Volk & Huxley, And Vulcan Typography Co.

VOLK & HUXLEY Amateyus, Ltd., d/b/a Volk & Huxley, and Vulcan Typography Co.' and New York Typographical Union No. 6. Cases 2-CA-18630 and 2-CA- 18649 30 May 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN On 27 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief and a brief in support of the decision. 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,2 and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 219 "(d) Offer Ed Appel, Jack Bober, Charles Buch- holtz, Bob Clare, Gene Croce, Charles Cusack, Douglas Daigneult, Richard Hannon, Irwin Harris, John Herr, George Hodges, Paul Hulburt, Harold Krakora, Robert Mariani, James McLellan, Antho- ny Melodia, Mike Romano, Peter Reithinger, Fred Serricchio, Robert Siciliano, Ken Silvey, Charles Strazza, Ken Willison, and Charles Zanelotti imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exists, to substantially equiv- alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed and make them whole for any loss of earn- ings suffered as a result of their discharges." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondents, Amateyus, Ltd., d/b/a Volk & Huxley, and Vulcan Typography Co., New York, New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi- fied. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d). i As set forth in the 11 May 1982 order consolidating cases and con- solidated complaint, the Respondents were styled as "Volk and Huxley, Inc.; and Vulcan Typography Co" Subsequently, the 2 December 1982 amended consolidated complaint styled the Respondents as "Amateyus, Ltd. d/b/a Volk & Huxley, and Vulcan Typography Co." 2 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge 's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive 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 Cu. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- versing the findings. We further find no meet in the Respondents' con- tentions that the judge's conduct of, and demeanor at, the hearing mani- fested bias. Having carefully and fully considered the record and the judge's decision, we find no evidence that he prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated a bias against the Respondents in his analysis or discussion of the evidence . We also find no basis for the Re- spondents' contention that he demonstrated disrespect for the Federal courts. We also note that the Respondents conceded at the hearing that Ama- teyus was the successor to Volk and Huxley and that there were no ex- ceptions to this finding. The judge stated that Mark Cory decided in January 1981 to go into business. The correct year is 1982. We are modifying the recommended Order to omit employee Milton Tessenholtz from those employees found to be discriminatees. Although the complaint included Tessenholtz as an alleged discrumnatee, the record establishes that Tessenholtz' employment terminated in mid- 1981-long before the March 1982 terminations here. The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with New York Typographical Union No. 6, as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of the employees in the following described unit: All composing room employees in book and job offices covered by the collective-bargain- ing agreement between Printers League Sec- tion of Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., and the Union to which Re- spondent's predecessor, Volk & Huxley was a party. The unit is more fully described in Part I, Section 4 of said contract. WE WILL NOT refuse to honor and abide by the contract between our predecessor, Volk & Huxley, and the Union for the period beginning 1 March 1982. WE WILL NOT attempt unilaterally to destroy the collective-bargaining unit of employees by termi- nating their employment without notice to the Union. WE WILL NOT unilaterally reduce the contract wages or other benefits of employees during the term of the contract with the Union, without notice to or consent of the Union. WE WILL NOT subcontract unit work without notice to the Union. 280 NLRB No. 21 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or otherwise discriminate against any employees because of those employees' membership, sympathies, or ac- tivities on behalf of the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with plant closure and loss of jobs, and condition further em- ployment on abandonment of their membership and support for the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, on request, bargain with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described above with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL honor and give retroactive effect from 1 March 1982 to the terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining contract with the Union, in- cluding payment of wages and benefits as pre- scribed. WE WILL restore the status quo ante with re- spect to changed wage rates and other unilateral changes made subsequent to the withdrawal of rec- ognition after 1 March 1982. WE WILL offer Ed Appel, Jack Bober, Charles Buchholtz, Bob Clare, Gene Croce, Charles Cusack, Douglas Daigneult, Richard Hannon, Irwin Harris, John Herr, George Hodges, Paul Hulburt, Harold Krakora, Robert Mariani, James McLellan, Anthony Melodia, Mike Romano, Peter Reithinger, Fred Serricchio, Robert Siciliano, Ken Silvey, Charles Strazza, Ken Willison, and Charles Zanelotti immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist , to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges pre- viously enjoyed and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. AMATEYUS, LTD., D/B/A VOLK & HUXLEY AND VULCAN TYPOGRAPHY Co. Leonard Grumback Esq., for the General Counsel. Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. (Milgrim, Thomajan, Jacobs & Lee), of New York, New York, for the Respondent. John J. Sheehan, Esq., of New York, New York, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge. This pro- ceeding was tried at New York, New York, during vari- ous dates in November 1982 and January and February 1983. Upon charges and amended charges filed by New York Typographical Union No. 6 (the Union), in March 1982, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued an order consolidating cases and a consolidated complaint on 11 May 1982. Subsequently, the hearing was opened and a motion to amend the complaint was granted . The Re- gional Director then issued an amended consolidated complaint dated 2 December 1982, alleging that Ama- teyus, Ltd., d/b/a Volk & Huxley, and Vulcan Typogra- phy Co. (Amateyus and Vulcan or Respondents) violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Respondents filed an answer denying the commission of unfair labor prac- tices. The amended consolidated complaint raises issues whether Amateyus and Vulcan are alter egos; whether Respondents violated Section 8(aX1) of the Act by urging employees to abandon the Union; whether Re- spondents additionally violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by laying off employees; whether Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by repudiating their obli- gations to recognize and bargain with the Union, and ad- ditionally by subcontracting unit work without notice to the Union; and whether Amateyus violated Section 8(a)(5) by terminating its operations without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning the af- fects of such termination. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General Counsel and Respondent submitted briefs which have been carefully considered. On the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent Amateyus, Ltd., d/b/a Volk & Huxley, at all times material, was a New York corporation with a principal office and place of business at 228 East 45th Street, New York, New York. ' Amateyus was engaged in printing and typesetting business at that location, and it is conceded that Amateyus derived gross revenues ex- ceeding $50,000. More than that amount was received both on the basis of direct outflow to States other than the State of New York, and also indirectly by shipments to other companies who in turn were engaged in inter- state commerce. Respondent Vulcan, a New York corporation with a principal office and place of business at 216 East 45th Street, New York, New York, is also engaged in the business of printing and typesetting. It is also conceded by Respondents that Vulcan similarly derives revenues in excess of $50,000 as a result of direct providing of serv- ices to companies in States other than the State of New York and on a indirect basis, by providing services to companies who themselves are engaged in interstate commerce. 1 There is indication in the record that a certificate of incorporation was never filed for Amateyus . However, for the purposes involved herein, it will suffice that it is or was a de facto corporation VOLK & HUXLEY Accordingly I find, and as admitted by Respondents at the hearing, that both Amateyus and Vulcan were or are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Although not urged in its brief, Respondent argued at the hearing that the process was defective insofar as Vulcan was concerned as that corporation had not been served with a copy of the charges in this proceeding. However, Vulcan was added as a co-Respondent in the amended consolidated complaint which was received on motion at the hearing. In addition to being named, there is no question that Vulcan was served with a copy of the amended consolidated complaint and, moreover, had ample notice and time within which to prepare for the hearing. It has been held, particularly in situations such as are present in this case, when contentions are urged of alter ego status of two corporate entities or joint employ- ers, that failure to serve the original charge on one of the corporations is not fatal. Penntech Papers, 263 NLRB 284 (1982); Key Coal Co., 240 NLRB 1013 (1979). It is noted in the instant case the General Counsel has alleged that Amateyus and Vulcan are alter egos. It is sufficient that Vulcan had notice of this allegation via the amended consolidated complaint, and therefore had ample notice within which to defend that issue. The status of these corporations and the issue of alter ego will be more fully discussed, infra, in proper chronological order. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts Despite the length of the hearing, the salient facts are relatively brief and in a substantial portion are basically uncontroverted. John Corigliano (also John Cory) was the president and sole stockholder of Amateyus. In mid- 1981 Amateyus purchased all of the assets, including equipment, of Volk & Huxley, Inc., a division of Imperi- al Ad Service Corp., which had been engaged in adver- tising typography work. This company was owned and operated by a Mr. Frank Miller, who, as part of the sale held a lien against the equipment he sold to Amateyus, as well as the stock of Amateyus which he agreed to hold in escrow until payment of the balance of the agreed purchase price. In addition to the physical assets, Cory, as part of the deal, was given the right to use the name of Volk & Huxley, which presumably was a name well known in the industry and considered a valuable asset. It is undisputed that Amateyus took over and operated the business in the same location as Volk & Huxley, in- cluding servicing of many of the same customers and, indeed, the two salesmen employed by Miller, Trager, and Hoffman, whom Cory designated as his executive vice presidents. Respondents conceded and I find that Amateyus was a successor employer to Volk & Huxley. Volk & Huxley had been for a number of years a member of the Printers League Section, of the Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., and was therefore bound to the collective-bargaining agreement 221 between the League and the Union which ran from Oc- tober 1975 through October 1985.2 As noted, Cory hired as executive vice president, Trager and Hoffman, who also occupied those portions as well as being sales representatives for Miller. The two actually were sales partners and brought with them the customers who had given their work to Volk & Huxley, and loyally followed the sales representatives to Ama- teyus. In addition to these two officials, Cory hired a plant manager, Joe DeVita, and a family friend, Blake Ember as an administrative assistant, Kaika Clubwala, controller, and, finally, Marie Manley an aunt of the Corys,' as a bookkeeper. Not only were the composing room employees retained by Amateyus, but it also ap- plied the basic terms and conditions of employment as set forth in the union contract. Wages, hours, holidays, layoff procedures were all maintained in accordance with the collective-bargaining agreement. Moreover, union dues were checked off by Amateyus as were em- ployee deductions for a vacation fund and these sums were sent to the Union. The record further reveals that Amateyus made contributions to the annuity fund main- tained by the Union under the contract. Besides the annuity fund, employers under the collec- tive-bargaining agreement were required to make contri- butions to the benefit and productivity fund, the pension fund, and welfare fund. In October 1981, Murray Itkowitz, the Union's business agent, met several times with Cory in order to discuss the delinquency of Ama- teyus regarding payments to these latter three union funds. According to Itkowitz, Cory finally agreed to pay $9000 a week to clear up the arrears and also attempt to keep current with the funds. Cory actually delivered two checks to Itkowitz, one dated 30 October 1981 in the sum of $5000 and the other dated 10 November 1981 in the amount of $5100, both payable to the benefit and productivity fund. In his testimony concerning these meetings, Cory stated that he had not agreed nor did he pay any employer contributions to union funds, but rather only agreed to remit deductions from employees' pay. He claims that the two checks referred to were drawn payable to the benefit and productivity fund on instructions from Itkowitz. I do not credit these state- ments by Cory. I find it incredible that a businessman such as Cory would pay over funds deducted from em- ployees' wages to a union benefit and productivity fund to which payments were made only on the basis of em- ployer, not employee, contributions. Moreover, the record reveals that union dues and credit union pay- ments, all of which are deducted from employees' pay, were remitted, by Cory's own testimony to the chapel chairman. During the meetings at which Amateyus' arrearages in payments to the employer funds were discussed, Cory 2 The parties and I find appropriate the following collective-bargaining unit• All composing room employees in book and job offices covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between Printers League Section, of Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc, and the Union to which Respondents ' predecessor, Volk was a party The unit is more fully described in part I, section 4 of the contract 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told Itkowitz that he was in need of relief from these fund payments and, indeed, needed changes in the con- tract. As a result, and at Cory's request, Itkowitz ar- ranged a meeting with Union President Bertram Powers. During November 1981 such meeting took place at the Union's office, and Cory continued his plea for relief from these payments. Powers replied that the Union was in the midst of negotiations with the employer associa- tion and that the subject of remedial changes with re- spect to the funds was being discussed during the bar- gaining. He asked Cory for a draft of what he personally felt was his particular needs. Cory responded to this by letter dated 30 November 1981. Thereafter in December, Itkowitz saw Cory and reported that the Union was not able to give him the changes he was looking for at the moment. He stated that Cory had to wait until the indus- try negotiations were completed and determine the out- come. Amateyus made no further payments to the em- ployer funds after the two checks totaling approximately $10,000. John Cory testified that his bookkeeper was able to pay social security and withholding taxes until approxi- mately Thanksgiving or Christmas when the money ran out. He blamed his problems on the Union, and the obli- gations imposed on him. In this connection Respondents contended that Amateyus was a union shop with union employees but denied having a union contract . Cory fur- ther stated that during the last week of January, the em- ployees began to conduct chapel meetings which actual- ly were work stoppages, and though until that time he had continued to hope he could operate profitably, he then concluded that the business was doomed. A real estate broker testified without contradiction that in December 1981 he had inquiries from Cory about leasing space, which he found at 216 East 45th Street. Alan Cohen, an officer of a real estate company which managed that building also testified that he dealt with John Cory about renting space and ultimately entered into a lease with him running from January 1, 1982, to December 31, 1991. In this document the lessee was first indicated as Volk & Huxley, which name was crossed out and changed to Amateyus Ltd. and Imperial Ad Service Corp. John Corigliano (Cory) signed the lease as president of Amateyus and Imperial. Although Cory used the Imperial name on the lease, he did not state why he did so, but also said that he was not authorized to sign a lease as president of that company. In addition Cory stated that he had given $ 11,000 as security on this lease. According to Itkowitz, employees had informed him in late December 1981 or early January 1982 that some V & H (Amateyus) employees were doing work on the fifth floor at 216 East 45th Street. Thereafter he and an- other union agent, Grottola, visited the fifth floor at that building and saw some renovation work going on. They also observed two pieces of equipment one of which was in a crate and another was a camera used in a photo de- partment of a typography business. The crate had a label on it which was addressed to Volk & Huxley at 228 East 45th Street. A trucker, Gomez, testified that on 15 February 1982 he delivered a piece of equipment from Arkin Medo, a dealer, addressed to Volk & Huxley at 216 East 45th Street. His instruction was to deliver this to a person named "John Curley," apparently a reference to Cory. Again on 26 February he delivered a typesetter to V & H at 216 East 45th. On this delivery his bill of lading had the address at 228 East 45th, but upon his arrival he spoke to Cory and was told to deliver the equipment to 216 East 45th. At the same time he picked up a cabinet at 228 and delivered it to 216 East 45th. This is con- firmed by Itkowitz who testified that on this date he was at 228 and asked Gomez who had authorized the remov- al of this equipment and Gomez replied "Mr. Cory." Itkowitz said he followed Gomez and watched him load the equipment into the freight elevator at 216. The chapel chairman, Siciliano, stated that during the week from 26 February through 1 March, Amateyus equipment, including machines and other supplies, were removed from the premises at 228 East 45th Street. His testimony was based on a record he kept of items being moved out. There was some slight disparity in the evi- dence concerning the removal of equipment. For exam- ple, Miller stated he had information that equipment was being removed, and in March 1982 he visited the 228 premises with an auctioneer, Miller, as previously noted, sold the premises and equipment to Cory and Amateyus, and had retained a lien on the equipment as security for the unpaid portion of the purchase price. After checking his list with the auctioneer, Miller claimed that certain items were not present, and thereafter he observed the equipment in question at the 216 premises. An auction was conducted in April of whatever equipment was left by Amateyus at 228. In any case a dispute between Miller and Respondents concerning ownership of par- ticular pieces of equipment need not be determined here, as it is sufficient for the purposes of this proceeding, and I find, there is no question that a certain amount of fix- tures, equipment, and supplies had been removed from the 228 premises to the new location at 216. The operation of Amateyus at 228 was gradually phased out and, on 26 February, a notice was posted dis- continuing the lobster shift and, on 4 March, another notice that all employees would be laid off on 8 March except for two individuals. Then finally, a notice was also posted that these two would be laid off 15 March. Incidentally, the layoff notices were posted in accord- ance with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement about time and notice required. Testimony was also received to the effect that various management people together with former employees of Amateyus re- moved more supplies during the last week at 228. Ac- cording to John Cory he had gradually phased out his own association prior to the removal and claimed he had nothing to do with these activities. However, the truck- er, Gomez, testified that on 26 February, he delivered a machine to 228 and was directed by Cory to take it to 216. In addition, a plumber, Istrico, stated that about 2 weeks after 25 February he discussed his bill with Cory at 216. Moreover employees Daigneault and Hodges tes- tified that at the end of February they were instructed to give telephone callers for Cory, Trager, or Hoffman the numbers at 216. VOLK & HUXLEY According to uncontradicted testimony of witness David Weinstein, president of a company known as Graphic Word, Amateyus had subcontracted certain work, usually "headline" work, but then, his company obtained new equipment in January 1982 enabling it to do text work. As a result in February 1982 Amateyus in- creased the amount of work it subcontracted to Graphic. Thus, for the period 26 February through 15 March 1982, the dollar amount of work subcontracted was $7032, representing a great increase over prior periods. There was no dispute that Amateyus had not notified the Union of this subcontracting of unit work. While the events described above were transpiring, Vulcan Typography Co. came into existence. The details of its birth have been derived basically from the testimo- ny of Mark Corigliano (Cory), the brother of John. Mark was 20 years old at the time he testified in this proceed- ing. He had graduated from high school in April 1981 and from September 1981 through April 1982 he was a full-time student at college . He lived at home with his parents who paid part of his tuition . He resumed college in September 1982 as a part-time student taking two courses three mornings a week. He had begun work at Amateyus with his brother John in the summer of 1981. The amount of time he was able to devote varied so that in some weeks he worked only 5 hours, but on some other days 5 hours . In the fall of 1981 he was a full-time student and therefore averaged only 8 to 10 hours a week at Amateyus. He was paid $5 an hour either by cash or check and does not recall whether he was on the payroll or whether the usual payroll taxes were deduct- ed. Mark further testified that he decided to form his own company in the latter part of January 1981 , stating that at that time he did not know that Amateyus was going out of business. Around the same time he also had dinner with his brother who informed him that he did not be- lieve it feasible for him, John, to continue in business. In his testimony, Mark at this point changed his story by stating that this assertion by John gave him the idea of going into business, and not as he had previously main- tained that he had decided to go into business before having dinner with John. Mark then engaged a lawyer recommended by John. The attorney prepared a certificate of incorporation for Vulcan, a name selected by Mark, but oddly the certifi- cate of incorporation had the name of the incorporator as "John Corigliano ." It appears that the name "John" was crossed out and "Mark" substituted . Mark then met with John again and told him he needed space . John re- plied that he had just signed a lease which was a bargain and he would give it to Mark at cost . John typed up a paper to the effect that Mark would take over the lease and sign it . There is no evidence that Mark reimbursed John for the $ 10,000 deposit he had paid to the landlord. John also introduced him to John Sartori who had been the night foreman at Amateyus and then became Mark's general manager. After coming to terms with Sartori he gave him permission to hire additional people for the shop. He also left it to Sartori to determine the number and type of employees to be hired because he did not know how many would be necessary. Indeed 223 Sartori had begun as early as 19 January 1982 to recruit employees as several of them testified without contradic- tion. Thus Robert Mariani stated that he received a tele- phone call on that date from Sartori who told him that things were pretty bad and the bosses were closing down the shop and opening up a nonunion shop next door. When Mariani asked what he could do about it, Sartori replied that he could "either go with them or you're going to go down. Your [sic] better off going with them, because the Union can't get you any work." Similarly Sartori met an employee named Douglas Daigneault, a serviceman, at a restaurant one day after work . He told Daigneault that a new shop was going to be opened and they would like him to go along and that it was going to be nonunion. Sartori also said that this was to be a big operation and he gave him some literature relating to wage rates and other conditions with respect to a hypo- thetical company. A couple of days later Daigneault in- formed DeVito, who had previously told him he was going over to the new company, that he was not going to join the new place. Additionally George Hodges, also a serviceman , stated that he received a telephone call at home from Sartori on 9 February 1982 and was asked what he was going to do when the new operation came into affect. Hodges told Sartori that he would not go nonunion . Another em- ployee, Kenneth Willison, testified that Sartori spoke to him in the shop on 25 February and informed him the company was going to open a nonunion shop next door and asked if he wanted to go. Willison at that time said he was not sure, and on the following day Satori gave him some literature to read concerning pay and benefits. Sartori actually told him to report on 1 March to the next building. On 27 February Willison and three other employees met with Sartori and discussed the arrange- ments for the removal of some equipment . Willison actu- ally went to work at the new premises but quit after 4 days. Regarding the Vulcan operation, Mark Cory testified that he was the sole stockholder, director, and officer of that entity and it commenced business on 1 March 1982. By that time Amateyus had laid off most of its employ- ees and was gradually phased out within the next week or two. Mark stated that he started with capital of ap- proximately $70,000, of which $60,000 was given him by his parents, and $10,000 advanced to him by a friend who had been promised to be repaid with interest. Mark also said that he paid rent to the agent of the building, Berley & Co. He claimed there was some paper prepared by John assigning the lease to him but he lost it. Mark did not recall that the paper said anything about pay- ment of the security to John who had deposited it. Moreover Mark reported that he does not receive any salary from Vulcan but takes his money in the form of dividends, except there had not been any. He stated he had no living expenses because he lived at home, ate there, and was supported by his parents. On the other hand, train fares and dining expenses came out of Vulcan which also provided him with credit cards . Vulcan was unable to furnish payroll records for any period preced- ing 13 April. According to Mark , "it was a little hectic 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the first few weeks." At another stage of his testimo- ny, Mark averred that Automatic Data Processing Com- pany had prepared the payroll from the beginning of the second week. Besides Mark, the management people of Vulcan were those who transferred from Amateyus and performed the same functions at Vulcan. They were Sartori as already noted, DeVita, Clubwala, and Marie Manley (the aunt of the Corys'). Perhaps most important were Trager and Hoffman, the salesmen partners, who had been also offi- cials of Amateyus and who brought with them their list of customers. The role of John Cory is not quite as clear. Mark testified that John was working about 50 hours during the first week of Vulcan's operation. He states that John's workweek tapered off to about 35 hours thereafter and then after 6 weeks it was practically noth- ing. Mark further stated that thereafter John would stop in occasionally and use the phones and do some of his own work out of the Vulcan office. John would also oc- casionally fill in and help on the computer, or sit with him and offer him help or advice. Mark told the employ- ees to listen to John and follow his instructions as if they came from him. However, payroll records indicate a slightly different tenure. These records were furnished for the period commencing with the payroll ending 13 April, Mark having testified that he did not know where the payroll records are for the period preceding that week. The payroll records indicate that John was on the payroll for 10 weeks beginning the week ending 13 April 1982 and ending 13 June 1982. The records further show that for these weeks checks payable to John Cory were issued, each in the sum of $1000, from which a payroll tax deduction of $67 was made. In his testimony John Cory said that he was not paid for services to Vulcan except for some expenses for small items. The checks themselves, either canceled or otherwise, were not pro- duced. However, cash disbursement sheets of Vulcan in- dicate that at least two of them were returned or marked void which had been made to John Corigliano Jr. Two others in the same amount, that is $1000 less $67 for se- curity taxes, were made out and apparently cashed or de- posited by John Corigliano Sr. There were two other en- tries on the same disbursement sheet, other than payroll checks, which involved two checks made payable to an Aratusa Ltd., in the sum of $3500 and $7500, respective- ly. This company was a John Corigliano Jr. enterprise against which the State of New Jersey had a judgment (also against John personally), in the amount of $51,250. Although another witness, Jerry Corigliano, a cousin of Mark and John, and employed by Vulcan as a part-time bookkeeper, testified that the checks drawn to John Cor- igliano Sr. were in payment of a loan made by him. I do not credit this testimony. Checks drawn in payment of a loan do not ordinarily contain deductions for social secu- rity taxes. The employees who commenced the operation at Vulcan were those recruited by Sartori. Indeed Mark testified that he permitted Sartori to make all the ar- rangements including fixing of job asignments, pay rates, and hours. He did present Sartori with a system of per- sonal rules and policies which were contained in the papers given by Sartori to the employees whom he solic- ited. This of course changed the conditions and rates which existed at Amateyus. Thus the employees were on a 40-hour week, the wages were less, and the employees were placed in a single classification rather than specialty classes. It appears from the record that the equipment used at Vulcan was a mixed bag. Some equipment having be- longed to Amateyus was moved over directly to Vulcan. Other equipment of Amateyus on which Miller had a lien had been auctioned off by him in part payment of the money due from Amateyus as a result of the original sale. Still other pieces of equipment which John Cory and Amateyus had on lease from leasing companies ap- parently were transferred over to Vulcan on the same terms. Some new machines were ordered by Mark, ac- cording to him, and leased from one of the equipment leasing companies after introductions he claims to have received from John. The value of this leased equipment and the money due on them was undoubtedly a consider- able sum. As for sales by Vulcan, Willison, the employee who transferred over and left after 4 days, testified that the customers seemed to be the same as those sold by Ama- teyus. In this regard Mark acknowledged that the ac- counts of Trager and Hoffman constituted the whole of his business. Introduced into the record was a copy of an advertisement placed in a trade journal seeking salesmen as well as typesetters. Among other things the advertise- ment noted that the business was "free of union re- straints." The ad concluded with a request that people responding should call Cory at a certain telephone number. In its answer, Respondents assert that the Charging Party (Union) has engaged in such flagrant conduct that precludes any relief being granted to it. The only testi- mony in support of this contention is in the testimony of John Cory. Basically this consists of his statements that during January 1982 and thereafter materials such as fonts were mislaid or disappeared, that manuscripts and documents were stolen or lost, that obscene phone calls were received, and the like. In addition, the Union wrote letters to customers, informing them that employees had been locked out, that the company owed money to the funds, that Cory owed taxes to New Jersey and the Fed- eral Government, and that the management of Vulcan could not produce work at the standard of Volk & Huxley, and requested that customers not do business with Vulcan. Concerning the "dirty tricks" allegations, it is noted that there is no evidence of any specific employees or agents of the Union as perpetrators of such conduct. B. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Credibility resolution Based on the record as a whole, I do not credit the testimony of the Corigliano brothers, both John and Mark. Their basic story of the formation of Vulcan by Mark is completely beyond belief. The whole scheme of a young man, barely 20 years of age, without financial resources of his own, starting up a business of some tech- VOLK & HUXLEY nical difficulty, without significant prior experience in that trade, is pure fantasy. Apart from apparent inconsist- encies in their testimony, some of which will be later pointed out, their demeanor and actions as witnesses would be sufficient to discredit them. At various times in their testimony both John and Mark were brash, arro- gant, hostile, and uncooperative. The latter manifested itself in their frequent refusal, sometimes on advice of counsel, to answer, in this civil proceeding, questions rel- evant to the business of either Amateyus or Vulcan, or in regard to relationships with other management people or, in John's case, to the Union. Their testimony was contradictory of one another in several regards. Principally, John stated that he did not work for Vulcan. On the other hand Mark testified that not only did John advise him concerning alterations to the premises at 216 as well as other matters, he also said that John actually worked a substantial number of hours at Vulcan when it began its business. By the same token John stated that he had not received any wages from Vulcan, and yet the record reveals that there were 10 paychecks made out to his order. Since Vulcan did not produce payroll records for approximately the first 6 weeks of its business, there is a strong possibility that John also received payments for this additional period, as Mark testified that John worked at the outset of Vulcan's existence. In further contradiction of John's testimony that he had nothing to do with the initial alterations to the Vulcan premises, Mark testified that he received advice from him about this, and the plumber also testified that John Cory spoke to him in connection with that aspect of the work. Prior to these events John denied that in his operation of Amateyus he made payments to the Union's annuity fund as set forth in the contract. Union records introduced into evidence indicate that such payments had been made. Incredibly he also stated that Amateyus made no payments to the Union's benefit and productivi- ty fund. However he signed two checks payable specifi- cally to those funds but testified these checks were actu- ally a transfer of deductions made from employees' pay for other reasons. If this story were true it would appear that using employees' personal deductions for payments to the Union's benefit and productivity funds would indeed be a misappropriation of those funds. As an example of John's arrogance and apparent disre- gard not only for truth but also revealing of his decep- tiveness, John admitted signing the lease at 216 as presi- dent of Imperial Ad Service Corp. (Miller's Corpora- tion), while conceding that he was not entitled to do so. Finally as to John, I find it completely unbelievable that he effectively left Amateyus about 16 February 1982, that he no longer knew what became of its bank account, accounts receivable, or any other financial ar- rangements of Amateyus, despite the fact that it appar- ently continued doing business for almost another month. Moreover, John Cory contended that he left all the books and records at Amateyus' premises and did not know what happened to them, nor did he know who paid the payroll and other expenses after that date. As to Mark, I already pointed out the inherent implau- sibility of his situation as an entrepreneur engaging in 225 this type of business operation. Specific instances of his lack of credibility are reflected by his attempts to explain the checks made payable to John. But apart from credi- bility, his testimony on that subject should not be consid- ered because of his failure to produce more than one page of the Vulcan cashbook subpoened by the General Counsel. In another vein, although Mark testified that he discussed with Sartori the hiring of people and the set- ting of terms and conditions of their employment, he denied having any knowledge that a union represented the Amateyus employees whom they were about to hire at Vulcan. This is patently incredible in view of the fact that Mark had also stated that he had worked at Ama- teyus, while attending school, when all the employees, including Sartori were members of the Union. For all of the reasons set forth above, I find as previ- ously noted that the testimony of John and Mark Cory is incredible and should not be believed when it conflicts with testimony or other evidence produced by the Gen- eral Counsel. 2. The alter ego issue A principal threshold issue is whether Amateyus and Vulcan constitute alter egos. In Crawford Door Sales Co., 226 NLRB 1144 (1976), the Board noted that it generally has found alter ego status "where the two enterprises have `substantially identical' management, business pur- pose, operation, equipment, customers, and supervision, as well as ownership." In the instant case these criteria are met on the basis of the facts set forth above. In effect, the operation of Amateyus was moved merely from one building to an adjacent building on the same street. Much of Amateyus' supplies and equipment was moved to the Vulcan location with the exception of those machines and items subject to the lien of the prede- cessor of Amateyus (Miller), and was sold by him at auc- tion. Other pieces of equipment which were leased by Amateyus were transferred to Vulcan, who continued to lease it from the same lessor. In addition, new equipment was purchased or leased by Vulcan with the assistance of John Cory. With regard to management, Sartori and DeVita, who were in charge of production at Amateyus, continued in the same function at Vulcan along with em- ployees who consented to come to the new operation on a nonunion basis. The customers were the same and actu- ally were controlled by Trager and Hoffman, the two salesmen at Amateyus who came over in the same capac- ity at Vulcan. Actually Mark Cory testified that without these two individuals, he would have no business. Basi- cally the only difference then is one of a different corpo- ration and the surface substitution of Mark Cory for John Cory as owner. It is clear on the basis of the facts recited above that this change was only cosmetic and ac- tually the only change that is readily apparent was that of the name of the company and a shuffling of ownership interest in the same family. Finally, John Cory had stated that in view of the fi- nancial obligations resulting from adherence to the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the contract with the Union, he believed that his business, Amateyus, was doomed. Immediately following this realization, he 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD set in motion the move to the next building, the only change being the formation of a new corporation with his young brother Mark as the ostensible owner. Noted also is the recruitment of Amateyus employees on condi- tion that they work on a nonunion basis . Clearly this change was only for the purposes of avoidance of the Union and the contract . I find in all the circumstances that Vulcan is the alter ego of Amateyus.3 3. The successorship issue In NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972), the Supreme Court affirmed the Board's succes- sor-employer doctrine, finding that a successor-employer, absent a reasonably based good-faith doubt of the incum- bent's union majority, is obligated to recognize the con- tinuing representative status of the bargaining agent of its predecessor's employees in an appropriate unit taken over from the predecessor. This is conceded in this case as Respondent's counsel stipulated at the hearing that Amateyus was a "Bums successor." Counsel went fur- ther and said that for all intents and purposes Amateyus operated a union shop, but that there was no contractual relationship with the Union. The General Counsel contends that in the circum- stances of this case Amateyus and its alter ego, Vulcan, not only had an obligation to recognize the Union but also to honor the existing contract which the Union had with its predecessor. In Pine Valley Division of Ethan Allen, 218 NLRB 208 (1975), enfd. in part 544 F.2d 742 (4th Cir. 1976), the court enforced a Board order finding that there had been an adoption by the successor of the contract, of its benefits and obligations. In that as in the instant case of Amateyus, there was continuity in the op- eration, which was conducted with the same job, em- ployees, and working conditions. In addition, union dues were deducted and remitted to the union through a rec- ognized chapel chairman (Steward). Moreover, Ama- teyus did make at least two substantial payments to the Union's benefit and productivity fund, though conceded- ly it was delinquent in that regard. Although it is true that John Cory at various points did complain to union officials concerning what he believed to be onerous pro- visions of the contract, particularly the welfare and pen- sion plans, he did not indicate that he would not abide by the terms of the contract. The Board has found an adoption or assumption where a successor-employer has not only applied provisions of the contract but has also consulted and negotiated with the existing union.4 Moreover, the Board found a succes- sor bound by the contract when it applied its provisions, including union dues deductions and health and welfare contributions.5 I find, therefore, by virtue of the actions of Amateyus from the time it succeeded Miller and/or Imperial Ad Service Corp., until it closed down at 228 East 45th Street, that it did indeed assume the obligations of its predecessor's contract. 6 All Kind Quilting, 266 NLRB 1186 (1983); Fugazy Continental Corp, 265 NLRB 1301 ( 1982). 4 World Evangelism, Inc, 248 NLRB 909 (1980), enfd. 656 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1981), Stockton Door Co, 218 NLRB 1053 (1975); Eklund's Sweden House Inn, 203 NLRB 413 (1973) 6 Virginia Sportswear, 226 NLRB 1296 (1976). Having found that Vulcan is the alter ego of Ama- teyus by virtue of what may be described as a sham transaction, Vulcan then continues to be "subject to all the legal and contractual obligations of the predeces- sor."e Moreover it is equally clear that Amateyus phased out its business and thereafter continued it under the name of Vulcan at the new location , after having in- duced employees of Amateyus , as well as supervisors and management some of whom were also members of the Union, to become employees at Vulcan on a non- union basis and on wages, hours, and other conditions of employment dissimilar from those embodied in the Union's contract. By this conduct, Respondents Ama- teyus and Vulcan violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. It is well settled that an employer cannot dis- continue its business, even for economic reasons, if it im- mediately begins conducting that business while evading its obligations under a union contract.? Accordingly, by laying off their employees in March 1982 because of their membership in the Union, Re- spondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Similarly by threatening the employees with loss of jobs and conditioning their employment at the Vulcan oper- ation, in March 1982, on abandonment of their member- ship in the Union, Respondents further violated these sections of the Act. Tricor Products, 239 NLRB 65 (1978); Redland Construction Co., 265 NLRB 586 (1982). 4. Other alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act It is alleged that during the period from approximately mid-February through the time of the closedown of the Amateyus operation in March 1982, Respondents unlaw- fully subcontracted unit work. David Weinstein, presi- dent of Graphic Word, testified that for a number of years he had performed work on a subcontract basis from Amateyus and its predecessor Volk & Huxley. The amount of this work was relatively small. Thus his records reveal that from 1 February until the 25th of the month, he did only $25 worth of business. However from the last week of February through 25 March, in- voices of Graphic to Amateyus totaled over $7000. It is this sudden increase in the quantity of unit work, which the General Counsel contends constituted unlawful sub- contracting without notice to the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(5). Of course this precipitous increase in the rate of sub- contracting occurred during February through mid- March when Amateyus was laying off employees in preparation for its shutdown and the commencement of operations at Vulcan. In Otis Elevator Co., 269 NLRB 891 (1984), the Board redefined its view toward subcontracting in light of the rationale explicated by the Supreme Court with regard to plant closure in First National Maintenance v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981). The Supreme Court emphasized "management's need for predictability, speed, secrecy, 6 Howard Johnson Co. Y. Hotel & Restaurant Employees, 417 U.S. 249, 259 (1974). 7 Artcraft Iron Co., 271 NLRB 829 (1984) VOLK & HUXLEY and to operate profitably." Thus the Court determined that the legality of an employer's decision to subcontract turned upon a reduction of labor costs , not change in op- eration. The Board, in Otis, stated that an employer's de- cision "to discontinue its own distribution operation and to contract out that function turned upon a fundamental change in the scope and direction of the enterprise," and would not be subject to Section 8(d) of the Act. Howev- er, the Board emphasized that this result would obtain only if "no alter ego or other sham devices were em- ployed to disguise a unilateral reduction in labor costs in an operation over which the employer maintained sur- reptitious control." This proviso covers precisely the situation in the in- stant case . Respondent did organize an alter ego , termi- nated employees because of their union membership, and commenced a new operation primarily to reduce labor costs. Accordingly I find that the substantial increase in subcontracting, in the midst of this unlawful activity, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The amended complaint alleges that Respondents vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) by implementing and enforcing new work rules for unit employees . The evidence is uncontra- dicted that Vulcan, at the new premises, instituted new wage rates and hours, changed work classifications, and implemented new work rules as embodied in the model distributed by Sartori to the employees who came over from Amateyus. By this conduct, without notice or bar- gaining with the Union, Respondents further violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. It is additionally alleged that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by the action of Amateyus in ter- minating its business without notifying and offering the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning the effects of such termination. This fording may not be necessary in view of my conclusion that Amateyus and Vulcan are alter egos and violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) by its conduct discussed above. However , in the event that such determination not be upheld, it is clear that Re- spondent Amateyus would have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by failing to give the Union an opportunity to bargain about the affects of its decision to terminate. Union Representative Itkowitz testified that the Union had not received any notice from Amateyus about the closing and, of course, no offer to bargain about the ef- fects of that decision . It is now well established that "the union must be given a significant opportunity to bargain" about the effects of an employer's decision to terminate its business. First National Maintenance Corp., 452 U.S. 666 (1980). By Respondent Amateyus' failure to do so, it further violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondents described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship, to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY 227 Having found that Respondents have engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order them to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Amateyus , as a succes- sor-employer, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, by fail- ing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate herein, and moreover having un- lawfully withdrawn recognition of the Union, I recom- mend that Respondent Amateyus, and its alter ego, Re- spondent Vulcan, be ordered to recognize and bargain in good-faith with the Union. I have additionally found that by conduct during ap- proximately June 1981 through March 1982, Respondent Amateyus adopted the collective -bargaining agreement between the Union and Volk & Huxley, which it then re- pudiated by its withdrawal of recognition , termination of its operations as Amateyus, and unlawful layoff of its employees . At the same time Respondent Vulcan com- menced its operations , as alter ego, at an adjacent build- ing. Accordingly I shall recommend that Respondents Amateyus and Vulcan make whole all employees in the unit found appropriate herein, from the dates of their ter- minations until the present, for all losses of wages and benefits that they and the Union sustained as a result of the repudiation of the contract. Moreover, as Respond- ent Vulcan unlawfully made substantial changes in wage, rates, and other conditions of employment, I further rec- ommend that it be required to restore the status quo ante as existed prior to the changes if the employees so desire. Having found that Respondent Amateyus discharged the employees listed on Appendix A annexed hereto, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I recom- mend that Respondent Amateyus and/or its alter ego Re- spondent Vulcan be ordered to offer them reinstatement and to make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from their discharge. The amount of backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in Flor- ida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).8 Finally having further found that Respondent Ama- teyus violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by terminating its operation without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning the effects of such closedown, I would recommend alternatively, that in the event Vulcan is not found to be the alter ego of Amateyus , then Ama- teyus shall be ordered to bargain with the Union con- cerning the effects on its employees of the termination of its operations in March 1982. Because of the egregious nature of the violations herein, including the termination of almost all the Ama- teyus employees, I shall recommend the entry of a broad order.9 8 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 9 See Htckmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents Amateyus and Vulcan are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Union is the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the following unit found appro- priate herein: All composing room employees in book and job of- fices covered by the collective-bargaining agree- ment between Printers League Section of Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., and the Union to which Respondents' predecessor, Volk & Huxley was a party. The Unit is more fully de- scribed in part I, section 4 of the contract. 4. Amateyus is the successor-employer to Volk & Huxley. 5. Vulcan is the alter ego of Amateyus. 6. By its conduct as successor Volk & Huxley, Ama- teyus adopted the collective-bargaining agreement. 7. Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to honor the collective- bargaining agree- ment then in effect. 8. Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by dis- charging the employees of Amateyus named in "Appen- dix A" because of their membership in support of the Union. 9. Respondents further violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by increasing the subcontracting of unit work with- out notice to the Unions; and by changing wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment. 10. Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to close the Amateyus operation and to dis- charge employees if they continued their membership and support for the Union; and additionally by condi- tioning further employment upon abandonment of their membership in the Union. 11. Alternatively, in the event it is found that Re- spondents are not alter egos, then Respondent Amateyus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by terminating its operations without affording the Union an opportuni- ty to bargain about the effects of such closing on the em- ployees. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- edio ORDER The Respondents, Amateyus and Vulcan, New York, New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with New York Typographical Union No. 6, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described above. (b) Refusing to honor and abide by the contract be- tween their predecessor Volk & Huxley and the Union for the period from 1 March 1982. (c) Laying off, discharging, and refusing to recall em- ployees because of their membership in or support for the Union. (d) Subcontracting unit work without notice to the Union. (e) Changing wage rates and other terms and condi- tions of employment without notice to the Union. (1) Threatening employees with plant closure and loss of jobs; and conditioning further employment on aban- donment of their membership and support for the Union. (g) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, bargain in good-faith with New York Typographical Union No. 6 as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit set forth above. (b) Honor and give retroactive effect from 1 March 1982 to the terms and conditions of the collective-bar- gaining contract with the Union, including payment of wages and benefits as prescribed. (c) Restore the status quo ante with respect to changed wage rates and other unilateral changes made subsequent to the withdrawal of recognition after 1 March 1982. (d) Offer the employees named in "Appendix A" im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent po- sitions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (e) 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. (f) Post at its facility in New York, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondents' authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondents 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- 10 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. 11 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 the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " VOLK & HUXLEY 229 ents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- or covered by any other material. missed as to any allegations of the complaint not specifi- (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 cally found. days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondents have taken to comply.