Capitol Theatre Capitol Rock, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 1370 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Film Projects, Inc. d/b/a Capitol Theatre, Capitol
Rock, Inc., and Monarch Entertainment Bureau,
Inc. and Local 362 Motion Picture Operators and
Stagehands of Passaic County, a/w International
Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, AFL-
CIO. Case 22-CA-6379
September 16, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On August 4, 1977, the National Labor Relations
Board issued the attached Proposed Decision and
Order in this proceeding in which it proposed finding
that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by unilaterally changing the wage rates of
their employees and by refusing to bargain collec-
tively with Local 362 concerning those rates.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Proposed Decision and Order and, in the
absence of exceptions, has decided to affirm the
proposed rulings, findings, and conclusions and to
adopt the Proposed Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Proposed
Order set forth in the attached Proposed Decision,
and hereby orders that the Respondents, Film
Projects, Inc. d/b/a Capitol Theatre, Capitol Rock,
Inc., and Monarch Entertainment Bureau, Inc.,
Passaic, New Jersey, their respective officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said Proposed Order.
PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER
On May 13, 1975, Local 362 Motion Picture Operators
and Stagehands of Passaic County (herein called Local
362) filed the charge in this proceeding. A complaint was
issued on July 11, 1975, and amended on August 8, 1975,
alleging that Monarch Entertainment Bureau, Inc. (herein
called Monarch); Capitol Rock, Inc. (herein called Capi-
tol); and Film Projects, Inc. d/b/a Capitol Theatre (herein
called Film Projects), are a single integrated enterprise, and
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Film Projects
' In light of our finding, infra, that Monarch. Capitol, and Film Projects
constitute a single integrated enterprise, the lack of commerce evidence with
respect to Capitol and Film Projects as separate entities is not fatal.
231 NLRB No. 146
filed an answer to the complaint and amended complaint
denying that Monarch, Capitol, and Film Projects are a
single enterprise and denying the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Milton Janus in Newark, New
Jersey, on September 11 and 12, 1975. The General
Counsel, Local 362, and Film Projects were represented by
counsel. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to present oral and written evidence, and to examine
and cross-examine witnesses.
On February 13, 1976, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge informed the parties of the death of Administrative
Law Judge Janus on January 31, 1976. The parties
subsequently requested that the case be transferred to the
Board for issuance of a Proposed Decision and Order
based on the record as made, as provided in Section 554(d)
of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §
554(d)), and Section 102.36 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On March 12, 1976, the
case was transferred to the Board for the purpose of
making findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for the
issuance of a Proposed Decision and Order. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and Local 362 filed with the Board copies
of their briefs submitted to the Administrative Law Judge.
Film Projects, likewise, filed with the Board copies of its
trial memorandum and supplemental memorandum sub-
mitted to the Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its authority in this
proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and after
consideration of the briefs and memoranda, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Capitol is a New Jersey corporation and holding
company which owns the building that houses Capitol
Theatre in Passaic, New Jersey. Film Projects is a New
Jersey corporation engaged in the business of showing
films at the Capitol Theatre. Monarch is a New Jersey
corporation engaged in the business of providing live
entertainment, particularly live rock concerts, at various
locations including the Capitol Theatre in Passaic, New
Jersey.
Based on the parties' stipulation, we find that Monarch
annually receives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
sells directly outside the State of New Jersey goods in
excess of $50,000. We further find that Monarch is now,
and at all times material herein has been, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
The record contains no jurisdictional information with
respect to Capitol and Film Projects.'
1370
CAPITOL THEATRE, CAPITAL ROCK
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 362 is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Film Projects, Capitol, and
Monarch (herein collectively called Respondents), are a
single employer within the meaning of the Act. The
complaint further alleges that all movie projectionist
employees, excluding office clerical employees, profession-
al employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the
Act, at Respondents' Passaic Theatre constitute an appro-
priate unit for collective bargaining, and that since January
1, 1972, Local 362 has been, and is now, an exclusive
representative of the employees in that bargaining unit.
Additionally, Respondents are alleged to have violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing
the wage rates of their employees and refusing to bargain
collectively with Local 362 about those rates. Finally, the
complaint alleges that the strike which Respondents'
employees began on January 5, 1975, was caused and
prolonged by the unfair labor practices alleged above.
Film Projects in its answer denies that Respondents are a
single employer. Further, Film Projects denies that it has
engaged in any conduct violative of the Act. Additionally,
Film Projects affirmatively asserts that there was no
applicable contract of employment with the projectionists,
and thus the projectionists had no right to continue being
paid at the wage levels previously maintained. The answer
also asserts that Film Projects' employees voluntarily left
their jobs with Film Projects and thereby lost their rights
under the Act.
A. Factual Background
The significant facts are not seriously in dispute, and we
find them to be as follows:
Monarch was incorporated in 1971 and, at the time of
the hearing, was owned entirely by John Scher. In
November 1972, Scher formed Capitol for the purpose of
purchasing the Capitol Theatre at 326 Monroe Street,
Passaic, New Jersey. As with Monarch, Scher is sole owner
of Capitol. On 40 to 45 nights a year Monarch presents
concerts at the Capitol Theatre. Prior to Scher's acquisition
of the theatre in 1972, Monarch rented the facility from the
previous owner on the evenings of its rock concerts. On the
nights Monarch did not have rock concerts the theater was
rented and used by Passaic Cinema, Inc. Local 362 had a
collective-bargaining agreement with Passaic Cinema
covering its projectionists until just prior to Scher's
purchase of the theater. In addition, Local 362 supplied
several stagehands to Monarch on the nights of its
concerts. William Moore, Local 362 business agent,
handled the arrangements for both the projectionists and
stagehands and worked as a stagehand himself.
When the Local 362-Passaic Cinema collective-bargain-
ing contract expired in November 1971, Local 362
approached Passaic Cinema about a new contract. The
owners, however, refused to sign a new contract with Local
362 because they were uncertain as to whether they would
be continuing operations. Passaic Cinema, nevertheless,
agreed to continue to comply with the terms and condi-
tions of the expired contract. Moore testified that, in the
latter part of 1972, he heard rumors that Scher might
purchase Capitol Theatre and approached him concerning
a contract covering the projectionists. Moore and Ken
Chambers, president of Local 362, testified that a copy of a
proposed collective-bargaining agreement was given to
Scher at this time and that Scher stated that he would
consult his attorney about it. In the meantime, Scher
agreed to live up to the contract conditions and the existing
policy of the theater. Scher, however, denies ever having
seen or received a copy of the proposed contract from
Local 362. Moore testified that a wage increase for
projectionists provided for in the proposed contract was
implemented a year after Scher's takeover of Capitol
Theatre. Scher admits that a wage increase was granted at
that time.
Also during September and October 1972, Scher, Moore,
and Chambers discussed the continued use of union
stagehands by Monarch. Scher indicated to Moore that
Monarch did not really need the services of Local 362
because he could obtain qualified help elsewhere for
considerably less money. Thus, Scher stated he did not
intend to make Monarch's concerts a union operation and
that, while there were plans to expand Monarch's opera-
tions, they would not increase the number of union
employees. In fact, Scher informed Moore that the number
of union stagehands would be reduced to two. Moore and
Chambers expressed concern about the reduction and
indicated that they would probably have some difficulties
with their Union over it. Nevertheless, the parties contin-
ued discussions which resulted in a written agreement,
signed by Scher and Chambers, dated October 20, 1972,
concerning the services of union stagehands. Included
within the agreement was the following paragraph:
4. In the event that Monarch should take over the
running of the movies, we will pay the pro rata house
scale.
Scher admitted that this language had been included in
order to help Moore and Chambers save face with the
Union. Monarch ran movies at its concerts as a filler
between acts and, pursuant to the above agreement,
employed union projectionists to show these movies.
Following Scher's acquisition of Capitol Theatre in
November 1972, Passaic Cinema terminated operations at
the Monroe Street theater. Al Hayward, Scher's former
partner in Monarch, and Allan Heyman, an officer of
Monarch, formed Capitol Cinema, Inc., rented the Capitol
Theatre, and began showing pornographic movies there.
When the Supreme Court pornography decision was issued
Capitol Cinema, Inc., was fined heavily for showing
pornography, and that company went out of business.
Scher owned no interest in Capitol Cinema, Inc., and at the
1371
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing repeatedly emphasized that he did not wish to
become involved with pornographic movies. 2
Upon Capitol Cinema's dissolution, Allan Heyman
persuaded Scher to invest heavily in a new operation,
Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., which ran old-fashioned
burlesque with slapstick comics, strippers, and a band at
Capitol Theatre. Entertainment Enterprises proved to be a
failure and eventually ceased operations in approximately
January 1974.
With Entertainment Enterprises no longer renting
Capitol Theatre, it once again remained vacant during the
time between Monarch's concerts, thereby depriving
Capitol of supplemental income. In addition, rodent
problems increased due to the prolonged periods of disuse
of the theater. Allan Heyman, in an effort to alleviate these
problems, decided to enter the pornographic movie theater
business again so that the theater could be occupied on a
nearly full-time basis. In January 1974 Film Projects, Inc.,
was incorporated with Heyman owning 75 percent of the
stock and Scher owning the remaining 25 percent.
Upon the establishment of Film Projects, that corpora-
tion and Capitol entered into what Scher described as "a
fairly unorthodox rental or lease arrangement, agreement
for the use of the theater." Scher and Heyman attempted to
work out an equitable sharing of expenses so that every
time Monarch used the theater for a rock concert all
supplies did not have to be changed in order that Film
Projects' operations could continue without difficulty the
next day. Film Projects paid $2,000 a month rent as
opposed to $3,000 paid by Passaic Cinema. However, in
exchange for the reduced monetary payments Film
Projects provided other services, such as changing the
theater marquee which only advertised Monarch's rock
concerts. 3
Expenses such as maintenance, cleanup, and utilities
were prorated between Monarch and Film Projects, with
the latter paying a larger share. Scher stated that, at times
when Heyman approached him about the inequity in a
particular prorated expense, the two would reach an
agreement to alter the originally established ratios. In this
manner, the chair maintenance costs were adjusted to a 75-
25 percent split between Film Projects and Monarch
because it was agreed that hundreds of rambunctious
teenagers at rock concerts did more damage to the chairs
than did a few men watching pornographic films.
Heyman, in uncontradicted testimony, stated that rent
payments were not always exactly $2,000 a month, but
sometimes involved the payment of a greater share of
expenses. In addition, when Film Projects' bills, such as
advertising or taxes, were in arrears, the rent payments
were not paid to Capitol Theatre. Instead, the money was
2 When questioned about Capitol Cinema's cessation of business,
however. Scher testified, "We got fined very heavily, they got fined very
heavily .... "
:' Scher testified that, pursuant to an agreement he had entered into with
the mayor of Passaic to avoid degradation of the city, the Capitol Theatre
marquee would not advertise pornography.
' First. Moore was told about management's dissatisfaction with
projectionist Hoflear's reporting to work after he had been drinking.
Manager Peters complained to Moore on several occasions about the
problem and Moore spoke with Hoflear who denied the charge. Hoflear
continued with Film Projects, and when Moore received a similar complaint
he spoke to Hoflear. who again denied the accusation. Moore reported this
applied to outstanding bills and a record was kept of rent
owed to Capitol. In fact, Heyman testified that in only 4 or
5 months during the past year did Film Projects pay the
$2,000 a month rent besides the theater expenses.
Monarch, Capitol, and Film Projects all utilized the same
attorney and accountants, although their books were
maintained separately. Further, Film Projects on occasion
utilized secretaries paid by Monarch because it has none of
its own. Monarch did not employ its own guards, but
utilized those supplied by Film Projects. Finally, numerous
Film Projects and Monarch employees were on the payroll
of both Companies.
Upon commencement of operations, Film Projects, as
had both Capitol Cinema and Entertainment Enterprises,
continued to use Moore to supply projectionists for the
theater. Heyman testified that he did not know Moore was
affiliated with Local 362 until the latter part of 1974 nor
did he know that all the projectionists Moore supplied were
union members. Instead, Heyman stated that Moore just
appeared and supplied projectionists as they were needed.
He further testified that he let Moore continue to handle
labor matters concerning the projectionists without know-
ing how or why and without questioning him regarding the
matter.
Thus, Moore supplied all the projectionists at Film
Projects and handled all labor matters concerning the
same. He established a weekly work schedule covering the
hours the theater was open and assigned the employees
equal numbers of afternoon and evening shifts. Further,
Moore contacted the employees to inform them about their
work schedule. When a projectionist was unable to report
to work, rather than notifying Film Projects' management,
he contacted Moore who arranged for a substitute
projectionist. In addition, when a projectionist was unable
to cash his paycheck, he took the problem to Moore, who
then contacted Heyman or Stephen Peters, theater manag-
er, to settle the problem. It was during the performance of
this latter service that Moore learned about the change in
ownership of the theater by noticing the different name,
"Film Projects," on the projectionists' paychecks. Moore
testified without contradiction that during the 6 months
before the hearing he had handled at least two complaints
management had with the projectionists. 4 Finally, Moore
testified that to the best of his knowledge management had
not replaced any projectionists during the 2 years before
the hearing.
Besides handling labor problems for Film Projects'
management, Moore also presented labor matters to
Heyman, Peters, and Scher. In particular, Moore, on
several occasions, discussed with Heyman payments to the
union pension fund. Moore testified that, upon becoming
to Peters and assured him that if the problem arose again he would replace
Hoflear. Shortly before Thanksgiving 1974, Peters again complained to
Moore, who requested that they wait until after Thanksgiving to replace
Hoflear. At that time Moore did replace Hoflear with another projectionist.
A second instance of Moore's handling of employee problems involved a
complaint by Dick Carroll, Film Projects' assistant manager. that projec-
tionist Eugene De Sandre's work was sloppy in that he was slow in turning
on the house lights, allowed time gaps between movie reels, and failed to
show the entire cast. Moore told De Sandre of the complaint, and De
Sandre requested an assignment to a different theater. Moore then
reassigned De Sandre and assigned a different Local 362 projectionist to
work for Film Projects.
1372
CAPITOL THEATRE, CAPITAL ROCK
dissatisfied with Heyman's lack of responsiveness, he asked
Heyman to schedule a meeting between Moore and Scher
concerning the union pension plan and health and welfare
plan. Heyman did this, arranging a meeting with Scher for
December 23, 1974. In spite of his knowledge of what was
to be discussed at the meeting, Heyman did not attend the
meeting. Instead, the meeting was held in John Scher's
personal office at Monarch's business office on Valley
Street in South Orange, New Jersey. In attendance were
Moore, Chambers, and Local 362 Secretary Joseph Sedeyn
representing the Union; only Scher was present on behalf
of Film Projects. The union representatives informed Scher
of their purpose and Scher called Heyman at Capitol
Theatre to confirm the Union's claim that payments had
not been made to the pension fund. Scher admits calling
Heyman, and Heyman acknowledges the call. Both,
however, contradict Moore's testimony that Scher ac-
knowledged Film Projects' obligation to make such
payments and that he instructed Heyman to begin making
payments to bring the plan up to date. Instead, Scher and
Heyman stated that, following Scher's inquiry, Heyman
informed Scher that they had no obligation to make any
payments since there was no contract with Local 362
covering the projectionists. Heyman further told Scher that
in spite of his initial "temptation to want to rectify the
situation and pay them," and his statement to Moore that
he would "try and rectify the situation," he nevertheless
refused to make the payments demanded, relying on advice
he received from Theater Manager Peters. Further, Scher
denies that he directed Heyman to make the payments or
that he made any commitment at the meeting regarding the
same.
At the meeting, Local 362 also raised the question of a
wage increase for the stagehands, but was quickly cut off
by Scher's explanation that Monarch and Film Projects
were both losing money and, therefore, no raises could be
granted until such time as the financial condition of the
Companies improved, hopefully by the following February
or March. Moore admits that only the stagehands were
specifically mentioned concerning the wage increase, but
states that in referring to the stagehands all the employees
represented by Local 362 were contemplated and that the
projectionists were not mentioned because he was cut off
by Scher's quick response. Scher testified that he very
clearly told the union representatives that plans then being
made concerning the movie operation would definitely
affect the projectionists.
Following the December 23, 1974, meeting, at Heyman's
request, Scher, Heyman, and Film Projects' attorney,
Burton Bierman, met to discuss the financial condition of
Film Projects. At the meeting Scher recommended that
salaries of all employees, including the projectionists, be
cut and that advertising and other expenses be similarly
reduced. Heyman agreed and subsequently undertook to
contact Moore to arrange a meeting to inform him of the
decision. Due to Moore's work schedule, there was some
difficulty in arranging an acceptable meeting time, but
eventually the parties convened on January 2, at Scher's
Monarch business office in South Orange, New Jersey.
At the January 2 meeting, Chambers. Moore, Scher, and
Heyman were present. Scher testified that, in spite of his
lack of involvement in the operations of Film Projects, he
attended and participated in the January 2 meeting at the
request of Heyman who, Scher guessed, "was a little wary
of dealing with the Union and for that reason he asked
[Scher] to sit in .... " After a discussion of preliminary
matters, Scher informed Moore and Chambers of the
Company's plan to cut the projectionists' hourly wage rate
from $6.89 an hour to $3 an hour. Scher testified that he
stated that prior to the meeting the Company had
instituted changes involving a cutback in advertising as
well as salary cuts. Further, he explained that the
Company, in order not to be arbitrary in the reductions,
had categorized the employees as skilled or unskilled labor
and that the projectionists fell into the latter classification.
Therefore, like the other unskilled employees, the projec-
tionists would be paid $3 an hour. In addition, Scher
testified that he assured the representatives that once the
Company got on its feet the projectionists would be the
first employees to have their previous wage rates restored.
Scher characterized Moore's and Chambers' responses as
rage and stated that Chambers claimed that Film Projects
could not make the changes, that the Union had never lost
a strike situation before, and that they would do what was
necessary. Scher further testified that the union representa-
tives never asked to negotiate during the meeting and that
it was not until after the charges herein were filed that they
ever made such a request. The meeting concluded with
Moore and Chambers getting up and walking out.
Heyman testified that the union representatives were
astounded at the $3 rate and appeared to be unwilling to
accept it. He also testified that at no time did Moore or
Chambers say anything indicating a desire to talk further
or bargain with Film Projects concerning the wage
reduction. Instead, he states the union representatives'
response was to get up and walk out saying, "Well, there
are certain things, that we have to do." Heyman also
testified that Scher inquired what was meant by this and
received only a vague response. Further, Heyman states
that at no time after the January 2 meeting did anyone
from the Union contact him to request negotiations.
Moore testified that when he received Scher's calls about
setting up a meeting he was not told what was to be
discussed. However, in line with his customary practice of
having another union representative present during his
dealings with management, he asked Chambers to attend
with him. According to Moore, following the usual
greetings, Scher said that he was having some difficulties
running the films at Capitol Theatre and would have to
decrease the pay rate to $3 an hour. Moore testified the
Union responded that they could not work for $3 an hour,
that this announcement was a surprise, and that there
would have to be some discussion about it. Scher then
responded that ". . . at the end of the pay week, the pay
week which would be Saturday, that would be the end and
if we couldn't work for $3 an hour on Sunday, that's it,
that's what the rate would be." Moore testified he replied
that help should be looked for in other areas since the
Union had previously agreed to a reduction from four to
two men. Further, the Union again responded that they
would have to talk about the change, but Scher gave an
ultimatum-take it or leave it, as that was what the rate
1373
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be. Finally, Moore testified that "he started to get up
and I said, I guess we'll have to take the necessary course of
action and he [Scher] said, remember, if you do anything
illegal or dirty, we can do the same. My remark to that was
that we had problems before, we always picketed in a
peaceful and orderly manner and that's what we intended
to do." The meeting broke up when Moore and Chambers
left.
On January 2, following the above-described meeting,
Scher sent Moore a letter, written on a Monarch letterhead,
supplementing and confirming their earlier conversation
and stating, inter alia, "It is our hope that the projectionists
will continue to work at the Capitol for a fee of $3 per hour
.... If as you stated in our meeting, you will be unable to
comply with this arrangement, we will be unable to
continue to employ union projectionists." The letter further
contained a request, with which Moore did not comply, for
a written response.
According to Moore and projectionists James Bokor and
Joseph Blackwood, the projectionists reported to work
when scheduled on Sunday, January 5. They offered to
work at the old $6.89-an-hour rate, and were refused entry
to the projection booth. Further, Bokor testified that
Heyman said they already had projectionists who were
willing to work at the $3 rate. Upon being denied the work
at the old rate, Moore and Chambers, along with several
projectionists, began picketing the front of the theater and
have continued such picketing intermittently since then.5
Heyman testified that he did not talk with the union
representatives about the union projectionists going to
work on Sunday, January 5. Instead, he stated, the first
time that day he was aware of the union projectionists'
presence was when he saw them picketing the theater.
On February 4, 1976, the Union filed the charges herein.
Between January 5 and February 13 no negotiations or
meetings occurred between the parties. On February 13,
Chambers, Moore, and Local 362's attorney, Steven
Edelstein, met with Scher, Heyman, and their attorney,
Stanley Snadowsky, to discuss the ongoing labor difficul-
ties. According to Moore, the union attorney suggested
that, in order to settle the dispute and end the picketing,
Film Projects reinstitute the old $6.89 rate and the parties
could then begin negotiations about a possible rate change.
In response to this, Scher made an offer of $3.25 per hour;
the Union found this to be unacceptable. Moore testified
that he did not believe that the offer had been made in
good faith. Scher testified that the $3.25 offer was made
following a conversation between Heyman and Film
Projects' attorney in which the attorney explained that
"legally we are going to end up where we are here right
now, we have got to make some attempt" at negotiating
with the Union. Thus, according to Scher, he told the
attorney to offer $3.25 and to wait and see how the Union
responded. Scher further testified that following the offer
the Union did not lower its request at all, but continued to
demand the old rate while accusing the Company of failing
to negotiate. Following the February 13 meeting there were
no further negotiating meetings between the parties.
', Upon their attorney's suggestion. and as evidence of its good faith, the
Union refrained from picketing when the police were having a benefit for
underprivileged children, when a big concert was scheduled, and on
February 13 when the parties met with their attorneys, as described infra.
Analysis
On the present state of the record and in view of the
parties' positions, the three main issues to be decided by
this Board are whether: (I) Monarch, Capitol, and Film
Projects are a single employer within the meaning of the
Act; (2) Local 362 has been the collective-bargaining agent
for the projectionists at the relevant times herein; and (3)
Film Projects unilaterally altered the terms and conditions
of employment by reducing the hourly wage rate of its
projectionists on January 5, 1976.
In International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 428,
AFL-CIO (See Bee Slurry Matic, Inc.), 6 the Board set
forth the criteria indicative of single-employer status by
stating at 185:
While the Board may treat separate corporations as
one employer for jurisdictional purposes, it does so
only when it appears that they are highly integrated
with respect to ownership and operations. In making
such a determination, the Board considers relevant
such indicia of identity as (1) interrelationship of
operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3)
common management, (4) common ownership or
financial control, and (5) representation to the public as
a single integrated enterprise, although no one of these
factors is controlling.
Thus, in determining whether Film Projects, Monarch, and
Capitol are a single employer we must assess the degree of
their integration in light of the above criteria.
It is undisputed that, besides owning 100 percent of both
Monarch and Capitol and serving as president of both
corporations, John Scher also owns 25 percent of Film
Projects. Allan Heyman owns the other 75 percent of Film
Projects, is the president of Film Projects, and serves as an
officer of Monarch. Richard Carroll is manager of
Monarch and assistant manager of Film Projects. Scher
has undisputed control over the affairs, including labor
relations, of Monarch and Capitol, by virtue of his total
ownership of those enterprises. While Heyman claims that
he conducts the day-to-day operations of Film Projects,
both he and Scher admit that Scher is consulted on all
major matters. Scher further stated that, since learning in
1975 of his potential personal liability for the tax indebted-
ness of Film Projects, he has taken a more active role in its
daily operations, despite his previous agreement with
Heyman that the latter would manage the business of Film
Projects. In fact, since December 1975, Scher has become
so actively engaged in the affairs of Film Projects that it
was he who suggested, and later informed the Union about,
the projectionists' reduced wage rate. Thus, it is clear that
there is an identity in ownership and management among
the three corporations.
Both Monarch and Film Projects are involved in the
entertainment industry and utilize Capitol Theatre as the
site for their performances. Capitol and Film Projects' lease
arrangement cannot be characterized as arm's-length
dealing, and was described by both Heyman and Scher as
6 169 NLRB 184(1968).
1374
CAPITOL THEATRE, CAPITAL ROCK
unorthodox. The fact that the $2,000 monthly payment was
made only four or five times during the past year indicates
the absence of a formal business relationship between the
corporations and strongly suggests the common interest of
those concerned. 7 Scher and Heyman's admission that the
loss of revenue and increased rodent problems, arising
from the disuse of Capitol Theatre between Monarch's
rock concerts, prompted the formation of Film Projects
further indicates that these three enterprises are not, in
actuality, separate and distinct, but are, instead, interrelat-
ed and serve to complement the needs of each other.
Monarch and Film Projects' sharing of a number of
employees in common, including not only projectionists
but also regular office employees, is another indication of
interrelated operations. Further, Film Projects has utilized
the services of Monarch's secretarial staff as evidenced by
Scher's January 2 letter to Moore which was typed on
Monarch stationery by a Monarch secretary, Amy Polan.
In addition, Monarch utilized the services of Film Projects'
two guards to protect over $50,000 worth of its equipment
stored at Capitol Theatre. Finally, Film Projects and
Monarch used the same attorney and accountant; even
though separate books and records were maintained, this
suggests an interrelationship of the two operations. In fact,
Scher stated that at sessions with these professionals the
business of both Companies was discussed. Thus, the
record as a whole contains abundant evidence establishing
the integration of Monarch's and Film Projects' operations.
More importantly, Scher is also the central figure with
regard to the labor relations of both Monarch and Film
Projects. Concerning Monarch, it is uncontroverted that
when Scher took over Capitol Theatre he negotiated with
Local 362 President Ken Chambers concerning the
Monarch stagehands and reached an agreement embodied
in an October 20, 1975, letter which was signed by those
two individuals. While dealings with Bill Moore concern-
ing daily arrangements for Film Projects' projectionists
were handled by Heyman, Richard Carroll, or Stephen
Peters, it is clear that the Union considered Scher to be the
man of ultimate authority in labor matters, and dealt with
him accordingly. Moore testified that Scher was always
available to discuss matters concerning the projectionists.
Also, it is undisputed that when efforts to discuss the
pension fund payment with Heyman proved unproductive
Moore consulted with Scher concerning this matter." And
Scher admits that upon learning of his liability for Film
Projects' taxes he became more active in that Company's
operations. In fact, both Scher and Heyman agree that it
was Scher who suggested the wage rate cut, to which
7 As noted supra. a significant aspect of the Film Projects-Capitol lease
provides for the payment of bills and performance of services accruing to
the benefit oft' Monarch; e.g. Film ProJects is responsible for changing the
theater marquee which advertises only Monarch's rock concerts.
"We find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict in testimony concerning
Scher's reaction to the Union's request that pension fund payments be
made It is sufficient for our purposes to note that Scher met with the Union
and readil) discussed the matter, notwithstanding his claim that he was not
inrsolsed in the labor affairs of Film Projects.
"See fn 6. ripra
' Respondents' contention that the corporations in The Fuiterman-
Riierside Corporation. d J a Riverside Motor Inn. 199 NLRB 1033 (1972),
where the Board dismissed the case oin jurisdictional grounds. were more
highls integrated than Respondents is without merit. In Fuiterman-Rtveruide.
the onl, record evidence of integration concerned the limited involvement
Heyman then readily agreed. Further, Scher called the
January 2 meeting with Moore and Chambers in order to
discuss the pending wage reduction, and the record is clear
that, in spite of Heyman's asserted management of Film
Projects, it was Scher who informed the Union of the wage
decrease and presented the Company's position throughout
the meeting. Following that meeting, it was again Scher
who wrote Moore confirming Film Projects' position and
reiterating the Company's plan to reduce wages. While the
letter was written on behalf of Film Projects, it was written
on a Monarch letterhead and there is no reference therein
to Heyman, the purported central figure in Film Projects'
operations and labor matters. Thus, with regard to the
primary issue herein, the wage rate reduction plan, it was
Scher who was clearly the moving figure from inception to
implementation.
Under these facts, we cannot accept Film Projects'
contention that Allan Heyman controlled its labor policies.
To the contrary, the record is replete with evidence that
Scher was indeed the instrumental figure in dealing with
the Union, at least with regard to matters apart from the
Union's weekly scheduling of projectionists. Thus, the
record establishes that the labor relations of the three
separate corporations are centrally controlled, a factor
which weighs strongly in favor of finding single-employer
status.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is apparent that Capitol,
Monarch, and Film Projects are highly integrated enter-
prises in terms of ownership, management, operations, and
centralized labor relations. In International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 428, AFL-CIO (See Bee Slurry
Malic, Inc.), supra,9 the Board noted that a finding of
single-employer status does not require the presence of
each of the criteria set forth above. Nevertheless, there is
abundant evidence relative to the interrelationship of these
three corporations with respect to each of the relevant
factors.10 Thus, we find that Monarch, Capitol, and Film
Projects are a single employer within the meaning of the
Act."
B. Collective-Bargaining Status
Movie companies utilizing Capitol Theatre prior to Film
Projects procured their projectionists from Local 362.
Likewise, Film Projects, since the commencement of its
operations until January 5, used projectionists supplied by
Local 362 Agent Moore. Although Heyman asserts that he
was unaware, until he saw the signs carried by the
picketing projectionists, that Moore was affiliated with
in one corporation's negotiations of Cannon. a common officer of the three
corporations involved therein. The Board adopted the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that Cannon's statement that he was also negotiating at
another location was insufficient evidence of Cannon's participation in the
labor-management relations of the allegedly related corporations. In the
case before us. as discussed at length. supra. there is ample evidence of
integrated management, ownership, operations, and centralized control of
labor relations to support a finding ofa single-employer relationship.
" The Board has uniformly held, not only for junsdictional purposes.
but for purposes of liability as well. that separate and distinct corporate
entities may be regarded and dealt with as a single-employer if they are in
fact an integrated enterprise. Barirse Sheet Metal Co., inc.. a Division of
Airtron Inc., 199 NLRB 372 (1972); Playoime Kiddie iear, In(., Deer Part
Mfg. Co., Inc., 184 NLRB 373 (1970).
1375
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 362 or that only union projectionists had been
utilized, it is clear that Scher was at all times cognizant that
Moore and the projectionists he supplied were union
members. While Scher denies that Moore presented him
with a copy of Local 362's proposed contract covering the
projectionists when Scher took over Capitol, he had
previously dealt with Moore in connection with filler
movies during Monarch concerts and was, therefore, aware
that Moore supplied only union projectionists. Thus,
Respondents' contention that Local 362 is not the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the projectionists herein is
belied by the evidence. In addition, apart from Respon-
dents' knowledge that Local 362 represented the projec-
tionists, the record is replete with incidents which establish
not only that Local 362 is the projectionists' bargaining
agent, but also that Respondents, in fact, repeatedly dealt
with Moore and Chambers in a manner consistent with
that representative status.
Following Scher's acquisition of Capitol, there were no
changes in operations of the theater. At no time did
Respondents question Local 362's majority status. Further,
the terms and conditions of the Passaic Cinema-Local 362
contract continued in effect. Indeed, as Moore testified and
Scher agreed, a wage increase provided for in that contract
was implemented by Respondents approximately a year
after Scher's takeover. During the entire relevant period
herein, Respondents continued to acquire projectionists
through Moore and allowed Moore to handle scheduling
and other labor matters relating thereto. Thus, not only did
Local 362 Agent Moore supply the projectionists needed
for operations, but he arranged the work schedules,
informed the employees of their shifts, provided substitutes
for absent projectionists, and took care of disciplinary and
other work-related problems of the projectionists, as
detailed supra. Heyman's inability to explain why he
permitted Moore such a free hand in these matters and his
stated deference to Moore because he had been on the
scene so long seriously undermine Respondents' position
denying that Local 362 is representative of its projection-
ists. Moreover, they buttress the conclusion that Respon-
dents considered the Union to be the projectionists'
representative.
Furthermore, on numerous occasions Moore discussed
pension fund payments with various members of Film
Projects' management and eventually took up the matter
with Scher. Thus, it is clearly inconsistent for Respondents
to deny that Local 362 was the bargaining representative of
the projectionists and yet deal with their agent in contract
matters and other employee concerns. Particularly signifi-
cant in undermining Respondents' denial of Local 362's
representative status is Scher's meeting with the union
agents to discuss the wage reduction herein. Considerable
effort, including delaying and rescheduling the meeting to
satisfy Moore's schedule, was expended by Scher and
Heyman to ensure that Moore was available. Thus, such
behavior further contradicts Respondents' current denial
that Local 362 is the bargaining representative of the
projectionists. In all matters, especially those concerning
the instant wage reduction, Respondents dealt with Moore
12 Two rank-and-file projectionists testified at the hearing that they
considered Local 362 to be their collective-bargaining representative.
and Local 362 as their employees' collective-bargaining
representative. Further indicating Respondents' recogni-
tion of Local 362 is Scher's January 2 followup letter in
which he stated that if the union projectionists were
unwilling to work for $3 an hour Respondents would be
unable to continue utilizing them. This letter, as with other
contacts between the parties, clearly demonstrates that
Scher acknowledged Local 362's representative status.12
Thus, taken as a whole, the record indicates that
Respondents gave de facto recognition to the Union as
representative of their projectionists; and Respondents and
Local 362, via its agent Moore, had an ongoing relationship
and an established modus operandi which carried with it
recognition of Local 362.13 Clearly, Respondents had no
reason to question and, in fact, did not question Local
362's majority status. Rather, in all labor-related matters,
including the wage reduction, Respondents consulted and
dealt with Local 362 in a manner consistent with an
existing collective-bargaining relationship. Therefore, we
find that at all times relevant herein Local 362 was, and
continues to be, the collective-bargaining representative of
Respondents' projectionists.
C. Refusal To Bargain--Unilateral Change of
Wages
By virtue of Local 362's status as collective-bargaining
representative of Film Projects' projectionists, Respon-
dents had a statutory obligation to bargain collectively
with the Union concerning any proposed change in the
terms and conditions of employment of these employees.
Clearly, a change in the hourly wage ratc, a subject of vital
concern to any employee, is a term or condition of
employment which requires prior discussion with the
employees' collective-bargaining representative. This re-
mains true even though such changes may be dictated by
the business reversals of the employer.
At the hearing, Respondents sought to deny their
obligation to bargain with Local 362. As we have found,
supra, however, the extensive efforts made by Scher and
Heyman to arrange for a meeting with Moore and to
inform him of the pending wage reduction indicate that
Respondents recognized this obligation but sought to give
it perfunctory treatment.
It is clear from the record that the object of the January 2
meeting was not to discuss or bargain over the wage
reduction, but instead was merely to inform Local 362 of
Respondents' final decision. Indeed, both Scher and
Heyman admit that the decision to reduce the projection-
ists' wage rate was made at an earlier meeting with their
attorney. Thus, when Scher, Heyman, Moore, and Cham-
bers met on January 2, the union representatives were
presented with an ultimatum of either accepting the
reduced wage rate or losing the jobs of the employees
whom the Union represented. The testimony of the
individuals present at this meeting confirms that Scher
announced Respondents' wage reduction decision in
unquestionable terms. Both Scher and Heyman deny that
the Union requested discussion of the matter, whereas
13 See Texas Cinema Corporation, 208 NLRB 226 (1974).
1376
CAPITOL THEATRE, CAPITAL ROCK
Moore testified that the Union insisted that they talk about
the pending change.14 Following the meeting, Scher wrote
to Moore confirming Respondents' position at the meeting,
stating, "If, as you stated in our meeting, you will be
unable to comply with the arrangement [the $3-per-hour
wage], we will be unable to continue to employ union
projectionists."
On January 5, Moore, Chambers, and several projection-
ists were present at the theater. Moore and projectionist
Bokor testified that they informed Heyman that they were
willing to work at the old wage rate, but were denied access
to the projection booth and were informed that Respon-
dents already had a projectionist. Heyman, on the other
hand, denies that Moore or Bokor offered to work at the
old rate and further states that the first time he saw the
union people on January 5 was when they were picketing
the theater. 5
Following January 5, the only time the parties met to
discuss the wage rate was on February 13 when Respon-
dents made an offer of $3.25 per hour. The Union refused
this offer as lacking in good faith and continued to insist on
the restitution of the $6.89-per-hour rate pending discus-
sion and resolution of the wage rate issue.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that Respondents'
unilateral implementation of the reduced wage rate on
January 5 violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Furthermore,
we find that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union
concerning their decision, made in December, to reduce
the hourly wage rate. In addition, we find that, at their
January 2 meeting with the union representatives and in
Scher's followup letter to Moore, Respondents not only
informed Local 362 of the unilateral wage reduction, but
also flatly stated that if the projectionists did not acquiesce
in the change that their employment would not continue.
Respondents could not have reasonably expected that such
a drastic reduction in wage rate, unilaterally imposed in
derogation of collective-bargaining rights under Section 7
of the Act, would be acceptable to the projectionists. Thus,
we find that through this action Respondents, in effect,
discharged the projectionists in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1).16 To construe Respondents' ultimatum to Local
362 in any other manner, we conclude, would overlook the
realities of the situation, disregard the natural consequenc-
es that Respondents would reasonably anticipate to flow
therefrom, and ignore the gravamen of Respondents'
conduct and its impact on the projectionists. As would be
expected, the projectionists refused to work for the
drastically lowered rate and Respondents, having accurate-
I We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony inasmuch
as the record evidence clearly establishes that Respondents were firmly
committed to their decision to implement the reduced wage rate and, in fact,
did so 3 days later.
'' We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony as it is clear
from the record that the union projectionists would not be employed if they
refused to work at the $3-per-hour rate, that they refused to work at that
rate, and that they began to picket in front of the theater on January 5.
Respondents had anticipated this sequence of events as evidenced by the
fact they had already obtained another projectionist to operate the
projection equipment.
1' We note that the complaint lacks a specific allegation relating to the
projectionists' discharge. Nevertheless, "lilt is well established that when an
issue relating to the subject matter of a complaint is full) litigated at a
hearing . the Board [is expected to pass upon it even though it is not
ly anticipated such response, secured a replacement
projectionist prior thereto for the purpose of continuing
operations on January 5. Thus, the Respondents' tactics
closed the door on the projectionists continuing to work for
them as it was made clear that the projectionists would not
be permitted to work unless they accepted the reduced
wage scale which had been unlawfully imposed. Respon-
dents' course of conduct in this regard amounted to a
constructive discharge, or an unlawful lockout-either of
which would be an action taken by Respondents in
furtherance of their unlawful goal of imposing unilateral
and severe wage reductions.'7
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1. Film Projects, Inc. d/b/a Capitol Theatre, Capitol
Rock, Inc., and Monarch Entertainment Bureau, Inc.,
constitute a single integrated operation, which is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 362 Motion Picture Operators and Stagehands
of Passaic County, a/w International Alliance of Theatri-
cal and Stage Employees, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All movie projectionist employees, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, at Respondents' Passaic,
New Jersey, theater constitute an appropriate unit for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since on or about January 1, 1972, Local 362 has
been the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the aforementioned appropriate unit, and by
virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been, and is, the
exclusive representative of all employees in said unit for
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
5. By unilaterally changing, on or about January 5,
1975, the hourly wage rate of the projectionists, Respon-
dents engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with Local 362
concerning the hourly wage rate, Respondents engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
specifically alleged to be an unfair labor practice in the complaint." Monroe
Feed Store, 112 NLRB 1336 (1955). Therefore-inasmuch as the discharges
were related to the general subject matter of the complaint, and the
underlying charge, in that they arose from the same nucleus of operative
facts; Respondents did not object to testimony regarding the subject matter:
and the facts supporting it were fully litigated at the hearing-we shall
include our findings relating thereto in our Decision and Order. Lorenz &
Sons, Inc., 217 NLRB 471 (1975); Rochester Cadet Cleaners, Inc., 205 NLRB
773 (1973); Granada Mills, Inc., 143 NLRB 957 (1963); and Monroe Feed
Store, supra.
1" In any event, even if the projectionists were not constructively
discharged or locked out, we would find them to be engaged in a stnke
which was an unfair labor practice strike because it was in protest of the
unlawful reductions in their wages. In view of our finding and conclusions
herein, however, we find it unnecessary to consider this aspect further.
1377
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. By discharging their projectionists as of January 5,
1975, through their unilateral and substantial reductions in
wages, and by refusing to reinstate them to their previous
positions thereafter, Respondents have interfered with,
restrained, and coerced, and are interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) 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 Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondents unilaterally changed the
hourly wage rates of their projectionists in an appropriate
unit, we shall order Respondents to restore the status quo
ante. Further, we shall order Respondents to cease and
desist from unilaterally changing conditions of employ-
ment; to bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union
as the exclusive representative of these employees concern-
ing terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody such terms in a
signed agreement. Further, we shall order that Respon-
dents reinstate all employees who were discharged, on or
about January 5, 1975, to their former jobs, or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges. Respondents shall also make whole those
employees (who were discharged) for any loss of pay they
may have suffered or may suffer by reason of Respondents'
discrimination against them, less their net earnings, to
which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Also, we
shall order Respondents to make whole the projectionists
who replaced the discriminatees for any loss of earnings
they may have sustained as a result of Respondents'
change in hourly wage rate.'8 Respondents shall also be
required to preserve and, upon request, make available to
authorized agents of the Board all records necessary or
useful in determining compliance with this Proposed
Order, or in computing the amount of backpay due.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, the Board hereby issues the following proposed:
I' Capitol Roof& Supply Companyv, Inc., 217 NLRB 1004 (1975).
"I Any party may. within 20 days from the date hereof, file with the
Board in Washington, D.C., eight copies of a statement setting forth
exceptions to this Proposed Decision and Order, together with seven copies
of a brief in support of said exceptions and. immediately upon such filing.
serve copies thereof on each of the other parties.
ORDER '9
The Respondents, Film Projects, Inc. d/b/a Capitol
Theatre, Capitol Rock, Inc., and Monarch Entertainment
Bureau, Inc., Passaic, New Jersey, their respective officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively, upon
request, with Local 362 Motion Picture Operators and
Stagehands of Passaic County, a/w International Alliance
of Theatrical and Stage Employees, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of their
projectionists.
(b) Unilaterally changing the wages and other terms and
conditions of employment of their projectionists without
prior consultation with the aforesaid labor organization as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of said
projectionists.
(c) Discharging employees for their concerted activities
or for exercising their rights to bargain collectively.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of the
projectionists and embody any understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Restore the status quo ante with respect to the hourly
wage rate retroactive to January 5, 1975.
(c) Offer all those employees who were discharged on
January 5, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges. Make the above-mentioned
employees whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy." Make whole the projectionists who
replaced the discriminatees for any loss of earnings they
may have sustained as a result of Respondents' unilateral
reduction in the hourly wage rate, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section herein.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
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 Proposed Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of
the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Decome its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1378
CAPITOL THEATRE, CAPITAL ROCK
(e) Post at their theater at Passaic, New Jersey, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 0 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondents'
representative, shall be posted by them immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
"o In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of' the National l abor 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collectively,
upon request, with Local 362 Motion Picture Operators
and Stagehands of Passaic County, a/w International
Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our projectionists.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally, and without consultation
with Local 362 Motion Picture Operators and Stage-
hands of Passaic County, a/w International Alliance of
Theatrical and Stage Employees, AFL-CIO, institute
or implement any changes with respect to the hourly
wage rate paid to our projectionists.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employees for their
concerted activities or exercising their rights to bargain
collectively.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our projectionists in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with
Local 362 as the exclusive representative of our
projectionists, and embody any understanding reached
in a signed agreement.
WE WILL restore the status quo ante with respect to
the projectionists' hourly wage rate retroactive to
January 5, 1975.
WE WILL reinstate to their old jobs or, if those no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs all employ-
ees who were discharged on or about January 5, 1975,
and who have not already been reinstated to such jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL make whole the employees we discharged
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of their unlawful discharge, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL pay, at the wage rate existing prior to our
unilateral reduction thereof, employees who replaced
the discharged employees and all discharged employees
who have not been reinstated for any loss of earnings
they suffered because of our unilateral reduction of
wage.
FILM PROJECTS, INC., D/B/A
CAPITOL THEATRE, CAPITOL
ROCK, INC., AND MONARCH
ENTERTAINMENT BUREAU,
INC.
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1978 0-261-Z94
1379

I