Marsellus Vault & Sales, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 898 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

898 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marsellus Vault & Sales, Inc. and Dairy & Bakery
Salesmen & Dairy Employees Union , Local 316
Affiliated With International Brotherhood of
Teamsters ' Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America (Ind.). Case 3-CA-3205
March 29, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On September 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Arthur
E. Reyman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as se^ forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent and
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the prkovisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.
On March 27, 1967,' James Parry, vice president
of Dairy & Bakery Salesmen & Dairy Employees
Union, Local 316, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Ind.) (Union)
had a meeting with six of Respondent's em-
ployees, during which all present signed aethoriza-
tion cards. The next day the Union sent a letter to
Respondent in which it claimed to represent a
majority of Respondent's employees, and requested
recognition and an opportunity to bargain for a
' Unless otherwise noted, all dates hereinafter are in 1967
2 Although the Trial Examiner made reference to DeMarko's April 5
conduct in his summary of the allegations of the complaint, which appears
at the beginning of his decision, the Trial Examiner neglected to discuss
this conduct in the facts portion of his decision or make findings concern-
ing it in his "Concluding Findings " In finding that DeMarko made the
statements referred to in (a) and (b) above, wg,rely-on the testimony-of
employees Schneck and Burnham We note in reference to (a) that De-
Marko admits that he made a remark during the break period on April 5
concerning possible plant shutdown, and as for (b) DeMarko stated that,
contract. On this same day the Union filed with the
Board a petition for certification of representative.
On March 31, Richard Perschel, Respondent's per-
sonnel manager, commented to a couple of em-
ployees that he was sorry to hear that the em-
ployees had to seek outside help in order to talk to
the Company and made this statement to employee
Wood:
... Les, I want to take your's and DeMarko's
key because of the Union deal; if anything
went wrong in the shop, I'd have to come to
either of you fellows.
On April 3, Respondent sent a letter to the Union
acknowledging receipt of the Union's March 28
letter and stating that it was in favor of having the
question of representation settled by a Board elec-
tion. Sometime during the morning of April 5, John
Marsellus, Respondent's president, announced that
Bill Roberts, Respondent's plant manager, would be
leaving Respondent on April 14 because of his
health and that employee DeMarko would succeed
him. Marsellus asked that the men cooperate and
help DeMarko in any way they could, adding that
"Tony DeMarko is,your new boss." Shortly after
Marsellus made this announcement DeMarko
became involved in conversation with various em-
ployees during which: (a) DeMarko stated that
Marsellus would close the plant if the Union came
in; (b) DeMarko advised an employee that the em-
ployees should form their own union, there being
no sense in paying $6 per month union dues.'
Thereafter, on April 6, DeMarko wrote a letter
to the Union; this letter was subsequently signed by
five employees who had originally completed
authorization cards, asserting that they voluntarily
withdrew their applications from the Union."
On April 12, representatives of Respondent and
the Union met with a representative of the Board's
Regional Office to arrange a consent election. The
meeting was unsuccessful. On April 13 the Union
filed unfair labor practice charges.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Bill
Roberts was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. Further we find that Marsellus' announcement
on April 5 that DeMarko was to replace Roberts
endowed DeMarko with supervisory status and
thereafter Respondent was responsible for his state-
although he did not remember on April 5 having discussed the Teamsters
dues with any of the employees, he admitted that it was possible that he did
do so
'In view of our finding below concerning the supervisory status of De-
Marko on and after April 5, we find it unnecessary to determine the exact
date on which the employees signed the letter of withdrawal Further, we
disavow the Trial Examiner's inference from DeMarko's "sudden switch
regarding the Union between April 3 and April 5" that DeMarko
"switched allegiance from Union to Companyon the basisofpromises made
to him that he would receive a promotion and consequent increase in pay "
170 NLRB No. 99
MARSELLUS VAULT & SALES, INC
ments to other employees involving company pol-
icy.4 Accordingly, we find that DeMarko's April 5
statements to employees, that the Company would
close the plant if the Union came in and that it
would be beneficial for employees to start their
own union, constitute illegal threats, interference,
and inducement in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Further, we affirm the Trial Examiner's
Section 8(a)(1) findings and his finding that refusal
by Respondent to recognize and bargain with the
Union after March 31 violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondent, Marsellus Vault & Sales,
Inc., Syracuse, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
' Employee Burnham testified at the hearing that when he asked DeMar-
ko why he didn't sign the petition, DeMarko answered he couldn' t because
he was the boss This testimony is not discredited by the Trial Examiner or
denied by DeMarko
' Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute
therefor "on forms provided "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR E. REYMAN, Trial Examiner: After the
filing of a charge on April 13, 1967, by Dairy &
Bakery Salesmen & Dairy Employees Union, Local
316 affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America (Ind.),' herein sometimes called
the Union, the Acting General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 3, pur-
suant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 151 et. seq.,
herein called the Act, and Section 102.15 of the
Board's Rules and Regualations, Series 8, as
amended, on June 5, 1967, issued a Complaint and
Notice of Hearing, alleging that Marsellus Vault &
Sales, Inc., herein sometimes called the Respondent
or the Company, did engage in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent filed
timely Answer to the Complaint, effectively deny-
ing that it' had engaged in or was engaging in the
unfair labor practices as alleged in the Complaint,
and for a separate affirmative defense asserted that
at all times mentioned in the Complaint the
Respondent did and still does have a good-faith
899
doubt that the Union referred to in the Complaint
represented or represents an uncoerced majority of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate bargain-
ing unit.
Pursuant to Notice of Hearing, this case came on
to be heard before me at Syracuse, New York, on
July 14, 1967, the hearing being closed on the fol-
lowing day. At the hearing, each party was
represented by counsel, was afforded opportunity
to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to in-
troduce evidence relevant to the issues, to present
oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs submitted
on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent have been carefully considered.
Upon the record as a whole, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under, and ex-
isting by virtue of, the laws of the State of New
York. At all such times, Respondent has main-
tained its principal office and place of business in
the city of Syracuse, State of New York, and other
places of business and facilities in the town of Mex-
ico, State of New York, and other locations within
the State of New York, and is, and has been at all
such times, engaged at said places of business and
facilities in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of funeral supplies, metal stampings, and other loca-
tions within the State of New York, and is, and has
been at all such times, engaged at said places of
business and facilities in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of funeral supplies, metal stampings,
and related products. The Respondent's place of
business and facility located at Mexico, New York,
is the only facility involved in this proceeding. Dur-
ing the year immediately preceding the issuance of
the Complaint herein, Respondent in the course
and conduct of its business operations, purchased,
transferred, and delivered to its Mexico plant ce-
ment and other goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000, of which goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 were transported to
said Mexico plant directly from States of the United
States other than the State of New York. Respon-
dent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
' The caption of this case as it appears in the original Complaint was
amended at the hearing by striking the abbreviation "Co " from the cor-
porate name of the Respondent
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issues as Drawn by the Pleadings
The Complaint alleges that during the times men-
tioned Richard Perschel was management represen-
tative of the Respondent,' and that Antony DeMar-
ko was plant manager of the Mexico plant from
April 5, 1967_ The Answer states that the Respon-
dent admits that during March and April of 1967,
Perschel was employed by Respondent as a super-
visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act and in effect denies that DeMarko was a super-
visor.
The Complaint alleges, and the Answer denies,
that all inside plant manufacturing employees and
delivery drivers at Respondent's Ontario Avenue,
Mexico, New York, operation [the Mexico plant],
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
The Complaint alleges, and the Answer denies,
that the Respondent "by its following-named of-
ficers, supervisors and/or agents" at its Mexico
plant interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act in that Perschel on two occa-
sions on March 31, 1967, interrogated Respon-
dent's employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, and desires; that on April 5, 1967,
the Respondent by Anthony DeMarko threatened
its employees with a shutdown of the Mexico plant
if they selected the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative; and on the same day, April
5, the Respondent promised benefits to its em-
ployees in their condition of employment if they
refrained from becoming or remaining members of
the Union, or giving any assistance to it, or select-
ing the Union as their bargaining representative;
that on April 5 and April 10, 1967, the Respondent
by Anthony DeMarko encouraged and induced its
employees to renounce or reject the Union as their
selected bargaining representative and induced
them to negotiate directly with it in lieu thereof;
and that on April 10 the Respondent, by DeMarko,
induced and solicited its employees to revoke their
bargaining representative's authority to represent
them for purposes of collective bargaining. Aver-
ring that at all times since March 27, 1967, and
continuing to date, the Union has been the
representative for the purpose1of collective bargain-
ing of the employees in the unit described above, it
further is alleged that on that date, and at all times
thereafter, the Union had requested and is
requesting Respondent to bargain collectively with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
' Mr Perschel's name is spelled "Purcell" in the Complaint, the name
being amended at the hearing
ment, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the employees of Respondent in the unit
described above; that commencing on that date,
and at all times thereafter, the Respondent did fail
and refuse, and continues to fail and refuse, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union`as such exclusive
collective-bargaining representative; and finally,
that commencing on or about March 31, 1967, and
continuing to date, Respondent, by its officers,
representatives, and agents, engaged in the conduct
above described in order to undermine the Union
and destroy its majority status.
Union Organization
On March 28, 1967,3 Patrick F. Shanahan, busi-
ness representative and president of Local 316,
mailed a letter to John Marsellus, president of Mar-
sellus Vault & Sales, Inc,, the letter reading as fol-'
lows:
I am writing to advise you that Dairy & Bakery
Salesmen and Dairy Employees' Union, Local
316 represents a majority of the employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit consisting of all
inside plant manufacturing employees, delivery
driving employees at your plant on Ontario
Avenue, Mexico, New York. We request
recognition and immediate bargaining for a
collective bargaining agreement covering these
employees.
If you should have any questions concerning
our majority standing we would be willing to
submit to a card-check by impartial person to
satisfy you in this regard.
Please contact me immediately to arrange a
bargaining meeting.
On the same day, Shanahan filed a petition for
certification of representative with the Regional Of-
fice of the Board (Case 3-RC-4134).
Under date of April 3, Marsellus replied to
Shanahan's letter, as follows:
We acknowledge your letter of March 28 fol-
lowing which we received a copy of your peti-
tion for an election filed with the NLRB,
March 29.
The election procedure resolves doubts about
the question of representation and we intend to
advise the NLRB of our willingness to have an
election at an early date to settle the question
by secret ballot.
The letter of Marsellus was received by Shanahan
a day, or so ,after the date of the letter. Shanahan
explained that it was the custom of his office, in
making requests for recognition of employees to
employers that a petition be filed with the Board at
the same time.
' Unless otherwise specifically noted, all dates hereinafter mentioned are
for the year 1967
MARSELLUS VAULT
James Parry, vice president and assistant business
manager of Local 316 , after talking to employee
Daniel Schenck about March 23, met , on the fol-
lowing Monday , March 27 , with six employees of
the Respondent who worked at the Mexico plant,
this meeting having been arranged by Schenck.
Present at the meeting were Walter Boutell,
Richard Burhnam , Anthony DeMarko, Daniel
Schenck , Joseph_ Skilinski , and Lester Wood. These
six employees constituted the full complement of
employees at the Mexico plant , with the exception
of William H . Roberts, plant manager.
At the meeting, Parry distributed union
authorization cards to the other individuals who
were all sitting around a table, and witnessed the
signature of each employee to an authorization
card . The form of the card signed by each em-
ployee on that day reads as follows:
DAIRY AND BAKERY SALESMEN AND DAIRY
EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 316
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America
SYRACUSE, N. Y.
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
Date Employed
Last Name First Name Init.
Date of Birt^-
Address
Phone No.
Amount Paid `on Application
Soc. Sec. No.
Date Initiated Beneficiary
I hereby designate the Dairy and Bakery Salesmen
and Dairy Employees Union Local 316, through its
authorized agents, as my representative for collective
bargaining.
Plant Dept.
Voucher
Signed
CHECK-OFF AUTHORIZATION AND
ASSIGNMENT
1, the undersigned member of Local No. 316
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herewith, authorize my employer to
deduct from my wages each and every month
my union dues, consisting of initiation fees,
fines, and uniform assessments owing to such
Local Union as a result of membership therein,
and direct that such amounts so deducted be
sent to the Secretary-Treasurer of such Local
Union for and on my behalf.
This authorization and assignment shall be
irrevocable for the term of the applicable con-
& SALES, INC. 901
tract between the Union and the Company, or
for one year, whichever is the lesser, and shall
automatically renew itself for successive yearly
or applicable contract periods thereafter,
whichever is the lesser, unless I give written
notice to the Company and the Union at least
60 days and not more than 75 days before any
periodic renewal date of this authorization and
assignment of my desire to revoke the same.
I have read the above authorization and ap-
plication and understand it and have signed it
of my own free will. This is not to be applica-
ble until 30 days after the date hereof.
Employee
Date 19
4/
Witness:
An undated letter addressed to Shanahan, post-
marked Mexico, New York, April 10, a.m., 1967,
bearing the signatures of employees Walter E. Bou-
tell, Joseph Skilinskis, Daniel Schenck, Richard
Burnham, and Lester H. Wood stated:
We, the undersigned, voluntarily withdraw our
applications from the Union.
The envelope containing this communication was
stamped as being received, NLRB Region 3, May 9,
1967,11:22, Buffalo, N.Y.
Prior to this and under date of April 4, 1967,
Shanahan had addressed a letter to Marsellus,
Respondent's president, reading as follows:
I previously wrote to you on March 28, 1967,
informing you that our union represents a
majority of your employees at your Mexico,
New York plant.
I make another request at this that you set up a
date for bargaining on a contract for your men.
If you have any doubt concerning the fact that
we represent the employees at the above-men-
tioned plant we would be willing to submit to
an immediate card-check by a disinterested
party to prove our claim.
Please contact me immediately to arrange a
bargaining meeting.
As above noted, the charge in the instant unfair
labor practice case was filed by the Union on April
13.
After the petition for certification and the de-
mand of the Union for recognition, it appears that
through Field Examiner Randazzo, a representative
of the Regional Office of the Board, a- meeting was
arranged between representatives of the parties for
April 12. Messrs. Parry and Shanahan, and Mr.
King, attorney for the Union, did -meet with Mr.
Kopp, attorney for the Company, on April 12. Mr.
Randazzo had arranged for the parties to meet for
' An official time stamp shown on the back of each authorization card
shows it to have been received in the office of the Third Region of the
Board at Buffalo , New York, at 1 1.27 a in, March 29, 1967
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD
the purpose of arranging for a consent election
among the employees in the claimed bargaining
unit. When the representatives of the parties met
with him, nothing was accomplished. Although the
meeting had been set up for the purpose of arrang-
ing for a consent election, and although the parties
discussed the matter informally, the meeting "never
got off the ground," according to Parry and Attor-
ney King, because of the Union's having filed, or
because of its intention to immediately file, unfair
labor practice charges against the Company.
Schenck testified that he had signed a union
authorization card on its signature date and' other
employees had then signed such a card in his
presence. Burnham testified that he had signed his
authorization card in the presence of the other em-
ployees of the Company, at a place called Samara's,
where the meeting was held, and that he had read
the card before he signed it. Wood testified that he
had signed the authorization card at that meeting,
had read it before he signed it, and had signed it in
the presence of the other employees. Skilinskis
testified that he had attended the meeting on the
evening of March 27; that Parry, Burnham, Boutell,
DeMarko, Wood, and Schenck were present, and
that in their presence he signed the application card
authorizing the Union to represent him. He said:
Well, as far as I got out of it was that it was an
application for the Union to come in to Mar-
sellus Vault to represent us and that we would
have to vote on this later on. And that there
were three copies of this, one to be sent to
Marsellus plant, one to Buffalo and he [Parry]
would keep one copy in his files.
He further explained that Parry had said that "we
would have to vote on it within four to six weeks af-
terwards."
Parry was cross-examined at length as to the cir-
cumstances under which the authorization cards
were signed. He testified, and I credit his testimony,
that he read the card to the men there assembled in
Samara 's, that the men had an opportunity to read
the card, each for himself, and that they signed the
cards in his and their presence, although he could
not remember the precise time when any one of the
men read the card. He did recall that the men men-
tioned were present and signed the cards and then
handed them to him. It long has been settled by
competent precedent, by the Board and courts, that
the execution of union authorization cards in such
circumstances, without coercion or without ir-
responsible promises of benefits, constitutes valid
signature, and authority to a labor organization to
use such cards for recognition purposes.
The Employment of Roberts as Plant Manager and
his Subsequent Replacement by DeMarko
Company President Marsellus and Perschel, the
management official directly in charge of the Mex-
ico vault operation, have offices in Syracuse.
Perschel calls the Mexico plant by telephone daily
and visits it at least once or twice a week . Directly
subordinate to Perschel (at times material herein)
was William H. Roberts , plant manager , who spent
all of his time at the Mexico plant . There is no
question concerning the established fact that
Roberts, an employee of the Company for a total of
some 11 years, acted as and was plant manager at
Mexico for approximately 2-1/2 years before April
5, and during such time was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. He was employed on a salary
basis, was not paid overtime as were the production
employees under his supervision , had the authority
to and did give employees time off at his discretion,
effectively recommended hiring of employees, was
not required to punch a timeclock as were the
production employees , trained employees , deter-
mined whether overtime should be worked and who
would do it , assigned employees from job to job
with instructions as to what their duties were, filed
production or clerical reports , and ordered
products needed at the Mexico - plant. In -short,
under Perschel , he was the sole management
representative at the Mexico plant until he was su-
perseded as plant manager by DeMarko.
He testified that he resigned and handed in his
resignation to be effective about April 14 and that
his resignation was submitted some 10 days before
it became effective . He testified that he was suc-
ceeded as plant manager by Anthony DeMarko and
that DeMarko " took over after Mr . Marsellus was
up and called the group together and told them that
he [DeMarko] was taking over as plant manager."
This circumstance , according to Roberts , occurred
approximately 10 days before his final date of
resignation as plant manager; and his duties as plant
manager terminated immediately upon the appoint-
ment of DeMarko to the job by Marsellus.
The parties stipulated that on March 29, exclud-
ing Roberts , six men were employed at the Mexico
plant ; Richard Burnham and Daniel Schenck, en-
gaged in the manufacture of the vaults or "boxes";
Joseph Skilinskis , Anthony DeMarko, and Walter
Boutell , engaged in the manufacture of the
"covers" for the vaults; and Lester Wood, a
truckdriver who delivered finished , painted vaults
to the appropriate cemetery.
Perschel testified that in the company of Marsel-
]us, he was at the Mexico plant on April 5,and at
some time near 10 in the morning heard Marsellus
make a short speech to the employees. According
to him, Marsellus explained to the employees that
because of ill health , Roberts was leaving the em-
ploy of the Company and that DeMarko "would be
taking over that position ." He said that . Marsellus
then asked the men to "work with Tony and make
the transition as easy as possible." According to
Perschel , Marsellus at that time said that Roberts
would be staying until the 14th and that Tony
would be broken in during that period.
MARSELLUS VAULT & SALES, INC. 903
It appears that Marsellus and Perschel had de- - to give him your best cooperation and everything to
"cided between themselves on April 3 who would
succeed Roberts as plant manager at the Mexico
plant; and they also decided that he would be paid
on a salary basis. In any event, the fact is conceded
by counsel for the Respondent that Marsellus and
Perschel had made up their minds the day before
Marsellus called at the plant with Perschel, on April
5, as to the amount of money DeMarko was to be
paid as plant manager and that DeMarko was in-
formed sometime during the week of April 3, after
Marsellus had called at the plant, that he would be
placed on a salary basis. Marsellus, during the
course of his talk to the employees on April 5, ad-
vised them that DeMarko was their new boss and
that Roberts would remain at the plant until about
April 14 in order to assist DeMarko in taking over
the duties of the job; and Marsellus also asked the
employees to cooperate with DeMarko in order to
make his job easier. Burnham testified: "Mr. Mar-
sellus said that Tony was our new boss and
cooperate and help him in any way we could";
Wood testified. "Mr. Marsellus said that Tony De-
Marko is your new boss. Mr. Roberts will leave for
reasons of health on the 14th. . . . Mr. DeMarko
will work with Bill Roberts and cooperate with him
to learn the ins and outs of the business," and in
answer to a question by counsel for the Respondent
as to when Marsellus said that DeMarko was to as-
sume the job and the authority of being a foreman,
Wood answered: "Mr. Marsellus said DeMarko is
your new boss"; Schenck testified that on April 5:
"he came to the plant and went in the office and
talked. And we was talking, and then Mr. Perschel
came out of the office and he said he wanted us to
gather round because Mr. Marsellus wanted to talk
to us. And then Mr. Marsellus came out of the of-
fice and after we got gathered around he said that
Bill Roberts was leaving because of ill health and
that he decided that Tony DeMarko was best
qualified, that he is your new boss, I hope you'll
give him your full cooperation, you know, make his
job easier for him. He said that Bill would stick
around a few weeks, you know, to kind of show him
the ropes. He said does anybody have any
questyons. Nobody did, and he congratulated Tony
and he walked off and we went back to work"; this
same 'witness, under cross-examination, testified to
substantial effect as immediately above quoted, and
in answer to a question as to whether Marsellus had
said that DeMarko was the boss right then and
there or whether he had said that DeMarko was
going to become the foreman after Roberts left he
answered: "to the best of my knowledge, he said
that Mr. DeMarko is your new boss and I want you
make the job easier.
DeMarko stopped punching the timeclock on
April 8 and from that day on was paid on a salary
basis. On April 7, Roberts made out reports neces-
sary to be submitted to the Syracuse office of the
Company and instructed DeMarko in connection
with the preparation of such reports. During the
week of April 10, Roberts drove a truck to conform
with required deliveries and during that time De-
Marko was at the plant performing the duties
theretofore performed by Roberts. DeMarko made
out the necessary reports due on April 14.
I believe and find that Roberts was relieved of his
duties as plant manager on or before April 5 and
that DeMarko assumed the duties previously per-
formed by -Roberts as of the time Marsellus an-
nounced to employees that DeMarko was to suc-
ceed Roberts. I believe and find that after the offi-
cial announcement made by Marsellus as reported
by Perschel and confirmed by the testimony of em-
ployees, DeMarko was regarded by the employees
at the Mexico plant as their supervisor de facto and
that he had succeeded Roberts in authority over
them. I believe and find that DeMarko was made
plant manager on April 5, on that date became a
supervisor and agent of Respondent, and that an
improper or unlawful unfair labor practice at-
tributed to him on and after that date must attach
to the Respondent.'
Turning now to the testimony of DeMarko on
this point, called on behalf of the Respondent, he
testified, credibly, to his duties in the connection
with the manufacture of burial-vaults; that he was
making covers on April 5, and was engaged in that
occupation on April 5, 6, 7, and 8, together with
Skilinskis and Boutell; that prior to April 5 he had
punched a timeclock as did the other employees
paid on an hourly rate and that on April 7 his card
was in a dispenser, another essential fact going to
show that up until at least April 6 or 7 he was an
hourly rated employee and not paid on a salary ba-
sis. In other words, he said he was engaged in work
in connection with the manufacture of burial vaults.
He testified that he moved into the office formerly
occupied by Roberts on April 15. Regarding De-
Marko's further testimony regarding notes made
out by Roberts on April 8, which of the two men
made out the invetory notes on April 14, and De-
Marko's statement that he was the one who kept
the daily production records from April 17 and
thereafter, and his denial that he issued orders to
workmen in the plant between April 5 and April 8,
cannot disturb my finding that DeMarko was acting
in a supervisory capacity between April 5 and April
After Wood had testified as a witness called by counsel for the General
Counsel, counsel for the Respondent chose to call him as a witness on be-
half of the Respondent Wood was present, as noted, on April 5, when Mar-
sellus spoke to the employees at the plant and, as further noted, testified
that Marsellus had said that "Tony DeMarko is your new boss " Not
satisfied with that answer, Respondent's counsel asked whether Marsellus
had said what Roberts' position was going to be until he left the organiza-
tion on April 14 and received the reply that Roberts' lob was to help to in-
form DeMarko Wood then was asked "and who was going to be the boss
between April 5 and April 149" to which the witness replied "from the
statement Mr Marsellus made, Tony DeMarko was "
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14. On April 5 he knew, Roberts knew, the men
working at the Mexico plant knew, and manage-
ment knew that DeMarko was to immediately begin
to act in a supervisory capacity, either as one being
instructed in the finer details of supervision or as
one who was simply waiting, officially, to fully as-
sume the .duties of Roberts which had been per-
formed by the latter for about two and one-half
years.
The Activities of DeMarko and Other Employees
Regarding the Union after March 27
Perschel testified that on March 3 1, he had occa-
sion to visit the Mexico plant and during the course
of his visit told DeMarko that he was sorry to hear
that the employees had had to go outside- to get
help to talk to the Company, after which he turned
and walked away; that he did not hear DeMarko
make any response to his statement. Skilinskis and
DeMarko, questioned about this incident, said that
Perschel did not wait for any comment but walked
away without hearing some comment by DeMarko
to the effect that one could not buy 2 pounds of
butter for $1.65. On the same day, March 31,
Perschel, according to him, knew that Roberts was
ill, and desiring to relieve him of any responsibility
for having at some time or other in the past given
keys to the plant to DeMarko and Wood, picked up
the keys from the two men and within a half hour
returned- them to DeMarko and Wood, explaining
that he had done-this to remove any responsibility
from Roberts' shoulders to his own. Wood testified
that at the time Perschel picked up his key Perschel
said in part " . . . if you had any problems why
didn't you come to me with them." In this connec-
tion Wood, who had been a truckdriver employed
by the Company for some 14 years, after first testi-
fying that he had signed a union card at the same
time as the other employees, said that Perschel had
talked to him on a Friday, "about the end of the
week after we had signed our applications for the
Union" in the storage area of the plant, no one else
being present, and said to him
... Les, I want to take your's and DeMarko's
shop key because of the Union deal; if
anything went wrong in the shop, I'd have to
come to either one of you fellows. He said if
you have any problems, why didn't you come
to me with them. I said I didn't think it my
place to.
Wood testified that this was the extent of the con-
versation.
On behalf of the Respondent it is argued that in
neither incident was there any evidence that
Perschel ever asked DeMarko or Wood or any
other employee any question concerning union
membership, activities, or desires or that no techni-
cal "interrogation" occurred in either case, but the
remarks were simply passing comments of a rhetor-
ical nature which cannot be considered an inquiry
by Perschel into either the union activity of Wood
or DeMarko amounting to the point of inter-
ference; and on behalf of Respondent it is further
said that no element of a coercive nature can be
implied from the circumstances. DeMarko testified
(in this-connection) that Perschel asked him "why
couldn't you come to me? Why did you have to go
to the Teamsters?"; that Perschel made no other
statements at that time, and that in reply to
Perschel's question, he replied "we've tried." De-
Marko said-that as Perschel was walking away he,
DeMarko, said "We've tried."
DeMarko testified that the withdrawal letter
(G.C. Exh. 7) referred to above was typed by his
wife at their home during the lunch hour on April 6
and on that afternoon he brought it into the plant;
that on that same afternoon, Boutell, Skilinskis,
Schenck, and Burnham signed it; and that Wood,
who was out of the plant on that day, signed it on
the following day, April 7. DeMarko said that he
then mailed the letter enclosed in the envelope his
wife had also typed on Saturday evening, April 8.
He said he noted on his own copy of the letter that
it was sent 4-8-67. Skilinskis testified that to the
best of his knowledge he signed this letter on the af-
ternoon of April 6 and that he saw Boutell sign it
just before he did at the same time; that he saw
Schenck sign it on the same afternoon and that he
saw Burnham also sign the letter on April 6. Boutell
identified the exhibit and said that he recalled sign-
ing it around the 6th or 7th of April.
The time devoted to, discussion of the daily and
hourly, element involved as to the actual signing of
the so-called withdrawal letter by the several em-
ployees has been dictated by the insistence by the
Respondent on the so-called credibility conflict
here involved as being essential to a proper resolu-
tion of the case. This is not necessarily true, human
fallibility being what it is. The withdrawal letter ad-
dressed to Shanahan, bearing the signatures of five
of the employees involved, is an undated document.
Accepting the testimony of Wood, that he signed it
on April 7, and bearing in mind that the postmark
shown on the covering letter (April, 10 a.m.) is cor-
rect, as I assume it to be, it cannot be accepted as a
proven fact that three witnesses testifying one way
and three witnesses testifying another way requires
a finding that three of them were not telling the
truth. The essential question, as I see it, is whether
the actions of the Respondent either before or after
the designation of DeMarko as plant manager,
prompted any one or more of the six employees
who signed the withdrawal letter to consider the
import of such letter at such time as any one of
them may have signed it. As the Respondent cor-
rectly states, Schenck said that DeMarko brought
the withdrawal letter in and it was signed on the af-
ternoon of April 10 and that he was sure that he
could not be mistaken on the date; Burnham said
he also signed the document on the afternoon of
April 10 and was sure that it was not signed on
MARSELLUS VAULT & SALES, INC. 905
April 6; and Wood said that he signed it on the
same day as the other men, meaning April 10, dur-
ing the afternoon. From all this, then, it appears
that someone was mistaken or was not telling the
truth according to his best recollection. I prefer to
accept the credibility question as being in favor of
Schenck as against that of DeMarko simply
because, for one reason, there is no showing in the
record that DeMarko did not carry around or hold
the withdrawal letter until he saw fit to mail it;-as
to Skilinskis and Boutell, I think their testimony as
to the date of signing of the letter was rather more
or less accurate than that of Burnham.'
Employer Responsibility for Actions of DeMarko
Between April 5 and 14
In connection with the conduct of DeMarko and
the conduct of the Respondent, taken together, the
General Counsel has shown by the preponderance
of the evidence that DeMarko on April 5 became a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act, or became an agent of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act
between April 4 and 14. Fully spread upon the
record in this case are the following facts: Marsellus
announced on April 5 that DeMarko either then
was succeeding or would almost immediately suc-
ceed or supplant Roberts as foreman or plant
manager at the Mexico plant; that almost im-
mediately Roberts began to instruct DeMarko as to
the detail of the supervision to be exercised by him
over the other employees; that Roberts did stay on
after April 5 and during that time instructed De-
Marko as to the detail of supervision to be per-
formed by him while he, Roberts, at the same time
undertook the duties of a truckdriver. I do not
-question the fact, but indeed find, that Perschel
could override the Mexico plant manager in regard
to most decisions required to be made from day to
day other than the usual work performed at the
Mexico facility. I do not overlook; either, the fact
that Perschel could not oversee the work of the
men employed at the Mexico facility in absentia;
some one person must necessarily, during the time
that is here considered, be on the premises of the
Mexico plant to see that the work orders were filled
properly. According to my best judgment, when
Marsellus made his public announcement on April
5, he then and there not only impliedly but express-
ly informed the employees there assembled that
DeMarko has supervisory status. To assert that for
the period between April 5 and 14, DeMarko was
no more than a production employee, and that
Roberts maintained full supervision over the men at
the Mexico plant is, on the facts of this case, asking
too much of a stretch of imagination; and to assume
that DeMarko "did not assume a single indicia of
the plant manager job" until April 15 is to make an
assumption contrary to the facts in this case.
Although it is true that between April 5 and 14 De-
Marko did not assume authority or voice in hiring,
transferring, laying off, disciplining, rewarding, or
assigning other employees to various duties, the
fact remains that each of the employees there knew
he was, either "the new boss," or would within a
few days assume the duties from which Roberts had
either removed himself or had been removed.
Concluding Findings
The preponderance of evidence and weight of
proof support the allegations of the Complaint and
substantially refute the denials of the Answer. I
shall find and conclude that the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
I find that DeMarko was given indicia of manage-
ment association by Marsellus and Perschel on
April 5 after DeMarko and other employees had
designated the Union to act for them for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining; that the written
requests of Union Business Representative
Shanahan were bona fide in that the individual
authorizations given to Vice President Parry of
Local 316 were valid and binding; and that there is
no merit in a contention of the Respondent that
Shanahan's first request letter must be ignored
because he at the same time filed a petition for
representation (Case 3-RC-4134). I further find
upon what I consider to be proper inference that
the comments of Perschel and DeMarko were not
mere isolated, innocuous statements but were, in
the congeries of the case (considering times and
places) intended to discourage membership in or
activities on behalf of the Union by the Mexico
plant employees.
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act requires an employer
"to bargain collectively with the representatives of
his employees, subject to the provisions of Section
9(a)." Section 9(a) provides that "[r]epresenta-
tives designated or selected for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining by the majority of the employees
in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the
exclusive representatives of all the employees in
such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
." Although Section 9(c)(1) provides machinery
by which the question of representative status may
be determined in a Board-conducted election, it has
long been settled that an election is not the only
means by which representative status may be
established. See United Mine Workers v. Arkansas
Oak Flooring Co., 35-1 U.S. 62, 71-72, and cases
cited at fn. 8 therein. Therefore, there is no ab-
solute right vested in an employer to demand an
6 Notwithstanding the reliance of counsel for the Respondent on the
pretrial statements given to a Board agent by several witnesses , I prefer to
rely on my observation of them on the witness stand, and their testimony
taken as a whole in conjunction with other facts in the case
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election where a union has obtained authorization
cards signed by a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit, designating the union as their bar-
gaining representative, and an employer violates
Section 8(a)(5) if, absent a good-faith doubt of -the
union's majority status, he refuses to bargain with
the union. Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company
v. N.L.R.B., 312 F.2d 529, 532. An employer is not
excused from the obligation to recognize the union
because the union participated in a representation
proceeding and later withdrew its petition in order
to file unfair labor practice charges with the Board.
N.L.R.B. v. Epstein, 203 F.2d 482 (C.A. 3), cert.
denied, 347 U.S. 912; Joy Silk Mills v. N.L.R.B.,
185 F.2d 732, 741 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341
U.S. 914.
It is well settled that the authenticity of union
cards may be established (in the absence of fraud,
misrepresentation, or coercion) by the testimony of
a union representative in whose presence the card
was signed by an employee who at the time un-
derstood the import of the card. Doctrine fully
recognized, too, is to the effect that an employee's
thoughts or afterthoughts, and what he thought the
card meant, cannot negate the overt action of hav-
ing signed the card designating a union as bargain-
ing agent. Joy Silk Mills v. N.L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732,
741 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914. Ac-
cord: James H. Matthews & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 354
F.2d 432, 436 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 384 U.S.
1002; Colson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d
128, 135 (C.A. 8); N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc., 341 F.2d 750, 755 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 382
U.S. 830. It has been decided that the reservations
of an employee about signing a card cannot negate
his overt action of having signed and submitted an
unambiguous card, designating the union as his col-
lective-bargaining agent. N.L.R.B. v. Greenfield
Components Corporation, 317 F.2d 85, 89 (C.A. 1),
and cases cited therein.
Not one of the employees who signed the appli-
cation for membership in the Union on March 27
had indicated or has indicated that he did not un-
derstand the meaning and the import of the appli-
cation with the attached form of checkoff
authorization and assignment.
The Respondent says that DeMarko, on and after
April 5 until April 15, had no "actual authority" to
circulate the so-called withdrawal petition or make
statements concerning the Union; that he admitted
that the withdrawal letter was his own idea; that he
was not prompted by Marsellus or by Perschel; and
that the record is devoid of any evidence that the
company principals knew of DeMarko's activities
and did not encourage, authorize, or ratify any ac-
tivities by DeMarko. Respondent says further there
is no evidence that during this period DeMarko
acted or had authority to act for the Company in
any capacity other than making covers for burial
vaults. On such premise, the Respondent argues
that having failed to produce direct evidence of
agency relationship, the General Counsel has con-
structed his entire agency theory on the-April 5 an-
nouncement that DeMarko would take the job
previously or then held by Roberts when Roberts
would have left the employ of the Company on
April 14._ In the face of the facts-disclosed by the
record, such argument and premise must be con-
sidered specious.'
In weighing the value of the evidence in the in-
stant case, I have tried to avoid specious inference,
and at the same time allow proper weight to legiti-
mate inference. Riggs Distler & Co. v. N.L.R.B.,
372 F.2d 575 (C.A. 4), holds that while an Ex-
aminer can properly resolve issues of credibility
"nonetheless the Board, after discounting all ex-
planations offered by an employer for discharge of
employees, must find unlawful motivation through
substantial direct or indirect evidence." This Ex-
aminer believes that that principle in respect to
discharge of employees also holds true in circum-
stances similar to those found here.
Since no direct evidence has been proffered to
establish company knowledge as to DeMarko's an-
tiunion activities, the General Counsel here neces-
sarily must rely on indirect or circumstantial
evidence. In Appalachian Electric Power Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 93 F.2d 985, 989 (C.A. 4), substantial
evidence was there defined as "evidence furnishing
a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in
issue can reasonably be inferred; and the test is not
satisfied by evidence which merely creates a suspi-
cion or which amounts to more than a scintilla or
which gives equal support to any inconsistent in-
ferences."'
It could not be expected that Marsellus or
Perschel would testify that DeMarko acted under
their instructions when he obtained the signatures
of other employees to the so-called withdrawal peti-
tion or letter. I think it properly may be asked why
there does not appear in the record the reason for
the sudden switch in view of DeMarko regarding
the Union between April 3 and Aprils when he
learned that he was to succeed Roberts as plant
manager. I think it properly may be inferred that
DeMarko switched allegiance from Union to Com-
pany on the basis of promises made to him that he
would receive a promotion and consequent in-
crease in pay.
It seems unnecessary to mention that Marsellus
or Perschel could easily have communicated with
Shanahan in regard to the latter's suggestion that
the union majority be proved by a card check by an,
impartial person.
For the reasons stated above, I find that the
Respondent engaged in and is engaging in the un-
' Goodyear Clearwater Mill No 2, 102 NLRB 1329, and Hy Plains
Dressed Beef, Inc., 146 NLRB 1253, cited in the bneffiled on behalf of
the Respondent, I believe to be inapposite.
' See also N L R B v Shen-Valley Meat Packers , Inc , 211 F 2d 289, 293
(CA 4)
MARSELLUS VAULT & SALES, INC. 907
fair labor practices alleged in the Complaint. I find
that all inside plant manufacturing employees and
delivery drivers at Respondent's Mexico, New
York, operation, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. It
further is found that the refusal of the Respondent
to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union
as the representative of the Respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit was and
continues to be a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act. Further, I find, the activities of Marsellus,
Perschel, and DeMarko, as described above, con-
stituted unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer as defined in
Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and
in operations affecting commerce as defined in Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined
in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All inside plant manufacturing employees and
delivery drivers at Respondent's Mexico, New
York, operation, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all material times the Union has been and
still is the exclusive representative of all employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act. By refusing, since on or about March 31,
1967, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By interrogation of employees about their
union activities, threatening or suggesting reprisals
for such activities, and by inducing employees to
withdraw from the Union, the Respondent has in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By having engaged in and by being engaged in
the unfair labor practices set forth above, the
Respondent is engaged in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent described 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 of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has
violated and is violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act, it will be recommended that the Respon-
dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent refused
to bargain and continues to refuse to bargain in
good faith with the Union, which represents a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, it
will be recommended that the Respondent be or-
dered to bargain, upon request, in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and the
foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it
is recommended that the Respondent, Marsellus
Vault & Sales, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain concerning rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment with Dairy & Bakery Salesmen &
Dairy Employees Union, Local 316 affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Ind.), as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in its Mexico, New York, plant, including
all inside plant manufacturing employees and
delivery drivers at said plant, but excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, a unit ap-
propriate for collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about
their union activities, threatening reprisals, or en-
gaging in any other activities with respect of the in-
terest of said employees in or activities on behalf of
or membership in the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner , interfering
with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by the proviso to Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good
faith with Dairy & Bakery Salesmen & Dairy Em-
ployees Union, Local 316 affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Ind.), as
the exclusive representative of all inside manufac-
turing employees and delivery drivers at Respon-
dent's Mexico, New York, plant, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Mexico, New York, co-
pies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 3 shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a
period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where noti-
cies to employees are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to en-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.10
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain in good faith, upon
request , with Dairy & Bakery Salesmen &
Dairy Employees Union, Local 316 affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Ind.), as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody it in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All inside plant manufacturing employees
and delivery drivers at our Mexico, New
York, operation, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
about their union activities or threaten
reprisals for such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-or-
ganization, to form, join, or assist Dairy &
Bakery Salesmen & Dairy Employees Union,
Local 316 affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Ind.),
or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by
the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
MARSELLUS VAULT &
SALES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120
Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202,
Telephone 842-3100.