A. W. Winchester, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1006 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. W. Winchester, Inc. and United Paperworkers In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-12192
November 18, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND WALTHER
On March 8, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Paul
E. Well issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, as
modified herein, and conclusions of the Administra-
tive Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Or-
der.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that the June 21, 1975, affiliation election was
properly conducted and that by a vote of 23 to 3 the
employees agreed to affiliate with the Union. In dis-
posing of the Respondent's contentions of procedur-
al irregularities, the Administrative Law Judge inad-
vertently stated that employees Barron and Simpson,
both of whom were known to be against the Union,
testified that each saw how the other voted, and how
other employees marked their ballots. However, the
record shows that Simpson did not testify, and Bar-
ron testified only to seeing how Simpson voted. Em-
ployees Simons and Selby each testified that he saw
how another employee voted, but added that the em-
ployee in question made no effort to conceal his bal-
lot.
Thus, if employees revealed their vote to others
they apparently did so as a matter of choice. For as
the Administrative Law Judge found, each voter had
the opportunity to mark his ballot in secret by either
retiring to a corner of the meeting room or simply
covering his ballot with his hand. By way of explana-
tion for the lack of secrecy the Administrative Law
Judge noted that affiliating with the Union had been
a topic of discussion for some time, and only 2 or 3
weeks before the June 21 election 23 of the Respon-
dent's 32 employees had signed union authorization
cards. In the meantime, employees in favor of affilia-
tion, and those opposed, such as Barron and Simp-
son, had generally made their feelings known. And
apparently the three employees whose marked bal-
lots were seen by other employees were not con-
cerned about keeping their votes a secret.
To be sure, in elections conducted by this Agency
the opportunity to vote in private is guaranteed, and
not merely offered as an alternative to the less formal
method used here. But in the particular circumstanc-
es of this case we find nothing in the failure to adopt
the strict standards of the Board which would impair
the validity of the affiliation election.'
In view of the foregoing and other surrounding cir-
cumstances we agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that the July 21 election was properly noticed
and conducted, and successfully established the de-
sire of the employees to affiliate with the Union.
Compare The J. H. Day Company, 204 NLRB 863
(1973); Peco, Inc., 204 NLRB 1036 (1973).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its' Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, A. W. Winchester, Inc., Al-
legan, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting:
I do not agree with my colleagues that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to rec-
ognize the Charging Party following an affiliation
election. In my view, the lack of secrecy in the ballot-
ing procedure violated the minimal standards of due
process, and, hence, Respondent was not required to
honor the results of such a vote by granting recogni-
tion to the Charging Party.
Although internal union elections are not required
to meet the strict standards of the Board's election
procedures, due process does require that an affilia-
tion election provide the basic safeguards of a free
and fair election if those elections are to be recog-
nized and the results enforced by the Board. As
Member Jenkins has stated:'
If the Board is to accept privately conducted
elections as a basis for amending Board certifi-
cations, it should be certain that minimal stan-
dards of due process be observed lest the very
i Member Jenkins regards as inapposite the dissent's quotation from his
own dissent in North Electric Company, 165 NLRB 942 (1967) The issue
there was the denial of the vote to nonmembers of the union, an infringe-
ment of due process to which the voter's voluntary impairment of his ballot
secrecy is hardly comparable
2 See Member Jenkins' Joint dissent with Member Zagoria in North Elec-
tric Company, 165 NLRB 942, 944 (1967)
226 NLRB No. 152
A W. WINCHESTER, INC 1007
validity of Board certifications and elections be
undermined.
The "election" here clearly was not conducted in a
manner compatible with these standards. Indeed, se-
crecy-the most fundamental safeguard of a free and
fair election-was totally disregarded by those in
charge of the balloting. Thus, the record reveals that
at least one employee present at the election protest-
ed the lack of secrecy, and my colleagues concede
that the ballots of three voters were, in fact, seen by
other employees. Moreover, some employees testified
that they could have seen how others voted and that
they saw employees looking at the ballots of fellow
employees. In these circumstances, the balloting pro-
cedure cannot be said to meet the requirement of a
"secret ballot" as defined in Section 3(k) of the La-
bor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.3 It is this provision which the courts have
found provides a fair standard against which to mea-
sure the validity of balloting in similar affiliation
votes.4
Indeed, my colleagues concede the lack of secrecy
herein;' their conclusion thus rejects secrecy as a re-
quirement of a free and fair election upon which this
Board will order bargaining. Rather, it appears that
my colleagues will now substitute a long period of
"discussion" for the requirement of secret ballots if
the employees so "choose." While I agree that a pe-
riod of "discussion" and opportunity for all to ex-
change views is an essential prelude to the secret bal-
lot, it by no stretch of the imagination can be twisted
into a substitute for the secret ballot.' Thus, an em-
ployee no longer has a right to cast a secret ballot in
an affiliation election unless he is willing to take
whatever affirmative action is necessary to secure se-
crecy. In fact, my colleagues and the Administrative
Law Judge would require an employee either to "re-
tir[e] to a corner of the meeting room" or "[cover]
his ballot with his hand." Surely to make such a con-
spicuous affirmative attempt at secrecy, particularly
7 29 U S C § 402 (k) Sec 3 (k) defines secret ballot as "the expression of a
choice with respect to any election or vote taken upon any matters which is
cast in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be
identified with the choice expressed " The Department of Labor interprets
Sec 3 (k) as requiring "that there be no possibility that any one would be
able to determine how a member 's vote was cast " American Bridge Division,
United States Steel Corporation v N L R B, 457 F 2d 660, 666 (C A 3,
1972), citing Schultz v Local 420 Aluminum Workers Union, 74 LRRM 2281
(N D N Y , 1970)
4in American Bridge, supra, the court applied this "secret ballot" defini-
tion and concluded , inter aba, that the affiliation vote did not meet this test,
and refused to enforce the Board 's bargaining order
5 in adopting the Administrative Law Judge 's finding that the affiliation
election obligated the Respondent to bargain with the Union , my colleagues
state that "[b]y way of explanation for the lack of secrecy, the Administrative
Law Judge noted that affiliating with the Union has been a topic of discus-
sion for some time " (Emphasis supplied )
6 See my dissent in Bear Archery, Division of Victor Comptometer Corpora-
tion , 223 NLRB 1169 (1976)
as here where those controlling the election had
made known their support of the affiliation resolu-
tion, an employee must subject himself to the scruti-
ny he seeks to avoid.
Without question, the necessity of making such an
attempt to insure secrecy of one's ballot-the only
alternative to a nonsecret ballot-could only have a
coercive effect on any employee inclined to oppose
affiliation.
That such coercion in fact occurred is evidenced
by the request for secrecy by an employee and by the
fact that most of those same employees who voted in
the affiliation "election" subsequently requested an-
other meeting to reconsider that vote.
In my view, the failure to provide secrecy and the
resulting potential for coercion constitute fatal defi-
ciencies, rendering the election invalid.' In such cir-
cumstances, the affiliation election does not repre-
sent the true desires of the unit employees. Unlike
my colleagues, therefore, I am unwilling to confer
representative status to the Union on the basis of
such an election.
In the absence, therefore, of secret balloting-the
essential safeguard of a free and fair election-and in
light of the significant and substantial change result-
ing in the identity of the Union, I refuse to confer
exclusive representative status on the International
based on the election herein, Accordingly, I would
not find that the Respondent violated the Act by re-
fusing to recognize the Charging Party, and would
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
7 lbid
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL. E. WEIL, Administrative Law Judge: On July 24,
1975, United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter called the Union, filed with the Regional
Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations
Board, hereinafter called the Board, a charge alleging that
A. W. Winchester, Inc., hereinafter called Respondent, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to recognize the
affiliation of a shop committee of employees of Respon-
dent with the Union; and by refusing to bargain with the
Union as the representative of the employees in an appro-
priate unit of Respondent's employees. On September 30,
1975, the Regional Director, on behalf of the Board's Gen-
eral Counsel, issued a complaint and notice of hearing al-
leging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union and by attempting to bypass and under-
mine the Union as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit. By its duly filed answer. Respondent
admitted the existence of, and its willingness to bargain
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with, the shop committee and admitted the jurisdictional
facts but denied the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices. On the issues thus joined , the matter came on for
hearing before me on December 10 and 11, 1975, at Kala-
mazoo, Michigan. All parties were present and represented
by counsel and had an opportunity to call and examine
witnesses and to adduce relevant and material evidence.
After the hearing, the General Counsel and Respondent
filed briefs with me. On the entire record in this case, and
in consideration of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Michigan corporation engaged at the
city of Allegan, Michigan , in the business of slitting and
processing steel. In the course of its business operation,
Respondent annually purchases and causes to be delivered
to its Michigan plant goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from points located outside the State of Michi-
gan. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Since 1972 Respondent has recognized and bargained
with a shop committee as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of its employees in a bargaining unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employees
including truck mechanics and truckdrivers but excluding
guards and supervisors as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. On June 16, 1974, Respondent
and the shop committee entered into a collective-bargain-
ing agreement for a 3-year period but with a provision to
reopen on the issues of wages including insurance , pension,
and other money and fringe benefit matters by appropriate
written notice at the end of each year thereof. Sometime in
May 1975,1 pursuant to the terms of the contract, the shop
committee gave notice that they wished to reopen the con-
tract to negotiate various fringe benefits and a wage in-
crease. About the same time, one of the shop committee-
men, Blaine Simon, contacted the Union and secured a
number of blank union authorization cards. Simon, appar-
ently with the help of another committeeman, Richard
Gwynne, secured signatures of 23 such cards.
On or about June 8, Gwynne, together with some of the
committeemen , met with the Union's business agent, Mr.
Ashley, and gave him the cards. On this occasion Gwynne
informed Ashley of the existence of a contract. Ashley's
first reaction was that the contract was not worth the paper
it was written on, and his second was to ask for a copy of
All dates hereinafter are in the year 1975 unless otherwise specified
the contract . A day or two later , in the same week , Gwynne
and some of the other committeemen met again with Ash-
ley and gave him a copy of the contract. Ashley read the
contract and stated that he would check further with the
Union's lawyers but that in his opinion the appropriate
procedure would be for the shop committee to conduct a
meeting at which the employees might vote on whether to
affiliate with the Union. Ashley stated if such were the
result, a charter would be issued by the International to the
shop committee as a local of the Union. On June 15 com-
mitteemen Gwynne, Wickes, DeHaan , and Simons met
again with Ashley. Ashley brought with him all of the pa-
perwork necessary for a vote on affiliation , including no-
tices of the meeting to be conducted at a restaurant known
as Ruby's, copies of an affiliation petition directed from
the shop committee to the Union, and ballots. Various of
the committeemen took copies of the notice of the meeting
and apparently agreed that they would not immediately
notify the employees of the forthcoming meeting, sched-
uled for June 21 in the morning, so as to prevent Respon-
dent from learning until the last possible moment of the
employee action.2
The employee meeting was duly conducted at Ruby's on
the morning of June 21. The notices were posted in the
evening of Thursday, June 19, and notices had commenced
to appear around Respondent 's plant sometime during that
day.3 As the employees arrived at the meeting , they were
asked by Gwynne and DeHaan to sign a sheet indicating
their presence at the meeting. The sheet bears 27 signa-
tures. After the employees had arrived and taken seats at a
number of tables, facing a table occupied by the shop com-
mitteemen, Gwynne handed each employee present a copy
of the resolution which had been prepared by the Union,
read it over to them, and asked if there were any questions.
A few questions ensued.
Some of the employees were concerned, if the shop com-
mittee became a local of the Union, with the disposition of
some $3,000 which had accumulated in the shop
committee's treasury from dues of $1 a month per employ-
ee and from the proceeds of vending machines in Respon-
dent's plant. Gwynne explained that these moneys would
remain with the local when it was chartered and subject
only to the disposition of the local officers. Other questions
were asked concerning the dues structure and initiation
fees and Gwynne explained that there would be no initia-
tion fees for present employees but that the Union, once
chartered, could set initiation fees at any figure it chose for
newly hired employees. The dues, Gwynne explained, were
established as a minimum of $6 a month . Again the local
could provide for greater dues but they could not be im-
posed upon the local by the International or any other
body.
When all questions had been answered, Gwynne circu-
lated among the employees present, assisted apparently by
2 Respondent contends, on the basis of the testimony of one of the shop
committeemen , that the main thrust of the shop committee 's decision was
an intent to refrain from notifying some of the antiunion employees until so
late that they would not learn of the meeting or would not come to the
meeting However , the evidence is clear that the main purpose was to avoid
notifying Respondent
3 One employee testified that he had received a notice in the early af-
ternoon of Thursday, June 19
A. W WINCHESTER, INC. 1009
DeHaan, and passed out a ballot and a pen or a pencil to
each of the employees with instructions to mark and fold
the ballot and hold it. After about 5 minutes he asked
whether everybody had voted and, receiving no answer,
collected the ballots in a plastic bag. He then shook up the
ballots in the bag and shook them out onto a table where
they were counted by three of the committeemen. The tally
of ballots reveals that 23 employees voted for affiliation
and 3 voted against. At this time immediately after the
ballots were counted, a 27th person arrived at the meeting.
He was allowed to sign the sheet indicating his presence at
the meeting but after some discussion among the commit-
teemen, it was decided that, the vote having been complet-
ed, the newly arrived employee would not be allowed to
vote.
At this point Gwynne announced that Ashley was pres-
ent in the restaurant ° and asked the employees if they
would like to meet with him and discuss the matter further.
Some of the employees indicated that they would and Ash-
ley was brought into the meeting where the discussion con-
tinued. According to the testimony of Gwynne, Ashley was
asked substantially the same questions that Gwynne had
answered and answered them in the same fashion. Ashley
informed the employees that on the following Monday,
June 23, he would address a letter to Respondent advising
it of the action taken by the shop committee in affiliating
with the Union and requesting an opportunity to bargain
on the wage reopener.
On June 23 Ashley prepared and sent a letter advising
Respondent that at a special meeting on June 21 the mem-
bership of the subcommittee voted to affiliate with the
Union by a vote of 23 to 3, a substantial majority of the
current 32 members, and informing Respondent that the
members individually and collectively are now members of
the Union and that a charter will be issued to them as an
affiliated local union. Ashley stated that the employees had
acted in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act and the current agreement
and that he was available to answer questions and to com-
mence collective gargaining under the wage reopener. On
the same day, one of the employees present at the meeting
informed Allen Winchester, president and general manager
of Respondent, of what had taken place at the meeting.
Winchester's reaction was prompt. On June 27 he ad-
dressed a three-page letter to the employees which starts
with a statement "It's no secret that for several weeks the
United Paperworkers International Union has been trying
to take over our Shop Committee and make it a part of
their union. Since we already have a union and a legal
contract-one that's good for a couple of more years-why
does this Union want to be bothered with us?" The letter
continues, suggesting that the Union was interested only in
the dues of the employees, pointing out that the employees
have gotten along well without the Union and stating that
their wages, benefits, and working conditions are better
than in most union plants. Winchester then detailed the
fringe benefits offered by Respondent in its contract, and
ended challenging the Union to tell the employees in writ-
The meeting had been held in a private room behind and above the
actual restaurant
ing about its performance in the area with other companies
of the same size, how much the initiation fees , transfer fees,
work permit fees, charter fees, and reinstatement fees
would be; about special assessments for support of office
building, political candidates, lobbying, conventions, wel-
fare and military benefits, and for organizing work and
strike benefits and who can make such assessments; and
about union fines and so forth. The letter is signed by Pres-
ident Winchester as Al Winchester and suggests that if the
Union does not answer these questions in wnting, he will.
The Union, however, did answer the questions in wnting
in a letter of June 30 to all employees and on July 7 Win-
chester addressed another letter to them suggesting that the
Union's answers were not necessarily correct.
Sometime after the second letter from Respondent to the
employees , Blaine Simons , who had changed his mind, ap-
parently went to a local lawyer and got him to draw up a
"disaffiliation petition" which he and one or two of the
antiunion employees in the plant quickly circulated
through the plant. Twenty-one employees signed the peti-
tion which asked the officers of the shop committee to call
another special meeting for the purpose of reconsidering
the resolution of affiliation.
On July 16, Winchester wrote a third letter to all employ-
ees stating that "last week a group of employees asked him
to sit down and talk about disaffiliating with the outside
union trying to get in here." The letter ended with
Winchester's statement that he had told them that he had a
responsibility to see that everyone's rights under Federal
law were protected and that they had a right to take anoth-
er look at their so-called affiliation so they could decide
whether a majority of the people really wanted to subsidize
this outside union. He further stated that he had heard that
there was a petition for disaffiliation and a list making the
rounds for signatures and stated that "maybe before long
we will be able to see the true feelings of a majority of our
workers."
The following day the petition, with 21 signatures, was
taken to Simons' attorney who made copies and sent one to
the Union and one to Respondent. The covering letter to
the Union suggested that no further negotiations or action
should be taken until the petition and the relief asked for in
the petition was resolved.
The following day Winchester addressed yet another let-
ter to the employees stating that he had received the letter
from Simons' lawyer and a copy of the petition, stating
that he never did feel that the Paperworkers represented
the majority of the employees as they claimed and stating
"that's why I ignored their demand that we recognize them
and bargain with them." He thanked the employees for
their support.
On July 24, Winchester addressed another letter to the
employees stating that he was now being asked by employ-
ees why they could not do any negotiating until the shop
committee chairman had done what the 21 employees
asked him to do and his hands were tied and he had to wait
for the chairman to resolve the matter.
On July 30, Respondent called the shop committeemen
together and asked them to sign a document agreeing to
extend the presently existing contract indefinitely until
either party gives the other a 72-hour written notice, to
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make any increase in hourly rates of pay agreed to in the
extension retroactive to midnight July 31, 1975, and agree-
ing that all notices required by law have been given each to
the other and no further notices are required other than a
72-hour notice. The agreement contains the following lan-
guage: ". . . extended until either party gives the other
party a 72 hour written notice in advance of termination of
this agreement in which case this agreement, the contract
wage expiration of July 31, 1975, and the supplemental
agreement shall terminate at the end of the 72 hour notice
period." The six committeemen all signed this document
tendered them by Winchester and received a copy of it
which Gwynne took to Ashley as soon as he could reach
him. Ashley, upon reading the above-quoted portion of the
agreement, suggested that he feared that the contract pro-
vided that not only would the interim agreement be can-
celed but that the basic contract of 1974 would be termi-
nated.
Respondent made the next move on August 7. Its attor-
ney, James L. Stokes, sent a letter to the bargaining com-
mittee stating Respondent's desire to negotiate the wage
rates under the wage reopener, suggesting August 12 as the
date "if this is convenient for the bargaining committee,"
stating that, if an affiliation has been accomplished, Re-
spondent should be notified of the affiliation, name
change, and the new bargaining representative, and stating
that he stood ready to bargain the wage reopener with
whoever is the current legal representative of the employ-
ees under the current collective-bargaining agreement.
The chairman of the shop committee notified the Re-
spondent that it was ready to bargain on August 12 and the
six members of the shop committee, together with Union
Agent Ashley, attended the meeting. Respondent was rep-
resented by Attorney Stokes. Apparently at the beginning
of the meeting Ashley stated that before he would com-
mence negotiating he wanted a letter of recognition saying
that the Paperworkers Union would be a party to the con-
tract. He also wanted a letter of understanding that any
increases negotiated would be retroactive to July 31 and
the right to strike would be extended to August 31, 1975,
and finally, that the agreement dated July 30 would be
canceled. Stokes and Ashley debated for a considerable
length of time and Stokes finally requested that he be al-
lowed to talk to the members of the committee in the ab-
sence of Ashley. The members of the committee agreed
and Ashley left the room. Thereupon Stokes went around
the room asking each individual committeeman whether he
actually wanted to be represented by Ashley and the AFL
and whether they really wanted to be affiliated with the
Union. He challenged the committeemen, asking them how
they could sign both the petition to vote for affiliation and
the petition to vote for disaffiliation and suggested to them
that an impartial vote should be conducted. After about 15
minutes Stokes left the room and Ashley came back in.
Ashley asked the committee members if they were ready to
proceed with bargaining and they indicated they were. He
then called Stokes back into the room and for a lengthy
period, up to 2-1/2 hours, two men argued about the com-
mencement of bargaining. Stokes adamantly insisted that
he would not bargain with Ashley in the room and Ashley
insisted that he would not bargain unless Stokes agreed to
the three conditions that he had laid down. Stokes reiter-
ated his suggestion to Ashley that an election be conducted
before a state or local agency. Ashley answered that as far
as he was concerned the employees had affiliated with the
Paperworkers Union and Respondent was required to bar-
gain with them. All the witnesses agreed that no real bar-
gaining took place at any time during the course of the
4-hour discussion. The discussion ended with Stokes hand-
writing a document stating that Respondent agrees to be
bound by a voluntary election to be conducted by the
Michigan Employment Relations Commission to resolve
the question of the possible affiliation of the shop commit-
tee with the United Paperworkers. He gave this document
to the committee and departed from the room.
Shortly after the meeting of August 12 a meeting took
place on Respondent's property which has been character-
ized by Respondent's counsel as "the secret ballot elec-
tion." It is not clear who determined to conduct this elec-
tion but it appears that the dayshift employees were
released 15 minutes early and the nightshift employees who
arrived on time were also present. The meeting was con-
ducted by DeHaan who told the employees that he was
prepared to run another election to determine whether to
disaffiliate from the Union. Some of the employees spoke
out against the Union and others, including Gwynne, for
the Union. DeHaan then tore pieces of paper off a note
pad and handed them, together with a pencil, to individual
employees some of whom left the room to mark them,
others marked them in front of their fellow employees and
placed them in the employer's suggestion box in the lunch-
room. DeHaan, himself, marked and placed at least five
ballots in the suggestion box. He testified that he voted for
at least four truckdrivers who could not be present and had
told him how they wanted to vote No tally was apparently
made and no listing of the employees present. Gwynne
appears to have been the only person who made any effort
to watch the voting. He testified that 13 employees placed
ballots in the box and that 18 ballots were counted. Three
employees refused to vote, stating that the meeting was a
farce. According to Gwynne's testimony, the "no" votes
would have carried and his recollection was that 10 or 12
voted no and 6 or 8 voted yes.5
Sometime in the last week in August, Winchester asked
each of the committeemen, either individually or together
with others, whether they could be in a meeting on Septem-
ber 4 to negotiate a wage reopener. The committeemen
agreed to meet with him and on that date the six commit-
teemen, Winchester and Sage, the plant manager, met and
Winchester gave a wage and fringe proposal to the employ-
ees. He told them to talk it over and left the room for about
10 minutes. The committee looked at the proposals. They
5 The only other witness that testified about the balloting, Blaine Simons,
said that he thought the tally was 18 to 10 Unfortunately, there was no
proposition printed on the ballot nor voiced to the employees and at least
one of Respondent's witnesses testified that he thought that a yes vote
meant that they did not want the Paperworkers and a no vote meant they
would still be affiliated, while at another time, this witness testified that a
yes vote meant to remain affiliated while a no vote meant to disaffiliate It
is clear, however, that the committee considered that the vote should be
construed as a vote for disaffiliation, or, at any rate, DeHaan and Gwynne
so testified
A. W. WINCHESTER, INC
looked good and they agreed to accept them. There was no
discussion about the absence or presence of Ashley or
Stokes at the meeting, but it appears that some of the com-
mitteemen, including DeHaan, had, prior to the meeting,
told Winchester that they would meet with him without
Ashley if he would agree that Stokes would not be present
at the meeting. DeHaan testified that the committee would
not meet with Stokes because of the impression he had
made at the earlier meeting. No counterproposals were
made and no discussion seems to have taken place con-
cerning Respondent's proposals. They were simply accept-
ed and a previously prepared document embodying them
was signed immediately by the members of the committee.
The wage reopener agreement contains no mention of the
Union .6
G. Discussion and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the original affilia-
tion vote properly caused the shop committee to become
affiliated with the United Paperworkers International
Union and that thereafter Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by its letters, derogatory of the
action of affiliation and ultimately stating its refusal to ne-
gotiate with the Union and by its subsequent negotiation
with the shop committee to the exclusion of the Union.
Respondent contends that the affiliation vote of June 21
is void because it was improperly noticed, the employees
were given an insufficient opportunity to review the issues,
ineligible persons were permitted to vote, the balloting was
not secret, and the Union was improperly involved in the
process.
If the affiliation vote was proper, in the alternative, Re-
spondent argues that no affiliation ever resulted, because
the shop committee's offer was withdrawn before accep-
tance by the Paperworkers and, indeed, there never has
been acceptance by the Paperworkers. Accordingly, the
Respondent argues that it has no duty to bargain with any
representative of the Paperworkers. Finally, the Respon-
dent argues that when confronted with conflicting claims,
the Company has a right to a reasonable amount of time to
investigate these claims, and that the Union demanded im-
proper preconditions to negotiations which amounted to a
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3), which in
turn excuses the Respondent from any duty to bargain un-
til the unlawful conditions are withdrawn. Respondent also
contends that there is nothing to preclude Respondent
from bargaining with the shop committee, whether or not it
is a local of the Union, since the fact of affiliation does not
change the local's representative status. The Company ar-
gues that it never refused to bargain with the Paperworkers
and that its statements concerning the advisability of affili-
ation were made in response to inquiries by employees and
protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. Finally and in the last
6 The alacrity with which the shop committee agreed to and signed the
contract could be explained by the fact that while the committee's initial
demands were for an 85-cent-per-hour increase, and the average increase
appears to be about 70 cents, Gwynne's classification got a raise of $1 25
per hour, DeHaan's, a raise of 80 cents, and Wickes' a raise of 90 cents,
although two classifications got only 40 cents. and three got 60 cents
1011
analysis Respondent argues that any improper conduct
that may have been committed by the Company was im-
material and insufficient to require a bargaining order.
I conclude, as the General Counsel contends, that the
affiliation meeting on June 21 successfully established the
desire of the employees to become affiliated with the
Union. Perhaps without consideration of the surrounding
circumstances, there could be some question as to whether
the employees had had an adequate opportunity to consid-
er the affiliation but this action cannot be divorced from
the circumstances surrounding it In the first place it is
clear from the record that the employees were only very
loosely represented by the shop committee. There is evi-
dence from which it could be inferred, indeed, that some of
the employees were not aware of the fact that they were
represented at all. Most of them had never seen a contract
and some apparently were unaware of its existence. Prior
to the month of June and prior to any talk of affiliation, 23
of the 32 employees had signed cards seeking representa-
tion from the Union. I will not infer that the employees
had given no consideration to the pros and cons of repre-
sentation when two-thirds of the employees had signed
cards which designated the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative and asked for membership in the
Union. Furthermore, the employees' leaders, with the pos-
sible exception of Burgoyne, who was driving a truck and
not present at the meeting, engaged in a thorough discus-
sion of the effects of affiliation of the existing plant com-
mittee with the Union. Finally, at the affiliation meeting
itself, the affiliation proposal or request was furnished to
each employee present and read to them and all questions
addressed to the committee concerning affiliation were an-
swered before any move was made to take a vote.'
The Respondent argues that insufficient notice was giv-
en the employees of the meeting and that they had an in-
sufficient opportunity to consider the issues. The fact that
27 of the 32 employees on the roster at the time of the
meeting were in attendance would seem to belie this con-
tention. Among those employees present were at least two
employees who were notoriously antiunion, Barron and
Simpson, which would seem to counter the testimony that
a deliberate attempt was made to avoid the presence of
antiunion employees at the meeting by failing to notify
them that it was going to take place. Notices were around
the shop as early as noon on Thursday, June 19, 2 days
before the meeting was to take place; and a notice was
posted that evening and remained posted until after the
meeting. Under all the circumstances, I cannot find that
insufficient notice of the meeting was given. There is no
rule as to the sufficiency of notice. The shop committee
had neither bylaws nor constitution providing for notice
(or for anything else) and no witness could recall any em-
ployee meeting ever having been called before by which a
precedent could be said to have been set. I find that the
notice was adequate.
As far as the nature of the meeting was concerned, again
in the absence of precedent, the meeting was conducted
apparently very nearly in accordance with "Robert's Rules
7 While some of Respondent 's witnesses attempted to raise an inference
that there was no discussion at this meeting, it is clear that there was discus-
sion and no question remained unanswered
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Order ." The chairman of the committee called the meet-
ing to order and turned the floor over to Gwynne who
explained the proposition and read the proposed action of
the meeting to the employees . A discussion was had, a vote
was called for and conducted , the tallies were duly made
by the members of the committee and upon the motion to
adjourn , when the 27th employee arrived , the polls were
not reopened to permit him to vote . Then and not before,
the union agent was permitted to come into the room and
further discussed the proposition with the employees who
remained.
Respondent contends that the vote was invalid because
persons were improperly permitted to vote . No question
was raised by any person at the meeting as to the propriety
of any person voting with one exception , employee Walker.
While no challenge was made to Walker's vote , apparently
there was some discussion among two of the committee-
men. Nevertheless he was permitted to vote and it appears
that Walker had been an employee only since May 5, a
total of 6 weeks . A sort of postelection challenge is raised
by Respondent to the ballots of Martin Uramkin who has
a seniority date of April 22, 1975, but had apparently been
employed before , since 1972 . Respondent also contends
that K. Selby should not have been permitted to vote. His
seniority date is listed on the July 25 seniority listing as
June 16, 1975. There is no evidence, however , that K. Selby
voted . The only person named Selby who signed the atten-
dance list was Bob Selby who is shown to have had senior-
ity since 1969 and is shown to have paid union dues in May
1975. In addition Respondent contends that B. Morris was
apparently present but at the time separated from the em-
ployment of the Company . Respondent states that, al-
though he did not sign the roster , Morris apparently voted.
It is not clear on what basis Respondent contends that
Boyd Morris voted . The only evidence in the record is to
the contrary. There is no contradiction of the fact that
there were 26 persons that signed the roster and 26 persons
voted . Thus, Respondent 's contention boils down to the
question of whether the vote is invalidated by the fact that
two employees who would not have been permitted to vote
in a Board -conducted election were permitted to vote in
this election . Applying the same standards that would be
applied by the Board in a Board-conducted election, there
is nothing in this to invalidate the election . Neither of the
employees was challenged at the time of the vote and post-
election challenges have never been entertained by the
Board . In addition , applying the standards normally ap-
plied by the Board for affiliation elections such as this, the
two votes, or even four if one were to accept Respondent's
contention , were insufficient to affect the results of the
election . I find no merit in Respondent 's argument in this
respect.
Next, Respondent contends that the election should be
held a nullity because there was no opportunity to cast a
secret ballot . The record reveals that the employees had the
ballots handed to them as they were seated at tables in
groups of two to six . Any employee who wished to cast a
secret ballot could cover the ballot with his hands or retire
to a corner of the room to mark his ballot before folding it.
Those who did not care whether their ballots were dis-
closed to other employees apparently marked them openly
on the tables before them. Two employees testified that
they saw how other employees marked their ballots. Those
two were Simpson and Barron both called by Respondent.
Each testified that he saw other employees mark their bal-
lots and each on cross -examination admitted that the other
employee he saw mark his ballot was the other . That is to
say Barron saw Simpson and Simpson saw Barron .8 I find
that a sufficient opportunity was given the employees to
mark their ballots in secret ; but that the employees like
voters in any election could disclose how they voted to
their fellows or not as they saw fit . I do not know of any
rule that requires that ballots be kept secret if the voter
chooses to make them otherwise . Apparently, during the
course of the voting Barron was heard to complain that he
had no opportunity to cast a secret ballot , but nobody an-
swered him . I find that there is nothing in this circum-
stance to impair the validity of the balloting.
Finally, Respondent complains that the election process
is invalidated by the Union's active participation in it. This
participation consisted of supplying the paperwork before
the meeting , including the notices of the meeting , the bal-
lots, and the committee 's requests for affiliation as well as
explaining to the committee before the meeting the neces-
sity for such a meeting and the procedure in conducting
the meeting . The record is clear that neither Ashley nor
any other official of the Union was present during the
meeting or the balloting but that it was held behind closed
doors in the upper room of the restaurant . Ashley was not
invited in until after the balloting was completed and the
motion to adjourn had been recognized . I see no vice in the
Union 's assistance of the committee in the conduct of the
election . In the absence of any precedent or bylaws or
constitutional provisions regulating the conduct of the
shop committee , it is proper in my opinion for the Union to
attempt to regularize the meeting by properly instructing
those who were to conduct it. Likewise , I see no vice in
Ashley 's attending the meeting after the vote to answer
questions and discuss the matter with the employees yet
present . This was the first opportunity Ashley had to meet
most of the employees and he could properly do so.
By and large , I find that the meeting was properly con-
ducted and that the vote properly acted to affiliate the
shop committee with the Union.
Relying on the principles of contract law and on certain
decisions in which the relationship between a union and its
international is likened to a contract , Respondent contends
that no affiliation could have occurred even if the affilia-
tion vote was proper since the shop committee 's offer of
affiliation was withdrawn and was never accepted by the
Paperworkers . It appears that no charter has been issued to
the shop committee by the International Union , at least to
the date of the hearing . The Union states that a charter will
issue when the shop committee has consumated the neces-
sary steps to constitute it as a local of the International and
the International has been recognized by Respondent as
the affiliate of the local. The Respondent would have us
confuse form with substance . The shop committee unques-
tionably has requested a charter from the International,
' It is clear from their testimony that both votes were no
A. W. WINCHESTER, INC.
has informed Respondent that it wishes to be represented
by the International, and has attempted to bargain with the
Respondent as an affiliate of the International. The Inter-
national has provided the services of Mr. Ashley in fur-
therance of the shop committee's request and, but for the
issuance of a charter, has shown itself prepared to proceed
as though the shop committee were its affiliate. Of course
no chartered local will exist until the issuance of a charter.
But on the other hand, no action has been taken by the
International inconsistent with its acceptance of the shop
committee's request for affiliation.
The Respondent further argues that the offer to join the
International as an affiliated local union can no longer be
accepted by the Paperworkers because the petitioning
group has revoked the petition for membership. This is
stated by Respondent in reliance on its conclusion that the
election of August 26 was a valid recital of the employees'
present desires. I do not so find. Even if there were solid
evidence as to the vote taken in the "election" of August
26, it would be impossible to determine whether a majority
of the employees voting wished to continue the affiliation
or to reject it, because of the ambiguity of the basic ques-
tion, that is to say, whether yes meant affiliation or disaffil-
iation . However even if the ballots were unambiguous the
nature of the meeting, having reference to its informality
and the method of voting, would render suspect any con-
clusion advanced with regard to the result. Very few "se-
cret ballot elections" have ever been found acceptable
when admittedly one person casts ballots for five. The
"election" had no safeguards such as the Board normally
requires and recognizes. I regard it as a nullity from the
standpoint of the Respondent's theory that it operated to
revoke the shop committee's petition for membership.
The General Counsel contends that by its conduct sub-
sequent to the affiliation vote Respondent refused to bar-
gain with the newly affiliated plant committee. Respon-
dent, on the other hand, contends that it never refused to
bargain. First Respondent argues that when confronted
with conflicting claims of representation it is permitted a
reasonable amount of time to investigate these claims. On
the surface this seems to be a reasonable position, however,
Respondent made no effort to investigate these claims
other than engaging in a sharp attack on the Union in its
first letters-those dated June 27 and July 7, 1975. The
entire thrust of the June 27 letter is contained in the follow-
ing language:
I think that Winchester Shop Committee members
should have the answers to these questions, so they
can decide whether or not they want to keep their
"affiliation" with this outside union.
This constitutes a direct suggestion to the employees that
they can and should take steps to undo the affiliation
which they just succeeded in doing.
Respondent's letter of July 16 to the employees took the
matter one step further. Understandably, employees had
been discussing "disaffiliating" with Respondent and Re-
spondent announced to all the employees, after stating his
arguments for dealing directly with the employees through
their Shop Committee, "and I told them that they had the
right to take another look at their so-called affiliation so
1013
they could decide whether a majority of our people really
want to subsidize this outside union."
Two days later, after having received a copy of the disaf-
filiation petition Respondent in another letter to the em-
ployees stated:
The Paperworkers must feel that this "affiliation" of
theirs has taken a highly surprising turn. Frankly, I'm
not at all surprised, because I never did feel that they
represented the majority of our employees, as they
claimed they did. Thats why I ignored their demands
that we recognize them and bargain with them.
Six days later, on July 24, Respondent underlined its
position in another letter to the employees stating that it
"couldn't do any negotiating until the Shop Committee
chairman does what the 21 employees have asked him to
do."
Respondent continued its barrage of letters addressed to
the employees, demanding a new vote on the affiliation
and attacking the Umon. The plant committeemen on July
30 got together to discuss the situation and A. Winchester,
president of Respondent, asked them to come in an office
in the basement, stating that he had something to discuss
with them. He offered them an interim agreement which
operated to extend the existing contract indefinitely subject
to a 72-hour written notice of termination. The committee
questioned whether to bargain in the absence of Ashley
representing the Union and Winchester stated that he
knew of the petition for disaffiliation and that he would
bargain with the committee but not with the Paperworkers
because the employees did not want the Paperworkers.
Rather than continue without any contract, the committee-
men all signed the document drawn up by Respondent. It
was only later that the committeemen noticed the ambigu-
ous language which they feared would operate to cancel
the basic collective-bargaining agreement if the employer
so chose. Respondent appears to contend that this was
good-faith bargaining inasmuch as "whether or not a given
local is affiliated with an International there is nothing to
preclude the Company from bargaining with that local
since the fact of affiliation does not change the local's rep-
resentative status." The proposition is quite correct and I
think no one is arguing to the contrary. The fact, however,
is that Respondent expressed its willingness to bargain only
with the shop committee and not with the Union and thus
its bargaining was in violation of its duty to bargain with
the duly selected representative of the employees. Indeed,
the bargaining constituted a direct attempt to undermine
the Union, as charged by the General Counsel.
Now, armed with the agreement to continue the contract
pending negotiations and thus the concomitant no-strike
agreement, Respondent prepared its next major move. Its
counsel addressed a letter to the shop committee suggest-
ing a time and place for bargaining and stating that Re-
spondent stands ready to bargain the wage reopener with
"whoever is the current legal representative of A. W. Win-
chester, Inc. employees under the current collective bar-
gaining agreement." The letter was not addressed to the
Union but rather to the members of the shop committee as
a bargaining committee . This letter is unexceptional and
was duly answered by members of the shop committee who
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
informed Respondent that they would be present at the
negotiating session at the time and place suggested. On
that occasion, August 12, 1975, the six members of the
union bargaining committee, Ashley, representing the
Union, and James L. Stokes, the attorney representing Re-
spondent, met ostensibly to negotiate. Ashley immediately
took the position that the Union could not bargain unless
and until he had written agreement in the form of a letter
of understanding first that Respondent recognize the
Union as a party to the contract, second that increases
would be made retroactive to July 31 and the right to strike
be extended to August 31 and third that the July 30 agree-
ment be abandoned.
Respondent argues that by conditioning bargaining
agreement on these three issues Ashley violated Section
8(b)(3) and Respondent was warranted in refusing to bar-
gain further. It is true that the adamant insistence to the
point of impasse on a precondition may have this effect.
However, under the circumstances herein, this rule has no
such application. Respondent, having had since the affilia-
tion vote a duty to recognize and bargain with the Union,
had openly and avowedly refused to do so and had at-
tacked the Union in every way in its barrage of letters
addressed to the employees. Ashley, in his first demand,
was asking for no more than he had a right to expect and
he was asking it in writing for good and sufficient reason in
the light of Respondent's prior refusal to bargain. The sec-
ond and third preconditions again only sought to remedy
the unfair labor practices already committed by Respon-
dent in its refusal to bargain prior to July 30 and its bar-
gaining in bad faith with the shop committee to the exclu-
sion of the Union on July 30 culminating in the document
which the Union correctly assessed as being voidable. The
Union thus sought a valid extension of the existing agree-
ment and of the period for negotiation which the contract
provided but which Respondent's refusal to bargain after
the affiliation vote had deprived the employees of. In short,
the Union's thrust was to remedy the unfair labor practices
already committed by a return to the status quo ante so that
the bargaining could be completed under the circumstanc-
es or entered into under the circumstances provided by the
master contract. I find no refusal to bargain and no viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(3) in Ashley's action. And I find that
Respondent's refusal to bargain at this time continued the
violation of Section 8(a)(5) in which Respondent had been
engaged ever since the Union's initial demand for recogni-
tion and bargaining.
Adding insult to injury, Attorney Stokes' interrogation
of the individual shop committeemen in the absence of
Union Agent Ashley constituted a further interference with
the employees' rights and in the circumstances of this case
a further evidence of Respondent's refusal to bargain and I
so find. The impasse created by Respondent on August 12
continued through that month. The employees were obvi-
ously restive during this period of inflation with their wag-
es frozen at the 1974 level. President Winchester continued
in his "casual" meetings with committeemen to suggest to
them that negotiations should be completed on the wage
reopener. Finally, a group of the committeemen met and
decided that to break the impasse they would meet with
Winchester without the presence of Ashley if Winchester
would foreswear the presence of Attorney Stokes who had
obviously made a bad impression on the committee in the
August 12 meeting. Winchester immediately agreed and on
September 4 the final meeting took place. In this meeting
the committeemen assembled, Winchester handed them his
proposal and without any negotiation they were immedi-
ately accepted by the committee. The committeemen
signed the proposals and nothing has been done since.
Respondent contends that this was no unfair labor prac-
tice, that in fact it was bargaining with the Shop Commit-
tee which it had a right to do since the shop committee,
even were the affiliation to have been effective, was repre-
sentative of the employees. I reject its contention. The vice
is of course that the shop committee had had an ample
demonstration that Respondent rejected their affiliation
with the Union and would not bargain in the presence of
or with the Union's negotiators, the main benefit which the
employees sought by their affiliation with the Union. This
final act was no less a refusal to bargain than those which
had preceded it. I find that by its entire course of action
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of its employees in the ad-
mittedly appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A. W. Winchester, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act
2. The Union, United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL-CIO, and its affiliate the shop committee of
A. W. Winchester, Inc., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees including
truck mechanics and truckdrivers employed by Respon-
dent at its Allegan, Michigan, plant, but excluding guards
and supervisors 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 times since June 21, 1975, the Union has been
the duly designated representative of the employees in the
unit described above within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. Since June 24, 1975, and at all times material, Re-
spondent has failed and refused to recognize and bargain
collectively with the Union regarding the wages, hours, and
working conditions of its employees in the unit set forth
above.
6. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,
and by attempting to bypass and undermine the Union,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act occurring in connection with its operations have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
A. W WINCHESTER, INC
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has committed acts in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act I shall rec-
ommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designated to effectuate the purposes of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I make the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent, A. W. Winchester, Inc., Allegan, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall-
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with the United Pa-
perworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, and its affili-
ate the shop committee, of A. W. Winchester Employees
as the collective-bargaining representative of a majority of
its employees in the unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees including truck mechanics and
truckdrivers employed by Respondent at its Allegan,
Michigan, plant but excluding guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(b) Attempting to bypass and undermine, and bypassing
and undermining, the above-named Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
described above by attempting to bargain with the shop
committee and its members as an independent organiza-
tion.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request recognize and bargain collectively
with United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, and its affiliate the shop committee as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit described above.
(b) Post at its office and place of business copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said no-
tices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
1015
sonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7 in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
v In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
10 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
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
with United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the appropriate unit consisting of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees including truck
mechanics and truckdrivers employed by us at our Al-
legan, Michigan, plant but excluding guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT attempt to undermine or bypass the
above-named Union as a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in the unit described above
by attempting to bargain with the shop committee and
its members as an independent organization.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain col-
lectively with United Paperworkers International
Umon, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of our employees in the appropriate
unit described above.
A. W. WINCHESTER, INC.