Adams Book Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 18, 1973203 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1973) Copy Citation ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 761 Adams Book Company , Inc. and District 65, National Council of Distributive Workers of America. Case 29-CA-2815 May 18, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 16, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER volves a complaint 2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), which alleges in substance, that Adams Book Company (herein Respondent or Company), during an organizational campaign by District 65, National Council of Distributive Workers of America (herein the Union or District 65), by (1) interrogating its employees concerning their union sym- pathies and desires; (2) promising improved wages and working conditions if employees refrained from assisting and supporting the Union; (3) terminating four employees because of their assistance and support of the Union; and (4) refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly designat- ed collective-bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. By answer Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied the commis- sion of any unfair labor practice. For reasons hereafter more fully detailed, I find the material allegations of the complaint sustained by the evidence, and recommend an appropriate remedial order which will include a provision requiring Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union. At the trial all parties were afforded full opportunity to introduce relevant and material evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submit- ted by the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively, have been duly considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations of counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, and the entire record in the case, I make the following: Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Adams Book Company, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge 's finding of 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) violations and his recommendation that a bargaining order be issued on the basis of N L R B v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc, 395 U.S. 575. Accordingly, we deem it unnecessary to reach the other bases on which the Administrative Law Judge relies. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case tried before me at Brooklyn, New York, on October 12, 13, and 24,' with all parties present and duly represented, in- FINDINGS OF FACT 3 A. The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged 1. Chronology of events a. Respondent moves its quarters Respondent is engaged in the sale and distribution of new and used textbooks and paperbacks to institutions of learn- ing. Late in the fall of 1971, Respondent decided to move its quarters to a new location, and for that purpose contract- ed with a professional mover to move its stock and fixtures to the new location.4 Under the contract, the mover was obligated to move all books, both textbooks and paper- ' All dates herein are 1972 unless otherwise indicated. 2 Issued June 29, on a charge filed and served March 28. 3 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented . The complaint alleges and by failing to answer such allegations Respondent admitted facts which establish those jurisdictional elements. I find those facts to be as pleaded. 4 At the new location , toward the front there are pnvate offices for Respondent 's management officials , and in back of that there is a large area where General Manager Raymond and a staff of office clericals perform their duties . To the rear of the office area , a group of employees classified as "warehousemen" receive inbound merchandise which they place on shelves or in bins located in that area, fill orders for shipment to customers, keep the premises clean , and perform similar functions . In Respondent's establishment the area where the warehouse employees work is generally referred to as "the back ," or "the back room" 203 NLRB No. 120 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD backs, from the old location to the new, and place them in bins, arranged by subject in alphabetical order, in the same order as they had been in the former premises. The evidence is undisputed that the mover did not perform his contract in that regard; instead of placing the books in the bins properly arranged, he simply deposited the books in huge mounds on the floor, in no particular order. The task of getting the books properly placed on shelves or in bins was performed by Respondent's warehouse employees. The evidence is uncontradicted that the task of moving the books to the new location was commenced the day after Thanksgiving 1971, with the paperbacks being moved first. It is likewise undisputed that the physical task of moving the paperbacks to the new location was completed about mid- December 1971, and the move of the textbooks which fol- lowed immediately, by about mid-January. There is consid- erable dispute, however, as to when the task of properly arranging the books on the shelves was completed, and in view of Respondent's defenses this factual dispute must be resolved.5 Company President Schattner testified that the work of getting the books properly arranged was completed toward the end of the week beginning on March 20, and denied that all of the books were straight and on the shelves by the end of January. This, however, is contrary to the testimony of those employees who testified on the subject (Thomas, Rivera, Parris, and Navarro), that there was still a large volume of books in piles on the floor, and plenty of work remained to be performed on March 24, when the four men were terminated . Company General Manager Ray- mond when first questioned on this subject corroborated Schattner that all the books were on the shelves and in order about the end of the third week in March. When confronted with his prehearing affidavit, Raymond changed his testi- mony to say that perhaps the aforesaid work was complete toward the end of February. With respect to this point Raymond's affidavit reads: ... The physical move began around the middle of November and ended around January 15, 1972. The paperbacks were moved first. They were all moved by about the middle of December. The paperbacks were straightened out by around the end of January. The textbooks were moved starting around the middle of December and were completed around the middle of January. The textbooks were straightened out around the end of March. There was still straightening up to do in both sections until around the end of March. Based on the testimony of employees Thomas, Rivera, Par- ris, and Navarro, as well as the inconsistency between Raymond's testimony and his prehearing affidavit, I find and conclude that the task of properly shelving and arrang- 5 Respondent contends that employees Victor DeJesus , Anthony Hale, Lennox Parris , and Robert Rios (alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily laid off on March 24) were hired as temporary employees solely for the purpose of properly arranging the books , and were terminated when that task was completed about March 24 . The temporary or permanent status of the aforesaid employees is also important on the 8 (a)(5) issue her- eafter considered , as the General Counsel conceded at the hearing that if the four men referred to were in fact temporary employees the Union did not have majority status when it demanded and Respondent refused recognition, and that the refusal to bargain allegations in the complaint would fail for want of proof. ing the books had not been completed on March 24, and that considerable work of that nature remained to be per- formed on that date. Schattner's contrary testimony I do not credit. b. The employees organize Sometime in February, Peter Van Delft, an organizer for the Union, received a message through his office that em- ployees of Adams wished to organize. Van Delft made sev- eral contracts with the warehouse employees, and in due course, gave employee Dink Thomas authorization cards which he was to get employees to sign. Thomas signed a card himself and obtained cards from warehouse employees Harry Wilson, Wilfredo Rivera, Victor DeJesus, Nelson Navarro, James Mans, Anthony Hale, and Robert Rios, which cards he delivered to the Union. Thomas testified that he told all the employees solicited that when they signed the card they would become members of District 65, and that when the Union came in for recognition they would not be fired 6 because they were members of the Union. While the statement on its face is not accurate as a legal proposition, I find what Thomas sought and did con- vey to the employees was that they could not lawfully be fired because they were members of the Union, which, of course, is an accurate legal statement. Moreover, it may be noted that in its brief Respondent advances no contention that the card signed by Thomas, or the card signed by any other employee, is, for that reason, invalid. Except for the card signed by Rios on March 14, and the card signed by Parrs which is dated "14/3/72," all cards were executed between March 1 and 4.7 The only card that Respondent does question in its brief is the one signed by Jose Fernen- dez. Because of his limited understanding of English, Fer- nendez testified through an interpreter. In substance, his testimony is that, although he is unable to read English, he understood that the card was for District 65, "a union which for me is good, and has benefits." On the basis of this testimony I find and conclude that Fernendez understood that by signing the card he was designating the Union as his collective-bargaining representative. This is all that is re- quired. Based on the totality of the foregoing, I find and conclude that on March 20, the Union had in its possession valid authorization cards from 10 employees, each of whom was then employed by Respondent in the capacity of ware- houseman .8 6 In another portion of his testimony Thomas used the words "could" instead of "would ," but I do not regard the difference as of practical signifi- cance r Parrs gave no testimony to explain the date on his card. Van Delft testified that one of his meetings with employees was between March 9 and 16, and that Parris was present and signed a card Unless the date on the card means the 14th day of the 3rd month , it is obviously in error In any event, I find on the basis of Van Delft 's testimony , and the fact that Pams wore a union button concerning which he was interrogated on March 20, as hereafter more fully related , that Parrs executed the card prior to March 20 8 Those employees signing cards were Thomas, Navarro, Rivera, Wilson, Mars, Parrs , Fernandez, DeJesus, Hale, and Rios . An issue hereafter con- sidered is whether the last four mentioned were temporary employees as Respondent contends , or permanent, as the General Counsel contends. ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 763 c. The number of employees in the unit There is in evidence (Resp. Exh. 5), a payroll for -the workweek beginning March 20, containing a total of 25 names . All parties are in accord that Carlos Raymond and James Police are supervisors, and as such must be excluded from any unit. Of the remaining 23, 7 were admittedly em- ployed as office clericals, and the other 16 as warehouse- men.9 This includes Ferrero who, the General Counsel contends, should be excluded as a supervisor. Respondent contends that to determine the exact number of persons in the warehouse unit, there must be excluded the names of Victor DeJesus, Lennox Parris, Anthony Hale, and Robert Rios because, as above set forth, they were temporary em- ployees hired for a specific limited purpose, and that there should be added the name of Bernard Wachsman, which does not appear on Respondent's Exhibit 5. The facts relied upon to support this contention are: Wachsman, who is 82 years old, is the father-in-law of Schattner who has the sole financial interest in Respondent. The uncontroverted evi- dence is that he has worked for Respondent for 16 years cleaning and repairing used textbooks. According to Schatt- ner, he works full time, except that he did not work in the month of March 1969; from mid-February until April 24, 1970; from January 1 to June 4, 1971, when he was unable to work due to a broken leg; and from January 1 through May 5, 1972. All such time off, except when Wachsman had the broken leg, was to enable him to spend time in Florida. Thus, according to Respondent, the compliment of the warehouse unit was 17(the 16 warehousemen on the payroll plus Wachsman). I find it unnecessary to decide whether Ferrero or Wachs- man is properly in the unit. Assuming arguendo that both Ferrero and Wachsman should both be included, as I find and set forth more fully hereafter, and that DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios were regular full-time employees, it follows that the Union had 10 cards in a unit of 17 employees, a clear majority. I so find and conclude.10 d. The Union demands recognition On the morning of March 20, Union Agents Van Delft and Tate went to Respondent' s premises , where they first talked with employee Thomas at the receiving dock. Van Delft gave Thomas a supply of union buttons and told the latter to see that each card signer put one on and after waiting about 10 minutes to give Van Delft and Tate time to get into Respondent's office, all 10 of the card signers should join Van Delft and Tate in the office. Thomas distri- buted the union buttons as directed, and each card signer put one on. Van Delft and Tate immediately went to the office where they met with Company President Schattner." At this time Van Delft told Schattner that the Union 9 The 16 warehousemen on the payroll are: James Matthews, Wilfredo Rivera, Dink Thomas, Allen Nottingham , Charles Ferrero, Frederick Mars, Harry Wilson, LeRoy Tomkins, Nathaniel Nesbit , Nelson Navarro, Jose Fernendez, and Ronney Bailey. 10 The General Counsel concedes that , if the four employees are found to be temporary employees , the Union never had majority status. ii For some reason not fully developed in the record , the employees did not come to Schattner's office on this occasion . Although, through the glass represented a majority of the warehouse employees and demanded recognition and bargaining.12 As indicated Van Delft presented Schattner with a recognition agreement, and a form contract asking that the recognition agreement be signed promptly and an early date fixed to commence bargaining. Schattner expressed surprise at Van Delft's claim that the Union represented a majority of the ware- house employees and asked "who joined the Union?" Van Delft replied, the men who worked in the warehouse, two- thirds of them as a matter of fact, and, according to Schatt- ner, added that the ones who had joined the Union were those who were wearing the union buttons out in the plant. Additionally, Van Delft offered to call the employees who had signed cards to Schattner's office so that he could see them, but Schattner declined the offer. Schattner told Van Delft that he wished to study the documents Van Delft had presented, and consult counsel with whom he would be unable to communicate for about a week. Van Delft was agreeable to Schattner studying the documents but protest- ed a delay of a week, and stated that he would return on Wednesday (March 22), for Schattner's answer. Addition- ally, Van Delft told Schattner that the "law" prohibited him from discharging or otherwise harassing employees be- cause of their union activity. Schattner replied that he had no intention of doing so. On this note the meeting conclud- ed. Immediately following his meeting with Van Delft and Tate, Schattner went to the office and picked up Raymond, who testified as heretofore set forth, that Schattner told him that the people he had been talking to in his office were from the Union, and that the men in the "back" had organized. Schattner and Raymond then went into the warehouse area .13 Schattner admitted that in going through the ware- house area , he observed 10 warehouse employees wearing union buttons. Although Schattner and Raymond both tes- tified that in going through the warehouse they did not speak to any of the employees, I find on the basis of the testimony of the employees involved, that the following incidents occurred on March 20 upon which the General Counsel bases his allegations of: partitions , they could see Van Delft and Tate in the office, they could not hear what was said 12 Respondent argues that Van Delft's demand was in fact not limited to the warehousemen , but extended to all employees, which would include the office clericals. But even Respondent's testimony does not support that posi- tion. Schattner testified that Van Delft told him that the Union had organized "the rear " Because the office staff and the warehouse were physically located behind Schattner 's office, and because of the recognition agreement and the form contract hereafter mentioned which Van Delft left with Schattner, the latter claims that Van Delft's demand for recognition was in a unit of all employees. The documents referred to in describing the unit did refer to "all employees ," but Van Delft credibly testified that these documents were printed up in advance by the Union in large quantities and were not intended as defining the unit for which he was demanding recognition Although Schattner denied the fact, General Manager Raymond testified that when Schattner concluded his conference with Van Delft and Tate, he came into the office area and stated "that the men in the back had organized a union," and according to Raymond's pretrial affidavit , Schattner also stated that the union representatives had told him that he could go in the back and count the union buttons Because of the conflict between Schattner and Raymond in certain aspects of their testimony, and Schattner's statements to Raymond, I credit Van Delft that he limited his demand to unit of warehousemen. 13 The testimony of Schattner and Raymond that before going into the warehouse they looked about the office force to see who might be wearing union buttons but saw none, I do not credit because it is inconsistent with their other conduct, and no more than an afterthought. 764 his allegations of: DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD e. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Schattner entered the warehouse area hollering for Rivera. When Rivera raised up from his work, Schattner looked at the union button Rivera was wearing and said, "you too"? Rivera responded, "yes everybody." Schattner asked, "Who is everybody"? Rivera replied, "everybody but Nat, LeRoy and Jimmie.""' Schattner then went to Rios who was assisting Rivera, and looking at the union button Rios was wearing, said, "you too." Rios just smiled, but said nothing. Shortly thereafter, Raymond approached Rivera and asked what benefits he expected to get from the Union. Rivera replied that he would get 2 weeks' vacation instead of one, and $120 a week pay instead of $95. Raymond told Rivera to be careful, that unions promise lots of things they are unable to deliver. Rivera replied that anything he got would be better than what he had. The following morning Raymond again talked with Rivera telling the latter that Respondent would take care of all the employees if they would forget about the Union. Rivera replied that he had started with the Union and would continue with it to the end. Later that day Raymond approached Rivera at his work station, saying that $120 weekly salary he wanted was too much, but thought he could arrange for $110. Rivera rejected this, saying that for that amount it was not worth his effort to try to get the Union in.'5 2. Raymond approached employees Wilson and Thom- as, who were standing together , and addressing himself to Thomas said, "Dink, what is this, if you wanted a union why didn't you come to me, I would have gotten you a union." A short time later Schattner passed by where Thomas and Wilson were standing, both wearing union buttons, and looking at them shook his head, but said nothing.16 3. Also on March 20, Carl Ferrero, accompanied by Schattner and James (Vinnie) Police," approached employ- ee Lennox Parris, with Ferrero asking, "Lennox, you in this too?" Parris answered that he was and turned the button he was wearing toward Ferrero.18 4. Employee Navarro saw Schattner in the warehouse area going among the employees observing who was wear- ing a union button. Schattner looked at Navarro but made no comment. While Schattner was going through the area, Supervisor Police talked with Navarro asking the latter, why he had done it, and why didn't he come to Police with any problems he had. Navarro replied that his problem con- cerned benefits and salary. Police made no reply.19 14 The payroll record in evidence, hereafter referred to, shows these to be warehouse employees. 13 Based on the credited testimony of Rivera . The contradictory testimony of Raymond, I do not credit . The record shows that at the time of the trial Rios was deceased. 16 Based on the credited testimony of Thomas and Wilson . As indicated, both Raymond and Schattner denied that they engaged in such conduct, but I do not credit their denial. 17 Police is an admitted supervisor ; but the agency status of Ferrero is denied . The issue will be hereafter treated with. 18 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Parris Neither Ferrero nor Police testified . Schattner, when he testified , did not refer to this incident. 19 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Navarro As 5. In the warehouse Schattner, accompanied by Ferrero, passed employee DeJesus who was at work and wearing a union button. As they passed, Schattner said to Ferrero, "He is in it too?" Ferrero shrugged his shoulders but no comment was made.20 6. Also, Schattner, accompanied by Police, talked to em- ployee Fernendez, who was wearing a union button, and asked the latter, "Are you in the Union?" Fernendez replied in the affirmative?' Based on Van Delft's testimony regarding the events oc- curring at this March 20 meeting, and Respondent's con- duct in the warehouse immediately following that meeting, I find and conclude that on that date Van Delft made de- mand on Schattner for recognition and bargaining in the warehouse unit, consisting of all warehouse employees, in- cluding shipping and receiving employees, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, which the parties have stipulated to be appropriate. Although I have found that Van Delft limited his demand as above indicated, I would find an appropriate demand in that unit even were I to conclude that in demanding recog- nition Van Delft used the term "all employees." It is true, of course, that to impose a bargaining duty upon an employ- er, the Union's demand must "clearly define the unit for which recognition is sought" (The C. L. Bailey Grocery Co., 100 NLRB 576, 579). But in matters of labor relations, as in many other matters, no special formula or form of words is required. The important question is does the employer understand that he is being asked to bargain and what employees he is being asked to bargain for. (Benson Whole- sale Company, Inc., 164 NLRB 536, 550-551). Schattner's conduct in interrogating the warehouse employees imme- diately following the demand upon him, completely ignor- ing the office clericals, makes it plain that he fully under- stand what employees he was being asked to bargain for. But assuming , arguendo, that some confusion remained in Schattner's mind as to what employees he was being asked to bargain for, a simple imquiry of Van Delft, which good faith would seem to require, would have clarified any confu- sion that may have existed. Benson Wholesale Company, Inc., supra at 551. Instead , Respondent chose to ignore the Union's continuing recognition demand. A permissible in- ference from the facts-and the inference which I draw-is that the alleged defect or ambiguity in the Union's demand was not the motivating reason for Respondent's refusal to bargain, but that such reason was its determination to reject any bargaining demand the Union made regardless of the precision with which it may have been formulated and com- municated. Respondent's efforts to undermine and destroy the Union's majority in the unit that it knew the Union's support lay makes this abundantly clear. I. Van Delft and Schattner meet again On March 22, Van Delft again talked with Schattner in the latter's office. The meeting opened with Van Delft ask- indicated Police did not testify. 20 Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of DeJesus. 21 Based on the credited testimony of Fernendez. ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 765 ing Schattner if he had been in touch with his attorney. Schattner stated that he had not, because his attorney was still out of town. Thereupon the entire group of 10 employ- ees that signed cards entered the office.22 As they entered, Schattner asked why the men were present. Van Delft re- plied that their presence was meant to demonstrate that the men were not interested in accepting the offers he had made to them, and that they wanted the Union to represent them. Van Delft then told Schattner that he had information that the latter had interrogated and otherwise interfered with employees, and that this had to stop. Van Delft then had Rivera repeat Raymond's offer to pay him $110 a week, a statement which Raymond denied. Van Delft then stated that he was willing to acceed to Schattner's request to wait until Monday, to give him time to confer with counsel, but that this had to be on the basis that Respondent would no longer interfere with the employees. Schattner denied that he had done so, and on this note the meeting concluded. g. Four employees are discharged On Friday afternoon, March 24, employees Victor De- Jesus, Anthony Hale, Lennox Parris, and Robert Rios were admittedly discharged by Respondent. Respondent's de- fense to these discharges is that all four were hired as tempo- rary employees only for the specific job of putting the books in order following the move, and that upon completion of that work there was no further need for their service (which facts are crucial on the issue of the Union's majority), it is necessary to set out the circumstances under which each was hired and worked; having heretofore found that a sub- stantial volume of work occasioned by the move remained to be performed at the time the four men were discharged. (1) DeJesus DeJesus was originally employed by Respondent in Au- gust 1971. At some point in time not entirely clear from the record , DeJesus became ill and after that considered himself no longer employed by Respondent. On December 17,197 1, he returned to the plant seeking work. He spoke with Ferre- ro who told him to go to work arranging the paperbacks on the shelves , and that his salary would be $75 a week. Noth- ing was said to him to indicate that his employment was of a temporary nature, or limited by any particular event. Whether Ferrero discussed the hire of DeJesus with any other member of management, DeJesus was unaware, and the record does not show . After being hired by Ferrero, DeJesus went to Raymond where he completed the papers incident to his rehire. Raymond admitted that on this occa- sion he said nothing to DeJesus from which the latter might conclude that his employment was temporary . At some time not fixed in the record , DeJesus spoke to Ferrero about a raise in pay. Ferrero replied that he would see what he could do. Several days later Ferrero told DeJesus that he had been given a $5 raise, which became effective March 20, which is the Monday following the end of the week Schattner determined , according to his testimony, that the task of 22 Van Delft had spoken to the employees earlier in the morning and their action in this regard was pursuant to his request straightening out the stock would be completed by March 24, and that the services of DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios would no longer be needed.23 (2) Lennox Parris and Anthony Hale The parties stipulated that Parris was hired on February 7. He was sent to Respondent by an employment agency pursuant to a call from Raymond, who interviewed and hired Parris. Parris testified that nothing was said to him relating to whether the job was permanent or temporary. 24 Raymond admitted he hired Hale on February 7, after in- terviewing him and that he was assigned to straighten out books in the textbook section.25 (3) Robert Rios As above indicated, Rios was deceased at the time of the trial, hence we do not have the benefit of his testimony. Schattner admitted that Rios was hired March 14. Although Schattner claimed that Rivera, who had recommended Rios for hire because he needed assistance in the textbook sec- tion, told Rios that the job would be temporary, Rivera does not bear this out. Hence there is no testimony in this record that Rios was told that his employment would be tempo- rary.26 When DeJesus, Parris, Hale, and Rios were laid off at the end of the day on March 24, the reason given them for the layoff was that there was no further work available. Al- though Respondent's business is seasonal, with the slow season extending from mid-October to the latter part of the following June,2 at which time employment is reduced, and notwithstanding Schattner's claim that the employment of DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios would have been unneces- sary except for the failure of the movers to comply with their contract to put the books in proper order, the warehouse 23 Based on the credited testimony of DeJesus . Schattner testified , that he did not talk with DeJesus, but told Ferrero to have him come in, and that Raymond would hire him. He claimed to have done this because the stock was in bad shape and he needed additional help made necessary by the move to the new location . In this connection it should be noted that at the time DeJesus was hired , Schattner had not yet become aware that the mover would not comply with his contract to put the books in order. Although Schattner testified that all four of the men were told that their jobs were temporary , he admitted that he did not speak to any of them. Raymond testified that he was told by Schattner that the latter had hired DeJesus to help straighten out the paperbacks, and brought DeJesus to him and that he (Raymond) just filled out the necessary paper On cross- examination he claimed that Schattner simply told him to put DeJesus on the payroll. Al- though Raymond testified that it was his uniform practice to tell new hires that they were being hired as temporary employees, and that he did so on each of the occasions here involved, his pretrial affidavit, dated May 12, less than 2 months after the men were laid off, states that he could not recall if he so informed Hale or DeJesus To the extent that the testimony of Schatt- ner and Raymond conflicts with that of DeJesus, I credit the latter. 24 Based on the credited testimony of Parris . In view of Raymond's affida- vit, referred to above, I do not credit his testimony that he told Parris that his employment would be temporary 25 Based on the stipulations of counsel and the admissions of Raymond, without crediting , however, Raymond 's claim that he told Hale that his employment would be temporary. As above indicated , Schattner admitted that he did not so inform any employee During this period employees, in addition to making some current ship- ments, make any needed repairs on books and put the books in proper order in preparation for issuance of an annual catalogue. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment in March 1972, prior to the layoff, was sub- stantially the same as in 1971, and after the layoff employ- ment in 1972 was reduced just about the amount of the number of employees laid off.28 As DeJesus was leaving the premises on March 24, after having been laid off, Ferrero told DeJesus not to worry, that if the Union failed he (Ferrero) would do what he could to get DeJesus his fob back.29 h. Van Delft and Schaffner have final meeting Van Delft and Schattner met again on Monday, March 27. Van Delft, having learned the previous Friday evening about the layoff of the four men , returned to Schattner's office and asked if the latter had yet communicated with his counsel . In response Schattner gave Van Delft the name and telephone number of one Hyman Isaacs , a management consultant, and stated that anything further Van Delft had to discuss with management should be taken up with Isaacs. Van Delft then asked if Schattner was aware that four men had been laid off. Schattner said he was, and added that when he has no work for the people he lays them off. Van Delft asked if when business improved , would the men be called back. Schattner replied in the negative , saying that the men had been laid off permanently. Van Delft then asked if some of the present employees left, would the laid- off employees be recalled in order of seniority . Schattner again replied in the negative and saying the layoff was per- manent . The meeting then concluded with Van Delft telling Schattner that he would call Isaacs , but warning that there would be serious problems unless the four men were rein- stated 30 Following this last conversation between Schattner and Van Delft, the latter telephoned Isaacs . Though most of the discussion between them I deem irrelevant to any issue in the case,31 it is sufficient to point out that on behalf of Respondent Isaacs denied recognition on the ground that he doubted the Union's majority and told Van Delft that if he wished to pursue the matter further , he would have to do so through the Board ; that Van Delft thereupon threatened to strike, and Isaacs told him to do what he wished. 32 Since these conversations , there has been no further communica- tion between the parties. u This is illustrated in the table attached hereto as Appendix B 29 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of DeJesus, which is in substance corroborated by Pains Ferrero , though identified as present at trial , was not called as a witness In these circumstances it may appropri- ately be inferred , as I do , that his testimony would not support Respondent's position. Interstate Circuit, v. United States, 306 U .S 208, 225-226 ( 1939); Brewton Fashions, 145 NLRB 99, 124, fn 77 , and the cases there cited 30 Based on the credited testimony of Van Delft which Schattner did not contradict 31 Van Delft testified that in his talk with Isaacs he asked for recognition in a unit of warehousemen , and that Isaacs acknowledged that the Union had a majority in that unit Isaacs denied that Van Delft mentioned any particu- lar unit, or that he admitted the Union's majority I deem it unnecessary to resolve that conflict because the case can be decided on the basis of the conversations between Van Delft and Schattner, and the latter 's actions based thereon. 32 With respect to these matters , there is no dispute in the testimony of Van Delft and Isaacs. i. Further interference, restraint, and coercion Shortly after Van Delft's conversation with Isaacs, em- ployee Thomas rcceived word that he was wanted in the office. Arriving there, Thomas found Raymond and Schatt- ner. The latter opened the conversation by referring to the union campaign, and stated that he thought there was going to be a strike, and that he would appreciate it if Thomas and Wilson would not go out with the others; that he would take his chances legally with the four men that had been laid off; and that Thomas need not concern himself with Rivera, Femendez, and Navarro, because "they were on their way out." At this point Raymond added, "they are going to fall flat on their faces." Schattner urged Thomas to think about it, and Thomas agreed to do so.33 j. The employees strike On April 10, certain warehouse employees of Respondent went on strike.34 Those who struck were 9 of the 10 card signers , and I of those abandoned the strike after about a week. The strike lasted about 14 weeks.35 Before going on strike the employee card signers met with Van Delft who explained to them the status of his efforts to secure recogni- tion from Respondent, and the fact that four employees had been discharged for what he regarded as discriminatory reasons . The employees then voted to strike. The reason for the strike, as one employee explained it, was " . . . we have need to fight for those four guys . . . Schattner let off, and ... this only way we can show Mr. Schattner we want the Union." By letter dated May 12, Respondent notified De- Jesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios that there was a job available for them in the warehouse and to advise Respondent if they were interested. The record does not indicate what reply, if any, the employees made to this letter. Also by letter dated July 5, the Union wrote Respondent calling off the strike unconditionally, and demanding that all the employees be recalled to work. By letter dated July 11, and sent to each of the strikers, including four alleged discriminatees, Re- spondent offered reinstatement to each of them, which rein- statement was accepted by all but one, and they were returned to work.36 33 Based on the credited testimony of Thomas . Both Schattner and Ray- mond denied making such statements , but I do not credit their denial. 34 April 10 is the date testified to by Schattner as the start of the strike. Thomas, the only other witness who testified as to the date , said the strike began in March or May, he didn 't remember which. It is obvious that Thom- as was testifying from memory and that in this area his memory was not accurate 35 The employee who did not join the strike was James Mars, and James Wilson abandoned it after about a week All the remainder strikers picketed at one time or another during the strike 36 Employee Navarro, who participated in the strike that began on April 10, testified that he did not receive an offer of reinstatement and was not reinstated At first the General Counsel urged this as a violation of the Act, but subsequently abandoned that contention . Additionally , it appears that two of the four employees alleged in this proceeding to have been discharged in violation of Sec . 8(a)(3) were, after being recalled, discharged again, and this was made the basis of another charge filed with the Board, alleging violations of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act. No complaint issued on that charge as it was withdrawn with the approval of the Regional Director ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 767 B. Contentions and Conclusions Upon the facts as herein set forth, I find and conclude that Respondent violated the Act in the following respects: 1. The 8(a)(1) violations 1. The interrogation of employees Wilson, Thomas, Riv- era, Rios, Parris, Navarro, Fernendez, and DeJesus by Schattner, Raymond, Police, and Ferrero, on March 20, as detailed above. This interrogation was conducted in the main by Respondent 's highest officials and without assur- ances against reprisal. Indeed to the employees, the dis- charge of DeJesus, Parris, Rios, and Hale just 4 days later, was potent evidence that Respondent intended to and did retaliate against them for their union activity, and that the interrogation was not solely for the purpose of ascertaining whether Respondent had an obligation to bargain with the Union. Cf. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.17 2. Raymond's statements to Rivera that the employees would be taken care of if they would forget about the Union, and offering Rivera increased salary for the same purpose. In each case Raymond's statement was plainly interference with the Section 7 rights of the employees, and a promise of benefit if the employees would refrain from exercising those rights. 3. Schattner's statement to Thomas that a strike was an- ticipated and that he would appreciate it if Thomas and his fellow employee Wilson would not go on strike, and that he (Schattner) would take his chances legally with the four men that were discharged on March 24, as well as his statement at the same time, that employees Rivera, Fernendez, and Navarro were on their way out. This was not only an at- tempt to interfere with the protected rights of Thomas and Wilson, but a threat to discharge employees because of their activity on behalf of the Union. 4. Ferrero's statement to DeJesus on the day the latter was discharged, that if the Union failed he (Ferrero) would do what he could to get DeJesus his job back. This also was a promise of benefit to induce employees to refrain from exercising protected statutory rights. 2. The 8(a)(3) violations I further find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act by discharging DeJesus, Hale, Parris , and Rios on March 24. To begin with, upon consideration of the entire record I am convinced, and therefore find and conclude that those employees were reg- ular full-time employees , and not temporary employees, as Respondent contends . I so conclude because of the com- plete absence of any credible evidence that any of the em- ployees were told that they were hired for a temporary 77 In reaching this conclusion I find it unnecessary to consider whether Ferrero was in fact a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The evidence shows that when he engaged in the activity referred to he was always accom- panied by Schattner or Police , both admitted supervisors , neither of whom took any steps to retract what Ferrero said or did, or to inform the employees that Ferrero was without authority to speak for Respondent . In these circum- stances the employees were warranted in assuming that Ferrero spoke for management. period; the fact that employment during the relevant por- tions of 1971 and 1972 was relatively the same, and when the four were discharged the level of employment for 1972 fell below what was normal employment for the period in 1971; and finally it is inconceivable that Schattner would have hired Rios as a temporary employee on March 14, if as Schattner claimed, the event that would necessitate ter- mination of temporary employees had or was about to ar- rive. Having concluded that DeJesus, Hale, Parris and Rios were permanent employees, I have no hesitance in finding and concluding, as I do, that their termination on March 24, was discriminatorily motivated. The timing of the discharg- es hard upon discovery that the men had assisted and sup- ported a union which was now demanding recognition; the absence of any contention or credible evidence that they were discharged for cause; and the fact, as I have found, that a false reason was given for the discharges, demon- strates that the discharges were discriminatorily motivated. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated the principle in Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (1966): If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is another motive. More than that, he can infer that the motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an unlawful motive-at least where, as in the instant case, the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference. Accordingly, I find and conclude that DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios were discriminatorily discharged, and I shall recommend an appropriate remedy. 3. The 8(a)(5) allegations The parties having stipulated that the warehouse unit pleaded in the complaint is appropriate, and having hereto- fore found that on March 20, the Union was the duly desig- nated majority representative of the employees in that unit, and that on that date it made proper demand on Respon- dent for recognition and bargaining, the only remaining question is whether, under all the circumstances, Respon- dent should be directed to bargain with the Union. The answer to that question, in my opinion, is governed by the Board's very recent decision in Green Briar Nursing Home, Inc., 201 NLRB No. 73. There the Board stated: In Linden Lumber [190 NLRB No. 116] and our later decision in Sullivan Electric Company, 199 NLRB No. 97, we made it clear that an employee will not be found in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act solely upon the basis of his refusal to accept union-proffered evidence of majority status other than the results of a Board election, unless his conduct precluded resort to an elec- tion. In those cases we pointed out that an election will be precluded by substantial employer misconduct in violation of the Act, by an employer's action in agree- ing upon another method of ascertaining whether a union majority existed, or by an employer's conduct of a poll of employees which establishes the existence of a majority. I find and conclude that all three of the tests were met here. At the meeting on March 20, when the Union demanded 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recognition, Schattner asked what employees had joined the in the case, I state the following: Union. Van Delft replied that if Schattner would go into the plant he could count the employees who were wearing union buttons. This was plainly an offer by the Union of a method whereby Schattner could satisfy himself of the Union's ma- jority status, and by going into the plant for the purpose of finding out who was wearing union buttons , he accepted the Union 's offer . Having so agreed , Respondent should not now be permitted to "disclaim the results [of his inquiry] simply because it finds them distasteful ." (Sullivan Electric Company, supra.) Schattner's interrogation of the employees on March 20 also constituted a poll within the meaning of Green Briar Nursing Homes, supra. Of the 17 employees in the unit (assuming that Ferrero and Wachsman were prop- erly regarded as in the unit), 8 were polled concerning their sympathy for and support of the Union. Not only did each polled employee state his support of the Union , but Rivera told Schattner that all but three of the employees were of that view . Based on the information thus given him, and the fact that he admittedly observed 10 employees wearing union buttons , it is reasonable to infer, as I do , that he was satisfied that the Union represented a majority of the ware- house employees. This is confirmed by the fact that Schatt- ner, just 4 days later , in order , as I have found , to destroy that majority, discharged four employees. Finally I find and conclude that Respondent's unfair labor practices herein found, particularly the discharges of DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios, were of such a grievous and pervasive character as to make the holding of a fair election extremely doubtful, and therefore a bargaining order here is appropriate, not- withstanding the absence of a Board conducted election, under the standards set forth in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575,610,614-615 (1969). There the Court specifically held that a bargaining order is proper "where an employer has committed independent unfair labor practices which have made the holding of a fair election unlikely or which have in fact undermined a union 's majority ... ," and that in such cases were the Board to "enter only a cease-and-desist order and direct an election . . . it would in effect be rewarding the employer and allowing him 'to profit from [his] own wrongful refusal to bargain ."' Finally, and by way of summarizing its holding, the Court stated where "the possibility of erasing the effects of past [unfair labor] practices and of ensuring a fair election . . . is slight and that employee sentiment once expressed through cards would , on balance , be better protected by a bargaining or- der, then such an order should issue ." (395 U.S. 575, 614-615).38 Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and the entire record 31 It may be noted at this point, that where a bargaining order issues under the Gusel standards because of substantial employer misconduct in violation of the Act, it is immatenal just what Van Delft said to Schattner in making demand for recognition, or indeed that he made any demand at all . In such cases, if the union 's majority in some appropriate unit is established, bargain- ing is ordered, as above pointed out, to prevent the employer from reaping the benefits of his own misconduct , and is granted even though a violation of Sec . 8(aX5) of the Act has not been established , i.e., a complete lack of any demand for bargaining . See D H Holmes Company, Ltd v N L R B, 179 F.2d 876, 879 (C.A. 5); Piaseckt Aircraft Corporation v. N L R B, 280 F.2d 575, 591 (C.A 3), cert denied 364 U.S. 933; N LR B v. FlastafJDistri- buting Company, 209 F.2d 265, 268 (C A. 8), Graystone Knitwear Corp, et al, 136 NLRB 573, 575 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth in section I, B, 1 hereof, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Victor DeJesus, Anthony Hale, Len- nox Parris, and Robert Rios on March 24, because of their assistance to and support of the Union, Respondent dis- criminated against each of them in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or the terms and conditions thereof, discouraging membership in a labor organization, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac- tices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. On March 20, the Union was, and at all times since has been, the duly designated collective-bargaining representa- tive of Respondent's employees in a unit of warehouse em- ployees, including shipping and receiving employees, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 6. On or about March 20, the Union demanded, and at all times since has continued to demand, that Respondent recognize and bargain with it as the duly designated collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the afore- said appropriate unit. 7. By refusing on March 20, and at all times thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the aforemen- tioned unit , Respondent engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take the affirmative action, set forth be- low, designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of their guaran- teed Section 7 rights; discriminatorily discharged DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios; and refused to bargain with the Union, I conclude from the totality of that unlawful con- duct that a broad order is appropriate, and that Respondent should be required to cease and desist from in any manner ADAMS BOOK COMPANY interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Adt. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4); Cali- fornia Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915. It will also be recommended that Respondent be required to make whole DeJesus , Hale, Parris , and Rios for any loss of earnings suffered by paying to each of them , respectively, a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned as wages from March 24, the date of his discharge, to May 17, when Respondent offered each of them reinstatement,39 less any amount earned during said period . Such backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716. Reinstatement having been previously offered said employees , I do not recommend that another offer be required . Additionally it will be recommended that Respondent be required to pre- serve and , upon , request, make available to authorized agents of the Board , all records necessary or useful in de- termining compliance with the Board 's Order herein, or in computing the amount of backpay due. Having also found that Respondent on March 20, and at all times thereafter failed and refused , in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) of the Act, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the duly designated exclusive collective -bargain- ing agent of its employees in the unit herein found appropri- ate, and that independently of such violation , a bargaining order is necessary to prevent Respondent from profiting from its own unlawful conduct , it will be recommended that Respondent , upon request , bargain with the Union as such representative , concerning the wages, hours , and terms and conditions of employment of the employees in said unit, and if an understanding is reached embody the same in a written signed agreement. Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act , I hereby issue the following recom- mended:40 39 By letters dated May 12, Respondent offered DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios reinstatement . It was stipulated that the letters were received by Parris and DeJesus on May 17. The letters to Hale and Rios, though sent to their last-known addresses , were returned to Respondent undelivered . The reason for such undelivery is not disclosed by the record. Because I regard the offers to Parris and DeJesus as made when they were received, and there is no explanation in the record as to why the letters were not or could not be delivered to Hale and Rios, I recommend that back pay for them also be terminated as of May 17 As there is a complete absence of evidence to establish that the offers of reinstatement dated May 12, were for any reason ineffective, I find and conclude that they were sufficient to terminate the running of backpay. There is no evidence to show what action , if any, the employees took with respect to the aforesaid offers The record additionally shows that by letter dated July 5 the Union wrote Respondent making an unconditional request that eight employees be returned to work, specifically naming , inter alia, DeJesus, Hale, Parris , and Rios. On July 11, Respondent advised the Union that the named employees would be returned to work immediately , and this was done . As the record shows that the strike , assuming that it was an unfair labor practice strike , has been terminated unconditional- ly, and the unfair labor practice strikers , assuming that they were such, who applied have been reinstated , a protective order usually entered in such situations , is unnecessary. 40 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 ORDER 769 Respondent Adams Book Company, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to their sympathies for or assistance to any labor organization. (b) Coercively interrogating any employee as to whether he has acquired membership in any labor organization, or authorized any labor organization to act as his collective- bargaining representative. (c) Promising employees benefits if they would cease as- sisting or supporting a labor organization. (d) Threatening to discharge employees because they as- sist or support a labor organization. (e) Promising to return any employee to employee status if an organizational campaign conducted by a labor organi- zation fails. (f) Encouraging or discouraging membership in District 65, National Council of Distributive Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discri- minatorily discharging, or in any other manner discriminat- ing against any employee in regard to his hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment. (g) Refusing, on request, to bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit composed of all its warehouse employees , including receiving and shipping employees, but excluding office cler- ical employees, guards, professional employees , and all su- pervisors as defined in the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an under- standing is reached, embody the same in a signed written agreement. (b) Make whole Victor DeJesus, Anthony Hale, Lennox Parris, and Robert Rios for any loss of earnings suffered in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to author- ized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in determining compliance with this order or in computing the amount of backpay due. (d) Post at its premises in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 41 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director, of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 41 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Region 29 (Brooklyn , New York), shall, after being signed by an authorized representative , be posted as herein provid- ed immediately upon receipt thereof, and be so maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. As the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the law when we fired Victor DeJesus, Anthony Hale, Lennox Parris , and Robert Rios, WE WILL make up to them the pay each of them lost, with 6-percent interests. Dated By APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a full trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found that we, Adams Book Company, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this notice . We will carry out the Order of the Board, the judgment of any court enforcing the same , and comply with the following: The Act gives all employees these rights: To organize themselves To form , join, or help unions To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all these things. WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with you in the exercise of the aforementioned rights , and all our em- ployees are free to become or remain a member of District 65 , or not to become or remain a member of that or any other union. WE WILL NOT question you about your sympathies for or activities on behalf of District 65, or any other union. WE WILL NOT question you as to whether you have signed a card for any union. WE WILL NOT promise you benefits to induce you to withdraw your support from a union. WE WILL NOT discharge or threaten to discharge any employee because he has assisted or supported a union, or promise to reinstate them if the Union 's campaign fails. WE WILL , upon request , bargain collectively with Dis- trict 65, as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of our employees in an appropriate unit composed of all warehouse employees , including re- ceiving and shipping employees , but excluding office clerical employees , guards , professional employees, and supervisors , as defined in the National Labor Rela- tions Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached reduce the same to a signed written agreement. ADAMS BOOK COMPANY, INC (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material . Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board 's Office , 16 Court Street , Fourth Floor, Brooklyn , New York 11241 , Telephone 212-596-3535. APPENDIX B 1971 Week Ending Warehouse Employees 2-12 13 2-19 14 2-26 15 3-5 14 3-12 16 3-19 16 3-26 16 4-2 15 4-8 15 1972 Week Ending Warehouse Employees 2-11 16 2-18 15 2-25 15 3-3 16 3-10 16 3-17 16 3-24 16 3-31 12 4-6 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation