Ridgewood Art Woodcraft

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

RIDGEWOOD ART WOODCRAFT 761
Engelbert Samide d/b/a Ridgewood Art Woodcraft
and Furniture Workers Union , Local 76-B, United
Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case
29-CA- 1531
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the
complaint as to which no violations have been found
are hereby dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
March 23, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On October 28, 1969, Trial Examiner James R.
Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that 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. The
Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to
part of the Decision, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief,
and Respondent filed a brief in opposition to
General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant 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, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(6) 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 . Respondent, Engelbert Samide d/b/a
Ridgewood Art Woodcraft, Brooklyn, New York,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner. This case, with all
parties represented, was heard in Brooklyn, New York on
June 9, 10, 11, 1969, on a complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of Ridgewood Art Woodcraft, herein
called Respondent The complaint was issued on February
28, 1969, on a charge filed November 25, 1968. The
complaint alleges that Respondent refused to bargain in
good faith with the Charging Party and engaged in other
acts of interference, restraint and coercion of employees
which` constituted unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and by
Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon the
entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Engelbert Samide was, until his death on March 19,
1969, a sole proprietor doing business as Ridgewood Art
Woodcraft in the Borough of Queens, City and State of
New York, where he was engaged in the manufacture,
sale and distribution of office and industrial furniture and
related products. Since his death, his business has been
operated by his widow, Amalia Samide, and his son,
Adolph Samide. During the past year, which period is
representative of Respondent's annual operations
generally, Respondent sold and distributed finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located
outside the State of New York.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Furniture Workers Union, Local 76-B, United
Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called Furniture Workers, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Local 2632, United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as
Carpenters Union Local 2632, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
'The General Counsel excepts to the finding of the Trial Examiner in
section III, J, of his Decision that Foreman Volk's statement to employee
Tripoli occurred on November 9, 1969 We find merit in this exception,
and find that this statement was made on November 20, 1969
Further, since we have determined that Respondent did not engage in
activities in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and we have not issued
a bargaining order, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial
Examiner's finding that Manfrede Bauer should be excluded from the
bargaining unit because of his relationship as son-in-law to the late
Eng6lbert Samide
A The Issues
1. Whether Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices of such a nature that a representation election
could not reflect the true desires of the employees on the
matter of a bargaining representative
2 Whether Respondent rendered illegal assistance to
the Carpenters Union, Local 2632, by permitting a
representative to speak to an assembly of employees on
181 NLRB No. 110
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
company time.
3. Whether an employee who is a son - in-law of owner
Engelbert Samide should be excluded from the bargaining
unit
4 Whether the Furniture Workers secured
authorization cards from a majority of Respondent's
employees , and whether Respondent could insist on a
Board election as proof of majority under the
circumstances of this case
B Union Organizational Activities
In October 1968, Vito Massaro, an employee of
Respondent and a former member of the Furniture
Workers, telephoned Joseph Tranchida, a business
representative of this Union and asked him to come to
Respondent's shop and organize its employees On
November 6, 1968, Tranchida met with four employees in
front of the plant. On November 8, a union meeting was
held at a tavern and was attended by 13 or 14 of
Respondent's 16 employees and by Tranchida and Union
Business Agent George Bocchiere. Questions were asked
by the employees and answers were given by the union
representatives Union application cards were distributed.
Approximately ten employees signed cards at this
meeting The other employees stated that they wanted to
think the matter over and they retained their card. Vito
Massaro stated that he wanted to hold the signed cards
until the next meeting, and they were turned over to him
by Tranchida. The employees wanted to retain possession
of the cards until they had had an opportunity to learn
more about the Union.
On November 14, another union meeting was held in
the same tavern, and fourteen employees attended with
Tranchida and Bocchiere. Tranchida read to them a copy
of the Union's basic contract. Then, demands which were
to be presented to Respondent were formulated. Vito
Massaro turned over to Tranchida the authorization cards
in his possession. Sal Tripoli was elected shop steward,
and Stanley Szulborski was elected committee man
Tranchida ascertained from the employees that Tuesday
of the following week, November 19, 1968, would be a
good time to see their employer Owner Engelbert Samide
due to illness was not coming into the office regularly
C. The Bargaining Unit and the Authorization Cards
All employees of Respondent employed at its Queens
plant, exclusive of all office clericals, salesmen, guards
and watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
On November 14, 1968, Respondent had in its shop
sixteen production and maintenance employees and a
foreman, William Volk. One of the employees, Manfrede
Bauer, who is employed as shipping clerk, is a son-in-law
of the deceased owner, Engelbert Samide Bauer is the
only employee in the shipping department. He cleans and
wraps desks for shipment. If he needs assistance in
moving a desk that he cannot handle himself, he calls on
one of the other employees for help. There is a telephone
on his desk and if no one is in the office, he receives
incoming calls He exercises no authority over other
employees and I find that he is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act But, because of his relationship to
Engelbert Samide as son-in-law, I find in accordance with
Board policy on relationships of this degree that his
interests are more closely identified with those of
management than those of fellow employees and that he
should therefore be excluded from the bargaining unit.'
Foreman William Volk is in charge of all employees in
Respondent's shop; he directs them in their daily work; he
has interviewed and hired employees, transferred
employees and has granted time off to employees I find
that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Exclusive of Foreman Volk and Bauer, Respondent had
fifteen employees in the bargaining unit when the Union's
request for recognition was made
Between November 8 and 14, 1968, fourteen of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees
signed union authorization cards. All but three of the
cards were identified by the employees who signed them
Salvatore Tripoli observed his brother, Gastare Tripoli,
sign his authorization card on November 8, 1968, at a
union meeting; he gave cards to employees Korneliu
Barbes and Ernst Linauer; Linauer returned his signed
card to Tripoli and Barbes returned his signed card to
employee Vito Massaro One card, that of Hermann
Jeschawitz, is undated, but Jeschawitz testified that it was
signed at the first union meeting which was held on
November 8, 1968 Jeschawitz quit his employment with
Respondent on November 22, 1968 Thus, when the
Furniture Workers made its request for recognition on
November 19, 1968, it had valid authorization cards from
a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate
unit.
D. First Meeting with Respondent November 19,
1968
At or about 10 a.m. on November 19, Union
Representatives Tranchida and Bocchiere entered the
plant and called Tripoli and Szulborski, and the four went
to Samide's office. Tranchida introduced himself as a
representative of the Furniture Workers and stated that he
represented a majority of the employees; he had the
employees' authorization cards in his hand Samide
replied that he was a sick man, that he had just come out
of a hospital and could not talk to him. Tranchida pushed
Samide against a wall and told him to "sign here."
Szulborski told Tranchida not to do that, that the boss
was a good boss and was a sick man Samide said he was
in no position to sign anything Tranchida stated that
Samide would have to have-someone to represent him and
that if he did not sit down and bargain with the Union
and recognize it as the bargaining agent for the
employees, he was ready to strike the shop Samide got
very excited and said that he was sick and that he could
not talk to them, that the employees did not need a union;
that they had good pay; that they want him to throw away
the keys or lock the door. Tranchida insisted that he get
someone to represent him He inquired if Samide had a
lawyer and when informed that he did, Tranchida asked
that he be called on the telephone Joseph Mitschel was
called and the telephone handed to Tranchida. Tranchida
informed Mitschel that he represented a majority of the
employees, and that Samide stated that he was not able to
talk. He asked Mitschel to come to the plant immediately
and talk with him Mitschel replied that he was very busy
and could not meet with him that day but that he could
meet on Friday Tranchida said that he was stalling
Finally they agreed to meet at 10.30 a.m on Friday,
November 22.
'Foam Rubber City No 2 of Florida, 167 NLRB No 81
RIDGEWOOD ART WOODCRAFT 763
E Solicitation by Carpenters Union
On Wednesday, November 20, 1968, Wilbert Ealey,
financial secretary and business representative of
Carpenters Union, Local No. 2632, came to Respondent's
shop at or about 4:15 p.m. Adolph Samide and Amalia
Samtde were in the office Ealey asked for permission to
talk to the employees. Adolph Samide called his father on
the telephone and was advised that Ealey may do so but
should do it after working hours.
At or about 4 25 p in , Adolph Samide and Bauer
asked the employees to come to the front of the shop; that
someone wanted to talk to them. Ealey asked Samide and
Bauer to leave and he then talked to the employees for
about 30 minutes He informed them of the wage scale for
persons in his union and about other benefits of his union
He also informed them that he had been in their
employer's office long ago, and on this basis he claimed
priority on the matter of representation of the employees
Quitting time at Respondent's shop is 4:30 p.m., but
the employees habitually work one hour of overtime each
workday and leave work at 5.30 p.m. They were paid for
one hour of overtime on the date of Ealey's talk
F The Furniture Workers' Telegram of November 21
On November 21, 1968, the Furniture Workers sent
'and Respondent received the following telegram:
This is to advise you that the undersigned Union
represents the majority of the employees employed by
you in an appropriate unit and stand ready, willing and
able to demonstrate its majority to you. We desire that
you recognize us as collective bargaining agent for the
said employees and that negotiations for a collective
bargaining agreement proceed without delay in
connection with the above. Our business representatives
will contact you Thursday, Nov 21.
G Speech by Engelbert Samide on November 21
At some time on Thursday, November 21, 1968,
Adolph Samide assembled the employees for a meeting.
Engelbert Samide spoke to them and stated that he was
not against unions, and if they wanted a union, they could
have a union, but that they should pick an outside union,
one that would help him get work outside the shop; that
he had had to give away certain jobs that required
installation work away from the shop.
Whether or not Samide mentioned the Carpenters
Union by name is disputed, but his reference to an
"outside union" was recognized as a clear reference to the
Carpenters Union.
and negotiate with the Furniture Workers because it had
not been certified by the Board as the bargaining agent,
and that he would file for an election to be conducted by
the Board. Tranchida stated that he felt Mitschel had
utilized the two days to stall and to deter the employees
from being represented, and that they would have to pull
the employees out of the shop. The union representatives
then went into the plant, and asked the employees to go
out on strike, but only one employee left
1. Speech by Attorney Mitschel to Employees on
November 22
In the afternoon of November 22, 1968, Mitschel spoke
to the employees They were assembled by Bauer for this
purpose Mitschel told them that the employer had no
prejudices with regard to unions; that it was solely the
prerogative of the workers themselves to decide the union
they wished to join or become members of, and once they
had made that election, then at that time the employer
would. negotiate in good faith with their bargaining agent;
that the selection of a union was a very serious matter and
that they should look into the financial condition of each
union, the benefits of each union, what work they would
be permitted to do in their trade, the jurisdictions that the
unions have, whether they would be ' able to find
employment without changing unions if they moved to
another city or another state, whether the union would
still be around when they were ready to retire; that they
should choose a union with the better benefits, pension
plan, etc. He told them that Respondent would help them
get a better union, but he did not mention the name of
any union He also told them that if there is a picket line
at the plant on the following Monday, they should not be
afraid and should go right ahead to work
J. Foreman Volk's Statement Regarding Overtime
At about 8.10 a.m. on about November 9, 1968,
Foreman Volk stated to Tripoli that if the union pay for
overtime work is double-time pay, then if the employees
get into the Union, Respondent would not work any more
overtime. Volk 'told Tripoli to tell the people that there
would be no more overtime. About one hour later, Volk
asked Tripoli "how does the Union pay the overtime, time
and a half or double time9" Tripoli replied that with their
contract they would get time and a half for overtime
work. Then Volk said they would continue to work
overtime No lapse in overtime work or pay occurred. I
find no unfair labor practice occurred by Volk's remarks.
K. Representation Petition Filed by Another Local of
the Carpenters Union
H The Union's Second Meeting with Respondent on
November 22
On November 22, 1968, Union Representatives
Tranchida, Bocchiere, and John Martinelli met with
Attorney Mitschel Amalia Samide, Adolph Samide, and
Manfrede Bauer were also present. Also, employee
Salvatore Tripoli was present. Tranchida informed
Mitschel that he represented a majority of the employees
He had the authorization cards in his hand.' He stated
that he wanted to negotiate a collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent. Mitschel replied that Samide
was seriously ill and he asked that the matter be
adjourned. He further stated that he would not recognize
On December 6 or 7, 1968, employees Salvatore Tripoli
and Emmerich Steiner called Joseph Marino, business
representative for the Carpenters Union, Local 2584,
regarding representation; they informed him that they had
had conversation with another union but were not
concerned with affiliation with that union. A meeting was
arranged with the employees of Respondent for December
10, 1968, at which time ten employees signed
'There is a sharp but noncritical conflict in the testimony as to whether
Tranchida offered the cards to Mitschel on this date or to Engelbert
Samide on November 19 He had the cards in his possession on both
occasions, and the Union's telegram of November 21 clearly offered proof
of majority
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorization cards, and on approximately December 11,
a request for recognition was made on Respondent. A
representation petition was filed on December 30, 1968,
Case 29-RC-1162, which matter is pending.
L Conclusions
By Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer to, among other things,
contribute support to a labor organization in its efforts to
become the bargaining representative of his employees.
Section 8(c) of the Act, a restatement of the principles of
the First Amendment to the Constitution, permits an
employer to express his views, arguments, opinions, and
preferences on the matter of unions, provided such
expressions contain no threat of reprisal or promise of
benefit. Thus, Respondent may voice his preference for
and support of a particular union, but generally he may
not engage in actions that assist or support it. In
evaluating and judging his actions, the circumstances
surrounding them and their timing can be very significant.
There are cases that iterate a requirement of strict
neutrality on the part of an employer in a two-union
situation, but in each of these cases, it is the employer's
action or conduct that is the crux of his wrongdoing '
In the instant case, a representative of the Carpenters
Union, Local 2632, appeared at Respondent's shop the
next day after the Furniture Workers had made their
claim for recognition; Respondent assembled the
employees for him, and he was permitted to address them
for approximately 30 minutes, during which time they
were receiving overtime pay. Although this is definitely
action of assistance, it is more aggravated in cases where
the same right is denied to a representative of a rival
union, and less aggravated where no other union is
involved In the instant case, there was no request by the
Furniture Workers for the privilege of speaking to the
employees on company time and property, and therefore
no denial by Respondent; at the time of the Carpenters
Union's request, the Furniture Workers already had
completed its organizational activities Under the
circumstances of this case, I find that Respondent by this
action illegally rendered assistance and support to the
Carpenters Union, Local 2632 Since the remarks to the
employees by Engelbert Samide and Attorney Mitschel
made on November 21 and 22 contained no threat of
reprisals or promise of benefit, but constituted their advice
and opinions on the matter of choosing a bargaining
representative, they were permitted by Section 8(c) of the
Act However, delivered on the two days immediately
following Respondent's acts of assistance to the
Carpenters Union, the talks added impetus to
Respondent's actions and aggravated that conduct
The General Counsel contends that under the
circumstances of this case Respondent's refusal to
recognize and bargain with the Furniture Workers based
on authorization cards signed by the employees constitutes
an unfair labor practice.
On November 19, when the Furniture Workers
requested recognition, it had authorization cards signed by
'Midwest Piping & Supply Co. Inc, 63 NLRB 1060; In Sturgeon
Electric Company , Inc, 166 NLRB No. 28, and in Hopcon , Inc, 161
NLRB 31, the employer actively solicited on,behalf of one union by
distributing authorization cards In Sweatermasters Co , Inc, 176 NLRB
No 38, while one supervisor was making a Section 8(c) speech , another
was standing near him holding union authorization cards which he
distributed immediately after the speech
14 of the 15 employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
Respondent insisted on a Board certification as evidence
of the Union's selection as bargaining agent and did not
choose to rely on authorization cards. This it generally
has a right to do, unless it commits unfair labor practices
that interfere with the election process and tend to
preclude the holdi,ig of a fair election '
Besides the assistance rendered to Carpenters Union,
Local 2632, the General Counsel contends that
Respondent committed unfair labor practices by a
threatening statement made by Engelbert Samide in the
presence of employees on November 19 and by a
statement of Foreman Volk regarding overtime made on
November 9, and he contends that these were of a nature
to interfere with the election process
I have already found that Volk's statements regarding
overtime did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
Regarding Samide's remarks on November 19 when he
first encountered Union Representatives Tranchida and
Bocchiere, he stated in the presence of two employees that
the employees [by their apparent interest in the Union]
wanted him to throw away the keys or to lock the door
Although on the same occasion he stated that the
employees did not need a union, two days later he told all
of the employees that if they wanted a union they could
have a union. In the absence of related statements that
might give special import to Samide's words, I cannot
find that his remarks constitute a threat that he would'
close the plant if the employees joined the Furniture
Workers.
Thus, the only conduct of Respondent that has
transgressed the Act was that of permitting a
representative of Carpenters Union, Local 2632, to
address an assembly of employees on company time and
property on November 20, the day after a request for
recognition had been made by the Furniture Workers I
find that it was not an unfair labor practice of such a
nature that would interfere with the election process or
preclude the holding of a fair election S
iV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation 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.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Engelbert Samide , d/b/a, Ridgewood Art Woodcraft
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act
2. United Furniture Workers Union , Local 76-B,
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Local
2632, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the
'NLRB v Gissel Packing Co, 395 US 575, Poughkeepsie
Newspapers, Inc, 177 NLRB No 125 For cases involving widespread or
serious unfair labor practices warranting a bargaining order, see V & H
Industries , 177 NLRB No 118, General Stencils Inc, 178 NLRB No 18,
Indian River Uniform Rentals, Inc, 177 NLRB No 20
'Sweatermarters Co, Inc, 176 NLRB No 38
RIDGEWOOD ART WOODCRAFT 765
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By permitting a representative of Carpenters Union,
Local 2632 to address employees on company time and
property immediately following a request for recognition
by another union, Respondent has illegally rendered
support to said Union within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) if the Act.
4. All employees of Respondent, employed at its
Queens plant, exclusive of office clericals, salesmen,
guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, and son-in-law Manfrede Bauer, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of 9(b) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects Congress
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6 Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, nor has
it engaged in the unfair labor practices as alleged in
paragraphs 12, 14 and 15 of the Complaint
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent 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
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith
IT IS RECOMMENDED that paragraphs 12, 14, and 15 of
the Complaint be dismissed.
'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 29 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which
is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, I
recommend that, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the
Board issue the following
ORDER
Engelbert Samide, d/b/a, Ridgewood Art Woodcraft,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support to Local 2632, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, in its effort to
become bargaining representative of our employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant, in English and the languages of its
employees copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."° Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
'in the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 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 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 be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT contribute support to Local 2632,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, or to any other labor
organization, in its effort to become bargaining
representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights (1) to self-organization, (2) to form, join,
or assist the Furniture Workers Union, Local 76-B,
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, (3) to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or (4) to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or (5) to refrain from any or all such activities.
All of our employees are free to become or to remain
or refrain from becoming or remaining members of
Furniture Workers Union, Local 76-B, or any other labor
organization
ENGELBERT SAMIDE,
D/B/A RIDGEWOOD ART
WOODCRAFT
(Employer)
Dated By
(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 directed to the Board's Office,
16 Court Street, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201,
Telephone 596-3535