Atlanta Brick and Tile Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 1154 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of ATLANTA BRICK AND TILE COMPANY and UNITED
STONE & ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 10-CA-576.Decided June 7, 1949
DECISION'
AND
ORDER
I
- On March 10, 1949, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his
Intermediate Report 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 therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as
the record and the exceptions, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed 2
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner. The sole question here at issue is whether the Re-
spondent's operations affect commerce within the meaning of, the Act.
We fully considered and decided this question in Matter of Atlanta
Brick and Tile Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 756, and have been given no
persuasive reason for reversing that earlier decision."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
2 At the hearing, the Respondent objected to the admission in evidence of a stipulation
of facts bearing upon the commerce question , contending that the Board was limited in its
consideration of this question to the facts developed in the representation proceeding in-
volving the same employer ( Matter of Atlanta Brick and Tile Company, 79 N. L. R. B.
756). The record in the representation hearing was , by agreement of the parties, incor-
porated in the record of the present proceeding . The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on
the objection and overruled it in his Intermediate Report. This ruling is hereby affirmed.
See In re N. L. R. B., 304 U. S. 486 ; Grandview Dairy, Inc. v . Jones, 157 F. (2d) 5
( C. A. 2) ; Sprague v. Woil, 122 F. (2d) 128 (C. A. 7).
S See Matter of Spickelmier Company, 83 N. L. R. B. 452; Matter of Hattiesburg
Lumber and Supply Company , 83 N. L. R. B. 501; and cf. Matter of Oppenheim Collins
.83 N. L. R. B., No. 166.
1154
ATLANTA BRICK - AND TILE COMPANY 1155
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Atlanta Brick
and Tile Company, Atlanta, Georgia, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Stone & Allied
Products Workers of America (CIO) as the exclusive representative
of all employees of Respondent's Bolton plant, excluding the manu-
facturing superintendent, the kiln superintendent, the yard manager,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) Engaging in any other acts in any manner interfering with the
efforts of United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO),
to negotiate for or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as
exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Stone & Allied
Products Workers of America (CIO), as the exclusive bargaining
agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit described herein,
with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement; -
(b) Post at its plant at Bolton, Georgia, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this order what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
0 Co., Inc., (Department Store Employees Union, Local 1250, Independent ), 83 N. L. R B.
355.
* In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER " the words, "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
1-156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with
the efforts Of UNITED STONE & ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF
AMERICA (CIO) to negotiate for or represent the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment and other conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees of Employer's Bolton plant excluding the
manufacturing superintendent, the kiln superintendent, the
yard manager, and all other supervisors as defined in the act.
ATLANTA BRICK AND TILE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------ By-----7-------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. Milton 0. Talent, for the General Counsel.
Weekcs d Candler, by Mr. John Wesley Weekes, of Decatur, Ga., for the Re-
spondent
Mr. Marvin R Blaylock, of Dalton, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on January 25, 1949, by United Stone & Allied
Products Workers of America (CIO), herein called the Union, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta Georgia), issued a complaint dated January 25, 1949,
against Atlanta Brick and Tile Company, of Atlanta Georgia, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, 61 stat 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the amended
charge, and notice of hearing were duly served on Respondent and the Union.
' The representative of the General Counsel is herein referred to as the General Counsel
and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
ATLANTA BRICK AND TILE COMPANY 1157
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
(a) Respondent on or about October 27, 1948, and thereafter, refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of Respondent's em-
ployees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although the Union had been duly
certified by the Board as such representative on or about October 25, 1948, in the
Matter of Atlanta Brick and Tile Company and United Stone & Allied Products
Workers of America, CIO, Case'No. 10-RC-65, and was then and thereafter the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the said unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and (b) Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Respondent filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Board and an answer In
its plea Respondent asserted that the record in the representation matter, Case
No. 10-RC-65, establishes that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board
because its operations are wholly intrastate in character. Respondent' s answer,
while admitting certain allegations of the complaint as to the nature of its
business, admitting the certification of the Union by the Board, and admitting the
refusal to bargain; also asserted that its operations are intrastate, and it there-
fore denied that there is any appropriate unit for collective bargaining and that
the Union is the exclusive representative of the employees within the meaning
of the Act. The sole issue framed by the pleadings and by the stipulation offered
at the hearing (later adverted to) related to the jurisdiction of the Board.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on February 15, 1949, at Atlanta, Georgia,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Ex-
aminer. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union were represented at
the hearing by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. Ruling was reserved on Re-
spondent's plea to the jurisdiction. It is now denied. By agreement of the
parties, the petition, the transcript, the findings and order of the Board, and
the certification of the Union in the representation proceeding above referred
to are to be considered as incorporated into the present record. No oral evi-
dence was offered. The General Counsel offered in evidence a stipulation of
facts, to which Respondent objected. Ruling was reserved. The objections are
now overruled and the stipulation is received. Respondent called for an affirma-
tive showing, by evidence and proof, that the Union had complied with Sections
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The demand was overruled on the authority of
Matter of Baldwin Locomotive Works, 76 N. L. R. B. 922, 3; Matter of Lion Oil
Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 565, 6. At the close of the hearing, the undersigned
granted, without objection, the General Counsel's motion to conform the plead-
ings to the proof as to names and dates and other related matters not of sub-
stance. The parties were afforded an opportunity to make oral argument and
to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties
declined oral argument and no brief has been received.
Upon the entire record of the case the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent manufactures common brick at its sole plant located in Bolton,
Georgia. During the period from April 1, 1947, to April 1, 1948, its first pro-
duction year, respondent purchased repair parts, valued at $4,851.65, outside
the State of Georgia. During the same period, it purchased in Atlanta, Georgia,
844340-50-vol 83-74
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 tons of soda ash, valued at $2,950, which was shipped to Atlanta from Barberton,
Ohio. From April 1, 1947, to December 1, 1947, Respondent purchased in Atlanta
fuel oil valued at approximately $24,000, and from December 1, 1947, to April 1,
1948, natural gas valued at $6,800, all of which originated outside the State.
Respondent is under contract to sell its entire output of brick, of an estimated
value of $400,000 a year, to the Campbell Coal Company which acts as Respond-
ent's exclusive selling plant. The record shows that all the brick manufac-
tured by Respondent and sold by the Campbell Coal Company is used in the
building of residences in the Atlanta area.
The record also discloses that Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Campbell Coal Company, and that their organizational, fiscal, and other affairs
are closely interwoven and interrelated. Both corporations have a common
board of directors and with one exception (assistant treasurer), common officers.
Four of the common officers are authorized to sign checks for both companies.
Their offices jointly occupy portions of the same premises in the city of At-
lanta, Georgia. However, Respondent has no office employees ; its pay rolls and
books are kept, and all its clerical work is done, by an office employee of Campbell
Coal Company who is paid therefor by the latter company and who also keeps its
own records. The record is silent whether before the organization of its subsidi-
ary the parent company owned or operated the brick manufacturing plant now
operated by the Respondent at Bolton, Georgia.
The Campbell Coal Company sells building materials and coal, at wholesale
and retail, at its establishment in Atlanta, Georgia. It purchases annually
materials outside the State of Georgia valued at approximately $500,000, but
the record does not disclose what materials, if any, it sells outside the State.
The parties agree that the Campbell Coal Company is engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it is subject to the jurisdiction
of the Board.
The foregoing findings are based on the evidence introduced in the representa-
tion proceedings, the entire record in which it was stipulated should be considered
as a part of the record in the present proceeding.
The General Counsel also offered a stipulation of facts which restated or sum-
marized much of the evidence in the previous record and which included also
cumulative evidence as to the nature of Respondent's business during the earlier
period as well as supplementary evidence covering the period subsequent to the
hearing. Respondent, though stipulating to the correctness of the facts, objected
to the stipulation being received or considered on grounds that can be summarized
as follows : That the complaint is based on the Board's certification of the Union
in thg representation proceeding, that the certification was based in turn on the
evidence then before the Board, that such evidence did not in fact support the
Board's finding that the Respondent was engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, that the Board's finding and assumption of jurisdiction
was not rightful, and that there was therefore no duty on Respondent's part to
bargain with the Union. Respondent argued, therefore, that since it was then
and is now attacking the jurisdiction of the Board to make the certification, the
General Counsel is limited to the showing on commerce which was made at the
representation hearing. Respondent's objections are overruled, and the stipula-
tion is received' and is considered for the purposes stated below.
2 It has been held in cases like the present one that "The unit proceeding and [the]
complaint on unfair labor practices are really one," Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
313 U. S. 146; N. L. R. B. v. West Kentucky Coal Co., 152 F. (2d) 198, 201 ; nevertheless,
as pointed out by Mr. Justice Stone in dissent in the Pittsburgh case, the Board in making
ATLANTA BRICK AND TILE COMPANY 1159
Much of the stipulation consists of a summarization of the evidence in the
previous record which indicates at some points that Respondent's commitment .
to certain requested concessions and stipulations was somewhat equivocal or
was not too clearly given. The present stipulation is without reservation and
to the extent that it restates the previous evidence it is received and considered
for the purpose of establishing Respondent's unequivocal admission of the facts
which formed the basis of the Board's prior findings.
The stipulation also includes cumulative evidence as to the volume of extra-
State purchases of equipment and supplies and as to the interrelation a of Respond-
ent's affairs with those of its parent, Campbell Coal Company. The supple-
mentary evidence covering the period since the representation hearing, similarly
reflects no change in Respondent's operations, but only a continuation of the same
type and of approximately the same volume of business. These portions of the
stipulation are received and considered as confirming the prior showing at the
representative hearing, and the undersigned finds it unnecessary to base findings
thereon.`
The undersigned finds, contrary to Respondent's contention, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Matter of J. H. Patterson Company,
79 N. L. R. B. 355; Matter of K-M-B Mining Company, 70 N. L. R. B. 1172; Matter
of Trinidad Brick & Tile Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 1351. And see Matter of Air
Conditioning Company of Southern California et al., Case No. 21-RC-38, decided
February 23, 1949, (81 N. L. R. B. 946), footnote 6, and cases there cited;
Matter of Duro Test Corporation, Case No. 2-0-6509, 81 N. L. R. B. 976;
Matter of L. N. D., Inc., Oxnard, Case No. 21-RC-551, 81 N. L. R. B. 883, and
cases cited in footnote 3.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO), is a labor organ-
ization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit; representation by the Union of a majority therein
On or about October 25, 1948, in the Matter of Atlanta Brick and Tile Company
and United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO), Case No. 10-RC-
its present determination is not required to confine its consideration to the representation
proceeding , but may [ and frequently does ] hear additional evidence bearing on the ques-
tions involved in the earlier proceeding. The determinations , findings, conclusions, and
certification of the Board in a representation proceeding are not res judicata in a subse-
quent complaint proceeding before the Board under Section 10 (b) and (c). Matter of
Pacific Greyhound Lanes, 22 N. L. R. B. 111, 124. However, the Board will not, ordinarily
grant a hearing de novo in matters previously adjudicated in the absence of a cogent
showing of possible error ; but although the Board is entitled to treat as administratively
decided its determinations , findings, conclusions , and certification , it may nevertheless, in
the exercise of its discretion and upon sufficient ground , reexamine such questions or
matters. (Ibid.)
I The additional evidence on interrelation adds little to that summarized above : that
the two companies have the same fiscal year and the same date of annual election and that
Respondent's major purchases are made by Campbell's employees.
4 The reception of additional evidence of commerce where the Board's jurisdiction is
under attack seems fully authorized under the recent decision in N. L. R. B. v. Mid-Co
Gasoline Company, 172 F. (2d) 974 (C. A. 5) decided February 16, 1949, where in a case
that arose like the present , the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Board for the
taking of additional evidence bearing on the question of jurisdiction.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
65, the Union was certified by the Board as the representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining of all of Respondent's employees in the following unit : all
employees of Respondent's Bolton plant, excluding the manufacturing superin-
tendent, the kiln superintendent, the yard manager, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act, which unit the Board found to constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act. The undersigned finds in accordance with the Board's previous
determination that all employees of Respondent's Bolton plant, excluding the
manufacturing superintendent, the kiln superintendent, the yard manager, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute and at all times material
herein constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The undersigned further finds that on and at all times after October 25, 1948,
the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority of
the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit and that, pursuant to the pro-
visions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on October 25, 1948, and at all
times thereafter, has been and is now the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
On or about October 27, 1948, the Union requested Respondent to bargain, but
on that date and at all times thereafter Respondent has refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Sec-
tion 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appro-
priate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent upon request bargain
collectively with the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO) is a labor organ-
ization , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees of Respondent ' s Bolton plant, excluding the- manufacturing
superintendent , the kiln superintendent , the yard manager , and all other 'super-
visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ATLANTA BRICK AND TILE COMPANY 1161
3. United Stone & Allied Products workers of America (CIO) was on October
25, 1948, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on October 27, 1948, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with the United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO),
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said acts, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent,
and its officers , agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Stone & Allied Prod-
ucts Workers of America (CIO) as the exclusive representative of all employees
of Respondent's Bolton plant, excluding the manufacturing superintendent, the
kiln superintendent, the yard manager, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act ;
(b) Engaging in any other acts in any manner interfering with the efforts
of United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO), to negotiate for
or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the United Stone & Allied Products
Workers of America (CIO), as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant at Bolton, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report -what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respond-
ent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the fore-
going recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order re-
quiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board - Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and
any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief
in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of
exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record
relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed
shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed
with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As fur-
ther provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said 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.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 10th day of March 1949.
GEORGE A. DOWNING,
Trial Ewamin.er.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES _
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts
of United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America (CIO) to negotiate
for or represent the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request' with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative on all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment and other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees of employer's Bolton plant excluding the manufacturing
superintendent, the kiln superintendent, the yard manager, and all
other supervisors-as defined in the Act.
ATLANTA BRICK AND TILE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.