Capital Bakers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 438 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. At all times since September 15, 1955, the Union has been , and now is , the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on July 18, August 6, and August 7, 1963, and all times thereafter, to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in
the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is now engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and ( 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.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that Independent Stave Company, Inc., Lebanon , Missouri , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees constituting the unit herein found to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex-
tent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Lebanon , Missouri , copies of the notice marked "Appendix." 8
[Board 's Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner's Appendix.] Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, shall , after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent , be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order,9 what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
8 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the,words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall lie modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
Capital Bakers , Inc. and Local 464, American Bakery & Con-
fectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No.
4-CA-3233. A'ugus't 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
148 NLRB No. 51.
CAPITAL BAKERS , INC. 439
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in colnection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rillings 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 en-
tire record in this case, including the Decision, and the exceptions and
briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, except as indicated marginally below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Capital
Bakers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
1 We overrule the Trial Examiner's denial of , and hereby grant, Respondent ' s' unopposed
motion to correct the record. As no witnesses were called at the hearing , we do not adopt
the Trial Examiner 's inadvertent statement that his findings and conclusions are based,
inter alia, on his observation of witnesses.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Leo F . Lightner in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania , on April 6 , 1964, on the complaint of General Counsel and the
answer of Capital Bakers, Inc., herein referred to as Respondent .' The issues
litigated were whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and Sec-
tion 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61
Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The parties waived oral argument and briefs
presented by the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered.
During the hearing the Trial Examiner reserved rulings on several motions, includ-
ing General Counsel 's motion for summary judgment and Respondent 's motion
to dismiss the complaint . These motions are disposed of in accordance with find-
ings and conclusions herein set forth.
Upon the entire record 2 and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporatidn maintaining its principal office in Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania , where it is engaged in the production and distribution of baked
goods and related products . While Respondent operates several plants , we are here
concerned solely with a plant located at Paxton Street , Harrisburg , Pennsylvania.
1 The charge herein was filed on January 23 , 1964. The complaint was issued on Feb-
ruary 20, 1964. i
2 Respondent 's motion to correct the record is denied.
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a representa-
tive period, Respondent sold and distributed products of a gross volume in excess
of $1,000,000 of which $50,000 was derived from sales and shipments made directly
to customers located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The complaint
alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that Local 464, American
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, herein referred
to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
O
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issues
The principal issue raised by the pleadings and litigated at the hearing is whether
the Respondent, commencing about January 7, 1964, and at all times thereafter,
failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent, by answer, admits that on or
about January 7, 1964, it did refuse to recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union. Respondent denies that it committed any unfair labor practice. Respond-
ent challenges the validity of the findings in the preceding representation proceeding
in the following respects: (1) as to the appropriateness of the unit; and (2) as to
the ineligibility of Henry Shepherd to vote, on the ground that he is a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, without according Respondent a
requested "hearing" for the purpose of such determination.
The Representation Proceeding
After a hearing, upon a petition filed by the Union for an election to determine
the designation of a collective-bargaining representative, the Regional Director for
Region 4, pursuant to his delegated authority under Section 3 (b) of the Act,- issued
a Decision and Direction of Election, dated August 9, 1963, in which he found that
the following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production, maintenance , warehouse, and shipping employees, including re-
ceiver, mixers, preparers, bakers, wrappers, packagers, shippers, maintenance me-
chanics and watchmen of the Employer (at each plant) at Paxton Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania; (Coatesville, Pennsylvania; Pottsville, Pennsylvania; and Fink's Bak-
ery, Inc., Annville, Pennsylvania), but excluding all office clerical employees, driver
salesmen , truckdrivers, garage mechanics, retail store clerks, and supervisors as
defined in the Act .3
The Regional Director also directed that an election be conducted among the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit to determine whether or not they
desired to be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by the Union.
Thereafter, pursuant to the above-mentioned Decision and Direction of Election,
the Regional Director conducted on election on September 5, 1963, among the em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. Of the 62 ballots cast, 31 were for the
Union, 29 were against the Union, and 2 ballots were challenged. As the chal-
lenged ballots were sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Di-
rector, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation
bearing on the' issue of the challenged ballots.
On November 1, 1963, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision on
Challenged Ballots and Certification of Representative. In this Supplemental De-
cision, the Regional Director, for reasons enumerated in said Decision, overruled a
challenge and found that Raymond McClintock is an eligible voter; however, the
Regional Director, after enumerating facts revealed as the result of an investiga-
tion, found that Henry Shepherd is a supervisor within the' meaning of the Act and,
for that reason , sustained the challenge to his ballot. He further found' that it was
unnecessary to open the overruled challenged ballot since it cannot affect the re-
sults of the election. He then certified the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. -
8 Case No. 4-RC-5469, of which I have taken official notice, was combined for the pur-
poses of hearing and disposition with other cases with which we are not here concerned.
CAPITAL BAKERS, INC. 441
On November 12, 1963, the Respondent filed with the Board, in Washington, D.C.,
a request for review of Regional Director's Supplemental Decision on Challenged
Ballots and Certification of Representative. In its request for review, Respondent
contended that the Regional Director's decision was based upon an ex parfe in-
vestigation and "without granting a hearing on the issues." Respondent urged that
the finding that Henry Shepherd had supervisory capacity was based upon "ambiguous
findings, incomplete evidence and alleged information from anonymous informants,
none of which has been subjected to the test of a public hearing, confrontation of
witnesses or cross examination ." The Board was requested to review and reverse
the Regional Director's Decision, or in the alternative, to order a hearing. Respond-
ent asserted that it had requested a hearing during the period of the Regional Di-
rector's investigation . By telegram, dated December 2, 1963, the Board denied
Respondent's request for review "as it raises no substantial issues warranting review."
The Unfair Labor Practice Proceeding
It is undisputed that on or about January 7. 1964, Respondent did refuse to rec-
ognize or bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit described supra. General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment is predicated upon Respondent's admission, in its answer, that it did refuse
to recognize or bargain with the Union. However, Respondent did not admit the
appropriateness of the unit, or other matters alleged in the complaint.
Respondent, at the hearing, contended that the Board erred in its unit determina-
tion. Respondent acknowledged that it was not seeking to introduce any further
testimony with respect to the unit determination. Its contention, in essence, is that
in earlier cases involving this Respondent, efforts by identified unions to organize
a single plant were rejected by the Board, which found that a multiplant unit was
appropriate. Respondent contends that the Regional Director, by finding a single-
plant unit appropriate in Case No. 4-RC-5469, reversed past precedent without
justification. This contention was not urged by Respondent in its request for review
of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision. There is no evidence, in this
record, of an appeal from the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion. In its brief, Respondent asserts that it is not abandoning this issue, but ad-
mittedly confined the brief to the issue concerning Henry Shepherd. Respondent
conceded that there was no history of multiplant bargaining.
Respondent asserts that at a preelection conference the Union did not contend
that Shepherd was a supervisor. It is undisputed that his vote was challenged. It
also appears undisputed that during the period of investigation of the challenge a
request for a hearing, relative to Shepherd's status, was made by Respondent to the
Regional Director and not granted. Respondent moved for a dismissal of the com-
plaint "for lack of competent testimony and evidence to support the certification."
In support of said motion Respondent contends that: (1) the facts contained in the
Regional Director's report are erroneous and inaccurate; and (2) the statements made
are summaries. Respondent acknowledged that it was seeking a hearing on the
same issue which the Board previously refused to review.
Respondent made a proffer, in detail, of evidence to prove that Henry Shepherd
is not a supervisory employee, as found by the Regional Director. The proffer
was rejected on the ground that the evidence concerned matters that either could
have been, or were, considered by the Regional Director, and that said matters
either were, or should have been, advanced by the Respondent in its appeal from
the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision. No contention was advanced that
the evidence was newly discovered. The Respondent acknowledged that the Regional
Director's action was technically within his authority under the Board's Rules and
Regulations , but asserts that neither the Regional Director nor the Board had a right
to refuse Respondent's request for a hearing.
Concluding Findings
Section 102.67(f) of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Section 8, as amended,
provides in part:
The parties may, at any time, waive their right to request review. Failure to
request review shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any related sub-
sequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have
been, raised in the representation proceeding.
I have found supra no evidence of a request for review on the issue of the ap-
propriateness of the single-plant unit. In any event, the cited provisions of the
Board's Rules and Regulations preclude litigation of this issue in this proceeding.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The balance of Section 102.67(f), supra, provides: 1 , , , . , .,, , ,
Denial of a request for review shall constitute an affirmance of .the regional
director's action which shall also preclude relitigating any'such issues in any
related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding.
The Board has said that, in the absence of any evidence unavailable at the time
of the representation proceeding or any newly discovered evidence, the Board has
in the past refused "to reconsider in a subsequent unfair labor practices proceed-
ing alleging a refusal to bargain matters which have been disposed of in a prior
related representation proceeding." The Board further held that "this policy should
also govern where the representation proceeding has been processed under Section
3 (b) of the Act and where, as in the present case, the Board has denied a request
for review of the Regional Director's Decision." The Board further pointed out
that in considering a request for review, the Board examines the Regional Direc-
tor's unit determination and his reasons therefor and, "by the denial of such request,
has concluded that they were not clearly improper as a matter of law or policy." 4
In essence , counsel for Respondent, however, contends in his brief that the find-
ings of the Regional Director that Henry Shepherd is a supervisor is unsupported
by "a single sworn, stipulated, or agreed fact before the Trial Examiner." Respond-
ent asserts that the Regional Director through his agents made an in camera ex parte
investigation, without permitting Respondent to be present at the interrogation of
Shepherd, and inferentially others. There were none of the safeguards of open
testimony, confrontation of witnesses, and cross-examination. At no time did
counsel for Respondent contend that he had any evidence which was unavailable
at the time of his submission to the Board of his request for review of the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision , or any newly discovered evidence.
Section 102.69(c) sets forth the procedure to be followed, inter alia, "if the chal-
lenged ballots are sufficient in number to affect the result of the election," and pro-
vides in part,
such action by the regional director may be on the basis of an administra-
tive investigation or, if it appears to the regional director that substantial and
material factual issues exist which can be resolved only after a hearing, on the
basis of a hearing before a hearing officer, designated by the regional director.
Respondent 's request for review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision
was predicated upon the fact that the Regional Director's Decision was 'based on
an ex parse investigation without granting a hearing, particularly on the factual
question of whether Shepherd is a supervisory employee. The Board, on Decem-
ber 2, 1963, found no merit in the request for review and said request was denied.
In effect then, the Trial Examiner is being requested to review a previous Decision
of the Board. It is well settled that, absent newly discovered evidence, the issues
raised and determined in the prior representation proceeding may not be litigated
in the complaint proceeding.5 There is therefore no reason, justification, or au-
thority for relitigating these issues in the instant proceeding. Moreover, it is
equally clear that the Trial Examiner is bound by the Board's earlier unit determina-
tion and its ensuing certification of the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the said unite
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, and on the record as a whole, I find
that Respondent's admitted refusal to bargain collectively with the Union, on and
after January 7, 1964, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-
described appropriate unit , constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent,. as described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
4 Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 136 NLRB 1612, 1615, enfd. '310
F. 2d 478 (C.A 10), cert denied 371 U S. 875; see also Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (two cases), 146 NLRB 967, 146 NLRB 972; Midwest Television, Inc, Station
WMBD-AM-FM-TV, 144 NLRB 972
5 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 157-158; N.L.R.B. v.
American Steel Buck Corp., 227 F. 2d 927, 929 (CA. 2).
e Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 141 NLRB 337; Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, 142 NLRB 491 ; Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc., 139 NLRB 413;
Royal McBee Corporation, 133 NLRB 1450.
CAPITAL BAKERS, INC 443
the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices tend to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the flee flow of
commerce
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the act
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act
2 Local 464, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 All production, maintenance, warehouse, and shipping employees, including
receiver, mixers, preparers, bakers, wrappers, packagers, shippers, maintenance
mechanics, and watchmen of the Employer at the Paxton Street, Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania, plant, but excluding all office clerical employees, driver salesmen, truckdrivers,
garage mechanics, retail stole clerks, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act
4 Since on or about November 1, 1963, the Union has been and continues to be
the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforementioned
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act
5 By refusing, on and after January 7, 1964, to bargain collectively with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act
6 By refusing to bargain with the above-named Union, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Capital Bakers, Inc,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 464, American Bakery & Confec-
tionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of its employees in the following appropriate unit
All production, maintenance, warehouse, and shipping employees, including
receiver, mixers, preparers, bakers, wrappers, packagers, shippers, maintenance
mechanics, and watchmen of the Employer at the Paxton Street, Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania, plant, but excluding all office clerical employees, driver salesmen truckdrivers,
garage mechanics, retail store clerks and supervisors as defined in the Act
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of the aforesaid Union to
bargain collectively with Respondent on behalf of the employees in the appropriate
unit
2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Local 464, American Bakery & Con-
fectionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment,
and upon reouest, embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached
(b) Post at its Paxton Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania plant, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix " 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
7In the ei ent tint this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board the words "a
Decision 'nd Order" shall he substituted for the wordy "the Recommended Order of a
Tri21 Ex trainer " In the further ei ent that the Boird's Order he enforced by a decree of
a United Stites Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Fnforeing an Order" will be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order"
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent , shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Trial Examiner's Decision the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Direc-
tor, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order,8 the
National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the
aforesaid action.
8 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with Local 464, American
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate unit
described below , concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work , and other
terms and conditions of employment , and we will , upon request , embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached . The bargaining unit is:
All production , maintenance , warehouse , and shipping employees, in-
cluding receiver , mixers, preparers , bakers, wrappers, packagers , shippers,
maintenance mechanics , and watchmen of the Employer at the Paxton
Street , Harrisburg, Pennsylvania , plant, but excluding all office clerical
employees , driver salesmen , truckdrivers , garage mechanics , retail store
clerks, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the efforts of the above-
named Union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said Union
as the representative of our employees in the appropriate unit.
CAPITAL BAKERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 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, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Western Meat Packers , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634,
AFL-CIO . Case No. 07-CA-1460. August 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 16, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
148 NLRB No. 52.