceeding. With regard to the charges filed by Local 810 against Local 455 alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1A) of the Act, based upon the violence relied upon by employer- members of the Association as part of their defense, Local 455 denies the commission of any of the so-called violent occurrences and, in fact, the General Counsel's complaint resulting from the charges filed by Local 810 alleges only 266 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. several instances of violation, some threats by various union officials of violence, the destruction of property of the Employers, and coercive taking of photographs. These allegations, as noted above, are denied by Local 455. The issues presented in the case against Local 455 deal basically with credibility. In fact, much of the contention of violence and threats thereof by Local 455 involved in both the proceedings against Respondent Employers herein and against Local 455 involves serious and difficult questions of credibility. Thus, the issues presented by the pleadings and the various contentions of the parties are: i. Did the Respondent Employers named in the complaint herein unlawfully and untimely withdraw from association and multiemployer bargaining in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act? 2. Did the Respondent Employers unlawfully assist Local 810 to organize their employees by encouraging its employees to join Local 810 and threatening reprisals if they did not and commit other acts in support thereof in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act? 3. Did the employees of the Respondent Employers unconditionally offer to return to work and, if so, did said Respondents discriminatorily refuse to reinstate the said employees because of their activities on behalf of Local 455 and thereby discourage membership in Local 455 in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act? 4. Did some of the Employers discharge employees for refusing to abandon Local 455 and join Local 810? 5. Did the conduct of various officials and pickets who picketed the various Respondent Employers' establish- ments constitute such pervasive violent activities as would warrant the withholding of a bargaining order by the Board? 6. Did the conduct of the union officials constitute threats of violence and such destruction of property as would constitute coercion of employees in violation of Section 8(bX)()(A) of the Act? There are a number of subsidiary issues also presented in connection with the above-cited principal issues and these will be dealt with in connection therewith. B. The Negotiations and the Strike On or about April 9, 1975, Local 455 sent to 18 Employers, excluding Spigner and Sons, letters over the signature of William Colavito, Local 455 president, to the effect that Local 455 was terminating the current contracts of all these independent Employers at the end of the current contract year (June 30, 1975) and that Local 455 desired to meet with representatives of each of the said Employers to negotiate a new agreement. On April 21, 1975, the newly formed Association, by letter, over the signature of its president, Irving D. Spigner, informed Local 455 that the Companies listed on the letter had authorized the Association to acknowledge Local 455's letter of intention to terminate the existing collective- bargaining agreements and further stated that the Associa- tion would be happy to meet with Local 455 at an early agreeable date. The list of membership in that notification by the Association included, among others, all of the named Respondent Employers in the instant proceeding. There were 25 such Employers listed. Thereafter, three or four bargaining sessions took place during the month of June following the receipt by Local 455 from the Association of authorizations, in writing, from each of the Employers who desired to have the Association bargain on its behalf for a single associationwide contract and a single associationwide unit of all production and maintenance employees, including plant clericals. How- ever, there were four Employers whose authorizations Local 455 received, whom Local 455 protested, inasmuch as Local 455 had already commenced bargaining individu- ally with these four Employers before notification frcm the Association or, at least, before authorizations were received for these four Employers. These four Employers were Balfour Door Co., Weatherguard Service, Inc., Esco Iron Works, and Herbert A. Penner & Co., Inc. Accordingly, Local 455 never conceded that these four Employers were part of the Association for purposes of bargaining with Local 455, and, eventually, Local 455 did enter into separate agreements with these Employers. As stated, during the month of June 1975 there were four negotiating sessions. Despite the fact that at the very first meeting, the date of which is not made clear in the record, Local 455's representatives protested the appearance on the Association's negotiating committee of Walter Balfour of Balfour Door Co. with whom Local 455 contended it did not have to deal as a member of the Association, after the initial protest, which lasted but for a short time, Balfour attended all four sessions as a member of the Association's bargaining committee. During these four June 1975 bargaining meetings, the discussion, for the most part, concerned some 56 differences between what the members of the Association had received as independent contracting parties in the expiring contracts with Local 455 and what Allied members had received in their associationwide contract which also was due to expire on June 30, 1975. 4 Likewise, during that period of time, although the Union did submit a proposed stipulation as its initial offer in negotiation, such stipulation did not include any set figure for wages or any dollar figure-for fringe benefits. Accord- ing to Local 455's president, Colavito, whom I credit in this instance, the entire first session was devoted to these 56 differences between the so-called independent contractors' and Allied agreements and the desire of the Association to acquire for its members the benefits contained in these 56 items which were part of the associationwide contract with Allied. The other three bargaining meetings in June also were concerned, in large measure, with this problem. However, both parties seemed to have been adamant in their positions with regard thereto, the Association repre- sentatives desiring an outright grant of all these 56 points, and the bargaining representatives, principally President Colavito, of Local 455 desiring to discuss each one separately and definitively. In any event, no agreement of any substance was reached either with regard to these 56 items or to the Union's contract submission. As a result, I From credited portions of the testimony of Joseph Colavito 267 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employees of the Employers who were members of the Association, and of all other nonmember employers whose contracts expired on June 30 stopped work and went out on strike. Thus, there was a general strike throughout the entire industry against all employers, regardless of their affiliation or nonaffiliation with multiemployer bargaining associations who had not signed contracts with Local 455 and whose employees were represented by that labor organization. For reasons best known to the parties, but not explained in the record, there were no bargaining meetings during the month of July 1975. However, almost immediately after the beginning of the strike, Local 455 circulated a modification of its original demands to all of the employers in the industry, even including some of the members of Allied. In late August 1975, at the first meeting after the strike began, the revised proposal was given to the Association's representatives. It is probable, however, that members and officials of the Association were aware of this revised proposal before that meeting. It was the first submission by the Union, although only in a short stipulation form, which contained exact wage proposals by Local 455 inasmuch as it modified section 24 of the expired contracts to present wage increases of approximately 10 percent for most of the classifications of employees included in the multiemployer production and maintenance unit of the employees of members of the Association. Additionally, there were other modifications from the original June demand.5 It should be noted further that although Local 455's original proposal in June did not contain specific wage demands, or specifics for welfare fund or other fringe benefit contributions, according to credited testimony of Colavito, Local 455 during the last meeting before the strike did inform the Association's bargaining committee that it was seeking a 15-percent wage increase from Allied. Because of what had always been the custom of the industry, this should have indicated to the Association's negotiators that this percentage would be the maximum increase which would be demanded of the Association members. Additionally, at this same final meeting before the strike, Local 455's representatives did inform the Association's representatives that the fund increase de- mands would be limited to a maximum of 5 percent. In August, during the hiatus in bargaining between the last meeting in June and the August meeting, a private discussion was held at a hotel on Long Island between Association President Spigner and Local 455 President Colavito. 5 It serves no purpose at this juncture to recite these differences. It is sufficient to note that Local 455 did move from its original position. 6 The record does not specifically state the exact order in which these events occurred, except that Colavito indicated in his testimony, upon a leading question by counsel for the General Counsel, that the meeting between Colavito and Spigner took place on August 25. This would place it about the same time as the Association's and Local 455's negotiating session. I I have credited Colavito's version of this conversation, not only by reason of my observation of both Colavito and Spigner, but also because Spigner, in testifying, specifically admitted that there was a discussion of the Teamsters and also because he further stated in his testimony, while denying the statements set forth above, that he did take umbrage with Colavito However, before this meeting occurred, and probably during the month of July, Spigner had a conversation with a union business agent, Bill Matienzo, wherein Spigner told Matienzo that the whole matter could be settled very easily by Colavito on behalf of Local 455 by offering to the Association the same terms which had been offered to Allied. Spigner told Matienzo that this would create a climate of settlement throughout the entire industry. Matienzo then indicated that Colavito had told him that the Association would be the "hard nut" in the settlement of the entire matter. Spigner told Matienzo that this was not so; that, in return for the Allied terms on the 50 or so differences heretofore alluded to, the Association had at the final meeting in June offered to Local 455 a substantial increase in wages. In any event, through the services of the New York State Mediation Service, the August meeting took place. How- ever, evidently, the meeting between Colavito and Spigner occurred before that meeting.6 During that person-to- person meeting, Spigner mentioned that one of the Association members, Dextra Industries, Inc., had signed a contract with the Union. The conversation became quite heated at that point, Spigner telling Colavito that unless Local 455 agreed to the Association's bargaining requests, probably referring to the 50 some odd items, the Associa- tion would have the Teamsters replace Local 455 and that the Teamsters would, according to Colavito, "crack heads." Spigner added that three of the members of the Association were ready to sign up with the Teamsters, probably referring to Local 810, the Charging Party in the complaint against Local 455 in the instant proceeding.7 Although there might have been some slight errors of recall with regard to exact language used by Spigner, I conclude that, for the most part, the conversation during the meeting was much as related above. Although the Association spokesmen had insisted, in the June 1975 meetings, before all else was discussed or agreed upon, that Local 455 give them the 50-odd differences between the Allied contract and what had before been called the "independent" contracts, during the final June meeting, they also demanded a reduction in wage rates and reductions in contributions to the various funds and the reduction of all benefits in addition to the changes of the contract provisions which Local 455 considered objection- able. Under these circumstances, at that last meeting, with the Union insisting upon certain wage increases, the parties were quite far apart. However, during the late August negotiating session, which probably followed the private discussion, as related above, between Colavito and Irving Spigner, Local 455 set forth and sought to discuss in detail concerning the fact that Local 455 had entered into direct negotiations with Dextra. I also note, in not crediting Spigner, that the latter testified that Colavito, during the conversation, brought up the matter of Local 810 or the Teamsters. Spigner further testified that he did not know anything about Local 810 or the Teamsters as such, or that the Teamsters had approached any of the members of the Association. However, elsewhere in this Decision, I find that labor counsel to the Association, not counsel representing the Association in the instant proceeding, had spoken of the possibility of going into another union and had, in fact, discussed Local 810 with the Association members at meetings attended by Spigner. For these reasons, I credit Colavito's versions of the conversation over Spigner's version and Spigner's denials that he made threats to Colavito concerning Teamsters or Local 810. 268 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. the proposal that it had circulated immediately after the strike began to the independent employers who were not members of the Association, but of which, the record reflects, the Association members were apprised. However, the modification and reduction in Local 455's wage demands, and its suggestions regarding other matters, were not sufficient to satisfy what the Association's representa- tives considered necessary capitulation on the part of Local 455, and the meeting accomplished little or nothing. However, inasmuch as this suggestion on the part of Local 455 was a move downward from its original position taken at the close of the last meeting in June, I find and conclude that at that point, if, indeed, the June meeting had ended in impasse, such impasse was then broken and no longer existed. As a matter of fact, the record reveals no substantial progress from that point on, including the parties' last negotiating session sometime in January 1976 as hereafter related. It is unclear from the record how many bargaining sessions took place after the late August 1975 meeting until that January 1976 meeting. Colavito testified, pursuant to questioning by the General Counsel, that there were about five and that these meetings were brought about and attended by representatives of the New York State Mediation Service. However, the record is not clear as to what exchanges occurred at these meetings, nor does the record show whether there was any movement from the positions taken by the parties during the late August 1975 meeting. In any event, by letter dated January 16, 1976, the Association, over the signature of Association President Irving D. Spigner, sent a letter addressed to John Zito, secretary of Local 455, which read as follows: "The executive officers of the companies named below, as provided for in the bylaws of our Association, have withdrawn any authorization previously given us, written, oral or implied, which impowers the independent associa- tion to engage in collective bargaining or conclude any agreement on their behalf with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455." The letter went on to list 19 individual Employers who were withdrawing their authorization. These Companies were, in order, Achilles Construction Co., Inc., herein called Achilles; Bay Iron Works, Inc., herein called Bay; Esco Iron Works, Inc., herein called Esco; Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc., herein called Greenpoint; Heuser Iron Works, Inc., herein called Heuser; Ikenson Iron Works, Inc., herein called Ikenson; Koenig Iron Works, Inc., herein called Koenig; Kuno Steel Products Corp., herein called Kuno; Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., herein called Long Island; Master Iron Craft Corp., herein called Master; Melto Metal Products Co., Inc., herein called Melto; Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc., herein called Mohawk; Paxton Metalcraft Corp., herein called Paxton; The Peele Company, herein called Peele; Roman Iron Works, Inc., herein called Roman; Spigner and Sons Structural Steel Co., Inc., herein called Spigner; Trojan Steel Corp., herein called Trojan; Weatherguard Service, Inc., herein called 8 With regard to these Employers, Bay. Esco. and Weatherguard are not mentioned as Respondents in this proceeding inasmuch as they signed separate agreements, along with others, as hereinafter related, and were Weatherguard; and G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc., herein called Zaffino.8 In the letter's last paragraph, Spigner stated that the Association no longer considered the named Employers to be part of the bargaining group. However, significantly, Spigner did not state that any employer whose name was not listed in that letter was no longer a member of the bargaining group nor did the letter state that the Associa- tion was no longer bargaining, or could no longer bargain, on behalf of its members who had not withdrawn. In reply to the said letter, Colavito, on January 20, 1976, wrote to the Association acknowledging receipt of the January 16 letter, and stated, in his letter, that Local 455 entered into the agreement to bargain with the Association for the Employers the Association represented, and that there was no understanding that the arrangement was unilateral, which would permit the Association members to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining at any time without the Union's consent. Colavito went on to state that Local 455 must insist that any agreement between the Association and Local 455 would be binding upon all those Employers covered by the original agreement and that bargaining in good faith be carried out by the Association and its members. Colavito also stated that it was under- stood by Local 455 that a meeting was to be set up at the New York State Mediation Board on Friday, January 23, 1976. This meeting was initiated by a telephone call from the State Mediation Service stating that Dan Doyle, president of Brakewell Steel Fabricators, Inc., herein called Brake- well, desired the meeting. Brakewell had not withdrawn its authorization. Doyle was also a member of the Associa- tion's bargaining and negotiating committee from the beginning. The meeting took place, as scheduled, at the State Mediation Service office on January 23. Present beside the union representatives were Doyle, Seymour Kaplan, president of Carlin Manufacturing Co., Inc., also one of the original members of the Association, two of the Naiztat brothers of Naiztat Iron Works, Inc., herein called Naiztat, also original members of the Association. For Local 455 were Colavito and Kenneth Mannsman, a member of the Local 455 Executive Board. At the meeting, after a number of hours, an agreement was ultimately reached with those present. During the following weekend Bay Iron Works, Inc., signed the agreement as did Wortman Iron Works, Inc. Accordingly, five Employers signed the agreement. It should be noted that Uydess, of Bay Iron Works, Inc., had also been on the negotiating committee of the Association. It should also be noted that all of these Companies who signed either on January 23, 1976, or within a few days thereafter, as hereinabove mentioned, signed their names as "Members of the Association." It should also be noted that at the meeting of January 14, the last meeting held between the entire Association bargaining committee and Local 455, the representatives of the Association informed Colavito and other representa- never considered by Local 455 as part of the Association. This is also true, as noted above, of Balfour Door Co. 269 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tives of Local 455 that if the Association could be granted the same contract which had been given to Allied shortly before that time, and of which the Association was apprised, the parties could probably reach an agreement. However, Colavito and the representatives of Local 455 rejected this demand. It was thereafter that the Association members met and a large majority decided that the withdrawal letter of January 16 should be addressed to Local 455. However, as noted, although Bay Iron Works, Inc., withdrew and was included in the letter of withdrawal of January 16, it joined in the negotiations held later in January and was one of the five signers of the stipulation or agreement on that date or soon thereafter. Additionally, Respondent Heuser and Respondent Trojan, although among the members who had withdrawn on January 16, also eventually signed stipulations or agreements. Local 455 thereafter requested each of the other members of the Association, who withdrew authorization, to sign and honor the agreement reached with the original five signers, but they had continued to refuse to do so up to the date of the hearing herein, and have continued to refuse to meet with and bargain with Local 455.9 It is apparent, that with but, perhaps, a few minor variations the contracts which were signed were virtually the same contracts which the five original signers executed. However, the capacity in which each Employer named above signed is discussed later in this Decision. Thus, the foregoing constitutes the situation with regard to the bargaining as it is presented by the record herein. C. The Local 810 Relationship with the Association Reference has been made above to the fact that a labor relations advisor, not counsel to Respondent Employers of the Association in the instant proceeding, had spoken to the members of the Association and others concerning the fact that Local 810 and perhaps other unions might be interested in representing the employees of the Association members. This was brought about because of the apparent disaffection of the Employers involved with Local 455. The relationship between these individual Employers, Respon- dents herein, and Local 455 over a period of some years past had been deteriorating by reason, at least to some extent, of the refusal by Local 455 to grant to these independent Employers economic opportunities which they believed would be as advantageous as those granted in Local 455's negotiations over the period of years with the members of Allied. It is well to note, although not as an 9 From testimony of Colavito and other union business agents. However, it should be noted, that Respondent Heuser signed the stipulation only after 2 months subsequent to the signing by the others and after at least two visits to Heuser by Union Business Agent Meyer Tessler. Tessler's testimony with regard to that signing is credited. °0 All of the foregoing with regard to the meetings with Brickman, and with Dennis Silverman. constitutes an amalgam of the testimony of Seymour Kaplan. who was treasurer of the Association at the time of the events related and was an officer of Carlin Manufacturing Co., Inc.. one of the original Employer-members of the Association, not a Respondent herein, which company signed an agreement with the Union after January 16. 1976. At the hearing herein, counsel for Association and Local 810 objected on the basis of confidential communication to ';aplan's testimony with regard excuse for what later took place among Respondent Employers herein, that the building and construction industry, during the period of time with which the facts of this proceeding are concerned, was in a depressed state, especially in the New York City area, and that a number of firms had gone out of business. In fact, some Respondent Employers herein had no working employees at the time of the strike on June 30, 1975. For example, Respondent Ikenson, which formerly had nine employees, had been forced to lay off all its employees before the negotiations involved in the instant proceeding began and, moreover, up to the date of the hearing herein had not recovered sufficiently to rehire any employees, inasmuch as that firm was unable to procure any business. The same was somewhat true of Respondent Spigner and Sons. Thus, by reason of the foregoing pressures, the Associa- tion, as representative of its members, retained a labor relations expert, Attorney Herman Brickman, who has been the arbitrator named in the labor contracts of Employers in the industry whose employees were and are represented by Local 810 and who had collective-bargain- ing agreements with Local 810. At a meeting or, perhaps, more than one meeting, subsequent to the beginning of the strike, which meeting or meetings were attended by members of the Association as labor relations clients of Brickman and which meetings were also attended by other independent employers who were not members of the Association and not clients of Brickman, Brickman stated that there were other unions interested in expanding their membership among employees of employers in the indus- try. This meeting, or meetings, took place some time in October 1975. At one such meeting, Dennis Silverman, president of Local 810, was invited to address those present at the meeting. Silverman explained to those present the terms that Local 810 could offer to the Employers, what it could do for the employees, explaining the advantages that Local 810 could give to the Employers involved relative to pension plans, retirement plans, and other terms and conditions of collective bargaining. This, of course, in point of time, was approximately 2 to 3 months before the letter of January 16 in which the Association informed Local 455 that a majority of its members were withdrawing their authority to have the Association bargain on their behalf. Additionally, at one of the so-called "open meetings," at which others in addition to Brickman's clients were present, Brickman stated that with regard to Local 810 progress was being made and that the men, presumably the employees, were being contacted by Local 810.10 to what occurred at the meetings at which the members of the Association were addressed by Attorney Brickman. However, the testimony hereinabove related was permitted because the meetings at which this information was set forth was attended by other than the members of the Association and who were not clients of Brickman. Thus, in those instances, any claimed attorney-client privilege was waived by reason of the fact that the meetings were attended by others than clients of Brickman. Additionally, as will hereinafter be related, at least some of the information at those meetings related by the Association's attorney, Brickman, was advice tending to inform the Association members that other unions were interested in organizing their employees at a time when such employees were members of Local 455. Accordingly, the advice that was given was related to, or could have been the sparking point for, activity which in other parts of this Decision is found to have constituted violations of Sec. 8(a)(2) of the Act. 270 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. Among other matters of which Brickman informed the Employer Association members was that other labor unions had no objection to organizing the employees of the Association members. After a meeting with Brickman, Ed Peele, chairman of the Association negotiating committee, went to the office of Local 810 and obtained a copy of Local 810's standard industry contract. Peele reviewed it with Dan Doyle, another member of the negotiating committee and, together, at a later meeting of the Association, they informed the Association members regarding the provisions of the sample Local 810 con- tract.' D. The Unlawful Assistance and Support of Local 810 It is evident from the record, as hereinafter related, that a number of the members of the Association, despite the fact that the vast majority of their employees joined the Local 455 strike on July 1, 1975, and remained loyal to Local 455, made efforts to induce their employees to change their allegiance from Local 455 to Local 810. In fact, some of these Employers not only threatened to close their plants in the event the employees did not become members of Local 810, but also executed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 even before the January 16, 1976, withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining. The activities of these Employers in support of and in giving assistance to Local 810 are set forth below. 1. Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc. On or about Labor Day 1975, Greenpoint President George Geuther, Jr., invited some of his picketing employ- ees into the office of his plant and informed them that he would have nothing further to do with Local 455 and if the employees wanted to work for him they would have to do so as members of Local 810. Geuther further informed his employees that their pension contributions would travel with them and they would lose nothing by transferring their membership from Local 455 to Local 810. In fact, Geuther repeated these statements to several of his employees on a number of occasions between Labor Day 1975 and January 16, 1976, while the said employees were visiting the Greenpoint plant as pickets on behalf of Local 455. With regard to individual employees, Geuther told employee Adam J. Gontorski that he had signed a contract with Local 810. In December 1975, Geuther offered to take Gontorski and other employees to Local 810's office. He also stated that if they would not sign up with Local 810 he would replace them with Local 810 members. Around November I, employee Joseph Matzell received a regis- tered letter from Greenpoint in which he was told to come Inasmuch as the advice of the attorney would seem to have tended to persuade the Employers to commit violations, it would seem that under the common law rule as adopted in the new Federal Rules of Evidence. sec. 501. effective July, I, 1975, Kaplan's testimony was admissible. It is well established that at common law the attorney-client prvilege could not be claimed where the advice of the attorney was to break the law in some manner. It should be noted in connection with all of the foregoing, that counsel for the Association and the Respondent Employers in this proceeding is not Brickman and is not in any way associated with him. back to work by November 10 or be discharged. In January, Matzell did go back and was told by George Geuther, Jr., that he had no job. During this period of time, Geuther also stated to Matzell that he would never sign a contract with Local 455. Employee Salvatore Gulino had a number of conversations with George Geuther, Jr., in September, October, November, and December 1975, sometimes alone, and sometimes with other employees present. Geuther always attempted to convince the em- ployees and Gulino to change unions. When Gulino refused saying that he did not want to lose his pension, Geuther informed him that the law provided that the pension would go with him. Geuther also offered Gulino a 10-percent increase in salary if the latter would join Local 810 and come back to work. Upon Gulino's repeated refusals, Geuther told Gulino that the latter had better look for another job. In addition to Greenpoint employees, Frank Hernandez, an Executive Board member of Local 455 visited Green- point on November 10, 1975, along with a shop steward named Sheeran from another Employer's shop. They engaged George Geuther, Jr., in a conversation. Among the statements made by Geuther to Hernandez and Sheeran was that Geuther would never sign with Local 455 again and that Greenpoint was not the only Employer thinking the same way. It is undisputed in the record that Greenpoint signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 on Novem- ber 20, 1975, and, presumably, has been operating its shop under that contract continuously since then.12 2. Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc. At the time the strike began, Respondent Long Island employed seven workers, all of whom were members of Local 455 and all of whom joined the strike on July i, 1975. Sometime after the meetings of the Association with Attorney Brickman and Local 810's president, Silverman, Long Island's president, Irwin Davidson, in early Decem- ber 1975, telephoned his seven striking employees and invited them to meet with him at the company office. The employees responded and met with Davidson and Long Island's vice president, Nathan Steinfeld. Both Davidson and Steinfeld, at the meeting, urged the employees to abandon Local 455 and join Local 810 or, in the alternative, go nonunion, assuring them that if they did so they would have steady employment, but if they did not, the Company would close its doors. Davidson further told the gathered striking employees that a transfer of member- ship to Local 810 would insure them of their pensions and they would receive the moneys already paid into the Local 455 pension fund. Davidson also stated that Long Island would never again sign with the Local 455. When employee Michael Frenna expressed his disapproval and stated his refusal to join Local 810, Davidson told Frenna, on two " From the uncontroverted testimony of Peele. 12 From the uncontroverted testimony of the above-named employees. I credit such testimony not only because it went uncontroverted on the record but also because George Geuther, Jr., in testifying to other matters as hereinafter related, did not in any manner deny any of the testimony of the employees above or of Local 455 Executive Board member Hernandez. 271 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD separate occasions, that the latter had better look for another job. Approximately a month after the first meeting with the employees, Davidson again called a meeting of the striking employees and some of them attended. Again the employ- ees were urged to join Local 810 and the same promises of continued pension and vacation fund benefits were made in the event that they transferred their allegiance to Local 810. Also, Davidson repeated the threats to close the Company's doors if the employees did not conform with his desires. Despite the fact that none of its striking employees consented to abandon their membership in Local 455, and even before the second meeting with the striking employees as set forth abyove, Long Island entered into a collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 on January 6, 1976, which collective-bargaining agreement was executed by President Irwin Davidson. Additionally, Davidson accom- panied at least two employees to the Local 810 office in Manhattan and remained present with them and partici- pated while they were told by two apparent agents of Local 810 the benefits they would receive if they became members of that Union.13 3. Master Iron Craft Corp. In the middle of February 1976, striking employee Morris Waldman went to the shop of Master Iron Craft and spoke to Murray Scheiner, a partner in that firm, and asked Scheiner for work. Scheiner refused, saying he could not take Waldman back because Master Iron Craft belonged to another union, Local 810. As a matter of fact, Master d,,I sign a contract with Local 810 on January 28, which bargaining agreement was signed on behalf of Master Iron Craft by Scheiner. 14 ., 4. Paxton Metalcraft Antonio Monturo and Arturo Palazzo, both employees of Paxton who struck on July 1, 1975, made attempts in January 1976 to return to work at Paxton. Thus, in mid- January, Monturo received a telephone call from Leo Mayer, president of Paxton, to come down to the shop. One day later, Monturo visited with Mayer at the shop. Mayer asked Monturo to change unions and to come back to work. Mayer told Monturo, when the latter demurred, to think carefully, otherwise Monturo could be replaced unless he changed his union affiliation to Local 810. 13 From the credited uncontested testimony of Long Island employees, Harry Bender, James Flemming, Michael Frenna, and Erdin Dill. Although Bender and other employees of other Respondent Employers, as hereinafter related, were unable to identify by name the individuals who spoke to them at various times at Local 810's office on 15th Street in Manhattan, from the context in which these visits to the Local 810 office arose, and the timing of the visits within a brief period after Local 810 President Silverman spoke at the Association meeting, I infer that the individuals who spoke to the various employees of a number of the Respondent Employers at Local 8 lO's office were agents of that Union authorized to do so. It is unreasonable to assume that the Respondent Employers' officials, who brought their employees to Local 810's office, did so for the purpose of having the employees meet some unauthorized clerk without knowledge of the Union's operations, inasmuch as the individuals who addressed the various employees explained in detail the operations and proposed union benefits Palazzo, who needed work badly, on January 22, 1976, knocked on Paxton's door. The door was opened by Leo Mayer who invited Palazzo inside. Mayer informed Palazzo that Local 455 was no longer the company union and that Local 810 was the company union. He further stated that if Palazzo came back to work, after I month, Palazzo would be obligated to join Local 810. Mayer told Palazzo that he had already signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810. The record actually shows that on December 15, 1975, Paxton signed a collective-bargain- ing agreement with Local 810 which agreement was signed by Irving Melnick, Paxton's treasurer.' 5 5. Roma Iron Works, Inc. Roma's president, Edward Romanelli, spoke to several of his employees who were on strike upon a number of occasions regarding Local 810. Of the nine employees who went out on strike, four testified. Thus, in November 1975, Romanelli called employee Lorenzo Ruggieri at the latter's home and asked him to come to the company office. Ruggieri complied and when he arrived at the office he found present there Romanelli and Frank Carpentiere. Although Roma is a corporation, it is evident that Romanelli and Frank Carpentiere are partners. Also present, besides Romanelli and Carpentiere, was an unnamed bookkeeper. Romanelli and Carpentiere asked Ruggieri to join Local 810, stating they could not afford to stay with Local 455. They also informed Ruggieri that they would close the shop rather than sign with Local 455 and would never sign with Local 455. In January 1976, Romanelli called Ruggieri again and similar conversation occurred, both on the telephone and in the office. Romanelli again urged Ruggieri to join Local 810 and further stated that Roma would never sign with Local 455. At that time, Romanelli also offered to have Ruggieri sign a designation card for Local 810. When Ruggieri indicated that he was not sure that he wanted to sign with Local 810, Romanelli offered to take him down to the Local 810 office. Ruggieri consented. At the Local 810 office, Ruggieri was introduced by Romanelli to a man he could not describe. This man was not Union President Silverman. In the discussion at the Local 810 office, with regard to the benefits which Local 810 offered, Romanelli participated and informed Ruggieri that the latter would take with him into Local 810 all of the benefits he had accrued with Local 455. Employee Alexander Farkas experienced a similar type of inducement from Romanelli. During the summer of which would enure to the employees if they became members of Local 810. Additionally, some of the employees who testified, although unable to state the names of the Local 810 officials who spoke to them, descnbed the officials in some detail. Accordingly, I find and conclude that these employees were addressed at the Local 810 office by union officials and that, therefore, Local 810 did participate in seeking to induce the employees to join that Union. 14 I credit Waldman's uncontroverted testimony in full. Murray Scheiner, in testifying to other matters, did not deny the above. 15 All of the foregoing from the credited testimony of Monturo and Palazzo. Although Mayer and Melnick both testified to other matters, neither of them disputed any of the foregoing related by the two employees. Additionally, with regard to the signing of the collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810, the parties stipulated to that fact at the hearing. 272 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. 1975, while Farkas was on picket duty at Roma's premises, Edward Romanelli engaged him in conversation. During that conversation, Farkas asked Romanelli to sign Local 455's proposed collective-bargaining agreement. Romanelli answered that he wanted to "join" Local 810 and would not sign with Local 455. At that time he showed Farkas a "stipulation" from Local 810, which stipulation listed the benefits the men would receive if they joined Local 810. Romanelli assured Farkas that the latter would not lose any benefits such as pension and vacation fund which Farkas had already accrued under the Local 455 benefit's plans. Again, in early January, Farkas heard that Allied, the other collective-bargaining multiemployer association, had signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 455. He thereupon proceeded to the shop to talk to Romanelli and ask the latter if Roma would sign the same agreement so that the men could return to work. Present during that conversation were Carpentiere, Romanelli's partner, and the same bookkeeper. Romanelli answered, in short, that he would never sign with Local 455 and wanted to join Local 810. However, so far as the record in the present proceeding indicates, Roma did not sign with Local 810. Michael Dynia, another employee, also had a similar experience with Roma's president, Romanelli. In Novem- ber 1975, Romanelli called Dynia at his home on the telephone and asked if Dynia would like to sign a card and join another union. Romanelli wanted Dynia to go to the office where Romanelli would then drive him with others to the other union's office. Dynia consented, went to Roma's office and, with Romanelli driving, they proceeded to the office of Local 810 on 15th Street in Manhattan. During these conversations, Romanelli also told Dynia that he would have to close the shop if Dynia stayed with Local 455. One other employee, Manuel Ruiz, while on the picket line in July 1975, was approached by Romanelli who told him, "If you guys keep striking with 455, I have to go out of business." 16 6. Trojan Steel Corp. At the end of August 1975, Arnold Feinglass, president of Trojan, approached striking errployee Mario Plaza while the latter was on the picket line and invited Plaza to come back to work. Plaza, in effect, answered in the negative, stating that he would not return until Feinglass signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 455. Feinglass then told Plaza that as long as the latter was a member of Local 455 he would never be permitted to return to work for Trojan. Feinglass further told Plaza that Trojan would never sign a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 455.'17 However, despite the threats made by Feinglass, Trojan signed with Local 455 as hereinafter related. 16 All of the above from uncontested testimony of employees Ruggieri, Farkas, Dynia, and Ruiz. No official from Roma testified at the hearing. Accordingly, the testimony of the employees being uncontroverted, it is credited. I" The testimony with regard to the threats and refusal to sign with Local 455 given by Plaza is credited in all respects. Although Feinglass denied that he ever threatened any employee, he did admit that he might have told his 7. G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc. Zaffino was evidently having financial difficulties even before the strike started. It had laid off a number of employees in the month of June 1975 and had, in fact, laid off some employees as early as April of that year. Thus, for a number of months, Zaffino had no contact with its employees. However, in January 1976, probably during the middle of the month, employees Junius M. Howell and Joseph Riess, and probably other employees, were called by Bruno Zaffino's secretary and asked to come to a meeting at Zaffino's office. The meeting took place on a Saturday. Bruno Zaffino told the employees attending the meeting that Local 455 was "pushing him out, money wise" and asked the employees to join Local 810. He told the employees that if they would join Local 810, they would retain their pension fund for retirement and a number of other benefits. He further stated that he would have to close up if he had to stay with Local 455, as it was costing him too much money. Additionally, he showed Joseph Riess, and the others, Local 810 literature (probably a proposed collective-bargaining agreement) distributed to the various employer-members of the Association by Local 810. Two days after that meeting, Bruno Zaffino again called employee Howell on the telephone and asked him if the latter would like to take a ride to the Local 810 office. Howell answered that he would rather stay with Local 455. Zaffino then told Howell, "You better watch your ass, we are going to watch ours." Shortly after that, probably within a few days, some of the laid-off striking employees were gathered in front of the home of employee Roger F. Williams in New Rochelle, New York. With Williams were Robert Catalano, Joey Zaffino, an employee although one of the Zaffino family, and Joe Cassara. Bruno Zaffmo drove by, stopped, and invited the employees to go with him to the Local 810 headquarters. Having nothing to do and being curious, the employees accepted and were driven down to the Local 810 office on 15th Street in Manhattan. The Zaffino facility was located in New Rochelle. When they arrived at the Local 810 office, the employees were taken into a large room and introduced to two men whose names the witnesses could not recall. However, they did describe, to some extent at least, one individual as being a short, stocky man chewing a cigar, and with short red hair. Local 810 representatives showed the employees pamphlets containing Local 810's pension plans, vacation plans, and other fringe benefits. There was further discussion of other matters with which Local 810 was interested with regard to Zaffino's employees. Finally, after this discussion which lasted for some time, the men were driven home by Bruno Zaffino. It should be noted, however, that none of these employees were told by Zaffino to join Local 810. He only threatened that if the employees retained their membership employees that he would never sign with Local 455. 1 credit Plaza over Feinglass' denial not only by reason of my observation of these two witnesses, but also by reason of the fact that Plaza has returned to work for Trojan and, therefore, is more likely to have told the complete truth with regard to the occurrences inasmuch as his employment with Feinglass continues. 273 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in Local 455, as noted above in his conversation with employee Howell, that they would, inferentially, lose their jobs. At least one of the booklets which were shown to the employees of Zaffino, while at the headquarters of Local 810, was a booklet entitled "Welfare Plan No. 45" published by Local 810 and showing its address at 10 East 15th Street, New York, New York. It is unnecessary to detail any of these welfare plans at this point inasmuch as it would serve no purpose, but they run the gamut from a dental plan to life insurance, to medical and surgical benefits. However, despite Zaffino's warnings, Zaffino never did enter into any formal bargaining agreement with Local 810. In connection with Zaffino, Bruno Zaffino testified that although at one time, in the period before the events with which this proceeding is concerned, he had been an officer of Zaffino and Sons, he was at the times pertinent hereto merely the office manager. It is presumed that this testimony was presented for the purpose of showing that, in any event, Bruno Zaffino had no authority to speak on behalf of Zaffino and Sons and, furthermore, was not authorized to take the employees down to Local 810's office. However, it should be noted that at the Saturday meeting with the employees which occurred in January 1976 other members of the Zaffino family were present, and no one in that group told the employees that Bruno Zaffino lacked the authority to do what he did. Nor did they protest Bruno Zaffino's actions at any time and, in fact, stood by while Bruno Zaffino acted as the company spokesman. Although Bruno Zaffino testified he did not invite the men down to the Local 810 office but, rather, that he was driving by and they volunteered without his asking to go down to the office, I credit the testimony of the employees that Bruno Zaffino did, indeed, invite and persuade the individuals involved to go to Local 810's office with him.18 8. Other Employers who signed with Local 810 In addition to the foregoing, Respondent Employer Melto, on December 22, 1975, entered into a collective- bargaining agreement which was signed by Bernard Liebman, president of Melto. On January 9, 1976, Mohawk signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 by Warren Reis, president. On January 30, 1976, Koenig signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 by Sol Leistner, president. On February 17, 1976, Cervenka signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 signed by George Cervenka, presumably the president. Received in evidence, additionally, is a collective-bargain- ing agreement between Roman (not to be confused with is All of the above testimony of the employees of Zaffino whose names are set forth above is hereby credited over the denial of Bruno Zaffino. I especially observed Bruno Zaffino's attitude as he testified and am convinced from his demeanor on the witness stand that he was less than candid, especially with regard to the denials that he invited the employees down to the Local 810 office. Accordingly, where Zaffino's testimony is in conflict with the testimony of the employees of Zaffino and Sons, I credit the employees' testimony over that of Zaffino. 19 Although the complaint herein alleges that Respondent Employers Trojan and Roma entered into collective-bargaining agreements with Local Roma) which was executed on November 18, 1975, between Roman and Local 810. It was stipulated at the hearing herein that all of the collective-bargaining agree- ments entered into between Respondent Employers who signed with Local 810 are virtually identical and that the grievance and arbitration provisions contained therein name Attorney Harry Brickman as the arbitrator with regard to matters arising out of and pursuant to the said collective-bargaining agreements. It was further stipulated that in the case of Koenig there are six additional signatures affixed in addition to the president of that Company. These were probably all employees of Koenig at the time the agreement was executed and, further, were all employees of Koenig before the strike began at which time they were members of Local 455. Further, with respect to Respondent Employer Mohawk, the contract bears two additional signatures to that of the president of Mohawk. There is nothing in the record to show who these individuals were, but presumably they were employees of Mohawk at the time of the signing. It should also be noted that all of the agreements, in addition to being identical in other respects, have the same expiration date, October 5, 1978.19 9. Conclusions with regard to assistance There can be no doubt, and I so find, that the attempted inducement by Respondents Greenpoint, Long Island, Master Iron Craft, Paxton, Roma, Trojan, and Zaffino to have their employees join and become members of Local 810, and to abandon their affiliation with Local 455 and, indeed, in some instances, to actually drive their employees to Local 810's headquarters in order to further induce the employees to join Local 810 and abandon Local 455, constituted unlawful assistance and support to Local 810 and were undoubtedly violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act. Activity of this nature has long since been held by the Board to constitute such violations.2 0 The unlawful assistance and support of Local 810 is self-evident from the recited facts. Additionally, the inducement to the employees to join Local 810 and thus to abandon Local 455 constituted an undermining, or an attempt to under- mine, Local 455 as the bargaining representative of these Respondents' employees which activity clearly constitutes violations of Section 8(aX)(5) of the Act.21 And this would be true even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent Employ- ers involved lawfully withdrew from multiemployer collec- tive bargaining. Additionally, the entering into collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810 in the months of November and December 1975, and January and February 1976 by Respondent Employers Roman, Greenpoint, Paxton, Mel- to, Long Island, Master Iron Craft, Mohawk, Koenig, and 810, there is no testimony or documentary evidence or any proof whatsoever in the record that these Employers did enter into and recognize Local 810 as bargaining representative of their employees. Accordingly, I shall dismiss that portion of the complaint which alleges the execution of such agreements with regard to these two Respondent Employers. 20 International Offset Corp., et al., 210 NLRB 854, 855-856 (1974); Florida Automatic Sprinkler Contractors Association, et al., 199 NLRB 1151, 1158 (1972); Freeman G. Gaffney, Inc., 205 NLRB 1012, 1016-17 (1973); Hopcon, Inc., 161 NLRB 31, 36-38, 41-43 (1966). 21 Supra. 274 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. Cervenka, constitute further violations of Section 8(aX)(), (2), and (5) of the Act. As set forth earlier in this Decision, these nine Employers were among those who joined the Association which was formed in January 1975 and who desired to bargain on an associationwide basis with Local 455. Inasmuch as all of these Employers had, as indepen- dent companies, recognized and bargained with Local 455 for a number of years before the events herein, and because the collective-bargaining agreements which they had executed over the years with Local 455 contained union- security provisions, when these Employers became mem- bers of the Association and authorized associationwide bargaining, the unit appropriate for collective bargaining then became an associationwide unit and during the period involved in this proceeding this associationwide unit was presumptively intact. Therefore, Local 455 was entitled to a continuing presumption of majority status in the associa- tionwide unit. As hereinafter related, there is little or no reason to conclude that the situation was otherwise at the time of the execution by the above nine Respondent Employers of the collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810. Thus, the entering into the agreements with Local 810 constituted unlawful assistance to Local 810 in violation of Section 8(aXl) and Section 8(aX2) and (1) of the Act, because Local 810, by reason of all of the foregoing, did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees of Employers in the associationwide multiem- ployer bargaining unit hereby found to be appropriate. Additionally, the entering into the agreements with Local 810 constituted a further undermining of the collective- bargaining position of Local 455 and, accordingly, consti- tuted violations of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.22 Over and above all of the foregoing, a reading of the Roman agreement with Local 810 reveals that the said agreement provides for union security to the extent that employees encompassed by that agreement, which is similar to the eight other agreements, must become and remain members of Local 810. Because Local 810, at the time of the entering into the agreement and at the time of the hearing herein and by reason of findings and conclu- sions set forth later in this Decision, did not represent an uncoerced majority at the time of the entering into the agreement covering some of the employees of the overall multiemployer bargaining unit, the signing of union-securi- ty agreements constituted further unlawful encouragement of membership in, and support of, Local 810. This constituted a violation of Section 8(aX3), (2), and (1) of the Act.23 An attempt to justify the entering into the collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 was made on the record by representatives of Koenig, Mohawk, Paxton, and Master Iron Craft. According to Barry Leistner, vice president of Koenig, none of Koenig's employees went out on strike on July i, 1975, although, admittedly, they were then dues-paying members of Local 455. Although pickets appeared from time to time from July 1, 1975, until 22 See Florida Automatic Sprinkler Contractors Association, supra; Auto- mated Business Systems, a Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc., a Subsidiary of Littrron Industries, Inc., 205 NLRB 532, 534-535 (1973); Vegas Vic, Inc., d/b/a Pioneer Club, 213 NLRB 841, 844-845 (1974); Beck Engraving Co., Inc., 213 NLRB 53, 54-55 (1974); Sheridan Creations, Inc., 148 NLRB 1503 (1964), enfd. 357 F.2d 245 (C.A. 2, 1966); International sometime in January 1976, all of Koenig's six or seven employees reported for work during that period. However, in the latter part of January 1976 Koenig's employees went out on strike. When Koenig's officials made inquiry, they discovered that the men were on strike against Koenig for the purpose of inducing recognition by Koenig of Local 810. It was after this that Koenig's president, Leistner, on January 30, signed a collective-bargaining agreement on behalf of Koenig with Local 810. Respondent Mohawk's president and sole owner, War- ren Reis, testified that at the time the strike began he had approximately 10 employees. These employees who were members of Local 455 at the time remained out on strike until sometime in January 1976, approximately January 10. At that time three employees asked to return to work and Reis took back the three because his shop had been inoperative from the date of the strike until that time. The employees told Reis, when asking for work in January, that they wanted to work with Local 810. At that time they displayed to Reis union designation cards for Local 810. Reis had made no contact with Local 810 until that point in time. In fact, Reis testified that he never heard Local 810 mentioned at any of the association meetings which he attended and certainly he had never met or heard of Silverman, president of Local 810. However, after the three employees displayed the Local 810 cards, Reis went to Local 810's office and spoke to Silverman. Silverman showed him the collective-bargaining agreement that Local 810 wanted Reis to sign. Accordingly, on that day Reis signed the contract with Local 810 and the employees subsequently returned to work. After that date, further employees were hired, but there is nothing in the record to show whether they were Local 810 members or Local 455 members or nonunion employees. With regard to Respondent Paxton, Irving Melnick, secretary-treasurer, testified that in late November or early December, after his employees who were members of Local 455 had gone out on strike on July 1, 1975, he was approached by three employees. The employees showed him Local 810 union designation cards. The employees informed Melnick and Mayers, president of Paxton, that they had spoken to a organizer from Local 810 and they were interested in becoming part of the Local 810 organization. Melnick then asked the individuals if that was what they really wanted. They answered in the affirmative and that they had all signed cards. Melnick then inspected the cards. The following day he received a telephone call from President Dennis Silverman of Local 810 and, within a week thereafter, met with Silverman at Local 810's headquarters in Manhattan. Silverman de- scribed Local 810's activities and what they had to offer the employees and, in fact, showed to Melnick copies of the various plans and the prospective collective-bargaining agreement. After studying the agreement, Melnick called Mayers from the Local 810 office and they together concluded that it would be a good arrangement for them to Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO [Bernhard-Alrmann Texas Corp.] v. N.LRB., 366 U.S. 731 (1961); Wickes Corporation, Wickes Manufactured Housing Division, 197 NLRB 860 (1972); Clement Brothers Company, Inc., 165 NLRB 698, 699(1967). 23 Komatz Construction, Inc., 191 NLRB 846, 851 (1971); Interpace Corporation, 189 NLRB 132, 138-139(1971). 275 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sign the agreement. Accordingly, on that day an agreement was signed as heretofore related. According to Melnick, he had never been in contact with, nor had spoken to, any Local 810 representative prior to the telephone call on the day after his three employees had requested reemployment and membership in Local 810. Finally, Murray Scheiner, who identified himself only as a partner of Master Iron Craft, but who signed a collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 on January 28 as president of that corporation, testified that, as of the day the strike started, Master Craft had five employees.2 4 The record does not show whether these five employees all joined the strike, but, in any event, by late December and early January three of these same employees were working at Master. In January 1976, John Michelinos, a representa- tive of Local 810, approached Scheiner and informed the latter that a majority of Master's employees were represent- ed by Local 810. Michelinos then showed Scheiner the cards signed by the three employees. An appointment was thereupon made and, as a result, Scheiner went to the office of Local 810 President Dennis Silverman. This meeting took place on January 30 and, at the end of the meeting with Silverman, Scheiner signed an agreement with Local 810. However, on cross-examination Scheiner admitted that he had five employees working at the time of the strike and an additional one in layoff status in addition to Waldman who was on temporary leave of absence at the time the strike began. None of these employees had quit or had been discharged at the time of the signing of the agreement with Local 810, so that, in fact, Local 810 represented only three out of seven Master employees, all of whom were Local 455 members when the strike began. The record shows that all of the members of the Association, at the time the strike began, employed individuals totaling approximately 250. The total number of employees of Respondent Koenig, Mohawk, Paxton, and Master together, at about the time they signed the agreements with Local 810, was no more than 30 individuals. The Board has established, with court approv- al, that where a multiemployer bargaining unit exists, and such unit employees are represented by a lawfully designat- ed or recognized bargaining representative, before any employer can withdraw from the multiemployer associa- tion whose employees constitute the said multiemployer bargaining unit, and upon such withdrawal recognize another union as the withdrawing employer's employees' bargaining representative, such withdrawing employer, once multiemployer bargaining has commenced, must have a good-faith doubt as to the continued majority status of the union bargaining with the multiemployer group. Any doubts as to the withdrawing employer's own employees' continued adherence to the first union is not sufficient to justify recognition of the second union and such recognition is, therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 25 For reasons hereinafter explicated, I find that at the time of the signing of the agreements by the Respondent Employers 24 These five did not include Morris Waldman who had been laid off some time before and had asked for a voluntary leave of absence when he was recalled in June 1975. Accordingly, he was not working when the strike commenced. 25 See Beck Engraving Co., Inc., supra; Sheridan Creations, Inc., supra. 26 It should be noted that none of the other Respondents, aside from with Local 810 the multiemployer bargaining unit was still intact and, therefore, the change of allegiance of 30 out of 250 employees was not sufficient to support a good-faith doubt as to the continued majority status of Local 455 as the bargaining representative of the employees of the members of the Association in the associationwide unit.26 E. Picket Line Activity and Other Alleged Unlawful Activity of Local 455 At various times, most of them subsequent to the withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining by the 17 Respondent Employers on January 16, 1976, there oc- curred incidents at various Employers' establishments which went beyond activity which the Board has held to be lawful or excusable picket line conduct. Some of this activity was alleged by the counsel for the General Counsel to have violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Other, similar conduct, although not alleged in the General Counsel's complaint against Local 455, nevertheless is alleged by Respondent Association and its members as unprotected picket line activity. By way of background of some of this activity, although not alleged in the complaint as violations of the Act, in April or May 1976, Ken Leistner, an employee of Koenig Iron Works, and son of President Sol Leistner, who signed a collective-bargaining agreement in January with Local 810, was met on a street corner near the entrance to the Koenig shop by Local 455 Representative John Bell. After they greeted each other, Bell told Kenneth Leistner that his father, Sol, was in trouble, and Local 455 members who were working would not be let back into Local 455 without paying heavy fines. Bell stated that Local 455 was following Koenig trucks and there were ways that these trucks could be stopped. He then allegedly stated that there was a strong chance that people could get hurt and trucks destroyed but that none of this would happen if Koenig signed up with Local 455. Bell told Kenneth Leistner that the taking of such action was not up to him or to Local 455's president, Colavito, but he referred to some vague committee which would decide upon whether to take such action.27 On May 17, 1976, about 5:50 a.m., Ken Leistner and employee Tom Rafferty were accosted by two men who stood in front of the employees' door of the Koenig facility. The spokesman for the two men was described by Leistner as tall, blonde, and wearing a black beret. The man wearing the beret asked where Leistner and Rafferty were going. When Leistner answered "inside," the man in the beret said, "You're not going inside, its a 455 shop, you're on strike." Leistner answered that there must be a mistake inasmuch as the shop was a Local 810 shop. With that, the same man said that if Leistner and Rafferty went inside they would get their "ass kicked." The two men then attempted to block the door, but Rafferty and Leistner walked between them and entered. Koenig, Mohawk, Paxton, and Master, attempted to show during the hearing employee majority support for Local 810 at the time they entered into bargaining agreements with that Union. 27 The foregoing is merely recited as background but becomes somewhat important in consideration of part of Respondent Association and its members' defense in the refusal-to-bargain aspect of this proceeding. 276 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. After Ken Leistner entered the shop, he went to the garage area and rolled up the garage entrance door which opened onto the street directly in front of the Koenig shop near the other door that Leistner and Rafferty had entered. By that time, five or six individuals had gathered in front of the shop and among them were John Bell and Kenneth Mannsman, heretofore identified as a member of the Local 455 Executive Board. Although Leistner did not identify, specifically, who made the remarks that followed, merely referring to them as "they," it was stated by the individuals picketing with Bell and Mannsman, and perhaps by one of those two also, that they were not going to let any trucks out; that this was a Local 455 shop and they would "kick the shit" out of anyone trying to get into the shop. At that point several employees from various other shops in the area passed and they were stopped and threatened by the pickets. Approximately at 6:45 a.m. that day, Sol Leistner parked his car on the street near the shop entrance. As he was getting out of the car to enter the shop, the man in the black beret asked him where he thought he was going. The senior Leistner asked, "Who the hell are you?" To which the man in the black beret answered, "You are not going into the shop, its a 455 shop, you are on strike and you are going to get your ass kicked if you try to enter." The senior Leistner then addressed Bell and asked the latter what was going on. Bell answered to the effect that this was "strike time" and that no trucks would go in and no trucks would go out. Shortly thereafter another employee, Don Hammer, came out of the subway, approached the entrance and was given the same threats. When he attempted to enter the shop, Bell and Mannsman blocked the doorway. However, the employee managed to slip behind them and enter the shop at the beckoning of Ken Leistner. Other employees entering that morning experienced similar handling by Bell, Mannsman, and the pickets. Among these employees who sought to enter was one Christopher Brown. He tried to enter the shop at approximately 7 a.m. when he saw a group of men out in front with picket signs for Local 455. As he entered the shop, or attempted to do so, Kenneth Mannsman came up to him, asked him where he was going and continuously stepped in front of Brown attempting to prevent Brown's ingress to the shop. All the time that this was occurring, Mannsman was calling Brown a scab. When Brown asked why Mannsman was doing this, the latter answered that he was from Local 455 and that they had been picketing for 10 months. Brown answered that this was a Local 810 shop; that Brown worked for Local 810, to which Mannsman answered that Local 810 were a bunch of scabs. At that point, Mannsman made a gesture with his mouth as though he were going to spit at Brown. At this point Brown told Mannsman that he would knock out the latter's teeth if he spit at Brown. With this threat, Mannsman backed off and stated that there were ways of 25 From credited testimony of both Kenneth Leistner and Brown. In other parts of this Decision, I may credit Mannsman. However, I do not credit the denials of Mannsman with regard to this incident or his version of the same. Although it may well be that there were some exaggerations in Kenneth Leistner's testimony, I found Brown to be a most reliable witness whose testimony was not altered in any substantial manner on cross- handling "punks like you, we'll get you later, something like that." 28 In another similar incident, shortly after Richard J. Mason began employment with Respondent Employer Greenpoint on February 23, 1976, he was called a scab by John Bell who, at the same time spat in Mason's direction. Also, about the same time while Mason was working with another employee of Greenpoint named Charlie, Bell called to Charlie and told the latter that he, Charlie, was working for blood money. Additionally, according to Mason, Bell said to Charlie or "Carl," as the latter was also known, "23 years in the Union, you know better than that, get out of there Carl, that is blood money." In addition, Mason testified that at one time while he was at work, a picket, or at least an individual whom Mason assumed was connected with the Union, took a picture of Mason while the latter was at work. Later in the day, the same individual, Timothy Garner, took another picture of an employee named Dennis when they went out for coffee. Mason testified that when Garner :ook his picture, at approximately the same moment, Tony Schifa- no, a union official, was passing by in a red car. However, there is nothing in the testimony to connect Schifano with Garner or tending to show that Garner was taking the picture at the request of Schifano or any other union official. In addition to all of the foregoing, another picket, who had been name-calling, told Mason about the same time that he should not be surprised to see the pickets at his home. The next morning he observed some strangers across the street from his home. They carried no picket signs and Mason admitted that he had never seen these men before. According to Mason, he notified the police and some ex- Marine friends. When these friends appeared on the scene, the individuals who had been across the street from Mason's home disappeared. I cite this testimony of Mason only for the purpose of showing what the General Counsel has described as the testimony to prove violations of Section 8(b)(X)(A) of the Act. However, I find no reliable connection with Local 455 officials in any of the foregoing events involving Mason and I shall dismiss all of the violations with regard to any threats or other incidents which were alleged as violations of Section 8(aX)(1) with relation to Greenpoint or employees of Greenpoint.29 Additionally, counsel for Respondent Association of- fered the testimony of George Geuther, Jr., president of Greenpoint, to the effect that from the beginning of the strike Greenpoint had suffered considerable damage to its property caused by vandalism which in turn brought the police down to the premises quite often. Geuther also testified that the pickets would come down 20 or 30 at a time and swear at Geuther and the men who were working. They would also pound on the door. One day Schifano approached the area where Geuther and his father were working and told them that he did not want them to call examination and conclude that his testimony lends credence to the testimony of Kenneth Leistner. Bell did not testify. 29 The fact that Local 455 officials might have admitted picketing at the home of officers of some of the companies involved herein does not prove that Local 455 was engaged in the incident at Mason's home. 277 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the police about the pickets anymore. Schifano further stated, according to Geuther, that he would give them good reason to call the police if they did not stop. When Geuther asked Schifano if that was a threat, Schifano answered "yes" that it was a threat. To this Geuther said, "You're a bigger fool than I thought you were." 30 Kenneth Mannsman, who has been mentioned hereto- fore as a member of the Executive Board of Local 455, was also involved in some events concerning Long Island Steel Products Co., a Respondent Employer in this proceeding. These events were alleged by the General Counsel to have been violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the part of Local 455. Thus, on February 25, 1976, at approximately 2:30 p.m. on the afternoon of that day, Long Island President Davidson, Vice President Steinfeld, and three employees were leaving the Long Island premises in an automobile through an alley leading from the premises to the street. When they approached the sidewalk in order to cross it to go out into the street, employee Michael Frenna, who was then on the picket line, placed himself in front of the car. At that time, another individual, Ted Lincke, approached the car yelling obscenities and started taking pictures of the employees in the back seat. At the same time some of the other pickets began banging on the car. However, at that point the police stepped in, the pickets dispersed, and the car was permitted to proceed. Present during this entire incident was Mannsman who stood toward the front of the car a bit to the side. Mannsman made no effort to stop what was going on and could observe Lincke taking pictures of the men in the back seat. Mannsman made no effort to move the pickets from in front of the vehicle or to stop Lincke from taking the pictures. On Saturday, January 31, an employee of a glass company came to the premises of Long Island to repair some of the windows which had been broken. When he was finished working on a door window, this individual returned to his automobile and started up his motor. At that moment, Kenneth Mannsman stepped in front of the repairman's car and prevented him from moving. The individual seemed to be somewhat upset and came out of the car with an iron bar in his hand. He returned to the shop and Vice President Steinfeld of Long Island then called the police. When the police arrived, Mannsman removed himself from in front of the vehicle and the repairman was able to leave.31 In addition to the foregoing, counsel for Respondent Association and the individual Respondent Employers offered certain testimony with regard to additional inci- dents, not alleged as violations by the General Counsel, but which were claimed to have constituted violence and threats of violence and destruction of property at the premises of Respondent Employers Paxton Metalcraft, Mohawk Steel Fabricators, and Trojan Steel Corp. This 30 The foregoing is cited only in connection with the defense of Respondent and is not recited as part of any testimony in support of the g(b)( )(A) allegations of the complaint against Local 455. 31 The recitation with regard to the incidents concerning Mannsman at Long Island Steel is adopted from the testimony of Long fsland President Davidson and Vice President Steinfeld. Although there was some reference to the fact that this employee who had come to repair the glass in the Long Island door had threatened Mannsman with a hammer, I do not credit this for reasons that I discredit other Mannsman statements. I therefore credit the testimony of Davidson and Steinfeld whose testimony was straightfor- ward and unaltered on cross-examination in respect to these incidents. testimony was offered in support of Respondents' defense and offered as reasons why, in any event, no bargaining order against Respondent Employers or the Respondent Association should be issued. Paxton Metalcraft Corp.'s President, Leo Mayer, testi- fied that at the outset of the strike he had three employees in the plant, all of whom joined the strike. Among them was Antonio Monturo, who, as noted above, was solicited by Mayer and Vice President Melnick, to join Local 810, but who refused to do so. According to President Mayer, Monturo refused to return to work at Respondent's plant because Monturo was threatened. Monturo explained to Mayer, that he was afraid, not so much for himself, but for his wife and kids because the Union knew his address and at one time there were men brandishing baseball bats in front of his house at 5 o'clock in the morning when he was ready to leave for work. It is significant to note, however, that Monturo testified he refused to return to work because Paxton had refused to sign a contract with Local 455 and that, in fact, at the time that Mayer testified that Monturo was being threatened by Local 455 Monturo was picketing the premises of Paxton on behalf of Local 455. Thus, it is doubtful that the events which both Mayer and Melnick testified to with regard to the wrongful activity of the union representatives, as hereinafter set forth, was entirely factual and, I conclude, that there was involved in their testimony considerable exaggeration. Mayer thus testified that on a day shortly after the strike began, the guard door in front of the entrance of the Paxton premises was torn down and off its hinges. When Mayer, who had observed all during the morning the movements of the pickets, came outside, he saw John Steinhauser, an admitted union official, immediately outside the removed door. When Mayer asked Steinhauser if he had any part in the removing of the door, Steinhauser refused to answer. However, Mayer admitted, in testifying, that he had not personally seen nor heard the door being ripped off. Mayer also testified to two further alleged incidents. He testified that on one day when he opened the door of the plant to permit his partner, Melnick, to enter with the latter's car, Union Official Bell, who was standing 2 or 3 feet away from Mayer, tossed a lighted cigarette at Mayer hitting him in the chin. This resulted in an injury for which Mayer had to see a physician. Mayer further testified with regard to Bell that Bell had threatened him, stating that Bell was going to go to Old Tappan, where Mayer lived. Mayer also testified to a rock-throwing incident in which, allegedly, pickets were throwing rocks at Paxton employee Caruso. When Mayer observed the rock-throw- ing, he saw Bell throwing rocks up on the roof of the premises at Caruso who was on the roof performing work General Counsel also offered testimony with regard to events which allegedly occurred at the premises of S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc. However, although this alleged incident, among others, involved the alleged puncture of a tire of a truck, there was no connection whatsoever between the Union and the puncture of the tire. Furthermore, there was no testimony offered by any witness that such witness actually saw the tire being punctured. Accordingly, at the hearing herein, I dismissed that portion of the complaint against Local 455. That dismissal is hereby reaffirmed. 278 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. for Paxton. However, when Mayer filed a complaint with the police against Bell for the rock-throwing incident, Bell counterclaimed with a complaint that Mayer had threat- ened Bell with an iron pipe. Thereupon, the entire matter seems to have been dropped. Except for the alleged incident where the door of the premises had been torn off, all of the other alleged incidents, according to Mayer's own testimony, occurred after Paxton had signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 and after Paxton had withdrawn from multiemployer bargaining with Local 455. It should be noted in connection with all of this that although Mayer's partner, Melnick, testified he was not asked about any of these incidents. His testimony was limited to the circum- stances under which the collective bargaining with Local 810 was executed with one exception. He testified that he did see Bell toss the cigarette at Mayer. Thus, I find and conclude that Bell did commit the act of throwing the cigarette into Mayer's face. However, I have grave doubts as to the occurrence of the other incidents insofar as the Union's responsibility is concerned. Futher- more, by reason of the claim and counterclaim in the alleged rock-throwing incident, I find and conclude that there could have been a provocation on both sides and, additionally, witnesses called by counsel for the General Counsel testified that the rock-throwing was commenced by Paxton employee Caruso throwing rocks down on the pickets from the roof of the Paxton premises. I, therefore, conclude that the evidence is insufficient to find that Bell, or any other union representative, provoked the incident. With regard to an alleged incident involving employee Richard H. White of Mohawk Steel Fabricators, there is nothing to connect this incident to the Union. According to White, he was driving his car when another automobile drove up alongside him and two men whom he described, one of whom could possibly have been Union Business Agent Tessler, told him that he had better watch himself inasmuch as the same people who had committed certain acts at Long Island Steel could possibly commit similar acts against White. Evidently, White had been a Local 455 member but had returned to work for Mohawk. This constituted the entire incident. Because of White's inability to definitely identify Agent Tessler of Local 455 or connect the incident directly with Local 455 and because the incident occurred away from the Mohawk plant, it could have been merely a warning given in a friendly manner. This is so because, according to White, the individuals stated that they were really not concerned inasmuch as they were working. We come finally to incidents occurring at the premises of Trojan Steel Corp. and at alleged incidents occurring to members of the Feinglass family which controls that corporation. The difficulties at the premises of Trojan Steel Corp., unlike the difficulties that occurred at other Respondent Employers' premises, were of a more serious nature in certain respects. Additionally, they occurred before the withdrawal of the 17 Respondent Employers from multi- employer bargaining on January 16, 1976. In fact, they occurred in September and October 1975. It should be noted, however, that the feeling of enmity which seemed to have existed at Trojan between officials of Local 455 and the pickets on the one hand and the Feinglasses, the family which owned and controlled Trojan, on the other, could have been exacerbated when a picket was hit, either accidentally or purposely, by a truck driven by Arnold Feinglass, president of Trojan, on or about October 10, 1975. According to Stuart Feinglass, the son of Trojan President Arnold Feinglass, and an employee of Trojan, on or about September 30, 1975, and prior to that date, he had been warned and threatened by pickets that if he continued to work during the strike he would be injured and, perhaps, killed. However, because of certain inconsistencies in Stuart Feinglass' testimony on direct and on cross-exami- nation, I conclude that, to a great extent at least, much of Stuart Feinglass' testimony was exaggerated. He testified that on September 30, 1975, or thereabout, some days after the picketing of Trojan began and after there had been some boos and other catcalls made by the pickets as Stuart Feinglass and his brother-in-law, Jim Maisch, entered Respondent's shop, a broadcasting company's representa- tive came to the premises of Trojan located in a section of the Bronx, New York City, and interviewed Mario Plaza, the shop steward for Local 455 who was also on the picket line on behalf of Local 455 and, also, possibly interviewed Arnold Feinglass. On that day, most probably because of the appearance of the broadcasting apparatus, a crowd gathered which was larger than had normally been picketing the Trojan premises. Present, also, at the premises were John Steinhauser, a union business agent or delegate of Local 455, and Tony Buffalino, another agent or representative of that Union. According to Stuart Feinglass, when the broadcasting reporters and interview- ers were present, the pickets were shouting that they were going to kill Stuart Feinglass. This is one of the instances which I consider exaggerated in that I do not believe that the pickets would have done so in the presence of the broadcasting reporters. I believe such would have been highly unlikely under the circumstances. Furthermore, although, according to Stuart Feinglass, the pickets seemed even angrier the next day, and the numbers increased to 50 to 60 on October 1, I conclude that this could also well be an exaggeration because of the fact that on that date a number of employees from other nearby metal plants, who were also on strike as members of Local 455, but who were not involved in the instant proceeding, became curious and were drawn to the premises. In fact, they were not picketing Trojan but were across the street. According to Stuart Feinglass, Buffalino and Steinhauser were present across the street and were wielding baseball bats. Arnold Feinglass also testified to this. However, some doubt is thrown upon any alleged using of baseball bats and threats hurled at Trojan employees and the Feinglasses by the striking employees and union representatives because Stuart Feinglass admitted in testifying, as did Arnold Feinglass, that on most occasions during this entire period there were anywhere from 2 to 10 policemen at or near the premises at almost all times and especially at times when the Feinglasses were either entering or leaving the plant. However, things began to turn truly ugly only after a picket, Tobias Wolf, was hit by the rear of a truck driven 279 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Arnold Feinglass on October 10, 1975. That this incident occurred there is no doubt, inasmuch as Arnold Feinglass did not deny this incident in his testimony. Sometimes Stuart Feinglass was followed by other cars when he left the plant in the evening in his own car. According to him, on one occasion not too long after the foregoing incident, he was followed by a car driven by Steinhauser who, after pulling alongside the car of Stuart Feinglass attempted to cut off Feinglass' car as they proceeded away from the plant. Also, a rock was hurled from the Steinhauser car through the driver's side window of Stuart Feinglass' automobile. The police, who were escorting Feinglass at the time, gave chase and ultimately arrested Steinhauser who was eventually convicted on two misdemeanor charges. These charges involved the willful destruction of property and the endangering of lives. However, there occurred another incident the day after Arnold Feinglass backed his truck into, and knocked down, picket Tobias Wolf. On that day, as Arnold Feinglass was standing in the garage door opening of the Trojan premises, Steinhauser saw Arnold Feinglass and came rushing at Feinglass. Feinglass, seeing Steinhauser rushing at him, pulled down the garage door and as he did so Steinhauser, according to both Arnold and Stuart Feinglass, attempted to reach under the closing door and grab at Arnold Feinglass' legs. It is true that at that point Steinhauser was undoubtedly angry, but this anger could well have been caused by the injury to Tobias Wolf on the preceding day. While the behavior of Steinhauser at that time is not excusable, nor should it be condoned, it was certainly understandable. 3 2 Stuart Feinglass also testified that at one time while he was approaching the plant, after calling to state that he was coming in and that the door should be opened, his mother, who acted as secretary to the Trojan firm, was standing at the opened door for Stuart Feinglass to enter when Steinhauser spat at her. However, it should be noted in connection therewith, that when a coffee truck appeared soon thereafter both Stuart and his mother came out and had coffee and conversed with Steinhauser. Accordingly, I conclude that the spitting incident did not actually occur, at least not in the context in which Feinglass related. In any event all of these events were over by the end of October. The only truly violent incident was the breaking of the glass in Stuart Feinglass' car by the throwing of a rock from the car driven by Steinhauser. While this is an unforgivable situation for which the Union must be held somewhat responsible inasmuch as Steinhauser was a union agent, there is no evidence whatsoever that Steinhau- ser was ever instructed by anyone superior to him in the Union to commit any violent, criminal act. Additionally, although Trojan was one of the Employers who, on January 16, did withdraw from multiemployer bargaining, it is also equally true that it later signed an agreement with Local 455 which agreement was basically the same as the agreement signed by the five employer-members of the Association who signed with Local 455 late in January 1976. Further, this agreement, which was entered into in 32 It should be noted in connection with this incident that although Stuart Feinglass testified on direct evidence that Steinhauser grabbed his father's legs, Arnold Feinglass testified that Steinhauser was not able to grab April between Trojan and Local 455, contained certain minor differences from the contract between the other Employers who signed with Local 455. These differences were provided to accommodate peculiar situations at Trojan shop. Thus, even assuming the truth of the testimony regarding incidents to which Arnold and Stuart Feinglass testified, it would seem that these incidents did not prevent Trojan from accepting Local 455's contract as negotiated in January 1976. Accordingly, the incidents which occurred could not have had a chilling effect upon Trojan nor caused Trojan to be completely unwilling to do business with Local 455. Moreover, inasmuch as these incidents of violence occurred before Trojan's withdrawal and almost 6 months before the signing of the collective- bargaining agreement between Trojan and Local 455, it cannot be said that Trojan was forced by these acts of violence and alleged acts of violence into signing with Local 455, or were forced to deal with Local 455 by any of the actions of Local 455 or its representatives. F. The Requests for Reinstatement As heretofore set forth, on July 1, 1975, the employees of the Respondent Employers who were members of Local 455 went out on strike. At that time, the strike was called for the reason that no agreement had been reached between the Association and Local 455 with regard to the adoption of a renewed collective-bargaining agreement. The former collective-bargaining agreements between the individual Respondent Employers and Local 455 all carried the same expiration date, June 30, 1975. According- ly, when the strike was called and the Local 455 members walked out on their respective Employers, the strike was purely economic in nature. General Counsel contends and claims that this strike was converted into an unfair labor strike by various acts which he contends are, and were, violations of the Act committed by the Association and its members. Therefore, the employees who struck on July I have become unfair labor practice strikers and are entitled to reinstatement by reason of the unconditional request made on their behalf by Local 455. Received in evidence is the letter of request for reinstatement sent to the Associa- tion's members by Colavito, as president of Local 455. It was stipulated that this letter was sent by Financial Secretary Zito, over the signature of Colavito, on or about February 27 to 16, of the Respondent Employers, on March I to 4 other Respondent Employers, and on March 3 to Respondent Employer Cervenka. It was further stipulated that with regard to that letter delivery was refused by Respondents Greenpoint, Melto, and Trojan. With regard to Respondent Spigner and Sons, the letters were sent, evidently, to a post office box but remained unclaimed. The letters were all uniform and stated as follows: On behalf of your striking production and maintenance employees, we repeat the request previously made that they unconditionally return to work at their previous or substantially similar jobs. Arnold Feinglass' legs inasmuch as the door shut before Steinhauser could do so. 280 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. Please advise us of the date and time that you desire them to report to work. At the same time, and at the same dates, Union Financial Secretary Zito, over the signature of President Colavito, sent another letter to the same Employers and in the same manner. This letter was a second reply to the withdrawal letter of January 16 from collective bargaining by Respondent Employers, and also informed them that an agreement was arrived at between Local 455 and the Association which, of course, was referring to the agree- ment made with the five Employers on January 23, 1976. This letter stated, in substance, that Respondent Employ- ers had agreed to bargain collectively with Local 455 on a multiemployer basis and designated the Association to represent them. The letter further went on to state that any attempt to unilaterally withdraw would be improper and unlawful. It then informed the addressees that on January 23, 1976, an agreement was arrived at between Local 455 and the Association and a copy of this agreement which had been arrived at was enclosed. The letter ended with the statement to the effect that Local 455 considered the parties bound by the agreement and that the withdrawing members of the Association implement the same forthwith. Thus, there is presented for consideration hereinafter the issue of whether the employees who went out on strike were (a) unfair labor practice strikers as of the time the demand, as noted above, was made for their unconditional reinstate- ment, and (b) whether or not the letter requesting reinstatement when considered in the context of all that occurred was, in fact, unconditional. G. Respondents' Defense and Discussion Thereof Respondents contend that the withdrawals from multi- employer collective bargaining on January 16, 1976, were timely and proper and lawful under the Board law and court decisions in view of the fact, as argued by Respon- dents, that the parties had reached an impasse in bargain- ing and that the circumstances surrounding that impasse were such as to render lawful the withdrawals. In support of this basic contention, aside from any question as to whether an impasse did exist at the time of the withdrawal, Respondents bolster their argument by pointing to the 8(bXl)(A) violations on the part of Local 455 and the additional violence testified to at the hearing and as heretofore cited; to the very severe economic recession seriously affecting the economic well-being of the employ- er-members of the Association, some of whom were virtually without any source of business during the prolonged strike, not only because of the strike, but also because of the very serious lack of work in the entire building and construction industry; the original claimed reluctance of Local 455 to enter into multiemployer bargaining and the activities of Local 455 thereafter which indicated that Local 455 was seeking to destroy the Association and to disrupt multiemployer bargaining; and finally what Respondent claims to have been mere surface bargaining on the part of Local 455 with the intention by Local 455 not to reach an agreement with the Association 33 144 NLRB 1592 (1963). a3 The cited case was denied enforcement upon other grounds, 500 F.2d 181 (C.A. 5. 1974). as spokesman for the Association's members, but rather with the purpose in view of ultimately entering into separate agreements with the Association members, in other words, a process of divide and conquer. In addition to this basic contention and supporting arguments, Respondents further contend that, in any event, even assuming that the withdrawals were not timely and the members of the Association are found to be obligated to bargain on a multiemployer basis through the Association with Local 455, the Association and its members are not bound by the terms of the agreement which was entered into on January 23, 1976. (Counsel for the General Counsel contends this agreement is binding upon all of the members of the Association; that all the members of the Association must comply therewith and adopt the same as their bargaining agreement with Local 455.) Finally, above and beyond all of the foregoing, Respondents contend that pursuant to the theory of the Board in the case of Herbert Bernstein, et al., a co- partnership d/b/a Laura Modes Company, 33 should the Association and its members be found to have violated Section 8(aX5) of the Act, by reason of the violence and threats of violence and destruction of property heretofore set forth in this Decision, an order to bargain should not issue. By reason of these foregoing contentions it becomes necessary to analyze, in the first instance, the bargaining which occurred, as earlier in this Decision set forth, to determine whether, in fact, an impasse existed. This is so because the entire defense of Respondent with regard to the "special or unusual circumstances" surrounding the withdrawal falls by the wayside unless an impasse actually existed at the time the attempted withdrawal was made on January 16, 1976. Before doing so, however, it is well to review, in brief, the cases which deal with withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining once such bargaining has com- menced. The leading case in this respect is the case of Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388 (1958), in which the Board held that where the multiemployer bargaining has commenced, an employer may not withdraw from such bargaining except by mutual consent or because of "unusual circumstances." Another case relied on heavily by both General Counsel and counsel for Respondent Association and of the Respondent Employers which further explicated the law of Retail Associates, supra, is the case of Hi-Way Billboards, Inc., 206 NLRB 22 (1973). In that case, the Board decided that impasse alone is insufficient reason to permit withdrawal of an employer from multiemployer bargaining once bargaining has commenced.3 4 The Board in Hi-Way Billboards, supra, stated that an example of the unusual circumstances which would permit withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining after impasse would be presented where the withdrawing employer has been faced with dire economic circumstances "in which the very existence of an employer as a viable business entity has ceased or is about to cease." 35 Thus, in one case the Board has held that an employer may withdraw from multiemployer bargaining association after negotiations with a union have begun or the employer is 35 Hi-Way Billboards, supra, 206 NLRB at 23. 281 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD subject to extreme economic difficulties which result in bankruptcy or an arrangement under the bankruptcy laws3 6 or where an employer is faced with the eminent prospect of such adverse economic conditions as would require it to close its plant;37 or where the employer is faced with the prospect of being forced out of business for lack of qualified employees to do the job and the Union refuses to assist the employer by providing replacements for the employees the employer has lost.3 8 It should also be noted that in Hi-Way Billboards, Inc., supra, the Board also defined what it considered to be an impasse in bargaining. The Board held that "a genuine impasse in negotiations is synonymous with a deadlock: the parties have discussed a subject or subjects in good faith, and, despite their best efforts to achieve agreement with respect to such, neither party is willing to move from its respective position. When such a deadlock is reached between the parties, the duty to bargain about the subject matter of the impasse merely becomes dormant until changed circumstances indicate that an agreement may be possible. Once a genuine impasse is reached, the parties can concurrently exert economic pressure on each other: the union can call for a strike; the employer can engage in a lockout, make unilateral changes in working conditions if they are consistent with the offers the union has rejected, or hire replacements to counter the loss of striking employ- ees .... Thus, a genuine impasse is akin to a hiatus in negotiations. In the overall ongoing process of collective bargaining, it is merely a point at which the parties cease to negotiate and often resort to forms of economic persuasion to establish the primacy of their negotiating position ... In short, a genuine impasse is not the end of collective bargaining." 39 In support of their contention that the withdrawals or the attempted withdrawals from multiemployer bargaining on January 16, 1976, were lawful, Respondents rely, in part, upon an administrative determination made by the Regional Director for Region 2 of the Board in which the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint upon a charge filed by the Association against Local 455 for negotiating separately with one of the original members of the Association, Dextra Industries, Inc. The charge alleged that Local 455 had refused to bargain with the Association in that having negotiated and signed a separate collective- bargaining agreement with Dextra, it sought, in effect, to refuse to bargain with the Association as representative of the members of the Association and, also, that Local 455 did so with full knowledge that Dextra withdrew untimely from Association bargaining. Also, the charge alleged that Local 455 had restrained and coerced the members of the Association in the selection of their representative for the purpose of bargaining. On November 21, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 2 notified the Association, in writing, that he refused to issue a complaint on the ground that the investigation revealed no evidence that the Union engaged in conduct designed to undermine the Association and that, rather, the investigation revealed that Dextra withdrew from the Association subsequent to the collapse 36 See U.S. Lingerie Corporation, 170 NLRB 750, 751 (1968). 37 See Spun-Jee Corp. and The James Textile Corp., 171 NLRB 557, 558 (1968). of bargaining and chose to negotiate with the Union on an individual basis. In the dismissal letter, the Regional Director stated that impasse in bargaining had been reached before Dextra withdrew and before Local 455 consented to such withdrawal and began to negotiate with Dextra. The Association and its constituent members, who are Respondents herein, contend that this was determina- tive of the situation and that, therefore, an impasse existed and, accordingly, the determination by the Regional Director that an impasse existed was the law of the case herein. Accordingly, Respondents argue, an impasse having existed the question then remains as to whether there were sufficient additional surrounding circumstances unusual enough to find that the withdrawal of the named individual Respondent Employers and the Association from collective bargaining was timely and not violative of the Act. However, from the definition and the explanation of impasse hereinabove cited, as it applies to multiemployer bargaining, it is evident that after June 30, 1975, such impasse was broken because Local 455 immediately after the strike began circulating and presented to independent iron construction companies copies of its changed proposal and at the August 1975 meeting, admittedly called at the behest of the Association, Local 455 formally presented its revised proposal to the Association negotiators. This, of course, ended the impasse and negotiations began anew. Although the contract between Local 455 and Dextra was executed after July I and after the impasse had been ended, it must be assumed from the timing that the facts upon which the Regional Director of Region 2 of the Board based his dismissal of the charge filed by the Association were facts relating to conditions as they existed on and before June 30. Therefore, the withdrawal of Dextra and the negotiating by Local 455 with Dextra was not unlawful and could not be interpreted as being aimed at destroying multiemployer bargaining. It should be noted, additionally, that the administrative determination by a Regional Director who acted in the capacity of a representative of the General Counsel of the Board cannot be binding upon the Board or upon me with regard to the full determination of the instant case, not only because the facts, as the Regional Director must have known them, were different from the facts presented at the hearing herein, but also because an administrative determi- nation by a Regional Director, acting in his capacity as representative and counsel for the General Counsel, is not binding as a final determination upon the Board in the event that a complaint is later issued by the same or other Regional Director based upon a disagreement between the same parties. Such administrative determination and refusal to issue complaint is not res judicata, and is not determinative of the facts in the instant proceeding. Neither was the refusal of the United States district court to enforce the 6-month resignation provision of the bylaws of the Association against Dextra in any way binding upon the determination of the issues in the current case. 38 Atlas Electrical Service Co., 176 NLRB 827, 830 (1969). 3 Citations omitted. See Hi-Way Billboards, 206 NLRB at 23. 282 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. Upon the refusal of the Regional Director of Region 2 to issue a complaint as aforesaid and because the district court refused to enforce the 6-month resignation provision contained in the bylaws of the Association against Dextra, the Association notified its members that it felt that it could no longer require the members of the Association to conduct their bargaining through the Association. How- ever, the fact that the Association chose to put this interpretation upon these two foregoing determinations does not in and of itself excuse the withdrawal, months later, from the associationwide bargaining of the individual Respondent Employers. As set forth earlier in this Decision, after the meeting in late August between the Local 455 negotiators and negotiators for the Association, there were several bargain- ing sessions during the period from August to the end of December 1975. While the record does not reveal, in detail, what occurred at those bargaining meetings, it is apparent that little or no progress was made toward reaching an agreement. However, before the withdrawal, and shortly after the end of the year 1975, Local 455 had signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Allied, the other multiemployer bargaining Association heretofore de- scribed. Under these circumstances, Local 455 was in a position to better inform, and produce for, the Association negotiators more exact details as to what the contributions to the various funds would be because the Allied contract was historically the agreement which set the pattern for funds contributions from Employers in the industry whose employees were represented by Local 455. It was, therefore, finally possible for Local 455 to present these final details upon which negotiations could be furthered and upon which ultimate settlement could possibly be reached. Possibly as a result, on January 14, 1976, a negotiating session took place between representatives of the Associa- tion and Local 455. In the course of that meeting, Local 455 offered a reduction in its wage demand and the Association made a counterproposal which was rejected by the representatives of Local 455. However, although the meeting ended without any agreement on many money matters, the parties decided to once again make an attempt to see if they could move from the respective figures upon which they could not agree. Therefore, the meeting ended with the understanding that further negotiations would follow. However, only 2 days later, Irving Spigner, president of the Association, wrote to Local 455 a letter in which he set forth the decision of Respondent Employers herein to withdraw authorization from the Association to engage in collective bargaining or conclude any agreement on their behalf with Local 455. Thus, I find and conclude that upon the day that the withdrawal became effective, January 16, 1976, by reason of what has heretofore been recited with regard to the facts of the negotiations, and by reason of Board decisions defining impasse and the effects of the same as heretofore cited, that as of the date of withdrawal no true impasse existed. There had been movement at the last meeting held only 2 days prior to the withdrawal and although no agreement was reached on that day, when the parties parted they had agreed to meet again. The fact that the members of the Association had, by January 16, changed their minds about meeting again as a multiemployer group for the purposes of bargaining did not in any respect create an impasse where none had before existed. Turning now to the other contentions of Respondents that unusual circumstances existed to warrant the with- drawal from multiemployer bargaining, the first matter for consideration would necessarily be Respondents' conten- tion that from the very outset of the multiemployer bargaining, indeed, before the bargaining even began, Local 455 was not only reluctant to come to the bargaining table with the Association to bargain or to negotiate on a multiemployer basis but, in fact, set out to destroy and divide the Association. In support of this contention, Respondents argue that, even before the bargaining began, Local 455 would not agree to include Employers Balfour Door Co., Weatherguard Service, Inc., and Esco Iron Works in the multiemployer bargaining group because negotiations between these three individual Employers with Local 455 had already begun. However, while this may have represented a certain stubbornness and, perhaps, reluctance on the part of Local 455 to accept the Association as the bargaining representa- tive of these three companies, it fails as proof that Local 455 was unwilling to deal with the Association as representative of the other employer-members of the Association who had not begun bargaining with Local 455 on a single-employer basis. Nor does it constitute proof that Local 455 embarked on a course of conduct designed to destroy multiemployer bargaining through the Associa- tion. In further support of their contention that Local 455 sought to destroy associationwide bargaining, Respondents also point out that during negotiations Local 455 signed separate agreements with several members of the Associa- tion who withdrew. However, so far as the record shows, the withdrawals of those employer-members were volun- tary and not as the result of any purposeful pressure by Local 455. It would seem that those employer-members who withdrew from multiemployer bargaining did so in order to bargain on a separate individual basis with Local 455 possibly by reason of the fact that the strike was in effect and was hurting their business. This is a normal result of the economics of strikes. The prolonged bargain- ing had failed to reach a point where agreement could be effected at an early date and, accordingly, the Employers who withdrew reached the conclusion that bargaining on a single-employer basis with the consent of the Union would be economically more feasible for them. Therefore, I find and conclude that the fact that these withdrawals, although due to union pressure in the sense that Local 455 and the multiemployer bargaining negotiators had not reached agreement, such pressure was not applied to any individual Employer for the purpose of forcing such Employer out of multiemployer bargaining. I find and conclude that it was the economics of the situation which brought about resignation from multiemployer bargaining by those Employers who chose to bargain separately with Local 455 while the Association continued to bargain for its other members. Closely akin to the foregoing contention of Respondent Association and its members is the further argument that 283 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during the entire course of conduct starting with the negotiating meetings which took place in June 1975 and continuing until the withdrawal by the named Respondents on January 16, 1976, the Union engaged in surface bargaining with the intention of never reaching an associationwide agreement and with the further purpose of arriving at agreement only with the members of the Association on an individual basis. However, analysis of the bargaining meetings and the various proposals made both by Local 455 and the Association reveals that although Local 455 may have engaged in what could be termed "hard bargaining," it did not engage in surface bargaining for unlawful purposes, as contended by Re- spondent Employers and the Association. Thus, at the very outset of the bargaining, Local 455 submitted a proposal which was in all respects a complete collective-bargaining agreement with two exceptions, the first being the absence of a specific wage proposal and the second being that the contributions to the various welfare funds were mentioned but the dollar amounts thereof were left blank. These extensive proposals for a new contract were barely discussed at the first four bargaining sessions, all preceding the strike, because the main subjects of discussion at the behest of the representatives of the Association were the so-called 50-odd differences between the contracts that were about to expire, to which the members of the Association were independently joined, and the agreement, also about to expire between Local 455 and Allied. While it is true that Local 455's initial proposals did indicate that Local 455 was desirous of a substantial wage increase for its members, the discussion at the four meetings which took place before the strike was centered, for the most part, upon the 50-odd differences, except for the discussion on the eve of the strike when the Association's representatives stated that there would have to be a wage decrease for employees of Association members in answer to Local 455 representative's disclosure that Local 455 was seeking a 15- percent wage increase from Allied. Additionally, at that meeting, Local 455 also informed the Association's repre- sentative that, in the main, the Allied contributions to the various funds would require an outside limit of a 5-percent increase over what the members of the Association were then paying under the expiring agreements. According to Colavito, this was no different than what had been the experience of the parties, individually, over the years in which the independent Employers, who were now members of the Association, agreed to pay fund contributions equal to that agreed upon between Local 455 and Allied. Additionally, although wages were mentioned at the meeting, they were passed over because of the 50-odd differences and Respondent Association did seem to change its position and stated once Local 455 agreed to 4o It is not clear from the record whether the Association's proposal of a wage increase as a quidpro quo for the 50-odd differences was made before or after it proposed a wage decrease. 1 Colavito's testimony throughout the record (he reappeared on the witness stand on a number of occasions) was not always as complete as could be desired. He was in the habit of answering questions in a manner not quite directed toward the questions, but, rather, toward what he assumed the question to be. Whether this was because he did not always listen, or whether it was a quirk in the manner in which he answered questions regardless of their nature, cannot be resolved by me. However, in the main, I find and conclude that Colavito attempted, in his own inimitable give to them the 50-odd differences the Association members, in return, would be willing to negotiate substan- tial wage increases. 40 As noted above, on July 1, 1975, Local 455 began circulating a stipulation to independent industry compa- nies, not members of either Allied or the Association, wherein it was specifically stated what Local 455 was seeking by way of wages. This stipulation also contained a provision that, as in the past, the negotiations with Allied would determine the funds contributions. Although this proposed stipulation was not distributed to the Association or its members at that time, it is difficult to believe that none of the members of the Association or the Associa- tion's bargaining committee were aware of the terms of that stipulation. However, there is no indication in the record that would definitely prove knowledge on the part of the individual members of the Association or the Association of the terms of that stipulation. The only testimony in the record with regard thereto, as to the knowledge of the Association and its members at that time, was Local 455 President Colavito's testimony that he believed that members of the Association had general knowledge of this proposed agreement and the settlements which ensued therefrom. It should be noted, however, that the amount of wage increase in that stipulation was approximately 65 cents per hour which was, according to Colavito, less than the 15 percent which Local 455 had informed the Association's bargaining committee on June 30 that Local 455 would require in any new agreement. However, in any event, this was the offer made by Local 455 and submitted at the meeting held between Local 455 negotiators and Association negotiators late in August 1975. At that time, therefore, there can be no question that full knowledge of the package requested by Local 455 with regard to economic provisions was conveyed to the Association and its members. That this was not acceptable to the Association members at that time does not constitute evidence of bad-faith bargaining and perhaps not even hard bargaining inasmuch as the 65 cents per hour was somewhat of a retreat from the original 15-percent figure mentioned on June 30.41 As a matter of fact, at least from the record, there was some contradiction in what occurred even during the June bargaining sessions which indicated that the Association changed positions in such a manner as would indicate that perhaps the Association itself was engaging in less than good-faith bargaining. Thus, at one stage during these negotiations, as mentioned above, the Association's repre- sentative stated that they were willing to give a substantial wage increase if the 50-odd differences were straightened out. However, at the bargaining session on June 30, the position of the Association's negotiators, after Local 455's manner, to convey truthfully the events as they unfolded with regard to the negotiations and the various conversations had between himself and representatives of the Association or representatives of the individual employer-members of the Association. Illustrative of this attempt by Colavito to relate candidly what had occurred, his testimony with regard to the emphasis in the June 1975 bargaining sessions upon the 50-odd differences was supported by the testimony of Association President Spigner and Murray Scheinmer, president of Master Iron Craft, both of whom testified that these 50-odd differences were very important to the employer- members of Respondent Association from the very outset of the negotia- tions. 284 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. representatives stated that they would discuss the 50-odd differences separately, was that the Association's members were looking forward to a reduction in wage rates and a reduction in contribution to the funds. At any rate, after discussion at the August 1975 meeting of Local 455's complete proposal, no agreement was reached and Respondents now claim that one of the basic reasons was that Local 455 adamantly insisted that the contributions to the various funds were to be tied to whatever was ultimately agreed upon between Local 455 and Allied. Although few bargaining sessions were held thereafter and were, for the most part, exercises in futility insofar as reaching final agreement was concerned, there was no indication that at any time during that period the Association or members considered Local 455 to be bargaining in bad faith. No charges were filed against Local 455 during that period of time except in the Dextra matter. Although this is not proof that Local 455 was not engaging in bad-faith bargaining, it would indicate, at least, that the Association, which was being advised by Labor Relations Counsel Brickman during the entire period of negotiations, did not see fit to file unfair labor practice charges on the ground that it believed that Local 455 was bargaining in bad faith. Ultimately, even during the bargaining that occurred on January 14, 1976, which meeting concededly was brought about through the good offices of the New York Mediation Service, there was movement on the part of Local 455. And, although the Association somewhat modified its proposals at that meeting, and the Union rejected the modified proposals, there was no indication that this rejection, despite Respondents' arguments to the contrary, was for the purpose of never reaching an agreement on a multiemployer basis. While it may be true that if some of Colavito's approach to bargaining and his attitude at the bargaining table was as disconcerting and aggravating as his manner of answering questions at the hearing herein, and while it is further true that, had Local 455's representa- tive been less unyielding, agreement might have been reached, nevertheless, the attitude of Colavito and other Local 455 representatives during the bargaining meetings did not indicate that Local 455 did not intend to reach agreement under any circumstances on a multiemployer basis except on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That Local 455, through Colavito, was willing to make further concessions is indicated by the ultimate agreement reached with the 5 Employers who signed the stipulation dated January 23 after the withdrawal of the 17 other Association members on January 16. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the record does not substantiate a finding that Local 455 engaged in surface bargaining or failed to bargain in good faith. While it might well be that Colavito and his colleagues could have steered a more lenient course under the circumstances in order to bring about agreement, it is not within the Board's province or mine to make judgments of substantive proposals. 42 2 N. L. R. B. v. A mencan National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395, 404 (1952). 43 It should be noted that, by the time Irving Spigner sent the letter of January 16 withdrawing authority of the 19 Employers from the Association to bargain for them, he was no longer associated with Spigner and Sons, Inc. We come now to the contention of counsel for Respon- dent Association and Respondent Employers to the effect that the Employers who did not sign and who have continuously refused to sign and join in the agreement entered into between Local 455 and Carlin, Naiztat, Bay Iron Works, Wortman Iron Works, and Brakewell Steel Fabricators, Inc., on the dates between January 23, and 28, 1976, are not legally bound to do so because that contract was ultimately negotiated and entered into between Local 455 and individuals not authorized to commit the members of the Association to any agreement with Local 455. The members of the Association's bargaining committee during the entire course of bargaining until the letter dated January 16, 1976, withdrawing authorization for 19 employer-members of the Association, were Spigner himself, Edward Peele of the Peele Company, Murray Scheiner of Master Iron Craft, Lawrence Uydess of Bay Iron Works, and perhaps a few others from time to time during the period of negotiations. Also, at most of the bargaining sessions as an Association representative and negotiator was Daniel Doyle, president of Brakewell Steel Fabricators.4 3 As heretofore noted, at the meeting held by the Association negotiators and the Union on January 14, 2 days before the so-called withdrawal letter of January 16, 1976, a further meeting of the parties was discussed and agreed upon. However, the intervening withdrawal letter seemed to have been sufficient to indicate that for all intents and purposes that the meeting was not to be held. There is no testimony, however, in the record which indicated that Spigner as Association president, or anyone else in authority for the Association, notified Colavito or any Local 455 official that a meeting was not to be held on the part of the nonwithdrawing members although no specific date had been set for such meeting. However, Daniel Doyle, of Brakewell and a member of the bargain- ing committee of the Association, met several times with Colavito because Doyle felt that perhaps it was Colavito, himself, who was the stumbling block to progress and felt that if he could straighten out some of the matters which had caused the so-called withdrawal perhaps progress could be made. But Doyle was not authorized in any formal manner to speak for the Association and, in fact, had not even informed Irving Spigner, the Association president, that he was in contact with Colavito. During these preliminary person-to-person discussions between Doyle and Colavito some progress toward a meeting was made and eventually, on January 23, a meeting was held at the state mediation board between Colavito and Kenneth Mannsman for Local 455 and Doyle, Seymour Kaplan of Carlin, and the two Naiztat brothers from Naiztat Iron Works. At the outset of the meeting, Doyle informed the union representatives that the parties who were present, although members of the Association, were representing only their own companies and not the Association. In connection therewith, Doyle specifically informed Colavito and Mannsman that any authority he might have had in However, he remained during the entire penod of time, and was still, at the time of hearing herein, president of the Association which, in addition to its negotiation functions, represented the members in other industrial matters. 285 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the past as a member of the negotiating committee for the Association had been revoked, and that he and the others who were present represented only their own companies. Doyle further stated that any negotiations would be conducted with that understanding. Colavito immediately registered his objection to this arrangement and stated that he had come to have a meeting with the Association and that as far as he was concerned those individuals who were present represented the Association. Colavito wanted to know who had revoked Doyle's authority as a negotiator for the Association. Doyle answered that the president of the Association had done that and while Doyle had no objection to proceeding with negotiating for his company, because he wanted to resolve the strike situation, he could not represent the Association. Finally, after Colavito and Mannsman had left the room for a separate discussion, or caucus by themselves, they returned and Colavito stated that he was willing to proceed. At that point, Doyle again reiterated his earlier position that the parties who were members of the Association were there to speak for themselves and not for the Association and again Colavito said he could not accept that position. To this Doyle answered that under those circumstances there was no point in negotiating. However, despite the protests by both parties with regard to their differences in position, someone suggested that, nevertheless, they go ahead and discuss the contract and they did go over the proposed contract item by item. There were individual differences among the Employers present because of individual problems in their own shops which were applicable only to their own situations. Nevertheless, the discussion went along upon those matters on which they could all mutually agree or in which they were all mutually interested. Toward the end of the day, although Colavito indicated that he was willing to sign, the others stated that they had individual problems which were not mutual in regard to all of the shops and that, therefore, it would be a necessity to have separate meetings with Colavito to iron out the individual problems as well as the mutual matters on which they could all agree. These problems, of course, which were applicable to the individu- al shops were unique with those shops because of the differences in the product which the shops produced and also because of differences in the type of work that was being done at the various shops. Accordingly, the following Monday, there was a meeting between Colavito, Doyle, and the representative of Wort- man. Before that however, there was a meeting on Saturday, January 24. For the Union, present were Colavito and John Steinhauser, the business agent who had serviced Doyle's shop, and who also serviced the Wortman shop. Again the same discussion with regard to the authority of the individuals to sign for the Association arose and the same arguments took place with regard to Local 455's stand that the Employers present would have "4 All of the foregoing from testimony of Daniel Doyle as supported by the testimony of Lawrence Uydess and Irving Spigner. Although Colavito testified somewhat to the contrary, I find that in this instance, Colavito's answers were not sufficiently definite with regard to the above meetings to satisfactorily establish that the signatories to the contract dated January 23 understood they were signing on behalf of the Association or any members of the Association. Although I have credited Colavito in other respects in to sign for the Association if they came to an agreement. Doyle and Wortman's position was that they could not sign except as individuals. Two days later, the original meeting which had been set up for the following Monday was held at the Sheraton Inn at LaGuardia Airport. Colavito was present with Manns- man. Five companies' representatives were at the meeting and they were again the representative of Wortman, Bay Iron and the others who had been at the original meeting in January between Doyle and Colavito. Again the discussion as to the representative capacity of the individuals was discussed, and again Colavito insisted that the individuals sign as representatives of the Association. Again the individuals stated that they could only negotiate and sign for themselves and not as representatives of the Associa- tion. However, despite this disagreement, the parties finally did come to an agreement on most of the contract terms and the stipulation dated January 23 was signed with each individual Employer, namely Carlin by Kaplan, Naiztat by Henry J. Naiztat, Bay Iron Works by Doyle, Wortman by its representative. Under each signature they wrote the words, "Member of the Association" upon the insistence of Colavito. At no time either during the Friday, Saturday, or Monday meetings did any Employer present state that he had the authority to speak on behalf of or bind the entire Association. This was definitely made clear to Colavito. It should be noted that although the agreement is dated January 23, 1976, the first signatures were actually placed thereon on different dates. Doyle's company, Brakewell, signed on January 28. Each of the signatories also ironed out their individual shop differences because of problems unique to their own shops. They all understood that this was not part of the basic contract, but was, rather, by side agreements. At the meeting at Brakewell on January 28, when Doyle ultimately signed as president of Brakewell, he again told Colavito that he wanted the latter to understand that he was signing as a "Member of the Association" only because Colavito insisted on it and because Doyle wanted a contract for Brakewell Steel so Brakewell could get back into production. He stated emphatically that he was not signing for any other Employer, that he was not signing for the Association, that he was signing merely for Brakewell. To this, Colavito said nothing. However, it is evident that he regarded the contract as the Association contract.44 The agreement that was arrived at and dated January 23, 1976, and which was signed by Brakewell, Carlin, Naiztat, Bay Iron Works, and Wortman Iron Works, was later adopted by two other employer-members of Respondent Association who have signed duplicate stipulations. These are Respondents Trojan and Heuser. These agreements are all uniform in the main, although there are some differenc- es with regard to certain language uniquely applicable to the individual shops, which differences are contained in separate stipulations. The uniformity of the agreements would seem to indicate that the agreements were negotiat- this Decision, I do not credit him with respect to this particular situation. To the extent that I credit Colavito, or any other witness, in some respects, and do not credit him, or any other witness, in any other respect, I do so upon the evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness' testimony." N.LR.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749. 754 (C.A. 2, 1950). 286 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. ed and signed as agreements of the Association for and on behalf of the Association, and that, therefore, the other Respondent Employer members of the Association who have not signed are obligated to sign and be bound by this agreement. On the other hand, as counsel for the General Counsel himself has pointed out, the record shows that, in the past, it has been the practice, even before the formation of the Association, for the independent Employers who are now members of the Association to sign virtually similar "independent agreements" except for differences uniquely applicable to their own particular shops because of differences either in operation or the type of product which the particular shop was producing. The fact that there is uniformity in the ultimate stipulation signed by the seven or so shops does not in and of itself support the General Counsel's contention that these agreements were negotiated for and on behalf of the Association and obligated all the Association members to become parties thereto and to sign similar agreements. It is true, as noted by counsel for the General Counsel, that if the other members are not ordered to sign, this could present problems for Local 455 with regard to negotiations with the other members of the Association because Local 455 cannot retain credibility if it gives better terms to some members than others. On the other hand, the fact cannot be ignored that the Association members who did sign the January 23, 1976, agreement as "Members of the Associa- tion" did so at the insistence of Local 455, which never consented to the withdrawal of the other Association members from multiemployer bargaining. The issues presented by these conflicting facts are discussed and resolved in a further section of this Decision. H. The "Laura Modes" Defense Counsel for Respondent Association and its individual members named as Respondents herein contend that even assuming the Board would ordinarily, under the circum- stances in this case, issue a bargaining order against the Association and its members to bargain with Local 455, no bargaining order should issue because of the violence, threats of violence, and destruction of property claimed to have been committed by officers and officials of Local 455 and that the precedent for the withholding of a bargaining order in a case such as this, has been set by the Board in the case of Herbert Bernstein, et al., a co-partnership d/b/a Laura Modes Company, 144 NLRB 1592, 1596(1963).45 It is true that the conduct of Local 455, through some of its agents, especially Mannsman and Bell, as heretofore related, was far less than exemplary, and that the conduct heretofore found to have been violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the part of Local 455 cannot be condoned. However, the record does not show that Local 455 has engaged in this type of conduct, historically, whenever its demands during negotiations and during strikes have not been met by Employers with whom it deals. Additionally, there were also, originally, 31 Employers, as demonstrated by the exhibits received in evidence herein, who authorized the Association to bargain on their behalf. While it is true 45 See also Union Nacional de Trabajadores (The Carborundum Company of Puerto Rico and Carborundum Caribbean. Inc.), 219 NLRB 862, 863-864 (1975); Allou Distriburors. Inc., 201 NLRB 47 (1973). that some of these Employers, early in the game, dropped by the wayside, and signed separate agreements with the consent of Local 455, there were, throughout the entire period from June 1975 until January 16, 1976, a minimum of 23 Employers still negotiating, or at least still authoriz- ing the Association to deal on their behalf. And it was not until January 16 that 17 Employers withdrew their bargaining authorizations from the Association. However, as heretofore set forth, there were only six employer members out of the total membership of the Association who were, possibly, victims of any unlawful activity which could possibly be the responsibility of Local 455. These were, as noted above, Koenig, Long Island, Greenpoint, Paxton, Mohawk, and Trojan. And in the cases of Paxton, Mohawk, and Trojan, there was no charge or complaint filed with regard to any activity which could be classified as violent. I have heretofore set forth and found that the Union has engaged in certain activity which is found to have been violative with regard to the first three of the above-named Employers. All of the violative conduct found with regard to those three Employers, in sum, totaled the taking of photographs of employees, the picketing of an employee's home, threats of injury, blocking of ingress and egress from a plant on one specific day with regard to Respondent Employer Koenig and the same with Respondent-Employ- er Long Island. The taking oft' the photographs was only with regard to two of these Employers' strikebreaking individuals whom they hired or had continued to work after the strike. Additionally, it should be noted that the conduct found in those three matters to have been violative of Section 8(bX1)(A) of the Act was conduct which occurred only after the withdrawal by the 17 Employers on January 16 from multiemployer bargaining. This withdrawal resulted in a complete cessation, with but two exceptions, of bargaining with Local 455 by the withdrawing members on any basis, multiemployer or individual, whatsoever. Fur- thermore, each of the three Respondent-Employers, whose premises, officials or employees were victims of unlawful union conduct, had engaged in pervasive unfair labor practices including, among other things, the signing of collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810 of the Teamsters in the cases of Greenpoint and Long Island, before these Employers had even withdrawn from multiem- ployer bargaining, and in the case of Koenig soon thereafter. With regard to the other three Respondent- Employers whose plants were picketed and who suffered some inconvenience and, perhaps, some minor injury to person or to their property, such injury could not be, as heretofore set forth, directly attributed to any policy on the part of Local 455 to commit any such unlawful action, even though that union must bear the responsibility. Perhaps the most violent conduct on the part of union officials or conduct by pickets in the presence of union officials who made no effort to stop the pickets from their activities was, if believed, at the premises and away from the premises of Respondent-Employer Trojan. Again, the actions of Union Representatives Steinhauser and Manns- 287 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD man, if the testimony regarding such is accepted, is certainly not to be condoned. It was, perhaps, as noted above, caused by the striking with his truck by Trojan President Feinglass of a picket lawfully picketing that Respondent's premises. The reaction to that was, for the most part, an almost instantaneous reaction provoked by the violence, purposeful or not, committed by President Feinglass. Additionally, in the case of Trojan, this activity all took place months before the withdrawal. There was a long period of quietus between that activity and the withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining. Moreover, Trojan could not have believed that this alleged unlawful activity was quite as serious as the Feinglasses', father and son, had testified, in view of the fact that Trojan ultimately, voluntarily, came to Local 455's representative and adopted the stipulation dated January 23, 1976, and is currently under contract with Local 455. Additionally, the fact cannot be ignored that only in a very few instances was there any desertion from the ranks of Local 455 into Local 810, or the crossing of picket lines by Local 455 members. Large desertion from its ranks could have indicated that Local 455 was using violence as a strategem for forcing its members to maintain their loyalty to Local 455. On an overall basis, however, considering the total number of Employers and employees involved, the activities heretofore found to have been either unlawful, or violent but not alleged in the complaint against Local 455 issued by the General Counsel, were not very pervasive when the entire record is considered. As noted, there is no evidence that violence was a policy of Local 455 either in the past or at the time of the events herein. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the activity above-mentioned on the part of some of Local 455's representatives, or on the part of pickets at the various Emloyers' establishments, constituted the type of pervasive, planned violence such as has been held by the Board to warrant the withholding of a bargaining order.? Accordingly, I find and conclude that the possible misconduct at six out of the total of the Respondent Employers' plants, does not constitute evidence of a deliberate plan or policy on the part of Local 455 by intimidation or violence to insure to Local 455 continued adherence by its members or to force the Employers or the Association to capitulate to its demands. As pointed out by the General Counsel in his brief, the strike was very lengthy, the Employers involved, themselves, have commit- ted grave unfair labor practices, as hereinafter discussed, and yet, despite all of this, the vast majority of Local 455 members who went out on strike and picketed remained loyal to Local 455.47 46 Union Nacional de Trabajadores, supra, A lou Distributors, Inc., supra; Laura Modes Company, supra Counsel for the General Counsel advances the argument that inasmuch as this was not an initial organizational campaign, but rather a long drawn out strike and picketing with a union which had for many years been the bargaining representative of the Respondent-Employers' employees herein, this is a distinction between the Laura Modes theory and the present case. However, I do not rely on this contention as having validity inasmuch as it is a distinction without a I. The Discharges and the Refusals To Reinstate the Striking Employees As recited earlier in this Decision, on two occasions employee Michael Frenna of Long Island was told by Long Island's president, Davidson, in an attempt to persuade Frenna to join Local 810 that his job would be in jeopardy unless he did so. Upon Frenna's refusal on both occasions to accept or seek membership in Local 810 and after he remained adamant in his adherence to Local 455, David- son told him on both occasions that Frenna had better look for another job. Additionally, Long Island's vice president, Steinfeld, made a like threat when he told striking employee Harry Bender that Long Island had signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 and that the striking employees were all out of jobs. Virtually the same condition existed at Respondent Greenpoint. There, George Geuther, Jr., informed striking employee Joseph Matzell in September 1975 that if Matzell did not join Local 810 he would have no job. Matzell refused to join Local 810. Thereafter, some time either before or after the withdrawal letter of January 16, Geuther asked Matzell, who was then picketing, why the latter was doing so inasmuch as he no longer worked for Greenpoint. At approximately the same time Geuther said to employee Gontorski when the latter refused to join Local 810 that "I'm going to have to get men to work for me from 810 and you won't have a job here no more." This clearly referred not only to Gontorski and Matzell but to all of Green- point's employees. It should be noted that Gontorski took this to be a discharge and returned to Greenpoint in May 1976 for his tools and other personal belongings. At that time he was not permitted to enter the shop. That it was the intention of Geuther to discharge all of his employees is better proven by uncontroverted testimony of employee Salvatore Gulino upon his refusal to support Local 810. At that time, Geuther told him, as he had told other employees, that it was better if Gulino would look for another job. Employee Stanley Sieminski also confirmed this when he testified, credibly, that when all four of Greenpoint's employees refused to join Local 810, they were told by George Geuther, Jr., to look for new jobs. However, it is not certain whether Greenpoint, after sending its employees letters, despite all of the foregoing, in late October 1975 stating that they should return to work by November 10, 1975, or their jobs would be filled by other personnel, ever did refill all their jobs. One employee, Richard Mason, was hired on February 23, 1976, after Greenpoint had committed other unfair labor practices. In any event, there being no evidence that these employees were replaced except for perhaps one of them, it would seem that they are entitled to reinstatement either as discharged employees or, as hereinafter set forth, as employees for whom the Union offered to return to work difference. Furthermore, in Union Nacional de Trabajadores, supra, the pervasive violent activity had continued over a period of time and dunng earlier organizing and bargaining periods. 47 See United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 155 NLRB 1390 (1965), which held that conduct similar to the conduct complained of by Respondents herein, was basically conduct occurring in the "heat of picket line tensions" and not part of a plan of intimidation. 288 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. unconditionally. By that time these employees had become unfair labor practice strikers as hereinafter further detailed. With regard to any other Employers, there is no direct evidence of discharges. However, a review of the events as they unfolded from June 30, 1975, until the request for reinstatement of these employees by Colavito in February 1976, reveals that the strike which began on July 1, 1975, was converted, at the latest, by January 16, 1976, to an unfair labor strike with regard to every one of the named Respondent Employers herein. It is unnecessary for me to list all of these unfair labor practices, but among them were threats of discharge, actual discharges, the unlawful signing of collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810, the general refusal to bargain arising out of the withdrawal for multiemployer bargaining among other things. According- ly, at the time the request of the Union over the signature of Colavito on behalf of all the striking employees to unconditionally return to work for their respective Employ- ers was sent to Respondent Employers, these striking employees were unfair labor strikers, the strike having been converted by Respondents' unfair labor practices to an unfair labor strike. Accordingly, the failure and refusal on the part of Respondent Employers to reinstate these employees up to and including the date of the hearing herein and perhaps to the date of this Decision constitutes further violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.48 J. Summary and Conclusions The contentions and arguments in support thereof presented by Respondent, while seeming, at first blush, to have some merit, and which would, collectively, according to Respondent, indicate that the withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining was timely and lawful, I find are without merit in their totality. It is quite true, and the record supports the factual contention of Respondent Employers and the Association, that the entire industry, of which the Association and its members are part, has been suffering from the nationwide recession and that a number of Respondent Employers are having some financial difficulties. The statements and testimony by officials of two of Respondents, Ikenson and Spigner and Sons, that they have absolutely no business whatsoever and have had no business whatsoever since before the strike commenced, indicates that there is certainly a precarious position with regard to the econom- ics of at least two of Respondent Employers involved. Nevertheless, with the exception of Respondent Employer Ikenson, there has been no showing that any of these Employers are in such condition that they are nearing bankruptcy or that the Union is withholding employment of its members from them. In fact, quite the contrary is true. The Union has made an offer to return the striking employee members of Local 455 to return to work unconditionally so that there is no dearth of employees whom Local 455 would supply who could perform work in the various shops of their respective Employers. Additionally, as noted above, there has not been a refusal by Local 455 to bargain collectively with the 4x Although counsel for the General Counsel lists certain shops in which there was evidence that they have not hired employees since the strike. I nevertheless make no findings with regard thereto but will, in my Association on a multiemployer basis but, rather, Local 455, as well as the Association and its members, have engaged in hard bargaining which, up to the date of January 16, the date of the withdrawal, has resulted in failure to arrive at a collective-bargaining agreement. It is unnecessary at this point to review the bargaining which took place at the various negotiation meetings. I find and conclude, however, that there has not been a failure on the part of Local 455 to bargain in good faith. Looking to other contentions which Respondent Associ- ation and its members advance to seek to prove "unusual circumstances" which would permit withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining under Board and court prece- dent, I do not find that the actions of the various officials of Local 455, namely Mannsman, Bell, Matienzo, or others, to have been so pervasive with regard to all of the Employers involved as to constitute any further evidence that the Union was seeking to (a) destroy the multiemploy- er bargaining group or (b) cause the Board to withhold a bargaining order in any event. Moreover, I do not find that the so-called "hard bargaining" engaged in by Local 455, or the bargaining by Local 455 with individual members who dropped out of multiemployer bargaining with the consent of that union constituted, in any respect, a deliberate plan or policy of the Union to break up the Association as a multiemployer bargaining group as alleged and contended by Respondents. In fact, it is doubtful that Local 455 was obliged, in the first instance, to accept multiemployer bargaining. The record is devoid of evidence that would indicate an intention to destroy multiemployer bargaining once Local 455 accepted multi- employer bargaining with the Association. Nor is it for the Board to judge whether Colavito, Local 455 president, acted wisely or pragmatically throughout the bargaining. So long as the bargaining tactics in which Colavito engaged did not constitute either a refusal to bargain or an attempt to split, divide and conquer, the wisdom of such tactics is not for the Board to judge. With regard to the withdrawal, there is one item which becomes necessary to finally discuss. It is true that under the Board's original theory with regard to multiemployer bargaining as set forth in the case of Retail Associates, Inc.,4 9 consent is necessary to the formation of multiem- ployer bargaining and is based at its inception on consent of the employees, their employer and the union involved. In the case at bar, it is possibly arguable that the withdrawal on January 16, 1976, constituted a withdrawal of such consent by the vast majority of the original Employers who constituted the multiemployer bargaining group. They having withdrawn from such multiemployer bargaining, the bargaining group was by that withdrawal completely destroyed because the consensual conception of multiemployer bargaining was at the same time destroyed for all practical purposes. However, considering the events that preceded the withdrawal on January 16, 1976, including the pervasive unfair labor practices engaged in by the bulk of the Employers involved, the violations of Section 8(a)(2) in assisting Local 810, the threats to recommendations hereinafter set forth, leave that determination to be made in any supplemental proceedings necessary to determine backpay. 4 120 NLRB 388 (1963). 289 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharge and the discharges, and the other violations heretofore found, the withdrawal of consent of a majority of the Association members cannot be accepted as a reason to permit such withdrawal and find the same to have been lawful. To permit withdrawal, under such circumstances, would be tantamount to creating a precedent whereby the Board would permit withdrawal from and destruction of multiemployer bargaining whenever the majority of a multiemployer group does not get, through group negotia- tions, what it is seeking by way of a collective-bargaining agreement. This would not only be a dangerous precedent, but would, in effect, result in rewarding employers such as those in the case at bar for their own unfair labor practices. It follows, therefore, that although the collective-bargain- ing agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and the seven Employer-members of the Association was agreed to by but a remnant of the total membership, it is, nevertheless, binding on those who withdrew from multi- employer bargaining. It is true that Doyle of Brakewell, and the others who signed, repeatedly emphasized they were signing for themselves only, and not on behalf of the Association. But, Local 455 never consented to this, and its insistence that the seven sign as "Members of the Association" emphasized and established its refusal to consent to either the withdrawals of January 16 or to the seven signing only as unrepresented individuals. While it might seem inequitable to force upon the majority of the Association's members a contract to which they did not consent, it cannot be denied that this situation was the result of their own, unlawful, and untimely withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining. If this result seems harsh, the alternative, as stated above, would be to reward them for their own unfair labor practices and to place Local 455 in an awkward position of possibly having to give better contract terms to some members of the Association than others. This would destroy the concept of multiemployer bargaining. Accordingly, the continuing failure and refusal to sign the January 23, 1976, agreement constitutes an additional unlawful refusal to bargain. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the withdrawal on January 16, 1976, of the 17 Employers mentioned in the letter of withdrawal of that date constituted and does still constitute violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I further find that the threats to discharge and the discharges of the employees and the refusal to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers upon their unconditional offer to return to work constitutes violations of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. I further find and conclude that the negotiation and signing of the collective-bargaining agree- ments with Local 810 of the Teamsters and the urging and the soliciting of membership in Local 810 by the Employers involved constitutes, and still does continue to constitute, violations of Section 8(aX2) and (1) of the Act. I also find that on an overall basis, the conduct of Respondent Employers herein and the Association constitute violations of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act. I base the foregoing findings upon all that I have set forth heretofore. I further find and conclude that by refusing to continue to bargain with Local 455 and thereby violating Section 8(aX5) of the Act, Respondent-Associa- tion and its members named as Respondent-Employers herein have failed to bargain for a unit of their employees which I find constitutes an appropriate unit for collective bargaining as follows: All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the employer- members of the Respondent Association, exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. I further find, as hereinbefore set forth, that the conduct of Local 455's representatives with regard to Employers Koenig, Long Island Steel Products, and Greenpoint, constitutes violations of Section 8(bX)(IXA) of the Act on the part of Respondent Local No. 455. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTCES UPON COMMERCE The activities of all Respondents, described in section III, above, occurring in connection with the unfair labor practices found above, have a close, intimate and substan- tial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Association and Respondent Employers named above, and each of them are Employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 455 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Local 810 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. All production and maintenance employees, includ- ing plant clerical employees, employed by the employer- members of Respondent Association, exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. Local 455 has been and is now the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all of the employees of the unit described above in paragraph 4. 6. The strike of the employer-members of Local 455 in the unit above described, which began on or about July 1, 1975, as an economic strike, was converted to an unfair labor practice strike by reason of the unfair labor practices hereinafter recited, said conversion having occurred no later than January 16, 1976. The strikers at that time became unfair labor practice strikers entitled to all the rights and privileges of such strikers. 7. By soliciting their employees to abandon Local 455 and urging and soliciting their employees to join Local 810, Respondents Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., Green- point Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc., Roma Iron Works, Inc., Paxton Metalcraft Corp., Trojan Steel Corp., G. Zaffino and Sons, Master Iron Craft Corp., S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc., and Respondent Association rendered and are rendering unlawful assistance and 290 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. support to a labor organization and are engaged and have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 8. By threatening its employees with discharge and other reprisals in order to induce them to support or join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455 or to close its plant for that purpose Respondent Employers Long Island, Green- point, Roma, Trojan, and Zaffino have and are violating Section 8(aX)( I) of the Act. 9. By refusing to recognize or bargain with Local 455 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent Employers in the aforesaid unit of production and maintenance employees, Respon- dent Employers have and are violating Section 8(aX)(5) and (I) of the Act. 10. By discharging their employees in reprisal for their employees' support of Local 455 and by failing and refusing to reinstate their striking employees upon their unconditional application for reinstatement, Respondent Employers herein have violated Section 8(aX3 ) and (1) of the Act. 11. By failing and refusing to sign the collective- bargaining agreement entered into between Local 455 and other Employers dated January 23, 1976, after withdrawing from such multiemployer collective bargaining through the Association, the Association and Respondent Employers with the exception of Respondents Trojan and Heuser have violated and are violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 12. By threatening to inflict physical harm on the employees, by blocking ingress to Respondent Employers' plants, by coercively photographing employees as they cross the Local 455 picket line, Respondent Local 455 has violated and is violating Section 8(bX)(1X)(A) of the Act. 13. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDIES It having been found, as set forth above, that Respon- dents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that the Association and its members have failed and refused to bargain with Local 455 in good faith as required by Section 8(aX5) and 8(d) of the Act, it will be ordered that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and to bargain with Local 455 at reasonable times at the request of Local 455. Additionally, it having been found that said Respondent Employers have failed unlawfully to enter into the collective-bargaining agreement entered into between Local 455 and the seven other Employers, dated January 23, 1976, it will be ordered that said Respondents execute such agreement. 50 At the hearing herein, it was credibly testified by representatives of both Respondent Spigner and Sons and Respondent Ikenson that they have not had any employees since the strike and are no longer in the business which would require the use of members of Local 455. The order will be applicable to them only if, as, and when they resume such operation. 15 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the It having been found that a number of Respondent Employers have unlawfully recognized and entered into collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810, in order to restore the status quo, it is clear that an order should issue rescinding the Local 810 contracts in their entirety. It having been found that a number of Respondents have coercively threatened their employees because of the latter's adherence to Local 455 and in order to persuade said employees to become members of Local 810, it will be ordered that said Respondents cease and desist therefrom. It having been found that certain of Respondents have discouraged membership in Local 455 by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment of their employees, it will be ordered that they cease and desist therefrom. It having been found that the employees of Respondent Employers who went out on strike on July 1, 1975, and thereafter, have become unfair labor practice strikers by reason of the unfair labor practices committed by the various Respondent Employers, it will be recommended that Respondents offer them immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired on or after the commission of the first unfair labor practices committed by each individual Employer as the case may be. It having been found that Local 455 made an unconditional offer on behalf of all of its striking members who are employees of the named Employers, the date of the unconditional offer to return to work shall be the date on which backpay shall be computed, and each Respondent shall make whole each of the said strikers for any loss of earnings resulting from the refusal by the individual Respondent Employers to reinstate all the employees for whom the unconditional offer to return to work was made, the loss of earnings to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner described by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Conmpany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 5° It having been found that Local 455 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(bX)XA) of the Act, it will be recommended that Local 455 cease and desist therefrom. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER5 1 A. Respondent Association and Respondent Employ- ers, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to recognize or bargain with Local 455 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees of Respondent Employers in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of 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. 291 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent Association, exclusive of office clerical em- ployees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (b) Discouraging membership in Local 455 or encourag- ing membership in Local 810, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner assisting or contributing financial or other support to Local 810, or any other labor organization. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. All of the Respondent Employers, with the exception of Respondents Roma Iron Works, Inc., and S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc., shall cease and desist from: (a) Withdrawing or withholding authorization from the Respondent Association to bargain collectively with Local 455 and to execute and administer an agreement on their behalf with Local 455. 3. Respondent Employers, with the exception of Re- spondents Trojan Steel Corp. and Heuser Iron Works, Inc., shall cease and desist from: (a) Failing or refusing to sign or to give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, by Local 455 and certain employer-members of the Associa- tion. (b) Failing or refusing to offer to all their employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and a strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. 4. Respondents S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc., Koenig Iron Works, Inc., Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc., Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., Master Iron Craft Corp., Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc., Paxton Metalcraft, Corp., Melto Metal Products, Co., Inc., and Roman Iron Works, Inc., shall cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing Local 810 as the bargaining representa- tive of any of their production and maintenance employ- ees, unless and until said labor organizations shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. (b) Giving effect to their collective-bargaining agree- ments with Local 810, or to any modification extension supplemental renewal thereof, or to any superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until said organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. 5. Respondent Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., shall cease and desist from: (a) Urging or soliciting its employees to join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455. (b) Threatening to close its business unless its employees abandon Local 455 or join Local 810. (c) Informing its employees that it will never sign a contract with Local 455. (d) Offering its employees various improvements in their working conditions in order to induce them to support and join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455. (e) Threatening its employees with discharge and other reprisals in order to induce them to support or join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455. (f) Urging or encouraging its employees to go to the offices of Local 810, offering to transport them to said offices, transporting them to Local 810 offices, or partici- pating or remaining present at Local 810's offices as their employees are asked to join or support Local 810 by an agent of Local 810. (g) Discouraging membership in Local 455 or encourag- ing membership in Local 810 by discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. 6. Respondent Greenpoint Ornamental Iron Works, Inc., shall cease and desist therefrom: (a) Warning or directing its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of Local 455 or to refrain from giving any assistance or support to Local 455. (b) Threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they become or remain members of Local 455 or if they give any assistance or support to Local 455. (c) Warning or advising its employees or employees of other Employers engaged in commerce that it would never sign a contract with Local 455 or that it would close its plant before signing a contract with Local 455. (d) Urging or encouraging its employees to go to Local 810's offices or offering to transport the said employees to Local 810's offices. (e) Urging or soliciting its employees to join Local 810 or threatening them with discharge if they did not do so. (f) Discouraging membership in Local 455 or encourag- ing membership in Local 810 by discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. (g) Promising its employees improvements in their working conditions to induce them to abandon Local 455 and to join and support Local 810. 7. Respondent Roma Iron Works, Inc., shall cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with discharge and plant closure if its employees continued to support or assist Local 455. (b) Informing its employees that it intended to sign a contract with Local 810, and would never sign a contract with Local 455. (c) Informing its employees that it wanted another union because of the strike called by Local 455 or encouraging its employees tojoin Local 810. (d) Requesting its employees to accompany it to the offices of Local 810, and accompanying them to Local 810's offices or remaining present as its employees are asked to support or join Local 810 by an agent of Local 810. 8. Respondent Paxton Metalcraft Corp. shall cease and desist from: 292 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. (a) Urging or encouraging its employees to support Local 810 or to abandon Local 455. (b) Informing its employees it signed a contract with Local 810 or that it will not deal with, recognize, bargain, or sign a contract with Local 455. 9. Respondent Trojan Steel Corp. shall cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with discharge unless they abandon Local 455. (b) Informing its employees it would never sign a contract with Local 455. 10. Respondent G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc., shall cease and desist from: (a) Offering to transport its employees to the offices of Local 810, transporting employees to the office of Local 810 or remaining present or participating when its employees were asked to join or support Local 810 by agents of Local 810. (b) Threatening its employees with plant closure and other reprisals unless they abandon Local 455 and join or support Local 810. (c) Urging or encouraging its employees to support or join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455. II. Respondent Master Iron Craft Corp. shall cease and desist from: (a) Informing its employees it cannot employ them unless they abandon Local 455. (b) Informing its employees it has ceased to recognize or bargain with Local 455. B. Respondent Association and Respondent Employ- ers shall take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: I. Recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employ- ees, employed by the employer-members of the Respon- dent Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. 2. Respondent Association and Respondent Employ- ers, with the exception of Respondent Trojan Steel Corp. and Respondent Heuser Iron Works, Inc., shall: (a) Sign and give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain employer-members of the Respondent Association. (b) Offer to all their employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike, commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. Additionally, they shall make whole their employees for any loss of pay such employees may have suffered by reason of the failure and refusal by the aforesaid Respon- dents to reinstate them to their former jobs or substantially *2 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notices reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant equivalent positions upon the employees' unconditional offers to return to work. They shall make whole their employees in the manner set forth in the portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedies." 3. Respondent Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc., and Respondent Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., shall offer to the following employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and shall make whole the said employees named below for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedies:" Michael Frenna Joseph Matzell Adam Gontorski Stanley Sieminski Salvatore Gulino 4. Respondents S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc., Koenig Iron Works Inc., Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc., Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., Master Iron Craft Corp., Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc., Paxton Metalcraft Corp., Melto Metal Products Co., Inc., and Roman Iron Works, Inc., shall reimburse all present and former employees for all moneys unlawfully extracted from the said employees for initiation fees, dues, and assessments under their respective contracts with Local 810, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 5. All of the said Respondents shall, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records and reports, and all other reports necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under this Order. 6. Respondent Association and Respondent Employers shall post at their places of business and plants located at various places in New York City, and its environs, at places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A-R." 52 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by the various Respondents' representatives, shall be posted by Respon- dents immediately upon receipt thereof and be retained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said materials are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 7. Respondent Association and each Respondent Em- ployer shall separately notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps each Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein against Respondent Association and the individual Respondent to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 293 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employers shall be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. C. The Respondent, Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to inflict physical harm on employees of members of the Association. (b) Blocking ingress and egress at the plants and places of business of members of the Association. (c) Photographing employees of Employers of the Association as the said employees crossed Respondent Union's picket line in a manner so as to intimidate or have the effect of intimidating said employees. (d) In any other manner interfering with, coercing, or restraining employees of members of the Association, or any other employers, in violation of the said employees' Section 7 rights. 2. Post at the offices of Local 455 and all other places where notices to members are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix S."53 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Union's representatives, be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by Respondent Union for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (a) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed copies of "Appendix S" for posting by the Employer- members of the Association at their various places of business. Said copies shall be duly signed by the Respon- dent Union's representative and be forthwith turned to the Regional Director for such posting. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Regional 29, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision as to what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against Local 455 be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act not found herein. 53 See fn. 52, supra. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of employees of the members of our Association in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees, employed by our Employer-members, exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in said Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization by suggesting or instructing our Employer-members to discriminate against their employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or give support to said Local 810, or to any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any manner instruct or otherwise encourage our Employer-members to interfere with, restrain, or coerce their employees in the exercise of the employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL recognize and bargain with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of our Employer-members in the above-described unit with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates, hours of employment or other terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and instruct our Employer-members to sign and give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of our Association. WE WILL instruct our Employer-members to offer to all their employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make whole their employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their failure and refusal to reinstate them to their former jobs or substantially equivalent ones upon their unconditional offers to return to work. INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. APPENDIXES B-F NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- 294 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455, or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. ACHILLES CONSTRUCTION Co., INC. IKENSON IRON WORKS, INC. KUNO STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. THE PEELE COMPANY SPIGNER AND SONS STRUCTURAL STEEL Co., INC. APPENDIX G NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees in the unit above- described unless and until Local 810 may be certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the bargain- ing representative of such employees. 295 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement entered into by us with Local 810 on February 17, 1976, or to any modification, extension, or renewal thereof, or to any superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until Local 810 may be certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative, of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. S. CERVENKA AND SONS, INC. APPENDIX H NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer- members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will discharge them and close our plant if they continue to support Local 455. WE WILL NOT inform our employees that we intend to sign a contract with Local 810 or inform our employees that we will never sign a contract with Local 455, nor will we tell our employees that we want another union because of Local 455's strike, and thereby encourage our employees to join Local 810. WE WILL NOT further encourage our employees to join Local 810 by asking them to go with us to the Local 810 offices or remain present at such offices as a Local 810 agent or officer asks our employees to join or support Local 810. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to 296 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. RoMA IRON WORKS, INC. APPENDIX I NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge unless they give up their membership in Local 455. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will never sign a contract with Local 455. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. TROJAN STEEL CORP. APPENDIX J NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. 297 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. HEUSER IRON WORKS, INC. APPENDIX K NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, *or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees in the unit above- described unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT give any further effect to our collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 signed by us on January 9, 1976, or to any modifications, extension, supplement or renewal of that agreement, unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. WE WILL reimburse all our present and former employees for any initiation fees, dues, or any assess- ments of any nature they may have paid to Local 810 pursuant to the terms of our unlawful contract with Local 810, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, computed from the dates the said moneys were paid to Local 810. MOHAWK STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. KOENIO IRON WORKS, INC. APPENDIX M NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by 298 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees in the unit above-described to support orjoin Local 810 or to give up their membership in, or support of, Local 455. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we have signed a contract with Local 810, or that we will not deal with, recognize, bargain, or sign a contract with Local 455. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees in the unit described above until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of our employees. WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 which we signed on December 5, 1975, or to any modification, exten- sion, supplement, or renewal of that agreement, or any superseding contracts with Local 810 unless and until that union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. PAXTON METALCRAFT CORP., DIVISION OF APEX INDUSTRIES, INC. APPENDIX N NoTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT tell our employees in the above- described unit that we will not employ them unless they give up their membership in or support of Local 455. 299 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we have ceased to recognize or bargain with Local 455. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees in the above-described unit unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 which we signed on January 28, 1976, or to any modification, extension, supplement or renewal of the agreement, or to any superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Realtions Board. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. MASTER IRON CRAFT CORP. APPENDIX O NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees in the unit above- described unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT give further effect to our collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 signed by us on December 22, 1975, or to any modification, extension, supplement or renewal of that agreement, unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, 300 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. MELTO METAL PRODUCTS Co., INC. ROMAN IRON WORKS, INC. APPENDIX Q NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT urge or solicit our employees in the unit described above to join Local 810 or to give up their membership in, or support of, Local 455. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our business unless our employees in the unit described above give up their membership in and support of Local 455 or join Local 810. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will never sign a contract with Local 455. WE WILL NOT offer our employees, in the unit described above, improvements in their working condi- tions in order to induce these employees to support and join Local 810 or to give up their membership in, or support of, Local 455. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees, as described above, that we will fire them or take any other action detrimental to them in order to induce them to support or join Local 810 or to give up their membership in, or support of, Local 455. WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees to go to the offices of Local 810, or offer to take them to the offices of Local 810, or take them to the Local 810 offices, or to remain with our employees in the Local 810 offices and participate with agents of Local 810 in asking our said employees to join or support that union. WE WILL NOT discourage memberhip in Local 810 by firing or in any other way discriminating against our employees in regard to hiring, laying off, or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1976, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees in the unit described above unless and until Local 810 has been certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective- bargaining agreement with Local 810 which we signed 301 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on January 6, 1976, or to any modification, extension, supplement or renewal of that agreement, or to any superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until that union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to Michael Frenna immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent job without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will pay him for any loss of wages he has suffered because of our discrimination against him, such payment to be made with interest. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. WE WILL reimburse all our present and former employees for any initiation fees, dues, or any assess- ments of any nature they may have paid to Local 810 pursuant to the terms of our unlawful contract with Local 810, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, computed from the dates the said moneys were paid to Local 810. LONG ISLAND STEEL PRODUCTS CO., INC. APPENDIX R NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor organization. WE WILL NOT warn or direct our employees, in the unit described above, not to join or remain members of Local 455 or to stop giving assistance to or supporting Local 455. WE WILL NOT threaten to fire our employees if they join or remain members of, or support or assist Local 455. WE WILL NOT warn or advise our employees, or the employees of any other employer, that we will never sign a contract with Local 455, or that we will close our plant before we will sign a contract with Local 455. WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees to go to the offices of Local 810, nor will we offer to transport them to the Local 810 offices. WE WILL NOT urge or ask our employees to join Local 810 or threaten to fire them if they do not do so. WE WILL NOT promise our employees improvements in their working conditions in order to induce them to give up their membership in, or support of, Local 455 and to join and support Local 810. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Local 810 by firing or otherwise discriminating against our employees with regard to hire, retention of jobs, layoffs, or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local 455 or to execute and administer any agreement reached on our behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the Association. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, 302 INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL. without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining representative of our employees, in the unit described above, unless and until Local 810 has been certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective- bargaining agreements with Local 810 which we signed on November 20, 1975, or to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal of that agreement, or to any superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until that union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our employees in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten- dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL offer to Joseph Matzel, Adam Gontorski, and Stanley Sieminski immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent jobs without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will pay them for any loss of wages they may have suffered because of our discrimination against them, such payment to be made without interest. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. WE WILL reimburse all our present and former employees for any initiation fees, dues, or any assess- ments of any nature they may have paid to Local 810 pursuant to the terms of our unlawful contract with Local 810, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, computed from the dates the said moneys were paid to Local 810. GREENPOINT ORNAMENTAL AND STRUCTURAL IRON WORKS, INC. APPENDIX S NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF TIHE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten to inflict physical harm on employees of any Employer-member of Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to induce the said employees not to cross our picket lines at the plants, yards, or facilities of any of the said Employers. WE WILL NOT picket at any of the above Employers' plants, yards, or facilities in such a manner as to block ingress into or egress out of those places in order to prevent employees of the said Employers from crossing our picket lines. WE WILL NOT coercively take photographs of employees of Employer-members of the said Associa- tion in order to induce the employees not to cross our picket lines. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act. SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION No. 455, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO APPENDIX T NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Local 455 as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees of the Respondent-Employ- ers in a unit consisting of all production and mainte- nance employees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of the Respon- dent-Association, exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455 or encourage membership in Local 810, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner assist or contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization from the Respondent-Association to bargain collective- 303 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ly with Local 455 and to execute and administer an agreement on their behalf with Local 455. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or to give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, by Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Association. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and a strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL NOT offer to transport our employees to the offices of Local 810, transport employees to the office of Local 810 or remain present or participate when our employees are asked to join or support Local 810 by agents of Local 810. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant closure and other reprisals unless they abandon Local 455 and join or support Local 810. WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees to support or join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer- members of the Respondent-Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 ) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the Respondent-Association. WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage and strike, commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to our employees all wages they would have earned if we had reinstated them to their former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to return to work. G. ZAFFtNo AND SONS, INC. 304