Clay City Beverages, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 681 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

CLAY CITY BEVERAGES , INC. 681
Clay City Beverages, Inc. and International Molders
& Allied Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Cases
8-CA-5100 and 8-CA-5108
June 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
returned them to Paxton , who in turn delivered the
cards to a representative of the Union . On July 23,
1968, Paxton was discharged , and on the following
day the Union unsuccessfully requested recognition
and bargaining with the Respondent on the basis of
its status as the majority representative of the
employees in an appropriate unit . On July 25, 1968,
because of the discharge of Paxton and the
Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with
the Union , the employees went out on a strike,
which continued until September 23, 1968.
On February 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Thomas S.
Wilson 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
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner' s Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner 's Decision and a brief in support.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner 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 , the brief, and
the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith.
The F acts
The Respondent operates a small plant in
Zanesville, Ohio, where it bottles soft drinks for
wholesale distribution throughout the immediate
area . The majority of the stock of the Respondent is
owned by Okey Johnson , but the actual operation of
the plant and the distribution of its products is
controlled by his sons , Richard and Bradley
Johnson . The Respondent normally employs
approximately 12 employees in its production
operations , exclusive of supervisors , clerical
employees and salesmen.'
In the middle of July 1968, following some talk
concerning unionization among the Respondent's
employees , Lloyd Paxton , a filler operator , obtained
authorization cards from a representative of the
Union . On the evening of July 19, 1968 , 10 of the
employees met in a vacant yard , and after some
discussion Paxton distributed the authorization
cards . All 10 of the employees signed the cards and
w th the Trial Examiner 's finding that the unit stipulated to
by the parties , consisting of all production and maintenance employees
employed at the Respondent 's plant at Zanesville, Ohio, excluding all
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, is a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
176 NLRB No. 91
The 8(a)(1) Conduct
We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that
the Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act
by the interrogation of employee Roy Agin, and by
the letter it directed to its employees engaged in an
unfair labor practice strike threatening them with
discharge unless they abandoned their strike and
returned to work by August 5, 1968. As to the latter
violation , the Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to
make a conclusion of law, and we shall , accordingly,
modify his Conclusions of Law and Recommended
Order to this extent . We similarly find , in agreement
with the Trial Examiner, that an additional violation
of Section 8(a)(l) ensued from the remarks made by
Okey Johnson to Union Organizer Kisner on
August 14, 1968, to the effect that the strikers
would be reinstated only if the Union abandoned its
demand for recognition and bargaining , and that
Paxtofl would not be reinstated at all because he
was the "instigator" of the Union and the strike. At
the time Okey Johnson made these remarks, the
Respondent had already threatened the employees
with discharge for failure to abandon the strike, and
conditioning their right to further employment upon
a total renunciation of their union activities and
desires for collective bargaining constituted a further
act of interference, restraint , and coercion.
For the reasons set forth herein , we also adopt the
Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
violated Section 8(axl) by failing to pay to the
employees who participated in the strike the $10
bonus it paid to the employees who remained at
work . Considering the evidence in the posture most
favorable to the Respondent ' s contention that it had
promised the employees a $10 bonus when
production reached 4 ,000 cases a day, and that this
production figure was reached on July 24, 1969, we
find that the strikers were employed and working on
the day the bonus was earned and accrued.
Accordingly , the Respondent's payment of the
bonus only to those who desisted from strike activity
violated the Act.
The 8(a)(3) Conduct
Contrary to the contention of the Respondent, we
find that the record adequately supports the Trial
Examiner ' s findings that the Respondent was fully
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aware of the union activities of Lloyd Paxton and
the extent of his participation in the organizing
campaign, and that Paxton's union activities were
the motivating and immediate cause for his
discharge. During the course of the unlawful
interrogation of Roy Agin by the Johnson brothers
on the evening of July 22, 1968, Agin identified
Paxton as the employee who had the authorization
cards, and he also informed the Johnson brothers
that all the employees had signed cards. When
Paxton appeared at work on the following morning
he was immediately called to the office and
summarily discharged. At the meeting of August 14,
1968, Union organizer Kisner renewed the Union's
request for recognition and bargaining, and he also
requested that the Respondent reinstate Paxton. In
response to the latter request Okey Johnson replied
that the Respondent would never take Paxton back
because he was the "instigator" of the Union and
the strike, and Paxton was responsible for
destroying a valuable piece of property.
The Respondent contends that Okey Johnson's
reference to the destruction of property supports its
contention that Paxton was discharged for
unsatisfactory operation of the bottling machine. We
agree with the Trial Examiner that there is no merit
to this contention. Moreover, assuming that Okey
Johnson's refusal to reinstate Paxton was based in
part on grounds of his alleged unsatisfactory
performance on the bottling machine, this fact
would not justify a finding that his discharge was
not unlawful where as here the discharge was
motivated at least in substantial part by his union
activities.'
The 8(aX5) Conduct
We find, in accord with the Trial Examiner, that
when the Union demanded recognition and
bargaining on July 24, 1968, it represented an
uncoerced majority of the employees in the
stipulated appropriate unit, and that the
Respondent's rejection of the demand was
motivated, not by a good-faith doubt of the Union's
majority, but by a rejection of the
collective-bargaining principle and a desire to gain
time to undermine the Union's majority.' The
Respondent contends, nevertheless, that it was not
obligated to recognize or bargain with the Union
because Richard Sanders, who it contends is a
supervisor, participated in the Union's organizing
campaign.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that
Sanders' change from a salaried to an hourly paid
position at or about the time Fred Tahyi was hired
in February 1968, did not, without more, deprive
him of his supervisory responsibilities and authority.
1N.L.R v. Great Eastern Color Lithographic Corp.. 309 F.2d 352
(C.A. 2), enfg. 133 NLRB 911, cert . denied 373 U.S. 950.
'Joy Sift Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied
341 U.S. 914.
Sanders testified, without contradiction, that his
duties and responsibilities after his change to hourly
paid status were "about the same", and that he
"still had the right to hire and fire and was over the
boys." Every other witness who testified at the
hearing, including the employees, stated that at all
times Sanders had authority both to hire or fire and
authority to direct the work of the employees. We
find, accordingly, that Sanders was a supervisor at
all times material to this case, and we shall exclude
him from the bargaining unit.
Having found Sanders to be a supervisor, it does
not necessarily follow, however, that his signing of
an authorization card and limited participation in
the organizing campaign is sufficient to taint the
authorizations signed by the employees. The
organizing campaign was of extremely limited .
duration, having begun in mid-July and culminating
on July 19, 1968, when 10 employees attended a
meeting in a vacant lot. Sanders engaged in some
lunch-time conversations with employees about the
Union. He attended the July 19 meeting, signed a
card, and considering the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Respondent's contention, Sanders
also answered questions of an unspecified nature
while present at the meeting . Nevertheless, Paxton
obtained the cards from the Union, and he alone
solicited the signatures. The authorization cards
were returned to Paxton, and he made them
available to the Union. In addition, Sanders was a
low-level supervisor, and testimony indicated that
the Respondent was in no way chargeable with
Sanders participating in the campaign. Under these
circumstances, and particularly as the record fails to
show the nature of Sanders' statements during the
lunch-time conversations and at the July 19 meeting,
we find that Sanders' participation in the organizing
campaign did not taint the cards of the employees,'
and since the invalidation of his card alone does not
reduce the number of valid cards below a majority,
we shall adopt the Trial Examiner's findings and
Recommended Order with respect to the refusal to
bargain.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following is substituted for the Trial
Examiner's fourth Conclusion of Law:
4. By interrogating its employees regarding their
union membership and activity, by refusing to pay
to strikers the same $10 bonus for prestrike
production achievement that was paid to
nonstrikers, as an economic reprisal for engaging in
a strike, and by threatening its employees engaged
in an unfair labor practice strike with discharge in a
letter dated August 2, 1968, the Respondent has
engaged in interference, restraint and coercion in
violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
erT v. N.L.R B.. 149 NLRB 1283, enfd . 363 F.2d 702, cert.
denied 385 U.S. 973.
CLAY CITY BEVERAGES, INC. 683
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the
Respondent , Clay City Beverages , Inc., Zanesville,
Ohio, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner ' s Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c) of
the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order:
"(c) Interrogating its employees with regard to
their union membership and activity, threatening
them with discharge unless they abandon protected
activities, conditioning their reinstatement upon
abandonment of protected activities , and refusing to
pay a bonus to employees because they engaged in
protected activities."
2. Add the following as paragraph 1(d) of the
Trial Examiner' s Recommended Order:
"(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
3. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right • to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
4. Insert the following immediately above the last
paragraph of the Recommended Order:
"3. All allegations in the complaint not
specifically found herein are hereby dismissed."
5. Substitute the following for the fourth indented
paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with
regard to their union membership and activity,
threaten them with discharge unless they abandon
protected activities , condition their reinstatement
upon abandonment of protected activities , refuse
to pay them a bonus because they engaged in
protected activities, or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join , or assist International Molders &
Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
a representative of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as authorized by Section 8(aX3) of
the Act, as amended.
6. Add the following as the last indented
paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL notify the above-named employee, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of his right to full reinstatement,
upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Statement of the Case
THOMAS S . WILSON, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge in
Case 8-CA-5100 duly filed on July 29, 1968, and a charge
in Case 8-CA-5108 duly filed on August 2, 1968, and
thereafter amended on August 21, 1968, by International
Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the Union or Charging Party, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board , hereinafter
referred to as the General Counsel.' and the Board,
respectively , by the Regional Director for Region 8,
Cleveland, Ohio , issued its consolidated complaint dated
September 20, 1968, against Clay City Beverages, Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as the Respondent.
The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(aXl), (3), and
(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, as amended , herein referred to as the
Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint but denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held before
me in Zanesville , Ohio, on November 13, 1968 . All parties
appeared at the hearing , were represented by counsel, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
material and pertinent to the issues . At the conclusion of
the hearing, oral argument was waived. Briefs were
received from Respondent and from General Counsel on
December 23, 1968.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of'the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted , and I find
that : Clay City Beverages, Inc., is now, and has been at
all times material herein, a corporation duly organized
under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Ohio, engaged in bottling and wholesale distribution of
soft drinks- at its Zanesville , Ohio, location . Annually, in
the course and conduct of its business , Respondent
receives at its place of business in Zanesville, Ohio, goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located
outside the State of Ohio.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent is now, and has
been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in
'This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
H. THE UNION INVOLVED
International Molders & Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
From the point of view of the employees this case
begins about the middle of July 1968. From the point of
view of the Respondent the case supposedly begins before
Thanksgiving 1967.
For some years Respondent 's bottling works in
Zanesville, Ohio, had been owned and operated by Okey
Johnson (Okey) as Chairman of the Board and his sons,
Richard Johnson (Richard ) as president and general
manager , and Bradley Johnson (Brad) as secretary and
plant manager . According to the testimony of Richard,
Okey held the controlling financial interest in the business
of Respondent but had not participated in the
management of the business for some years prior to the
events here because of a problem with alcohol although he
remained as Chairman of the Board of Respondent. Okey
was not called as a witness here.
Exclusive of the Johnsons, Respondent' s plant was
operated by 11 production and maintenance employees
and 1 transport driver . In accordance with the stipulation
of the parties I find that these 11 production and
maintenance employees and 1 transport driver constitute
the appropriate unit herein.
Prior to some indefinite date in May 1968,
Respondent 's filler or bottling machine had been an old
one of German make . As Richard Sanders, one of
Respondent's senior employees in point of service and at
the time of the hearing either Respondent's assistant plant
manager or assistant production manager, , described it,
"the old machine was kind of hard to run anyway. It was
not the best." Fred Tahyi, temporarily also a production
manager, described the machine as "worn out." The
infirmities of the machine were those not unknown to
numerous bottling companies : partly filled bottles, caps
askew, foreign objects in the bottle contents, and not
infrequent machine breakdowns.
About Thanksgiving time in 1967 Brad Johnson took
the problems to the manufacturer of the machine who, not
unnaturally , assured Brad that the trouble was with the
operator and not the machine . Despite this assurance,
however, the manufacturer rebuilt the feeder head of the
machine twice thereafter in the year 1967 . Finally about
February 1968 Respondent decided to replace that
machine with a newly rebuilt one. The date the newly
rebuilt machine actually replaced the old one was left
highly indefinite in this record although the evidence
indicates that it must have been sometime during the
month of May 1968. Between February 1967 and July 23,
1968, Lloyd Paxton was the bottling machine operator
following his promotion from the position of a transport
driver.
In the latter part of February 1968, one Fred Tahyi
sold the beverage business he conducted in Coshocton,
mesons and Sanders used both titles indiscriminately to describe
both the job Sanders held prior to April 1968 as well as the "new" job he
received on July 23, 1968.
Ohio, to Respondent and accepted a job thereafter with
Respondent which, according to Tahyi and Johnson, was
supposed to be that of production manager. Tahyi
apparently replaced Richard Sanders as such assistant
production manager, a salaried position which Sanders
had been filling prior to the hiring of Tahyi. At or about
the time of Tahyi's employment Sanders suddenly lost his
salaried position and became an hourly paid employee.
During this period Sanders was ordered to show Tahyi
how to run Respondent's machinery. However about the
end of April and before the arrival of the new bottling
machine Tahyi left Respondent's employ. Sanders
remained a rank-and-file hourly paid employee until he
was offered a "new" position of assistant plant manager
or assistant production manager on a salary basis on the
evening of July 22, 1968.
About the middle of July, following some talk of
unionization among the employees, Lloyd Paxton secured
some union authorization cards from a local union official
employed in a nearby plant.
After work on Friday, July 19, through notice by word
of mouth in the plant, 10 of Respondent's production and
maintenance employees, including Richard Sanders,
gathered at a vacant lot located at Fifth Street and
Howard Avenue in Zanesville, 1-1/2 blocks from
Respondent's plant, where Paxton passed out the union
authorization cards to the employees and with the help of
Richard Sanders explained what they were. All 10 of the
employees present signed and witnessed this signing of
these unambiguous union authorization cards. Those
employees attending and signing such authorization cards
were employees Roy Agin, David Bonifield, James
Dobbins, Terry Dobbins, Homer Keiffer, Dennis
Moorehead, Lloyd Paxton, Richard Sanders, Robert
Seenes, and David Vandenbark. The cards so executed
were given to Paxton who thereafter delivered the signed
cards to his friend, the union official.
As employee Roy Agin was about to get into his
automobile parked across the street from the plant after
work on the evening of Monday, July 22, Richard and
Brad Johnson called him back across the street in front of
the plant and asked him what he knew about the Union.
At first Agin denied knowing anything about the Union.
Richard then stated that he knew the employees "were
trying to get a union in" and wanted "to know who all
were involved in it." He also stated that a union would
cause nothing but trouble in the plant. Agin then told the
Johnsons that Lloyd Paxton was "the one that had the
cards" and that all the employees had signed them.
Richard assured Agin that he, Richard, "would not say
anything to anybody that he had had that conversation"
with Agin and Agin agreed to say nothing about it either.
The conversation ended on this note.
Later that same evening of Monday, July 22, the
Johnsons telephone Richard Sanders at Sanders' home
while he was bathing after work and asked him to return
to the plant in order that they might talk to Sanders
about "moving up a step." When Sanders returned to the
plant Richard asked Sanders how Sanders "would like to
become . . . Brad 's assistant production manager" on a
stated salary because they thought Sanders would be "the
best" for the job with his knowledge of plant operations
due to his long tenure in the plant. Sanders said that he
would discuss the salary with his wife and would let the
Johnsons know the next morning . During this discussion
the Johnsons expressed the opinion that Lloyd Paxton
"was not doing the job he should be doing" and that they
thought they were going to let Paxton go. With that
CLAY CITY BEVERAGES, INC.
Sanders left the plant.
On July 23 when Paxton appeared for work as usual,
Brad took him into the office and told him in front of
Richard that "the bottles were going down the line with
crowns not on properly; they were not properly cap
[Paxton] had been sitting around too much and is]
services were no longer needed ." Brad then handed him a
check for 45 hours work so that Paxton could look for
another job. He has not been reinstated since.
On July 24 Union Organizer Clayton E. l isner
appeared in Zanesville in response to a telephone call
from Paxton notifying him of the signed authorization
cards and his own discharge . At noon he and Paxton met
the employees at lunch across the street from the plant.'
Although the employees talked in favor of immediate
strike because of the discharge of Paxton , Kisner
requested time for him to tall! to the Johnsons about
recognition and reinstatement before any action was
taken.
Although he was then in the immediate vicinity of the
plant, Kisner chose to telephone Richard Johnson. Over
the phone Kisner asked for recognition as he had signed
union authorization cards for "a majority (10 out of 12)
of the twelve employees" in the stipulated appropriate
unit . After some talk as to how this majority could be
verified, Richard said that he could do nothing because his
lawyer was out of town.
That evening following this telephone call, Kisner and
Paxton again met with eight employees at Putman Hill
Park where Kisner reported to them his lack of success
with Richard. The employees present decided to strike the
plant the next morning.'
At 7 a.m. on July 25 employees Agin, Vandenbark,
Bonifield , Terry Dobbins, and Jim Dobbins went out on
strike and with Paxton began picketing the plant. The
other employees returned to work apparently being
bothered by the financial loss to them in engaging in such
a strike.
On July 26, having been unable to reach Richard by
telephone, Kisner telephoned Okey Johnson . Again Kisner
explained that he represented a majority of the employees
and requested recognition by Respondent and
reinstatement of Paxton. Okey answered that he and "the
boys" (Richard and Brad ) would have a meeting the next
Monday and would talk the matter over with
Respondent 's attorney who was in charge of the matter.
That concluded the telephone call.
Also on July 26, 1968, Respondent rewarded each of
the employees then working in the plant with a $10 bonus.
On Monday evening , July 29, Kisner telephoned
Richard at his home and asked him if Respondent had
come to any decision on recognition and reinstatement.
Richard indignantly refused to discuss business from his
home , telling Kisner that he would only conduct business
in his office , and hung up the telephone.
On August 1 Richard saw Agin , Vandenbark, Terry
Dobbins, and Bonifield still on the picket line and invited
them to return to work. They refused . On Friday, August
2, Respondent wrote each of them the following letter:
We are asking you to return to your job Monday,
August 5, 1968, at 7:00 A.M.. This is the last date your
job will be held for you.
'Sanders was not present at this or any other subsequent meeting of the
employees.
'The employees present were Terry Dobbins , Dave Vandenbark , Paxton,
James Dobbins, Robert Seenes , Homer • Keiffer , Roy Agin, and David
Bonifield.
685
This renews our request of last Friday to return to
work.
If you fail to report for work on Monday morning,
we will consider your employment terminated and all
connection with our company ended.
None of the four remaining pickets returned to work.
Then on August 14 Kisner, through the intervention of
one Cecil C. Fulton , a good friend of Okey ' s and a former
retired official of the local union , met with Fulton and
Okey in the plant office . Upon being asked for recognition
and for the reinstatement of Paxton , Okey stated that
Respondent would take the four remaining strikers back
to work provided that Kisner forgot the whole thing and
went back to his base at Marion , Ohio. Kisner refused
that offer . Okey also stated that Respondent would never
take Paxton back even if they had to go to the highest
court possible on the grounds that he was "the instigator"
of the Union and of the strike and was responsible for
destroying a very valuable piece of property..
Richard saw Okey driving himself to and from this
meeting in his automobile. Both he and Brad knew that
®Okey was meeting with Kisner , the union organizer, in
Respondent' s office but, as Richard testified, " . . I
stayed out of the office especially ." There is undenied
testimony that Richard and Brad were invited to
participate in the meeting but refused.
under date of September 18, 1968 , Respondent sent
each of the four remaining pickets the following letter:
We are asking you to return to your job Monday,
September 23, 1968, at 7 :00 A.M .. This offer is
unconditional.
The company has continued to carry on your
insurance program in your absence . You have lost no
other benefits which you have acquired during the
course of your employment with us.
It is our sincere hope that you will accept this offer.
In response all four of these employees returned to
work . Subsequently two of them voluntarily left
Respondent's employ.
B. Conclusions
1. Discharge of Paxton
From February 1967 to July 23, 1968, Lloyd Paxton
operated Respondent's bottling machine following his
promotion from his former transport driver position. The
Johnsons admit that his services on the filling machine for
the first half of that period had been satisfactory.
Moreover neither Johnson could recall ever having
criticized his work to Paxton during that whole period.
Then on July 19, a Friday, by word of mouth Paxton
gathered 9 of the other 11 production and maintenance
employees in an open field 1-1/2 blocks from the plant,
explained the Union and its authorization cards to the
assembled employees, and succeeded in having all of them
execute unambiguous cards authorizing the Union to
bargain on their behalf. Richard Sanders was one of the
employees executing such authorization cards at this
meeting.
On Monday evening, July 22, employee Roy Agin
testified that Richard and Brad asked him about the
Union and who were involved and that he informed them
that Paxton had brought the union cards and had signed
up all the employees. Both Agin and Richard agreed that
the conversation would be kept secret.' The next morning,
'Both Johnsons subsequently flatly denied that any such conversation
occurred.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
July 23, Paxton was precipitously discharged allegedly for
poor workmanship.
Subsequently on August 14, Okey Johnson,
Respondent's Chairman of the Board, rather vehemently
refused the Union's request for the reinstatement of
Paxton on the grounds that he was "the instigator" of the
Union and of the strike and the destroyer of valuable
property.'
With the above evidence General Counsel has proved a
strong prima facie case of a typical type of discriminatory
discharge . The weak spot in the case , if any, appears to be
the question of Respondent ' s knowledge of Paxton 's union
activity prior to his discharge . This, of course, is amply
supplied by the Agin-Richard and Bradley conversation on
the evening of July 22 to the effect that Paxton was the
instigator of the union effort and the strike and by the
admission on August 14 that Paxton had been fired
because he was such instigator . The trouble , if any, as to
these pieces of evidence arises because both Richard and
Bradley denied flatly that they had had any conversation
on July 22 with Agin and also claimed that Okey was a
chronic alcoholic and on August 14 was "completely
inebriated." This testimony naturally creates a credibility
question as to both the above pieces of evidence.
In addition to the credibility problems thus raised,
Respondent in its brief argues that the refusal -to-bargain
allegation must be dismissed with the following argument:
It is submitted, however, that whether or not the
company had a good faith doubt as to the Union's
majority status, there is no violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act for another reason. Due to the active
participation and leadership of Richard Sanders in its
organization campaign, the Union, on July 24 did not
represent a majority of the employees within the
bargaining unit . As is stated in ATI Warehouse, 169
NLRB No. 75, 67 LRRM 1256 (1968):
It is well settled that cards obtained with the direct
and open assistance of a supervisor are invalid for such
purposes . (For the purpose of a bargaining request.)
However , if this argument be sound , the problem of
Respondent ' s knowledge of Paxton ' s union activites is
likewise solved because , as a supervisor , Sanders' admitted
knowledge of Paxton ' s union activities would be imputed
to Respondent as a supervisor 's knowlege is that of the
employer.
Despite the brief ' s claim "there is no question as to
Richard Sanders' supervisory position," the only trouble
with this theory of imputed knowledge is that the above
fact so stated by Respondent is incorrect in that for
several months prior to receiving his "step up" to
assistant plant or assistant production manager on July
23, Sanders had been reduced to the status of an ordinary
hourly paid employee without supervisory authority which
during his employment by Respondent had passed to Fred
Tahyi. In fact it was this reduction to an hourly paid
status which caused Sanders to become interested in the
Union. As such ordinary rank-and-file employee the Act
guaranteed Sanders the right to engage in union activities
as of that time.
However, Sanders testified that he never told the
Johnsons of this union organizational activity because, as
he put it, "I wasn't going to tell Richard or Brad because
I figured they would find out for themselves and all in due
'This last must have been a reference to Respondent's business because
there is no evidence in this record to the effect that Paxton destroyed or
injured any machinery.
time." Regardless of the fact that Sanders testified that he
had never informed the Johnsons of his attendance at the
July 19 meeting until the very day Respondent called him
as a witness at the hearing, I find no reason to disbelieve
Sanders on that point although doubting the last part of
his testimony.
Sanders' testimony, however , strongly suggests that due
to the smallness of the plant with only 12 production and
maintenance employees the Johnsons were bound to learn
quickly of any and all union activities therein. I must
agree . In a plant of this size it is, of course, possible, but
highly improbable, that Respondent would not become
aware almost immediately of the existence of union
activity therein. Miracles do happen-but infrequently.
Leaving for the moment this disputed question of
knowledge, the Johnsons also contended that for the last
half of his tenure on the bottling machine, the complaints
of Paxton's work "increased progressively" so that as
early as November 1967, Richard and Brad began serious
consideration of dismissing Paxton for poor workmanship.
According to both the Johnsons, they became convinced
that the troubles in bottling were those of Paxton and not
those of the old German machine when its manufacturer,
without having seen the machine , so informed them.
Despite this alleged conviction that the trouble was
Paxton's, the facts disclose that thereafter the machine
manufacturer rebuilt the feeder head on the machine-
not once but indeed twice- and still the trouble
continued. Thus the facts justify Tahyi's appraisal that the
machine was "worn out" and Sanders ' that the machine
"was not the best." In fact the Johnsons themselves
decided in February a new machine was necessary. This
history is quite sufficient proof that the problem
Respondent here attempts to blame upon Paxton was that
of the machine and not of the operator.
The Johnsons' contention that the volume of complaints
"increased progressively " right up to the end of Paxton's
employment is at odds with the testimony of Respondent's
own sales manager, Richard Glaub , who testified that
"normal complaints" continued throughout Paxton's
employment but that he knew of "no increase" therein. It
is noteworthy that Glaub was not asked and therefore did
not testify about the sales meeting supposedly held on July
22 where the increase in the complaints, according to the
Johnsons, finally caused them to decide to discharge
Paxton. If anyone would know of complaints about the
merchandise sold, it would be the sales manager.
Because of the disparity between the testimony of
Glaub and the Johnsons, I have grave doubts that the
sales meeting of July 22 ever took place and that the
complaints "progressively increased."
The Johnsons further testified that they began searching
for an experienced operator of bottling machines to
replace Paxton as early as November 1967. This search
was finally consummated on July 29, 1 week after Paxton
had been discharged, when Respondent hired a returned
serviceman with absolutely no experience on a bottling
machine, although the Johnsons testified that such
experience was a necessity.
Respondent attempts to explain its delay in hiring a
replacement for the allegedly inefficient Paxton on the
fortuitous fact that in February 1968, it bought our
Tahyi's bottling business in Coshocton and employed
Tahyi with alleged plans to make Tahyi assistant
production manager replacing Sanders who in turn would
replace Paxton. Tahyi, in effect, collaborated this
testimony by the Johnsons albeit, in my opinion, with
CLAY CITY BEVERAGES, INC.
some embarrassment.
°' Be that as it may, this so-called plan was never
implemented beyond the fact that Sanders was promptly
reduced to a rank -and-file hourly employee upon the
employment of Tahyi . Paxton continued to be the bottling
machine operator without change despite the employment
of Tahyi . No one except the Johnsons and, perhaps, Tahyi
ever heard of this alleged plan . Its implementation was
nil. As a matter of fact neither Johnson could recall an
instance where Paxton's work during this whole period
had ever been criticized to Paxton himself. Thus it seems
that Paxton continued to operate even the newly installed
machine without criticism from the Johnsons at least until
the evening of July 22.
The Johnsons maintained that Respondent had "hired"
Patric McDaniel , the returned serviceman , who ultimately
replaced Paxton as bottling machine operator , before it
discharged Paxton . This contention is contrary to the
testimony of McDaniel . McDaniel ' s testimony proved that
sometime early in July he had , by chance, run into Brad
in the vicinity of their respective homes and that Brad had
suggested that Respondent might have employment for
him if he was interested . At that time McDaniel was not
interested because he had just been released from service
and preferred to "free lance ." McDaniel , in fact,
continued to vacation until July 26 when he went to an
employment agency where he found only two possible jobs
listed , one of which was the job with Respondent . On that
.same day McDaniel went to the Respondent ' s plant, asked
Brad for the job , and got it . But Paxton had been
discharged at least 3 days before. Thus Respondent's
alleged long search for a filling machine operator begun in
November 1967 ended . This long "search" has all the
appearance of being the figment of someone's
imagination.
According to Brad , "one of the main things [causing
the decision to discharge Paxton] was that a sales meeting
is held at the plant every Monday morning . There were so
many complaints at that time [July 22 ]" that the Johnsons
determined to discharge Paxton . Brad testified that the
final decision to discharge Paxton was made between 7:30
and 8 a . m. July 22 . On this Richard disagreed testifying
that the decision was made, after a day long discussion,
during the evening of July 22. The importance of the July
22 sales meeting in the making of the decision is greatly
diminished by Brad ' s other testimony that he had begun
looking for a replacement as early as November 1967, by
his claim that he had hired McDaniel on July 19, and by
Glaub's testimony . The promotion of Sanders during the
evening of July 22 tends to confirm Richard 's testimony
that the decision on Paxton also occurred during that
same personnel meeting . Of course , if Richard is correct
in this as it seems he was, the decision to discharge
Paxton occurred after the Johnsons ' conversation with
Agin.
In any event it is clear that the decision to discharge
Paxton was a precipitous , hurried, and
on-the-spur-of-the-moment decision for the reason that it
was made without there being a replacement in sight.
There seems no question but that the decision was made
on the spur of the moment and as a result of some
momentous event such as the discovery that Paxton was
the instigator of the Union.
Richard also maintained that Zanesville suffered a very
severe storm on July 22 which caused the loss of three
"trees on the theory, apparently , that an outside
conversation such as Agin described would be impossible
687
in such weather. Strangely only Richard mentioned this
storm. Richard further testified that on July 22 he made
two trips to Newark, Ohio, but even the times he gave in
regard to these trips would have gotten him back to
Zanesville in time to hold the Agin conversation at the
time Agin said it happened.
In sum , the above has caused me to view the testimony
of both Johnsons with skepticism. Accordingly, as Agin
gave all appearances of a witness telling the truth, I credit
his testimony that the Johnsons asked him about 4-4:30
p.m. on July 22 what he knew about the Union and were
told that Paxton had obtained the union authorization
cards and gotten all the employees to sign them. I,
therefore, discredit the Johnsons' flat denials thereof.
In the light of the Johnsons' subsequent treatment of
the Union's request for recognition, the Agin conversation
was just such an event as would have triggered the sudden
discharge of Paxton.
Richard and Brad attempted to discredit Okey's
admission that Paxton was discharged by Respondent
because he was the "instigator" of the Union and of the
strike by testimony, no doubt true, that Okey was an
admitted alcoholic and that on August 14 was
`completely inebriated." If this last were true, then
Richard's action in permitting Okey to drive his Cadillac
in that known condition away from the plant, at least,
verged upon actionable negligence. However the fact
remains that even inebriates can and do tell the truth. On
this occasion I am convinced that on August 14 Okey was
in fact telling the truth.
Under all the facts here I am convinced, and therefore
find that Respondent discharged Lloyd Paxton because of
his known membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union in violation of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act.
2. Interference , restraint , and coercion
There is no question but the action of Okey Johnson on
August 14 in conditioning the reinstatement of the
employees still engaging in an unfair labor practice strike
against Respondent caused by Respondent ' s unfair labor
practices and in discriminating against Lloyd Paxton
because of his union activities upon the agreement of the
union representative to return to his base in Marion,
Ohio, and "forgetting the whole thing" amounted to
interference with , and restraint and coercion of
Respondent's employees in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act . I so find
Nor can there be any doubt but that Respondent's
letter to the strikers dated August 2, 1968, threatening, as
it did, the strikers with loss of employment unless they
abandoned their unfair labor practice strike by the
following Monday also constituted a violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act. I so find.
It was stipulated that on July 26, 1968, the day after
the strike began, Respondent paid each of its employees
then working in the plant after having crossed the picket
line the sum of $10.
Respondent maintained that at some indefinite date in
the past Brad had promised the employees a $10 bonus
whenever production reached 4 ,000 cases per day and that
on July 24 production did in fact reach 4,000 cases for the
first and only time in Respondent ' s history. As
Respondent was working shorthanded on July 24
following the discharge of Paxton , it is somewhat hard to
believe that this absolutely unique production record was
set that day. It is also hard to believe that such a record
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was not memorialized in Respondent ' s business records
and that such records would not be produced at the
hearing to corroborate the oral testimony of the Johnsons.
No corroboration of this type was offered . I am inclined
to believe that the $10 paid was paid by Respondent as a
bonus to those employees who were working behind the
picket line . If in fact a record was established by the
production of July 24, then by failing to pay that same
bonus to employees, then on the picket line but who had
participated in the setting of that record , Respondent
obviously engaged in economic reprisals against them
because of their engaging in the strike . In either event
Respondent' s action amounted to interference , restraint,
and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In order , therefore , to restore the status quo I am going
to order Respondent to pay the employees on the picket
line on July 25 who had worked in the plant when the
alleged production record was set on July 24 the sum of
$10 each.
3. The refusal to bargain
a. Appropriate unit and majority
The parties stipulated that the unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining at Respondent's plant
consisted of the following:
All production and maintenance employees employed at
Respondent's Zanesville , Ohio bottling plant, excluding
all office clerical employees , professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The parties agreed also that there were 12 production and
maintenance employees employed in the above-found
appropriate unit.'
On July 19, 10 of Respondent ' s employees in the
appropriate unit, at that time including Richard Sanders,
voluntarily signed authorization cards reading in full as
follows:
I hereby authorize the INTERNATIONAL
MOLDERS and ALLIED WORKERS UNION,
A.F.L.-C. I.O. to represent me and, in my behalf, to
negotiate all agreements or contracts in regard to
wages, hours and working conditions.
Consequently at the time the Union made its request of
Respondent for recognition on July 24 , the Union
represented a large majority of all Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit . The inclusion of
employee Fox and the subsequent exclusion of Richard
Sanders do not affect the Union ' s majority status at any
time.
Consequently on July 19, 1968, and at all times
thereafter , the Union was the duly authorized bargaining
agent of a majority of the Respondent' s employees in the
stipulated appropriate unit and entitled to recognition and
the right to bargain with Respondent on behalf of the
employees in that unit.
b. The refusal
Respondent ' s refusal to bargain with the Union is
crystal clear . Respondent never intended to bargain and
succeeded in not doing so through its own deliberate
did disagree as to the inclusion of an employee named Fox
in that appropriate unit. Under the facts of this case it is immaterial
whether or not Fox was or was not included therein.
actions . When first asked to grant recognition,
Respondent through Richard stalled on the ground that
Respondent ' s attorney was out of town . Once having used
this excuse , it became incumbent upon Respondent to
make up its mind and notify the Union of its decision.
This Respondent did not do. Respondent stalled again
when Okey told Kisner that Respondent was having a
meeting the following Monday when it would consult with
its attorney and make up its mind . Again it became
incumbent upon Respondent to notify the Union of its
decision , if any. Again Respondent refused to do so. Then
Kisner telephoned Richard at home in the evening to find
out what decision , if any, Respondent had reached at that
alleged Monday meeting . This time Richard arrogantly
refused to discuss Respondent ' s business at his home.
Finally Respondent ' s Chairman of the Board on August
14 offered to reinstate the remaining strikers conditioned
upon the Union 's getting out of town and "forgetting the
whole thing ." These are not the actions of a party willing
to engage in collective bargaining with the exclusive
representative of a majority of its employees in an
appropriate unit . These actions , individually or
collectively , amount to a refusal to bargain.
As for the instance of August 14 Respondent is
estopped to make its usual excuse for the actions of Okey
because the facts show that both Richard and Brad knew
that its Chairman of the Board was engaged with the
Union obviously on matters concerning collective
bargaining and yet Richard , at least, "especially" stayed
out of the conference , even though invited , thereby
deliberately misleading the Union into believing that it
was dealing with a responsible official of the Respondent.
This is at least as reprehensible as Richard 's permitting a
"completely inebriated man," as Richard described him,
to drive his automobile from the plant on to the public
highways as Richard allowed him to do.
Respondent claims "a reasonable doubt" as to the
Union's majority status . This contention, like the others,
is mere verbiage under the facts here because Respondent
was offered a full and fair opportunity to determine
through the cards that status and deliberately chose not to
avail itself thereof . Self-imposed deception or delusion
does not amount to "a reasonable doubt." Respondent
had no one but itself to blame for any doubt. Respondent
attempts to profit by its own wrongdoing . Respondent had
nothing concrete or tangible upon which to base a
"reasonable doubt" other than its own deliberate refusal
to accept a reasonable means for satisfying itself as to the
Union's majority status.
Accordingly I must , and hereby do, find that on July
24, 1968 , and at all times thereafter , Respondent refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of Respondent ' s employees in the
above-found appropriate unit in violation of Section
8(a)(l) and (5 ) 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 connection with Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship 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.
CLAY CITY BEVERAGES , INC. 689
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Lloyd Paxton by
discharging him on July 23, 1968, because of his known
membership and activities on behalf of the Union, I shall
recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against
him by payment to him a sum of money equal to that
which he would have earned from the date of the
discrimination against him to the date of his
reinstatement , less his net earnings during such period, in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Having found that $10 paid by Respondent on July 26,
allegedly as a bonus for record plant production on July
24, to those employees then working behind the picket line
but not paid to those employees then engaging in the
strike amounted either to a benefit to those employees
then at work for not engaging in the strike or else a
detriment to those then striking for engaging in said
strike , I will order that Respondent pay each of the
employees engaging in the strike who had worked on July
24, the day of the alleged record production , the sum of
$10.
Having found that Respondent refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(aX5) and
(1) of the Act, I will recommend that, upon request,
Respondent recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the appropriate unit below with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an agreement is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit
is:
All production and maintenance employees employed at
Respondent' s Zanesville , Ohio bottling plant, excluding
all office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent, I
will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record , I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Molders & Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Lloyd Paxton by discharging him on July
23, 1968, because of his membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By refusing on July 25, 1968, and at all times
thereafter to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all Respondent' s employees in
the appropriate unit below, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act. The
appropriate is:
All production and maintenance employees employed at
Respondent's Zanesville, Ohio bottling plant, excluding
all office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By interrogating its employees regarding their union
membership and activity, by paying its employees for
working behind the picket line the sum of $10 or refusing
to pay strikers the same $ 10 as an economic reprisal for
engaging in a strike , Respondent has engaged in
interference , restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices effect 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 and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend that Clay City Beverages , Inc., Zanesville,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire or tenure of employment or of any term or
condition of employment of its employees because of their
membership in or activities on behalf of International
Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of their choice.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain with said Union
as the exclusive representative of Respondent 's employees
in the above-mentioned appropriate unit.
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed the employees by the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Lloyd Paxton immediate and unconditional
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the
section hereof entitled "The Remedy," with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum.
(b) Pay the sum of $10 to each of the employees who
went out on strike on July 25, 1968 and who had worked
in the plant on July 24 when allegedly the plant
production record was set.
(c) Upon request, recognize and bargain in good faith
with International Molders & Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
Respondent' s employees in the above-found appropriate
unit and , if agreement is reached , embody said agreement
in a written signed agreement.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Post at its plant in Zanesville , Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to the employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless Respondent
notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from the
receipt hereof it will take the action here recommended,
the Board issue an order directing Respondent to take the
action here recommended.
'In the event that this Recommended order is 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 is 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."
,in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of International Molders & Allied Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging or discriminating in regard to the hire,
tenure , or other terms or conditions of employment of
any of our employees.
WE WILL offer Lloyd Paxton his former or
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges , and we will
pay him for any loss of pay he may have suffered
because of our discrimination against him together with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL pay to each of the employees on strike on
July .26, 1968, who had worked in the plant on July 24,
1968, the sum of $10.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form, join, or assist International
Molders & Allied Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
a representative of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any such activities , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a)(2) of the Act, as amended.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
International Molders & Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement
executing and conforming with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
CLAY CITY BEVERAGES,
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 1695 Federal
Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio
44199, Telephone 216-522-3715.