Phillips Electronics & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 88 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pix Manufacturing Company, Division of Phillips
Electronics & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. and
Terry E. Cosgrove and Carl R. Hoffman and
Local 102, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Party to the Contract. Case
22-CA-3737
February 10, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 8, 1969, Trial Examiner William
W. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Union, a party to the contract, filed
exceptions and supporting brief and a motion to
reopen the record. The General Counsel filed a
memorandum in opposition to the Union's motion.
Pursui nt to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, the
motion,' and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Pix Manufacturing
Company, Division of Phillips Electronics &
Pharmaceutical Industries Corp., Murray Hill, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
'After the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Union filed a
motion to reopen the record for the purpose of taking additional testimony
on the accretion issue The General Counsel opposed the motion because it
asserts bare conclusions without particular izing the evidence the Union
expects to adduce at a new hearing We find merit in the General
Counsel ' s position and hereby deny the Union ' s motion to reopen the
record
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was
heard at Newark, New Jersey, on June 23, 1969, with all
parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a
complaint' issued by the General Counsel on May 23,
1969 The complaint, in substance, alleges that Pix
Manufacturing Company, Division of Phillips Electronics
and Pharmaceutical Industries Corp., hereafter referred to
as Pix, Respondent, or Company, engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act since March 4, 1969, by (1) recognizing and
negotiating with Local 102, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, hereafter called Teamsters, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its production and
maintenance employees; (2) requiring its production and
maintenance employees and applicants for employment to
execute authorizations or membership applications in
favor of Teamsters as a condition of retaining and
obtaining employment; and (3) checking off dues,
initiation fees, and assessments for Teamsters, from the
pay of its employees, notwithstanding that Teamsters has
not been the duly designated or selected representative of
said employees and has not represented an uncoerced
majority of Respondent's production and maintenance
employees In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices, and alleged
that, pursuant to an arbitration award the recognition
clause of the collective-bargaining contract between
Electrical Industries, a division of Phillips Electronics and
Pharmaceutical Industries Corp., and Teamsters, the
production and maintenance employees of Respondent
were found to be covered by said recognition clause, that
subsequent to March 4, 1969, it discussed the
implementation of the arbitration award with Teamsters,
and that in May 1969 it checked off certain dues for
Teamsters from employees who executed proper written
authorizations therefor. Teamsters, following the granting
of its motion to intervene, based on the ground that its
interests were affected, filed an answer of general denial
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. A brief was
received from the General Counsel and has been carefully
considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I COMMERCE
Pix, a division of Phillips Electronics, Inc., is located in
a plant in Murray Hill, New Jersey, where it is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of metal stampings and wire
forms to customers in the electronic industry. In the
course and conduct of its business operations, it annually
sells and distributes such products valued in excess of
$50,000, directly to points outside of New Jersey I find,
and Respondent admits, that, at all times material herein,
Pix has been engaged as an employer within the meaning
'Based upon a charge filed on March 7, 1969, by Terry E Cosgrove and
Carl R Hoffman
181 NLRB No. 17
PIX MANUFACTURING COMPANY 89
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent and Teamsters admit , and I find, at all
times material herein , that Teamsters has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Iii THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
North American Phillips Corporation is the parent
company of Phillips Electronics & Pharmaceutical
Industries Corp., which consisted of two division. Pix and
Electrical Industries, hereafter called E I. About January
1969, Phillips Electronics & Pharmaceutical Industries
Corp. organized a new corporation called Phillips
Electronics, Inc., and Pix and E.I., the two companies
directly involved herein, thereupon became divisions of
this new corporation
Prior to about November 1, 1968, and for many years,
Pix operated three plants, one located at 75 Hudson
Street, Newark, New Jersey, and the other two located on
Dickerson Street around the corner from the Hudson
Street plant On or about November 1, 1968, the Newark
plants were closed and relocated about 10 miles away in
Murray Hill, New Jersey, where it continued to perform
the same work in a building located at 675 Central
Avenue, about 135 feet from a building on the same street
occupied by E.I.' In the area between them each building
has its own driveway, separated by an island, and there is
a motor drive connecting both of these driveways.' Of the
79 employees at the Pix Newark plants, 54 moved to
Murray Hill, and the rest of its approximately 87
employees were hired after its relocation. Currently, 45 of
its relocated employees are on Pix's payroll.
In January or February 1969, about 30 E I. glass and
ceramic workers, their supervisors, and office clericals
moved into a subleased part of Pix's building.4 The
subleased space is considerably less than that retained by
Pix and is partitioned off by a solid wall in which there is
a connecting door. Pix and E.I. each have their own
maintenance crew under the supervision of a leadman in
Pix's building. The crews are kept separate except in
emergencies. Jack Bonner , hired by Pix as the plant
engineer for its building, has overall supervision over both
maintenance crews. Pix's maintenance crew called
Machine and Building Maintenance is basically more
skilled than E.1 's crew, and services the building's
air-conditioning and heating equipment as well as Pix's
presses and other equipment. The restrooms and cafeteria
are used jointly by all the employees in the building.
Pix has a general manager, Kenneth Swoboda,' who is
responsible for the hiring and discharging of Pix's
employees and has no authority over E.I.'s employees.
E I., although not a corporate entity, is managed by
'E I moved to its present location at 691 Central Avenue about 10 years
ago from a plant in Newark , New Jersey , about a mile from Pix's former
location
'See G C Exh 6, a diagram drawn to scale and submitted and admitted
in evidence after the hearing pursuant to arrangements made therein
4E 1 has about 250 production and maintenance employees, and is
engaged principally in the assembly of electronic components Currently it
purchases 35 percent dollarwise of Pix's total output, consisting principally
of metal stampings called "headers," which is approximately about the
same percentage as before Pix's relocation
"President" Ferraid.b Pix and E.1 do not interchange
employees with respect to their functions.' E.1.'s material
consigned to its subleased quarters in Pix 's building is
usually received at Pix's receiving dock by a Pix employee
who then calls an E I. supervisor to remove the materials
from the dock. Pix's receptionist receives telephone calls
on two tielines between the Pix and E.I. buildings, and at
times connects such calls to E.I. employees. Also,
occasionally the receptionist places long-distance calls on
behalf of E.I. employees Because of a market shortage in
copper core, which is used by both companies, such
purchases are made on behalf of both companies by a
parent purchasing agent in order to safeguard their
respective supplies E.I. and Pix have the same category of
employees such as factory workers, press operators, and
diemakers, but they are not interchangeable where their
skills are different, especially in the diemaking and press
operations. The employees of both companies enjoy
substantially the same fringe benefits with slight
differences in life insurance and vacation benefits. Pix
maintains its own personnel records, payroll,
profit-and-loss statements, and job application forms.
At the time of its relocation and for many years prior
thereto,' the employees of Pix were not represented by any
union , but it appears that in June 1968 Teamsters
attempted to solicit some Pix employees at its Newark
plants.
In 1964, Teamsters was certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative of E.I., and their current
bargaining contract which expires on June 10, 1970,
contains the following recognition clause-
The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent for a bargaining unit of
employees as certified in National Labor Relations
Board proceedings, Case No 22-RC-2467, which
bargaining unit includes all production and maintenance
employees, including shipping and receiving employees
employed at the Employer's plant located at 691
Central Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey. Excluded
from the aforementioned bargaining unit and not
covered by this Agreement are all office clerical
employees, plant clerical employees, salesmen,
professional employees, guards, technical employees
and supervisors as defined by the Act.
B. The Arbitration Award
In late 1968 following Pix's relocation, Teamsters
demand for recognition as the bargaining representative of
the production and maintenance employees of Pix
pursuant to its contractual recognition clause was refused.
E.I. then agreed to arbitrate the matter in accordance
with the arbitration procedure in their contract. The
arbitrator after opening the proceeding summoned Pi1c to
participate because its interests were affected. Although
'Swoboda was hired and is supervised by Herbert Klein, a vice president
of North American Phillips Corporation Klein, in addition to other
offices, has an office in Pix's building, which he shares with 0 H
Brewster , the president of Phillips Electronics & Pharmaceutical Industries
Corp
'Ferraid is supervised by 0 H Brewster
'Except that the members of the maintenance crews of each division
worked jointly under Jack Bonner when Pix 's building was being prepared
for its relocation, and when E L's subleased space in Pix's budding was
being made ready for E I's glass form operations Each division , however,
paid for the services rendered on its own behalf
'Unsuccessful attempts were made to unionize Pix's employees in 1960
and 1961
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pix disputed the arbitrator's jurisdiction to issue an award
affecting its employees and refused to consent to be bound
by an award emanating from a grievance pursuant to a
collective-bargaining agreement to which it was not a
party, it, nevertheless, appeared and participated in the
proceedings. On February 20, 1969, the arbitrator issued
an award that Pix's production, maintenance, shipping
and receiving employees were covered by the recognition
clause in the Teamsters' contract with E.I. He found that
any variances in their operations were established solely
for purposes of bookkeeping by the parent corporation,
that certain operational diversities in their respective
functioning related to degree rather than to kind; that
certain of E.I.'s ceramic and glass form workers were
physically within the confines of Pix's premises; that the
work being done by these employees is closely related to
that being done by Pix's employees; that Pix's principal
product, the "header," totaling about 50 percent of its
output is sold to E.I., and other divisions of the parent
company; that E I. processes the "header" further for the
benefit of the parent company; and that there was
common usage by the employees of both divisions of
certain facilities in Pix's building He concluded that there
was integration of all facets of the work forces, facilities,
administration, common top supervision and direction of
Pix and E.I., that Fix is no more than the alter ego of
E.I., and that both constitute the employer
C. The Implementation of the Arbitration Award
Following the issuance of the arbitration award, Pix
posted a notice to its employees quoting part of the
arbitration award, which stated they'were covered by the
recognition clause of the contract between E I. and
Teamsters, and further advising them that, due to the
differences between the operations of Pix and E.1 , a
supplemental agreement would have to be devised to
protect their wages, working conditions, welfare benefits,
job security, and seniority. It also posted a separate notice
prepared by Teamsters which advised Pix employees that
due to the arbitrator's award payment of dues would start
as of April 1, which could be accomplished by signing a
checkoff slip or paying direct to Teamsters on or before
April 30, 1969, and that those employees failing to pay
dues by April 30 would be subject to the 30-day clause in
the contract. Pix also posted a similar notice prefixed with
the statement that its attorneys instructed them to post it,
and that there was still an action pending before the
National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, it was
stipulated that Pix recognized Teamsters pursuant to the
arbitration award, and that, subsequent to the posting of
the aforedescribed notices, Pix for the first time received
authorization and dues checkoff cards from some of its
employees, and has since deducted Teamsters dues from
the wages of those employees.
D. The Contentions of the Parties
Respondent takes the position that there is a binding
arbitration award founded upon an accretion which it was
obligated to honor.
Teamsters assert that the arbitration award complied
with the criteria set forth by the Board in the Spielberg
Manufacturing Company' and Raley's Inc ' ° cases, and
therefore must be honored by the Board without recourse
to the merits."
'112 NLRB 1080
The General Counsel contends that the superior
authority of the Board may be invoked at any time,
regardless of recourse by the parties to arbitration, on the
question as to whether or not employees have accreted to
an existing bargaining unit,': and has exercised that
authority to overturn improper unit determinations via
arbitration as was done in Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 162 NLRB 768.
E Conclusions
In Spielberg Manufacturing Co, supra, the Board
enunciated the doctrine that it would honor an arbitration
award where "the proceedings appear to have been fair
and regular, all parties had agreed to be bound, and the
decision of the arbitration panel is not clearly repugnant
to the purposes and policies of Act." The principle of
honoring an arbitration award that met the specified
standards was extended to representation cases in Raley's
Inc , supra. However, the Board is not precluded from
adjudicating unfair labor practices which had been the
subject of an arbitration proceeding and award. Thus, in
International Harvester Co (UAW, Local 98),' the
Board stated:
There is no question that the Board is not precluded
from adjudicating unfair labor practice charges even
though they might have been the subject of an
arbitration proceeding and award. Section 10(a) of the
Act expressly makes this plain, and the courts have
uniformly so held However, it is equally well
established that the Board has considerable discretion
to respect an arbitration award and decline to exercise
its authority over alleged unfair labor practices if to do
so will serve the fundamental aims of the Act.
[Footnotes omitted.]
Also, in Westinghouse Electric Corp ." the Board held
that "the ultimate issue of representation could not be
decided by the Arbitrator on the basis of his interpreting
the contract under which he was authorized to act, but
could only be resolved by utilization of Board criteria for
making unit determinations. In such cases the arbitrator's
award must clearly reflect the use of and be consonant
with Board standards." The Board, while giving "some
consideration to the award," then applied its own criteria
and made a different unit allocation.
Even assuming that the arbitration proceeding herein
was fair and regular and all parties agreed to be bound, I
conclude there is no merit in Teamsters position that the
Board must honor the award without considering whether
it clearly reflected the use of and was consonant with
Board standards in determining whether Pix's production
and maintenance employees accreted to the unit described
in E.I.'s contract with Teamsters. Thus, the resolution of
this question could determine whether or not Respondent
unlawfully recognized and bargained with Teamsters as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its production
and maintenance employees.
Although the criteria used in resolving unit and
accretion issues are quite similar, the Board has been
more restrictive in their application to accretions This is
so because the resolution of competing claims for a single
unit or a multiplant unit merely determines in which unit
10143 NLRB 256
"Its position appears on the record, pp 18 and 19
"Citing Carey V Westinghouse Electric Corp , 375 U S 261, 275
"138 NLRB 923, 925-926
' 'Supra at 771
PIX MANUFACTURING COMPANY 91
the employees will be permitted to vote to insure them the
fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by
Section 9(b) of the Act. Whereas, when a claim of
accretion is made to an existing unit, a favorable
determination forecloses a vote and restricts the
employees in the exercise of their basic right to select their
bargaining representative. That right is the predominant
consideration under Section 7 of the Act and is to be
restricted only under "compelling conditions." See Sunset
House, 167 NLRB No. 132; Kinney National
Maintenance Services, 177 NLRB No. 53.
In determining whether a particular operation
constitutes an accretion or a separate unit, the Board gives
weight to a variety of factors, such as integration of
operations, centralization of managerial and
administrative control, geographic proximity, similarity of
working conditions, skills, and functions, control over
labor relations, collective-bargaining history, and
interchangeability of employees A variety of factors,
some militating toward and some against accretion, are
usually present so that a balancing of factors is
necessary 'S
In Pullman Industries, Inc 11 similar in many respects
to the instant case, the Board balanced such factors and
applied its restrictive policy as follows: The intervenor,
following its certification as the bargaining representative
of the production and maintenance employees of the
company at its Pullman, Michigan, plant, negotiated a
collective-bargaining contract covering those employees,
which contained, inter alia , an arbitration procedure
Shortly thereafter, the company opened up a new plant 18
miles away at South Haven, Michigan When the
intervenor claimed recognition as bargaining
representative of the employees at the new plant, the
company refused relying particularly on the fact that its
bargaining contract covered only the employees at its
Pullman plant. The intervenor thereupon invoked the
arbitration provisions of its contract and obtained a
favorable award based on an accretion in the ensuing
arbitration proceeding Meanwhile, another union filed
9(c) petitions for an election The Board found some
factors tending to support an accretion because the work
was similar at both plants, supervisors, foremen, and the
plant managers were transferred from the Pullman plant
to the South Haven plant, some of the presses at the new
plant came from the old one and some parts pressed at
the old plant were then transferred to the new plant for
further work, and some of the finished products were
routed through the old plant for shipment. The Board,
however, held that these factors were wholly insufficient to
outweigh other factors present, which established that the
new plant was not an accretion to the contract unit. Thus,
all employees working at the new plant were new
employees hired at that location, the plant was organized
as a completely self-sustaining autonomous operation, it
contained its own storage and maintenance facilities, its
own personnel and management office, and all the
facilities and equipment necessary for the complete
processing of its product. The Board then concluded in
view of these circumstances, and inasmuch as a single
plant unit is presumptively appropriate (citing Dixie Belle
Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629), that the new plant employees
should constitute a separate appropriate unit, if they so
desire. It also found that a single unit of both plants may
also be appropriate in view of the fact that both plants
"See The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , 140 NLRB 1011,
1021
were under the same ultimate supervision, using the same
trucking facilities and raw materials, and that there was
an interchange of working materials between the two
plants. It therefore concluded that it would make no unit
determination with respect to the employees at the new
plant operations but would first ascertain the desires of
these employees as expressed in the election directed
therein pursuant to the filed 9(c) petitions "
In the instant case, the factors militating against a
finding of an accretion include the following: Ptx's
operation underwent no change by reason of its relocation
to Murray Hill, and remained a completely self-sustaining
autonomous operation, it continued to use its own
equipment and to fabricate the same component parts in
an area separated by a wall from the area subleased to
E.I., following its relocation it sold approximately the
same percentage of its output to E I., a majority of its
Newark employees continued in its employ, it hired new
employees to replace those who declined to move to
Murray Hill, there was no interchange of employees
between it and E.1 in its production operations, and it
maintained its managerial functions completely separated
from those of E.1 and did its own hiring and firing It is
also significant to note that Teamsters never made any
claim of an accretion while Fix was located in Newark.
Applying the restrictive policy of the Board in
determining whether there was an accretion, I find that
such factors as common ownership of both companies,
including their overall control, their geographic proximity,
and the joint use of such facilities as the restrooms and
cafeteria, and the occasional use of Pix's receiving dock
and telephone service hardly suffice to outweigh the
factors militating against a finding of an accretion. I find
further that Pix's employees have not been merged into
nor did they become an integral part of E.I. as a result of
Pix's relocation, and that to the contrary Pix's employees
have retained their identity as a separate unit. I, therefore,
conclude that the arbitrator's award did not clearly reflect
the use of and was not consonant with Board standards.
Thus, by extending E I 's contract to cover its employees
and by recognizing Teamsters as the bargaining agent on
the basis of the arbitration award, when Teamsters did not
represent an uncoerced majority of its employees, Fix
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. By applying
the union-security and checkoff provision of the contract
and deducting union dues from the wages of its
employees, Pix has created discriminatory conditions of
employment and thereby unlawfully encouraged
membership in Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act See The Item Company, 113
NLRB 67.
"159 NLRB 580
"See also Dura Corporation, 153 NLRB 592, enfd 375 F 2d 707 (C A
6), where the company opened an additional plant, about 50 miles away, to
manufacture products previously fabricated at its old plant for certain of
its customers The company , which was under contract with the union at
the old plant, then applied their contract to the employees of the new
plant , which had its own plant director and industrial relations director,
did its own hiring, and handled its own payroll While jobs at both plants
were virtually interchangeable, there was, in fact, no interchange or
substantial transfer between the plants The Board found that the new
plant manufacturing operations could not be viewed as functionally
integrated to any significant degree with the older plant, and, accordingly,
held that there was no accretion
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations 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 thereof
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. At all times material herein, Teamsters has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By recognizing Teamsters as the bargaining
representative of its , production and maintenance
employees pursuant to the arbitration award which was
based upon a finding that its employees had accreted to
the contractual unit of E.I.'s employees, Pix has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. By applying the union-security clause of the E.I.
contract to its employees and deducting Teamsters dues
from their wages, Pix has discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of its employees, thereby
encouraging membership in Teamsters in violation of
Section 8(a)(l), (2), and (3) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found Respondent unlawfully assisted
Teamsters , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
from giving effect to Teamsters' collective - bargaining
agreement with E . I , or to any modification, extension,
renewal , or supplement thereto, and withdraw and
withhold all recognition from Teamsters as the
representative of its employees unless and until Teamsters
is certified by the Board as such representative.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully deducted
union dues from the wages of its employees on behalf of
Teamsters, I shall recommend that Pix reimburse all of its
employees for such dues or other moneys unlawfully
exacted under Teamsters ' contract with E.I., together with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in a
manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of
North America , Great Lakes District , AFL-CIO, 138
NLRB 1142.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and the entire record , and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, Pix Manufacturing Company, Division of
Phillips Electronics, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Recognizing or bargaining with Local 102,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
collective-bargaining representative of its production and
maintenance employees, unless and until said labor
organization has been duly certified by the Board as the
exclusive representative of those employees.
(b) Maintaining or giving any force or effect to the
contract entered into between Electrical Industries, and
the aforesaid Teamsters Local, dated June 10, 1967, or
any supplement thereto with respect to its employees;
provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall require
it to vary or abandon any wage or other substantive
feature of its relations with its employees which may have
been established in the performance of said contract.
(c) Encouraging membership in the aforesaid Teamsters
Local or in any other labor organization by unlawfully
soliciting or requiring its employees to execute union
membership cards or authorizations to deduct union dues
from their wages on behalf of the said Teamsters Local
(d) In any other manner unlawfully assisting the
aforesaid Teamsters Local or any other labor organization
in obtaining employees' membership therein
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
aforesaid Teamsters Local as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its production and maintenance
employees unless and until said Local has been duly
certified as such representative by the National Labor
Relations Board
(b) Reimburse all its production and maintenance
employees for dues and other moneys unlawfully exacted
under the above-described bargaining contract, together
with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, computed
in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union
of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, 138
NLRB 1142.
(c).Post at its Murray Hill, New Jersey, plant, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix "18 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 22, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
PIX MANUFACTURING COMPANY 93
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with Local 102,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
production and maintenance employees unless and until
it is certified as such representative by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT maintain or give any force or effect to
or apply the contract which the aforesaid Teamsters
Local entered into with Electrical Industries, dated June
to, 1967, or to any supplement thereto with respect to
our production and maintenance employees.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership of any of our
employees in the aforesaid Teamsters Local by
soliciting or requiring them to execute union
designation cards or authorizations to deduct union
dues from their wages on behalf of said Union, or in
any other manner discriminate against any employees
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL reimburse our production and maintenance
employees , former and present , for dues and other
moneys unlawfully exacted under the aforesaid contract
on behalf of the aforesaid Teamsters Local.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any
labor organization.
Dated By
PIX MANUFACTURING
Co, DIVISION OF
PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 16th Floor,
Federal Office Building, 970 Broad Street , Newark, New
Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.