Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc.

CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 627 Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Ex- namic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing Corp., and press Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carri- Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New York, era Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leas- their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall ing Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc. and take the action set forth in the said recommended Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Affiliated Trades Employees Union. Case 2- Order, except that the attached notice is substituted CA-15783 for that of the Administrative Law Judge. December 10, 1981 APPENDIX DECISION AND ORDER NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND NATIONL LABOR REL IOS BOAR ZIMMERMAN„~ ,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ZIMMERMAN An Agency of the United States Government On March 27, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached Decision in We will not discourage membership in or this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Consoli- activities on behalf of Local 20408, United dated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Warehouse Industrial and Affiliated Trades Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Drivers A Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT Leasing & Helpers Union, Local 102, International Corp., herein collectively denominated Respond- Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, ents, filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Re- or any other labor organization; or interfere spondent Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein denomi- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the nated Respondent Trucking, filed cross-exceptions e o t and a supporting brief, as did the Charging Party. of t t Both Respondents and the Party in Interest, Cloak ton 7 f the Natlonal Labor Relations Act, as & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 102, In- amended, by failing and refusing to reinstate ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, our stking employees to their former posi- AFL-CIO, filed answering briefs to the Charging tions, or to other substantially equivalent jobs Party's cross-exceptions. Finally, the General for which such employees are reasonably well Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- qualified, upon their unconditional offer to tive Law Judge's Decision. return to work; or discriminate against our em- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ployees in any other manner in regard to their National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- hire or tenure of employment or any term or tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- condition of employment. thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere The Board has considered the record and the at- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the tached Decision in light of the exceptions and exercise of their right to self-organization, to briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- form labor organizations, to join or assist ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Local 20408 and Local 102, or any other labor Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. organization, to bargain collectively through ORDER representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- protection, or to refrain from any and all such lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended activities Order of the Administrative Law Judge and WE WILL offer our striking employees who hereby orders that the Respondents, Consolidated made unconditional offers to return to work Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., immediate reinstatement to their former jobs GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dy- a a e, to or, if those jobs are no longer available, to 'Respondents' motion to strike the Charging Party's crossexceptions substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice is hereby denied as lacking merit. to their seniority or other rights, and make 'Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by them whole for any loss of earnings they may the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 83 CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 627 Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Ex- namic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing Corp., and press Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carri- Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New York, ers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leas- their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall ing Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc. a n d ta k e th e a c tio n se t fo rt h in th e sa id recommended Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Ore, e ta t a ni i substituted Affiliated Trades Employees Union. Case 2- Order, except that the attached notice is substituted CA-15783 fo r tha t of the Administrative Law Judge. December 10, 1981 APPENDIX DECISION AND ORDER NOTICE To EMPLOYEES _ ., - . ~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND POST BY DE OF THE ZIMMERMAN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government On March 27, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached Decision in We will not discourage membership in or this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Consoli- activities on behalf of Local 20408, United dated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Warehouse Industrial and Affiliated Trades Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Drivers A Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT Leasing & Helpers Union, Local 102. International Corp., herein collectively denominated Respond- Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, ents, filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Re- or any other labor organization; or interfere spondent Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein denomi- w r a o c employees in the nated Respondent Trucking, filed cross-exceptions e of t rh g te b Se- and a supporting brief, as did the Charging Party.' tion 7 of the Nationta Labor RelationsActas Both Respondents and the Party in Interest, Cloak amen d e by f a l andr tola einstas & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 102, In- amended, by failing and refusing to reinstate ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, o u r ^"k^ employees to their former posi- AFL-CIO, filed answering briefs to the Charging t io n s, o r to o th er substantially equivalent jobs Party's cross-exceptions. Finally, the General fo r w h ic h su c h employees are reasonably well Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- qualified, upon their unconditional offer to tive Law Judge's Decision. return to work; or discriminate against our em- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ployees in any other manner in regard to their National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- hire or tenure of employment or any term or tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- condition of employment. thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere The Board has considered the record and the at- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the tached Decision in light of the exceptions and exercise of their right to self-organization, to briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- form labor organizations, to join or assist ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Local 20408 and Local 102, or any other labor Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. organization, to bargain collectively through ORDER representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- protection, or to refrain from any and all such lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended activities. Order of the Administrative Law Judge and WE WILL offer our striking employees who hereby orders that the Respondents, Consolidated made unconditional offers to return to work D re ss Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., immediate reinstatement to their former jobs GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dy- o i t j a n lg avle, to I Respondents' motion to strike the Charging Party's cros&-exceptions substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice is hereby denied as lacking merit. to their seniority or other rights, and make 'Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by them whnic fnr anv lnsi nf cuminoi tlpv mav the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to t e m w ho l e fo r any lo s s of earnings they may overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 83 CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 627 Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Ex- namic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing Corp., and press Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carri- Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New York, ers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leas- their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall ing Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc. a n d t ak e th e a c tio n se t fo rt h in th e sa id recommended Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Ore, e ta t a ni i substituted Affiliated Trades Employees Union. Case 2- Order, except that the attached notice is substituted CA-15783 fo r tha t of the Administrative Law Judge. December 10, 1981 APPENDIX DECISION AND ORDER NOTICE To EMPLOYEES _ ., - . ~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND POST BY DE OF THE ZIMMERMAN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government On March 27, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached Decision in We will not discourage membership in or this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Consoli- activities on behalf of Local 20408, United dated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Warehouse Industrial and Affiliated Trades Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Drivers A Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT Leasing & Helpers Union, Local 102. International Corp., herein collectively denominated Respond- Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, ents, filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Re- or any other labor organization; or interfere spondent Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein denomi- w r a o c employees in the nated Respondent Trucking, filed cross-exceptions e of t rh g te b Se- and a supporting brief, as did the Charging Party.' tion 7 of the Nationta Labor RelationsActas Both Respondents and the Party in Interest, Cloak amen d e by f a l andr tola einstas & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 102, In- amended, by failing and refusing to reinstate ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, o u r ^"k^ employees to their former posi- AFL-CIO, filed answering briefs to the Charging t io n s, o r to o th er substantially equivalent jobs Party's cross-exceptions. Finally, the General fo r w h ic h su c h employees are reasonably well Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- qualified, upon their unconditional offer to tive Law Judge's Decision. return to work; or discriminate against our em- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ployees in any other manner in regard to their National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- hire or tenure of employment or any term or tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- condition of employment. thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere The Board has considered the record and the at- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the tached Decision in light of the exceptions and exercise of their right to self-organization, to briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- form labor organizations, to join or assist ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Local 20408 and Local 102, or any other labor Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. organization, to bargain collectively through ORDER representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- protection, or to refrain from any and all such lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended activities. Order of the Administrative Law Judge and WE WILL offer our striking employees who hereby orders that the Respondents, Consolidated made unconditional offers to return to work D re ss Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., immediate reinstatement to their former jobs GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dy- o i t j a n lg avle, to I Respondents' motion to strike the Charging Party's cros&-exceptions substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice is hereby denied as lacking merit. to their seniority or other rights, and make 'Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by them whnic fnr anv lnsi nf cuminoi tlpv mav the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to t e m w ho l e fo r any lo s s of earnings they may overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 83 CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 627 Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Ex- namic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing Corp., and press Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carri- Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New York, ers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leas- their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall ing Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc. a n d t ak e th e a c tio n se t fo rt h in th e sa id recommended Local 20408, United warehouse Industrial and Ore, e ta t a ni i substituted Affiliated Trades Employees Union. Case 2- Order, except that the attached notice is substituted CA-15783 fo r tha t of the Administrative Law Judge. December 10, 1981 APPENDIX DECISION AND ORDER NOTICE To EMPLOYEES _ ., - . ~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND POST BY DE OF THE ZIMMERMAN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government On March 27, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached Decision in We will not discourage membership in or this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Consoli- activities on behalf of Local 20408, United dated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Warehouse Industrial and Affiliated Trades Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Drivers A Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT Leasing & Helpers Union, Local 102. International Corp., herein collectively denominated Respond- Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, ents, filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Re- or any other labor organization; or interfere spondent Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein denomi- w r a o c employees in the nated Respondent Trucking, filed cross-exceptions e of t rh g te b Se- and a supporting brief, as did the Charging Party.' tion 7 of the Nationta Labor RelationsActas Both Respondents and the Party in Interest, Cloak amen d e by f a l andr tola einstas & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 102, In- amended, by failing and refusing to reinstate ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, o u r ^"k^ employees to their former posi- AFL-CIO, filed answering briefs to the Charging t io n s, o r to o th er substantially equivalent jobs Party's cross-exceptions. Finally, the General fo r w h ic h su c h employees are reasonably well Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- qualified, upon their unconditional offer to tive Law Judge's Decision. return to work; or discriminate against our em- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ployees in any other manner in regard to their National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- hire or tenure of employment or any term or tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- condition of employment. thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere The Board has considered the record and the at- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the tached Decision in light of the exceptions and exercise of their right to self-organization, to briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- form labor organizations, to join or assist ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Local 20408 and Local 102, or any other labor Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. organization, to bargain collectively through ORDER representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- protection, or to refrain from any and all such lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended activities. Order of the Administrative Law Judge and WE WILL offer our striking employees who hereby orders that the Respondents, Consolidated made unconditional offers to return to work D re ss Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., immediate reinstatement to their former jobs GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dy- o i t j a n lg avaiae, to I Respondents' motion to strike the Charging Party's cros&-exceptions substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice is hereby denied as lacking merit. to their seniority or other rights, and make 'Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by them whnic fnr anv lnsi nf cuminoi tlpv mav the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to t e m w ho l e fo r any lo s s of earnings they may overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 83 CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 627 Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Ex- namic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing Corp., and press Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carri- Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New York, ers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leas- their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall ing Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc. a n d t ak e t h e a c t i o n se t f o rt h i n t h e sa i d recommended Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Ore, e ta t a ni i substituted Affiliated Trades Employees Union. Case 2- Order, except that the attached notice is substituted CA-15783 fo r tha t of the Administrative Law Judge. December 10, 1981 APPENDIX DECISION AND ORDER NOTICE To EMPLOYEES _ ., - . ~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND POST BY DE OF THE ZIMMERMAN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government On March 27, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached Decision in We will not discourage membership in or this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Consoli- activities on behalf of Local 20408, United dated Dress Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Warehouse Industrial and Affiliated Trades Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Drivers A Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT Leasing & Helpers Union, Local 102. International Corp., herein collectively denominated Respond- Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, ents, filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Re- or any other labor organization; or interfere spondent Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein denomi- w r a o c employees in the nated Respondent Trucking, filed cross-exceptions e of t rh g te b Se- and a supporting brief, as did the Charging Party.' tion 7 of the Nationta Labor RelationsActas Both Respondents and the Party in Interest, Cloak amen d e by f a l andr tola einstas & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 102, In- amended, by failing and refusing to reinstate ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, o u r ^"k^ employees to their former posi- AFL-CIO, filed answering briefs to the Charging t io n s, o r t o o t h er substantially equivalent jobs Party's cross-exceptions. Finally, the General f o r w h ic h su c h employees are reasonably well Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- qualified, upon their unconditional offer to tive Law Judge's Decision. return to work; or discriminate against our em- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ployees in any other manner in regard to their National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- hire or tenure of employment or any term or tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- condition of employment. thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere The Board has considered the record and the at- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the tached Decision in light of the exceptions and exercise of their right to self-organization, to briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- form labor organizations, to join or assist ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Local 20408 and Local 102, or any other labor Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. organization, to bargain collectively through ORDER representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- protection, or to refrain from any and all such lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended activities. Order of the Administrative Law Judge and WE WILL offer our striking employees who hereby orders that the Respondents, Consolidated made unconditional offers to return to work D re ss Carriers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., immediate reinstatement to their former jobs GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dy- o i t j a n lg avaiae, to I Respondents' motion to strike the Charging Party's cros&-exceptions substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice is hereby denied as lacking merit. to their seniority or other rights, and make 'Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by them whnic fnr anv lnsi nf cuminoi tlpv mav the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to t e m w h o l e fo r any l o s s of earnings they may overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his Findings. 259 NLRB No. 83 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have suffered by reason of the discrimination leasing and servicing trucks to Respondents Consoli- against them, with interest. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. At all times material herein, Respondent JHT annual- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, ly, in the course and conduct of its business operations, INC., GREENBERG'S EXPRESS INC., purchased goods and materials valued at in excess of GRG DELIVERY INC., CLOTHING $50,000, or performed services for employers who derive CARRIERS CORP., DYNAMIC DELIV- income exceeding $50,000 directly from outside the State of New York. ERY CORP., JHT LEASING CORP., New York. AND TRUCKING PERSONNEL, INC. At all times material herein, Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein called Respondent Trucking, a New York corpo- DECISION ration, has maintained its principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and has been, at all STATEMENT OF THE CASE times material herein, engaged in the business of provid- HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This ing and performing labor services and related services. case was heard before me on April 29 through May 1, At all times material herein, Respondent Trucking, an- June 10, 11, 12, 17, and September 9, 1980. nually in the course and conduct of its business oper- On August 29, 1978, complaint issued in Case 2-CA- ations described above, derived gross revenues in excess 15783 upon charges filed by Local 20408, United Ware- of $50,000 for services performed directly outside the house, Industrial and Affiliated Trades Employees State of New York. Union, herein called Local 20408. The complaint was Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- amended on January 11, April 7 and May 7, 1980, during ing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking' admit and I find that the course of the hearing herein. The thrust of the corn- each of them are and have been at all times material plaint alleges that Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., herein employers engaged in commerce within the mean- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., and ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Clothing Carriers Corp., collectively called Respondent or Respondent corporations, violated Section 8(a)(3) of II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS the Act by refusing to reinstate striking employees fol- lowing their unconditional offers to return to their Local 20408, s an organization in which employees former positions of employment because said employees participate, and which exists for the purpose, in whole or joined Local 20408 and participated in a strike on behalf in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev- of Local 20408 and because said employees sought assist- ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ance from Cloak & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, ployment, or conditions of work. The evidence estab- Local 102, International Ladies Garment Workers' lished that in July 1978 Local 20408 had collective-bar- Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 102. gaining agreements with various employers covering ap- Briefs were filed by counsel for General Counsel and proximately 200 employees. These agreements contained counsel for Respondent. Additionally, counsel for Re- inter alia, provisions relating to wages, health benefits, spondent filed a reply brief. Upon consideration of the pensions, grievance procedures, job classifications, etc. entire record, the briefs, and my observation of the de- Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board issued meanor of the witnesses, I make the following: a Certification of Representation to Local 20408 on at least four separate occasions, e.g., John F. Boyle Compa- FINDINGS OF FACT ny, 222 NLRB 1309 (1976).2 I. JURISDICTION I find Local 20408 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all times material herein, Consolidated Dress Carri- Respondent admits and I find that Local 102 is a labor ers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Clothing Carriers Corp., and Dynamic Delivery Corp., Act. herein called Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic, respectively, have main- tained their principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and have been, at all times material herein, engaged in providing trucking and related serv- 'On May 1, 1980, General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to ices in the garment industry. include as additional Respondents, Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG De- At all times material herein, Respondents Consoli- livery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp.. and JHT dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic de- Leasing Corp. The amendment alleged that the above-named Respond- rived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for trucking ents, including Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., and Trucking Person- nel, Inc.. were at all times material herein, a single and/or joint employ- services performed directly outside the State of New er. On May 7, 1980, I issued an order granting General Counsel's motion York. to amend the complaint. Said order was appealed to the Board by Re- At all times material herein, Respondent JHT, a New spondent Consolidated on May 28, 1980. The appeal was denied by the York corporation, has maintained its principal office and Board on June 2, 1980. 2Respondent, in its answer and throughout the course of the hearing place of business in New York, New York, and has been, herein, denied the labor organization status of Local 20408. Respondent at all times material herein, engaged in the business of in its reply brief admits the labor organization status of Local 20408. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have suffered by reason of the discrimination leasing and servicing trucks to Respondents Consoli- against them, with interest. d at ed , Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. At all times material herein, Respondent JHT annual- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, ly, in th e course and conduct of its business operations, INC., GREENBERG'S EXPRESS INC., purchased goods and materials valued at in excess of GRG DELIVERY INC., CLOTHING $50,000, or performed services for employers who derive CARRIERS CORP., DYNAMIC DELIV- income exceeding $50,000 directly from outside the State ERY CORP., JHT LEASING CORP.,of New York. AND TRUCKING PERSONNEL, INC. At all times material herein, Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein called Respondent Trucking, a New York corpo- DECISION ration, has maintained its principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and has been, at all STATEMENT OF THE CASE times material herein, engaged in the business of provid- HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This ing an d Performing labor services and related services. case was heard before me on April 29 through May 1, A t all t im es material herein, Respondent Trucking, an- June 10, 11, 12, 17, and September 9, 1980. nually in t h e course and conduct of its business oper- On August 29, 1978, complaint issued in Case 2-CA- ations described above, derived gross revenues in excess 15783 upon charges filed by Local 20408, United Ware- of $50,000 for services performed directly outside the house, Industrial and Affiliated Trades Employees State of New York. Union, herein called Local 20408. The complaint was Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- amended on January 11, April 7 and May 7, 1980, during ing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking' admit and I find that the course of the hearing herein. The thrust of the corn- each of them are and have been at all times material plaint alleges that Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., herein employers engaged in commerce within the mean- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., and ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Clothing Carriers Corp., collectively called Respondent or Respondent corporations, violated Section 8(a)(3) of n1. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS the Act by refusing to reinstate striking employees fol- lowing their unconditional offers to return to their L o c al 20 40 8, is a n organization in which employees former positions of employment because said employees participate, and which exists for the purpose, in whole or joined Local 20408 and participated in a strike on behalf in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev- of Local 20408 and because said employees sought assist- an c es, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ance from Cloak & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, ployment, or conditions of work. The evidence estab- Local 102, International Ladies Garment Workers' lished that in July 1978 Local 20408 had collective-bar- Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 102. gaining agreements with various employers covering ap- Briefs were filed by counsel for General Counsel and proximately 200 employees. These agreements contained counsel for Respondent. Additionally, counsel for Re- inter alia, provisions relating to wages, health benefits, spondent filed a reply brief. Upon consideration of the pensions, grievance procedures, job classifications, etc. entire record, the briefs, and my observation of the de- Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board issued meaner of the witnesses, I make the following: a Certification of Representation to Local 20408 on at least four separate occasions, e.g., John F. Boyle Compa- FINDINGS OF FACT ny, 222 NLRB 1309 (1976). 2 I JURISDICTION I find Local 20408 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all times material herein, Consolidated Dress Carri- Respondent admits and I find that Local 102 is a labor ers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Clothing Carriers Corp., and Dynamic Delivery Corp., Act. herein called Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic, respectively, have main- tained their principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and have been, at all times material herein, engaged in providing trucking and related serv- . on May l, 1980, General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to ices in the garment industry. include as additional Respondents, Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG De- At all times material herein, Respondents Consoli- livery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic de- Leasing Corp. The amendment alleged that the above-named Respond- rived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for trucking ents, including Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., and Trucking Person- nel, Inc., were at all times material herein, a single and/or joint employ- services performed directly outside the State of New er. On May 7, 1980, I issued an order granting General Counsel's motion York. to amend the complaint. Said order was appealed to the Board by Re- At all times material herein, Respondent JHT, a New spondent Consolidated on May 28, 1980. The appeal was denied by the York corporation, has maintained its principal office and I o ndent i a and throughout the course of the hearing place of business in New York, New York, and has been, herein, denied the labor organization status of Local 20408. Respondent at all times material herein, engaged in the business of in its reply brief admits the labor organization status of Local 20408. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have suffered by reason of the discrimination leasing and servicing trucks to Respondents Consoli- against them, with interest. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. At all times material herein, Respondent JHT annual- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, ly, in th e course and conduct of its business operations, INC., GREENBERG'S EXPRESS INC., purchased goods and materials valued at in excess of GRG DELIVERY INC., CLOTHING $50,000, or performed services for employers who derive CARRIERS CORP., DYNAMIC DELIV- income exceeding $50,000 directly from outside the State ERY CORP., JHT LEASING CORP.,of New York. AND TRUCKING PERSONNEL, INC. At all times material herein, Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein called Respondent Trucking, a New York corpo- DECISION ration, has maintained its principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and has been, at all STATEMENT OF THE CASE times material herein, engaged in the business of provid- HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This ing an d Performing labor services and related services. case was heard before me on April 29 through May 1, A t all times material herein, Respondent Trucking, an- June 10, 11, 12, 17, and September 9, 1980. nually in t h e course and conduct of its business oper- On August 29, 1978, complaint issued in Case 2-CA- ations described above, derived gross revenues in excess 15783 upon charges filed by Local 20408, United Ware- of $50,000 for services performed directly outside the house, Industrial and Affiliated Trades Employees State of New York. Union, herein called Local 20408. The complaint was Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- amended on January 11, April 7 and May 7, 1980, during ing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking' admit and I find that the course of the hearing herein. The thrust of the corn- each of them are and have been at all times material plaint alleges that Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., herein employers engaged in commerce within the mean- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., and ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Clothing Carriers Corp., collectively called Respondent or Respondent corporations, violated Section 8(a)(3) of n1. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS the Act by refusing to reinstate striking employees fol- lowing their unconditional offers to return to their L o c al 20 40 8, is a n organization in which employees former positions of employment because said employees participate, and which exists for the purpose, in whole or joined Local 20408 and participated in a strike on behalf in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev- of Local 20408 and because said employees sought assist- an c es, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ance from Cloak & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, ployment, or conditions of work. The evidence estab- Local 102, International Ladies Garment Workers' lished that in July 1978 Local 20408 had collective-bar- Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 102. gaining agreements with various employers covering ap- Briefs were filed by counsel for General Counsel and proximately 200 employees. These agreements contained counsel for Respondent. Additionally, counsel for Re- inter alia, provisions relating to wages, health benefits, spondent filed a reply brief. Upon consideration of the pensions, grievance procedures, job classifications, etc. entire record, the briefs, and my observation of the de- Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board issued meaner of the witnesses, I make the following: a Certification of Representation to Local 20408 on at least four separate occasions, e.g., John F. Boyle Compa- FINDINGS OF FACT ny, 222 NLRB 1309 (1976). 2 l. JURISDICTION I find Local 20408 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all times material herein, Consolidated Dress Carri- Respondent admits and I find that Local 102 is a labor ers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Clothing Carriers Corp., and Dynamic Delivery Corp., Act. herein called Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic, respectively, have main- tained their principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and have been, at all times material herein, engaged in providing trucking and related serv- . on May l, 1980, General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to ices in the garment industry. include as additional Respondents, Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG De- At all times material herein, Respondents Consoli- livery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic de- Leasing Corp. The amendment alleged that the above-named Respond- rived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for trucking ents, including Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., and Trucking Person- nel, Inc., were at all times material herein, a single and/or joint employ- services performed directly outside the State of New er. On May 7, 1980, I issued an order granting General Counsel's motion York. to amend the complaint. Said order was appealed to the Board by Re- At all times material herein, Respondent JHT, a New spondent Consolidated on May 28, 1980. The appeal was denied by the York corporation, has maintained its principal office and I o ndent i a and throughout the course of the hearing place of business in New York, New York, and has been, herein, denied the labor organization status of Local 20408. Respondent at all times material herein, engaged in the business of in its reply brief admits the labor organization status of Local 20408. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have suffered by reason of the discrimination leasing and servicing trucks to Respondents Consoli- against them, with interest. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. At all times material herein, Respondent JHT annual- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, ly, in th e course and conduct of its business operations, INC., GREENBERG'S EXPRESS INC., purchased goods and materials valued at in excess of GRG DELIVERY INC., CLOTHING $50,000, or performed services for employers who derive CARRIERS CORP., DYNAMIC DELIV- income exceeding $50,000 directly from outside the State ERY CORP., JHT LEASING CORP.,of New York. AND TRUCKING PERSONNEL, INC. At all times material herein, Trucking Personnel, Inc., herein called Respondent Trucking, a New York corpo- DECISION ration, has maintained its principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and has been, at all STATEMENT OF THE CASE times material herein, engaged in the business of provid- HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This ing an d Performing labor services and related services. case was heard before me on April 29 through May 1, A t all times material herein, Respondent Trucking, an- June 10, 11, 12, 17, and September 9, 1980. nually in the course and conduct of its business oper- On August 29, 1978, complaint issued in Case 2-CA- ations described above, derived gross revenues in excess 15783 upon charges filed by Local 20408, United Ware- of $50,000 for services performed directly outside the house, Industrial and Affiliated Trades Employees State of New York. Union, herein called Local 20408. The complaint was Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- amended on January 11, April 7 and May 7, 1980, during ing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking' admit and I find that the course of the hearing herein. The thrust of the corn- each of them are and have been at all times material plaint alleges that Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., herein employers engaged in commerce within the mean- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., and ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Clothing Carriers Corp., collectively called Respondent or Respondent corporations, violated Section 8(a)(3) of n1. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS the Act by refusing to reinstate striking employees fol- lowing their unconditional offers to return to their L o c al 20 40 8, is a n organization in which employees former positions of employment because said employees participate, and which exists for the purpose, in whole or joined Local 20408 and participated in a strike on behalf in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev- of Local 20408 and because said employees sought assist- an c es, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ance from Cloak & Dress Drivers & Helpers Union, ployment, or conditions of work. The evidence estab- Local 102, International Ladies Garment Workers' lished that in July 1978 Local 20408 had collective-bar- Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 102. gaining agreements with various employers covering ap- Briefs were filed by counsel for General Counsel and proximately 200 employees. These agreements contained counsel for Respondent. Additionally, counsel for Re- inter alia, provisions relating to wages, health benefits, spondent filed a reply brief. Upon consideration of the pensions, grievance procedures, job classifications, etc. entire record, the briefs, and my observation of the de- Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board issued meaner of the witnesses, I make the following: a Certification of Representation to Local 20408 on at least four separate occasions, e.g., John F. Boyle Compa- FINDINGS OF FACT ny, 222 NLRB 1309 (1976). 2 l. JURISDICTION I find Local 20408 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all times material herein, Consolidated Dress Carri- Respondent admits and I find that Local 102 is a labor ers, Inc., Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Clothing Carriers Corp., and Dynamic Delivery Corp., Act. herein called Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic, respectively, have main- tained their principal office and place of business in New York, New York, and have been, at all times material herein, engaged in providing trucking and related serv- . on May l, 1980, General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to ices in the garment industry. include as additional Respondents, Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG De- At all times material herein, Respondents Consoli- livery Inc., Clothing Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., and JHT dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic de- Leasing Corp. The amendment alleged that the above-named Respond- rived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for trucking ents, including Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., and Trucking Prsyon- nel, Inc., were at all times material herein, a single and/or joint employ- services performed directly outside the State of New er. On May 7, 1980, I issued an order granting General Counsel's motion York. to amend the complaint. Said order was appealed to the Board by Re- At all times material herein, Respondent JHT, a New spondent Consolidated on May 28, 1980. The appeal was denied by the York corporation, has maintained its principal office and I o ndent i a and throughout the course of the hearing place of business in New York, New York, and has been, herein, denied the labor organization status of Local 20408. Respondent at all times material herein, engaged in the business of in its reply brief admits the labor organization status of Local 20408. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 629 A. Whether Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, Trucking first came into existence sometime in 1975. GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking Trucking is essentially a manpower type operation. 5 As a Constitute a Single or Joint Employer prerequisite to its existence, Ruff was required to obtain permission from Thomas and Joseph Gambino. When At all times material herein and up through July 27, Trucking first commenced its operation, some of the 1978, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and clerical employees employed on the payrolls of the six Dynamic were engaged in providing trucking services in other Respondent corporations previously named herein, the garment industry. JHT was engaged solely in the were transferred to Trucking's payroll. business of leasing trucks and related trucking equipment Ruff and the Gambinos were in overall charge and ran to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing and Dy- the day-to-day operations for Consolidated, Greenberg's, namic. Trucking was engaged primarily in providing GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHI. Ruff was generally handlers or laborers and helpers to Consolidated, Green- responsible for the operations of Trucking. However, Joe berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic.3 Trucking sup- Gambino did authorize loans to employees and adjust plied well over 90 percent of all handlers, laborers, and grievances of employees supplied by Trucking to Con- helpers utilized by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, solidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Clothing, and Dynamic. Over 85 percent of Trucking's Consolidated, Greenberg's GRG, Clothing, and Dy- total business during 1978 involved the supplying of namic each had a small complement of employees on labor to the aforementioned corporations. The remainder their individual payroll. These employees were office of Trucking's business involved supplying labor to var- workers, truckdrivers, and supervisors. Trucking had on ious other corporations not involved in this proceeding. its individual payroll a small complement of office work- The officers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ers. The office workers for the aforementioned six Re- Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT were Hyman Ruff, presi- spondent companies share the office facilities in the mez- dent, Thomas Gambino, vice president, and Joseph Gam- zanine of 141 West 35th Street facility including the bino, secretary-treasurer. Ruff and the two Gambinos office equipment, described in detail below. Consoli- were the sole shareholders of the aforementioned corpo- dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic em- rations; Ruff owning 25 percent of the stock and the ployed virtually no helpers, handlers, or laborers on their Gambinos owning 37-1/2 percent of the stock in each of payroll. These employees were supplied exclusively by the aforementioned corporations. The sole officer of Trucking. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Trucking was Hyman Ruff who was president. The sole total work force of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, shareholders of Trucking were Hyman Ruff and his Clothing, and Dynamic consisted of helpers, handlers, wife.4 and laborers supplied exclusively by Trucking. Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, Jules Alterman, a supervisor within the meaning of JHT, and Trucking all maintained their sole office and Section 2(11) of the Act, was in charge of all warehouse principal place of business at the same location, 141 West employees, i.e. drivers, helpers, handlers, and laborers, 35th Street, New York City. The premises at 141 West working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. 7 Alter- 35th Street consisted of a storefront, behind which was a man was directly responsible to the Gambinos and Ruff. large warehouse area. In the back of the warehouse area Alterman, although he was on the payroll of Dynamic, was a mezzanine which was used as an office facility by spent the majority of his time at the 141 West 35th Street Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, facility, which was not Dynamic's primary facility. His JHT, and Trucking. The warehouse area was utilized by duties included determining how many laborers, helpers, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and to some and handlers were required on a daily basis by onsoli- extent Dynamic. The bulk of Dynamic's operation, dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic and which was slightly different than that of Consolidated, informing Trucking of the number of such workers re- quired. Trucking then supplied the required number of Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, in that it delivered fin- qured Truckin then suppied the required number of workers. Alterman assigned all production employees ished goods to retailers rather than to manufacturers, working out o te est t treet aciy was conducted at a separate warehouse located nearby daily work. Customers of Consolidated Greenberg's, Additionally, other warehouse facilities were maintained GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic would call in to Alterman in and about the area of West 35th Street and were uti- for pickups or deliveries. Alterman would accept such lized more or less equally by Consolidated, Greenberg's, orders on behalf of corporations and assign the work to GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. JHT maintained a single the employees, directing them to make the appropriate warehouse facility at West 23rd Street. pickup and deliveries for all Respondent corporations. The storefront sign above the facility located at 141 At the 141 West 35th Street facility, Alterman West 35th Street stated the name "Consolidated Dress punched the timecards of all the employees working out Carriers, Inc." No other corporate name appeared over of this facility, both as they reported to and left work this storefront facility. s A manpower operation supplies workers or laborers to various em- A "handler" or "laborer" is an employee who performs delivery ployers requiring such services. service in and around the garment center using handtrucks and racks to ' The record does not contain the names of these employees nor the transport garments and materials. corporation by whom they were employed. ' The record did not disclose the percentage of shares owned by Ruff 7 It was stipulated during the course of the hearing that Alterman was and his wife. a supervisor within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 629 A. Whether Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, Trucking first came into existence sometime in 1975. GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking Trucking is essentially a manpower type operation.' As a Constitute a Single or Joint Employer prerequisite to its existence, Ruff was required to obtain At all time materialhereinandupthroughJul7, permission from Thomas and Joseph Gambino. When At aCo times mateal herein and up through July 27 Trucking first commenced its operation, some of the 1978, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, andkclerical employees employed on the payrolls of the six Dynamic were engaged in providing trucking services in other Respondent corporations previously named herein, the garment industry. JHT was engaged solely in the were transferred to Trucking's payroll." business of leasing trucks and related trucking equipment Ruff and the Gambinos were in overall charge and ran to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing and Dy- the day-to-day operations for Consolidated, Greenberg's, namic. Trucking was engaged primarily in providing GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHI. Ruff was generally handlers or laborers and helpers to Consolidated, Green- responsible for the operations of Trucking. However, Joe berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic.' Trucking sup- Gambino did authorize loans to employees and adjust plied well over 90 percent of all handlers, laborers, and grievances of employees supplied by Trucking to Con- helpers utilized by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, solidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Clothing, and Dynamic. Over 85 percent of Trucking's Consolidated, Greenberg's. GRG, Clothing, and Dy- total business during 1978 involved the supplying of namic each had a small complement of employees on labor to the aforementioned corporations. The remainder their individual payroll. These employees were office of Trucking's business involved supplying labor to var- workers, truckdrivers, and supervisors. Trucking had on ious other corporations not involved in this proceeding. its individual payroll a small complement of office work- The officers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ers. The office workers for the aforementioned six Re- Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT were Hyman Ruff, presi- spondent companies share the office facilities in the mez- dent, Thomas Gambino, vice president, and Joseph Gam- zanine of 141 West 35th Street facility including the bino, secretary-treasurer. Ruff and the two Gambinos office equipment, described in detail below. Consoli- were the sole shareholders of the aforementioned corpo- dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic em- rations; Ruff owning 25 percent of the stock and the ployed virtually no helpers, handlers, or laborers on their Gambinos owning 37-1/2 percent of the stock in each of payroll. These employees were supplied exclusively by the aforementioned corporations. The sole officer of Trucking. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Trucking was Hyman Ruff who was president. The sole total work force of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, shareholders of Trucking were Hyman Ruff and his Clothing, and Dynamic consisted of helpers, handlers, wife. 4 and laborers supplied exclusively by Trucking. Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, Jules Alterman, a supervisor within the meaning of JHT, and Trucking all maintained their sole office and Section 2(11) of the Act, was in charge of all warehouse principal place of business at the same location, 141 West employees, i.e. drivers, helpers, handlers, and laborers, 35th Street, New York City. The premises at 141 West working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. 7 Alter- 35th Street consisted of a storefront, behind which was a m a n w a s directly responsible to the Gambinos and Ruff. large warehouse area. In the back of the warehouse area Alterman, although he was on the payroll of Dynamic, was a mezzanine which was used as an office facility by sp e n t t h e majority of his time at the 141 West 35th Street Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, f a c i li ty, w h ic h w a s n o t Dynamic's primary facility. His JHT, and Trucking. The warehouse area was utilized by d u t ies in cl u d e d determining how many laborers, helpers, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and to some a nd h a nd le r s w er e required o n a daily b asis b y C o nsoli- extent Dynamic. The bulk of Dynamic's operation, dated, Greenberg's. GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic and which was slightly different than that of Consolidated, informing Trucking of the number of such workers re- Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, in that it delivered fin- qu ir ed . T r u c kin g t h e n supped the required number of . , , , . , ., ., -.. . , .workers. Alterman assigned all production employees ished goods to retailers rather than to manufacturers, w A a all p emloee was ondctedat seprat warhoue loate neaby. working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility their was conducted at a separate warehouse located nearby_ daily work. Customers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, Additionally, other warehouse facilities were maintained QGG Clothing, and Dynamic would call in to Alterman in and about the area of West 35th Street and were uti- f p deliveries. Alterman would accept such lized more or less equally by Consolidated, Greenberg's, orders on behalf of corporations and assign the work to GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. JHT maintained a single the employees, directing them to make the appropriate warehouse facility at West 23rd Street. pickup and deliveries for all Respondent corporations. The storefront sign above the facility located at 141 At the 141 West 35th Street facility, Alterman West 35th Street stated the name "Consolidated Dress punched the timecards of all the employees working out Carriers, Inc." No other corporate name appeared over of this facility, both as they reported to and left work this storefront facility. s A manpower operation supplies workers or laborers to various em- A "handler" or "laborer" is an employee who performs delivery ployers requiring such services. service in and around the garment center using handtrucks and racks to I The record does not contain the names of these employees nor the transport garments and materials. corporation by whom they were employed. I The record did not disclose the percentage of shares owned by Ruff ' It was stipulated during the course of the hearing that Alterman was and his wife. a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 629 A. Whether Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, Trucking first came into existence sometime in 1975. GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking Trucking is essentially a manpower type operation.' As a Constitute a Single or Joint Employer prerequisite to its existence, Ruff was required to obtain At all time materialhereinandupthroughJul7, permission from Thomas and Joseph Gambino. When At aCo times mateal herein and up through July 27 Trucking first commenced its operation, some of the 1978, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, andkclerical employees employed on the payrolls of the six Dynamic were engaged mn providing trucking services in other Respondent corporations previously named herein, the garment industry. JHT was engaged solely in the were transferred to Trucking's payroll." business of leasing trucks and related trucking equipment Ruff and the Gambinos were in overall charge and ran to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing and Dy- the day-to-day operations for Consolidated, Greenberg's, namic. Trucking was engaged primarily in providing GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHI. Ruff was generally handlers or laborers and helpers to Consolidated, Green- responsible for the operations of Trucking. However, Joe berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic.' Trucking sup- Gambino did authorize loans to employees and adjust plied well over 90 percent of all handlers, laborers, and grievances of employees supplied by Trucking to Con- helpers utilized by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, solidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Clothing, and Dynamic. Over 85 percent of Trucking's Consolidated, Greenberg's. GRG, Clothing, and Dy- total business during 1978 involved the supplying of namic each had a small complement of employees on labor to the aforementioned corporations. The remainder their individual payroll. These employees were office of Trucking's business involved supplying labor to var- workers, truckdrivers, and supervisors. Trucking had on ious other corporations not involved in this proceeding. its individual payroll a small complement of office work- The officers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ers. The office workers for the aforementioned six Re- Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT were Hyman Ruff, presi- spondent companies share the office facilities in the mez- dent, Thomas Gambino, vice president, and Joseph Gam- zanine of 141 West 35th Street facility including the bino, secretary-treasurer. Ruff and the two Gambinos office equipment, described in detail below. Consoli- were the sole shareholders of the aforementioned corpo- dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic em- rations; Ruff owning 25 percent of the stock and the ployed virtually no helpers, handlers, or laborers on their Gambinos owning 37-1/2 percent of the stock in each of payroll. These employees were supplied exclusively by the aforementioned corporations. The sole officer of Trucking. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Trucking was Hyman Ruff who was president. The sole total work force of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, shareholders of Trucking were Hyman Ruff and his Clothing, and Dynamic consisted of helpers, handlers, wife. 4 and laborers supplied exclusively by Trucking. Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, Jules Alterman, a supervisor within the meaning of JHT, and Trucking all maintained their sole office and Section 2(11) of the Act, was in charge of all warehouse principal place of business at the same location, 141 West employees, i.e. drivers, helpers, handlers, and laborers, 35th Street, New York City. The premises at 141 West working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. 7 Alter- 35th Street consisted of a storefront, behind which was a m a n w a s directly responsible to the Gambinos and Ruff. large warehouse area. In the back of the warehouse area Alterman, although he was on the payroll of Dynamic, was a mezzanine which was used as an office facility by sp e n t t h e majority of his time at the 141 West 35th Street Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, f a c i li ty, w h ic h w a s n o t Dynamic's primary facility. His JHT, and Trucking. The warehouse area was utilized by d u t ies in cl u d e d determining how many laborers, helpers, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and to some a nd h a nd le r s w er e required o n a daily b asis b y C o nsoli- extent Dynamic. The bulk of Dynamic's operation, dated, Greenberg's. GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic and which was slightly different than that of Consolidated, informing Trucking of the number of such workers re- Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, in that it delivered fin- qu ir ed . T r u c kin g t h e n supped the required number of . , , , . , ., ., -.. . , .workers. Alterman assigned all production employees ished goods to retailers rather than to manufacturers, w A a all p emloee was ondctedat seprat warhoue loate neaby. working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility their was conducted at a separate warehouse located nearby_ daily work. Customers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, Additionally, other warehouse facilities were maintained QGG Clothing, and Dynamic would call in to Alterman in and about the area of West 35th Street and were uti- f ckups or deliveries. Alterman would accept such lized more or less equally by Consolidated, Greenberg's, orders on behalf of corporations and assign the work to GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. JHT maintained a single the employees, directing them to make the appropriate warehouse facility at West 23rd Street. pickup and deliveries for all Respondent corporations. The storefront sign above the facility located at 141 At the 141 West 35th Street facility, Alterman West 35th Street stated the name "Consolidated Dress punched the timecards of all the employees working out Carriers, Inc." No other corporate name appeared over of this facility, both as they reported to and left work this storefront facility. s A manpower operation supplies workers or laborers to various em- A "handler" or "laborer" is an employee who performs delivery ployers requiring such services. service in and around the garment center using handtrucks and racks to I The record does not contain the names of these employees nor the transport garments and materials. corporation by whom they were employed. I The record did not disclose the percentage of shares owned by Ruff ' It was stipulated during the course of the hearing that Alterman was and his wife. a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 629 A. Whether Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, Trucking first came into existence sometime in 1975. GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking Trucking is essentially a manpower type operation.' As a Constitute a Single or Joint Employer prerequisite to its existence, Ruff was required to obtain At all time materialhereinandupthroughJul7, permission from Thomas and Joseph Gambino. When At aCo times mateal herein and up through July 27 Trucking first commenced its operation, some of the 1978, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, andkclerical employees employed on the payrolls of the six Dynamic were engaged mn providing trucking services in other Respondent corporations previously named herein, the garment industry. JHT was engaged solely in the were transferred to Trucking's payroll." business of leasing trucks and related trucking equipment Ruff and the Gambinos were in overall charge and ran to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing and Dy- the day-to-day operations for Consolidated, Greenberg's, namic. Trucking was engaged primarily in providing GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHI. Ruff was generally handlers or laborers and helpers to Consolidated, Green- responsible for the operations of Trucking. However, Joe berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic.' Trucking sup- Gambino did authorize loans to employees and adjust plied well over 90 percent of all handlers, laborers, and grievances of employees supplied by Trucking to Con- helpers utilized by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, solidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Clothing, and Dynamic. Over 85 percent of Trucking's Consolidated, Greenberg's. GRG, Clothing, and Dy- total business during 1978 involved the supplying of namic each had a small complement of employees on labor to the aforementioned corporations. The remainder their individual payroll. These employees were office of Trucking's business involved supplying labor to var- workers, truckdrivers, and supervisors. Trucking had on ious other corporations not involved in this proceeding. its individual payroll a small complement of office work- The officers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ers. The office workers for the aforementioned six Re- Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT were Hyman Ruff, presi- spondent companies share the office facilities in the mez- dent, Thomas Gambino, vice president, and Joseph Gam- zanine of 141 West 35th Street facility including the bino, secretary-treasurer. Ruff and the two Gambinos office equipment, described in detail below. Consoli- were the sole shareholders of the aforementioned corpo- dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic em- rations; Ruff owning 25 percent of the stock and the ployed virtually no helpers, handlers, or laborers on their Gambinos owning 37-1/2 percent of the stock in each of payroll. These employees were supplied exclusively by the aforementioned corporations. The sole officer of Trucking. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Trucking was Hyman Ruff who was president. The sole total work force of Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, shareholders of Trucking were Hyman Ruff and his Clothing, and Dynamic consisted of helpers, handlers, wife. 4 and laborers supplied exclusively by Trucking. Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, Jules Alterman, a supervisor within the meaning of JHT, and Trucking all maintained their sole office and Section 2(11) of the Act, was in charge of all warehouse principal place of business at the same location, 141 West employees, i.e. drivers, helpers, handlers, and laborers, 35th Street, New York City. The premises at 141 West working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. 7 Alter- 35th Street consisted of a storefront, behind which was a m a n w a s directly responsible to the Gambinos and Ruff. large warehouse area. In the back of the warehouse area Alterman, although he was on the payroll of Dynamic, was a mezzanine which was used as an office facility by sp e n t t h e majority of his time at the 141 West 35th Street Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, f a c i li ty, w h ic h w a s n o t Dynamic's primary facility. His JHT, and Trucking. The warehouse area was utilized by d u t ies in cl u d e d determining how many laborers, helpers, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and to some a nd h a nd le r s w er e required o n a daily b asis b y C o nsoli- extent Dynamic. The bulk of Dynamic's operation, dated, Greenberg's. GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic and which was slightly different than that of Consolidated, informing Trucking of the number of such workers re- Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, in that it delivered fin- qu ir ed . T r u c kin g t h e n supped the required number of . , , , . , ., ., -.. . , .workers. Alterman assigned all production employees ished goods to retailers rather than to manufacturers, w A a all p emloee was ondctedat seprat warhoue loate neaby. working out of the 141 West 35th Street facility their was conducted at a separate warehouse located nearby_ daily work. Customers of Consolidated, Greenberg's, Additionally, other warehouse facilities were maintained QGG Clothing, and Dynamic would call in to Alterman in and about the area of West 35th Street and were uti- f ckups or deliveries. Alterman would accept such lized more or less equally by Consolidated, Greenberg's, orders on behalf of corporations and assign the work to GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. JHT maintained a single the employees, directing them to make the appropriate warehouse facility at West 23rd Street. pickup and deliveries for all Respondent corporations. The storefront sign above the facility located at 141 At the 141 West 35th Street facility, Alterman West 35th Street stated the name "Consolidated Dress punched the timecards of all the employees working out Carriers, Inc." No other corporate name appeared over of this facility, both as they reported to and left work this storefront facility. s A manpower operation supplies workers or laborers to various em- A "handler" or "laborer" is an employee who performs delivery ployers requiring such services. service in and around the garment center using handtrucks and racks to I The record does not contain the names of these employees nor the transport garments and materials. corporation by whom they were employed. I The record did not disclose the percentage of shares owned by Ruff ' It was stipulated during the course of the hearing that Alterman was and his wife. a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD each day. In addition, he would authorize overtime work porations. She was the keypunch operator for Consoli- and distribute the weekly paychecks to the employees. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. All the employees assigned by Trucking to the aforen- The warehouse equipment, handtrucks, racks, and amed Respondent corporations, all received Trucking automotive trucks at the 141 West 35th Street facility paychecks. were completely interchangeable. The automotive trucks Alterman possessed authority to, and did in fact, fire were either leased from JHT or owned by one of Re- several employees assigned by Trucking personnel to spondent corporations. A truck either owned by one of various Respondent corporations operating out of the Respondent corporations or leased from JHT would dis- 141 West 35th Street facility. play the name of any one of Respondent corporations for Employees furnished by Trucking to Consolidated, advertising purposes. The trucks were used interchange- Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were totally ably by each Respondent corporation operating out of interchangeable although charged by Trucking to one of the 141 West 35th Street facility. Although each corpo- Respondent corporations. Respondent Trucking's person- ration owned racks and handtrucks, such racks and hand- nel records establish that during the period of January I trucks were also used interchangeably. Some of these through July 27, 1978, the date of the strike herein, each racks were marked "Consolidated" and some "Dynam- specific employee set forth in the complaint as an alleged ic." discriminatee was charged exclusively to one specific Re- Additionally, Consolidated paid entirely for cleaning spondent corporation." Thomas Gambino and Jules Al- service and rubbish removal at the 141 West 35th Street terman testified that Trucking employees supplied and facility. Respondent corporations, including Trucking, charged to one of Respondent corporations would be as- shared the use of the photocopy machine located in the signed to work on a day-to-day basis for other Respond- office at 141 West 35th Street. Trucking was not billed ent corporations. Interestingly, 52 of the striking employ- for the use of the machine nor for the cleaning service ees set forth in the complaint and supplied by Trucking and rubbish removal. were charged to Dynamic. However, Gambino and Al- Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- terman testified that little or no Dynamic business tran- namic regularly performed trucking services for each spired at the 141 West 35th Street facility. Therefore, other on a daily and interchangeable basis. For example, since these employees concededly worked out of the 141 Consolidated might perform a delivery received by West 35th Street facility they must have performed work Greenberg's or vice versa. Clothing or any one of the for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, and other Respondent corporations might perform a pickup in view of the testimony of Gambino and Alterman, for Dynamic; however, inasmuch as Dynamic delivered above, I conclude such work was performed on an inter- merchandise to the retailer, whereas the other corpora- changeable basis as between these corporations. tions did not, such delivery would be deposited at Dy- Personnel supplied by Trucking applied for loans namic's warehouse where Dynamic would make the de- through Alterman and Joseph Gambino. Joseph Gam- livery to the retailer. Respondent corporations did not bino, and presumably Thomas Gambino and Ruff, had bill each other for the services performed. Rather, annu- final approval as to whether such loans would be grant- ally the officers of the corporations would meet and allo- ed. Such loans were repaid by means of deductions made cate informal amounts due from one corporation to the from the employees' weekly Trucking paycheck. In addi- other. These were called offsets. tion, Joseph Gambino adjusted grievances of personnel The 141 West 35th Street facility was leased by Con- supplied to Respondent corporations by Trucking when- solidated. Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, JHT, and Dy- ever necessary. namic had an informal agreement with Consolidated Murray Pines was in overall charge of the office facili- wherein they utilized the facility. On an annual basis, in- ty located in the mezzanine at 141 West 35th Street. formal arbitrary offsets would be charged against each Pines was on the payroll of Consolidated. He was direct- corporation for its share of the rent. Trucking had a ly responsible to the Gambinos and to Ruff. Pines super- lease arrangement for its office space with Dynamic. Dy- vised the work of approximately 10 office employees namic billed Trucking on an annual basis for the rental who were on different Respondent corporation payrolls. of space at 141 West 35th Street facility. This billing in- As in the case of laborers, the office workers were fully cluded office expenses, stationery, etc. The amount of interchangeable. For example, employee Charles Cho- this billing was determined arbitrarily by the Gambinos dash was on Consolidated's payroll, however, he operat- and Ruff. There was no specific special allocations either ed the IBM programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, in the office or warehouse at the 141 West 35th Street GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Anthony Mascia was on facility. The space was used interchangeably. the payroll of GRG, however, he was in charge of workmen's compensation matters for Consolidated, B. Collective-Bargaining Agreements with Local 102 Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Additional- Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, and Clothing, ly and significantly, Lucy, another employee, was paid as members of an employer association, were parties to by Trucking but charged to one of five Respondent cor- an associtionwide collective-bargaining agreement with Local 102, covering a bargaining unit which included all Respondent Trucking's personnel records establish for the period Jan- drivers, handler, and hers. Pursant to the terms of uary 1, 1978, thru July 27, 1978, that 6 employees were charged to Con- v e r s , and helpers Pursuant to the terms of solidated, I to Greenberg's, 4 to GRG, 3 to Clothing, and 52 to Dynam- the agreement, handlers and helpers received a wage of ic. $4.25 and $4.98 per hour, respectively, as of June 1978. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD each day. In addition, he would authorize overtime work porations. She was the keypunch operator for Consoli- and distribute the weekly paychecks to the employees. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. All the employees assigned by Trucking to the aforen- The warehouse equipment, handtrucks, racks, and amed Respondent corporations, all received Trucking automotive trucks at the 141 West 35th Street facility paychecks. were completely interchangeable. The automotive trucks Alterman possessed authority to, and did in fact, fire were either leased from JHT or owned by one of Re- several employees assigned by Trucking personnel to spondent corporations. A truck either owned by one of various Respondent corporations operating out of the Respondent corporations or leased from JHT would dis- 141 West 35th Street facility. play the name of any one of Respondent corporations for Employees furnished by Trucking to Consolidated, advertising purposes. The trucks were used interchange- Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were totally ably by each Respondent corporation operating out of interchangeable although charged by Trucking to one of the 141 West 35th Street facility. Although each corpo- Respondent corporations. Respondent Trucking's person- ration owned racks and handtrucks, such racks and hand- nel records establish that during the period of January 1 trucks were also used interchangeably. Some of these through July 27, 1978, the date of the strike herein, each racks were marked "Consolidated" and some "Dynam- specific employee set forth in the complaint as an alleged ic." discriminatee was charged exclusively to one specific Re- Additionally, Consolidated paid entirely for cleaning spondent corporation." Thomas Gambino and Jules Al- service and rubbish removal at the 141 West 35th Street terman testified that Trucking employees supplied and facility. Respondent corporations, including Trucking, charged to one of Respondent corporations would be as- shared the use of the photocopy machine located in the signed to work on a day-to-day basis for other Respond- office at 141 West 35th Street. Trucking was not billed ent corporations. Interestingly, 52 of the striking employ- for the use of the machine nor for the cleaning service ees set forth in the complaint and supplied by Trucking and rubbish removal. were charged to Dynamic. However, Gambino and Al- Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- terman testified that little or no Dynamic business tran- namic regularly performed trucking services for each spired at the 141 West 35th Street facility. Therefore, other on a daily and interchangeable basis. For example, since these employees concededly worked out of the 141 Consolidated might perform a delivery received by West 35th Street facility they must have performed work Greenberg's or vice versa. Clothing or any one of the for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, and other Respondent corporations might perform a pickup in view of the testimony of Gambino and Alterman, for Dynamic; however, inasmuch as Dynamic delivered above, I conclude such work was performed on an inter- merchandise to the retailer, whereas the other corpora- changeable basis as between these corporations. tions did not, such delivery would be deposited at Dy- Personnel supplied by Trucking applied for loans namic's warehouse where Dynamic would make the de- through Alterman and Joseph Gambino. Joseph Gam- livery to the retailer. Respondent corporations did not bino, and presumably Thomas Gambino and Ruff, had bill each other for the services performed. Rather, annu- final approval as to whether such loans would be grant- ally the officers of the corporations would meet and allo- ed. Such loans were repaid by means of deductions made cate informal amounts due from one corporation to the from the employees' weekly Trucking paycheck. In addi- other. These were called offsets. tion, Joseph Gambino adjusted grievances of personnel The 141 West 35th Street facility was leased by Con- supplied to Respondent corporations by Trucking when- solidated. Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, JHT, and Dy- ever necessary. namic had an informal agreement with Consolidated Murray Pines was in overall charge of the office facili- wherein they utilized the facility. On an annual basis, in- ty located in the mezzanine at 141 West 35th Street. formal arbitrary offsets would be charged against each Pines was on the payroll of Consolidated. He was direct- corporation for its share of the rent. Trucking had a ly responsible to the Gambinos and to Ruff. Pines super- lease arrangement for its office space with Dynamic. Dy- vised the work of approximately 10 office employees namic billed Trucking on an annual basis for the rental who were on different Respondent corporation payrolls. of space at 141 West 35th Street facility. This billing in- As in the case of laborers, the office workers were fully eluded office expenses, stationery, etc. The amount of interchangeable. For example, employee Charles Cho- this billing was determined arbitrarily by the Gambinos dash was on Consolidated's payroll, however, he operat- and Ruff. There was no specific special allocations either ed the IBM programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, in the office or warehouse at the 141 West 35th Street GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Anthony Mascia was on facility. The space was used interchangeably. the payroll of GRG, however, he was in charge of workmen's compensation matters for Consolidated, B. Collective-Bargaining Agreements with Local 102 Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Additional- Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, and Clothing, ly and significantly, Lucy, another employee, was paid as members of an employer association, were parties to by Trucking but charged to one of five Respondent cor- an associationwide collective-bargaining agreement with I -Resondet-- rckin's-prsonel-rcordsestalishfor-he-priodJan- Local 102, covering a bargaining unit which included all ' Respndent Truckring's personnel records establish for the period Jan- d-.,.,,„ i.--ii-s, ~-.i I.~1_-_ ._ Pusun to the .1.m * uary 1. 1978, thru July 27, 1978, that 6 employees were charged to Con d n v e r s, hanles, and helpers. Pursuant to the terms of solidated, 1 to Greenberg's, 4 to GRG, 3 to Clothing, and 52 to Dynam- the agreement, handlers and helpers received a wage of ic. $4.25 and $4.98 per hour, respectively, as of June 1978. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD each day. In addition, he would authorize overtime work porations. She was the keypunch operator for Consoli- and distribute the weekly paychecks to the employees. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. All the employees assigned by Trucking to the aforen- The warehouse equipment, handtrucks, racks, and amed Respondent corporations, all received Trucking automotive trucks at the 141 West 35th Street facility paychecks. were completely interchangeable. The automotive trucks Alterman possessed authority to, and did in fact, fire were either leased from JHT or owned by one of Re- several employees assigned by Trucking personnel to spondent corporations. A truck either owned by one of various Respondent corporations operating out of the Respondent corporations or leased from JHT would dis- 141 West 35th Street facility. play the name of any one of Respondent corporations for Employees furnished by Trucking to Consolidated, advertising purposes. The trucks were used interchange- Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were totally ably by each Respondent corporation operating out of interchangeable although charged by Trucking to one of the 141 West 35th Street facility. Although each corpo- Respondent corporations. Respondent Trucking's person- ration owned racks and handtrucks, such racks and hand- nel records establish that during the period of January 1 trucks were also used interchangeably. Some of these through July 27, 1978, the date of the strike herein, each racks were marked "Consolidated" and some "Dynam- specific employee set forth in the complaint as an alleged ic." discriminatee was charged exclusively to one specific Re- Additionally, Consolidated paid entirely for cleaning spondent corporation." Thomas Gambino and Jules Al- service and rubbish removal at the 141 West 35th Street terman testified that Trucking employees supplied and facility. Respondent corporations, including Trucking, charged to one of Respondent corporations would be as- shared the use of the photocopy machine located in the signed to work on a day-to-day basis for other Respond- office at 141 West 35th Street. Trucking was not billed ent corporations. Interestingly, 52 of the striking employ- for the use of the machine nor for the cleaning service ees set forth in the complaint and supplied by Trucking and rubbish removal. were charged to Dynamic. However, Gambino and Al- Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- terman testified that little or no Dynamic business tran- namic regularly performed trucking services for each spired at the 141 West 35th Street facility. Therefore, other on a daily and interchangeable basis. For example, since these employees concededly worked out of the 141 Consolidated might perform a delivery received by West 35th Street facility they must have performed work Greenberg's or vice versa. Clothing or any one of the for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, and other Respondent corporations might perform a pickup in view of the testimony of Gambino and Alterman, for Dynamic; however, inasmuch as Dynamic delivered above, I conclude such work was performed on an inter- merchandise to the retailer, whereas the other corpora- changeable basis as between these corporations. tions did not, such delivery would be deposited at Dy- Personnel supplied by Trucking applied for loans namic's warehouse where Dynamic would make the de- through Alterman and Joseph Gambino. Joseph Gam- livery to the retailer. Respondent corporations did not bino, and presumably Thomas Gambino and Ruff, had bill each other for the services performed. Rather, annu- final approval as to whether such loans would be grant- ally the officers of the corporations would meet and allo- ed. Such loans were repaid by means of deductions made cate informal amounts due from one corporation to the from the employees' weekly Trucking paycheck. In addi- other. These were called offsets. tion, Joseph Gambino adjusted grievances of personnel The 141 West 35th Street facility was leased by Con- supplied to Respondent corporations by Trucking when- solidated. Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, JHT, and Dy- ever necessary. namic had an informal agreement with Consolidated Murray Pines was in overall charge of the office facili- wherein they utilized the facility. On an annual basis, in- ty located in the mezzanine at 141 West 35th Street. formal arbitrary offsets would be charged against each Pines was on the payroll of Consolidated. He was direct- corporation for its share of the rent. Trucking had a ly responsible to the Gambinos and to Ruff. Pines super- lease arrangement for its office space with Dynamic. Dy- vised the work of approximately 10 office employees namic billed Trucking on an annual basis for the rental who were on different Respondent corporation payrolls. of space at 141 West 35th Street facility. This billing in- As in the case of laborers, the office workers were fully eluded office expenses, stationery, etc. The amount of interchangeable. For example, employee Charles Cho- this billing was determined arbitrarily by the Gambinos dash was on Consolidated's payroll, however, he operat- and Ruff. There was no specific special allocations either ed the IBM programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, in the office or warehouse at the 141 West 35th Street GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Anthony Mascia was on facility. The space was used interchangeably. the payroll of GRG, however, he was in charge of workmen's compensation matters for Consolidated, B. Collective-Bargaining Agreements with Local 102 Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Additional- Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, and Clothing, ly and significantly, Lucy, another employee, was paid as members of an employer association, were parties to by Trucking but charged to one of five Respondent cor- an associationwide collective-bargaining agreement with I -Resondet-- rckin's-prsonel-rcordsestalishfor-he-priodJan- Local 102, covering a bargaining unit which included all ' Respondnt Truckring's personnel records establish for the period Jan- d-.,.,,„ i.--ii-s, ~-.i I.~1_-_ ._ Pusun to the .1.m * uary 1. 1978, thru July 27, 1978, that 6 employees were charged to Con d n v e r s, hanles, and helpers. Pursuant to the terms of solidated, I to Greenberg's, 4 to GRG, 3 to Clothing, and 52 to Dynam- the agreement, handlers and helpers received a wage of ic. $4.25 and $4.98 per hour, respectively, as of June 1978. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD each day. In addition, he would authorize overtime work porations. She was the keypunch operator for Consoli- and distribute the weekly paychecks to the employees. dated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. All the employees assigned by Trucking to the aforen- The warehouse equipment, handtrucks, racks, and amed Respondent corporations, all received Trucking automotive trucks at the 141 West 35th Street facility paychecks. were completely interchangeable. The automotive trucks Alterman possessed authority to, and did in fact, fire were either leased from JHT or owned by one of Re- several employees assigned by Trucking personnel to spondent corporations. A truck either owned by one of various Respondent corporations operating out of the Respondent corporations or leased from JHT would dis- 141 West 35th Street facility. play the name of any one of Respondent corporations for Employees furnished by Trucking to Consolidated, advertising purposes. The trucks were used interchange- Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were totally ably by each Respondent corporation operating out of interchangeable although charged by Trucking to one of the 141 West 35th Street facility. Although each corpo- Respondent corporations. Respondent Trucking's person- ration owned racks and handtrucks, such racks and hand- nel records establish that during the period of January 1 trucks were also used interchangeably. Some of these through July 27, 1978, the date of the strike herein, each racks were marked "Consolidated" and some "Dynam- specific employee set forth in the complaint as an alleged ic." discriminatee was charged exclusively to one specific Re- Additionally, Consolidated paid entirely for cleaning spondent corporation." Thomas Gambino and Jules Al- service and rubbish removal at the 141 West 35th Street terman testified that Trucking employees supplied and facility. Respondent corporations, including Trucking, charged to one of Respondent corporations would be as- shared the use of the photocopy machine located in the signed to work on a day-to-day basis for other Respond- office at 141 West 35th Street. Trucking was not billed ent corporations. Interestingly, 52 of the striking employ- for the use of the machine nor for the cleaning service ees set forth in the complaint and supplied by Trucking and rubbish removal. were charged to Dynamic. However, Gambino and Al- Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- terman testified that little or no Dynamic business tran- namic regularly performed trucking services for each spired at the 141 West 35th Street facility. Therefore, other on a daily and interchangeable basis. For example, since these employees concededly worked out of the 141 Consolidated might perform a delivery received by West 35th Street facility they must have performed work Greenberg's or vice versa. Clothing or any one of the for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing, and other Respondent corporations might perform a pickup in view of the testimony of Gambino and Alterman, for Dynamic; however, inasmuch as Dynamic delivered above, I conclude such work was performed on an inter- merchandise to the retailer, whereas the other corpora- changeable basis as between these corporations. tions did not, such delivery would be deposited at Dy- Personnel supplied by Trucking applied for loans namic's warehouse where Dynamic would make the de- through Alterman and Joseph Gambino. Joseph Gam- livery to the retailer. Respondent corporations did not bino, and presumably Thomas Gambino and Ruff, had bill each other for the services performed. Rather, annu- final approval as to whether such loans would be grant- ally the officers of the corporations would meet and allo- ed. Such loans were repaid by means of deductions made cate informal amounts due from one corporation to the from the employees' weekly Trucking paycheck. In addi- other. These were called offsets. tion, Joseph Gambino adjusted grievances of personnel The 141 West 35th Street facility was leased by Con- supplied to Respondent corporations by Trucking when- solidated. Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, JHT, and Dy- ever necessary. namic had an informal agreement with Consolidated Murray Pines was in overall charge of the office facili- wherein they utilized the facility. On an annual basis, in- ty located in the mezzanine at 141 West 35th Street. formal arbitrary offsets would be charged against each Pines was on the payroll of Consolidated. He was direct- corporation for its share of the rent. Trucking had a ly responsible to the Gambinos and to Ruff. Pines super- lease arrangement for its office space with Dynamic. Dy- vised the work of approximately 10 office employees namic billed Trucking on an annual basis for the rental who were on different Respondent corporation payrolls. of space at 141 West 35th Street facility. This billing in- As in the case of laborers, the office workers were fully eluded office expenses, stationery, etc. The amount of interchangeable. For example, employee Charles Cho- this billing was determined arbitrarily by the Gambinos dash was on Consolidated's payroll, however, he operat- and Ruff. There was no specific special allocations either ed the IBM programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, in the office or warehouse at the 141 West 35th Street GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Anthony Mascia was on facility. The space was used interchangeably. the payroll of GRG, however, he was in charge of workmen's compensation matters for Consolidated, B. Collective-Bargaining Agreements with Local 102 Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. Additional- Respondents Consolidated, Greenberg's, and Clothing, ly and significantly, Lucy, another employee, was paid as members of an employer association, were parties to by Trucking but charged to one of five Respondent cor- an associationwide collective-bargaining agreement with I -Resondet-- rckin's-prsonel-rcordsestalishfor-he-priodJan- Local 102, covering a bargaining unit which included all ' Respondnt Truckring's personnel records establish for the period Jan- d-.,.,,„ i.--ii-s, ~-.i I.~1_-_ ._ Pusun to the .1.m * uary 1. 1978, thru July 27, 1978, that 6 employees were charged to Con d n v e r s, hanles, and helpers. Pursuant to the terms of solidated, I to Greenberg's, 4 to GRG, 3 to Clothing, and 52 to Dynam- the agreement, handlers and helpers received a wage of ic. $4.25 and $4.98 per hour, respectively, as of June 1978. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 631 The handlers and helpers supplied to Respondent corpo- going to act then the men should go on strike. Eason rations by Trucking received wages considerably less then began to gather the employees working at 141 West than those provided by the Local 102 contract. In this 35th Street facility together and informed them that the connection, employees Ulrick Tovar and Ernest Joseph Employer had refused to talk to him and indicated to earned $2.75 per hour and Lucien Simon received $2.65 them that they should strike. At this time, those employ- per hour. ees left their work stations and commenced picketing. C. Th~e Strike Eason, who had union picket signs in his automobile, which he testified were customarily kept there, distribut- Sometime in June 1978, Ulrick Tovar, charged by ed picket signs to the employees and picketing corn- Trucking to Dynamic but working out of the 141 West menced in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. The 35th Street facility and four or five other employees, also picket signs distributed by Eason to the employees were working out of the same facility, met with Matthew preprinted standard union picket signs which stated, Eason, president of Local 20408, at that Local's office. "Notice to the Public, Local 20408 Strike." Underneath The employees indicated to Eason that they were unre- the printing, the signs had crayoned in or penciled in the presented and were interested in representation by his word "Consolidated." During the course of the day as union. Eason gave the employees authorization cards to employees working at the 141 West 35th Street facility sign and other authorization cards to distribute to their returned from their morning pickup or delivery, they left Smeltme dsg late June or early July 1978, about 2 work and joined the picket line. The picketing continued Sometime during late June or early July 1978, about 2 weeks after the initial meeting, Eason met with approxi- until about 6 p.m. During the course of the day, approxi- mately 50 employees working out of the 141 West 35th mately 60 of the alleged discriminatees participated in Street facility. During the intervening time between the the picketing. meetings, these employees had signed Local 20408 au- On July 28, picketing continued throughout the day at thorization cards and at this time the cards were turned the same location, in the same manner, approximately 65 over to Eason. A total of 44 individuals, alleged as dis- pickets took part in the picketing. criminatees by General Counsel, signed authorization On July 28, Sidney Gerstein, manager of Local 102, cards for Local 20408. All the employees listed as their received word that a strike was in progress at the prem- address the address of their employer, 141 West 35th ises of 141 West 35th Street facility. Gerstein advised Street facility. 10 union representative Donald McDaniel to visit the prem- On July 10, Eason filed a representation petition with ises. McDaniel, in the company of Local 102 representa- Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board seeking tives Ted Theus and Patrick Dyer, visited the 141 West to represent a unit of "truckdrivers, pushmen, rackmen 35th Street facility about midday. At this time, the Local and warehousemen, delivery men and messengers em- 102 representatives spoke with some of the striking em- ployed by Consolidated and/or Trucking at 141 West ployees and informed them that Local 102 had a collec- 35th Street."" A representation hearing on that petition ive-bargaining agreement with Consolidated. They told took place on July 27, 1978.12 tive-bargaining agreement with Consolidated. They told took place on July 27, 1978.1 the strikers that they were covered by this agreement On July 27, 1978, Eason was present at the 141 West t ers tt they e e this agreement 35th Street facility sometime during the late morning and we niled o ge he enefis of hs agr en hours. He was involved in a strike which was taking w h ch incl u d ed higher wages an d improved fnge b en e- place at a nearby facility not involved in this proceeding, . about a block away. Eason observed Thomas Gambino Following the Local 102 representatives' conversation standing in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. He with the strikers, Local 102 Representative Theus, spoke approached Gambino and asked him whether he would with Eason who was present at the picket line. Theus consent to an election or recognize Local 20408. Gam- told Eason that Local 102 represented the employees of bino turned and walked away. As Gambino was walking Consolidated. Eason replied that he would let that be de- away, an employee employed by Respondent at the 141 termined (presumably by the NLRB by a resolution of West 35th Street facility came over to speak with Eason. the pending representation petition). Theus then asked Gambino observed this, went over to the employee, and Eason if he would object if he (Theus) tried to get the pushed him away from Eason stating to the employee employees to report to work. Eason replied that he had that he was paying him to work and not to talk. Eason no objection. told the employee that Gambino had refused to speak Shortly after Eason's conversation with Theus, Eason with him and that if this was the way Gambino was spoke to the striking employees. He related to them his conversation with Theus and informed them that he had As set forth above, 52 of the 66 striking employees were charged to no objection to their returning to work. Dynamic although, according to the testimony of Thomas Oambino and Jules Alterman, very little work for Dynamic was performed at the 141 Shortly after Eason's meeting with the striking em- west 35th Street facility ployees, he observed Thomas Gambino in front of the " Thirty-six employees listed Consolidated as their employer, four 141 West 35th Street facility. At this time he asked Gam- listed Trucking Personnel as their employer, two listed Thomas Gambino a their employer, one listed Consolidated-Trucking as his employer and, "Why dont you put the workers back to ork. . . one listed Consolidated-Dynamic as his employer. They .vere not aware they had a union. .... [presum- "Case 2-RC-18035. ably a reference to Local 102] It's not fair to take it out " This hearing did not close. Further proceedings on the petition were. . u apparently blocked pending final disposition of the instant case. w o r a e CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 631 The handlers and helpers supplied to Respondent corpo- going to act then the men should go on strike. Eason rations by Trucking received wages considerably less then began to gather the employees working at 141 West than those provided by the Local 102 contract. In this 35th Street facility together and informed them that the connection, employees Ulrick Tovar and Ernest Joseph Employer had refused to talk to him and indicated to earned $2.75 per hour and Lucien Simon received $2.65 them that they should strike. At this time, those employ- per hour. ees left their work stations and commenced picketing. C. The Strike Eason, who had union picket signs in his automobile, which he testified were customarily kept there, distribut- Sometime in June 1978, Ulrick Tovar, charged by ed picket signs to the employees and picketing com- Trucking to Dynamic but working out of the 141 West menced in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. The 35th Street facility and four or five other employees, also picket signs distributed by Eason to the employees were working out of the same facility, met with Matthew preprinted standard union picket signs which stated, Eason, president of Local 20408. at that Local's office.' "Notice to the Public, Local 20408 Strike." Underneath The employees indicated to Eason that they were unre- the printing, the signs had crayoned in or penciled in the presented and were interested in representation by his word "Consolidated." During the course of the day as union. Eason gave the employees authorization cards to employees working at the 141 West 35th Street facility sign and other authorization cards to distribute to their returned from their morning pickup or delivery, they left fellow employees. work and joined the picket line. The picketing continued Sometime during late June or early July 1978, about 2 weeks after the initial meeting, Eason met with approxi- until about 6 p.m. During the course of the day, approxi- mately 50 employees working out of the 141 West 35th mately 60 of the alleged discriminatees participated in Street facility. During the intervening time between the t h e picketing. meetings, these employees had signed Local 20408 au- On July 28, picketing continued throughout the day at thorization cards and at this time the cards were turned the same location, in the same manner, approximately 65 over to Eason. A total of 44 individuals, alleged as dis- pickets took part in the picketing. criminatees by General Counsel, signed authorization On July 28, Sidney Gerstein, manager of Local 102, cards for Local 20408. All the employees listed as their received word that a strike was in progress at the prem- address the address of their employer, 141 West 35th ises of 141 West 35th Street facility. Gerstein advised Street facility. 10 union representative Donald McDaniel to visit the prem- On July 10, Eason filed a representation petition with ises. McDaniel, in the company of Local 102 representa- Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board seeking tives Ted Theus and Patrick Dyer, visited the 141 West to represent a unit of "truckdrivers, pushmen, rackmen 35th Street facility about midday. At this time, the Local and warehousemen, delivery men and messengers em- 102 representatives spoke with some of the striking em- ployed by Consolidated and/or Trucking at 141 West ployees and informed them that Local 102 had a collec- 35th Street."" A representation hearing on that petition ive-bargaining agreement with Consolidated. They told took place on July 27, 1978.12the strikers that they were covered by this agreement On July 27, 1978, Eason was present at the 141 West y y agreement 35th Street facility sometime during the late morning an w e to g t bh hours. He was involved in a strike which was taking w h ic h inc l u ded higher wages an d improved fringe b en e- place at a nearby facility not involved in this proceeding, . about a block away. Eason observed Thomas Gambino Following the Local 102 representatives' conversation standing in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. He w i t h the strikers, Local 102 Representative Theus, spoke approached Gambino and asked him whether he would with Eason who was present at the picket line. Theus consent to an election or recognize Local 20408. Gam- told Eason that Local 102 represented the employees of bino turned and walked away. As Gambino was walking Consolidated. Eason replied that he would let that be de- away, an employee employed by Respondent at the 141 termined (presumably by the NLRB by a resolution of West 35th Street facility came over to speak with Eason. the pending representation petition). Theus then asked Gambino observed this, went over to the employee, and Eason if he would object if he (Theus) tried to get the pushed him away from Eason stating to the employee employees to report to work. Eason replied that he had that he was paying him to work and not to talk. Eason no objection. told the employee that Gambino had refused to speak Shortly after Eason's conversation with Theus, Eason with him and that if this was the way Gambino was spoke to the striking employees. He related to them his conversation with Theus and informed them that he had As set forth above, 52 of the 66 striking employees were charged to no Objection to their returning to Work. Dynamic although, according to the testimony of Thomas Oambino and Jules Alterman, very little work for Dynamic was performed at the 141 Shortly after Eason's meeting With the Striking em- West 35th Street facility. ployees, he observed Thomas Gambino in front of the " Thirty-six employees listed Consolidated as their employer, four 141 West 35th Street facility. At this time he asked Gam- listed Trucking Personnel as their employer, two listed Thomas Gambino b .17, j ,, ,_„ _„» ,1, b,, k to »y< ,^ as their employer, one listed Consolidated-Trucking as his employer, and b i n o, "h d o n 't you Put the workers back to Work. . . one listed Consolidated-Dynamic as his employer. They wvere not aware they had a union. . . . [presum- "Case 2-RC-18035. ably a reference to Local 102] It's not fair to take it out " This hearing did not close. Further proceedings on the petition were .. p . ^ u^ . ^ j , , ,. apparently blocked pending final disposition of the instant case.°o them. . . . Pt th e m bck to work and l It be re CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 631 The handlers and helpers supplied to Respondent corpo- going to act then the men should go on strike. Eason rations by Trucking received wages considerably less then began to gather the employees working at 141 West than those provided by the Local 102 contract. In this 35th Street facility together and informed them that the connection, employees Ulrick Tovar and Ernest Joseph Employer had refused to talk to him and indicated to earned $2.75 per hour and Lucien Simon received $2.65 them that they should strike. At this time, those employ- per hour. ees left their work stations and commenced picketing. C. The Strike Eason, who had union picket signs in his automobile, which he testified were customarily kept there, distribut- Sometime in June 1978, Ulrick Tovar, charged by ed picket signs to the employees and picketing com- Trucking to Dynamic but working out of the 141 West menced in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. The 35th Street facility and four or five other employees, also picket signs distributed by Eason to the employees were working out of the same facility, met with Matthew preprinted standard union picket signs which stated, Eason, president of Local 20408. at that Local's office.' "Notice to the Public, Local 20408 Strike." Underneath The employees indicated to Eason that they were unre- the printing, the signs had crayoned in or penciled in the presented and were interested in representation by his word "Consolidated." During the course of the day as union. Eason gave the employees authorization cards to employees working at the 141 West 35th Street facility sign and other authorization cards to distribute to their returned from their morning pickup or delivery, they left fellow employees. work and joined the picket line. The picketing continued Sometime during late June or early July 1978, about 2 weeks after the initial meeting, Eason met with approxi- until about 6 p.m. During the course of the day, approxi- mately 50 employees working out of the 141 West 35th mately 60 of the alleged discriminatees participated in Street facility. During the intervening time between the t h e picketing. meetings, these employees had signed Local 20408 au- On July 28, picketing continued throughout the day at thorization cards and at this time the cards were turned the same location, in the same manner, approximately 65 over to Eason. A total of 44 individuals, alleged as dis- pickets took part in the picketing. criminatees by General Counsel, signed authorization On July 28, Sidney Gerstein, manager of Local 102, cards for Local 20408. All the employees listed as their received word that a strike was in progress at the prem- address the address of their employer, 141 West 35th ises of 141 West 35th Street facility. Gerstein advised Street facility. 10 union representative Donald McDaniel to visit the prem- On July 10, Eason filed a representation petition with ises. McDaniel, in the company of Local 102 representa- Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board seeking tives Ted Theus and Patrick Dyer, visited the 141 West to represent a unit of "truckdrivers, pushmen, rackmen 35th Street facility about midday. At this time, the Local and warehousemen, delivery men and messengers em- 102 representatives spoke with some of the striking em- ployed by Consolidated and/or Trucking at 141 West ployees and informed them that Local 102 had a collec- 35th Street."" A representation hearing on that petition ive-bargaining agreement with Consolidated. They told took place on July 27, 1978.12the strikers that they were covered by this agreement On July 27, 1978, Eason was present at the 141 West y y agreement 35th Street facility sometime during the late morning an w e to g t bh hours. He was involved in a strike which was taking w h ic h inc l u d ed higher wages an d improved fringe b en e- place at a nearby facility not involved in this proceeding, . about a block away. Eason observed Thomas Gambino Following the Local 102 representatives' conversation standing in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. He w i t h the strikers, Local 102 Representative Theus, spoke approached Gambino and asked him whether he would with Eason who was present at the picket line. Theus consent to an election or recognize Local 20408. Gam- told Eason that Local 102 represented the employees of bino turned and walked away. As Gambino was walking Consolidated. Eason replied that he would let that be de- away, an employee employed by Respondent at the 141 termined (presumably by the NLRB by a resolution of West 35th Street facility came over to speak with Eason. the pending representation petition). Theus then asked Gambino observed this, went over to the employee, and Eason if he would object if he (Theus) tried to get the pushed him away from Eason stating to the employee employees to report to work. Eason replied that he had that he was paying him to work and not to talk. Eason no objection. told the employee that Gambino had refused to speak Shortly after Eason's conversation with Theus, Eason with him and that if this was the way Gambino was spoke to the striking employees. He related to them his conversation with Theus and informed them that he had As set forth above, 52 of the 66 striking employees were charged to no Objection to their returning to Work. Dynamic although, according to the testimony of Thomas Oambino and Jules Alterman, very little work for Dynamic was performed at the 141 Shortly after Eason's meeting With the Striking em- West 35th Street facility. ployees, he observed Thomas Gambino in front of the " Thirty-six employees listed Consolidated as their employer, four 141 West 35th Street facility. At this time he asked Gam- listed Trucking Personnel as their employer, two listed Thomas Gambino b .17, j ,, ,_„ _„» ,1, b,, k to »y< ,^ as their employer, one listed Consolidated-Trucking as his employer, and b i n o, "h d o n 't you Put the workers back to Work. . . one listed Consolidated-Dynamic as his employer. They wvere not aware they had a union. . . . [presum- "Case 2-RC-18035. ably a reference to Local 102] It's not fair to take it out " This hearing did not close. Further proceedings on the petition were .. p . ^ u^ . ^ j , , ,. apparently blocked pending final disposition of the instant case.°o them. . . . Pt th e m bck to work and l It be re CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 631 The handlers and helpers supplied to Respondent corpo- going to act then the men should go on strike. Eason rations by Trucking received wages considerably less then began to gather the employees working at 141 West than those provided by the Local 102 contract. In this 35th Street facility together and informed them that the connection, employees Ulrick Tovar and Ernest Joseph Employer had refused to talk to him and indicated to earned $2.75 per hour and Lucien Simon received $2.65 them that they should strike. At this time, those employ- per hour. ees left their work stations and commenced picketing. C. The Strike Eason, who had union picket signs in his automobile, which he testified were customarily kept there, distribut- Sometime in June 1978, Ulrick Tovar, charged by ed picket signs to the employees and picketing com- Trucking to Dynamic but working out of the 141 West menced in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. The 35th Street facility and four or five other employees, also picket signs distributed by Eason to the employees were working out of the same facility, met with Matthew preprinted standard union picket signs which stated, Eason, president of Local 20408. at that Local's office.' "Notice to the Public, Local 20408 Strike." Underneath The employees indicated to Eason that they were unre- the printing, the signs had crayoned in or penciled in the presented and were interested in representation by his word "Consolidated." During the course of the day as union. Eason gave the employees authorization cards to employees working at the 141 West 35th Street facility sign and other authorization cards to distribute to their returned from their morning pickup or delivery, they left fellow employees. work and joined the picket line. The picketing continued Sometime during late June or early July 1978, about 2 weeks after the initial meeting, Eason met with approxi- until about 6 p.m. During the course of the day, approxi- mately 50 employees working out of the 141 West 35th mately 60 of the alleged discriminatees participated in Street facility. During the intervening time between the t h e picketing. meetings, these employees had signed Local 20408 au- On July 28, picketing continued throughout the day at thorization cards and at this time the cards were turned the same location, in the same manner, approximately 65 over to Eason. A total of 44 individuals, alleged as dis- pickets took part in the picketing. criminatees by General Counsel, signed authorization On July 28, Sidney Gerstein, manager of Local 102, cards for Local 20408. All the employees listed as their received word that a strike was in progress at the prem- address the address of their employer, 141 West 35th ises of 141 West 35th Street facility. Gerstein advised Street facility. 10 union representative Donald McDaniel to visit the prem- On July 10, Eason filed a representation petition with ises. McDaniel, in the company of Local 102 representa- Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board seeking tives Ted Theus and Patrick Dyer, visited the 141 West to represent a unit of "truckdrivers, pushmen, rackmen 35th Street facility about midday. At this time, the Local and warehousemen, delivery men and messengers em- 102 representatives spoke with some of the striking em- ployed by Consolidated and/or Trucking at 141 West ployees and informed them that Local 102 had a collec- 35th Street."" A representation hearing on that petition ive-bargaining agreement with Consolidated. They told took place on July 27, 1978.12the strikers that they were covered by this agreement On July 27, 1978, Eason was present at the 141 West y y agreement 35th Street facility sometime during the late morning an w e to g t bh hours. He was involved in a strike which was taking w h ic h inc l u ded higher wages an d improved fringe b en e- place at a nearby facility not involved in this proceeding, . about a block away. Eason observed Thomas Gambino Following the Local 102 representatives' conversation standing in front of the 141 West 35th Street facility. He w i t h the strikers, Local 102 Representative Theus, spoke approached Gambino and asked him whether he would with Eason who was present at the picket line. Theus consent to an election or recognize Local 20408. Gam- told Eason that Local 102 represented the employees of bino turned and walked away. As Gambino was walking Consolidated. Eason replied that he would let that be de- away, an employee employed by Respondent at the 141 termined (presumably by the NLRB by a resolution of West 35th Street facility came over to speak with Eason. the pending representation petition). Theus then asked Gambino observed this, went over to the employee, and Eason if he would object if he (Theus) tried to get the pushed him away from Eason stating to the employee employees to report to work. Eason replied that he had that he was paying him to work and not to talk. Eason no objection. told the employee that Gambino had refused to speak Shortly after Eason's conversation with Theus, Eason with him and that if this was the way Gambino was spoke to the striking employees. He related to them his conversation with Theus and informed them that he had As set forth above, 52 of the 66 striking employees were charged to no Objection to their returning to Work. Dynamic although, according to the testimony of Thomas Gambino and Jules Alterman, very little work for Dynamic was performed at the 141 Shortly after Eason's meeting With the Striking em- West 35th Street facility. ployees, he observed Thomas Gambino in front of the " Thirty-six employees listed Consolidated as their employer, four 141 West 35th Street facility. At this time he asked Gam- listed Trucking Personnel as their employer, two listed Thomas Gambino b .17, j ,, ,_„ _„» ,1, b,, k to »y< ,^ as their employer, one listed Consolidated-Trucking as his employer, and b i n o, "h d o n 't you Put the workers back to Work. . . one listed Consolidated-Dynamic as his employer. They wvere not aware they had a union. . . . [presum- "Case 2-RC-18035. ably a reference to Local 102] It's not fair to take it out " This hearing did not close. Further proceedings on the petition were .. p . ^ u^ . ^ j , , ,. apparently blocked pending final disposition of the instant case.°o them. . . . Pt th e m bck to work and l It be re 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solved before the Labor Board." Gambino turned with- them back to work?" According to Rooney, Ruff re- out responding and walked away. 13 plied, "[N]o I have to see my lawyer first.""6 About 5 p.m. on July 28, McDaniel spoke with Ulrick Tovar, who had accompanied Rooney with a Hyman Ruff in the office of the 141 West 35th Street fa- group of 10 to 15 striking employees to 141 West 35th cility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men wanted to Street, testified that he arrived at the premises with the come back to work." Ruff responded that "[h]e wouldn't striking employees about 8:30 a.m. He saw Joe Gambino put them back to work now, he had to speak to his attor- standing by the door of the premises. According to ney."1 4 Tovar, the employees all stated, "We're coming back, On July 31, early in the morning, pursuant to a prior we're coming back to work." Joe Gambino replied, arrangement between the striking employees and Local "Wait a minute . . . I don't want you to come back to 102 representatives, approximately 65 strikers reported to work, I don't want you any more over here." 7 the Local 102 office. At this time, various Local 102 rep- Striker Lucien Simon testified that when his group of resentatives explained to the striking employees the ad- employees arrived at the 141 West 35th Street facility vantages of joining Local 102 and the expected benefits following the arrival of Tovar's group, he observed Joe (higher wages and improved fringe benefits) that Local Gambino standing by the front door and heard him say, 102 could provide for them. Union authorization cards "No, no job, I don't want you anymore." were then distributed to the employees who filled them On July 31, some time during the day following the out, signed them, and returned them to the Local 102 unsuccessful attempts by Rooney and the strikers to representatives. Sixty-five of the sixty-six alleged discri- obtain reinstatement, Thomas Gambino and his attorney minatees signed Local 102 cards at this time."5 met with Sidney Gerstein at the office of Local 102. Ac- It was agreed between the Local 102 representatives cording to Gambino's testimony, "Gerstein mentioned and the striking employees that they would apply for re- something about the people coming to work for us. . . instatement at 141 West 35th Street in small groups of 10 He talked about the people that were on strike. I told and 12 employees. him the people did not work for Consolidated, this was a On July 31, John Rooney, Local 102 business agent, very legal thing involving the NLRB and something we who normally dealt with Hyman Ruff in connection with h to discuss with a lawyer to determine. .. legally the existing Local 102 contract, arrived at the 141 West what t was all about" Gambino later testified that, In essence he [Gerstein] said the people--he wanted us to 35th Street facility before any of the striking employees. e ss e n c e h e [Gerei said t h e people-he wanted us t Sometime between 8:30 and 9 a.m. that morning, Rooney th peopl t o w ork" e e t h a t w a s a met with Ruff in his office. At this time according to le g a l th ng p e n d in b e f o r e t h e N L R B. On August 1, Tovar and approximately 10 to 12 other Rooney's testimony, he told Ruff, "there [are] men out- striking employees aain retrned to 141 West th striking employees again returned to the 141 West 35th side. They want to go back to work ... Would you put sde. Tey want to go back to work . . . Would you put Street facility around 8:30 or 9 a.m. According to Tovar, Joe Gambino was by the front door. The employees " Thomas Gambino testified that he did not recall this conversation stated to Gambino, "We come back to work, Local 102 taking place. My impression of Thomas Gambino was that his testimony is sending us back to work." Joe Gambino responded, was often evasive, and at times I believe he was less than forthright. This "No we don't want you to work.""' was particularly true as to questions put to him concerning the operation On August 2 a number of striking employees contact of Respondent Trucking. I have concluded, as described below, that Re- n er s ig empoyees c t spondents Trucking, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynam- ed Eason at his office and advised him of their efforts to ic, and JHT constitute a single highly integrated operation, a single em- return to work and the refusal by Respondents' repre- ployer within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, as one of the principles sentatives to reinstate them. Eason then filed the instant of this single employer, I conclude that Gambino was intimately aware of L c the operating details of Respondent Trucking, and his denials during arge erein. cross-examination of knowledge of such details were designed, I believe, On August 2, Eason sent Consolidated and Trucking a to be consistent with Respondent's defense that Respondent Trucking mailgram indicating that each of the discriminatees indi- was neither a single nor a joint employer with Respondent Consolidated, vidually applied for reinstatement. The mailgram set et aL, and not truthful. My general impression of Eason's testimony was that he was at all times responsive and forthright. Moreover, Eason's tes- forth as follows: timony is consistent in this respect with the testimony of McDaniel, Rooney, and Tovar and consistent with the admissions by Gambino him- Local 20408 represents all of the employees who self in connection with his similar conversation with Gerstein, described you have discharged as a result of the work stop- below. Accordingly I credit Eason. " At the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was deceased. However, the page on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each of them Board has held that such hearsay evidence is admissible although subject to careful evaluation. Calandra Photo, Inc., and Irvin C. Levin, its Agent 's As previously noted, at the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was and Member of its Board of Directors, 151 NLRB 660, 671 (1965). In this deceased. For the same reason I credited McDaniel concerning an almost case, the testimony of McDaniel is consistent with the admissions of identical conversation with Ruff described above in fn. 14. I also credit Thomas Gambino in connection with a subsequent but similar conversa- Rooney. tion with Local 102 Manager Gerstein. Moreover, I found McDaniel at ' Joseph Gambino was not called to testify during the course of this all times during his testimony to be generally responsive and forthright. hearing. Tovar generally impressed me as a credible witness. He was at Accordingly, I credit McDaniel. all times during his testimony responsive and forthright. Moreover, his " An examination of the 65 Local 102 authorization cards indicates testimony is consistent with that of Eason, McDaniel, and Rooney, and that 63 were dated July 31. Two were dated July 30. Inasmuch as July with the admissions of Thomas Gambino described below. Accordingly, 30 was a Sunday, and there is no evidence that any union solicitation or I credit Tovar. meeting took place on that date, I conclude that the cards were merely 1" As previously noted, Joseph Gambino did not testify during the inaccurately dated and that the correct date should have been July 31. course of this hearing for the reasons set forth in fn. 17. I credit Tovar. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solved before the Labor Board." Gambino turned with- them back to work?" According to Rooney, Ruff re- out responding and walked away.'13 plied, "[N]o I have to see my lawyer first.""' About 5 p.m. on July 28, McDaniel spoke with Ulrick Tovar, who had accompanied Rooney with a Hyman Ruff in the office of the 141 West 35th Street fa- group of 10 to 15 striking employees to 141 West 35th cility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men wanted to Street, testified that he arrived at the premises with the come back to work." Ruff responded that "[h]e wouldn't striking employees about 8:30 a.m. He saw Joe Gambino put them back to work now, he had to speak to his attor- standing by the door of the premises. According to ney. ""14Tovar, the employees all stated, "We're coming back, On July 31, early in the morning, pursuant to a prior we're coming back to work." Joe Gambino replied, arrangement between the striking employees and Local "Wait a minute ... I don't want you to come back to 102 representatives, approximately 65 strikers reported to w or k , I don't want you any more over here."' 7 the Local 102 office. At this time, various Local 102 rep- Striker Lucien Simon testified that when his group of resentatives explained to the striking employees the ad- employees arrived at the 141 West 35th Street facility vantages of joining Local 102 and the expected benefits following the arrival of Tovar's group, he observed Joe (higher wages and improved fringe benefits) that Local Gambino standing by the front door and heard him say, 102 could provide for them. Union authorization cards " N o , no job, I don't want you anymore." were then distributed to the employees who filled them O" July 31. s o m e time during the day following the out, signed them, and returned them to the Local 102 unsuccessful attempts by Rooney and the strikers to representatives. Sixty-five of the sixty-six alleged discri- obtain reinstatement, Thomas Gambino and his attorney minatees signed Local 102 cards at this time." m e t w it h Sidney Gerstein at the office of Local 102. Ac- It was agreed between the Local 102 representatives cording to Gambino's testimony, "Gerstein mentioned and the striking employees that they would apply for re- something about the people coming to work for us. . . instatement at 141 West 35th Street in small groups of 10 H e t a l k e d a b o u t t h e people t h a t w e r e on st r ik e . I t o ld and 12 employees. him the people did not work for Consolidated, this was a On July 31, John Rooney, Local 102 business agent, v er y l eg al t h i n g involving the NLRB and something we who normally dealt with Hyman Ruff in connection with h ad t o dis c us s w it h a lawyer t o determine. . . legally the existing Local 102 contract, arrived at the 141 West w h at it w as a ll abo u t. G am b in o l at er t estifi ed t h at, I n 35th Street facility before any of the striking employees. esse n c e h e [Gersein sa d t h e people-he wanted us to Sometime between 8:30 and 9 a.m. that morning, Rooney p t peol t o w o r k . G bin ele t h a t it w as a met with Ruff in his office. At this time according to le g al t h in pe n d in b ef o r e t h e N L R B . On August 1, Tovar and approximately 10 to 12 other Rooney's testimony, he told Ruff, "there [are] men out- strki gempl o yee a n d to te 14 t 1oth side. Triey want to go back to work . .. Would you put st k n P0 5 a a r t r o t e H e t 3 t . They want togo*bac to wok . .. Wouldouput Street facility around 8:30 or 9 a.m. According to Tovar, Joe Gambino was by the front door. The employees " Thomas Gambino testified that he did not recall this conversation s t a t e d t o Gambino, "We come back to work, Local 102 taking place. My impression of Thomas Gambino was that his testimony is sending us back to work." Joe Gambino responded, was often evasive, and at times I believe he was less than forthright. This "NO We don't want you to work."' 8 was particularly true as to questions put to him concerning the operation On August 2, a number of striking employees contact- of Respondent Trucking. I have concluded, as described below, that Re- eE at hi office 0n advise emloyeefforts to spondents Trucking, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynam- e u Eason at his ottice and advised him Of their efforts to ic, and JHT constitute a single highly integrated operation, a single em- return to work and the refusal by Respondents' repre- ployer within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, as one of the principles sentatives to reinstate them. Eason then filed the instant of this single employer, I conclude that Gambino was intimately aware of L| * the operating details of Respondent Trucking, and his denials during charge herein. cross-examination of knowledge of such details were designed, I believe,' On August 2, Eason sent Consolidated and Trucking a to be consistent with Respondent's defense that Respondent Trucking mailgram indicating that each of the discriminatees indi- was neither a single nor a joint employer with Respondent Consolidated, vidually applied for reinstatement. The mailgram set et aL, and not truthful. My general impression of Eason's testimony was that he was at all times responsive and forthright. Moreover, Eason's tes- forth as follows: timony is consistent in this respect with the testimony of McDaniel, Rooney, and Tovar and consistent with the admissions by Gambino him- Local 20408 represents all of the employees who self in connection with his similar conversation with Gerstein, described you have discharged as a result of the work stop- below. Accordingly I credit Eason. " At the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was deceased. However, the page on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each Of them Board has held that such hearsay evidence is admissible although subject to careful evaluation. Calandra Photo, Inc., and Irvin C. Levin, its Agent As previously noted, at the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was and Member of its Board of Directors, 151 NLRB 660, 671 (1965). In this deceased. For the same reason I credited McDaniel concerning an almost case, the testimony of McDaniel is consistent with the admissions of identical conversation with Ruff described above in fn. 14. I also credit Thomas Gambino in connection with a subsequent but similar conversa- Rooney. tion with Local 102 Manager Gerstein. Moreover, I found McDaniel at " Joseph Gambino was not called to testify during the course of this all times during his testimony to be generally responsive and forthright. hearing. Tovar generally impressed me as a credible witness. He was at Accordingly, I credit McDaniel, all times during his testimony responsive and forthright. Moreover, his " An examination of the 65 Local 102 authorization cards indicates testimony is consistent with that of Eason, McDaniel, and Rooney, and that 63 were dated July 31. Two were dated July 30. Inasmuch as July with the admissions of Thomas Gambino described below. Accordingly, 30 was a Sunday, and there is no evidence that any union solicitation or I credit Tovar. meeting took place on that date, I conclude that the cards were merely '" As previously noted, Joseph Gambino did not testify during the inaccurately dated and that the correct date should have been July 31. course of this hearing for the reasons set forth in fn. 17. I credit Tovar. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solved before the Labor Board." Gambino turned with- them back to work?" According to Rooney, Ruff re- out responding and walked away.'13 plied, "[N]o I have to see my lawyer first.""' About 5 p.m. on July 28, McDaniel spoke with Ulrick Tovar, who had accompanied Rooney with a Hyman Ruff in the office of the 141 West 35th Street fa- group of 10 to 15 striking employees to 141 West 35th cility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men wanted to Street, testified that he arrived at the premises with the come back to work." Ruff responded that "[h]e wouldn't striking employees about 8:30 a.m. He saw Joe Gambino put them back to work now, he had to speak to his attor- standing by the door of the premises. According to ney. ""14Tovar, the employees all stated, "We're coming back, On July 31, early in the morning, pursuant to a prior we're coming back to work." Joe Gambino replied, arrangement between the striking employees and Local "Wait a minute ... I don't want you to come back to 102 representatives, approximately 65 strikers reported to wOrk, I don't want you any more over here."' 7 the Local 102 office. At this time, various Local 102 rep- Striker Lucien Simon testified that when his group of resentatives explained to the striking employees the ad- employees arrived at the 141 West 35th Street facility vantages of joining Local 102 and the expected benefits following the arrival of Tovar's group, he observed Joe (higher wages and improved fringe benefits) that Local Gambino standing by the front door and heard him say, 102 could provide for them. Union authorization cards "No, no job, I don't want you anymore." were then distributed to the employees who filled them O" July 31, som e time during the day following the out, signed them, and returned them to the Local 102 unsuccessful attempts by Rooney and the strikers to representatives. Sixty-five of the sixty-six alleged discri- obtain reinstatement, Thomas Gambino and his attorney minatees signed Local 102 cards at this time." m e t w it h Sidney Gerstein at the office of Local 102. Ac- It was agreed between the Local 102 representatives cording to Gambino's testimony, "Gerstein mentioned and the striking employees that they would apply for re- something about the people coming to work for us. . . instatement at 141 West 35th Street in small groups of 10 H e t a l k e d about the people that were on strike. I told and 12 employees. him the people did not work for Consolidated, this was a On July 31, John Rooney, Local 102 business agent, v er y l eg al t h i n g involving the NLRB and something we who normally dealt with Hyman Ruff in connection with h ad t o dis c us s w it h a lawyer t o determine. . . legally the existing Local 102 contract, arrived at the 141 West w h at it w as a ll abo u t. G am b in o l at er t estifi ed t h at, I n 35th Street facility before any of the striking employees. esse n c e h e [Gersein said t h e people-he wanted us to Sometime between 8:30 and 9 a.m. that morning, Rooney p t peol t o w o r k . G bin ele t h a t it w as a met with Ruff in his office. At this time according to le g al t h in pe n d in b ef o r e t h e N L R B . On August 1, Tovar and approximately 10 to 12 other Rooney's testimony, he told Ruff, "there [are] men out- strki gempl o yee a n rtPe tote 14 t 1oth side. mhey want to go back to work . .. Would you put st k n P0 5 a a r t r o t e H e t 3 t . They want togo*bac to wok . .. Wouldouput Street facility around 8:30 or 9 a.m. According to Tovar, Joe Gambino was by the front door. The employees " Thomas Gambino testified that he did not recall this conversation s t a t e d to Gambino, "We come back to work, Local 102 taking place. My impression of Thomas Gambino was that his testimony is sending us back to work." Joe Gambino responded, was often evasive, and at times I believe he was less than forthright. This "NO We don't want you to work."' 8 was particularly true as to questions put to him concerning the operation On August 2, a number of striking employees contact- of Respondent Trucking. I have concluded, as described below, that Re- e s his ff an d 0 i him ofplheefforts to spondents Trucking, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynam- e u Eason at his ottice and advised him Of their efforts to ic, and JHT constitute a single highly integrated operation, a single em- return to work and the refusal by Respondents' repre- ployer within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, as one of the principles sentatives to reinstate them. Eason then filed the instant of this single employer, I conclude that Gambino was intimately aware of L| * the operating details of Respondent Trucking, and his denials during charge herein. cross-examination of knowledge of such details were designed, I believe,' On August 2, Eason sent Consolidated and Trucking a to be consistent with Respondent's defense that Respondent Trucking mailgram indicating that each of the discriminatees indi- was neither a single nor a joint employer with Respondent Consolidated, vidually applied for reinstatement. The mailgram set et aL, and not truthful. My general impression of Eason's testimony was that he was at all times responsive and forthright. Moreover, Eason's tes- forth as follows: timony is consistent in this respect with the testimony of McDaniel, Rooney, and Tovar and consistent with the admissions by Gambino him- Local 20408 represents all of the employees who self in connection with his similar conversation with Gerstein, described you have discharged as a result of the work stop- below. Accordingly I credit Eason. " At the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was deceased. However, the page on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each Of them Board has held that such hearsay evidence is admissible although subject to careful evaluation. Calandra Photo, Inc., and Irvin C. Levin, its Agent As previously noted, at the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was and Member of its Board of Directors, 151 NLRB 660, 671 (1965). In this deceased. For the same reason I credited McDaniel concerning an almost case, the testimony of McDaniel is consistent with the admissions of identical conversation with Ruff described above in fn. 14. I also credit Thomas Gambino in connection with a subsequent but similar conversa- Rooney. tion with Local 102 Manager Gerstein. Moreover, I found McDaniel at " Joseph Gambino was not called to testify during the course of this all times during his testimony to be generally responsive and forthright. hearing. Tovar generally impressed me as a credible witness. He was at Accordingly, I credit McDaniel, all times during his testimony responsive and forthright. Moreover, his " An examination of the 65 Local 102 authorization cards indicates testimony is consistent with that of Eason, McDaniel, and Rooney, and that 63 were dated July 31. Two were dated July 30. Inasmuch as July with the admissions of Thomas Gambino described below. Accordingly, 30 was a Sunday, and there is no evidence that any union solicitation or I credit Tovar. meeting took place on that date, I conclude that the cards were merely '" As previously noted, Joseph Gambino did not testify during the inaccurately dated and that the correct date should have been July 31. course of this hearing for the reasons set forth in fn. 17. I credit Tovar. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solved before the Labor Board." Gambino turned with- them back to work?" According to Rooney, Ruff re- out responding and walked away.'13 plied, "[N]o I have to see my lawyer first.""' About 5 p.m. on July 28, McDaniel spoke with Ulrick Tovar, who had accompanied Rooney with a Hyman Ruff in the office of the 141 West 35th Street fa- group of 10 to 15 striking employees to 141 West 35th cility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men wanted to Street, testified that he arrived at the premises with the come back to work." Ruff responded that "[h]e wouldn't striking employees about 8:30 a.m. He saw Joe Gambino put them back to work now, he had to speak to his attor- standing by the door of the premises. According to ney. ""14Tovar, the employees all stated, "We're coming back, On July 31, early in the morning, pursuant to a prior we're coming back to work." Joe Gambino replied, arrangement between the striking employees and Local "Wait a minute ... I don't want you to come back to 102 representatives, approximately 65 strikers reported to wOrk, I don't want you any more over here."' 7 the Local 102 office. At this time, various Local 102 rep- Striker Lucien Simon testified that when his group of resentatives explained to the striking employees the ad- employees arrived at the 141 West 35th Street facility vantages of joining Local 102 and the expected benefits following the arrival of Tovar's group, he observed Joe (higher wages and improved fringe benefits) that Local Gambino standing by the front door and heard him say, 102 could provide for them. Union authorization cards "No, no job, I don't want you anymore." were then distributed to the employees who filled them O" July 31, some time during the day following the out, signed them, and returned them to the Local 102 unsuccessful attempts by Rooney and the strikers to representatives. Sixty-five of the sixty-six alleged discri- obtain reinstatement, Thomas Gambino and his attorney minatees signed Local 102 cards at this time." m e t w ith Sidney Gerstein at the office of Local 102. Ac- It was agreed between the Local 102 representatives cording to Gambino's testimony, "Gerstein mentioned and the striking employees that they would apply for re- something about the people coming to work for us. . . instatement at 141 West 35th Street in small groups of 10 H e t a l k e d about the people that were on strike. I told and 12 employees. him the people did not work for Consolidated, this was a On July 31, John Rooney, Local 102 business agent, v er y l eg al t h i n g involving the NLRB and something we who normally dealt with Hyman Ruff in connection with h ad t o dis c us s w it h a lawyer t o determine. . . legally the existing Local 102 contract, arrived at the 141 West w h at it w as a ll abo u t. G am b in o l at er t estifi ed t h at, I n 35th Street facility before any of the striking employees. esse n c e h e [Gersein said t h e people-he wanted us to Sometime between 8:30 and 9 a.m. that morning, Rooney p t peol t o w o r k . G bin ele t h a t it w as a met with Ruff in his office. At this time according to le g al t h in pe n d in b efo re th e N L R B . On August 1, Tovar and approximately 10 to 12 other Rooney's testimony, he told Ruff, "there [are] men out- strki gempl o yee a n rtPe tote 14 t 1oth side. mhey want to go back to work . .. Would you put st k n P0 5 a a r t r o t e H e t 3 t . They want togo*bac to wok . .. Wouldouput Street facility around 8:30 or 9 a.m. According to Tovar, Joe Gambino was by the front door. The employees " Thomas Gambino testified that he did not recall this conversation s t a t e d to Gambino, "We come back to work, Local 102 taking place. My impression of Thomas Gambino was that his testimony is sending us back to work." Joe Gambino responded, was often evasive, and at times I believe he was less than forthright. This "NO We don't want you to work."' 8 was particularly true as to questions put to him concerning the operation On August 2, a number of striking employees contact- of Respondent Trucking. I have concluded, as described below, that Re- eE at is office 0n a isdim ofplheefforts to spondents Trucking, Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynam- e u Eason at his ottice and advised him Of their efforts to ic, and JHT constitute a single highly integrated operation, a single em- return to work and the refusal by Respondents' repre- ployer within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, as one of the principles sentatives to reinstate them. Eason then filed the instant of this single employer, I conclude that Gambino was intimately aware of L| * the operating details of Respondent Trucking, and his denials during charge herein. cross-examination of knowledge of such details were designed, I believe,' On August 2, Eason sent Consolidated and Trucking a to be consistent with Respondent's defense that Respondent Trucking mailgram indicating that each of the discriminatees indi- was neither a single nor a joint employer with Respondent Consolidated, vidually applied for reinstatement. The mailgram set et aL, and not truthful. My general impression of Eason's testimony was that he was at all times responsive and forthright. Moreover, Eason's tes- forth as follows: timony is consistent in this respect with the testimony of McDaniel, Rooney, and Tovar and consistent with the admissions by Gambino him- Local 20408 represents all of the employees who self in connection with his similar conversation with Gerstein, described you have discharged as a result of the work stop- below. Accordingly I credit Eason. " At the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was deceased. However, the page on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each Of them Board has held that such hearsay evidence is admissible although subject to careful evaluation. Calandra Photo, Inc., and Irvin C. Levin, its Agent As previously noted, at the time of this hearing Hyman Ruff was and Member of its Board of Directors, 151 NLRB 660, 671 (1965). In this deceased. For the same reason I credited McDaniel concerning an almost case, the testimony of McDaniel is consistent with the admissions of identical conversation with Ruff described above in fn. 14. I also credit Thomas Gambino in connection with a subsequent but similar conversa- Rooney. tion with Local 102 Manager Gerstein. Moreover, I found McDaniel at " Joseph Gambino was not called to testify during the course of this all times during his testimony to be generally responsive and forthright. hearing. Tovar generally impressed me as a credible witness. He was at Accordingly, I credit McDaniel, all times during his testimony responsive and forthright. Moreover, his " An examination of the 65 Local 102 authorization cards indicates testimony is consistent with that of Eason, McDaniel, and Rooney, and that 63 were dated July 31. Two were dated July 30. Inasmuch as July with the admissions of Thomas Gambino described below. Accordingly, 30 was a Sunday, and there is no evidence that any union solicitation or I credit Tovar. meeting took place on that date, I conclude that the cards were merely '" As previously noted, Joseph Gambino did not testify during the inaccurately dated and that the correct date should have been July 31. course of this hearing for the reasons set forth in fn. 17. I credit Tovar. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 633 does individually hereby unconditionally apply for respect to Consolidated, et at., and all three individuals reinstatement. were responsible for the day-to-day operations of these corporations. Although Ruff was the sole officer of III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Trucking, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino A. Single-Employer Relaioshipgranted loans to employees on Trucking's payroll. The A. Sgle-Employer evidence also established that Joseph Gambino adjusted A critical issue is presented in this case as to whether grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. Trucking and Consolidated, et al., constitute a single or Common management is further established by the joint employer. "I A supplementary issue is also presented duties of Alterman. Alterman was directly responsible to as to whether Consolidated, constitute a single or joint Ruff and the Gambinos. He was in overall charge and employer. supervised production employees working out of the 141 The Supreme Court held in Radio & Television Broad- West 35th Street facility, whether they were on Truck- cast Technicians Local Union 1264, International Brother- ing's payroll or the payrolls of Consolidated, et al. In this hood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO, et al. v. Broadcast respect, he assigned all such employees their daily work. Service of Mobile, Inc, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965), that in He punched the timecards of all employees when they determining whether enterprises constitute a single em- reported to and left work each day, he authorized and ployer: "The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated directed overtime, and distributed all weekly paychecks. in the Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, Additionally and significantly, the evidence establishes common management, centralized control of labor rela- that on occasion Alterman fired employees of Trucking tions and common ownership." The Board in Blumenfeld personnel as distinguished from advising Ruff that Con- Theatres Circuit, a Partnership; Blumenfeld Enterprises, a solidated, et at, no longer wanted a particular individual Division of Cinerama, Inc; Rafic Oakland Theatre, a Part- supplied by Trucking to perform work for them. nership, 240 NLRB 206, 214, 215 (1979), held that ae ng to e f he "single employer" status, for purposes of the National C o m m o n management is f ur t h er established by the Labor Relations Act, depends upon all the circumstances dutesof Murray Pines. Pines was n overall charge of of the case, that not all of the single 'controlling criteria' the officeat the 141 est 35th Street facility which em- specified by the Supreme Court [in Radio & Television ployed office clericals on the payrolls of Consolidated, et Broadcast Technicians, supra] need be present. . . ." al., and Trucking. He admittedly supervised all clericals In the instant case, there is common ownership. In on Consolidated et al., payrolls and, since he was the connection with Consolidated, et at, the officers and only supervisor in the office, it is presumable that in the stockholders are identical. Ruff owned 25 percent of absence of Ruff or the Gambinos he supervised the three each corporation and Thomas and Joseph Gambino employees employed on the payroll of Trucking as well. owned 37-1/2 percent of the stock of each of the above The evidence established that there existed in all of corporations. Additionally, the officers were identical: Respondent corporations, including Trucking, a central- Hyman Ruff, president; Thomas Gambino, vice presi- ized control of labor relations. In this connection, the dent; and Joseph Gambino, secretary-treasurer. evidence established that the officers of Consolidated, et There is also common ownership between Trucking al., were identical; namely, Ruff and the Gambinos. All and Consolidated, et al. In Trucking, Ruff was in effect had equal authority to hire, fire, determine the wages, the sole owner and president.' Thus, Hyman Ruff and other working conditions of their employees, and to owned effectively 100 percent of the shares of Trucking adjust grievances. As the president and sole officer of and 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et al. Ruff's Trucking, Ruff also possessed all of these functions with ownership of 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et respect to employees on Trucking's payroll. Additional- al. represents substantial ownership in view of the fact ly, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino adjust- that no one shareholder owned more than 37-1/2 percent ed grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. of the stock of these companies. The Board found The evidence also established that Consolidated, et at., common ownership in determining single-employer and Trucking constituted a totally integrated operation status where an individual owns substantially all of the engaged in the transportation of goods in the garment in- stock in one corporation and a substantial portion, al- dustry. In this connection, Consolidated, Greenberg's, though less than a majority, of the stock in such other GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were the corporations corporation. A & T Glass Company, 231 NLRB 998 that were engaged in the actual physical transportation (1977); L H. & J. Coal Company Inc., 228 NLRB 1091, of goods. JHT was admittedly created solely for the pur- 1092 (1977). pose of supplying equipment to Consolidated, Green- The evidence also establishes that there was common berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. The evidence es- management between Consolidated, et at, and Trucking. tablished that Trucking similarly was created essentially Ruff and the Gambinos occupied the same offices with for the purpose of supplying labor to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. In this con- " Consolidated, et al., is used to designate Consolidated, Greenberg's, nectionerg's, GRG, Clothing, and from the Gambinos to GRG. Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT. nection, permission was required from the Gambinos to GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT. ao As set forth above, the record indicates to some extent that Ruff and Ruff as a prerequisite to the formation of Trucking. Ad- his wife were the sole owners of Trucking. There is no indication as to ditionally, upon the formation of Trucking, employees what if any percent of the ownership was vested in Ruffs wife. In view were transferred from Consolidated, et a, to staff of the marital relationship and in view of the fact that Ruffs wife did not take part in any of the day-to-day operations of Trucking, I conclude that Trucking's office personnel. Further, with the exception Hyman Ruff was, effectively, the sole shareholder. of the skeletal force of production employees maintained CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 633 does individually hereby unconditionally apply for respect to Consolidated, et al., and all three individuals reinstatement. were responsible for the day-to-day operations of these corporations. Although Ruff was the sole officer of III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Trucking, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino A. Single-Employer Relationship granted loans to employees on Trucking's payroll. The evidence also established that Joseph Gambino adjusted A critical issue is presented in this case as to whether grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. Trucking and Consolidated, et al., constitute a single or Common management is further established by the joint employer. 1" A supplementary issue is also presented duties of Alterman. Alterman was directly responsible to as to whether Consolidated, constitute a single or joint Ruff and the Gambinos. He was in overall charge and employer. supervised production employees working out of the 141 The Supreme Court held in Radio & Television Broad- West 35th Street facility, whether they were on Truck- cost Technicians, Local Union 1264. International Brother- ing's payroll or the payrolls of Consolidated, et al. In this hood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO, et al. v. Broadcast respect, he assigned all such employees their daily work. Service of Mobile, Inc, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965), that in He punched the timecards of all employees when they determining whether enterprises constitute a single em- reported to and left work each day, he authorized and ployer: "The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated directed overtime, and distributed all weekly paychecks. in the Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, Additionally and significantly, the evidence establishes common management, centralized control of labor rela- that on occasion Alterman fired employees of Trucking tions and common ownership." The Board in Blumenfeld personnel as distinguished from advising Ruff that Con- Theatres Circuit, a Partnership, Blumenfeld Enterprises, a solidated, et aL, no longer wanted a particular individual Division of Cinerama, Inc; Rafic Oakland Theatre, a Part- supplie Trucin to prfr wr fo thm nership, 240 NLRB 206, 214, 215 (1979), held that a "single employer" status, for purposes of the National C o m m o n management is further established by the Labor Relations Act, depends upon all the circumstances d u tie s o f M u r r a y Pin e s. Pin e s w a s in o verall charge of of the case, that not all of the single 'controlling criteria' t h e o f i c e a t t h e 1 4 1 We st 3 5 t h S t r e e t f a c ili t y w h ic h e m - specified by the Supreme Court [in Radio & Television ployed office clericals on the payrolls of Consolidated, et Broadcast Technicians, supra] need be present. . . ." a l., a n d Trucking. He admittedly supervised all clericals In the instant case, there is common ownership. In o n Consolidated et al., payrolls and, since he was the connection with Consolidated, et al., the officers and o"ly supervisor in the office, it is presumable that in the stockholders are identical. Ruff owned 25 percent of absence of Ruff or the Gambinos he supervised the three each corporation and Thomas and Joseph Gambino employees employed on the payroll of Trucking as well. owned 37-1/2 percent of the stock of each of the above The evidence established that there existed in all of corporations. Additionally, the officers were identical: Respondent corporations, including Trucking, a central- Hyman Ruff, president; Thomas Gambino, vice presi- ized control of labor relations. In this connection, the dent; and Joseph Gambino, secretary-treasurer. evidence established that the officers of Consolidated, et There is also common ownership between Trucking al., were identical; namely, Ruff and the Gambinos. All and Consolidated, et al. In Trucking, Ruff was in effect had equal authority to hire, fire, determine the wages, the sole owner and president.' Thus, Hyman Ruff and other working conditions of their employees, and to owned effectively 100 percent of the shares of Trucking adjust grievances. As the president and sole officer of and 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et al. Ruffs Trucking, Ruff also possessed all of these functions with ownership of 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et respect to employees on Trucking's payroll. Additional- al. represents substantial ownership in view of the fact ly, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino adjust- that no one shareholder owned more than 37-1/2 percent ed grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. of the stock of these companies. The Board found The evidence also established that Consolidated, et al., common ownership in determining single-employer and Trucking constituted a totally integrated operation status where an individual owns substantially all of the engaged in the transportation of goods in the garment in- stock in one corporation and a substantial portion, al- dustry. In this connection, Consolidated, Greenberg's, though less than a majority, of the stock in such other GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were the corporations corporation. A & T Glass Company, 231 NLRB 998 that were engaged in the actual physical transportation (1977); L. H. & J. Coal Company Inc., 228 NLRB 1091, of goods. JHT was admittedly created solely for the pur- 1092 (1977). pose of supplying equipment to Consolidated, Green- The evidence also establishes that there was common berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. The evidence es- management between Consolidated, et al, and Trucking. tablished that Trucking similarly was created essentially Ruff and the Gambinos occupied the same offices with for the purpose of supplying labor to Consolidated, - Cnsoidaedet l.,is-sedto-esinat-Cosoldatd,-r-eber's, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. In this con- GRO, ClothingDynamicandJHT. 1 C o nso l ate d. nection, permission was required from the Gambinos to 1» As set forth above, the record indicates to some extent that Ruff and Ruff as a prerequisite to the formation of Trucking. Ad- his wife were the sole owners of Trucking. There is no indication as to ditionally, upon the formation of Trucking, employees what if any percent of the ownership was vested in Ruffs wife. In view were transferred from Consolidated, et al., to Staff of the marital relationship and in view of the fact that Ruffs wife did not take part in any of the day-to-day operations of Trucking, I conclude that Trucking's office personnel. Further, With the exception Hyman Ruff was, effectively, the sole shareholder. of the skeletal force of production employees maintained CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 633 does individually hereby unconditionally apply for respect to Consolidated, et al., and all three individuals reinstatement. were responsible for the day-to-day operations of these corporations. Although Ruff was the sole officer of III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Trucking, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino A. Single-Employer Relationship granted loans to employees on Trucking's payroll. The evidence also established that Joseph Gambino adjusted A critical issue is presented in this case as to whether grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. Trucking and Consolidated, et al., constitute a single or Common management is further established by the joint employer. 1" A supplementary issue is also presented duties of Alterman. Alterman was directly responsible to as to whether Consolidated, constitute a single or joint Ruff and the Gambinos. He was in overall charge and employer. supervised production employees working out of the 141 The Supreme Court held in Radio & Television Broad- West 35th Street facility, whether they were on Truck- cost Technicians, Local Union 1264. International Brother- ing's payroll or the payrolls of Consolidated, et al. In this hood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO, et al. v. Broadcast respect, he assigned all such employees their daily work. Service of Mobile, Inc, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965), that in He punched the timecards of all employees when they determining whether enterprises constitute a single em- reported to and left work each day, he authorized and ployer: "The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated directed overtime, and distributed all weekly paychecks. in the Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, Additionally and significantly, the evidence establishes common management, centralized control of labor rela- that on occasion Alterman fired employees of Trucking tions and common ownership." The Board in Blumenfeld personnel as distinguished from advising Ruff that Con- Theatres Circuit, a Partnership, Blumenfeld Enterprises, a solidated, et aL, no longer wanted a particular individual Division of Cinerama, Inc; Rafic Oakland Theatre, a Part- supplie Trucin to prfr wr fo te. nership, 240 NLRB 206, 214, 215 (1979), held that a "single employer" status, for purposes of the National C o m m o n management is further established by the Labor Relations Act, depends upon all the circumstances d u tie s o f M u r r a y Pin e s. Pin e s w a s in o verall charge of of the case, that not all of the single 'controlling criteria' t h e o f i c e a t t h e 1 4 1 We st 3 5 t h S t r e e t f a c ili t y w h ic h e m - specified by the Supreme Court [in Radio & Television ployed office clericals on the payrolls of Consolidated, et Broadcast Technicians, supra] need be present. . . ." a l., a n d Trucking. He admittedly supervised all clericals In the instant case, there is common ownership. In o n Consolidated et al., payrolls and, since he was the connection with Consolidated, et al., the officers and o"ly supervisor in the office, it is presumable that in the stockholders are identical. Ruff owned 25 percent of absence of Ruff or the Gambinos he supervised the three each corporation and Thomas and Joseph Gambino employees employed on the payroll of Trucking as well. owned 37-1/2 percent of the stock of each of the above The evidence established that there existed in all of corporations. Additionally, the officers were identical: Respondent corporations, including Trucking, a central- Hyman Ruff, president; Thomas Gambino, vice presi- ized control of labor relations. In this connection, the dent; and Joseph Gambino, secretary-treasurer. evidence established that the officers of Consolidated, et There is also common ownership between Trucking al., were identical; namely, Ruff and the Gambinos. All and Consolidated, et al. In Trucking, Ruff was in effect had equal authority to hire, fire, determine the wages, the sole owner and president.' Thus, Hyman Ruff and other working conditions of their employees, and to owned effectively 100 percent of the shares of Trucking adjust grievances. As the president and sole officer of and 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et al. Ruffs Trucking, Ruff also possessed all of these functions with ownership of 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et respect to employees on Trucking's payroll. Additional- al. represents substantial ownership in view of the fact ly, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino adjust- that no one shareholder owned more than 37-1/2 percent ed grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. of the stock of these companies. The Board found The evidence also established that Consolidated, et al., common ownership in determining single-employer and Trucking constituted a totally integrated operation status where an individual owns substantially all of the engaged in the transportation of goods in the garment in- stock in one corporation and a substantial portion, al- dustry. In this connection, Consolidated, Greenberg's, though less than a majority, of the stock in such other GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were the corporations corporation. A & T Glass Company, 231 NLRB 998 that were engaged in the actual physical transportation (1977); L. H. & J. Coal Company Inc., 228 NLRB 1091, of goods. JHT was admittedly created solely for the pur- 1092 (1977). pose of supplying equipment to Consolidated, Green- The evidence also establishes that there was common berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. The evidence es- management between Consolidated, et al, and Trucking. tablished that Trucking similarly was created essentially Ruff and the Gambinos occupied the same offices with for the purpose of supplying labor to Consolidated, - Cnsoidaedet l.,is-sedto-esinat-Cosoldatd,-r-eber's, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. In this con- GRO, ClothingDynamicandJHT. 1 C o nso l ate d. nection, permission was required from the Gambinos to 1» As set forth above, the record indicates to some extent that Ruff and Ruff as a prerequisite to the formation of Trucking. Ad- his wife were the sole owners of Trucking. There is no indication as to ditionally, upon the formation of Trucking, employees what if any percent of the ownership was vested in Ruffs wife. In view were transferred from Consolidated, et al., to Staff of the marital relationship and in view of the fact that Ruffs wife did not take part in any of the day-to-day operations of Trucking, I conclude that Trucking's office personnel. Further, With the exception Hyman Ruff was, effectively, the sole shareholder. of the skeletal force of production employees maintained CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 633 does individually hereby unconditionally apply for respect to Consolidated, et al., and all three individuals reinstatement. were responsible for the day-to-day operations of these corporations. Although Ruff was the sole officer of III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Trucking, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino A. Single-Employer Relationship granted loans to employees on Trucking's payroll. The evidence also established that Joseph Gambino adjusted A critical issue is presented in this case as to whether grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. Trucking and Consolidated, et al., constitute a single or Common management is further established by the joint employer. 1" A supplementary issue is also presented duties of Alterman. Alterman was directly responsible to as to whether Consolidated, constitute a single or joint Ruff and the Gambinos. He was in overall charge and employer. supervised production employees working out of the 141 The Supreme Court held in Radio & Television Broad- West 35th Street facility, whether they were on Truck- cost Technicians, Local Union 1264. International Brother- ing's payroll or the payrolls of Consolidated, et al. In this hood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO, et al. v. Broadcast respect, he assigned all such employees their daily work. Service of Mobile, Inc, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965), that in He punched the timecards of all employees when they determining whether enterprises constitute a single em- reported to and left work each day, he authorized and ployer: "The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated directed overtime, and distributed all weekly paychecks. in the Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, Additionally and significantly, the evidence establishes common management, centralized control of labor rela- that on occasion Alterman fired employees of Trucking tions and common ownership." The Board in Blumenfeld personnel as distinguished from advising Ruff that Con- Theatres Circuit, a Partnership, Blumenfeld Enterprises, a solidated, et aL, no longer wanted a particular individual Division of Cinerama, Inc; Rafic Oakland Theatre, a Part- supplie Trucin to prfr wr fo te. nership, 240 NLRB 206, 214, 215 (1979), held that a "single employer" status, for purposes of the National C o m m o n management is further established by the Labor Relations Act, depends upon all the circumstances d u tie s o f M u r r a y Pin e s. Pin e s w a s in o verall charge of of the case, that not all of the single 'controlling criteria' t h e o f i c e a t t h e 1 4 1 We st 3 5 t h S t r e e t f a c ili t y w h ic h e m - specified by the Supreme Court [in Radio & Television ployed office clericals on the payrolls of Consolidated, et Broadcast Technicians, supra] need be present. . . ." a l., a n d Trucking. He admittedly supervised all clericals In the instant case, there is common ownership. In o n Consolidated et al., payrolls and, since he was the connection with Consolidated, et al., the officers and o"ly supervisor in the office, it is presumable that in the stockholders are identical. Ruff owned 25 percent of absence of Ruff or the Gambinos he supervised the three each corporation and Thomas and Joseph Gambino employees employed on the payroll of Trucking as well. owned 37-1/2 percent of the stock of each of the above The evidence established that there existed in all of corporations. Additionally, the officers were identical: Respondent corporations, including Trucking, a central- Hyman Ruff, president; Thomas Gambino, vice presi- ized control of labor relations. In this connection, the dent; and Joseph Gambino, secretary-treasurer. evidence established that the officers of Consolidated, et There is also common ownership between Trucking al., were identical; namely, Ruff and the Gambinos. All and Consolidated, et al. In Trucking, Ruff was in effect had equal authority to hire, fire, determine the wages, the sole owner and president.' Thus, Hyman Ruff and other working conditions of their employees, and to owned effectively 100 percent of the shares of Trucking adjust grievances. As the president and sole officer of and 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et al. Ruffs Trucking, Ruff also possessed all of these functions with ownership of 25 percent of the shares of Consolidated, et respect to employees on Trucking's payroll. Additional- al. represents substantial ownership in view of the fact ly, the evidence established that Joseph Gambino adjust- that no one shareholder owned more than 37-1/2 percent ed grievances of employees on Trucking's payroll. of the stock of these companies. The Board found The evidence also established that Consolidated, et al., common ownership in determining single-employer and Trucking constituted a totally integrated operation status where an individual owns substantially all of the engaged in the transportation of goods in the garment in- stock in one corporation and a substantial portion, al- dustry. In this connection, Consolidated, Greenberg's, though less than a majority, of the stock in such other GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic were the corporations corporation. A & T Glass Company, 231 NLRB 998 that were engaged in the actual physical transportation (1977); L. H. & J. Coal Company Inc., 228 NLRB 1091, of goods. JHT was admittedly created solely for the pur- 1092 (1977). pose of supplying equipment to Consolidated, Green- The evidence also establishes that there was common berg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. The evidence es- management between Consolidated, et al, and Trucking. tablished that Trucking similarly was created essentially Ruff and the Gambinos occupied the same offices with for the purpose of supplying labor to Consolidated, - Cnsoidaedet l.,is-sedto-esinat-Cosoldatd,-r-eber's, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. In this con- GRO ClothingDynaic, and HT. 1 C o nso l ate d. nection, permission was required from the Gambinos to 1» As set forth above, the record indicates to some extent that Ruff and Ruff as a prerequisite to the formation of Trucking. Ad- his wife were the sole owners of Trucking. There is no indication as to ditionally, upon the formation of Trucking, employees what if any percent of the ownership was vested in Ruffs wife. In view were transferred from Consolidated, et al., to Staff of the marital relationship and in view of the fact that Ruffs wife did not take part in any of the day-to-day operations of Trucking, I conclude that Trucking's office personnel. Further, With the exception Hyman Ruff was, effectively, the sole shareholder. of the skeletal force of production employees maintained 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- evidence established that rather than one corporation namic, Trucking furnished substantially all of the pro- submitting a bill to another corporation for actual rent, duction employees (laborers, handlers, and helpers) to labor costs, or use of equipment incurred by one compa- these corporations. That Trucking was created solely to ny on behalf of the other, the principals, namely, Ruff supply labor to these Respondent corporations is estab- and the Gambinos, would meet annually in an informal lished by the evidence that substantially all labor sup- manner and decide on "offsets" to be allowed by one plied by Trucking was supplied to Respondent corpora- corporation against the other. tions herein. The Board in A & T Glass, supra, found a single-em- The integration of the total operation is further estab- ployer relationship existed based on common ownership, lished by the complete interchangeability of the office centralized control of labor relations policy, and a highly and production employees. integrated business operation. In reaching this conclu- The evidence established that there was total inter- sion, the Board noted that the business, as in the instant change with respect to the employees supplied by Truck- case, was held out to the public as a single business. Ad- ing and charged to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ditionally there existed, as in the instant case, consider- Clothing, and Dynamic. In this respect, the testimony of able integration of the two businesses which was shown Thomas Gambino and Alterman established that Truck- through occupancy of the same building, sharing of ing employees supplied and charged to one company office space, advertising one another's services on vehi- would be assigned to work on a day-to-day basis for cles, integration of employees, and the fact that the em- other Respondent corporations. Further, 52 of the 66 ployees of both corporations used equipment and materi- striking employees supplied by Trucking were charged als owned by the respondent, Glass, to perform outside to Dynamic. However, these employees all worked out work of the 141 West 35th Street facility, where Dynamic car- In Land Equipment Incorporated; and Equipment Ser- ried out little or no business. Therefore, these employees ice Rentals, a Single Employer, 248 NLRB 685 (1980), the charged to Dynamic must have performed work for Board found two companies constitute a single employer Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing on an in- where one company supplied labor to another company terchangeable basis. that was its only customer and existed solely for the pur- The evidence also established interchangeability as toyy I In this ctio, Cha Chodah, pose of supplying said second company with labor at less office employees. In this connection, Charles Chodash, than the prevailing wage rate. an employee on Consolidated's payroll, was the IBM programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- The Board has consistently found joint-employer rela- ing, and Dynamic. Lucy was an employee on Trucking's tionships existed between manpower corporations and payroll but charged to one of Respondent corporations. the corporations for whom they supply labor. She was the keypunch operator for Respondent corpora- In Manpower, Inc., of Shelby County and Armour Gro- tions. Anthony Mascia, an employee on the GRG pay- cery Products Co., Division of Armour and Company, 164 roll was in charge of workmen's compensation matters NLRB 287 (1967), the Board found a joint-employer re- for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- lationship existed between Manpower, Inc., and Armour. namic. Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching That Trucking and Consolidated, et at, shared a single this conclusion was that Armour's dispatcher informed warehouse and office facility located at 141 West 35th the drivers supplied by Manpower, their starting time, Street is further evidence to establish the integrated assigned them their runs, supplied them with a manifest nature of the entire operation. Significantly, the only cor- which set forth their time of departure, approximate time porate name appearing on the storefront or anywhere of arrival, day of return, etc. In addition Armour's dis- else at this facility was that of Consolidated. patcher adjusted grievances. Moreover of the seven driv- Further establishing the integrated nature of the oper- ers furnished Armour by Manpower only one driver had ation herein is the interchangeability of office and ware- made a trip for another company. house equipment. In this connection, the evidence estab- In Manpower, Inc. and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., lished that office equipment such as the IBM installation 226 NLRB 1 (1967), the Board found a joint-employer and a photocopy machine were utilized by all Respond- relationship existed between Manpower and Avis. ent corporations, including Trucking. Additionally, there Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching was but a single cleaning and rubbish removal service this conclusion was that Avis directed, disciplined, and which was paid for by Consolidated. The evidence also discharged employees supplied by Manpower pursuant established that in the warehouse, racks and pushcarts, to a contract arrangement between the employers. owned by different Respondent corporations and used to In both cases, the Manpower companies and their joint make deliveries, were freely interchanged as were auto- employers were separately owned and controlled corpo- motive trucks which were owned outright or leased by rations. There was no common supervision or sharing of different Respondent corporations from JHT. Such office space or equipment. Nor was there any degree of trucks might contain arbitrarily on the side panel the integration between the two corporations. name of any one of Respondent corporations for adver- In view of my conclusion that common ownership, tising purposes. common management, and centralized control of labor Still further establishing the integrated nature of the relations exist, and that Respondent corporations herein operations was the informal manner by which operating represent a totally integrated operation which share facil- costs were handled by Respondent corporations. The ities, freely interchange employees and equipment, I con- 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- , evidence established that rather than one corporation namic, Trucking furnished substantially all of the pro- submitting a bill to another corporation for actual rent, duction employees (laborers, handlers, and helpers) to labor costs, or use of equipment incurred by one compa- these corporations. That Trucking was created solely to ny on behalf of the other, the principals, namely, Ruff supply labor to these Respondent corporations is estab- and the Gambinos, would meet annually in an informal lished by the evidence that substantially all labor sup- manner and decide on "offsets" to be allowed by one plied by Trucking was supplied to Respondent corpora- corporation against the other. tions herein. The Board in A d T Glass, supra, found a single-em- The integration of the total operation is further estab- ployer relationship existed based on common ownership, lished by the complete interchangeability of the office centralized control of labor relations policy, and a highly and production employees. integrated business operation. In reaching this conclu- The evidence established that there was total inter- sion, the Board noted that the business, as in the instant change with respect to the employees supplied by Truck- case, was held out to the public as a single business. Ad- ing and charged to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ditionally there existed, as in the instant case, consider- Clothing, and Dynamic. In this respect, the testimony of able integration of the two businesses which was shown Thomas Gambino and Alterman established that Truck- through occupancy of the same building, sharing of ing employees supplied and charged to one company office space, advertising one another's services on vehi- would be assigned to work on a day-to-day basis for cles, integration of employees, and the fact that the em- other Respondent corporations. Further, 52 of the 66 ployees of both corporations used equipment and materi- striking employees supplied by Trucking were charged als owned by the respondent, Glass, to perform outside to Dynamic. However, these employees all worked out work. of the 141 West 35th Street facility, where Dynamic car- In Land Equipment Incorporated; and Equipment Serv- ried out little or no business. Therefore, these employees ice Rentals, a Single Employer, 248 NLRB 685 (1980). the charged to Dynamic must have performed work for Board found two companies constitute a single employer Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing on an in- where one company supplied labor to another company terchangeable basis. that was its only customer and existed solely for the pur- The evidence also established interchangeability as to p supplying said second company with labor at less office employees. In this connection, Charles Chodash, than the prevailing wage rate. an employee on Consolidated's payroll, was the IBM TheBoar h is ji-e rea programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- T h e B o a r d h a s cob ently found joint-employer rela- ing, and Dynamic. Lucy was an employee on Trucking's 'ps existed between manpower corporations and payroll but charged to one of Respondent corporations. t h e corporations for whom they supply labor. She was the keypunch operator for Respondent corpora- I n Manpower, Inc., of Shelby County and Armour Gro- tions. Anthony Mascia, an employee on the GRG pay- cery Products Co., Division of Armour and Company, 164 roll was in charge of workmen's compensation matters N L R B 28 7 (19 6 7), th e B o a rd f o u n d a joint-employer re- for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- lationship existed between Manpower, Inc., and Armour. namic. Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching That Trucking and Consolidated, et at, shared a single t his conclusion was that Armour's dispatcher informed warehouse and office facility located at 141 West 35th the drivers supplied by Manpower, their starting time, Street is further evidence to establish the integrated assigned them their runs, supplied them with a manifest nature of the entire operation. Significantly, the only cor- wh ic h s et forth their time of departure, approximate time porate name appearing on the storefront or anywhere of arrival, day of return, etc. In addition Armour's dis- else at this facility was that of Consolidated. patcher adjusted grievances. Moreover of the seven driv- Further establishing the integrated nature of the oper- ers furnished Armour by Manpower only one driver had ation herein is the interchangeability of office and ware- m a d e a trip for another company. house equipment. In this connection, the evidence estab- In Manpower. Inc. and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., lished that office equipment such as the IBM installation 226 NLRB 1 (1967), the Board found a joint-employer and a photocopy machine were utilized by all Respond- relationship existed between Manpower and Avis. ent corporations, including Trucking. Additionally, there Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching was but a single cleaning and rubbish removal service this conclusion was that Avis directed, disciplined, and which was paid for by Consolidated. The evidence also discharged employees supplied by Manpower pursuant established that in the warehouse, racks and pushcarts, to a contract arrangement between the employers. owned by different Respondent corporations and used to In both cases, the Manpower companies and their joint make deliveries, were freely interchanged as were auto- employers were separately owned and controlled corpo- motive trucks which were owned outright or leased by rations. There was no common supervision or sharing of different Respondent corporations from JHT. Such office space or equipment. Nor was there any degree of trucks might contain arbitrarily on the side panel the integration between the two corporations. name of any one of Respondent corporations for adver- In view of my conclusion that common ownership, tising purposes,.common management, and centralized control of labor Still further establishing the integrated nature of the relations exist, and that Respondent corporations herein operations was the informal manner by which operating represent a totally integrated operation which share facil- costs were handled by Respondent corporations. The ities, freely interchange employees and equipment, I con- 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- , evidence established that rather than one corporation namic, Trucking furnished substantially all of the pro- submitting a bill to another corporation for actual rent, duction employees (laborers, handlers, and helpers) to labor costs, or use of equipment incurred by one compa- these corporations. That Trucking was created solely to ny on behalf of the other, the principals, namely, Ruff supply labor to these Respondent corporations is estab- and the Gambinos, would meet annually in an informal lished by the evidence that substantially all labor sup- manner and decide on "offsets" to be allowed by one plied by Trucking was supplied to Respondent corpora- corporation against the other. tions herein. The Board in A d T Glass, supra, found a single-em- The integration of the total operation is further estab- ployer relationship existed based on common ownership, lished by the complete interchangeability of the office centralized control of labor relations policy, and a highly and production employees. integrated business operation. In reaching this conclu- The evidence established that there was total inter- sion, the Board noted that the business, as in the instant change with respect to the employees supplied by Truck- case, was held out to the public as a single business. Ad- ing and charged to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ditionally there existed, as in the instant case, consider- Clothing, and Dynamic. In this respect, the testimony of able integration of the two businesses which was shown Thomas Gambino and Alterman established that Truck- through occupancy of the same building, sharing of ing employees supplied and charged to one company office space, advertising one another's services on vehi- would be assigned to work on a day-to-day basis for cles, integration of employees, and the fact that the em- other Respondent corporations. Further, 52 of the 66 ployees of both corporations used equipment and materi- striking employees supplied by Trucking were charged als owned by the respondent, Glass, to perform outside to Dynamic. However, these employees all worked out work. of the 141 West 35th Street facility, where Dynamic car- In Land Equipment Incorporated; and Equipment Serv- ried out little or no business. Therefore, these employees ice Rentals, a Single Employer, 248 NLRB 685 (1980). the charged to Dynamic must have performed work for Board found two companies constitute a single employer Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing on an in- where one company supplied labor to another company terchangeable basis. that was its only customer and existed solely for the pur- The evidence also established interchangeability as to p supplying said second company with labor at less office employees. In this connection, Charles Chodash, than the prevailing wage rate. an employee on Consolidated's payroll, was the IBM TheBoar h is ji-e rea programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- T h e B o a r d h a s cob ently found joint-employer rela- ing, and Dynamic. Lucy was an employee on Trucking's 'ps existed between manpower corporations and payroll but charged to one of Respondent corporations. t h e corporations for whom they supply labor. She was the keypunch operator for Respondent corpora- I n Manpower, Inc., of Shelby County and Armour Gro- tions. Anthony Mascia, an employee on the GRG pay- cery Products Co., Division of Armour and Company, 164 roll was in charge of workmen's compensation matters N L R B 28 7 (19 6 7), th e B o a r d f o u n d a joint-employer re- for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- lationship existed between Manpower, Inc., and Armour. namic. Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching That Trucking and Consolidated, et at, shared a single t his conclusion was that Armour's dispatcher informed warehouse and office facility located at 141 West 35th the drivers supplied by Manpower, their starting time, Street is further evidence to establish the integrated assigned them their runs, supplied them with a manifest nature of the entire operation. Significantly, the only cor- wh ic h s et forth their time of departure, approximate time porate name appearing on the storefront or anywhere of arrival, day of return, etc. In addition Armour's dis- else at this facility was that of Consolidated. patcher adjusted grievances. Moreover of the seven driv- Further establishing the integrated nature of the oper- ers furnished Armour by Manpower only one driver had ation herein is the interchangeability of office and ware- m a d e a trip for another company. house equipment. In this connection, the evidence estab- In Manpower. Inc. and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., lished that office equipment such as the IBM installation 226 NLRB 1 (1967), the Board found a joint-employer and a photocopy machine were utilized by all Respond- relationship existed between Manpower and Avis. ent corporations, including Trucking. Additionally, there Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching was but a single cleaning and rubbish removal service this conclusion was that Avis directed, disciplined, and which was paid for by Consolidated. The evidence also discharged employees supplied by Manpower pursuant established that in the warehouse, racks and pushcarts, to a contract arrangement between the employers. owned by different Respondent corporations and used to In both cases, the Manpower companies and their joint make deliveries, were freely interchanged as were auto- employers were separately owned and controlled corpo- motive trucks which were owned outright or leased by rations. There was no common supervision or sharing of different Respondent corporations from JHT. Such office space or equipment. Nor was there any degree of trucks might contain arbitrarily on the side panel the integration between the two corporations. name of any one of Respondent corporations for adver- In view of my conclusion that common ownership, tising purposes,.common management, and centralized control of labor Still further establishing the integrated nature of the relations exist, and that Respondent corporations herein operations was the informal manner by which operating represent a totally integrated operation which share facil- costs were handled by Respondent corporations. The ities, freely interchange employees and equipment, I con- 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- , evidence established that rather than one corporation namic, Trucking furnished substantially all of the pro- submitting a bill to another corporation for actual rent, duction employees (laborers, handlers, and helpers) to labor costs, or use of equipment incurred by one compa- these corporations. That Trucking was created solely to ny on behalf of the other, the principals, namely, Ruff supply labor to these Respondent corporations is estab- and the Gambinos, would meet annually in an informal lished by the evidence that substantially all labor sup- manner and decide on "offsets" to be allowed by one plied by Trucking was supplied to Respondent corpora- corporation against the other. tions herein. The Board in A d T Glass, supra, found a single-em- The integration of the total operation is further estab- ployer relationship existed based on common ownership, lished by the complete interchangeability of the office centralized control of labor relations policy, and a highly and production employees. integrated business operation. In reaching this conclu- The evidence established that there was total inter- sion, the Board noted that the business, as in the instant change with respect to the employees supplied by Truck- case, was held out to the public as a single business. Ad- ing and charged to Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, ditionally there existed, as in the instant case, consider- Clothing, and Dynamic. In this respect, the testimony of able integration of the two businesses which was shown Thomas Gambino and Alterman established that Truck- through occupancy of the same building, sharing of ing employees supplied and charged to one company office space, advertising one another's services on vehi- would be assigned to work on a day-to-day basis for cles, integration of employees, and the fact that the em- other Respondent corporations. Further, 52 of the 66 ployees of both corporations used equipment and materi- striking employees supplied by Trucking were charged als owned by the respondent, Glass, to perform outside to Dynamic. However, these employees all worked out work. of the 141 West 35th Street facility, where Dynamic car- In Land Equipment Incorporated; and Equipment Serv- ried out little or no business. Therefore, these employees ice Rentals, a Single Employer, 248 NLRB 685 (1980). the charged to Dynamic must have performed work for Board found two companies constitute a single employer Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, and Clothing on an in- where one company supplied labor to another company terchangeable basis. that was its only customer and existed solely for the pur- The evidence also established interchangeability as to p supplying said second company with labor at less office employees. In this connection, Charles Chodash, than the prevailing wage rate. an employee on Consolidated's payroll, was the IBM TheBoar h is ji-e rea programer for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Cloth- T h e B o a r d h a s cob ently found joint-employer rela- ing, and Dynamic. Lucy was an employee on Trucking's 'ps existed between manpower corporations and payroll but charged to one of Respondent corporations. t h e corporations for whom they supply labor. She was the keypunch operator for Respondent corpora- I n Manpower. Inc., of Shelby County and Armour Gro- tions. Anthony Mascia, an employee on the GRG pay- cery Products Co., Division of Armour and Company, 164 roll was in charge of workmen's compensation matters N L R B 28 7 (19 6 7), th e B o a r d f o u n d a joint-employer re- for Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, Clothing, and Dy- lationship existed between Manpower, Inc., and Armour. namic. Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching That Trucking and Consolidated, et at, shared a single t his conclusion was that Armour's dispatcher informed warehouse and office facility located at 141 West 35th the drivers supplied by Manpower, their starting time, Street is further evidence to establish the integrated assigned them their runs, supplied them with a manifest nature of the entire operation. Significantly, the only cor- wh ic h s et forth their time of departure, approximate time porate name appearing on the storefront or anywhere of arrival, day of return, etc. In addition Armour's dis- else at this facility was that of Consolidated. patcher adjusted grievances. Moreover of the seven driv- Further establishing the integrated nature of the oper- ers furnished Armour by Manpower only one driver had ation herein is the interchangeability of office and ware- m a d e a trip for another company. house equipment. In this connection, the evidence estab- In Manpower. Inc. and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., lished that office equipment such as the IBM installation 226 NLRB 1 (1967), the Board found a joint-employer and a photocopy machine were utilized by all Respond- relationship existed between Manpower and Avis. ent corporations, including Trucking. Additionally, there Among the factors relied on by the Board in reaching was but a single cleaning and rubbish removal service this conclusion was that Avis directed, disciplined, and which was paid for by Consolidated. The evidence also discharged employees supplied by Manpower pursuant established that in the warehouse, racks and pushcarts, to a contract arrangement between the employers. owned by different Respondent corporations and used to In both cases, the Manpower companies and their joint make deliveries, were freely interchanged as were auto- employers were separately owned and controlled corpo- motive trucks which were owned outright or leased by rations. There was no common supervision or sharing of different Respondent corporations from JHT. Such office space or equipment. Nor was there any degree of trucks might contain arbitrarily on the side panel the integration between the two corporations. name of any one of Respondent corporations for adver- In view of my conclusion that common ownership, tising purposes,.common management, and centralized control of labor Still further establishing the integrated nature of the relations exist, and that Respondent corporations herein operations was the informal manner by which operating represent a totally integrated operation which share facil- costs were handled by Respondent corporations. The ities, freely interchange employees and equipment, I con- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 635 elude that Respondent Trucking, Consolidated, Green- Joseph further testified that he observed approximately berg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT constitute a 65 employees picketing on that day. Striker Lucien single employer within the meaning of the Act. Simon testified that on July 28, approximately 60 to 70 employees working out of 141 West 35th Street facility B. The Economic Strike and alleged as discriminatees picketed. Matthew Eason, There is no dispute that a strike commenced on July Local 20408 president, testified that on July 28 over 60 27, 1978, accompanied by picketing. Picketing com- employees picketed. menced on July 27 at Respondent's 141 West 35th Street The evidence established that on July 31 the strikers facility and ended July 28. Thereafter, no further picket- met in the office of Local 102 where 65 of the 66 strik- ing took place. There is also no dispute that the strike ers alleged as discriminatees signed Local 102 authoriza- was an economic strike. The complaint alleged the strike tion cards. The only striking employee who did not ex- to be an economic strike. Moreover, during the course of ecute a Local 102 card was Jean-Charles Gesner. the hearing it was stipulated by all parties that the strike In view of Respondent's payroll records which estab- was an economic strike. Indeed, the evidence supports lish that the 66 strikers were scheduled to work on July the complaint allegation and stipulation. The evidence es- 27, that prior to the end of July 28 all of these employees tablished that the strike commenced following a conver- had ceased work, and that no striker resumed work until sation between Eason and Thomas Gambino during at least after the week ending August 4, 1978; in view of which conversation Eason asked Gambino to consent to the testimony of Simon, Ernest, and Eason, which estab- an election or recognize Local 20408. When Gambino lishes between 60 and 70 employees picketed on July 27; declined, Eason urged the employees to go out on strike and July 28; in view of the 65 signed Local 102 authori- and commence picketing. zation cards signed by the striking employees; and in view of the fact that Respondent did not submit any evi- C. The Identity of the Strikers dence to dispute that any of the alleged discriminatees The complaint alleged that 66 individuals took part in took part in the strike, I conclude that the 66 individuals the strike described above. These named individuals are named in the complaint ceased work on July 27 and con- alleged as discriminatees in view of alleged unconditional certedly engaged in an economic strike. offers to return to work and Respondent's unlawful re- fusal to reinstate them. Although Respondent's counsel C. The Unconditional Offers To Return to Work concedes that the above strike did take place, he does The Board law with respect to economic strikers and not concede that the 66 individuals set forth in the com- their right to reinstatement upon making an uncondition- plaint participated in the strike. Thus, the burden of es- al offer to return to work is rather well settled. Strikers, tablishing the identity of the strikers falls on General whether economic or unfair labor practice strikers, retain Counsel. In this connection, Respondent's payroll re- their status as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act. cords establish that during the calendar year commenc- See N.LR.B. v. Mackay Radio < Telegraph C., 304 U.S. ing in 1978 until the week ending July 28, 1978, all 66 333 (1938). alleged discriminatees worked exclusively for Respond- An economic strike is deemed to be protected activity ent corporations; namely, Consolidated, Greenberg's, under Section 7 of the Act. However, an employer is GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. There is no dispute that free in such circumstances to hire permanent replace- these employees worked out of the 141 West 35th Street ments for economic strikers at any time prior to their un- facility. In any event, the testimony of Eason, and em- conditional offer to return to work. It is an unfair labor ployees Tovar, Simon, and Joseph established that all practice for an employer to refuse reinstatement to stri strikers worked out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. ing employees following an unconditional offer by the ing employees following an unconditional offer by the Moreover, well prior o the commencement of the strike, riking employees to return to work, or to discharge 42 of the alleged 66 strikers signed Local 20408 authori- striking employees prior to the time their jobs are filled zation cards and on July 31, 65 of the 66 strikers signed by peanent replacements. N.LR.B. v. Fleetod Tral- Local 102 authorization cards, all setting forth as the ad- er Cr, Inc. 389 U.S. 375 (1967) N.LR.B v. nit dress of their employer the 141 West 35th Street facility. States Cold Storage Corp. 203 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1953) Respondent's records further establish that on July 27 all cert. denied 346 U.S. 88; Carter Carburetor Corp. v. 66 alleged discriminatees were scheduled to work, but NLRB 140 F2d 714 (8th Cir 1944) that only 8 alleged discriminatees in fact worked a full 8- hour day.2 ' The remaining 58 alleged discriminatees all An employer who refuses to reinstate striking employ- worked less than an 8-hour day. The payroll records fur- ees upon their unconditional offer to return must estab- ther show that, on July 28. 65 of the 66 alleged discri- lish that his action was based on legitimate and substan- minatees performed no work for Respondent The 66th tial business justification, i.e., where the strikers' jobs alleged discriminatee oe worke r have been replaced 3 houby permanent replacements or where spondent that day. Thereafter, according to Joseph's un- t h eso has t e en el mab elat ed b y egtimate and bon fide contradicted testimony, he ceased work and commenced r eas o n s o th e r t h an l ab o r relations. .L. v. Fleetood cnticted tetin, e cee k n c ence Trailer, supra; N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 *~ ~~~~picketi ~ng. 8 U.S. 26 (1967). Moreover, the right to reinstatement does Those alleged dicriminatees working a full 8-hour day were Jean not expire when an unconditional offer is made, although Balan, Jean H. Charles, Luma Calixte, Robergeau Duverger, Joseph E. a lawful permanent replacement has been hired for the Ernest, Edouard St. Vi, Lucrece Ulysse, and Rigeur Videau. job in question, or it has been eliminated for some legiti- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 635 elude that Respondent Trucking, Consolidated, Green- Joseph further testified that he observed approximately berg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT constitute a 65 employees picketing on that day. Striker Lucien single employer within the meaning of the Act. Simon testified that on July 28, approximately 60 to 70 employees working out of 141 West 35th Street facility B. The Economic Strike and alleged as discriminatees picketed. Matthew Eason, There is no dispute that a strike commenced on July Local 20408 president, testified that on July 28 over 60 27, 1978, accompanied by picketing. Picketing com- employees picketed. menced on July 27 at Respondent's 141 West 35th Street The evidence established that on July 31 the strikers facility and ended July 28. Thereafter, no further picket- met in the office of Local 102 where 65 of the 66 strik- ing took place. There is also no dispute that the strike ers alleged as discriminatees signed Local 102 authoriza- was an economic strike. The complaint alleged the strike tion cards. The only striking employee who did not ex- to be an economic strike. Moreover, during the course of ecute a Local 102 card was Jean-Charles Gesner. the hearing it was stipulated by all parties that the strike In view of Respondent's payroll records which estab- was an economic strike. Indeed, the evidence supports lish that the 66 strikers were scheduled to work on July the complaint allegation and stipulation. The evidence es- 27, that prior to the end of July 28 all of these employees tablished that the strike commenced following a conver- had ceased work, and that no striker resumed work until sation between Eason and Thomas Gambino during at least after the week ending August 4, 1978; in view of which conversation Eason asked Gambino to consent to the testimony of Simon, Ernest, and Eason, which estab- an election or recognize Local 20408. When Gambino lishes between 60 and 70 employees picketed on July 27; declined, Eason urged the employees to go out on strike and July 28; in view of the 65 signed Local 102 authori- and commence picketing. zation cards signed by the striking employees; and in C7. The Identiy of the Strikers view of the fact that Respondent did not submit any evi- C. The Identity o~the Strikers dence to dispute that any of the alleged discriminatees The complaint alleged that 66 individuals took part in took part in the strike, I conclude that the 66 individuals the strike described above. These named individuals are named in the complaint ceased work on July 27 and con- alleged as discriminatees in view of alleged unconditional certedly engaged in an economic strike. offers to return to work and Respondent's unlawful re- fusal to reinstate them. Although Respondent's counsel C. The Unconditional Offers To Return to Work concedes that the above strike did take place, he does The Board law with respect to economic strikers and not concede that the 66 individuals set forth in the com- their right to reinstatement upon making an uncondition- plaint participated in the strike. Thus, the burden of es- al offer to return to work is rather well settled. Strikers, tablishing the identity of the strikers falls on General whether economic or unfair labor practice strikers, retain Counsel. In this connection, Respondent's payroll re- their status as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act. cords establish that during the calendar year commenc- See N.LR.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Ca, 304 U.S. ing in 1978 until the week ending July 28, 1978, all 66 333 (1938). alleged discriminatees worked exclusively for Respond- An economic strike is deemed to be protected activity ent corporatio ns ; namely, C o n s ol id at ed , G r een b e r g 's, under Section 7 of the Act. However, an employer is GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. There is no dispute that free in such circumstances to hire permanent replace- these employees worked out of the 141 West 35th Street ments for economic strikers at any time prior to their un- facility. In any event, the testimony of Eason, and em- conditional offer to return to work. It is an unfair labor ployees Tovar, Simon, and Joseph established that all practice for an employer to refuse reinstatement to strik- strikers worked out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. i employees following an unconditional offer by the Moreover, well prior to the commencement of the strike, striking employees to return to work, or to discharge 42 of the alleged 66 strikers signed Local 20408 authori- striking employees prior to the time their jobs are filled zation cards and on July 31, 65 of the 66 strikers signed by permanent replacements. N.LR.B. v. Fleetwod Trail- Local 102 authorization cards, all setting forth as the ad- er Ca, Inc, 389 U.S. 375 (1967); N.LR.B. v. United dress of their employer the 141 West 35th Street facility. States Cold Storage Corp., 203 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1953), Respondent's records further establish that on July 27 all cert. denied 346 U.S. 818; Carter Carburetor Corp. v. 66 alleged discriminatees were scheduled to work, but NLR.B 140 F2d 714 (8th Cir 1944) that only 8 alleged discriminatees in fact worked a full 8- hour day.2" The remaining 58 alleged discriminatees all An employer w h o refuses to reinstate striking employ- worked less than an 8-hour day. The payroll records fur- ees upon their unconditional offer to return must estab- ther show that, on July 28. 65 of the 66 alleged discri- lish t h a t his action was based on legitimate and substan- minatees performed no work for Respondent. The 66th tial b u sine ss justification, i.e., where the strikers' jobs alleged discriminatee, Joseph, worked 3 hours for Re- h av e b een replaced by p erm an en t replacements or where spondent that day. Thereafter, according to Joseph's un- t h e job h as be en el imin at ed b y legitimate and bona fide contradicted testimony, he ceased work and commenced r eas o n s o th e r t h an l ab o r relations. N.L.. v. Fleetwood picketing. Trailer, supra; N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967). Moreover, the right to reinstatement does " nose alleged dicriminatees working a full 8-hour day were Jean no t expire when an Unconditional offer is made, although Balan. Jean H. Charles, Lurna Calixte, Robergeau Duverger, Joseph E. a lawful permanent replacement has been hired for the Emet, Edouard St. Vil, Lucrece Ulysse, and Rigeur Videau. job in question, or it has been eliminated for some legiti- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 635 elude that Respondent Trucking, Consolidated, Green- Joseph further testified that he observed approximately berg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT constitute a 65 employees picketing on that day. Striker Lucien single employer within the meaning of the Act. Simon testified that on July 28, approximately 60 to 70 employees working out of 141 West 35th Street facility B. The Economic Strike and alleged as discriminatees picketed. Matthew Eason, There is no dispute that a strike commenced on July Local 20408 president, testified that on July 28 over 60 27, 1978, accompanied by picketing. Picketing com- employees picketed. menced on July 27 at Respondent's 141 West 35th Street The evidence established that on July 31 the strikers facility and ended July 28. Thereafter, no further picket- met in the office of Local 102 where 65 of the 66 strik- ing took place. There is also no dispute that the strike ers alleged as discriminatees signed Local 102 authoriza- was an economic strike. The complaint alleged the strike tion cards. The only striking employee who did not ex- to be an economic strike. Moreover, during the course of ecute a Local 102 card was Jean-Charles Gesner. the hearing it was stipulated by all parties that the strike In view of Respondent's payroll records which estab- was an economic strike. Indeed, the evidence supports lish that the 66 strikers were scheduled to work on July the complaint allegation and stipulation. The evidence es- 27, that prior to the end of July 28 all of these employees tablished that the strike commenced following a conver- had ceased work, and that no striker resumed work until sation between Eason and Thomas Gambino during at least after the week ending August 4, 1978; in view of which conversation Eason asked Gambino to consent to the testimony of Simon, Ernest, and Eason, which estab- an election or recognize Local 20408. When Gambino lishes between 60 and 70 employees picketed on July 27; declined, Eason urged the employees to go out on strike and July 28; in view of the 65 signed Local 102 authori- and commence picketing. zation cards signed by the striking employees; and in C7. The Identiy of the Strikers view of the fact that Respondent did not submit any evi- C. The Identity o~the Strikers dence to dispute that any of the alleged discriminatees The complaint alleged that 66 individuals took part in took part in the strike, I conclude that the 66 individuals the strike described above. These named individuals are named in the complaint ceased work on July 27 and con- alleged as discriminatees in view of alleged unconditional certedly engaged in an economic strike. offers to return to work and Respondent's unlawful re- fusal to reinstate them. Although Respondent's counsel C. The Unconditional Offers To Return to Work concedes that the above strike did take place, he does The Board law with respect to economic strikers and not concede that the 66 individuals set forth in the com- their right to reinstatement upon making an uncondition- plaint participated in the strike. Thus, the burden of es- al offer to return to work is rather well settled. Strikers, tablishing the identity of the strikers falls on General whether economic or unfair labor practice strikers, retain Counsel. In this connection, Respondent's payroll re- their status as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act. cords establish that during the calendar year commenc- See N.LR.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Ca, 304 U.S. ing in 1978 until the week ending July 28, 1978, all 66 333 (1938). alleged discriminatees worked exclusively for Respond- An economic strike is deemed to be protected activity ent corporatio ns ; namely, C o n s ol id at ed , G re en b e r g 's, under Section 7 of the Act. However, an employer is GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. There is no dispute that free in such circumstances to hire permanent replace- these employees worked out of the 141 West 35th Street ments for economic strikers at any time prior to their un- facility. In any event, the testimony of Eason, and em- conditional offer to return to work. It is an unfair labor ployees Tovar, Simon, and Joseph established that all practice for an employer to refuse reinstatement to strik- strikers worked out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. i employees following an unconditional offer by the Moreover, well prior to the commencement of the strike, striking employees to return to work, or to discharge 42 of the alleged 66 strikers signed Local 20408 authori- striking employees prior to the time their jobs are filled zation cards and on July 31, 65 of the 66 strikers signed by permanent replacements. N.LR.B. v. Fleetwod Trail- Local 102 authorization cards, all setting forth as the ad- er Ca, Inc, 389 U.S. 375 (1967); N.LR.B. v. United dress of their employer the 141 West 35th Street facility. States Cold Storage Corp., 203 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1953), Respondent's records further establish that on July 27 all cert. denied 346 U.S. 818; Carter Carburetor Corp. v. 66 alleged discriminatees were scheduled to work, but NLRB 140 F2d 714 (8th Cir 1944) that only 8 alleged discriminatees in fact worked a full 8- hour day.2" The remaining 58 alleged discriminatees all A n employer w h o refuses to reinstate striking employ- worked less than an 8-hour day. The payroll records fur- ees upon their unconditional offer to return must estab- ther show that, on July 28. 65 of the 66 alleged discri- lish t h a t his action was based on legitimate and substan- minatees performed no work for Respondent. The 66th tial b u sine ss justification, i.e., where the strikers' jobs alleged discriminatee, Joseph, worked 3 hours for Re- h av e b een replaced by p erm an en t replacements or where spondent that day. Thereafter, according to Joseph's un- t h e job h as be en el imin at ed b y legitimate and bona fide contradicted testimony, he ceased work and commenced r eas o n s o th e r t h an l ab o r relations. N.L.. v. Fleetwood picketing. Trailer, supra; N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967). Moreover, the right to reinstatement does " nose alleged dicriminatees working a full 8-hour day were Jean no t expire when an Unconditional offer is made, although Balan. Jean H. Charles, Lurna Calixte, Robergeau Duverger, Joseph E. a lawful permanent replacement has been hired for the Emet, Edouard St. Vil, Lucrece Ulysse, and Rigeur Videau. job in question, or it has been eliminated for some legiti- CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 635 elude that Respondent Trucking, Consolidated, Green- Joseph further testified that he observed approximately berg's, GRG, Clothing, Dynamic, and JHT constitute a 65 employees picketing on that day. Striker Lucien single employer within the meaning of the Act. Simon testified that on July 28, approximately 60 to 70 employees working out of 141 West 35th Street facility B. The Economic Strike and alleged as discriminatees picketed. Matthew Eason, There is no dispute that a strike commenced on July Local 20408 president, testified that on July 28 over 60 27, 1978, accompanied by picketing. Picketing com- employees picketed. menced on July 27 at Respondent's 141 West 35th Street The evidence established that on July 31 the strikers facility and ended July 28. Thereafter, no further picket- met in the office of Local 102 where 65 of the 66 strik- ing took place. There is also no dispute that the strike ers alleged as discriminatees signed Local 102 authoriza- was an economic strike. The complaint alleged the strike tion cards. The only striking employee who did not ex- to be an economic strike. Moreover, during the course of ecute a Local 102 card was Jean-Charles Gesner. the hearing it was stipulated by all parties that the strike In view of Respondent's payroll records which estab- was an economic strike. Indeed, the evidence supports lish that the 66 strikers were scheduled to work on July the complaint allegation and stipulation. The evidence es- 27, that prior to the end of July 28 all of these employees tablished that the strike commenced following a conver- had ceased work, and that no striker resumed work until sation between Eason and Thomas Gambino during at least after the week ending August 4, 1978; in view of which conversation Eason asked Gambino to consent to the testimony of Simon, Ernest, and Eason, which estab- an election or recognize Local 20408. When Gambino lishes between 60 and 70 employees picketed on July 27; declined, Eason urged the employees to go out on strike and July 28; in view of the 65 signed Local 102 authori- and commence picketing. zation cards signed by the striking employees; and in C7. The Identiy of the Strikers view of the fact that Respondent did not submit any evi- C. The Identity o~the Strikers dence to dispute that any of the alleged discriminatees The complaint alleged that 66 individuals took part in took part in the strike, I conclude that the 66 individuals the strike described above. These named individuals are named in the complaint ceased work on July 27 and con- alleged as discriminatees in view of alleged unconditional certedly engaged in an economic strike. offers to return to work and Respondent's unlawful re- fusal to reinstate them. Although Respondent's counsel C. The Unconditional Offers To Return to Work concedes that the above strike did take place, he does The Board law with respect to economic strikers and not concede that the 66 individuals set forth in the com- their right to reinstatement upon making an uncondition- plaint participated in the strike. Thus, the burden of es- al offer to return to work is rather well settled. Strikers, tablishing the identity of the strikers falls on General whether economic or unfair labor practice strikers, retain Counsel. In this connection, Respondent's payroll re- their status as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act. cords establish that during the calendar year commenc- See N.LR.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Ca, 304 U.S. ing in 1978 until the week ending July 28, 1978, all 66 333 (1938). alleged discriminatees worked exclusively for Respond- An economic strike is deemed to be protected activity ent corporatio ns ; namely, C o n s ol id at ed , G re en b e r g 's, under Section 7 of the Act. However, an employer is GRG, Clothing, and Dynamic. There is no dispute that free in such circumstances to hire permanent replace- these employees worked out of the 141 West 35th Street ments for economic strikers at any time prior to their un- facility. In any event, the testimony of Eason, and em- conditional offer to return to work. It is an unfair labor ployees Tovar, Simon, and Joseph established that all practice for an employer to refuse reinstatement to strik- strikers worked out of the 141 West 35th Street facility. i employees following an unconditional offer by the Moreover, well prior to the commencement of the strike, striking employees to return to work, or to discharge 42 of the alleged 66 strikers signed Local 20408 authori- striking employees prior to the time their jobs are filled zation cards and on July 31, 65 of the 66 strikers signed by permanent replacements. N.LR.B. v. Fleetwod Trail- Local 102 authorization cards, all setting forth as the ad- er Ca, Inc, 389 U.S. 375 (1967); N.LR.B. v. United dress of their employer the 141 West 35th Street facility. States Cold Storage Corp., 203 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1953), Respondent's records further establish that on July 27 all cert. denied 346 U.S. 818; Carter Carburetor Corp. v. 66 alleged discriminatees were scheduled to work, but NLRB 140 F2d 714 (8th Cir 1944) that only 8 alleged discriminatees in fact worked a full 8- hour day.2" The remaining 58 alleged discriminatees all An employer w h o refuses to reinstate striking employ- worked less than an 8-hour day. The payroll records fur- ees upon their unconditional offer to return must estab- ther show that, on July 28. 65 of the 66 alleged discri- lish t h a t his action was based on legitimate and substan- minatees performed no work for Respondent. The 66th tial b u sine ss justification, i.e., where the strikers' jobs alleged discriminatee, Joseph, worked 3 hours for Re- h av e b een replaced by p erm an en t replacements or where spondent that day. Thereafter, according to Joseph's un- t h e job h as be en el imin at ed b y legitimate and bona fide contradicted testimony, he ceased work and commenced r eas o n s o th e r t h an l ab o r relations. N.L.. v. Fleetwood picketing. Trailer, supra; N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967). Moreover, the right to reinstatement does " nose alleged dicriminatees working a full 8-hour day were Jean no t expire when an Unconditional offer is made, although Balan. Jean H. Charles, Lurna Calixte, Robergeau Duverger, Joseph E. a lawful permanent replacement has been hired for the Emet, Edouard St. Vil, Lucrece Ulysse, and Rigeur Videau. job in question, or it has been eliminated for some legiti- 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mate, bona fide reason. The right to reinstatement con- ship in Local 20408 to Eason or other 20408 representa- tinues when the job becomes available and until the strik- tives. Moreover, the striking employees continued pick- er obtains other regular and substantially equivalent em- eting with Local 20408 signs notwithstanding their con- ployment. Fleetwood Trailer, supra; The Laidlaw Corpora- versations with Local 102 representatives throughout the tion, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968). course of the day. This would negate any subjective in- The issue that must first be determined is whether the tention by the employees to revoke their membership in strikers made unconditional offers to return to work. Local 20408. The evidence established that the first offer made on Neither does the evidence establish that Local 20408 behalf of the strikers to return to work occurred during abandoned the striking employees prior to Eason's offer Eason's conversation with Thomas Gambino sometime in made to Gambino on July 28, as a result of the strikers' the afternoon of July 28. In this connection, Eason's conversations with Local 102 representatives. Rather, the credited testimony established that he asked Thomas credited testimony established that he asked Thomas evidence establishes that Eason, at all times during the Gambino in front of the premises at the 141 West 35th strike and thereafter was primarily concerned with ob- Street facility, "Why don't you put the workers back to tn renstateent f te s n e s ad tha Xok . They were not aware they had a union taining reinstatement of the striking employees, and that, work. . . .They were not aware they had a union .... It's not fair to take it out on them. Put them back to f hewas unable to obtan it, he was wlling, without work and let it be resolved before the Labor Board." abandoning the support or representational claim of Gambino's response to this offer was to turn and walk Local 20408, to enlist the aid of Local 102 to this end. away. The substance of the offer sets no conditions for T h ls i evidenced by Eason's conversation on the after- return. For example, the offer is not conditioned on in- noon of July 28 with Ted Theus, Local 102 representa- creased wages, benefits, or any other improvement in tive. In this respect, Theus told Eason that Local 102 working conditions. Nor does the offer suggest that it had a contract with Consolidated and represented the was conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. Cf. striking employees. Eason replied he would let that be American Optical Company, 138 NLRB 681 (1962). Ac- determined, presumably, by the pending representation cordingly, I conclude that the offer by Eason was an un- petition filed by Local 20408. Theus asked Eason if he conditional offer made on behalf of all striking employ- would object if he tried to get the employees back to ees to return to work. work and Eason stated that he had no objection. This Respondent's counsel contends that Eason had no au- conversation clearly indicates that Local 20408 had not thority to make such offer on behalf of the striking em- abandoned its claim for representation. On the contrary, ployees because they had withdrawn and revoked their Eason asserted that this was a matter to be determined. membership in Local 20408 at the time the offer was Clearly too, the conversation established that Eason was made. enlisting the aid of Local 102 to obtain reinstatement of There is no doubt that Eason was authorized expressly the striking employees. This is further established when or impliedly by the striking employees to make such following his conversation with Theus he spoke to the offer on their behalf. This is established by the evidence striking employees and related to them this conversation. that shortly before the strike, 42 of the 66 striking em- It is noted that the present representation petition filed ployees, a majority of the striking employees, signed by Local 20408 is still pending as of this date. Had Local Local 20408 authorization cards. It is further established 20408 intended to abandon the striking employees or its by the evidence that the strike which commenced on representational claim, surely a withdrawal of the peti- July 27 was organized and supervised by Local 20408. In tion would have been requested. this connection, every picket carried a Local 20408 That Local 20408 had not abandoned the striking em- picket sign throughout the entire course of the strike. ployes or its representational claim is further evidenced The Board has held that where striking employees have by Easons filing the instant charge with the NLRB and signed union authorization cards, and joined in a strike signed union authorization cards, and joned in a strike by his subsequent offer on behalf of all striking employ- under union supervision, a general agency is created ees to return to work on August 2. which empowers the union through its representatives to Te evene est se tt out 5 p on Ju offer to return to work on behalf of all of the striking T h e evidence established that about 5 p.m., on July 28, employees without obtaining specific authorization from ollowig the Local 102 representatives' discussions with the employees to do so. I. Posner, Inc.; Posner Distribut- the striking employees descrbed above, Local 102 Rep- ing Corp; and Posner Beauty and Barber Supply Corp., 133 resentative McDaniel spoke with Hyman Ruff. The con- NLRB 1567, 1570 (1961); F. M. Homes, Inc., 235 NLRB versation took place in Respondent's office at 141 West 648, 649, fn. 4. 35th Street facility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men Respondent's counsel bases his contention that the wanted to come back to work." Ruff refused to put the striking employees had revoked their membership in men back to work claiming he had to speak to his attor- Local 20408 on the testimony of striker Ulrick Tovar ney. The offer to return to work made by McDaniel was who testified in response to Respondent's counsel's ques- clearly unconditional. However, I conclude that such tions that following his conversation with Dyer on July offer was unauthorized and without any legal effect since 28 it was his intention to be a member of Local 102 the offer was made at a time prior to the striking em- rather than Local 20408. However, such revocation was ployees signing Local 102 authorization cards and at a never conveyed by Tovar to Eason. Moreover, there is time when picketing was still in progress on behalf of no evidence that any of the striking employees had effec- Local 20408. Thus, at this time Local 102 was not au- tively communicated any intention to revoke member- thorized to represent the striking employees. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mate, bona fide reason. The right to reinstatement con- ship in Local 20408 to Eason or other 20408 representa- tinues when the job becomes available and until the strik- tives. Moreover, the striking employees continued pick- er obtains other regular and substantially equivalent em- eting with Local 20408 signs notwithstanding their con- ployment. Fleetwood Trailer, supra; The Laidlaw Corpora- versations with Local 102 representatives throughout the tion, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968). course of the day. This would negate any subjective in- The issue that must first be determined is whether the tention by the employees to revoke their membership in strikers made unconditional offers to return to work. Local 20408. The evidence established that the first offer made on Neither does the evidence establish that Local 20408 behalf of the strikers to return to work occurred during abandoned the striking employees prior to Eason's offer Eason's conversation with Thomas Gambino sometime in made to Gambino on July 28, as a result of the strikers' the afternoon of July 28. In this connection, Eason's conversations with Local 102 representatives. Rather, the credited testimony established that he asked Thomas -. i-- ,ti;i» » c 1 *-i**i credted estionyestalishd tht h askd Thmas evidence establishes that Eason, at all times during the Gambino in front of the premises at the 141 West 35th etikend therater, was pr im esldunre the Street facility, "Why don't you put the workers back to t n ge i n stt e m e nf t h s triking coyeesnd that, work. ... They were not aware they had a union. . . if he waustatement of the siiking employees, and that, It's not fair to take it out on them. Put them back to l f h e Wa S u na b le t o o b t al n u - h e w as w l l in g, w lt h o u t work and let it be resolved before the Labor Board." ab an d o n ing t h e support o r representational claim of Gambino's response to this offer was to turn and walk L o c al 20 40 8, t o enlist the aid of Local 102 to this end. away. The substance of the offer sets no conditions for T h is is evidenced by Eason's conversation on the after- return. For example, the offer is not conditioned on in- n oo n o f J u ly 28 w ith Ted T h e us, L o cal 10 2 representa- creased wages, benefits, or any other improvement in tive. In t h is respect, Theus told Eason that Local 102 working conditions. Nor does the offer suggest that it h ad a contract with Consolidated and represented the was conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. Cf. striking employees. Eason replied he would let that be American Optical Company, 138 NLRB 681 (1962). Ac- determined, presumably, by the pending representation cordingly, I conclude that the offer by Eason was an un- petition filed by Local 20408. Theus asked Eason if he conditional offer made on behalf of all striking employ- would object if he tried to get the employees back to ees to return to work. work and Eason stated that he had no objection. This Respondent's counsel contends that Eason had no au- conversation clearly indicates that Local 20408 had not thority to make such offer on behalf of the striking em- abandoned its claim for representation. On the contrary, ployees because they had withdrawn and revoked their Eason asserted that this was a matter to be determined. membership in Local 20408 at the time the offer was Clearly too, the conversation established that Eason was made. enlisting the aid of Local 102 to obtain reinstatement of There is no doubt that Eason was authorized expressly the striking employees. This is further established when or impliedly by the striking employees to make such following his conversation with Theus he spoke to the offer on their behalf. This is established by the evidence striking employees and related to them this conversation. that shortly before the strike, 42 of the 66 striking em- It is noted that the present representation petition filed ployees, a majority of the striking employees, signed by Local 20408 is still pending as of this date. Had Local Local 20408 authorization cards. It is further established 20408 intended to abandon the striking employees or its by the evidence that the strike which commenced on representational claim, surely a withdrawal of the peti- July 27 was organized and supervised by Local 20408. In tion would have been requested. this connection, every picket carried a Local 20408 That Local 20408 had not abandoned the striking em- picket sign throughout the entire course of the strike. p o representational claim is further evidenced The Board has held that where striking employees have by E filin the in c it th NRB nd signed union authorization cards, and joined in a strike b y hi s subsequent ohalf of ald under union supervision, a general agency is created b y h e s t bo retu t o fl wr o n behalf of all s2iking employ- which empowers the union through its representatives to ee s t o re t u rn t o w o r k t o n A u g u s t 2a offer to return to work on behalf of all of the striking f T h e evidence established that about 5 p.m., on July 28, employees without obtaining specific authorization from rollowmg the Local 102 representatives' discussions with the employees to do so. L. Posner, Inc.; Posner Distribut- the striking employees described above, Local 102 Rep- ing Corp; and Posner Beauty and Barber Supply Corp., 133 resentative McDaniel spoke with Hyman Ruff. The con- NLRB 1567, 1570 (1961); F. M. Homes, Inc., 235 NLRB versation took place in Respondent's office at 141 West 648, 649, fn. 4. 35th Street facility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men Respondent's counsel bases his contention that the wanted to come back to work." Ruff refused to put the striking employees had revoked their membership in men back to work claiming he had to speak to his attor- Local 20408 on the testimony of striker Ulrick Tovar ney. The offer to return to work made by McDaniel was who testified in response to Respondent's counsel's ques- clearly unconditional. However, I conclude that such tions that following his conversation with Dyer on July offer was unauthorized and without any legal effect since 28 it was his intention to be a member of Local 102 the offer was made at a time prior to the striking em- rather than Local 20408. However, such revocation was ployees signing Local 102 authorization cards and at a never conveyed by Tovar to Eason. Moreover, there is time when picketing was still in progress on behalf of no evidence that any of the striking employees had effec- Local 20408. Thus, at this time Local 102 was not au- tively communicated any intention to revoke member- thorized to represent the striking employees. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mate, bona fide reason. The right to reinstatement con- ship in Local 20408 to Eason or other 20408 representa- tinues when the job becomes available and until the strik- tives. Moreover, the striking employees continued pick- er obtains other regular and substantially equivalent em- eting with Local 20408 signs notwithstanding their con- ployment. Fleetwood Trailer, supra; The Laidlaw Corpora- versations with Local 102 representatives throughout the tion, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968). course of the day. This would negate any subjective in- The issue that must first be determined is whether the tention by the employees to revoke their membership in strikers made unconditional offers to return to work. Local 20408. The evidence established that the first offer made on Neither does the evidence establish that Local 20408 behalf of the strikers to return to work occurred during abandoned the striking employees prior to Eason's offer Eason's conversation with Thomas Gambino sometime in made to Gambino on July 28, as a result of the strikers' the afternoon of July 28. In this connection, Eason's conversations with Local 102 representatives. Rather, the credited testimony established that he asked Thomas -. i-- ,ti;i» » c 1 *-i**i credted estionyestalishd tht h askd Thmas evidence establishes that Eason, at all times during the Gambino in front of the premises at the 141 West 35th etikend th at was pr im eslducre the Street facility, "Why don't you put the workers back to t n ge i n stt e m e nf t h s triking coyeesnd that, work. ... They were not aware they had a union. . . if he waustatement of the siiking employees, and that, It's not fair to take it out on them. Put them back to l f h e Wa S u na b le t o o b t al n u - h e w as w l l in g, w lt h o u t work and let it be resolved before the Labor Board." ab an d o n ing t h e support o r representational claim of Gambino's response to this offer was to turn and walk L o c al 20 40 8, t o enlist the aid of Local 102 to this end. away. The substance of the offer sets no conditions for T h is is evidenced by Eason's conversation on the after- return. For example, the offer is not conditioned on in- n oo n o f J u ly 28 w ith Ted T h e us, L o cal 10 2 representa- creased wages, benefits, or any other improvement in tive. In t h is respect, Theus told Eason that Local 102 working conditions. Nor does the offer suggest that it h ad a contract with Consolidated and represented the was conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. Cf. striking employees. Eason replied he would let that be American Optical Company, 138 NLRB 681 (1962). Ac- determined, presumably, by the pending representation cordingly, I conclude that the offer by Eason was an un- petition filed by Local 20408. Theus asked Eason if he conditional offer made on behalf of all striking employ- would object if he tried to get the employees back to ees to return to work. work and Eason stated that he had no objection. This Respondent's counsel contends that Eason had no au- conversation clearly indicates that Local 20408 had not thority to make such offer on behalf of the striking em- abandoned its claim for representation. On the contrary, ployees because they had withdrawn and revoked their Eason asserted that this was a matter to be determined. membership in Local 20408 at the time the offer was Clearly too, the conversation established that Eason was made. enlisting the aid of Local 102 to obtain reinstatement of There is no doubt that Eason was authorized expressly the striking employees. This is further established when or impliedly by the striking employees to make such following his conversation with Theus he spoke to the offer on their behalf. This is established by the evidence striking employees and related to them this conversation. that shortly before the strike, 42 of the 66 striking em- It is noted that the present representation petition filed ployees, a majority of the striking employees, signed by Local 20408 is still pending as of this date. Had Local Local 20408 authorization cards. It is further established 20408 intended to abandon the striking employees or its by the evidence that the strike which commenced on representational claim, surely a withdrawal of the peti- July 27 was organized and supervised by Local 20408. In tion would have been requested. this connection, every picket carried a Local 20408 That Local 20408 had not abandoned the striking em- picket sign throughout the entire course of the strike. p o representational claim is further evidenced The Board has held that where striking employees have by E filin the in c it th NRB nd signed union authorization cards, and joined in a strike b y hi s subsequent ohalf of ald under union supervision, a general agency is created b y h e s t bo retu t o fl wr o n behalf of all s2iking employ- which empowers the union through its representatives to ee s t o re t u rn t o w o r k t o n A u g u s t 2a offer to return to work on behalf of all of the striking f T h e evidence established that about 5 p.m., on July 28, employees without obtaining specific authorization fromfollowing the Local 102 representatives' discussions with the employees to do so. L. Posner, Inc.; Posner Distribut- the striking employees described above, Local 102 Rep- ing Corp; and Posner Beauty and Barber Supply Corp., 133 resentative McDaniel spoke with Hyman Ruff. The con- NLRB 1567, 1570 (1961); F. M. Homes, Inc., 235 NLRB versation took place in Respondent's office at 141 West 648, 649, fn. 4. 35th Street facility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men Respondent's counsel bases his contention that the wanted to come back to work." Ruff refused to put the striking employees had revoked their membership in men back to work claiming he had to speak to his attor- Local 20408 on the testimony of striker Ulrick Tovar ney. The offer to return to work made by McDaniel was who testified in response to Respondent's counsel's ques- clearly unconditional. However, I conclude that such tions that following his conversation with Dyer on July offer was unauthorized and without any legal effect since 28 it was his intention to be a member of Local 102 the offer was made at a time prior to the striking em- rather than Local 20408. However, such revocation was ployees signing Local 102 authorization cards and at a never conveyed by Tovar to Eason. Moreover, there is time when picketing was still in progress on behalf of no evidence that any of the striking employees had effec- Local 20408. Thus, at this time Local 102 was not au- tively communicated any intention to revoke member- thorized to represent the striking employees. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mate, bona fide reason. The right to reinstatement con- ship in Local 20408 to Eason or other 20408 representa- tinues when the job becomes available and until the strik- tives. Moreover, the striking employees continued pick- er obtains other regular and substantially equivalent em- eting with Local 20408 signs notwithstanding their con- ployment. Fleetwood Trailer, supra; The Laidlaw Corpora- versations with Local 102 representatives throughout the tion, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968). course of the day. This would negate any subjective in- The issue that must first be determined is whether the tention by the employees to revoke their membership in strikers made unconditional offers to return to work. Local 20408. The evidence established that the first offer made on Neither does the evidence establish that Local 20408 behalf of the strikers to return to work occurred during abandoned the striking employees prior to Eason's offer Eason's conversation with Thomas Gambino sometime in made to Gambino on July 28, as a result of the strikers' the afternoon of July 28. In this connection, Eason's conversations with Local 102 representatives. Rather, the credited testimony established that he asked Thomas -. i-- ,ti;i» » c 1 *-i**i credted estionyestalishd tht h askd Thmas evidence establishes that Eason, at all times during the Gambino in front of the premises at the 141 West 35th etikend therater, was pr im eslducre the Street facility, "Why don't you put the workers back to t n ge i n stt e m e nf t h s triking coyeesnd that, work. ... They were not aware they had a union. . . if he waustatement of the siiking employees, and that, It's not fair to take it out on them. Put them back to l f h e Wa S u na b le t o o b t al n u - h e w as w l l in g, w lt h o u t work and let it be resolved before the Labor Board." ab an d o n ing t h e support o r representational claim of Gambino's response to this offer was to turn and walk L o c al 20 40 8, t o enlist the aid of Local 102 to this end. away. The substance of the offer sets no conditions for T h is is evidenced by Eason's conversation on the after- return. For example, the offer is not conditioned on in- n oo n o f July 28 w ith Ted T h e us, L o cal 10 2 representa- creased wages, benefits, or any other improvement in tive. In t h is respect, Theus told Eason that Local 102 working conditions. Nor does the offer suggest that it h ad a contract with Consolidated and represented the was conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. Cf. striking employees. Eason replied he would let that be American Optical Company, 138 NLRB 681 (1962). Ac- determined, presumably, by the pending representation cordingly, I conclude that the offer by Eason was an un- petition filed by Local 20408. Theus asked Eason if he conditional offer made on behalf of all striking employ- would object if he tried to get the employees back to ees to return to work. work and Eason stated that he had no objection. This Respondent's counsel contends that Eason had no au- conversation clearly indicates that Local 20408 had not thority to make such offer on behalf of the striking em- abandoned its claim for representation. On the contrary, ployees because they had withdrawn and revoked their Eason asserted that this was a matter to be determined. membership in Local 20408 at the time the offer was Clearly too, the conversation established that Eason was made. enlisting the aid of Local 102 to obtain reinstatement of There is no doubt that Eason was authorized expressly the striking employees. This is further established when or impliedly by the striking employees to make such following his conversation with Theus he spoke to the offer on their behalf. This is established by the evidence striking employees and related to them this conversation. that shortly before the strike, 42 of the 66 striking em- It is noted that the present representation petition filed ployees, a majority of the striking employees, signed by Local 20408 is still pending as of this date. Had Local Local 20408 authorization cards. It is further established 20408 intended to abandon the striking employees or its by the evidence that the strike which commenced on representational claim, surely a withdrawal of the peti- July 27 was organized and supervised by Local 20408. In tion would have been requested. this connection, every picket carried a Local 20408 That Local 20408 had not abandoned the striking em- picket sign throughout the entire course of the strike. p o representational claim is further evidenced The Board has held that where striking employees have by E filin the in c it th NRB nd signed union authorization cards, and joined in a strike b y hi s subsequent ohalf of ald under union supervision, a general agency is created b y h e s t bo retu t o fl wr o n behalf of all s2iking employ- which empowers the union through its representatives to ee s t o re t u rn t o w o r k t o n A u g u s t 2a offer to return to work on behalf of all of the striking f T h e evidence established that about 5 p.m., on July 28, employees without obtaining specific authorization fromfollowing the Local 102 representatives' discussions with the employees to do so. L. Posner, Inc.; Posner Distribut- the striking employees described above, Local 102 Rep- ing Corp; and Posner Beauty and Barber Supply Corp., 133 resentative McDaniel spoke with Hyman Ruff. The con- NLRB 1567, 1570 (1961); F. M. Homes, Inc., 235 NLRB versation took place in Respondent's office at 141 West 648, 649, fn. 4. 35th Street facility. McDaniel told Ruff that "The men Respondent's counsel bases his contention that the wanted to come back to work." Ruff refused to put the striking employees had revoked their membership in men back to work claiming he had to speak to his attor- Local 20408 on the testimony of striker Ulrick Tovar ney. The offer to return to work made by McDaniel was who testified in response to Respondent's counsel's ques- clearly unconditional. However, I conclude that such tions that following his conversation with Dyer on July offer was unauthorized and without any legal effect since 28 it was his intention to be a member of Local 102 the offer was made at a time prior to the striking em- rather than Local 20408. However, such revocation was ployees signing Local 102 authorization cards and at a never conveyed by Tovar to Eason. Moreover, there is time when picketing was still in progress on behalf of no evidence that any of the striking employees had effec- Local 20408. Thus, at this time Local 102 was not au- tively communicated any intention to revoke member- thorized to represent the striking employees. CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 637 On July 31, immediately following the Local 102 group. Simon testified that when he approached the 141 meeting with the striking employees, 65 of the 66 strik- West 35th Street facility, he observed Joe Gambino ing employees signed Local 102 authorization cards and standing by the front door and heard him say, "No, no specifically authorized Local 102 to request reinstate- job, I don't want you anymore." ment on their behalf. Local 102 Representative Rooney Respondent's counsel contends that all offers to return met with Hyman Ruff in his office at 141 West 35th to work made by Local 102 Representatives Rooney and Street facility. During this meeting Rooney told Ruff Gerstein and by the striking employees on July 31 and "[T]here [are] men outside. They want to go back to August 1 were conditioned on reinstatement pursuant to work. . . Would you put them back to work?" Ruff re- the terms of the Local 102 contract with Consolidated. plied he had to see his lawyer first. In view of the au- This contention is based on the testimony of strikers thorization cards signed by 65 of the 66 striking employ- Ernest Joseph, Lucien Simon, and Ulrick Tovar, as well ees and in view of the specific authority given by the as the testimony of Eason which is all to the effect that striking employees to request reinstatement on their striking employees to request reinstatement on their on July 28 during the strike, and again on the morning of behalf, I conclude that Rooney had the authority to re- J 3 d quest reinstatement on behalf of the striking employees. I ploy y Local 102 representatives that also conclude that Rooney's statement to Ruff, described Local 102 had a contract with Consolidated, that above, was an unconditional offer to return to work Local 102 had a contract with Consolidated, that the above, was an unconditional offer to return to work made on behalf of the striking employees and that Ruffs striking employees were covered by this contract, and reply to Rooney was a refusal to reinstate the striking that, pursuant to this contract, they were entitled to employees. . Posner, Inc., and F. M. Homes Inc., supra. higher wages and increased fringe benefits and would re- On July 31, following Rooney's unconditional offer, ceive such increases upon their return to work. described above, Thomas Gambino met with Local 102 Whether the striking employees would have returned Manager Sidney Gerstein. During this meeting Gambino to work unconditionally, at the same rates of pay and admitted that "Gerstein mentioned something about the under the conditions of employment that existed prior to people coming to work for us. He talked about the their strike, had Respondent made such offer of reinstate- people that were on strike. . . ." Gambino later ad- ment is conjectural. Such offer by Respondent was never mitted, "In essence he [Gerstein] said the people-he made. wanted us to put the people to work." Gambino's reply Neither can it be argued that Respondent refused to was that it was a legal thing and would have to be set- offer reinstatement because it believed the offers were tied through a pending National Labor Relations Board conditional upon the strikers receiving the Local 102 proceeding, an apparent reference to the representation contract benefits as there is no evidence to establish that petition then pending before the Region filed by Local Respondent's representatives were aware at any time 20408. Gambino did not question Gerstein's authority to during which the offers to return to work were made, of request reinstatement. Based on the same reasoning as the conversations between Local 102 representatives and applied to Rooney's unconditional offer to return to the striking employees concerning the strikers' expecta- work, I conclude Gerstein had the authority to make tions as to wages and working conditions upon return to such offer on behalf of the striking employees. I also work. Indeed, conditions for reinstatement were never conclude that Gerstein's offer was an unconditional offer questioned by Respondent's representatives when the to return to work made on behalf of the striking employ- offers to return to work were made. For the same ees, and that Gambino's response was a refusal to rein- reason, it cannot be argued that the offers to return to state the striking employees. work were conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. A A further unconditional offer to return to work was reasonable interpretation of the offers themselves does made by a group of the strikers themselves. In this con- not imply such a condition. If Respondent believed such nection, the evidence established that following their i i i u meeting at 8:30 a.m. on July 31 at Local 102's office the c on one, Grsein, or the sies hemselve question striking employees in groups of 10 to 15 employees R oo ney G e rs te n o r th e s t ke rs h em sel v es n t s striking employees in groups of 10 to 15 employees regard or offered reinstatement to selected strikers. Re- walked from the offices of Local 102 to Respondents' r d or offered remstatement to selected stkers. Re- West 35th Street facility. As the first group of striking spondent did neither. Rather Respondent without dis- employees approached the facility, they stated to Joseph cussing the offers to return to work simply refused them. Gambino who was standing in front of the facility, I therefore reject Respondent's counsel's contention that "We're coming back. We're coming back to work." Joe the offers to return to work were conditional. Gambino replied, "Wait a minute. .... I don't want you Finally, a further unconditional offer to return to work to come back to work. I don't want you anymore over was made on behalf of the striking employees through here." The same offer was made by Tovar on August 1, Eason's August 2 mailgram addressed to Consolidated followed by the same response from Gambino. There is Dress Carriers, Trucking Personnel, 141 West 35th no question that the employees' offers to return to work Street, which stated: "Local 20408 represents all of the were unconditional and that Joe Gambino's response was employees who you have discharged as a result of the a clear refusal to reinstate and I so conclude. work stoppage on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each of Gambino's refusal to reinstate the strikers is further them does individually hereby unconditionally apply for evidenced by the testimony of Lucien Simon, striking reinstatement." The mailgram was sent by Matthew employee, who approached the facility on July 31 with Eason, president, Local 20408. I conclude that the failure one of the groups of strikers that followed Tovar's to respond to this offer was a further refusal to reinstate CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 637 On July 31, immediately following the Local 102 group. Simon testified that when he approached the 141 meeting with the striking employees, 65 of the 66 strik- West 35th Street facility, he observed Joe Gambino ing employees signed Local 102 authorization cards and standing by the front door and heard him say, "No, no specifically authorized Local 102 to request reinstate- job, I don't want you anymore." ment on their behalf. Local 102 Representative Rooney Respondent's counsel contends that all offers to return met with Hyman Ruff in his office at 141 West 35th to work made by Local 102 Representatives Rooney and Street facility. During this meeting Rooney told Ruff Gerstein and by the striking employees on July 31 and "[T]here [are] men outside. They want to go back to August 1 were conditioned on reinstatement pursuant to work. . . Would you put them back to work?" Ruff re- the terms of the Local 102 contract with Consolidated. plied he had to see his lawyer first. In view of the au- This contention is based on the testimony of strikers thorization cards signed by 65 of the 66 striking employ- Ernest Joseph, Lucien Simon, and Ulrick Tovar, as well ees and in view of the specific authority given by the as the testimony of Eason which is all to the effect that striking employees to request reinstatement on their on July 28 during the strike, and again on the morning of behalf, I conclude that Rooney had the authority to re- Jl 3 d t L 1 m t s. quest reinstatement on behalf of the striking employees. I p wr i b L 1 repesetatvestha also conclude that Rooney's statement to Ruff, described Local 102 repth sentat the abov, ws a unondiionl oferto rtur towor L oc al 102 h ad a co n t ra ct with Consolidated, that the above, was an unconditional offer to return to work stingepoeswrcvrdbyhscnraad made on behalf of the striking employees and that Ruffs s t n k l n g employees were covered by this contract, and reply to Rooney was a refusal to reinstate the striking t h aih pwagsand t o t l i n c o n t r ai tn they were entitled to employees. L Posner, Inc., and F. M. Homes, Inc., supra. ^8^ a n d i"creased fringe benefits and would re- On July 31, following Rooney's unconditional offer, c eiv e su c h increases upon their return to work. described above, Thomas Gambino met with Local 102 Whether the striking employees would have returned Manager Sidney Gerstein. During this meeting Gambino to work unconditionally, at the same rates of pay and admitted that "Gerstein mentioned something about the under the conditions of employment that existed prior to people coming to work for us. He talked about the their strike, had Respondent made such offer of reinstate- people that were on strike. . . ." Gambino later ad- ment is conjectural. Such offer by Respondent was never mitted, "In essence he [Gerstein] said the people-he made. wanted us to put the people to work." Gambino's reply Neither can it be argued that Respondent refused to was that it was a legal thing and would have to be set- offer reinstatement because it believed the offers were tied through a pending National Labor Relations Board conditional upon the strikers receiving the Local 102 proceeding, an apparent reference to the representation contract benefits as there is no evidence to establish that petition then pending before the Region filed by Local Respondent's representatives were aware at any time 20408. Gambino did not question Gerstein's authority to during which the offers to return to work were made, of request reinstatement. Based on the same reasoning as the conversations between Local 102 representatives and applied to Rooney's unconditional offer to return to the striking employees concerning the strikers' expecta- work, I conclude Gerstein had the authority to make tions as to wages and working conditions upon return to such offer on behalf of the striking employees. I also work. Indeed, conditions for reinstatement were never conclude that Gerstein's offer was an unconditional offer questioned by Respondent's representatives when the to return to work made on behalf of the striking employ- offers to return to work were made. For the same ees, and that Gambino's response was a refusal to rein- reason, it cannot be argued that the offers to return to state the striking employees. work were conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. A A further unconditional offer to return to work was reasonable interpretation of the offers themselves does made by a group of the strikers themselves. In this con- not imply such a condition. If Respondent believed such nection, the evidence established that following their coinw bi i he u hv qso meeting at 8=30 a.m. on July 31 at Local 102's office the Ro o n Ge s t ei n, or the s he v e tis striking employees in groups of 10 to 15 employees r o er ed re t e st r k e r s Re- walked from the offices of Local 102 to Respondents' spo n or offered re.statement to selected stukers. Re- West 35th Street facility. As the first group of strikingspondent did neither. Rather Respondent without dis- employees approached the facility, they stated to Joseph cussing the offers to return to work simply refused them. Gambino who was standing in front of the facility, I therefore reject Respondent's counsel's contention that "We're coming back. We're coming back to work." Joe t h e o f e rs to return to work were conditional. Gambino replied, "Wait a minute. ... I don't want you Finally, a further unconditional offer to return to work to come back to work. I don't want you anymore over was made on behalf of the striking employees through here." The same offer was made by Tovar on August 1, Eason's August 2 mailgram addressed to Consolidated followed by the same response from Gambino. There is Dress Carriers, Trucking Personnel, 141 West 35th no question that the employees' offers to return to work Street, which stated: "Local 20408 represents all of the were unconditional and that Joe Gambino's response was employees who you have discharged as a result of the a clear refusal to reinstate and I so conclude. work stoppage on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each of Gambino's refusal to reinstate the strikers is further them does individually hereby unconditionally apply for evidenced by the testimony of Lucien Simon, striking reinstatement." The mailgram was sent by Matthew employee, who approached the facility on July 31 with Eason, president, Local 20408. I conclude that the failure one of the groups of strikers that followed Tovar's to respond to this offer was a further refusal to reinstate CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 637 On July 31, immediately following the Local 102 group. Simon testified that when he approached the 141 meeting with the striking employees, 65 of the 66 strik- West 35th Street facility, he observed Joe Gambino ing employees signed Local 102 authorization cards and standing by the front door and heard him say, "No, no specifically authorized Local 102 to request reinstate- job, I don't want you anymore." ment on their behalf. Local 102 Representative Rooney Respondent's counsel contends that all offers to return met with Hyman Ruff in his office at 141 West 35th to work made by Local 102 Representatives Rooney and Street facility. During this meeting Rooney told Ruff Gerstein and by the striking employees on July 31 and "[T]here [are] men outside. They want to go back to August 1 were conditioned on reinstatement pursuant to work. . . Would you put them back to work?" Ruff re- the terms of the Local 102 contract with Consolidated. plied he had to see his lawyer first. In view of the au- This contention is based on the testimony of strikers thorization cards signed by 65 of the 66 striking employ- Ernest Joseph, Lucien Simon, and Ulrick Tovar, as well ees and in view of the specific authority given by the as the testimony of Eason which is all to the effect that striking employees to request reinstatement on their on July 28 during the strike, and again on the morning of behalf, I conclude that Rooney had the authority to re- Jl 3 d t L 1 m t s. quest reinstatement on behalf of the striking employees. I p wr i b L 1 repesetatvestha also conclude that Rooney's statement to Ruff, described Local 102 repth sentat the abov, ws a unondiionl oferto rtur towor L oc al 102 h ad a co n t ra ct with Consolidated, that the above, was an unconditional offer to return to work stingepoeswrcvrdbyhscnraad made on behalf of the striking employees and that Ruffs s t n k l n g employees were covered by this contract, and reply to Rooney was a refusal to reinstate the striking t h aih pwagsand t o t l i n c o n t r ai tn they were entitled to employees. L Posner, Inc., and F. M. Homes, Inc., supra ".^er wages and increased fringe benefits and would re- On July 31, following Rooney's unconditional offer, c e iv e su c h increases upon their return to work. described above, Thomas Gambino met with Local 102 Whether the striking employees would have returned Manager Sidney Gerstein. During this meeting Gambino to work unconditionally, at the same rates of pay and admitted that "Gerstein mentioned something about the under the conditions of employment that existed prior to people coming to work for us. He talked about the their strike, had Respondent made such offer of reinstate- people that were on strike. . . ." Gambino later ad- ment is conjectural. Such offer by Respondent was never mitted, "In essence he [Gerstein] said the people-he made. wanted us to put the people to work." Gambino's reply Neither can it be argued that Respondent refused to was that it was a legal thing and would have to be set- offer reinstatement because it believed the offers were tied through a pending National Labor Relations Board conditional upon the strikers receiving the Local 102 proceeding, an apparent reference to the representation contract benefits as there is no evidence to establish that petition then pending before the Region filed by Local Respondent's representatives were aware at any time 20408. Gambino did not question Gerstein's authority to during which the offers to return to work were made, of request reinstatement. Based on the same reasoning as the conversations between Local 102 representatives and applied to Rooney's unconditional offer to return to the striking employees concerning the strikers' expecta- work, I conclude Gerstein had the authority to make tions as to wages and working conditions upon return to such offer on behalf of the striking employees. I also work. Indeed, conditions for reinstatement were never conclude that Gerstein's offer was an unconditional offer questioned by Respondent's representatives when the to return to work made on behalf of the striking employ- offers to return to work were made. For the same ees, and that Gambino's response was a refusal to rein- reason, it cannot be argued that the offers to return to state the striking employees. work were conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. A A further unconditional offer to return to work was reasonable interpretation of the offers themselves does made by a group of the strikers themselves. In this con- not imply such a condition. If Respondent believed such nection, the evidence established that following their coinw bi i he u hv qso meeting at 8=30 a.m. on July 31 at Local 102's office the Ro o n Ge s t ei n, or the s he v e tis striking employees in groups of 10 to 15 employees r o e r e d re t e st r k e r s Re- walked from the offices of Local 102 to Respondents' spo n or offered re.statement to selected stukers. Re- West 35th Street facility. As the first group of strikingspondent did neither. Rather Respondent without dis- employees approached the facility, they stated to Joseph cussing the offers to return to work simply refused them. Gambino who was standing in front of the facility, I therefore reject Respondent's counsel's contention that "We're coming back. We're coming back to work." Joe t h e o ff e rs to return to work were conditional. Gambino replied, "Wait a minute. ... I don't want you Finally, a further unconditional offer to return to work to come back to work. I don't want you anymore over was made on behalf of the striking employees through here." The same offer was made by Tovar on August 1, Eason's August 2 mailgram addressed to Consolidated followed by the same response from Gambino. There is Dress Carriers, Trucking Personnel, 141 West 35th no question that the employees' offers to return to work Street, which stated: "Local 20408 represents all of the were unconditional and that Joe Gambino's response was employees who you have discharged as a result of the a clear refusal to reinstate and I so conclude. work stoppage on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each of Gambino's refusal to reinstate the strikers is further them does individually hereby unconditionally apply for evidenced by the testimony of Lucien Simon, striking reinstatement." The mailgram was sent by Matthew employee, who approached the facility on July 31 with Eason, president, Local 20408. I conclude that the failure one of the groups of strikers that followed Tovar's to respond to this offer was a further refusal to reinstate CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 637 On July 31, immediately following the Local 102 group. Simon testified that when he approached the 141 meeting with the striking employees, 65 of the 66 strik- West 35th Street facility, he observed Joe Gambino ing employees signed Local 102 authorization cards and standing by the front door and heard him say, "No, no specifically authorized Local 102 to request reinstate- job, I don't want you anymore." ment on their behalf. Local 102 Representative Rooney Respondent's counsel contends that all offers to return met with Hyman Ruff in his office at 141 West 35th to work made by Local 102 Representatives Rooney and Street facility. During this meeting Rooney told Ruff Gerstein and by the striking employees on July 31 and "[T]here [are] men outside. They want to go back to August 1 were conditioned on reinstatement pursuant to work. . . Would you put them back to work?" Ruff re- the terms of the Local 102 contract with Consolidated. plied he had to see his lawyer first. In view of the au- This contention is based on the testimony of strikers thorization cards signed by 65 of the 66 striking employ- Ernest Joseph, Lucien Simon, and Ulrick Tovar, as well ees and in view of the specific authority given by the as the testimony of Eason which is all to the effect that striking employees to request reinstatement on their on July 28 during the strike, and again on the morning of behalf, I conclude that Rooney had the authority to re- Jl 3 d t L 1 m t s. quest reinstatement on behalf of the striking employees. I p wr i b L 1 repesetatvestha also conclude that Rooney's statement to Ruff, described Local 102 repth sentat the abov, ws a unondiionl oferto rtur towor L oc al 102 h ad a co n t ra ct with Consolidated, that the above, was an unconditional offer to return to work stingepoeswrcvrdbyhscnraad made on behalf of the striking employees and that Ruffs s t n k l n g employees were covered by this contract, and reply to Rooney was a refusal to reinstate the striking t h aih pwagsand t o t l i n c o n t r ai tn they were entitled to employees. L Posner, Inc., and F. M. Homes, Inc., supra ".^er wages and increased fringe benefits and would re- On July 31, following Rooney's unconditional offer, c e iv e su c h increases upon their return to work. described above, Thomas Gambino met with Local 102 Whether the striking employees would have returned Manager Sidney Gerstein. During this meeting Gambino to work unconditionally, at the same rates of pay and admitted that "Gerstein mentioned something about the under the conditions of employment that existed prior to people coming to work for us. He talked about the their strike, had Respondent made such offer of reinstate- people that were on strike. . . ." Gambino later ad- ment is conjectural. Such offer by Respondent was never mitted, "In essence he [Gerstein] said the people-he made. wanted us to put the people to work." Gambino's reply Neither can it be argued that Respondent refused to was that it was a legal thing and would have to be set- offer reinstatement because it believed the offers were tied through a pending National Labor Relations Board conditional upon the strikers receiving the Local 102 proceeding, an apparent reference to the representation contract benefits as there is no evidence to establish that petition then pending before the Region filed by Local Respondent's representatives were aware at any time 20408. Gambino did not question Gerstein's authority to during which the offers to return to work were made, of request reinstatement. Based on the same reasoning as the conversations between Local 102 representatives and applied to Rooney's unconditional offer to return to the striking employees concerning the strikers' expecta- work, I conclude Gerstein had the authority to make tions as to wages and working conditions upon return to such offer on behalf of the striking employees. I also work. Indeed, conditions for reinstatement were never conclude that Gerstein's offer was an unconditional offer questioned by Respondent's representatives when the to return to work made on behalf of the striking employ- offers to return to work were made. For the same ees, and that Gambino's response was a refusal to rein- reason, it cannot be argued that the offers to return to state the striking employees. work were conditioned on reinstatement of all strikers. A A further unconditional offer to return to work was reasonable interpretation of the offers themselves does made by a group of the strikers themselves. In this con- not imply such a condition. If Respondent believed such nection, the evidence established that following their coinw bi i he u hv qso meeting at 8=30 a.m. on July 31 at Local 102's office the Ro o n Ge s t ei n, or the s he v e tis striking employees in groups of 10 to 15 employees r o e r e d re t e st r k e r s Re- walked from the offices of Local 102 to Respondents' sr e g a r d or offered reisttement to selected stukers. Re- West 35th Street facility. As the first group of strikingspondent did neither. Rather Respondent without dis- employees approached the facility, they stated to Joseph cussing the offers to return to work simply refused them. Gambino who was standing in front of the facility, I therefore reject Respondent's counsel's contention that "We're coming back. We're coming back to work." Joe t h e o ff e rs to return to work were conditional. Gambino replied, "Wait a minute. ... I don't want you Finally, a further unconditional offer to return to work to come back to work. I don't want you anymore over was made on behalf of the striking employees through here." The same offer was made by Tovar on August 1, Eason's August 2 mailgram addressed to Consolidated followed by the same response from Gambino. There is Dress Carriers, Trucking Personnel, 141 West 35th no question that the employees' offers to return to work Street, which stated: "Local 20408 represents all of the were unconditional and that Joe Gambino's response was employees who you have discharged as a result of the a clear refusal to reinstate and I so conclude. work stoppage on July 27, 1978. Alternatively, each of Gambino's refusal to reinstate the strikers is further them does individually hereby unconditionally apply for evidenced by the testimony of Lucien Simon, striking reinstatement." The mailgram was sent by Matthew employee, who approached the facility on July 31 with Eason, president, Local 20408. I conclude that the failure one of the groups of strikers that followed Tovar's to respond to this offer was a further refusal to reinstate 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the striking employees following an unconditional offer reasonable notice to the discriminatee. Penco Enterprises to return to work. Inc., Penco of Ohio and Acoustical Contracting and Supply Corp., 216 NLRB 734 (1975). Rather, the Board exam- D. Permanent Replacements ines the factual circumstances of the particular case to Respondent's counsel contends that as of July 31, determine what constitutes a reasonable time. The Board 1978, there was a decline in business and no work was stated in Fredeman's Calcasieu Locks Shipyard Inc., 208 available after replacements had been hired. NLRB 839 (1974), that an offer that demands that an em- The Supreme Court has held that an employer who re- ployee accept and return to work on the day he receives fuses to reinstate economic strikers who make uncondi- it would, except in unusual circumstances, be an unrea- tional offers to return to work has the burden of proving sonable condition to which we would not require strict that the strikers have been permanently replaced. compliance by the employee; nor would we find such an N.LR.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., and N.L.R.B. v. Great offer to have terminated the backpay period. In the in- Dane Trailers, supra. stant case, the strikers made several unconditional offers Respondent's payroll records and the testimony of to return to work all of which were rejected by Re- Thomas Gambino established that as of July 27 Respond- spondent. For Respondent now to require strikers to ent had work available for all 66 striking employees. Re- return to work the morning after receipt of the mailgram spondent submitted no evidence to establish that perma- is in my opinion an unreasonable period of time. I there- nent replacements were hired. While the testimony of fore conclude that Respondent's offers of reinstatement Thomas Gambino and employees Simon and Joseph es- to the striking employees did not constitute reasonable tablish that an undetermined number of individuals were notice or allow reasonable time for the striking employee performing work formerly performed by the striking em- to consider whether to accept such offer and accordingly ployees, there is no evidence to establish the number of it finds Respondent's offers to be invalid. such individuals nor their status as "permanent replace- If it were ultimately determined that Respondent's ments." Nor did Respondent submit evidence to establish offers of reinstatement were valid, then I would con- a business decline or an elimination of jobs. I therefore elude that there is insufficient evidence to establish that reject Respondent's contention. the mailgrams containing the offers of reinstatement Accordingly, I conclude that there is insufficient evi- were received by the discriminatees. In this connection, dence to establish that Respondent had secured any per- Tovar, Joseph, and Simon all testified that they did not manent replacements or that there existed a substantial receive the mailgrams purportedly sent to them. More- business justification for denying reinstatement to the over, there is no evidence that the remaining employees striking employees between July 27 when the strike com- did receive such mailgrams. Accordingly, I would con- menced and August 2 when the last offer to return to elude that with respect to the issue of whether the offers work was made. I further conclude that in view of the of reinstatement by Respondent were communicated to unconditional offers to return to work made by and on the discriminatees, the record is incomplete and that such behalf of the striking employees Respondent violated issue should be left for the compliance stage of this pro- Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act when it refused rein- ceeding. Woodlawn Hospital, 233 NLRB 782, 791 (1977); statement following such unconditional offers. N.L.R.B. Standard Materials Inc., 237 NLRB 1136 (1978). v. Fleetwood Trailer Corp.; N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trail- er Inc.; N.L.R.B. v. Cold Storage, Carter Carburetor Corp. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. N.L.R.B., supra. 1. Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, E. Offers of Reinstatement by Respondent Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking are individually employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Respondent counsel contends that as work became Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. available offers of reinstatement to the striking employ- and A organi ees were communicated to the employees by mailgrams 2. Local 20408 and Local 102 are labor organizations ees were communicated to the employees by mailgrams. The evidence does indeed establish that 53 mailgrams of- w t m o fering reinstatement to the striking employees were sent 3. Respondent Consolidated Greenberg's, GRG by Respondent Trucking Personnel during the period of Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking constitute a September through November 1978. However, each and single employer within the meaning of the Act. every mailgram sent to a striking employee required that 4. On July 27, 1978, the employees whose names are he report to work immediately, the day following the set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from publica- day the mailgram was sent. An example of such mail- tion] ceased work and concertedly engaged in an eco- gram is the mailgram sent to Ernest Joseph on October nomic strike which strike continued until on or about 6 18 which states, "Report to work at 141 West 35th p.m. on July 28, 1978. Street, New York City on Thursday, October 19th at 5. On July 28 and 31, and August 2, 1978, uncondition- 8:00 a.m." The Board has held that an offer of reinstate- al offers to return to work were made by and on behalf ment by an employer to an employee must allow a rea- of all employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted sonable amount of time to consider whether to accept from publication]. such offer. Murray Products Inc., 228 NLRB 268 (1977); 6. Respondent, by failing and refusing to reinstate the Harrah's Club, 158 NLRB 758, 759, fn. 1 (1966). There is employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from no per se rule as to the period of time that will constitute publication] to the positions held by them prior to the 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the striking employees following an unconditional offer reasonable notice to the discriminatee. Penco Enterprises, to return to work. Inc., Penco of Ohio and Acoustical Contracting and Supply Corp., 216 NLRB 734 (1975). Rather, the Board exam- D. Permanent Replacements ines the factual circumstances of the particular case to Respondent's counsel contends that as of July 31, determine what constitutes a reasonable time. The Board 1978, there was a decline in business and no work was tated in Fredeman's Calcasieu Locks Shipyard, Inc., 208 available after replacements had been hired. NLRB 839 (1974), that an offer that demands that an em- The Supreme Court has held that an employer who re- ployee accept and return to work on the day he receives fuses to reinstate economic strikers who make uncondi- it would, except in unusual circumstances, be an unrea- tional offers to return to work has the burden of proving sonable condition to which we would not require strict that the strikers have been permanently replaced. compliance by the employee; nor would we find such an N.LR.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., and N.L.R.B. v. Great offer to have terminated the backpay period. In the in- Dane Trailers, supra. stan t case, the strikers made several unconditional offers Respondent's payroll records and the testimony of to return to work all of which were rejected by Re- Thomas Gambino established that as of July 27 Respond- spondent. For Respondent now to require strikers to ent had work available for all 66 striking employees. Re- return to work the morning after receipt of the mailgram spondent submitted no evidence to establish that perma- is in my opinion an unreasonable period of time. I there- nent replacements were hired. While the testimony of fore conclude that Respondent's offers of reinstatement Thomas Gambino and employees Simon and Joseph es- to the striking employees did not constitute reasonable tablish that an undetermined number of individuals were notice or allow reasonable time for the striking employee performing work formerly performed by the striking em- to consider whether to accept such offer and accordingly ployees, there is no evidence to establish the number of it finds Respondent's offers to be invalid. such individuals nor their status as "permanent replace- If it were ultimately determined that Respondent's ments." Nor did Respondent submit evidence to establish offers of reinstatement were valid, then I would con- a business decline or an elimination of jobs. I therefore elude that there is insufficient evidence to establish that reject Respondent's contention. the mailgrams containing the offers of reinstatement Accordingly, I conclude that there is insufficient evi- were received by the discriminatees. In this connection, dence to establish that Respondent had secured any per- Tovar, Joseph, and Simon all testified that they did not manent replacements or that there existed a substantial receive the mailgrams purportedly sent to them. More- business justification for denying reinstatement to the over, there is no evidence that the remaining employees striking employees between July 27 when the strike com- did receive such mailgrams. Accordingly, I would con- menced and August 2 when the last offer to return to elude that with respect to the issue of whether the offers work was made. I further conclude that in view of the of reinstatement by Respondent were communicated to unconditional offers to return to work made by and on the discriminatees, the record is incomplete and that such behalf of the striking employees Respondent violated issue should be left for the compliance stage of this pro- Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act when it refused rein- ceeding. Woodlawn Hospital, 233 NLRB 782, 791 (1977); statement following such unconditional offers. N.L.R.B. Standard Materials Inc., 237 NLRB 1136 (1978). v. Fleetwood Trailer Corp.; N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trail- er Inc.; N.L.R.B. v. Cold Storage, Carter Carburetor Corp.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. N.L.R.B., supra. 1. Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, E. Offers of Reinstatement by Respondent Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking are individually Respondent cemployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Respondent counsel contends that as work became section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. available offers of reinstatement to the striking employ- St 22 6 an 7 o t Act. ees ere ommuicatd totheemplyeesby milgrms. 2. Local 20408 and Local 102 are labor organizations ees were communicated to the employees by mailgrams. ^ The evidence does indeed establish that 53 mailgrams of- w t m of Sci 2 o t . fering reinstatement to the striking employees were sent 3.Rpondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG. by Respondent Trucking Personnel during the period of Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking constitute a September through November 1978. However, each and single employer within the meaning of the Act. every mailgram sent to a striking employee required that 4. On July 27, 19 78 , the employees whose names are he report to work immediately, the day following the set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from publica- day the mailgram was sent. An example of such mail- tion] ceased work and concertedly engaged in an eco- gram is the mailgram sent to Ernest Joseph on October "omic strike which strike continued until on or about 6 18 which states, "Report to work at 141 West 35th p-m1 on July 28, 1978. Street, New York City on Thursday, October 19th at 5. On July 28 and 31, and August 2, 1978, uncondition- 8:00 a.m." The Board has held that an offer of reinstate- al offers to return to work were made by and on behalf ment by an employer to an employee must allow a rea- of all employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted sonable amount of time to consider whether to accept from publication). such offer. Murray Products Inc., 228 NLRB 268 (1977); 6. Respondent, by failing and refusing to reinstate the Harrah's Club, 158 NLRB 758, 759, fn. 1 (1966). There is employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from no per se rule as to the period of time that will constitute publication] to the positions held by them prior to the 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the striking employees following an unconditional offer reasonable notice to the discriminatee. Penco Enterprises, to return to work. Inc., Penco of Ohio and Acoustical Contracting and Supply Corp., 216 NLRB 734 (1975). Rather, the Board exam- D. Permanent Replacements ines the factual circumstances of the particular case to Respondent's counsel contends that as of July 31, determine what constitutes a reasonable time. The Board 1978, there was a decline in business and no work was tated in Fredeman's Calcasieu Locks Shipyard, Inc., 208 available after replacements had been hired. NLRB 839 (1974), that an offer that demands that an em- The Supreme Court has held that an employer who re- ployee accept and return to work on the day he receives fuses to reinstate economic strikers who make uncondi- it would, except in unusual circumstances, be an unrea- tional offers to return to work has the burden of proving sonable condition to which we would not require strict that the strikers have been permanently replaced. compliance by the employee; nor would we find such an N.LR.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., and N.L.R.B. v. Great offer to have terminated the backpay period. In the in- Dane Trailers, supra. stan t case, the strikers made several unconditional offers Respondent's payroll records and the testimony of to return to work all of which were rejected by Re- Thomas Gambino established that as of July 27 Respond- spondent. For Respondent now to require strikers to ent had work available for all 66 striking employees. Re- return to work the morning after receipt of the mailgram spondent submitted no evidence to establish that perma- is in my opinion an unreasonable period of time. I there- nent replacements were hired. While the testimony of fore conclude that Respondent's offers of reinstatement Thomas Gambino and employees Simon and Joseph es- to the striking employees did not constitute reasonable tablish that an undetermined number of individuals were notice or allow reasonable time for the striking employee performing work formerly performed by the striking em- to consider whether to accept such offer and accordingly ployees, there is no evidence to establish the number of it finds Respondent's offers to be invalid. such individuals nor their status as "permanent replace- If it were ultimately determined that Respondent's ments." Nor did Respondent submit evidence to establish offers of reinstatement were valid, then I would con- a business decline or an elimination of jobs. I therefore elude that there is insufficient evidence to establish that reject Respondent's contention. the mailgrams containing the offers of reinstatement Accordingly, I conclude that there is insufficient evi- were received by the discriminatees. In this connection, dence to establish that Respondent had secured any per- Tovar, Joseph, and Simon all testified that they did not manent replacements or that there existed a substantial receive the mailgrams purportedly sent to them. More- business justification for denying reinstatement to the over, there is no evidence that the remaining employees striking employees between July 27 when the strike com- did receive such mailgrams. Accordingly, I would con- menced and August 2 when the last offer to return to elude that with respect to the issue of whether the offers work was made. I further conclude that in view of the of reinstatement by Respondent were communicated to unconditional offers to return to work made by and on the discriminatees, the record is incomplete and that such behalf of the striking employees Respondent violated issue should be left for the compliance stage of this pro- Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act when it refused rein- ceeding. Woodlawn Hospital, 233 NLRB 782, 791 (1977); statement following such unconditional offers. N.L.R.B. Standard Materials Inc., 237 NLRB 1136 (1978). v. Fleetwood Trailer Corp.; N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trail- er Inc.; N.L.R.B. v. Cold Storage, Carter Carburetor Corp.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. N.L.R.B., supra. 1. Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, E. Offers of Reinstatement by Respondent Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking are individually Respondent cemployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Respondent counsel contends that as work became section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. available offers of reinstatement to the striking employ- St 22 6 an 7 o t Act. ees ere ommuicatd totheemplyeesby milgrms. 2. Local 20408 and Local 102 are labor organizations ees were communicated to the employees by mailgrams. ^ eto The evidence does indeed establish that 53 mailgrams of- w t m of Sci 2 o t . fering reinstatement to the striking employees were sent 3.Rpondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG. by Respondent Trucking Personnel during the period of Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking constitute a September through November 1978. However, each and single employer within the meaning of the Act. every mailgram sent to a striking employee required that 4. On July 27, 19 78 , the employees whose names are he report to work immediately, the day following the set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from publica- day the mailgram was sent. An example of such mail- tion] ceased work and concertedly engaged in an eco- gram is the mailgram sent to Ernest Joseph on October "omic strike which strike continued until on or about 6 18 which states, "Report to work at 141 West 35th p-m1 on July 28, 1978. Street, New York City on Thursday, October 19th at 5. On July 28 and 31, and August 2, 1978, uncondition- 8:00 a.m." The Board has held that an offer of reinstate- al offers to return to work were made by and on behalf ment by an employer to an employee must allow a rea- of all employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted sonable amount of time to consider whether to accept from publication). such offer. Murray Products Inc., 228 NLRB 268 (1977); 6. Respondent, by failing and refusing to reinstate the Harrah's Club, 158 NLRB 758, 759, fn. 1 (1966). There is employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from no per se rule as to the period of time that will constitute publication] to the positions held by them prior to the 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the striking employees following an unconditional offer reasonable notice to the discriminatee. Penco Enterprises, to return to work. Inc., Penco of Ohio and Acoustical Contracting and Supply Corp., 216 NLRB 734 (1975). Rather, the Board exam- D. Permanent Replacements ines the factual circumstances of the particular case to Respondent's counsel contends that as of July 31, determine what constitutes a reasonable time. The Board 1978, there was a decline in business and no work was tated in Fredeman's Calcasieu Locks Shipyard, Inc., 208 available after replacements had been hired. NLRB 839 (1974), that an offer that demands that an em- The Supreme Court has held that an employer who re- ployee accept and return to work on the day he receives fuses to reinstate economic strikers who make uncondi- it would, except in unusual circumstances, be an unrea- tional offers to return to work has the burden of proving sonable condition to which we would not require strict that the strikers have been permanently replaced. compliance by the employee; nor would we find such an N.LR.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., and N.L.R.B. v. Great offer to have terminated the backpay period. In the in- Dane Trailers, supra. stan t case, the strikers made several unconditional offers Respondent's payroll records and the testimony of to return to work all of which were rejected by Re- Thomas Gambino established that as of July 27 Respond- spondent. For Respondent now to require strikers to ent had work available for all 66 striking employees. Re- return to work the morning after receipt of the mailgram spondent submitted no evidence to establish that perma- is in my opinion an unreasonable period of time. I there- nent replacements were hired. While the testimony of fore conclude that Respondent's offers of reinstatement Thomas Gambino and employees Simon and Joseph es- to the striking employees did not constitute reasonable tablish that an undetermined number of individuals were notice or allow reasonable time for the striking employee performing work formerly performed by the striking em- to consider whether to accept such offer and accordingly ployees, there is no evidence to establish the number of it finds Respondent's offers to be invalid. such individuals nor their status as "permanent replace- If it were ultimately determined that Respondent's ments." Nor did Respondent submit evidence to establish offers of reinstatement were valid, then I would con- a business decline or an elimination of jobs. I therefore elude that there is insufficient evidence to establish that reject Respondent's contention. the mailgrams containing the offers of reinstatement Accordingly, I conclude that there is insufficient evi- were received by the discriminatees. In this connection, dence to establish that Respondent had secured any per- Tovar, Joseph, and Simon all testified that they did not manent replacements or that there existed a substantial receive the mailgrams purportedly sent to them. More- business justification for denying reinstatement to the over, there is no evidence that the remaining employees striking employees between July 27 when the strike com- did receive such mailgrams. Accordingly, I would con- menced and August 2 when the last offer to return to elude that with respect to the issue of whether the offers work was made. I further conclude that in view of the of reinstatement by Respondent were communicated to unconditional offers to return to work made by and on the discriminatees, the record is incomplete and that such behalf of the striking employees Respondent violated issue should be left for the compliance stage of this pro- Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act when it refused rein- ceeding. Woodlawn Hospital, 233 NLRB 782, 791 (1977); statement following such unconditional offers. N.L.R.B. Standard Materials Inc., 237 NLRB 1136 (1978). v. Fleetwood Trailer Corp.; N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trail- er Inc.; N.L.R.B. v. Cold Storage, Carter Carburetor Corp.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. N.L.R.B., supra. 1. Respondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG, E. Offers of Reinstatement by Respondent Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking are individually Respondent cemployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Respondent counsel contends that as work became section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. available offers of reinstatement to the striking employ- St 22 6 an 7 o t Act. ees ere ommuicatd totheemplyeesby milgrms. 2. Local 20408 and Local 102 are labor organizations ees were communicated to the employees by mailgrams. Scin25ofteA. The evidence does indeed establish that 53 mailgrams of- w t m of Sci 2 o t . fering reinstatement to the striking employees were sent 3.Rpondent Consolidated, Greenberg's, GRG. by Respondent Trucking Personnel during the period of Clothing, Dynamic, JHT, and Trucking constitute a September through November 1978. However, each and single employer within the meaning of the Act. every mailgram sent to a striking employee required that 4. On July 27, 19 78 , the employees whose names are he report to work immediately, the day following the set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from publica- day the mailgram was sent. An example of such mail- tion] ceased work and concertedly engaged in an eco- gram is the mailgram sent to Ernest Joseph on October "omic strike which strike continued until on or about 6 18 which states, "Report to work at 141 West 35th p-m1 on July 28, 1978. Street, New York City on Thursday, October 19th at 5. On July 28 and 31, and August 2, 1978, uncondition- 8:00 a.m." The Board has held that an offer of reinstate- al offers to return to work were made by and on behalf ment by an employer to an employee must allow a rea- of all employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted sonable amount of time to consider whether to accept from publication). such offer. Murray Products Inc., 228 NLRB 268 (1977); 6. Respondent, by failing and refusing to reinstate the Harrah's Club, 158 NLRB 758, 759, fn. 1 (1966). There is employees set forth below in Appendix A [omitted from no per se rule as to the period of time that will constitute publication] to the positions held by them prior to the CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 639 July 27, 1978, strike, has violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) Local 20408 and Local 102, respectively, or any other of the Act. labor organization; or interfering with, restraining, and 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com- teed them by Section 7 of the Act by failing and refusing merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of to reinstate its striking employees to their former posi- the Act. tions, or to other substantially equivalent jobs for which _~~THE REMEDY -such employees are reasonably well qualified, upon their unconditional offer to return to work; or by discriminat- Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair ing against employees in any other manner in regard to labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)() and (3) of their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease condition of employment. and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to recommended Order will require Respondent to offer self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or each and every employee whose name is set forth below assist Local 20408 and Local 102 or any other labor or- in Appendix A [omitted from publication] reinstatement ganization, to bargain collectively through representa- to their former positions of employment or, if those posi- tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions tivities for purpose of collective bargaining or other without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all privileges. In addition, Respondent shall make whole the such activities. said employees for any loss of earnings they may have su c c v t suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination or re- 2. Take the fllowing affirmative action which is nec- fusal to reinstate them, by paying to them a sum of essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: money equal to the amount they normally would have (a) Offer to the employees set forth in Appendix A earned from the date of their initial unconditional offer [omitted from publication] immediate reinstatement to to return to work on July 28, 1978, until the date Re- their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, spondent offers them reinstatement, computed in the to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to manner set forth by the Board in F W Woolworth Cor- their seniority or other rights, and make them whole for pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), together with interest there- any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of on, as computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Payroll (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the and other records in possession of Respondent are to be Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- made available to the Board or its agents to assist in such roll records, social security payment records, time cards, computation. personnel records and reports and all other records nec- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section terms of this Order. 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- (c) Post at its office located at 141 West 35th Street, mended: New York City, New York, copies of the attached ORDER" notice marked "Appendix B." s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, The Respondent, Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., after being signed by Respondent's authorized repre- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- l. Cease and desist from: I~. Cease and desist from: sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said no- (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said no- (a) Di ura g m e m p in o a s on b f tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other of Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Affili- e ae ated Trades Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Driv- mte ers & Helpers Union, Local 102, International Ladies' (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event no exceptions are filed a provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 639 July 27, 1978, strike, has violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) Local 20408 and Local 102, respectively, or any other of the Act. labor organization; or interfering with, restraining, and 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com- teed them by Section 7 of the Act by failing and refusing merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of to reinstate its striking employees to their former posi- the Act. tions, or to other substantially equivalent jobs for which THE REMEDY-such employees are reasonably well qualified, upon their unconditional offer to return to work; or by discriminat- Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair ing against employees in any other manner in regard to labor practices in violation of Section 8(aX1) and (3) of their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease condition of employment. and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to recommended Order will require Respondent to offer self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or each and every employee whose name is set forth below assist Local 20408 and Local 102 or any other labor or- in Appendix A [omitted from publication] reinstatement ganization, to bargain collectively through representa- to their former positions of employment or, if those posi- tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions tivities for purpose of collective bargaining or other without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all privileges. In addition, Respondent shall make whole the such activities. said employees for any loss of earnings they may have 2 Tk the f a a w i nec- suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination or re- 2. T a ke th e Allowing affirmative action which is nec- fusal to reinstate them, by paying to them a sum of essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: money equal to the amount they normally would have (a) O f er to the employees set forth in Appendix A earned from the date of their initial unconditional offer [omitted from publication] immediate reinstatement to to return to work on July 28, 1978, until the date Re- their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, spondent offers them reinstatement, computed in the to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to manner set forth by the Board in F. W Woolworth Com- their seniority or other rights, and make them whole for pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), together with interest there- any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of on, as computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Payroll (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the and other records in possession of Respondent are to be Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- made available to the Board or its agents to assist in such roll records, social security payment records, time cards, computation. personnel records and reports and all other records nec- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section terms of this Order. 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- (c) Post at its office located at 141 West 35th Street, m n en d ed : New York City, New York, copies of the attached ORDER" notice marked "Appendix B."23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, The Respondent, Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., after being signed by Respondent's authorized repre- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- I. Cease and desist from: sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said no- (a) Discouraging m e mbership in °or activities on behaf tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other of Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Affili- . ated Trades Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Driv- ers & Helpers Union, Local 102, International Ladies' (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2. in writ- Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ing, w ithin 20 days fro m the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 639 July 27, 1978, strike, has violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) Local 20408 and Local 102, respectively, or any other of the Act. labor organization; or interfering with, restraining, and 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com- teed them by Section 7 of the Act by failing and refusing merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of to reinstate its striking employees to their former posi- the Act. tions, or to other substantially equivalent jobs for which THE REMEDY-such employees are reasonably well qualified, upon their unconditional offer to return to work; or by discriminat- Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair ing against employees in any other manner in regard to labor practices in violation of Section 8(aX1) and (3) of their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease condition of employment. and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to recommended Order will require Respondent to offer self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or each and every employee whose name is set forth below assist Local 20408 and Local 102 or any other labor or- in Appendix A [omitted from publication] reinstatement ganization, to bargain collectively through representa- to their former positions of employment or, if those posi- tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions tivities for purpose of collective bargaining or other without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all privileges. In addition, Respondent shall make whole the such activities. said employees for any loss of earnings they may have 2 Tk the f a a w i nec- suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination or re- 2. T a ke th e blowing affirmative action which is nec- fusal to reinstate them, by paying to them a sum of essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: money equal to the amount they normally would have (a) Offer to the employees set forth in Appendix A earned from the date of their initial unconditional offer [omitted from publication] immediate reinstatement to to return to work on July 28, 1978, until the date Re- their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, spondent offers them reinstatement, computed in the to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to manner set forth by the Board in F. W Woolworth Com- their seniority or other rights, and make them whole for pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), together with interest there- any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of on, as computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Payroll (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the and other records in possession of Respondent are to be Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- made available to the Board or its agents to assist in such roll records, social security payment records, time cards, computation. personnel records and reports and all other records nec- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section terms of this Order. 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- (c) Post at its office located at 141 West 35th Street, m n en d ed : New York City, New York, copies of the attached ORDER" notice marked "Appendix B."23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, The Respondent, Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., after being signed by Respondent's authorized repre- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- I. Cease and desist from: sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said no- (a) Discouraging m e mbership in °or activities on behaf tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other of Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Affili- . ated Trades Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Driv- ers & Helpers Union, Local 102, International Ladies' (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2. in writ- Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ing, w ithin 20 days fro m the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." CONSOLIDATED DRESS CARRIERS, INC. 639 July 27, 1978, strike, has violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) Local 20408 and Local 102, respectively, or any other of the Act. labor organization; or interfering with, restraining, and 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com- teed them by Section 7 of the Act by failing and refusing merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of to reinstate its striking employees to their former posi- the Act. tions, or to other substantially equivalent jobs for which THE REMEDY-such employees are reasonably well qualified, upon their unconditional offer to return to work; or by discriminat- Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair ing against employees in any other manner in regard to labor practices in violation of Section 8(aX1) and (3) of their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease condition of employment. and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to recommended Order will require Respondent to offer self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or each and every employee whose name is set forth below assist Local 20408 and Local 102 or any other labor or- in Appendix A [omitted from publication] reinstatement ganization, to bargain collectively through representa- to their former positions of employment or, if those posi- tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions tivities for purpose of collective bargaining or other without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all privileges. In addition, Respondent shall make whole the such activities. said employees for any loss of earnings they may have 2 Tk the f a a w i nec- suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination or re- 2. T a ke th e Allowing affirmative action which is nec- fusal to reinstate them, by paying to them a sum of essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: money equal to the amount they normally would have (a) Offer to the employees set forth in Appendix A earned from the date of their initial unconditional offer [omitted from publication] immediate reinstatement to to return to work on July 28, 1978, until the date Re- their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, spondent offers them reinstatement, computed in the to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to manner set forth by the Board in F. W Woolworth Com- their seniority or other rights, and make them whole for pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), together with interest there- any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of on, as computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Payroll (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the and other records in possession of Respondent are to be Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- made available to the Board or its agents to assist in such roll records, social security payment records, time cards, computation. personnel records and reports and all other records nec- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section terms of this Order. 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- (c) Post at its office located at 141 West 35th Street, m n en d ed : New York City, New York, copies of the attached ORDER" notice marked "Appendix B."23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, The Respondent, Consolidated Dress Carriers, Inc., after being signed by Respondent's authorized repre- Greenberg's Express Inc., GRG Delivery Inc., Clothing sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt Carriers Corp., Dynamic Delivery Corp., JHT Leasing thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days Corp., and Trucking Personnel, Inc., New York, New thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- I. Cease and desist from: sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said no- (a) Discouraging m e mbership in °or activities on behaf tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other of Local 20408, United Warehouse Industrial and Affili- . ated Trades Employees Union, and Cloak & Dress Driv- ers & Helpers Union, Local 102, International Ladies' (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2. in writ- Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ing, w ithin 20 days fro m the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board."