Fox-Art Theatres, Inc.

812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fox-Art Theatres, Inc. and Philadelphia Moving Picture Machine Operators Union Local No. 307 a/w International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees of the U.S. and Canada. Cases 4-CA-14631, 4-CA-14631-2, and 4-CA- 14735. 28 February 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN On 18 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge Robert T. Wallace issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 11 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. tive-bargaining contract, by acting unilaterally in effect- ing changes in terms and conditions of employment, and by denying the Union's requests for financial data. Also, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging a member of the Union. The case was tried before me in Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, on 19 and 20 February 1985. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the wit- nesses, and after due consideration of briefs filed by the General Counsel" and Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS 1. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, with offices in Narberth, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the operation of six motion-picture theaters located in or near Philadel- phia. During a representative 1-year period, it had gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and it purchased and re- ceived goods and materials valued in excess of $5000 di- rectly from points outside Pennsylvania. It admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Charging Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Fox-Art Theatres, Inc., Narberth, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. Margaret Brogan, Esq., for the General Counsel. Howard R. Flaxman, Esq. (Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Re- spondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT T. WALLACE, Administrative Law Judge. On charges filed by the Philadelphia Moving Picture Ma- chine Operators Union Local No. 307 a/w International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees of the U.S. and Canada on 3, 10, and 23 October 1984, as amended, con- solidated complaints were issued on 16 November and 27 December 1984 wherein, as amended, it is alleged that Respondent Fox-Art Theatres, Inc. violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing to sign an agreed-upon collec- II. BACKGROUND Respondent acquired the theaters on 1 July 1983. At that time the Union was the exclusive representative of all projectionists employed there and it continued as such during all times material herein. Those circumstances are admitted by Respondent. It also admits having assumed obligations as employer under a 3-year collective-bar- gaining agreement which its predecessor (Ellis) had ne- gotiated with the Union. The agreement contained an ex- piration date of 31 December 1983 with no provision for automatic renewal. A. Negotiation Sessions-8 December through 18 April Meetings for the purpose of negotiating a new agree- ment took place on 8 December, 11 and 17 January, and 18 April. During that period (and on through 30 Septem- ber) Respondent continued to pay projectionists the hourly rate of $7.18 called for in the Ellis contract, but as of 1 January 1984 (and perhaps earlier), and without prior knowledge or consent of the Union, it stopped making the monthly payments into the Union's pension plan and its, welfare and insurance fund which were re- quired under the contract.2 At the conclusion of the third negotiation session no significant breakthrough had been achieved. The union representative, Local President Fernando Evangelista, had sought to retain all provisions in the Ellis contract, ' Accompanying the brief filed by the General Counsel is a motion to correct the transcript of trial in several respects . The requested changes, all editorial in nature, are warranted. Accordingly, the motion is granted. a The lawfulness of this action is not at issue in this proceeding, no charge having been filed with respect thereto within the 6-month limita- tion period set forth in Sec 10(b) of the Act. 278 NLRB No. 115 FOX-ART THEATRES 813 except those dealing with hourly wage rates, and in lieu of the latter he proposed increases which varies in size depending on Respondent's preference as to duration of the new contract, i.e., a 6-month term would entail a 35- cent increase, 1 year involved a 35-cent increase for the first 6 months and another 35 cents during the second, and for a 3-year contract he proposed a 40-cent increase each year. As in prior sessions, Remy Fox, Respondent's vice president, chief of operations, and sole negotiator, did not reject the proposals outright . Instead, he said he would discuss them with his brother Stephen, Respond- ent's president,3 but he reiterated a previously expressed opinion that Respondent could not afford any increases in wages in light of reduced attendance at the theaters. Alternatively, Fox proposed continuation of the status quo under the old contract for 6 months or, if the Union agreed to a reduction of guaranteed minimum hours from 4-1/2 to 3 on weekdays and from 10 to 7 on week- ends, for a full year. Neither proposal was acceptable, to the Union. The next bargaining session took place on 18 April, the 3-month delay being due to mutual inability of the parties to get together on an earlier date . Fox, Evange- lista, and Smith, an aide of the latter, were present. Both sides claim that an agreement was reached after about 3 hours of bargaining but they differ as to its terms. Fox states that he offered- to extend the Ellis contract with a 28-cent increase in rates to $7.46 per hour, either for 10 months or 1 year, retroactive to 1 January. He also claims the offer was conditioned expressly upon reduc- tion in guaranteed minimum hours as proposed earlier, as well as upon approval by his brother. On the other hand, Evangelista and Smith both testi- fied that no conditions were mentioned and that the pro- posed 10-month extension to 311 October was accepted subject to ratification by union members . Ratification was obtained on 7 May and Evangelista claims he so ad- vised Fox about a week later. Nearly 4 months passed without further communica- tion between the Union and Fox, during which period no wage increase or other benefit was paid , retroactively or otherwise.4 However, during the last week in August Evangelista found time to phone Fox and urged him to put into effect the retroactive 28-cent increase. When Fox asked for a draft of the contract , Evangelista had one prepared (G.C. Exh. 6), which reflected his version of the agreement on 18 April, and he delivered it to Fox on 6 September.5 The latter declined to sign, asking for 3 Stephen Fox did not testify and there is no evidence as to what duties he performed as president . Nor does he appear to have had any direct involvement with events described herein . Accordingly, the name 'Fox" as used subsequently in this decision refers only to Remy. 4 Evangelista explains that he did not react earlier due to "heavy scheduling of other negotiations going on " 5 Included in the document were provisions, which carried forward from the Ellis contract language, regarding the employer 's duty to make pension and health/welfare payments . At various times during the negoti- ations and also by letter dated 8 February (G C Exh. 7) union represent- atives urged Fox to remedy past failure to abide by those provisions. Also, and apparently anticipating that Fox would sign on 6 September, Evangelista added to the draft agreement a clause to the effect that all retroactive pay shall be paid on that or on the next day. time to review it "with the Board." Later, by letter dated 12 September (G.C. Exh. 3), he rejected the docu- ment. The letter reads as follows: The management of Fox Enterprises, Inc. has had the opportunity of reviewing the above propos- al which was delivered to our office on September 6, 1984. I was hopeful as I pointed out in previous meet- ings that the management of Fox Enterprises, Inc. would ultimately ratify this proposal. Unfortunately, ratification at this time is not possible. Fox Enter- prises, Inc. officially must reject your proposal. The labor agreement between Local #307 and Ellis Theatres expired on December 31, 1983. Since that time the business climate of the motion picture exhibition industry has changed drastically . Because of intense and increased competitive pressures, the theatres covered by your proposal have undergone severe deterioration. Therefore, the terms of that agreement must be drastically modified. Please contact me as soon as possible, hopefully within five (5) days, to continue our discussions and hopefully reach an agreement. For his part, Fox claims not to recall being informed of ratification by Evangelista in May . According to him, he first learned that fact in late August when Evangelista so advised him by phone and offered to bring over the new contract. Also, he states that the document as deliv- ered did not reflect his proposal on 18 April in that it did not reduce guaranteed, minimum hours and did not elimi- nate disparate hourly rates at one of the theatres. Fur- ther, he observes that his brother, who "had the ultimate decision," rejected the contract. I accept Evangelista's version and so find that there was a meeting of minds on 18 April .6 , In this respect I note that in his letter to Evangelista, dated 12 Septem- ber, Fox does not say the document lacked agreed-upon conditions. On the contrary, he states that he had hoped Respondent "would ultimately ratify this proposal" (em- phasis added), thereby conceding that the draft did in fact embody the agreement reached on 18 April. Fur- ther, I am not persuaded that Fox made approval of his brother a condition precedent to effectiveness of the agreement. In that regard, I fmd no incongruity between, on the one hand, testimony of ' both Evangelista and Smith that at negotiating sessions , which preceded 18 April Fox claimed need to consult with his brother and, on the other hand, their assertion that he made no such statement during the session on 18 April . The earlier meetings involved proposals made by the Union, where- as the proposal found to have been accepted by Evange- lista at the 18 April session was initiated by Fox. I conclude that in refusing to sign a ' written contract embodying the agreement reached on 18 April Respond- ent violated its duty to bargain in good faith.' I also find 6 Having closely observed Evangelista , I have concluded that his long delay in reacting to Fox's failure to implement the, agreement was due to nothing more than a propensity to procrastinate and be disorganized 7 H.J Heinz Co. e NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941). 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it acted in a manner prescribed by Section 8(d) of the Act and in contravention of its bargaining obligation under Section 8(a)(5) by failing to pay, retroactively to 1 January 1984, the 28-cent increase in hourly wages as well as amounts due for pension and health/welfare ben- efits, as provided in that agreement, without consent of the Union.8 B. Further Negotiations Not receiving any response to his letter request for an early meeting, Fox phoned Evangelista on 17 September and again expressed his desire to meet . Evangelista was willing, but stated that he was 'very busy, and would call back to propose a date. Not hearing from him, Fox phoned on 24 September, and this time Evangelista agreed to a meeting but not until 4 October because "I had some 'very important commitments." Fox then told him that owing to "continuing and adversive [sic] com- petition and declining business conditions" the hourly wage of all projectionists would be reduced to ' $4.50 ef- fective on 1 October, and he added that he was available to meet at any time. Evangelista again stated that his schedule did not permit a meeting earlier than 4 October and he urged postponement of any reduction. Fox de- clined and the hourly wages in fact were reduced to $4.50 on' l October. Here too I find a unilateral midterm modification without consent of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and Section 8(d). On 4 October Evangelista, accompanied by Union At- torney Rosenthal, met with Fox at the latter's office. Ac- cording to Fox, Evangelista maintained that a valid con- tract was in effect until 31 October and proposed a new contract to begin on 1 November either for a term of 18 months at $7.60 an hour ($7.18 plus 28 cents plus 14 cents) or for 3 years at status quo ($7.46) for the first year, $8.10 for the second, and $8.30 for the third. Fox rejected both proposals stating that due to "adverse eco- nomic conditions resulting from severly reduced attend- ance at the theatres and consequent loss of revenue" he could not afford any more than the $4.50 being paid to the projectionists. 'Rosenthal then asked to see documents pertinent to that claim. According to his credited and uncontradicted testimony: I said to Mr. Fox that I had no idea in what way they maintained their financial records and I [asked] . . . "what kind of records do you keep?" and . . . [he]. would not give me an answer ... So I said well you must . . . keep, for example, income records baded on receipts be it weekly, monthly or daily . . . and ... he wouldn't give ... [any information] to us. Then I also said you must have records which show how much money you're spending on bills and things of that sort, your overhead. And again I [asked] . . . how you keep . . . those, and that [re- quest] was refused. . . . He wouldn't tell us how 8 See C ' & - S Industries, 158 NLRB 454 (1966), Golconda Corp. v. NLRB, 474 F 2d 49 (6th Cir. 1973), enfg. 195 NLRB 609 (1972). they were kept and he refused to show us the records. And I also said that you must . . . maintain .. . IRS quarterly records at the very least, and that ... [request] was refused. At the trial Fox explained that he would not give any information because he viewed the Company's books and records as "private." The next session did not take place until 16 Novem- ber,9 Fox having been immobilized as a result of an injury. Again, Evangelista and Rosenthal came to Fox's office. They proposed: (1) a 3-year contract (retroactive to 1 November) with an hourly rate of $7.58 ($7.46 plus 12 cents) for the first year, $7.68 for the second, and $7.78 for the third year; (2) retention of all benefits con- tained in the Ellis contract; and (3) inclusion of a provi- sion for resolving disputes by recourse to the American Arbitration Association. In response, Fox reiterated his claim that the Company could not afford to pay any more than $4.50 an hour, and he proposed a 1-year contract at that amount retro- active to 1 January and subject to reductions in guaran- teed minimum hours as he previously proposed. At that point Rosenthal once more asked for access to financial records and, again, Fox refused to make any in- formation available. Instead, he suggested that projec- tionists could ascertain whether business was, good or bad simply by, viewing the size of the audience through portholes in the booth. To achieve a breakthrough Rosenthal inquired: "What if we reduce our demands by one dollar for each of the three years." When Fox asked whether- that was an offer, he responded "yes." Whereupon Fox said he would "go up a nickle" to $4.55 an hour. With that the union repre- sentative left.1O It is well established that failure to provide date rea- sonably required by the employees' bargaining represent- ative in fulfillment of its bargaining tasks-including access to the employer's books and records to confirm an employer's claim of poverty or economic inability to meet wage demands-is contrary to an employer's bar- gaining obligations under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act." Accordingly, by its blanket refusal 'to provide any infor- mation to the Union relevant to its claim of economic hardship resulting from declining revenues Respondent violated that obligation. Further, I fmd that Respondent had no intention of bargaining in good faith with the Union on and after I November. This is apparent from the pattern of unlawful conduct shown on this record , 12 as well as its patently 9 Between 9 and 25 October Respondent was served with the unfair labor practice charges which gave rise to this proceeding 10 The initial complaint in this proceeding was served on Respondent shortly after the negotiation session on 16 November. Although the par- ties met on several subsequent occasions, their talks were in the nature of settlement discussions and no progress was made towards a new agree. ment. I 11 NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U S 194 (1956), Curtis-Wright Corp., 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). 12 Borg-Warner Controls, 128 NLRB 1035 (1960); Coachman's Inn, 147 NLRB 278 (1964), enfd. 357 F 2d 134 (8th Cir. 1966) FOX-ART flippant response to the Union's attempt to narrow differ- ences in the key area of hourly wages. C. Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations Irwin Kamner, a long-time member of the Union, worked as a projectionist at one of the six theaters (the Crest) for 12 years prior to being fired on 16 October. He testified that Manager Winter approached him on the job sometime during the last week in September and told him that "the theatre was going non-union, would only pay $4.50 an hour, [and] if we stayed away from the Union then he'd give us $5.00." That account is substan- tially corroborated by Winter who testified that Fox, after giving him advanced warning of the wage reduc- tion, asked his assessment as to whether projectionists would stay on at the $4.50 rate. He replied that he did not know, adding that he would ask them. His testimony continues : "So I went up to Mr. Kamner. I explained the fact that, as of 1 October, the rate would be $4.50 an hour, and [I asked] `would he stay on working?' He said, `I don't know. I'll have to think about it.' I said, `Well, with your experience, I ,will try to get you, you know, later on, some extra money."' Union member Arnold Goldberg worked about 5 years as a projectionist at another of the theaters (the Bala). During the last week in September he became aware of the new $4.50 rate effective 1 October by read- ing a notice to that effect posted on the office bulletin board. Disturbed by that news and by a rumor that his relief man had been offered an additional 50 cents to stay on after 1 October, he approached Threater Manager Yarrow and inquired: "What's this I hear that you of- fered Ron $5.00 to stay on as a projectionist ?" He claims Yarrow replied : "If you stay on here you'll get $5.00 an hour too." Goldberg responded with a noncommittal "Oh" and the conversation ended. But he stayed on the job, and in late October he became disturbed once more on noting he was being paid at the hourly rate of $4.50, and again he approached Yarrow asking : "I thought we were getting $5.00 an hour if we stay on?" Then, accord- ing to Goldberg, a dialogue ensued which, in effect, was as follows: YARROW: [That was only] if the Union strikers, and you stay on, then you get $5.00 an hour. GOLDBERG : So in other words if we screw the Union and be loyal to Fox whose cutting our pay almost in half we get $5.00? YARROW: My hands are tied, I can't do anything. For his part, Yarrow testified he told "the office" that all of his projectionists had talked about leaving and that he would try to get them to stay . He recalls telling Goldberg in late September : "I'd like to keep you . . . I would try to get you another 50 cent increase . . . I can't make you any promises . . . don't hold me to it I have to talk to the bosses first." He denies that there was any mention of a strike during that conversa- tion. Although initially stating he could not recall any other conversation with Goldberg regarding wages, he later testified that he had had such a conversation, during the course of which he told Goldberg that he THEATRES 815 could not do anything for him. He did not deny any por- tion of Goldberg's account of the second conversation. He stated that there are no longer any projectionists at the theater who are members of the Union, the last member having quit in December. My analysis of the foregoing testimony boils down to this: Apprehensive of being faced with a strike as a result of the drastic reduction in wages effective on 1 October, Fox instructed Managers Winter and Yarrow to persuade as many projectionists as possible to remain on the job in the event their Union called for a strike; he authorized the managers to offer a 50-cent wage increases as an in- ducement; 113 and in conveying that message the manag- ers acted as agents of management14 within the meaning of Section- 2(2) of the Act, "5 and by virtue of their posi- tions could reasonably be perceived as such by Kamner and Goldberg.) 6 Accordingly, and in each instance, I find interference with employee rights through a promise of benefit in order to discourage support for a union ac- tivity (a strike) in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.17 D. Kamner's Discharge On Tuesday, 16 October, Kamner reported to work, arriving as usual about 15 minutes before the 7 p.m. showtime. He was met in the lobby by Theater Manager Winter who barred his way and told him that he was no longer employed there because "this is not a Union house anymore." No other reason for his termination was given. That account of Kamner is corroborated by Winter who states that he acted pursuant to instructions given. earlier that day by Fox;'8 and the latter, in turn, does not dispute Winter's testimony. Indeed he adds: "I told Winter that he was at liberty to employ other opera- tors and that he did not have to go through the Union." Winter promptly implemented those instructions by hiring his teenage son and Squires, an individual who had been ousted from the Union for nonpayment of dues. 1 s 13 This act of sanctioning direct dealing with employees on wage rates at a time when contract negotiations were going on is further evidence of Respondent's bad-faith bargaining on and after I November. 14 Longshoremen , 79 NLRB 1487, 1507 (1948) 15 I also find the managers were supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) Among other indicia of that status, they are shown to have lured employees and to have exercised considerable discretion in super- vising them and in seeing that operations went smoothly. 16 See Aircraft Plating Co, 213 NLRB 664 (1974). 17 United Oil Mfg Co., 254 NLRB 1320 ( 1981). 18 Pursuant to the instructions winter also terminated another union projectionist, Maier, about 16 October Maier opted not to participate in this proceeding; and, at the request of the General Counsel, the charges and complaint were amended to delete references to him A third member of the Union, Scott, "quit" about 30 October, and the circum- stances of her departure also are not of record 19 At the trial the General Counsel asked and was granted permission to amend the complaint to add an allegation that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by not hiring replacement projectionists through the Union However, the Ellis contract contains no provision in that regard and the evidence fails to establish any practice whereby Respondent or his prede- cessor undertook to hire only through referrals from the Union. Accord- ingly, the "hiring hall" allegation will be dismissed, 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In these circumstances Kamner 's membership in the Union is shown to have been a motivating factor in his discharge. Accordingly, it is incumbent on Respondent to establish that the firing would have occurred in any event, i.e., even apart from his involvement with the Union.20 In attempting to meet that burden Respondent claims that Fox acted out of frustration arising from a series of derelictions occurring during the Friday through Monday period immediately preceding Kamner's dis- charge. Projectionist Scott had been scheduled to work on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and Kamner had duty on Monday. 2 i However, Scott was absent on Friday evening without prior notice , and substitute operator Maier arrived 45 minutes late, with the result that Winter had to prepare the film and the show started 10 minutes late. On Saturday no operator showed up and Winter had to run the film. The Sunday matinee went fine but the evening performance was plagued with multiple film breakages (allegedly Scott's fault) and the show ran a half hour late. And on Monday evening Kamner was absent without prior notice and his substitute, Maier, ar- rived a half hour late, in consequence of which the show started 10 mimutes late. I am not persuaded that Kamner-a man who had worked at the theater for over 12 years, who testified without contradiction that he had never been late or rep- rimanded, and who was characterized as a "great opera- tor" by Manager Winter-would have been fired for a single dereliction, i.e., not calling in the name of his sub- stitute and seeing to it that the substitute arrived on time. Indeed, Fox concedes (Tr. 362) that his concern was not with any one individual but with the overall poor per- formance of union operators during the period in ques- tion; and he states (Tr. 341) that he instructed Winter to "immediately get other operators ... [without having to go] through the Union"; and, as noted above , he does not deny having told Winter "this is not a Union house anymore." In effect, therefore, Fox is affirmatively shown to have ordered Kamner's termination regardless of fault on his part and solely because he was a member of the Union-a classic violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5), and Section 8(d) of the Act in the particulars and for the reasons stated above, and that it is not shown to have violated the Act in any other respect. I further 20 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert denied 455 U S. 989 (1982). 21 Scheduling was flexible in the sense that projectionists were allowed to trade workdays with one another or to secure a substitute operator through the Union and the absentee or the Union was expected to give management advance notice of substitutions 22 1 find no ment in Respondent's contention that any inference of un- lawful motivation is dispelled by the fact that Fox did not also order dis- charge of union operators employed at other theatres As stated in Nach- man Corp v NLRB, 337 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 1964), " it is well established that a discriminatory motive, otherwise established, is not dis- proved by an employer's proof that it did not weed out all union adher- ents." Here, by "firing the Union" from one theatre Fox effectively con- veyed a chilling message to projectionists at others find that those unfair labor practices and each of them have affected, are affecting, and unless permanently re- strained and enjoined, will continue to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices, I fmd it necessary to order it to cease and desist therefrom, and from further infringing on em- ployee rights in any like or related manner, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. Such affirmative action will include (1) signing and abiding by the collective-bagaining agree- ment reached on 18 April 1984 until such time as it is superseded by another agreement reached after good- faith bargaining with the Union as exclusive representa- tive of an employee unit consisting of All stage employees and moving projector opera- tors employed, by Respondent at its theatres in Phi- lidelphia, PA and vicinity, or until modified or terminated in compliance with the provision of Section 8(d) of the Act; (2) indemnifying unit employees for any loss of wages and benefits they may have incurred as a result of Respondent's unlawful unilateral failure to observe terms an conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement reached on 18 April 1984; (3) making available to the employees' bargaining representative, on request, books and records reasonably necessary to permit them to conduct informed bargaining and to verify Respondent's claim of economic inability to meet wage and benefit demands; and (4) making Irwin Kamner whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits he may have suffered as a result of the discimination practiced against him. Sums due employees, or to the Union on their behalf, shall be computed, with interest, in accordance with the principles set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950); and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed23 ORDER The Respondent, Fox-Art Theatres, Inc., Narberth, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to sign a collective -bargaining agreement reached on 18 April 1984 between it and the Union as exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the above-described bargaining unit. (b) Unilaterally reducing unit employees' wages or otherwise changing or eliminating their benefits includ- 23 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses FOX-ART THEATRES 817 ing contributions payable, on their behalf into the Union's pension plan and its welfare and insurance fund, due under the collective-bargaining agreement reached on 18 April 1984. . (c) Failing to bargain in good faith concerning a suc- cessor agreement to that reached on 18 April 1984 by, among other things, refusing to provide economic infor- mation and access to its books and records to an extent necessary to permit the Union adequately to fulfill its bargaining tasks. (d) Discharging or otherwise unlawfully discriminating against unit employees because of their membership in the Union. (e) Offering monetary or other benefits as an induce- ment to keep unit employees from striking. (0 In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Sign and abide by all terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement reached on 18 April 1984 until such time as it is superseded by another agree- ment reached after good-faith bargaining with the Union or until it is modified or terminated in compliance with the provisions of Section 8(d) of the Act. (b) Promptly make available to the Union information and access to books and records needed to permit it to evaluate, as an incident to its bargaining tasks, any claim of economic inability to meet wage and benefit demands. (c) Make whole unit employees for any loss of wages and benefits they have incurred, and the Union for any amounts due on their behalf, by reason of Respondent's unlawful unilateral failure to observe terms and condi- tions of the collective-bargaining agreement reached on 18 April 1984, in the manner set forth in the Remedy portion of this decision. (d) Offer Irwin Kamner immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay and other benefits he may have suffered by reason of his unlawful discharge in the manner set forth in the remedy portion of this decision. (e) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify the emplo yeee in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way. (f) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (g) Post at each of the six theaters involved herein copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."24 24 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. - (h) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe- cifically found. the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX . NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to sign the collective-bargaining agreement which we reached on 18 April 1984 with the exclusive representative of our projectionists, the Phila- delphia Moving Picture Machine Operators Union Local No. 307 a/w International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees of the U.S. and Canada. WE WILL NOT reduce or change your wages or bene- fits under that agreement without consent of the Union. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you because of your membership in or activities on behalf of the Union. WE WILL NOT offer monetary or other benefits to keep you from striking. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, at once make you whole for any loss of wages and'benefits you have incurred, and the Union for any amounts due on your behalf by reason of our failure to observe the terms and conditions of the collective-bar- gaining agreement reached on 18 April 1984. WE WILL offer Irwin Kamner immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent postion without preju- dice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make him whole, with interest, for any loss of pay and benefits he may have suffered as a result of his unlawful discharge. WE WILL promptly make available to the Union infor- mation and access to our books and records in order to enable it to evaluate and respond to any claim or eco- nomic inability to meet wage and benefit demands. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL promptly sign and abide by all terms and nated in accordance with provisions of Section 8(d) of conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement the Act. reached on 18 April 1984 until such time as it is super- seded by another agreement reached after good-faith bar- Fox-ART THEATRES, INC. gaining with your Union or until it is modified or termi-