Crowley's Milk Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 13, 195088 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1950) Copy Citation In the Matter of CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. (PATERSON DIvI- sION) and MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION NuIr- BER 680, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPE11S Or AMERICA, A. F. OF L. and UNITED DAIRY WORKERS ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO THE COTRACT Case No. 2-CA-327.-Decided March 13, 1050 DECISION AND ORDER On October 25, 1949, Trial Examiner Myers D. Campbell, Jr., is- sued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such alle- gations. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, the Union, and the Association filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Laboi Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.,- The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the parties, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, 1 At the Board's direction and without prejudice to the objections of the Respondent and the Association based upon their interpretation of the proviso to Section 10 (b), the Trial Examiner admitted evidence with respect to alleged unfair labor practices, although the events occurred more than 6 months before service of a copy of the charge or amended charge alleging such events. We have considered the aforesaid objections and adhere to the interpretations set forth in Cathey Lumber Co., 86 NLRB 157, and Axelson Manufac- turing Company, 8S NLRB 761. 88 NLRB No. 187. 1049 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions, and order herein set forth. 1. The Trial Examiner found that the speech delivered to the Respondent's employees by its attorney, Lloyd Anderson, on March 16, 1948, constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We cannot agree. The speech, as reported in the record, does not appear in itself or in its context to contain any threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Accordingly, we conclude that it constituted a privileged expression of Anderson's views and was not violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss the com- plaint in this respect. 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent interfered with the Paterson Local of the Association in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act. In so ruling, we rely solely upon the following actions of the Respondent: (a) recognizing the Association as the bargaining representative of its Paterson employees on or about May 11, 1948, when a question concerning their representation was pending before the Board; (b) granting a wage increase of 15 cents ,in hour through the Association at that time; (c) signing a new col- lective bargaining agreement with the Association-on May 12, 1948 ; 2 (d) allowing the Association to use the Respondent's office for Asso- ciation meetings after January 1, 1948; and (e) allowing the Associa- tion to keep its funds in the Respondent's office safe after January 1, 1948.3 4. Like the Trial Examiner, we reject the allegation in the complaint that the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5). At the time that the Union made its demand for recognition on February 18, 1948, the Association had been recognized as the majority representative for more than 2 years, and the Respondent did not know that any of its employees had withdrawn from membership in the Association. In these circumstances we con- clude on this record that the Respondent's failure to recognize the Union because it doubted the Union's majority representation was not in bad faith, and therefore did not constitute a violation of Section 2 Board Member Reynolds does not rely upon factors (d) and (e) in support of his finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (2) of the Act. J Like the Trial Examiner, we conclude that, because the plant was small, management officials were aware of the fact that the office and office safe were being used by the Association. As no complaint could properly issue alleging that the Respondent 's assistance to the Association before January 1, 1948, constituted unfair labor practices, we reject the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to such actions. In so ruling, we do not mean that events which occurred more than 6 months before the filing and service of the charge may not be used for the purposes of background . See Axelson Manufacturing Company, footnote 1, supra. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1051 8 (a) (5) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in that respect.4 4. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the strike which was called by the Union on April 28,1948, was, in its inception, an economic strike. However, unlike the Trial Examiner, we find that the strike became an unfair labor practice strike on May 11, 1948, when the Respondent unlawfully granted the Association recognition, a wage increase, and a new contract.' Remedy We have found that the Respondent by its illegal acts violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act. We are of the opinion, upon the entire record in this case, that the commission in the future of such acts and of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. We shall therefore order that the Respondent cease and desist from, and remedy, such conduct,'' and from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees in Section 7 of the Act.7 We have further found that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent on May 11, 1948, converted the strike of April 28, 1948, from an economic to an unfair labor practice strike. According- ly, the Respondent on and after May 11, 1948, forfeited its right to replace any of the strikers on a permanent basis." The record does not reveal that any of the strikers have requested reinstatement. Nevertheless, in order to remedy the unfair labor practices found to have been committed, we shall direct the Respondent to reinstate the strikers, upon application, to their former or substantially equivalent positions,9 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, if necessary dismissing all replacements hired on or after May 11, 1948, and not employees of the Respondent on that date. We shall also direct the Respondent to make such persons whole for any loss of wages they may suffer as a result of the Respondent's failure to 4In so ruling we are not unmindful of the fact that the Respondent, although not domi- nating the Association , did furnish certain unlawful assistance to it before the Union made its demand for recognition. 5 See Pacific Gamble-Robinson Company, 88 NLRB 482; Cathey Lumber Company, supra, and cases cited therein. 6 Our order herein abrogating the contract of May 12, 1948, between the Respondent and the Association shall not be construed to require the Respondent to vary any substantive provision of such agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder. ' See James R. Kearney Corporation, 81 NLRB 26. 8 See Cathey Lumber Company, supra. See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827, 829. 1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD comply with the reinstatement provisions hereof, less their net earn- ings during this period 10 We expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and rein- statement provisions of our order herein, if such action should be re- quired by specific circumstances not now apparent. ORDER Upon the entire record in the 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, Crowley's Milk Company, Inc. (Paterson Division), Paterson, New Jersey, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interfering with the administration of, or contributing sup- port to, the Paterson Local of United Dairy Workers Association, or interfering with the formation or administration of, or contributing support to, any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Recognizing or in any other manner dealing with the Paterson Local of United Dairy Workers Association, or any successor thereto, as the collective bargaining representative of any of its employees, unless and until such organization shall have been certified as such representative by the Board; (c) Giving effect to its agreement of May 12, 1948, with the Pater- son Local of United Dairy Workers Association, or any extension, renewal, modification, supplement, or other agreement with this labor organization or any successor thereto, unless and until such organiza- tion shall have been certified by the Board as the collective bargaining representative of the employees involved; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union Number 680, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, af- filiated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all 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 in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended. 10 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. CROWLEY"S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1053 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the Paterson Local of United Dairy Workers Association as the collective bargaining representative of any of its employees, unless and until such organi- zation shall have been certified as such representative by the Board; (b) Upon application, offer the strikers reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and make them whole, as provided in the "Remedy" section, above; (c) Post at its plant in Paterson, New Jersey, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A 11 Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (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, clef aced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed, insofar as it alleges that the speech made by Lloyd Anderson on March 16, 1948, was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and that the Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union on February 18, 1948, and thereafter, constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 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 WITHHOLD all recognition from the PATERSON LOCAL OF UNITED DAIRY WORKERS ASSOCIATION, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ- ment, unless and until said organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER ." the words, "A DECREE OP THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT interfere with the administration of or contribute support to the PATERsoN LOCAL OF UNITED DAIRY WORKERS Asso- CIATION, or interfere with the formation or administration of or contribute support to any other labor organization of our em- ployees. WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreement dated May 12, 1948, with the PATERSON LOCAL OF UNITED DAIRY WORKERS ASSOCIA- TION, or to any extension, renewal, modification, supplement, or other agreement with said Association, unless and until said Asso- ciation shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of our employees in an. appropriate unit. AVE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION NUMBER 680, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERIIOOD Or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re- frain from any and all 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 author- ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL upon application reinstate the strikers to the same or substantially equivalent positions and make them whole as pro- vided in the Decision and Order. All our employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. CROWLEY'S MIIJK COMPANY, INC., Employer. By -------------------------------- --- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1055 INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER Warren H. Leland , Esq., and Jerome A. Reiner , Esq., of New York, N. Y., for the General Counsel. Lloyd C. Anderson, Esq., of Binghamton , N. Y., for the Respondent. Thomas L. 1'arsonnet , Esq., of Newark , N. J., for Local Union 680, A. F. of L. Edward G . O'Neill, Esq., of Bennet d O'Neill, of Newburgh , N. Y., for United Dairy , Workers Association. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on July 1, 1948, by Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union Number 680, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Union, the Gen- eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York) issued a complaint, dated March 7, 1948, against Crowley's Milk Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1),. (2), (3),' and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondent, the Union, and the United Dairy Workers Association, herein called the Association. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub- stance: (1) that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by (a) on or about October 1945, initiating, forming, sponsoring, and promoting the Assaciation, (b) and did assist, dominte, contribute support to, and interfere with administration of said Association by certain alleged specific acts, and (c) did negotiate with the Association, and refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union, and that the Respondent did thereby violate Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act. The Respondent duly answered and admitted certain allegations of the com- plaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices, and raised specific affirmative matters in defense including the jurisdiction of the Board to hear and determine the allegations not admitted. The Association duly answered and denied knowledge of certain allegations of the complaint, denied all others, and moved for bill of particulars in certain respects. Prior to the hearing herein, the Respondent filed a motion for bill of par- ticulars, which the undersigned granted in part and denied in part. The General Counsel furnished a bill of particulars and thereafter Respondent filed an amended answer, more particularly reasserting its formed answer. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York, New. York, on April 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21, 1949, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent, the Union, and the Association were represented by counsel and participated in the ' The allegations of the complaint as to violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act were founded upon a supplemental charge filed on October 27, 1948, wherein it was charged that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in that it did discriminate against its employee, John V. Egg. This charge was withdrawn and the allegations of the complaint relating thereto were dismissed by the General Counsel during the hearing. 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The attorneys for the respective parties made opening statements and the Re- spondent then made several specific motions to dismiss the complaint in whole and in part, and to furnished particulars as to certain allegations therein upon various grounds. The Association joined in these proceedings and arguments of all counsel were heard. The undersigned granted some of the motions, denied some of them, and reserved ruling as to the others. The General Counsel fur- nished additional particulars. The undersigned granted motions by Respondent and the Association to ex- clude all evidence relating to the allegations of violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, which occurred prior to 6 months before the original charge was filed. The original charge was filed on July 1, 1948, and the complaint alleged violative matters occurring in October 1945; and the General Counsel offered evidence of violative matters occurring thereafter, during the years 1946, 1947, and in 1948. During the course of the hearing the General Counsel, on April 13, 1949, filed with the Board a Request for Leave to Appeal From the Trial Examiner's Rulings in rejecting evidence offered as background relating to acts, conduct, and mat- ters violative of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, which .occurred more than 6 months prior to the date of the original charge, and re- jecting the offer of proof based thereon. All parties were served at the hearing with copies of this pleading. On April 18, 1949, before the closing of the hearing, the Board served the under- signed and all of the parties with an order reversing the rulings of the under- signed and directing the Trial Examiner to admit evidence of allegedly illegal acts , conduct, and matters which occurred more than 6 months prior to the date of the original charge without prejudice to Respondent's right to renew motions and objections on the record. The Board order provided that "all parties shall have equal opportunity ,to make a full record on these issues and raise them before the Board in accordance with provisions of Section 203.46 of Rules and Regulations." The undersigned complied with the above order of the Board, over the objec- tions of the Respondent and the Association. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent and the Association made numerous specific motions to dismiss the complaint in entirety and in part, upon various grounds. The undersigned denied the majority of the motions and reserved ruling as to the others. The undersigned granted the General Counsel's motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence as to names, dates, places, and other matters not relating to substance. At the close of all the evidence the Respondent and the Association made several specific motions to dismiss the complaint in whole and in part, and motions to strike in whole and in part. The undersigned denied the majority of them and xeserved rulings as to the others. The motions on which ruling was reserved are now disposed of in accordance .with the considerations, findings, and conclusions herein. All parties were granted time for filing briefs and proposed findings of fact and ,conclusions of law. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, ,and the Association. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, and consideration of the contentions of all of the parties, the undersigned makes ;the .following : CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1057 FINDINGS OF FACT" I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, Crowley's Milk Company, Inc. (Paterson Division), a New York corporation, with its principal office and place of business at Binghamton, New York, and a plant in Paterson, New Jersey, herein called the Paterson plant, was and is engaged in the purchasing, processing, manufacturing, and dis- tribution of fluid milk, cream, and related products. In the course and conduct of its business operations of the Paterson plant during the year 1948, the Re- spondent purchased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which ap- proximately 90 percent was transported in interstate commerce from outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period the Respondent produced and sold products, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 2 percent was transported in interstate commerce to States outside the State of New Jersey. The parties agreed and the undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union Number 680 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. United Dairy Workers Association is a labor organization participated in by employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory statements' The Respondent 's principal office and place of business is in Binghamton, New York, and it operates plants at Newburgh , New York, and at Paterson, New Jersey . The Association was certified by the Board, in 1942, as exclusive bargaining agent for Respondent 's production and maintenance employees, with certain exceptions , at the Binghamton plant. Sometime after this certification, the Respondent and the Association entered into contractual relations at the Binghamton plant, and have maintained them up to the present time. In Sep- ember 1945 , a contract was made with the Newburgh , New York, local of the Association . In October 1945 , the Association organized the Paterson, New Jersey, plant and contracts were thereafter effected with Respondent . The three locals joined in negotiations with the Respondent but separate contracts were executed with each local. The contract of 1947 between the Association ( Paterson Local ) and Respond- ent was for a terra 'March 1, 1947 , to February 29, 1948. It provided for auto- matic renewal from year to year unless either party served notice upon the other, 2In making the findings herein, the undersigned has considered and weighed the entire evidence and the contentions of the parties. It would needlessly burden this report to separately evaluate all of the testimony on disputed points. Such testimony or other evidence that conflicts with the findings herein is not credited. 3 This statement is based upon undisputed evidence and stipulations adduced at the hearing, but does not include all that was presented. Other undisputed evidence and stipulations will be discussed in relation to appropriate parts of this report. 1055 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date, of intent to negotiate a con- tract on different terms. On January 22, 1948, the Association sent a letter to Respondent in which it stated it was "ready to negotiate for our 19^eS contract." On February 13 and 14, 1948, 15 of the Respondent's employees signed printed "applications for admission to membership" in the Union. On February 17, 1948, the Union sent a telegram to the Respondent at Pat- erson, New Jersey, which stated, "Our Union represents your employees of Paterson, New Jersey. Request reinstatement of Carl Zeitlinger who was dis- charged illegally and recognition of our union. Communicate with writer at once." On February 18, 1948, the Respondent by its attorney replied, "Your telegram to Crowley's Milk Co. and another at Paterson has been referred to me stop Zeitlinger so grossly negligent and so arbitrarily irresponsible cannot believe you urge reinstatement in good faith stop employees are currently one hundred percent represented by another union stop." Carl Zeitlinger's employment was terminated the afternoon of February 13, 1948. He was the sixteenth employee interested in the Union, and had solicited membership among Respondent's employees during January and February 1948. There were 24 employees in the bargaining unit as of February 17, 1948. On February 18, 1948, the Union filed a petition with the Board for certifica- tion. After a hearing the Board, on September 13, 1948, issued its Decision and Direction of Election, Case No. 2-RC-188,' of which the undersigned takes official notice, and included therein as a part of footnote 5, 1. c. 604 it is stated, "The Employer [Respondent here] requested that no election be directed in this case until the Board disposed of the unfair labor practice charge filed against the Petitioner [Union here] in Case No. 2-CC-43. On August 14, 1948, the General Counsel dismissed the Employer's appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint based upon the charges in Case No. 2-CC-43." On August 5 and 6, 1948, hearings were held at Newark, New Jersey, before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Repre- sentatives, 80th Congress in investigation of secondary boycott of Respondent. The complaint was made by the Respondent against the Union.' On February 3, 1948, the Association made a demand upon the Respondent for a general wage increase of 25 cents per hour. The Respondent refused the demand. On March 16, 1948, Respondent's attorney Anderson, Association's attorney O'Neill, Union's attorney Parsonnet, and others met at the office of the Regional Director of the Board in New York, New York, and discussed the problem of labor relations. Attorneys Anderson and O'Neill proceeded from New York, New York, to Paterson, New Jersey, and there had Respondent call its employees together for a talk by Respondent's attorney Anderson. Association attorney O'Neill thereafter, and after Respondent's officials and attorney had left the meet- ing, began a talk to the employees, but was interrupted, and several of the employees left the meeting.' On April 27, 1948, the Respondent's employees that had signed membership applications in the Union, met and voted to strike, and went on strike on April 28, 1948. 4 Crowley's Milk Company, Inc., 79 NLRB 602. 5 Respondent's Exhibit 3. Admitted by stipulation, except as to materiality. 6 The March 16, 1948, meeting will be fully discussed later in this report. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1059 On May 12, 1948, the Respondent and the Association entered into a new con- tract including an increase of wages of 15 cents per hour. This increase of wages had not been the subject of any negotiations and the Respondent contended it was a "voluntary grant." This contract provided, as to the term, that "This contract shall be effective from and including the 12th day of May, 1948, to and including the 28th day of February, 1949 unless annulled at an earlier date by action of the National Labor Relations Board or the Courts." B. The Association It appears that the Association organized its Paterson Local in 1945. Its by-laws and constitution were not offered in evidence. The minutes of its meetings of January 8, 19-16, February 5 and 19, 1946, March 5, 1946, and April 16, 1946, were offered in evidence and some of them mentioned the subjects of wages, working conditions, plant committeemen and the subject of negotiations with the Respondent, but were vague as to detailed activities. The Respondent's em- ployees became members of the Association 2 weeks after they started to work. Monthly dues were deducted from wages by the Respondent, and paid to the association treasurer, by authority of assignments executed by the individuals. The assignment forms were printed. They provided for verification of signature by a notary public and for cancellation by giving 60 days' notice in writing to the Respondent and to the association treasurer. Several of the assignments were offered in evidence and, of these, the earliest is dated October 26, 1945, and the latest on February 1, 1948. The Respondent made deductions in accord with the assignments and continued to do so during January, February, and March, and on April 28, 1948, when the strike occurred. On March 23, 1948, the 15 employees that had signed applications for member- Ship in the Union, served Respondent's plant manager with written instructions to discontinue the deduction of Association dues and to revoke the assignments.' It is undisputed that the various locals of the Association met and agreed among themselves as to contract terms to be entered into with the Respondent. On February. 16, 1946, the locals sent representatives to a meeting of the Associa- tion at the Hotel Martinique in New York, New York. The Paterson local was there represented by Kelley, Brinkman, Donald Anderson, and one other. Later in February 1946, after a meeting at the plant Kelley, Brinkman, and Donald Anderson went to the home office of Respondent at Binghamton, New York, to negotiate the 1946 contract with the Respondent. Kelley and Brinkman again went to Binghamton a few days later for further negotiations. It is clear that the Association had a few meetings during the year 1947, although there is scant evidence as to any details of the business transacted. On January 22, 1948, the Association sent a letter to the Respondent advising that it was "ready to negotiate for our 1948 contract." During the first week of February 1948, the Association sent a representative to the Respondent's home office at Binghamton, New York, to demand a wage increase of 25 cents per hour. The demand was denied, and thereafter 15 of the employees sought the assistance of the Union and 15 of them signed the appli- cations for membership therein on February 13 and 14, 1918. The first union meeting of record was on April 27, 1948. The strike was voted at that meeting and began on April 28, 1945. Thereafter the Respondent offered, to the Asso- ciation as it existed after the 15 employees went on strike, a wage increase of T Zeitlinger also signed the instructions, although his employment had been terminated on February 13, 1948. His discharge is not involved in this case. 882191-51-G8 1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 15 cents per hour. The offer was made without negotiations between the Re- spondent and the Association. The only action taken by the Association was a meeting held on May 11, 1948, in the offices at Respondent's plant to determine the identity of the employees who were to sign the contract. The contract was executed on May 12, 1948, on behalf of the Respondent by J. K. Crowley, and on behalf of the Association by Harry Haigh, president, Roy M. Nichols, secretary- treasurer, and committeemen John McManus, Joseph Walker, and Harry Rainey 8 The representation hearing was set for May 20, 1948. In its Decision and Direction of Election, the Board denied the Association (Intervenor) a place on the ballot upon the ground it had failed to achieve compliance with the filing requirements of the Act.' Every meeting of the Association, Paterson local membership, from its inception in October 1945 through the meeting of May 11, 1948, was held in the Respond- ent's offices on the second floor of the plant. C. Domination, assistance, and interference The General Counsel contended and adduced testimony for the purpose of proving that the Respondent had adopted a course of conduct which was calcu- lated to and did dominate, assist, and interfere with the administration of the Association. The Respondent strenuously denied such charges and adduced testimony for the purpose of proving strict neutrality and lack of knowledge of the affairs of the Association except those related to the negotiations for, and execution of, contracts. Arnold F. Kelley,10 a salesman at the time of this hearing, was employed by the Respondent before going into the service in 1942 and returned in January 1946. He joined the Association and as elected secretary-treasurer during that month and held the office until April 1946. He continued in Respondent's employ until December 1947 as foreman of dispatchers. Kelley testified that, with Brinkman, Donald Anderson, and one other em- ployee, he made a trip to New York City to attend a meeting of the Association on February 16, 1946, as delegates of the Paterson Local. Brinkman's money was used to pay the expenses and Kelley reimbursed him the next day from treasury funds of the Association. Kelley then prepared an itemized list of the expenses and presented it to Marchbank, who was at that time Respondent's office manager and assistant to the general manager. Kelley further testified that Marchbank said he was not authorized to pay the expense from the Paterson office and instructed him to take the list with him on the trip to the home office at Binghamton for the contract negotiations. Kelley complied with the instruc- tions and at Binghamton presented the expense account to Respondent's auditor Valley" and received a check from him for $12.94. Thereafter Kelley made a notation in the association treasury book of reimbursement for expenses New York $12.94. Another trip was made to Binghamton a few days later and Kelley and Brink- man rode in Francis Crowley's car. Kelley testified that Crowley paid for a 8 J. H. Crowley and Harry Rainey did not testify at the hearing. The testimony of the other four will be discussed later. 9 Cited footnote 4, supra. 11 Kelley's testimony is confined to the period January 1946 through December 1947, when his employment terminated. He impressed the undersigned favorably as doing his best to testify truthfully. His testimony is credited. 11 Valley did not testify. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC . 1061 meal en route.12 It was not disputed that Crowley was going to Binghamton on his own business. Kelley testified that his hotel bill on that trip was paid by Carkhuff, a farm inspector for Respondent, and later Carkhuff took him to the railroad station.' Kelley further testified that during the time he worked at Respondent's Pater- son plant, the association members were notified of meetings by means of a typewritten or handwritten notice posted on the bulletin board, by the time clock, where all persons in the plant could see the notices; that he typed some of the notices himself ; that an office girl typed some of them ; that it was done during working hours, on Respondent's paper, typewriters, and time ; that some of the notices stated that the meetings would be held in the offices of Respondent's plant at 8 p. m.; and that he had seen Respondent's officials and supervisors look at the bulletin board. At all times pertinent hereto the membership meetings of the Association were held in the second floor offices of Respondent's plant. Kelley also testified that he spoke to association officials by long distance telephone, about association business, at the expense of the Respondent. On one occasion in 1946 he was called from his work to talk to Allen, secretary- treasurer of the Binghamton Local, on company time and at company expense. The telephone calls were not-made independently but were made when the wires were open between the two plants and after plant officials had completed their business conversations. Kelley further testified that during the time he was secretary-treasurer of the Association, the treasury funds were kept in the Respondent's safe in the office; that when he wanted the association funds or treasury books lie was required to see Mrs. Heald, a bookkeeper, and tell her what he wanted and she would get them out of the safe for him. The association minutes of the meeting on January 8, 1946, recited a motion, which passed, that the treasury funds be deposited in a bank. However, the record is clear that the association funds and books were kept in the Respondent's safe until October 26, 1948. It is so found. Henry Brinkman, an engineer for the Respondent from 1936 to April 1948 when he joined in the strike, testified credibly that he joined the Association in 1945, was its first president, and stopped his dues in November 1947. However, he gave Nichols $1 during February 1948 so Nichols could go up to Binghamton 100 percent to seek the 25-cent raise for the association members. He resigned from the Association when he joined the Union on February 14, 1948. Brinkman further testified that the Respondent deducted dues for the Associa- tion from his wages for the month of February and "believed" dues were de- ducted in March 1948. He also testified that notices of association meetings held in January and February 1948 were posted by the time clock ; that the meetings were held in the upstairs offices of Respondent's plant ; and that the Association's money and books were kept, at that time, in the Respondent's safe in the office. Brinkman corroborated the testimony of Kelley that the Respondent paid the expenses of association representatives that attended the meetings in January 12 This incident is not considered by the undersigned as assistance to the Association. Crowley at that time was an employee learning the business, and whether or not he paid a lunch check for his traveling companions as a fellow employee, is not determinative of any unfair labor practice. 11 There is no proof that Carkhuff was acting as agent for the Respondent and the under- signed does not base any findings of violation of the Act on these incidents. 1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or February 1946 at Hotel Martinique in New York, and at Binghamton gave Kelley a check for that expense; and that he, Brinkman, was paid for his time away from work by the Respondent. On March 16, 19419, about 3 p. in., the Respondent called a meeting in the offices of the plant and asked all employees to attend. Respondent's officials and super- visors and its attorney, Lloyd Anderson, together with association attorney, O'Neill, were present. Attorney Lloyd Anderson spoke but Brinkman could not accurately recall Anderson's remarks except that he told the employees what had transpired that day at a meeting in the Regional Office of the Board in New York. Brinkman testified that Anderson did not mention anything about any other union ; that he did not say anything about the Association ; that he said nothing about the Teamsters [Union ; and that "he spoke about conditions, working con- ditions of the plant and so forth." Brinkman could not remember that Anderson "said anything about the company was going to run its own business and that no union was," or that "lie mentioned several Russian sounding words." Brinkman testified that O'Neill talked about the Association and said he thought he could drive a bargain for its members, and at that time, employee Egg asked O'Neill "if it was a union meeting, if it was, that we wouldn't stay, that we were members of Local 680" [Union ; that O'Neill said if we didn't want to listen we could leave ; and that all but four'or five left the meeting. , Brinkman further testified that members agreed, at an association sleeting in January 1948, that if they didn't get a 25-cent raise in wages they would look for another union to represent them. Subsequent negotiations with Respondent failed to obtain the raise. The 15 employees signed applications for membership in the Union on February 13 and 14, 1948. Brinkman also testified that he engaged in picketing after the strike began on April 28, 1948; that the cards of the strikers informed customers of the Respond- ent of the low wages ; that he left his job that day and did not intend to quit and did not advise the Respondent he was quitting ; and that the strike was voted by the Union because of Egg's demotion " and for recognition of the Union. John Victor Egg was employed by Respondent in March 1946 as a utility man. He became a member of the Association in April 1946. He testified credibly that all notices of association meetings were posted on the bulletin board by the time clock, and all meetings were held in the upstairs offices of Respondent's plant, and that he personally asked Mrs. Heald, the assistant office manager, for permission to remove the Association's funds from the office safe. Egg further testified that everyone that was working in the plant was called to a meeting in the upstairs offices about 3 p. in. on March 16, 1948, and the Re- spondent's attorney Lloyd Anderson spoke to them about 8 or 10 minutes. Egg testified on direct examination that in his address to the employees Ander- son told them 15 that if they stayed with the Association they would have their bargaining rights and would give them away if they signed with any other labor organization ; that these organizations were headed by foreign elements ; that the company had offered 15 cents an hour ;16 and would not give any more; and if we 14The allegations of the complaint as to Egg's demotion were dismissed during the hearing. 15 The undersigned is convinced that Egg was making every effort to testify truthfully, but recited his impressions and reactions to the Anderson address, rather than the words and phrases of the statements as delivered. The undersigned is also convinced, and finds, that Anderson was truthful in stating what he had said in the March 16, 1948, address, in his cross-examination of Egg. 16 Egg was confused as to the offer 'of 15-cent wage increase, as the record is clear that it was not offered until in May 1935, after the Anderson talk. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1063 were going to persist, the company would lock the doors and shut the plant; and that "it was worded in such a way that you were given to understand that if you didn't accept their 15 cent raise, that they would lock the doors." In consideration of the Respondent's position, as affected by Anderson's address and its effect on the employees assembled to hear it, the testimony as to its content is set forth in full, as presented at the hearing. Q. Going now to the March 16, 1948, plant meeting which the company had with its employees, at which I spoke, did I, or did I not say this, "I have called this meeting with you men for the purpose of clearing the atmosphere from the misunderstanding which seems to be present." A. I couldn't say exactly, no. Q. Would you say I didn't say it? A. No. I wouldn't say you did not say it. Q. Did I not say that I had heard a lot of talk about this and that and I felt it was time that the men had the company's position stated to them plainly and directly? A. I imagine that you said that. It was very straight from the shoulder whatever you said, I remember that. Q. And did I not say that they had the true facts brought to their attention so they could understand them and could act intelligently? A. I can't repeat word for word ; I can't remember word for word what you said. Q. Did I say anything different from that? A. No. Q. Did I not say that I was not going to tell you anything but what was the truth? A. Yes, you said that. Q. Did I not say that I did not intend to deceive you? A. I would not remember. Q. Would you say I didn't say it? A. No, I could not say you did or you didn't. Q. Did I not say that you were old enough to know that just because some- one promised you something , that didn't mean to say someone else could be made to perform the promise? A. I remember that about promises, yes. Q. Did I not say that the company had an investment in Paterson and that it naturally was going to do what it could to protect that investment? A. That is correct. Q. Did I not say that it had to compete in the field with its products with other people in the business and the men had to compete with other labor? A. To that effect, yes, whether it was the exact words, I could not say. Q. Did I not say that the company had just so much to do with and it could not be compelled, and would not permit itself to be compelled to do anything more than it was capable of doing, in its own judgment? A. I don't remember that. Q. That is the substance of it? A. It was the substance of it, yes. Trial Examiner CAMPBELL. Mr. Anderson, don't argue with the witness. Mr. ANDERSON. He knows. He pretended to remember. Mr. O'NEILL. May I speak a word? I think the witness ought to understand that he is not expected to remember word for word, but to challenge it if at some point you hear something that is not the subject of what he remembers. 1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Trial Examiner CAMPnELL. Exactly what I meant. By Mr. ANDERSON : Q. "This meeting is not a negotiating meeting?" A. Yes, you said that. Q. "The company refuses to negotiate with the men unless and until it is determined who does represent a majority." A. I don't remember that. Q. Would you say I didn't say it? A. No. Q. Did I not say that the United Dairy Workers Association claims it represents the majority and until the contrary is shown the company is bound to recognize the Paterson local? A. You said that, yes. Q. Did I not say that you would be hearing a lot about the conference in New York with Local 680. A. I don't remember that. Q. Did I not say that what happened was that the Local, meaning Local 680, had asked the company to consent to an election and that the company had refused to consent to an election? A. That's right. Q. Did I not say that the company could not do otherwise because it had recognized the Paterson Local and had a contract with the Paterson local which had automatically renewed for another year? A. You said that, yes. Q. Did I not say that the terms and conditions of the 1947' contract con- tinued until the company voluntarily consented to change them? A. I think you said that, yes. Q. "For the company to do differently would subject itself to penalties for unfair labor practices?" A. I don't remember that. Q. You do not remember my telling you specifically that we would be guilty of unfair labor practices if we violated the law in any respect? A. No sir, I do not remember that. Q. Did I not say that the conference with the Labor Board had been ad- journed to March 26? A. The exact date I would not know, but you said it had been adjourned. Q. That whether you men belonged to the Paterson Local or any other union, or did not belong to any union, was none of the companys business? A. I don't remember that. Q. Did I not say that the company was not going to force you or any employee to stay in the Paterson local or in any other union? A. I don't rember that part. Q. Would you say I didn't say it? A. No. Q. Did I not say that if someone else could give you a job under better conditions and on better rates, there certainly was nothing to prevent you from leaving and taking such jobs? A. Yes, you said something to that. Q. Did I not say that probably the best thing for everybody concerned would be for each man to take a week's vacation and find out for himself just what he could do about getting a better job? CROWLEY"S MILK COMPANY, INC . 1065 A. I don't recall that. Q. Did I not say that it must be remembered that no union was giving the men any wages, that anything the men had gotten in the way of wages had to be given them by their employer? A. No, sir. Q. Did I not say that the union didn't pay wages? Trial Examiner CAMPBELL. What do you mean by "no, Sir"? The WITNESS. I don't remember hearing that. By Mr. ANDERSON : Q. Did I not say that the union did not pay wages, the company paid the wages? A. I don't remember. Q. Did I not say that I had asked many men in the company's employ why they worked for the company and had been told that working conditions with the company were better? A. I don't remember that part at all. Q. Did I not say that if you men think differently, there is nothing to keep you with the company? A. I don't remember that. Q. Did I not say that you are not under any individual contract with the company to work for it? A. No, sir, I don't remember that. Q. Did I not say that you have had an easy time of it here? A. I remember that, yes. Q. "The company has gone along with you, helped a lot of you and done a lot for everyone"? A. I remember that. Q. Did I not say, "You had a good place to work, but if you do not any longer appreciate it, there isn't anything to hold you?" A. I remember that. Q. Did I not say, "You don't have to be concerned about the company, the company can replace you"? A. Yes. Q. "And can replace you at no greater rates than are called for in the present contract"? A. Yes. Q. Did I not say, "The company is not going to be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do"? A. Yes. Q. "The company is not going to force you to do anything you do not want to do"? A. That's right. Q. "You will only be affected by the things that you yourself do or cause to be done"? A. I don't recall that. Q. Did I not say, "If you let someone else destroy your jobs, or you yourself destroy them, you alone are to blame"? A. I don't remember that. Q. Did I not say, "There is no magic about this. You made a deal with the company and you are expected to live up to it." A. Yes, I remember your saying that. 1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Did I not say, "The company intends to live up to its part of the contract with each of you"? A. Yes, I remember your saying that. Q. Did I not say, "Someone else's promising doesn't give you anything"? A. Yes, you said that. Q. Did I not say, "It has to be performed and delivered by the company"? A. I am not sure of that last statement; I am not sure whether he said that last statement. Q. Did I not say, "Whatever troubles you are in now, if you are in trouble, are of your own making"? A. I don't remember that statement. Q. Did I not say, "It is up to you to get yourself out of it"? A. I don't remember that statement. Q. Did I not say, "When you are working for this company, or anyone else, it is your obligation to be loyal to company"? A. Yes, you said that. Q. Did I not say that that has nothing to do with your union affiliations, but it does mean that you have to be honest with the company and if you are not honest with company, you have no right to continue in its employ? A. I don't recall that. Q. Did I not say, what you fellows have to do is to come down out of the clouds and get your feet on the earth"? A. Yes, I remember that. A. Did I not say, "The way to solve your problems is to reduce it to its sim- plest elements, get it down to where you can understand or handle it"? A. I don't remember that statement. Q. Did I not say, "I have heard it said that you men have asserted that if the Paterson local gets what is demanded then you're members of the United Dairy Workers Association, Paterson local, if the Paterson local does not get you what you demand, then your'e members of another union"? A. I don't remember that statement. Q. Did I not say, "You can't bargain that way"? A. I don't remember that statement. Q, Will you say I didn't say, "You cannot bargain that way'"? A. No, I would not say anything. Q. Is that not the gist of what my talk was, that you cannot bargain that way? A. Of that paper, yes. Q. Pardon? A. Of what is on that paper, but that is not the full speech that you gave to me, that I heard that day. Q. Well, I am going to come to that in a little while. Did I not say, "When you make an agreement, you should stick to it"? A. Yes. Q. Did I not say, "You cannot jump from one place to another and expect anybody to deal with you"? A. I don't remember that. Trial Examiner CAMPBELL. You mean you do not remember that he said it? The WITNESS. I don't remember that he said it. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1067 By Mr. ANDERSON : Q. Did I not say, "What you fellows must do is make your mind to one thing and stick to it"? A. I don't remember your saying that. Q. Is it your recollection that that is the substance, the gist of my talk? A. No, sir. Mr. LELAND. Mr. Anderson, do you represent that, among other things, you did make these statements? Mr. ANDERSON. I represent that what I have said, without any other things, is exactly what I said. By MMIr. ANDERSON : Q. And from that, do you still want to say that I said that the company would lock its plant? A. That's correct? Q. That I said that? A. That's correct? Q. Can you give me the words? A. Not the exact words, no. Q. Are you saying that that is what you want to say, or that, is what you actually heard me say? A. I heard you say that conveyed the meaning to me that Crowley's Milk Company can and will shut the doors of this plant if anyone else tries to run their business. Following the Anderson address, and after Respondent's attorney, officials, and. supervisors had departed, the association attorney, O'Neill, undertook to speak to the employees and was interrupted by Egg asking if it was to be a negotiation meeting and when O'Neill indicated it was, Egg advised that he had given his bargaining rights to the Union and several of the employees left the meeting with him. Frank Rutkowski, a truck driver for Respondent from 1942 to April 28, 1948, the day of the strike, testified 18 that just before the Anderson address, Crowley told him to go upstairs and fight for the Association ; that in his address Anderson called the union officers a bunch of Communists, and said no one was going to, tell him how the run the business, not even the NLRB. He also testified that about 10 days before the strike John Crowley asked him to go around and see the men and try to talk them into staying with the Association instead of joining the Union. Roy Nichols was employed by Respondent as a truck driver for over 2 years. He testified 18 that he joined the Association in January 1947 and became secre- tary-treasurer in January 1948, and still held that office at the time of this hear- ing. He also testified that he had the notice for the January 1948 meeting of the Association typed by one of the girls in the office "as a favor to me" about 3 or 4 p. m. and he signed it and put it on the bulletin board ; that the notice was for a meeting to be held at 8 p. m. but it did not say where ; that the members gathered outside the order department of the plant and then decided where to have the meeting, "because the funds of the meeting should have to be used 0 is Rutkowski did not impress the undersigned favorably as a witness . His testimony does not appear reasonable in the light of all the testimony, and is not credited. 18 Nichols did not impress the undersigned favorably as a witness . He appeared to be reluctant to testify and was evasive . His testimony is credited only where it corroborates the findings herein. 1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD accordingly" ; that the meeting was held in the upstairs office of the plant ; that he prepared the notice for the meeting in the first week in February , on his own stationery and in his handwriting at his home at night , and brought it to the plant and posted it on the bulletin board ; and that that meeting was also held in the upstairs offices of the plant . He further testified that he also wrote the notice by hand, for the meeting held the latter part of February 1948 , and did not advise where the meeting would be held , but that it was held in the plant offices. Nichols further testified that the funds of the Association were kept in the Respondent 's safe until he opened the account in a bank in October 1948. He did not have the safe combination and did not ask permission to use the safe, he just used it because "that is the way they told me they kept the funds." He denied that he ever had Crowley 's secretary write notices of association meetings , but used a company typewriter himself. Jack Douglas Walsh held various jobs with the Respondent from November 1946 to May 1948 . He testified 30 that he became president of the Association in January or February 1947 and had not been advised that he had ceased to be president during his employment . He testified that all meetings of the Associa- tion during the term of his employment were held in the offices of the plant ; that the notices were posted on the bulletin board and he had observed officials and supervisors looking at the bulletin board, and that notice of meetings was sometimes passed to the employees verbally . He did not know if company officials were ever in the building at the time of the meetings . He further testi- fied that at the meeting of March 16 , 1948, when Anderson spoke to all the employees , Anderson said the company "was not going to be run by a bunch of Communists and give a lot of Russian names , Jablinsky and Olitz and things like that , and that they were going to be run by themselves , and that the men should be their own bargaining agents and not let any of these other racketeers and people along that bargain for them." He also testified that Anderson said that the company was not going to be run by the Board, the Union , "and any other dealers like that, they are not going to tell them how to run their business," but, that "He [Anderson ] made a very polite speech." 20 The meeting was turned over to O 'Neill and then Egg got up and asked O'Neill if it was negotiation of a contract , and when O 'Neill said it was "all the members of [the Union ] got up and left." Edward G. O 'Neill, attorney for the Association , testified credibly that he was present during all of the meeting on March 16 , 1948, and heard all of Anderson's address to the Respondent 's employees ; that there were about 18 present when the meeting started, some left, and at the finish there were about 13 present ; that the remarks as stated in the cross -examination of the witness Egg was substan- tially what Anderson said ; that Anderson did not call the Union by Russian names ; and that Anderson did not say the company would lock its doors, or close its plant. Frederick J. Marchbank , Jr., was office manager and assistant to the general manager of the Paterson plant from June 1937 to September 1, 1948 . He testi- fied credibly that he saw a notice of meeting of the Association on the bulletin board in February 1948, and took no action . He also testified that the office 19 Walsh did not impress the undersigned favorably as a witness. He was evasive and argumentative. His testimony is credited only where it corroborated the findings herein. 20 The undersigned is convinced and finds that the quotations from the testimony of wit- ness Walsh are inconsistent with the credited testimony of witness Brinkman and Attorney Anderson's remarks as shown in the cross-examination of witness Egg. This testimony of witness Walsh is not credited. CROWLEY"S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1069 ,safe was his responsibility and only he and Mrs. Heald knew the combination ; that Nichols came to the office one evening and either wanted to get some [Association] property or put something, in the safe ; and that he did not object to the use of the safe for that purpose. Marchbank was unable to appear at the hearing at a later session and it was -stipulated that if present he would testify further that in 1947 Arnold Kelley, secretary of the Association at that time, said to him, "It's O. K. to keep the money in the safe, isn't it?" "I asked what money, and he told me the Association's. I told him Mrs. Heald" would take care of it. She was head -office girl, sort of assistant office manager, and took care of the pay roll and •deposits" ; that he would testify that he saw notices posted in the plant on at least two or three occasions, announcing meetings of the Association in the up- stairs office. John H. Crowley, the Respondent's Paterson plant manager, testified that he was not around the plant much on account of his health; that he was subject to direction of the home office at Binghamton, New York, and had no authority to deal with the Association or any other labor union; that the Association was .given (by bargaining) authority to use the bulletin board; that he never gave money or any other assistance to the Association ; that he did not know the Association held meetings in the plant offices, and he was never at the office at night, or knew that plant office help wrote notices, or used company paper or typewriters, or that the Association stored its funds in the office safe ; and that he had never granted any permission to the Association or its members to do any of these things. He also testified that he never heard of the meetings in the plant from 1945 up through May 1948, and never gave permission for any use of the telephone, at company expense, for association business. He ordered Mrs. Heald to have the funds removed from the office safe in September 1948. Francis E. Crowley, assistant to the president of Respondent Company, testified to the same effect as to the matters set forth above in connection with the testimony of John H. Crowley. Wesley H. Allen, a clerk for Respondent at the Binghamton Plant for 27 .years, testified that he was secretary-treasurer of the Binghamton Local of the Association in 1946; that he attended the Association meeting at the Hotel Martinique in 1946 and was not paid for his loss of time; and that during 1946 he talked by telephone to Kelley at Paterson, but could not say how many times. Lloyd C. Anderson, a duly licensed attorney, representing the Respondent, testified that he spoke to the Respondent's employees in the offices of the Paterson plant on March 16, 1948, because he "felt that under the circumstances existing that there would be a great deal of confusion in the minds of the employees at the Paterson plant, and that I felt that I should talk to them and advise them as to the status of the claim for representation on the part of Local 680 [Union] and of the Company's position with respect to labor organization generally as it affected it, or as they affected the Respondent." Anderson testified that the things he asked in his cross-examination of witness Egg were said by him in words or in substance, and that lie did not, in the address, refer to the Union as Communists, or use any Russian names, or threats to close the plant. The complaint alleged that the Respondent initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted the Association on or about October 1945, and since. The undesigned is convinced and finds that there is no credible evidence in the record that the 11 Dlrs . Heald did not appear as a witness. 1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees did not select the Association freely and without any coercion on the part of the Respondent, and therefore recommends that that allegation of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter the Respondent recognized the Association as the collective bargaining representative of its employees and dealt with the Association as such representative and executed contracts. The complaint also alleged that the Respondent, from October 19=15 to date, has assisted, dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of, said Association, (a) by granting facilities in its plant for the holding of meetings and storing of funds; (b) by providing transportation and funds for association representatives to attend meetings; (c) by negotiating with the Association after being informed that it no longer represented a majority of its employees ; and (d) by executing a contract with the Association after a petition for certi- fication had been filed by the Union on February 18. 1948.22 Upon consideration of the entire record it is clear, and the undersigned finds, that there is no credible evidence that the Respondent's conduct amounted to nomination of the Association. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that that part of the allegation of the complaint, be dismissed.' It was not disputed that early in May 194S the Respondent made an offer to the Association of a wage increase of 15 cents per hour. There was no effort on the part of the Association to negotiate any contract after the strike of April 28, 1948, and the Respondent contended that its offer of wage increase was a vol- untary grant upon consideration of the economic situation of the Company. The only action of the Association was a meeting on May 11, 1945. to determine who, would sign the contract. The granting of a wage increase of 15 cents per hour, after Respondent had refused the demands of the Association, made on several occasions, for an increase of 25 cents per hour, both before and after the Union had notified Respondent that it claimed to represent a majority of the employees, and after the strike of April 28, 1948, was a calculated effort on the part of the Respondent to assist, and interfere with, the Association while there was pend- ing a question concerning representation raised by the petition filed by the Union. The undersigned is convinced and finds that by the foregoing conduct, the Respondent violated Section S (2) of the Act. it is also clear, upon consideration of the whole record, that the Association used the Respondent's plant for its meetings, from the time of its inception in 1945 through May 11, 1948, and during all of that time stored its funds and records in the Respondent's office safe. The Respondent contended that it did not grant permission to the Association, and (lid not know until the General Counsel made the investigation in this case, that its plant and facilities were being so used. The record is clear that there were 24, or less, employees in the bargaining unit at all times material herein. It has been held by the Board in many cases that in a plant of that size, the knowledge of such practices would undoubtedly reach the attention of management. The undersigned is convinced and finds that the Respondent had actual, or constructive, knowledge of the practices of the Asso- ciation ; and it did contribute funds for the payment of expenses, and loss of time of employees, for the purpose of attending association meetings away from Paterson, New Jersey ; and that by its entire course of conduct, the Respondent assisted and contributed support to the Association and thereby violated Section S (a) subsection (2) of the Act. R3 Part (c) will he discussed later in connection with the allegations of refusal to bargain. 91 The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1071 On March 16, 1)4S, Anderson spoke to all the employees assembled in the offices of the Respondent's plant and the entire speech has been set forth above. The Respondent contended that Anderson's talk was privileged within the consti- tutional guarantee of free speech and was well within the permissible limits of Section S (e) of the Act.-' This speech was made after the employees had, on several occasions, demanded a 23-cent per hour wage increasz, and admittedly would not sign a contract for less, and 15 of them had signed applications for membership in the Union. Consideration of all of testimony with reference to the Anderson speech, to- gether with the testimony of its clear impact upon the employees as shown by the reaction upon Egg set forth in his testimony, disclosed the expression of implied threat of reprisal and loss of benefits to the employees in the event they persisted in their right of concerted activity. Anderson spoke of the employees "having a good place to work, but if you do not any longer appreciate it, there isn't anything to hold you," and "you don't have to be concerned about the coin- pany, the company can replace you," "at no greater rates than are called for in the present contract," and "the company is not going to be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do," and "If you let someone else destroy your jobs, or you yourself destroy them you alone are to blame," and "someone else's promising doesn't give you anything." The courts have held that with respect to labor matters the constitutional right of free speech is not absolute 25 and that an employer's expressions may be judged in the light of the total record. The undersigned is convinced and finds that Anderson's speech to the em- ployees as set forth in Egg's testimony was not protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act. That the statements made by Respondent's counsel when connected with all other facts and circumstances, set forth herein, amounts to interference, re- straint, and coercion has long been well established by our Federal courts. If the total activities of an employer restrain or coerce his employees in their free choice, then these employees are entitled to the protection of the Act. And in determining whether a course of conduct amounts to restraint or coercion, pressure exerted vocally may no more be disregarded than pres- sure exerted in other ways. For slight suggestions as to the employer's choice between unions may have telling effect among men who know the con- sequences of incurring the employer's strong displeasure.'" The test is whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may be reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.27 The speech was made while there was pending a question concerning repre- sentation raised by the petition for certification filed by the Union. Under the facts set forth above, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 24 The expression of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act , if such expression con- tains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 25 See N. L. R. B. v. Federbush Co., 121 F. 2d 954. 25 N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric 6 Power Co., 314 U. S. 469, 477. 17 N. L. R. B. v. Ford, 170 F. 2d 735, 738 (C. A. 6). 1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D. The strike The complaint alleged that on or about April 28, 1948, the employees of Respond- ent employed at its Paterson plant ceased work concertedly and went on strike, and that the strike was caused by the unfair labor practices of the Respondent. The burden rested upon the Respondent to show that the strike would have taken place even if it had not interfered with the right of its employees to self- organization in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The undersigned is convinced that Le Resoondent has sustained that burden. Had the unfair labor practices found herein not occurred, there may have been no strike. However, the credited testimony of record shows that the pre- cipitating causes of the strike were Egg's demotion on April 27, 1948, and the final decision on that date to seek recognition of the Union, and to thus continue the efforts to obtain the wage increase. The employees that went out on strike were the same individuals that had, from January 22, 1948, to the time of the strike, made several consistent demands upon the Respondent for a wage increase of 25 cents per hour. They originally made the demand as members of the Association and the first indication in the record that they were making that demand as members of the Union was Egg's statement to O'Neill, attorney for the Association, after the Anderson speech on March 16,1948, when he asked O'Neill if it were going to be a negotiation meeting , and upon receiving an affirmative answer, told O'Neill that he had given his bargaining rights to the Union, and left the meeting with several others. No representative of Respondent was present or heard this statement , and there is no evidence that the Respondent was ever advised of the incident. The next act indicating that these same individuals may have designated the Union as their bargaining representative occurred when Egg presented Crowley with the instructions, signed by 15 employees and 1 ex-employee, to discontinue the deductions from wages, of dues for the Association, on March 23, 1948. How- ever, there is no testimony of record to indicate that the Respondent was advised of the reason, or informed in any way, that these employees had changed their bargaining representation from the Association to the Union. Of course, the Respondent could guess why the cancellations of wage assign- ments were filed, but no finding can be made upon such speculation. Egg testified that there was a meeting of the Union on April 27, 1948, and after Keber 28 told the employees present what had happened at the Board hearing, and what had happened in regard to some outside concern purchasing the Crowley plant, one of the "employees wanted to know what was going to be done, what should we do, this thing 29 has been hanging fire 10 weeks we waited now and we haven't had any action," and "... we were told to wait, ..." A strike vote was taken and the strike began the next day, April 28, 1948. It is clear that the employees engaged in the strike as members of the Union, and that the Respondent was thereby advised that the 15 employees had definitely designated the Union as their bargaining representative, in their efforts to obtain the. wage increase. It is therefore found that the strike of April 28, 1945, was an economic strike, and caused by the Respondent's continued refusal to grant the wage increase demanded, and was not caused by the Respondent's unfair labor practices, found herein. 28 Keber was business representative of the Union. 29 The undersigned is convinced and finds that "this thing" meant that the employees had not succeeded in their demand for the wage increase, through the Association as their bargaining representative. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1073 There is no evidence in the record that any of the strikers, or anyone in their behalf has, since the strike began, offered to return to work for the Respondent, or requested the Respondent to reinstate them. Upon consideration of the entire record, the undersigned will recommend that the allegations of the complaint, insofar as they alleged that the strike of April 2S, 194S, was an unfair labor practice strike, be dismissed. Following the strike a picket line was established at the Respondent's plant and the Respondent introduced evidence to the effect that thereafter the Union engaged in secondary boycott activities in its effort to secure the wage increase. Notices of the strike were sent to customers of the Respondent which read "Com- pany paying wages far below those paid in the Milk and Ice Cream Industry." and "Please cooperate. Do not buy Crowley Products until strike is over." "Crowley striking employees." The Respondent also introduced copies of a report of an "Investigation of Secondary Boycott of Crowley's Milk Co., Inc." made by a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, after hearings on August 5 and 6, 1948. The Respondent filed charges of unfair labor practices against the Union, and on appeal to the General Counsel of the Board, from the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint, the charges were dismissed. Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds that he has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges made by Respondent against the Union, in this case, for the reason that the issuance of a complaint under Section 10 of the Act is a matter of administrative discretion, for determination by the General Counsel of the Board.30 E. The refusal to bargain The complaint alleged that on or about February 17, 1948, a majority of Re- spondent's employees in the appropriate unit designated the Union as their repre- sentative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent ; that on February 18, 194S, and since, the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union, and continued to negotiate with the Association ; and, on May 12, 1948, executed a contract with the Association after the Union had filed a petition for certifica- tion (Case No. 2-RC-18S) on February 18, 1948' The undersigned has taken official notice of the Board's findings in Case No. 2-RC-188. The Board found that there was a question concerning representa- tion ; that the 1947 contract between the Respondent and the Association was not a bar to an election ; that the May 12, 1948, contract was also not a bar to an election ; and directed an election. It appears that the election did not take place. The only evidence in the record of efforts on the part of the Union to secure recognition before the time of the strike was the telegram of February 17, 1948, to the Respondent which said, "Our Union represents your employees at Paterson, New Jersey. Request . . . recognition of our union," and the petition for certification. The Respondent contended that no request to bargain was ever made on behalf of the union. Of course, if this were so the complaint that Respondent has un- lawfully refused to bargain cannot be sustained. N. L. R. B. v. Columbian Enameling d Stamping Company, Inc., 306 U. S. 292, 297. If there were anything 30 As the Act now reads, the General Counsel of the Board "shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of com- plaints under Section 10." Lincotsrt v. N. L. R. B., 170 F. 2d 306 (C. A. 1). 11 The May 12, 1948, contract has been discussed above. 1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the Act which required that a demand to bargain be express or formal (which there is not), it must be held under the evidence herein that there was no de- mand to bargain. However, it is established by Board decisions that no formal demand is necessary, and it also appears that a demand though not express may be inferred or implied from the circumstances of communicating to a respondent the fact that the union is the representative of a majority of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. Unique Ventilation Company, Inc.. 75 NLRB S25; Prigg Boat Works, 69 NLRB 97; Van De Kamps Holland-Dutch Bakers, Inc., 56 NLRB 694, 707, 711. The undersigned is convinced and finds that the telegram of February 17 con- stituted a request by the Union to baragin, and if Respondent's reply telegram the following day, saying ". . . employees are currently 100 percent repre- sented by another union," ended the controversy, there would be no question of finding a refusal to bargain. However, under the circumstances as shown by undisputed evidence in this case there is a serious question of violation of the Act, with respect to the alleged refusal "to bargain collectively with the repre- sentatives of his [Respondent 's] employees." It appears that the Union made the bargaining request upon the basis of the 15 applications for membership signed by the 15 employees of the Respondent on February 13 and 14, 1948. It was not disputed that the Union held out to the 15 employees that it would obtain the union scale of wages 32 for them by its bargaining efforts and would withhold the further collection of fees and dues until an agreement was effected. These same 15 employees had, during the first week of February 1948, made a demand through the Association for 25 cents per hour wage increase, which the Respondent refused. Then, after signing the applications for membership in the Union, these same 15 employees, as members of the Association, made further d eniands upon the Respondent for the wage increase, and continued to function as members of the Association until they went on strike April 28, 1948. There is no evidence of record to show whether or not the Respondent had knowledge before the strike that these 15 employees were not making the demand for wage increase as members of the Association. Each time 33 that the associa- tion representative appeared to present the demand, Anderson asked if he repre- sented 100 percent of all the employees at the Paterson plant. Nichols testified that Anderson asked him if he represented the majority and lie answered 100 percent of the men who were still in the Association. The wage assignments for deduction of dues for the Association were kept in force without action by the 1.5 employees until March 23, 1948. The assign- ments provided for cancellation upon 60 days' notice in writing.'} Anderson checked with the Paterson plant at each meeting to determine if these assign- ments had been revoked. He also inquired if any members had resigned from, or been expelled by, the Association and received a negative answer. Egg had not resigned his membership in the Association, and had acted as a grievance committeeman for the Association after he had signed the application for membership in the Union. He considered himself a member of the Union in good standing even though he had paid no dues, and had thereafter joined with other members of the Association in the demand upon the Respondent for the wage increase. 32 The Union scale was 25 cents or more per hour than these employees were then paid. 33 February 3, 1.8, and 25, 1948. a& The assignments for deduction of dues were lawful. Julius Resnick, Inc., SG NLRB 38. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1075 The Union challenged its contract-holding rival, the Association, and put the employer on notice of its claim to majority status and demanded recognition, by the telegram above set forth, and by its petition for certification. , However, the subsequent conduct of the 15 individual employees in continuing their de- mand for a wage increase and performance of other acts as members of and for the Association, up until the time of the strike, as found above, left the Re- spondent in reasonable doubt as to which organization actually did represent the majority of its employees. The question of representation was clearly shown by the Board's decision after hearing. There is no evidence that the question of representation has been settled. It was agreed that all production and maintenance employees of the Re- spondent employed at its Paterson plant, including truck drivers, and the jani- tor, but excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the. Act, con- stituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, sub- ject to the provisions of Section 9 (a)," and Section 9 (a) of the Act provides that the duly designated or selected representative of an appropriate employee unit "shall be the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condition of employment." The representatives of the charging union took prompt action to clarify its status, but the 15 individual employees involved continued by their conduct and specific acts, as found, to represent themselves to the Respondent as being rep- resented by the Association as their exclusive bargaining agent. The Respondent was aware of the then prospective election and was not re- quired to take any action, to vary the terms and conditions of employment of its employees, under the circumstances. Upon the entire record, and for the reasons noted, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the Respondent did not refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and will accordingly recommend that the allegations of the complaint relating thereto be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair 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. It has been found that the Respondent has interfered with the administration of the Association and has contributed financial and other support thereto. The effects and consequences of the Respondent's interference with and support of 882191-51-69 1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Association, as well as its continued recognition of the Association as the bargaining representative for its employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their rights to self-organization and to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The findings of interference, restraint, and coercion are based upon Respondent's conduct in interfering with the administration of the Association and in contributing finan- cial and other support to it. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Board not issue the usual broad cease-and-desist order used where other unfair labor practices, not directly related to the unfair labor practices found, are reasonably to be apprehended. It will, however, be recommended that the Re- spondent cease and desist from engaging in the conduct found unlawful herein and from engaging in like or related conduct by otherwise interfering with the representation of its employees through a labor organization of their own choosing. 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. Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union Number 680, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. United Dairy Workers Association is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with the administration of United Dairy Workers Associa- tion and by contributing financial and other support thereto, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 4. By said acts and conduct, 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 thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices directed against Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union Number 680, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., by refusing to bargain collectively with that labor organization as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Crowley's Milk Company, Inc. (Paterson Division), Paterson, New Jersey, its agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interfering with the administration of United Dairy Workers Associa- tion, Paterson Local, or the administration of any other organization, and from contributing support and assistance to any labor organization of its employees ; (b) Recognizing United Dairy Workers Association, Paterson Local, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. 1 CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. 1077 It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, be dismissed. It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleged that the strike of April 28, 1948, was an unfair labor practice strike, be dismissed. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withhold recognition from United Dairy Workers Association, Paterson Local, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it in matters of grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until such organiza- tion shall have been certified as such representative by the Board ; (b) Post at its plant in Paterson, New Jersey, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, after being duly signed by representa- tives of the Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there- after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials ; and (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days froii7 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, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (in- cluding 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. 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 desig- nate 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 further 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 25th day of October 1949. MYERS D. CAMPBELL, Jr. Trial Examiner. 1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 WITHHOLD all recognition from United Dairy Workers Associa- tion, Paterson Local, as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or other conditions of employment unless and until said organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT contribute support to , or assist , United Dairy Workers Association , Paterson Local, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union Number 680, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , A. F. L., or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all 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 in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC., Employer. By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation