Adolph Coors Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1604 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council ; Laborers and Hod
Carriers Local No. 802 , AFL-CIO; Carpenters Local Union No. 1478, AFL-CIO;
and District Council of Painters No. 36, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act ; and O 'Toole, Goodin , McClain , Mahon,
and Means were at all times material herein agents of the respective Respondents
herein, and each of them.
3. By picketing the Portofino construction project with the object of forcing or
requiring Portofino to enter into an agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e)
of the Act , the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (A) of the Act.
4. By picketing the construction project of Portofino with an object of forcing
or requiring Portofino to cease doing business with McCain, Calhoun , Duncan,
and/or other persons, the Respondents have committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
5. By picketing the construction project of Portofino at a time when they were
engaged in a labor dispute with Duncan and by using a picket sign which failed
to disclose the identity of the primary employer with whom they had a labor
dispute, the Respondents have committed unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (B) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practises are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Adolph Coors Company and International Union of United
Brewery; Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers
of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. f7-CA-1541. February 8,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 28, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision together with a supporting
brief. The Charging Party filed a brief supporting the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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, brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
The Board rejects any implications in the Trial Examiner's
Decision that the finding of Section 8(a) (5) violations was in any
150 NLRB No. 158.
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY 1605
way predicated on the potentially detrimental effect the barring
of Roberts ' would have on his chances of reelection as business
agent. The Act is aimed to protect employees; it is not aimed to
protect a union representative's reelection to union office.
Further, the Board finds on the basis of the entire record, includ-
ing collective-bargaining agreements between Respondent and the
Union, that the Union is the exclusive bargaining representative
of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its plant
in Golden, Colorado, who are employed in the brew house, ferment-
ing, aging, keg, bottling, garage, yeast, power, malting, storeroom,
and maintenance departments, excluding office and clerical employ-
ees, construction department employees, gardeners, employees
engaged in coil service work, engineers or technicians engaged in
control instrument maintenance and/or repair, laboratory tech-
nicians, guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, the Board
hereby orders that Respondent, Adolph Coors Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Barring Local 366s representatives from the plant when
their visits are relevant to carrying out their statutory functions,
or bargaining with employees in the. absence of such representatives,
or in any other manner refusing to bargain collectively with Inter-
national Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and
Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 366, as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit
defined herein.
(b) In any other manner interfering with 'the efforts of the
aforesaid labor organization to bargain collectively with it on
behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Restore the plant visitation rights existing immediately
prior to November 26, 1963, to Roberts or any other representative
of Local 366.
(b) Post at the plant at Golden, Colorado, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 27, shall, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted
IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a' Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 'a period of 60, consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing,
•within''10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions, Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT bar Local 366's representatives from our plant
when their visits are relevant to carrying out their statutory
functions, or bargain with employees in the absence of such
representatives, or in any other, manner refuse to bargain
collectively with International Union of United Brewery,
Y lour Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America
AFL-CIO, Local 366, as the exclusive representative of all
our employees in the, appropriate unit defined hereinafter : ,
The appropriate bargaining unit consists of all our pro-
duction and maintenance employees at our plant in Golden,
Colorado, who are employed in the brew house, fermenting,
aging, keg, bottling, garage, yeast,-power, malting, storeroom,
and maintenance departments, excluding office and clerical
employees, construction department employees, gardeners,
employees engaged in control instrument maintenance and/or
repair, laboratory technicians, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors, as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL-NOT in any other manner interfere with the efforts
of the aforesaid labor organization to bargain collectively with
us on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY
Employer.
Dated---------------- By- ------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY 1607
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 609 Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets,
Denver, Colorado, Telephone No. 297-3551, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was heard before Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy in Denver,
Colorado, on June 30 and July 1 , 2, 14, 15, and 16, 1964 . The central issue is
whether the action of Respondent in barring the business agent of Local 366 from
its plant amounted to unlawful interference with the rights of employees guar-
anteed by the National Labor Relations Act. Also in issue is whether other con-
duct of Respondent constituted an unlawful failure to bargain.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses , and after consideration of the briefs filed by the International
Union and the General Counsel , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Respondent , Adolph Coors Company ( herein sometimes called Respondent), at
all times material herein has been a corporation organized in the State of Colorado,
with its principal office and place of business in Golden , Colorado, where it is
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of beer. Respondent annually manu-
factures , sells, and ships from Golden , Colorado, directly to points outside the
State of Colorado products valued in excess of $50,000 . Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 366, is - a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and events
Respondent has about 500 employees in its brewery in Golden, Colorado. For
several years preceding the events herein, Respondent and Local 366 were parties
to collective -bargaining agreements. One was currently in effect at the time of
the hearing. From 1955 to 1959 the agreements provided that a representative of
Local 366 had a right to visit Respondent's plant in connection with servicing the
collective -bargaining agreement . The agreement executed in 1959 omitted any'
mention of plant visitation rights. From 1959 until October 1962, a representative
of Local 366 continued to visit the premises of Respondent to service the collective-
bargaining agreement . He was authorized in a written instrument separate from
the bargaining agreement to visit the plant premises . In October 1962, Richard
Roberts assumed the office of business agent and secretary -treasurer . He was the
only paid representative of Local 366. The other officers were employees of
Respondent . After assuming office, Roberts continued to visit Respondent's plant,
carrying out various functions of the office , which included conferring with
employees about problems arising under the collective-bargaining agreement, collect-
ing dues, and observing the various areas of the plant in connection with checking
on matters involving grievances and safety procedures . He also visited the prem-
ises for the purpose of receiving communications from Respondent pertaining to
union business in connection with his participation in the credit union plan estab-
lished by Respondent and for the purpose of posting notices on the bulletin board
allotted to Local 366.
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Prior to November 1963, Roberts received the following communications from
Respondent:
To: Dick
Inter-Department Communication
From: Russ Date: May 16, 1963
Some time-ago we asked Building Trades Business Agents to be sure to stop
at the Personnel Office and pick up a pink slip before going into the Plant.
This is in line with our Administration Policy #19.
I am sure that you will not object to our making the same request of you.
Adolph Coors Company
Golden, Colorado
Mr. Richard G. Roberts June 12, 1963
Local Union No. 366
714 12th Street
Golden, Colorado
Dear Mr. Roberts: The pink slip which is issued to you when you go into
the Plant should be turned back to the Personnel Department. We are not
attempting to merely make things inconvenient for you, so I think that it
would be satisfactory to hand it to the guard as you leave. We shall appre-
ciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY
(S) Russell C. Hargis
RUSSELL C. HARGIS
Personnel Manager
The current collective-bargaining agreement between Local 366 and Respondent
was effective on March 18, 1963. Respondent in its answer asserts that this
agreement was entered into on or about April 19, 1963. These dates, considered
with the dates of the two quoted written communications from Personnel Man-
ager Hargis to Roberts, are relevant to Respondent's claim that the current agree-
ment vests Respondent with a right to exclude Roberts from its plant.
Following the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, a
Denver newspaper article on Sunday, November 24, carried an article which
included the following:
The Adolph Coors Co., Brewery. in Golden will close Monday, except for
essential production workers. Workers in doubt about whether to report on
the job were urged to phone their supervisors.
On the day following the appearance of the newspaper article, Sunday, Novem-
ber 24, and the following day, Roberts received numerous complaints from employees
because they were mformed that they were required to work on November 25.
Inasmuch as Roberts had not been advised by Respondent as to what was meant
by essential production workers, he was in no position to illuminate the employees
and union members who were complaining to him.
By the morning of Tuesday, November 26, Roberts had learned that substan-
tially the entire production complement was required to work on November 25.
On the morning of November 26, he was holding a meeting with Local 366
stewards and they also voiced complaints reflecting the dissatisfaction' of the
employees with respect to the manner in which Respondent had announced through
the newspaper that all employees except essential workers would be excused from
work, when in fact Respondent required substantially the entire production force
to work on the national day of mourning. As a result of the discussion in the
union meeting, Roberts, in the presence of the stewards of Local 366, called a
Denver newspaper,and advised the newspaper that the Union felt that the way
Respondent had-acted was an unfair act on its part. Approximately 45 minutes
after this telephone call, Roberts received a telephone call from Personnel Man-
ager Russell Hargis, who informed Roberts that William Coors, Respondent's
president, had been contacted by the same newspaper called by Roberts and that
Coors was very angry and that Roberts was to be barred from Respondent's plant
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY
forever. Nothing appeared
ance that Roberts voiced
Respondent.
On December 2, 1963,
Respondent:
Mr. Richard Roberts
714 12th Street
Golden, Colorado
December 2, 1963
Dear Mr. Roberts: During our 1959 negotiations the Company and the
Union agreed to drop language which permitted the union business agent the
privilege of visiting the plant. Accordingly, you are hereby notified that you
no longer have the privilege of visiting this plant.
All written communications which are addressed to you will be mailed to
your office. If there are occasions when you feel that you should discuss a
matter with me; you may call to make an appointment. In cases where
Step B hearings must be held, in accordance with Section 25 of the agree-
ment, arrangements will be made for your participation.
Sincerely,
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY
(S) Russell C. Hargis
RUSSELL C . HARGIS
Personnel Manager
On January 27, 1964, a meeting of International union officials and William
Coors was held to discuss Respondent's action in barring Roberts from the plant.
Also attending this meeting was Russell Hargis, personnel manager for Respondent,
and Roberts himself. At this meeting Coors stated that Roberts had no right to
call the newspaper and give them the story indicating Coors had, in effect, reneged
on its commitment to observe the national day of mourning, and that it was not
within Roberts' discretion to say who was and who was not essential. Roberts
replied that his reason for telephoning the newspaper and stating it was unfair
was because the article was misleading and caused confusion among the employ-
ees, and that Roberts believed that Respondent should have specified that only
office, construction, and engineering employees would not be required to work on
Monday, so as to avoid the misleading effect of the article, which left in doubt
whether or not all or part of the production workers were going to work. Roberts
testified the reason he informed the newspapers was because he hoped the Respond-
ent would be sufficiently embarrassed that it would not repeat this type of action.
At one point in the, discussion, Hargis stated that Respondent was not questioning
the conduct of Roberts while on the plant premises, and Roberts then raised the
question as to the justification for barring him from the plant because of a situa-
tion which did not involve his visitation within the plant. Coors then stated that
any individual who acted to put the Company in a bad light was considered by
the Company to be an enemy of the Company and that the Company did not
desire to have any enemies on the company property and that was the basis for
Roberts being banned from the plant premises:
The upshot of this meeting was that Roberts continued to be barred from the
plant and this situation persisted up until the date of the hearing in this matter.
On one occasion, Hargis expressly invited Roberts to visit the plant premises for
the purpose of evaluating a job rating for a new employee. This individual was
employed to operate a switch engine which had recently been acquired by Respond-
ent A grievance procedure, in which Roberts was entitled to participate, was
conducted in a hotel. Previously this type of proceeding was conducted on the
company premises. Other union business has been conducted by interchange
through telephone or mail, or meetings away from the plant.
The General Counsel contends additional events occurring on November 29,
1963, establish separate unlawful refusals to bargain. Prior to this date, Respond-
ent and Local 366 had negotiated a pension plan as part of the 1963 contract
negotiations. This plan was to become effective on approval by the Internal Rev-
enue Service at which time the employees would make contributions retroactive
to March 18, 1963, and Respondent would make matching contributions. The
1609
in the newspaper concerning this complaint or griev-
relative to the alleged unfair act on the part of
Roberts received the following communication from
Adolph Coors Company
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiations with reference to this plan had been completed and executed by all
parties on October 22, 1963. The Respondent, on November 29, still had not
submitted this plan to the Internal Revenue Service. Prior to November 29,
Coors has sought agreement from Roberts to change the negotiated agreement.
Roberts insisted on adherence to the negotiated agreement.
It is against the background of this failure of Respondent to submit the nego-
tiated plan to the Internal Revenue Service, the refusal of Roberts to agree to a
change, and the barring of Roberts from the plant that the meeting occurred on
November 29, 1963. The meeting was held on Respondent's premises and the
individuals who attended the meeting were employees of Respondent and members
of the executive board of Local 366. These individuals had no prior knowledge
that the meeting was going to occur until they were summoned by Coors into his
office. Coors advised those present that Roberts was intentionally excluded from
the meeting. Coors advised the members of Local 366 executive board 1 that until
his proposed change in the negotiated pension plan had been agreed to by the
Union, he would not submit it to the Internal Revenue Service. Roberts, as
previously indicated, was opposed to the change favored by Coors.
At this meeting, Coors also stated that he was opposed to including a union-shop
provision in any further contract, and also used violent language, being highly
critical of Roberts' action as a union representative. At this meeting, Coors, refer-
ring to Roberts, stated that it was too bad Local 366 had someone representing it
who was continually causing confusion and disrupting relations between the union
and management, and after stating that Roberts was specifically not invited to the
meeting, went on to relate ". . I did not want this man on this plant or on the
premises at any time" and ". . . it's a damn good thing he didn't get in here
because, if I would have seen him, I might have tore him limb from limb."
November 29 was the first occasion on which the executive board members had
ever met with the representatives of Respondent to discuss union matters without
the presence of their secretary and business agent.
B. Discussion and concluding findings
In its answer Respondent, in addition to a denial as to commission of unfair
labor practices, asserts affirmative defenses.
Respondent cites section 29 of the collective-bargaining agreement which was
effective as of March 18, 1963, and executed on April 19 of that year.
Section 29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
(a) Neither the Employer nor the Union shall be bound by any require-
ment which is not specifically stated in this Agreement. Specifically, but not
exclusively, neither the Employer nor the Union is bound by any past 'prac-
tices of the Employer or the Union or understandings with any labor organ-
izations, unless such past practices or understandings are specifically stated in
this Agreement. However, past practice may be relied upon by either party
to explain the meaning of any provision of this Agreement which may be
ambiguous.
(b) The Union agrees that this Agreement is intended to cover all matters
affecting wages, hours and other terms and all conditions of employment and
similar or related subjects, and that during the term of this Agreement neither
the Employer nor the Union will be required to negotiate on any further
matters affecting these or any other subjects not specifically set forth in this
Agreement.
As its second affirmative defense, Respondent, in addition, cites Section 23 of
the same agreement.
Section 23. RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT.
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, the Employer
has the sole and exclusive right to exercise all the rights or functions of man-
agement, and the exercise of any such rights or functions shall not be subject
to the grievance or arbitration provisions of this Agreement.
I The setting in which the meeting occurred and its genesis indicated the individuals
who were members of the Local 366 executive board attended in the capacity of em-
ployees of Respondent rather than representatives of Local 366. The characterization
of these individuals as members of the executive board is done as a matter of convenience
to distinguish them from other employees of Respondent.
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY 1611
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing , as used herein , the term
"Rights of Management" includes ...
18. The administration of discipline and the control and use of the plant
property material , machinery or equipment.
* * * * * * *
It is agreed that the enumeration of management prerogatives above shall
not be deemed to exclude other management prerogatives not specifically
enumerated above.
For its third affirmative defense, Respondent alleges that the collective-bargaining
agreement executed in 1957 contained a provision permitting plant visitation by
the representative of Local 366, and International representatives, and that the
agreement of March 1959 did not contain such an agreement . In connection with
this defense, Respondent quotes from the 1959 agreement.
Section 23. RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT.
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, the Employer
has the sole and exclusive right to exercise all the rights or functions of man-
agement, and the exercise of any such rights or functions shall not be subject
to the grievance or arbitration provisions of this Agreement.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, as used herein , the term
"Rights of Management" includes ...
* * * * * * *
18. The administration of discipline and the control and use of the plant
property, material, machinery or equipment.
* * * * * * *
It is agreed that the enumeration of management prerogatives above shall
not be deemed to exclude other management prerogatives not specifically
enumerated above.
Section 29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
The union agrees that this Agreement is intended to cover all matters affect-
ing wages , hours and other terms and all conditions of - employment and
similar or related subjects, and that during the term of this Agreement neither'
the Employer nor the Union will be required to negotiate on any further
matters affecting these or any other subjects not specifically set forth in this
Agreement.
After motion of General Counsel to amend the complaint was granted, counsel
for Respondent asserted as another affirmative defense that the union bargaining
representatives had waived any right the union might have for its agents to enter
the plant premises. Even assuming that the above asserted defenses vest by con-
tract a right in Respondent to bar the union business agent from its premises, the
letters of Respondent dated May 16, 1963, and June 12, 1963, written to Roberts,
are subsequent written acknowledgments that Roberts had a function as a repre-
sentative of the employee on the plant premises.
The communication of May 16, 1963, from Personnel Manager Hargis to
Roberts establishes that business agents of the Building Trades Union had occa-
sions to visit the premises of Respondent.
Whether or not the communications of May 16 and June 12, 1963, from
Respondent to Roberts acknowledging the continuation of the custom of Local 366
business agents visiting the premises together with Roberts acquiescence to the
terms for visitation spells out an offer and an acceptance and creation of a uni-
lateral contract is not determinative of the issue presented here. The overriding
issue is whether Respondent has violated the Section 7 rights of its employees.2
With respect to Respondent's contractual right to bar Roberts from its premises,
it is clear that the actions of Respondent as reflected by the communications of
May 16 and June 12, 1963, subsequent to the execution of the extant 1963 agree-
3 Insofar as pertinent, Section 7 provides: "Employees shall have the rights of self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. . . .
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, reflect an, interpretation on the part of Respondent that the 1963 agreement
was not designer to prevent plant visitations by the business representative of Local
366. Consequently, it is found that if there was not a contract in effect permitting
Roberts to visit the plant on November 29, •1963, at the very least there was no
contractual right given Respondent by Local 366 or the International to bar the
business agent from its premises. In this posture of events, the next question is
whether the action of Respondent in barring Roberts from its plant infringed on
employees rights guaranteed by the Act.
The events cited above make it clear that Respondent's prohibition of Roberts'
right to visit the plant inhibited his effective servicing of the collective-bargaining
agreement and made it impossible for him to carry out the functions previously
exercised on Respondent's premises as enumerated above. As a further indication
of the inhibiting effect of barring Roberts, it is observed that the bargaining agree-
ment contains implied rights for plant visitation. Section 25(b) requires the pres-
ence of the business agent at the second step of a grievance procedure. In order
to effectively and intelligently represent a grievance where the grievance was con-
cerned with the operations of equipment or the performance of work, it is manifest
that it would be necessary in the ordinary case for the business agent to person-
ally inspect the premises, operation, or equipment that might be involved in the
grievance.
After the pattern of plant visitations which Roberts frequently made, the action
of Respondent in barring him from the premises would have the likely effect of
creating an image among the union members that he was an ineffectual repre-
sentative. The situation, in this case, is exacerbated by the continuation of visita-
tion to the plant premises by representatives of other unions. The castigation of
Roberts by Coors as a troublemaker and a disruptive element in the relations
between Respondent and Local 366, coupled with the statement that he did not
want Roberts in the plant at any time, clearly established Roberts as, persona non
grata to Respondent and hence an ineffective individual to represent the union
members in dealing with Respondent. This activity by Respondent eliminates
Roberts as a candidate on equal terms with others to represent Local 366 and
would be a major handicap to Roberts in seeking reelection. This action virtually
amounts to Respondent dictating to Local 366 who its representative should not
be. It is well established that such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act. Deeco, Inc., 127 NLRB 666.
Turning now to the asserted justification of Respondent for barring Roberts from
the plant premises, the record establishes that William Coors, president of Respond-
ent, characterized Roberts as an enemy of Respondent because he had telephoned
a newspaper expressing the opinion that Respondent had not been fair with the
employees. Reference to the newspaper article which recites that only essential
employees would be required to work, suggests ample room for differences of
interpretation. In this matter, assuming that Coors was acting in good faith, he
and Roberts interpreted the newspaper article differently. Because Roberts, in
order to avoid a repetition of this type of publicity, which caused confusion among
the union membership, decided to advise a newspaper that, in his opinion, the
company was not acting fairly, he was regarded as an "enemy of the Company."
The strength' of Coors' feelings is reflected in his statement at the meeting of
November 29 when he stated that if Roberts appeared on the premises he might
have "torn him limb from limb." Respondent's concept of relations with the
union is that if a union representative does not agree with Coors he is regarded
as an enemy. By way of analogy, if after negotiations in which an agreement was
not reached, Roberts had given a press interview, saying that he thought the
Respondent's position was unreasonable, it would parallel in substance the advice
that he gave to the newspaper in this case Obviously, collective bargaining would
be impossible on a give-and-take basis if Respondent required that Roberts, or any
business agent of Local 366 agree with Respondent or be regarded as an enemy.
Accordingly, the action of Respondent in barring Roberts from the plant premises
is not justified by any contractual right of Respondent and is clearly contrary to
the requirements of the Act, which envisage that a representative of the employees
be free from intimidation and reprisal when such representative voices a statement
of position or opinion affecting the employees which may be in disagreement with
the opinion of the employer. In these circumstances, the prohibition directed
against Roberts directly affects the rights of the employees to have their repre-
sentatives on the premises to service the collective-bargaining contract and to
carry on the normal functions of a representative as other union agents were
permitted to do by Respondent.
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY 1613
In summary, it is found that the action of Respondent in prohibiting access to
the plant premises by Roberts was an intrusion on the employees right to have
and select an effective representative not dominated by Respondent. It does not
require a great deal of imagination to envisage that in the event of a union elec-
tion for a business representative a consideration against selecting Roberts would
be that he was persona non grata to Respondent and that the self-interest of the
employees would likely influence them in selecting their only full-time paid repre-
sentative, and might likely result in a rejection of Roberts, by the union member-
ship. In addition, the exclusion of Roberts had the immediate effect of making
it manifest to the employees of Respondent that to some extent the services of
their only paid representative was denied to them by Respondent and to this
extent denied them the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The November 29 Meeting
The action of Respondent's president, William Coors, in calling a meeting of
employees who also comprised the membership of the Local 366 executive board,
to inform them that Roberts was excluded from the meeting and that he would
not submit to the Internal Revenue a negotiated pension agreement unless it was
changed, and stating to the employees that he did not intend to execute any further
agreement containing a union-security provision, represents a flagrant disregard
of collective-bargaining obligations and constituted, under the circumstances, a
bypassing of the appropriate union representative. Roberts had opposed any
change in the executed pension agreement. No previous meeting had ever been
held in connection with the union negotiations without the business agent being
present. The members of the executive board were employees of Respondent sum-
moned to President William Coors' office during working hours. It has been
found that they attended this meeting in the capacity of employees rather than as
representatives of Local 366. It would be incongruous, in this context, to regard
the individuals so summoned as being in a position to adequately represent the
interest of the members of Local 366.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, it will therefore be recom-
mended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In order to rectify the effect
of Respondent's unfair labor practices it is necessary that Respondent be ordered
to restore Roberts to the right of plant visitation existing prior to November 29,
1963. Inasmuch as the attitude of Respondent as reflected by this record borders
on contempt of the collective-bargaining process a broad cease-and-desist order
will be recommended.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Dis-
tillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 366, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
4. By -barring Business Agent Roberts from visiting its premises and by nego-
tiating with employees while excluding Roberts from the negotiations, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and
8(a) (5) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
775-692-65-vol. 150-103