American Bakeries Co. And Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1986

280 N.L.R.B. 1373 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

AMERICAN BAKERIES CO.
American Bakeries Company and Local Union No.
51, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Local No. 326, Bakery, Confec-
tionery and Tobacco Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-24655 and 7-
CB-6522
31 July 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 10 April 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ries issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent Union filed exceptions, and the Respond-
ent Company filed exceptions and a supporting
brief. The General Counsel filed an answering
brief, and the Charging Party filed a telegraphic re-
sponse.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that Respondent American Bak-
eries Company, Ypsilanti and Port Huron, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, and
Respondent Local Union No. 51 International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Order.
Carol McCloskey, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stewart J. Katz Esq. (Keller, Thoma, Schwarze, Schwarz,
DuBay & Kati P.C.), of Detroit, Michigan, for the Re-
spondent Employer.
Gerry M. Miller, Esq. (Goldberg, Previant, Uelmen, Gratz
Miller & Brueggeman, s.c.), of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
for the Respondent Union.
Roger Webb, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
BERNARD RIES , Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Detroit, Michigan, on 28 October 1985.1 A
1 The underlying charges were filed on 3 June 1985 and the complaint
was issued on 12 July 1985
1373
brief and a motion to correct the record were received
from the General Counsel, and a brief was received from
the Respondent Employer, about 2 December 1985.2
On the basis of the pleadings , the briefs , and my own
study of the applicable law, I make the following find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
1. THE PLEADINGS; THE PROCEDURE
Respondent is, the pleadings show, engaged in the
bakery business, with its principal office in Detroit,
Michigan , and four installations in other Michigan cities.
The only two facilities involved in this proceeding are
located at Port Huron and Ypsilanti.
The complaint, after setting 48 paragraphs containing
the usual allegations pertaining to jurisdiction, labor or-
ganization status, and pertinent supervisors and agents,
continues:
9. (a) On or about February 8, 1985, Respondent
Employer and Respondent Union entered into a
collective bargaining agreement recognizing Re-
spondent Union as the exclusive collective bargain-
ing representative of a unit covering all non -super-
visory employees of Respondent Employer em-
ployed at its Ypsilanti, Michigan facility.
(b) On or about May 13, 1985, Respondent Em-
ployer and Respondent Union entered into an
agreement to bring all non-supervisory employees
of Respondent Employer employed at its Port
Huron, Michigan, facility under the terms of the
agreement described above in subparagraph 9(a)
and recognizing Respondent Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of this group of employ-
ees.
(c) Article I, Section 2 of the agreement de-
scribed above in subparagraph 9(a) established a
union security clause requiring all employees cov-
ered by said agreement to attain and maintain mem-
bership in Respondent Union , and to pay dues and
initiation fees thereto, as a condition of employ-
ment.
(d) At the time Respondent Employer and Re-
spondent Union entered into the agreement above
in subparagrapph [sic] 9(a) covering Respondent
Employer's Ypsilanti facility employees, Respond-
ent Employer had not yet hired any of the employ-
ees who were to be covered by said agreement.
(e) At the time Respondent Employer and Re-
spondent Union entered into the agreement de-
2 On 3 December , the Respondent Union sent a telegram adopting the
brief filed by Respondent Employer, and also stating that it had "no ob-
jection to the granting of the General Counsel's motion to correct certain
(but not all) errors in the record." Respondent Union thus appears to be
acquiescing in part , but not all , of the General Counsel 's motion, leaving
it to me , I suppose, to decide where the General Counsel has gone
wrong . Respondent Employer has filed no opposition to the motion.
I also find nothing exceptionable in, and I grant , the motion In addi-
tion, sua sponte, I order a change in the Tr. 9, L. 16-18, to read, in lieu
of the current "I have never been presented with this particular one in
almost l l years of dubious work," to read, "I have never been presented
with this particular one in almost 11 years of doing this work." I am
quite sure that even in moments of greatest despondence , I have not ut-
tered (on the record) a remark such as the one reported
280 NLRB No. 160
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scribed above in subparagraph 9(b) to bring Re-
spondent Employer 's Port Huron employees under
the terms and conditions of the agreement described
above in subparagraph 9(a), Respondent Employer
had not yet hired any of the employees who were
to constitute its Port Huron facility workforce.
(f) [Deleted on motion of the General Counsel at
the hearing.]
(g) Subsequent to executing the agreements de-
scribed above in subparagraphs 9(a) and (b), Re-
spondent Employer hired non-supervisory employ-
ees at each of its Ypsilanti and Port Huron facilities
and has employed them under the terms and condi-
tions of said agreements , including Artcile [sic] I,
Section 2 , described above in subparagraph 9(c).
(h) Respondent Employer's actions as set forth
above constitutes [sic] unlawful aid, assistance and
support to Respondent Union.
The remaining eight complaint paragraphs contain the
usual legal conclusions , asserting that by the conduct al-
leged, Respondent Employer violated Section 8(axl),
(2), and (3) of the Act and Respondent Union violated
Section 8(bx1XA) and (bX2).
The Respondent Employer's answer to the complaint
admitted every factual allegation in paragraphs 1-9
(except for subpar. 9(f), which was, as stated, deleted at
the hearing, and subpar. 9(h), which asserts a legal con-
clusion) and denied the remaining paragraphs . Respond-
ent Union's answer was identical , but contained, in addi-
tion, the following:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Company's newly established Ypsilanti and
Port Huron facilities constitute in predominant part
relocations of routes and territories previously
served by drivers working out of the Company's
Farmington and Warren depots who were subject
to Local 51 's Detroit area sales agreement with the
Company, which expressly provides that it shall
cover any relocation of bargaining unit operations.
SECOND DEFENSE
The Company's newly established Ypsilanti and
Port Huron facilities constitute accretions to bar-
gaining unit operations covered by Local 51's De-
troit area sales agreement with the Company, which
are subject to Local 51' s bargaining rights and ma-
jority status in the sales agreement bargaining unit
as a matter of law.
THIRD DEFENSE
Even if the Ypsilanti and Farmington [sic] em-
ployees are not relocations of or accretions to Local
51's historical bargaining unit, dues and fees disgor-
gement is a wholly inappropriate remedy in the cir-
cumstances.
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel
moved for judgment on the pleadings "[i]nasmuch as all
the operative paragraphs have been admitted ." The Re-
spondents opposed the motion, with counsel for Re-
spondent Union reminding me that the "Union 's answer,
at the very least, raises three defenses," and I denied the
motion. The General Counsel then rested, as did the
Charging Party . The Respondent Employer and the Re-
spondent Union followed suit, and they also moved for
dismissal of the complaint based on a "failure of proof by
the counsel for the General Counsel ."3 I stated that I
would take the motions to dismiss under consideration.
The Charging Party then "move[d] for in effect judg-
ment on the pleadings" in view of the fact that Respond-
ents had presented "no evidence whatsoever ... re-
specting those affirmative defenses ." The motion was
noted.
II. CONCLUSIONS
In Ladies Garment Workers v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731,
738 (1961 ), the Supreme Court took note that " [t]he law
has long been settled that a grant of exclusive recogni-
tion to a minority union constitutes unlawful support in
violation of [Section 8(a)(2)]." There are some situations
in which the Board and the courts, in the interest of bal-
ancing both stability and employee choice, have permit-
ted or required recognition of a union which is not clear-
ly the freely chosen bargaining representative of a full
majority of the unit employees . 4 There can be no doubt,
however, that, in the usual case, the extension of recog-
nition by an employer to a union at a new facility at a
time when no employees have been hired constitutes a
violation of the statute . Special Service Delivery, 259
NLRB 993 (1980).5
Given the foregoing state of the law, it seems clear
that when the General Counsel rested on the pleadings,
she had proved a prima facie case of violation . Although
the ultimate burden of persuasion of the elements of an
unfair labor practice by a "preponderance of the testimo-
ny taken" (Sec. 10(b)) never shifts from the General
Counsel, NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393 (1983), satisfaction of this burden may be ac-
complished by establishing an unrebutted prima facie
case. The Board , quoting from Black 's Law Dictionary,
4th ed ., West Publishing Co., 1951 , p. 1353, has defined a
"prima facie case" as:
Such as will suffice until contradicted and over-
come by other evidence . A case which has proceed-
ed upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will
support [a] fording if evidence to [the] contrary is
disregarded . . . a prima facie case, then, is one
which is established by sufficient evidence, and can
® In resting , the Respondent Union, having relied on the existence of
the pleaded "Defenses" in its answer to oppose the General Counsel's
motion for judgment on the pleadings, took care to point out that plead.
ing such defenses does not mean that the "burden of proving those de-
fenses, in our opinion, [is] the Union's or the Company's."
4 Ray Brooks v. NLRB, 348 U.S. 96 (1954); Herman Bros., 264 NLRB
439, 440-441 (1982).
S The Board has even held that bargaining prior to achievement of the
union's majority status is violative despite the fact that the contract is not
enforced or is conditioned upon the union's ability to demonstrate majori-
ty standing at some later time . Majestic Weaving Co., 147 NLRB 859
(1964); Wickes Corp., 197 NLRB 860 fn 2 (1972); Margaret Anzalone, Inc.,
242 NLRB 879, 887 (1979)
AMERICAN BAKERIES CO.
be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced
on the other side.
Avon Convalescent Center, 209 NLRB 937, 938 (1974).8
The facts admitted by the answers filed by both Re-
spondents are sufficient to make out a prima facie show-
ing of violation under the applicable 8(a)(2) and (3) and
8(bx1XA) and (2) principles-the answers concede that
the Respondents entered into a "collective bargaining
agreement" in February 1985 recognizing Respondent
Union as the "exclusive bargaining representative" of all
nonsupervisory employees at Ypsilanti, at a time when
the Respondent Employer had not hired any of the em-
ployees to be covered by the contract, and thereafter ap-
plied to newly hired employees the union-security clause
contained in the agreement ; and they further concede
that, in similar circumstances , in May 1985, Respondents
made the Ypsilanti contract applicable to its Port Huron
facility, also not staffed by any employees at that time.?
It is perhaps possible in theory to present various de-
fenses to the prima facie showing of violations made out
by the conjunction of complaint allegations and admis-
sions in the answers here . It might be, as Respondent
Union's "FIRST DEFENSE" asserts, that recognition
was lawfully extended at Ypsilanti and Port Huron be-
cause those facilities constituted nothing more than "re-
locations" of portions of existing units . 8 Similarly, the
Ypsilanti and Port Huron facilities might possibly be
found to be "accretions" to an existing unit, and there-
fore part of the unit work covered by an existing agree-
ment.9
The authorities make it clear, however, that when the
General Counsel has proved a prima facie case, evidence
to support such defenses must be presented by the re-
spondent ; if not presented, the prima facie case stands
unrebutted , and "an unrebutted prima facie case neces-
sarily amounts to proof by a preponderance of the evi-
dence." Hale v. Dept of Transportation, 772 F.2d 882 (FC
Cir. 1985). Accord: National Automobile & Casualty, 199
NLRB 91, 92 (1972); Siro Security Service, 247 NLRB
1266, 1272 (1980). For the proposition that such kinds of
defenses are affirmative in nature (as Respondent Union's
answer appears to concede), see Safeway Stores, 256
NLRB 918, 919 (1981) (the delicatessen employees do
Concerning what constitutes "sufficient evidence," I note Professor
Wigmore 's preferred test "Are there facts in evidence which if unan-
swered would justify men of ordinary reason and fairness in affirming the
question which the plaintiff is bound to maintain?" IX Wigmore , Evidence
§ 2494 (3d ed.).
On brief, Respondent Employer argues, "[The General Counsel] did
not present any evidence in support of her allegations " (emphasis in ongi-
nal). In fact, according to Wigmore , admissions in the pleadings consti-
tute more than simple evidence - "The pleadings in a cause are . not
mere ordinary admissions . but judicial admissions ... i e., they are
not a means of evidence , but a waiver of all controversy ... and there-
fore a limitation of the issues " IV Wigmore, Evidence § 1064 (Chadbourn
rev 1972).
8 Ordinarily , however, such an agreement can be maintained only
when at least a "substantial percentage" of employees have transferred to
the new location to demonstrate that a "relocation" has occurred. Com-
pare Westwood Import Co., 251 NLRB 1213 (1980), enfd. 681 F.2d 664
(9th Cir 1982), and Lanco, 277 NLRB 851 fn . 2 (1985).
9 It would probably be unusual, however, for the parties in an "accre-
tion" situation to execute a separate collective -bargaining agreement, as
the pleadings recite with regard to Ypsilanti, to cover the accreted unit
1375
not show a sufficient community of interest with the
bakery employees "to jusitify" the accretion of the
former into the bakery unit); Harte & Co., 278 NLRB
947, 948 (1986) (the Board has developed standards to
determine when there is a "sufficient continuity of oper-
ations to justify applying an existing contract to a new
location"); see also Avon Convalescent Center, supra
(prima facie case of refusal to recognize and meet not re-
butted); Preston Products Co., 158 NLRB 322, 345 (1966)
(unrebutted prima facie showing of unlawful pay raises).
Obviously, it cannot be that in a case such as the instant
one, the General Counsel must exclude all possible cir-
cumstances which might make the conduct lawful, as
Respondent Employer asserts on brief; "There are nu-
merous factors which the General Counsel failed to pro-
vide to substantiate her legal conclusion (i.e., that Re-
spondent Union did not represent an uncoerced majority
of the effected [sic] employees ; that the new facilities
were not a relocation or accretion to Respondent
Union's existing bargaining unit ; whether the new facili-
ties were separate , appropriate units , etc.)."10 The thrust
of Respondents ' contentions seems to be that there can
be no such concept as a prima facie case in the present
situation , and that notion, I think , is simply wrong.
Accordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has
demonstrated prima facie , by virtue of the pleadings, that
the Respondents violated the provisions of the Act al-
leged in the complaint; that Respondents have failed to
rebut the prima facie case ; and that the General Counsel
has therefore proved the complaint allegations by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent American Bakeries Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Local Union No . 51, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By, about 8 February and 13 May 1985 , entering
into and applying a collective-bargaining agreement con-
taining a union-security clause covering employees at, re-
spectively, Respondent Employer's Ypsilanti and Port
Huron facilities at times when Respondent had not hired
any employees to work at those locations, and thereafter
enforcing the union -security clause against employees
subsequently hired, Respondent Employer violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
10 I might also note here Respondent Employer 's argument that the
conclusion that the admitted allegations are not sufficient to find that vio-
lations have occurred "cannot be greater demonstrated than by the fact
that the ALJ specifically denied the Motion for Judgment On The Plead-
ings." That conclusion need not-indeed , almost certainly cannot-
follow where the respondent has admitted the facts alleged but denied
the asserted conclusions of law and advanced affirmative defenses. In
such a situation , even when the General Counsel has proved a prima
facie case, the respondent must be given an opportunity to offer rebuttal
evidence Thus, my refusal to grant the motion for judgment on the
pleadings in fact demonstrates nothing about the sufficiency of the Gen-
eral Counsel 's proof
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
To remedy the unfair labor practices here found, I rec-
ommend that the Respondents be ordered to cease and
desist from continuing their collective-bargaining rela-
tionships at Ypsilanti and Port Huron ; that they be re-
quired to rescind the collective-bargaining agreement
and any supplemental agreement made applicable to
those locations ; and that they jointly and severally make
all new employees whole for initiation fees and dues paid
by them after being employed at Ypsilanti and Port
Huron, except for those who had voluntarily become
members of Respondent Union prior to the execution of
the agreements and voluntarily retained their member-
ship after being employed . SMI of Worchester, Inc., 271
NLRB 1508, 1510 (1984). Interest shall be paid as set out
in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Finally, I shall recommend that the Respondent be re-
quired to post appropriate notices to employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
A. Respondent American Bakeries Company, Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Recognizing and bargaining with Local Union No.
51, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America as the represent-
ative of its Ypsilanti and Port Huron, Michigan employ-
ees for purposes of collective bargaining unless and until
the Union has been certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of
any of such employees.
(b) Giving effect to the 8 February 1985 collective-
bargaining contract and any supplement executed by Re-
spondents American and the Union, and any modifica-
tion or current extension thereof.
(c) Recognizing and bargaining with the Union or any
other labor organization at a time at which such labor
organization does not represent an uncoerced majority of
the employees in the unit as to which recognition is ex-
tended, and discriminating against employees and en-
couraging membership in such labor organization by
agreeing to and enforcing a union-security clause requir-
ing membership in such a labor organization.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
' if no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules , be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
Poses.
(a) Make whole the Ypsilanti and Port Huron employ-
ees for the initiation fees and dues involuntarily paid by
them, jointly and severally with the Union , and with in-
terest, in accordance with the remedy section of this de-
cision.
(b) Preserve and, on request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnal records and reports , and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amounts of compensation due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Ypsilanti and Port Huron , Michigan lo-
cation copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as in the preceding subparagraph signed copies of
Respondent Union 's notice to employees marked "Ap-
pendix B."
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
B. Respondent Local Union No. 51, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Accepting recognition from employers , and execut-
ing and giving effect to collective-bargaining agreements
at times when Respondent Union does not represent an
uncoerced majority of employees in the bargaining units
covered.
(b) Agreeing to, maintaining , and enforcing a union-se-
curity clause requiring membership in the Union in the
circumstances set out in subparagraph (a), above.
(c) Maintaining its claim to recognition as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of Respondent American's
Ypsilanti and Port Huron, Michigan employees until it
has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive bargaining representative of any of such
employees.
(d) Giving effect to the 8 February 1985 collective-
bargaining contract and any supplement thereto executed
by Respondents Union and American , and any modifica-
tion or current extension thereof.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al 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 "
AMERICAN BAKERIES CO.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole the Ypsilanti and Port Huron, Michi-
gan employees for the initiation fees and dues involuntar-
ily paid by them in accordance with the remedy section
of this decision.
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."13 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7 , after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative , shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 7 signed
copies of the notice, in the number designated by the Re-
gional Director, for posting by American Bakeries Com-
pany, at places where it customarily posts notices to em-
ployees of its Ypsilanti and Port Huron, Michigan loca-
tions.
(d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all records necessary to the implementation of this
Order.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
1 3 See fn. 12, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT recognize and bargain with Local
Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America as
the collective-bargaining representative of our Ypsilanti
and Port Huron, Michigan employees until the Union
has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the representative of any such employees, and WE
WILL NOT give effect to the contract executed on 8 Feb-
ruary 1985 , and any supplement thereto, purporting to
cover such employees, or any modification or current ex-
tension thereof.
WE WILL NOT require employees to involuntarily pay
initiation fees or dues to the Union ; and WE WILL NOT
1377
give effect to any assignment forms executed by our Yp-
silanti and Port Huron employees involuntarily.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with the Union or
any other labor organization at a time at which such
labor organization does not truly represent a majority of
the employees, and WE WILL NOT at such times agree to
require employees to pay fees and dues to a labor organi-
zation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with the Union, make
our Ypsilanti and Port Huron employees whole for the
fees and dues involuntarily paid by them to the Union
since 8 February 1985 and 13 May 1985, respectively,
with interest and in accordance with the Decision of the
Board.
AMERICAN BAKERIES COMPANY
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT accept recognition from employers, and
execute and give effect to collective -bargaining agree-
ments, at a time when we do not represent an uncoerced
majority of employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT agree to, maintain, or enforce a union-
security clause requiring membership in our organization
in the circumstances set out above.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain as the collective-
bargaining representative of the Ypsilanti or Port Huron,
Michigan employees of American Bakeries Company,
unless and until we have been certified as such by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with American Bak-
eries Company, make the Ypsilanti and Port Huron em-
ployees whole for initiation fees and dues involuntarily
paid by them to us since 8 February and 13 May 1985,
respectively, with interest.
LOCAL UNION No. 51, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA