East Tennessee Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1257 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY 1257
3. By suspending Garabed Newton Haleblian without pay for a period of 10 days
from March 21 to 30, 1964, inclusive , because of his misconduct on March 18, 1964,
aboard the SS Mobil Lube, the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) or (3)
of the Act, and the Respondent did not, therefore , commit any unfair labor practice
affecting commerce within the meaning of these provisions of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In view of my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that an order
be entered dismissing the complaint.
East Tennessee Packing Company and Independent Union of
Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employees , Local No. 1110,
United Packinghouse , Food and Allied Workers , AFL-CIO and
Independent Union of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employ-
ees (unaffiliated ) and its President, Thomas Murphy , Party of
Interest
Independent Union of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employees
(unaffiliated ) and its President , Thomas Murphy and Independ-
ent Union of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employees, Local
No. 1110, United Packinghouse , Food and Allied Workers, AFL-
CIO and East Tennessee Packing Company , Party of Interest.
Cases Nos. 10-CA-5953 and 10-CB-1517. July 2, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 6,1965, Trial Examiner David London issued his Decision in
the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, each Respondent, the Changing Party, and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
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 Decision,
the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
153 NLRB No. 61. 1 1
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondent, East Tennessee Packing Com-
pany, Knoxville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
and Respondent Independent Union of Meat Cutters and Packing-
house Employees (unaffiliated) its officers, agents, and representatives,
and Respondent, President Thomas Murphy, his agents and represent-
atives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order,' as so modified :
1. Amend the beginning of paragraphs A,1,(c) and B,1,(b) of the
'Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and the third intended para-
graph of Appendix A and the second indented paragraph of Appendix
B attached thereto, by substituting the words "like or related" for the
-word "similar," or "other."
' The telephone number for Region 10 , appearing at the bottom of Appendixes A and B
.attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read: Telephone No. 526-5741.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed on December 30, 1964, by Independent Union of Meat
'Cutters and Packinghouse Employees, Local No. 1110, United Packinghouse, Food
and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called the Affiliated Union), the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Board , acting through the Regional Director for Region 10,
issued two complaints, dated January 21, 1965. The complaint in Case No. 10-CA-
5953, against East Tennessee Packing Company (herein called Respondent Em-
ployer), charges violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended ( herein called the Act). That complaint alleges, in sub-
stance, that on December 14, 1964, following an election conducted under the super-
vision of the Board's Regional Director , the Board certified the Affiliated Union as
the collective -bargaining representative of all the employees in an appropriate unit;
and that since on or about the same date , and at all times thereafter , Respondent
Employer has assisted and supported another labor organization , Independent Union
of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employees ( herein called Respondent Unaffili-
ated Union ), by maintaining a collective-bargaining agreement with said Unaffiliated
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the afore-
said unit . It is further alleged therein that, though requested to do so, Respondent
Employer has since December 14, 1964, refused to bargain collectively with the
certified Affiliated Union.
The second complaint issued as aforementioned, in Case No. 10-CB-1517, is
against Respondent Unaffiliated Union and Thomas Murphy, its president, and
charges violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. That complaint contains sub-
stantially the same allegations found in the complaint against Respondent Employer
summarized above plus the further allegation that since on or about December 14,
1964 , and at all times thereafter , Respondent Unaffiliated Union has accepted recogni-
tion from, and has maintained a collective-bargaining agreement with, Respondent
Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the
-same unit for which the Affiliated Union had been certified on December 14, 1964.
On January 21, 1965, the aforementioned Regional Director , deeming it necessary
in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act and to avoid unnecessary costs and
delay, consolidated the two proceedings aforementioned.
On or about February 1, 1965, Respondent Employer filed its answer to the
complaint in Case No. 10 -CA-5953 denying it had committed any unfair labor
practice and pleading affirmatively that both the election preceding the certification
of the Affiliated Union as aforementioned , and the certification of that union (Case
No. 10-RC-5722 ), were neither "binding or enforceable" because, at the time both
of said election and certification , there was in effect an outstanding collective-
bargaining agreement between Respondent Employer and Respondent Unaffiliated
Union which , by its terms, was not to expire until July 25, 1965 , "and that such
EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY 1259
contract was, in fact, a bar to the election ordered" by the Board in that representa-
tion proceeding. The answer further pleaded that Respondent Employer was and is
"under a continuing duty to recognize the existing contract and the signatory party
thereto," Respondent Unaffiliated Union, and specifically admits that it has refused
to recognize the Affiliated Union "as the representative of a majority of any of its
employees in an appropriate unit."
Respondent Unaffiliated Union, by its answer in Case No. 10-CB-1517, denied
that the Affiliated Union was a labor organization and specifically denied that the
election in Case No. 10-RC-5722 "was legally held" or that the Board's certification
in that proceeding "was legally issued in that both acts were contrary to prior Board
decisions and illegal." Its answer, however, specifically admitted that on and after
December 14, 1964, it "has accepted recognition from and has maintained collective-
bargaining agreement with [Respondent Employer] as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all the employees in the unit contained in the contract with said
employees" effective from July 25, 1962, to July 25, 1965.
On or about March 4, 1965, the General Counsel made a motion to amend both
complaints. In Case No. 10-CA-5953 he sought to add an allegation charging that
since on or about December 14, 1964, and at all times thereafter, "Respondent
Employer has checked off and deducted dues and assessments, on behalf of the
unaffiliated union, from the wages of its employees in the aforesaid unit, and has
paid over such sums to the said unaffiliated union." In Case No. 10-CB-1517 he
sought to add an allegation that during the same period mentioned immediately
above, Respondent Unaffiliated Union "has received from the Employer the Respond-
ent [Unaffiliated] Union's dues and assessments checked off and deducted by the
Employer from the wages of the employees in the aforesaid unit."
Said motions to amend having been duly assigned to Trial Examiner David London
for ruling, I issued, on March 8, 1965, and caused to be delivered to all the parties
to this consolidated proceeding, my telegraphic order requiring all parties hereto to
show cause before me, in writing, at Washington, D.C., on or before March 15, 1965,
why said motion to amend the complaints as aforementioned should not be granted.
On March 16, 1965, no objection to said motion having been filed, I issued and caused
to be delivered to all the parties hereto my telegraphic order granting the General
Counsel's motion to amend the complaints as described above and granting all other
parties until March 23, 1965, to file amended answers to the amended complaints.
On or about March 22, 1965, Respondent Employer filed its amended answer to
the amended complaint in Case No. 10-CA-5953, admitting that "since on or about
July 25, 1962, and all times thereafter, it has checked off and deducted dues, under
an authorization card signed and submitted by the persons involved, from the wages
of certain of its employees in the aforesaid unit, and has paid over such sums to
the said Respondent Union. [It also pleaded] that such deductions are being made
under agreements entered into between the Respondent Company and its employees
only, and that there is no contract provision in the outstanding collective-bargaining
agreement providing for, or requiring, said dues deduction." The amended answer
further pleaded that the Board's Order "directing an election at an improper time
while a contract was in effect between the Respondent Company and the Respondent
Union `for the purpose of determining whether Respondent Union or another and
different union not a party to such contract should properly administer the contract
for the balance of its term' is in violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution
,of the United States."
On or about March 22, 1965, Respondent Unaffiliated Union and Thomas Murphy,
its president, filed their answer to the amended complaint in Case No. 10-CB-1517
by which that Union admitted receipt from Respondent Employer "its union dues as
provided for by the checkoff request filed with the Company by each individual to
be checked off to the benefit of and paid over" to the Respondent Unaffiliated Union.
On or about March 26, 1965, the General Counsel filed his supplemental motion
for summary judgment i by reason of the admissions contained in both the answers
and the amended answers described above. The motion also requested that the
Recommended Order herein provide "further and additionally that Respondent
Employer and Respondent [Unaffiliated] Union, jointly and severally, reimburse all
employees for all dues and assessments deducted and withheld by Respondent
Employer for and on behalf of Respondent Union since December 14, 1964."
1 An earlier motion for summary judgment by the General Counsel , based on the original
pleadings, was not acted upon by me prior to this time because of the intervening motion
of the General Counsel to amend the complaint as described above.
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 30 , 1965, I issued and caused to be served on all parties to this con-
solidated proceeding my order to show cause requiring all parties hereto to submit
to me, in writing , at Washington , D.C., on or before April 9, 1965 , their response
to said supplemental motion for summary judgment , and show cause , if any there be,
"why the issues raised by the existing pleadings should not be resolved by me
without any further hearing other than their response to this Order to Show Cause."
I further ordered "that if any of the Respondents believe that there are any genuine
issues open for decision not already pleaded herein , or decided by the Board in Case
No. 10-RC-5722, the same shall be set forth , in writing , and submitted to me within
the time prescribed above in the form of a detailed offer of proof of the additional
relevant facts upon which such Respondent relies."
In response to the order mentioned immediately above, I received the following
telegram from counsel for Respondent Employer on April 8, 1965:
RE- EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 10-CA-5053
AND 10-CB-1517 RESPONDENT EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COM-
PANY DOES NOT RESIST THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO BE MADE ON THE PLEADINGS AS REFLECTED BY THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND AMENDED ANSWER BUT OF COURSE DOES
OBJECT TO THE PRAYER OF GENERAL COUNSEL IN REGARD TO
THE REMEDY WHICH IT SEEKS WE RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE THAT
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT PROPERLY
CARRY THE PRAYER, BUT THAT THE PRAYER SHOULD BE LIMITED
TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ITSELF.
None of the other parties hereto made any response to my order of March 30, 1965,
or interposed any objection to my resolution of the issues raised by the existing
pleadings without any further hearing herein.
The only denials of the allegations of the two complaints interposed by the
answers and the amended answers of any of the Respondents are as follows:
Respondent Unaffiliated Union and its president, in paragraph 2 of their answer,
plead that they are "not advised of the corporate status of the Employer and demands
strict proof thereof." Having failed to raise any affirmative defense, said Respond-
ents are bound by the admissions concerning the corporate status of the Employer
contained in Respondent Employer's answer herein. J. W. Bateson Company, Inc,
134 NLRB 1654, footnote 2.
All the Respondents , by their answers , denied the allegation of the respective
complaint that the Affiliated Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act. In light of the prior proceeding , Case No. 10-RC-5722, in which Respond-
ent Employer and Respondent Unaffiliated Union participated , and in which pro-
ceeding the Board, by its Decision and Direction of Election , found the Affiliated
Union to be a labor organization , I deem these denials to be frivolous and without
merit.
Respondent Employer, by paragraph 10 of its answer, denied the allegation of the
complaint charging that the Affiliated Union on and after December 18, 1964,
requested Respondent Employer to bargain collectively with that organization with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment . However,
attached to the General Counsel 's motion for summary judgment is a copy of a
letter, dated December 21, 1964, purportedly signed by Respondent Employer's
secretary , acknowledging and refusing the Affiliated Union's request to bargain made
on December 18, 1964. Respondent Employer has not challenged the authenticity
of that letter Furthermore , by its answer, filed herein on or about January 30, 1965,
Respondent Employer admitted that, - as of that date , it has refused to recognize the
Affiliated Union.
Examination of the entire record herein discloses that the underlying objective
of both Respondent Employer and Respondent Unaffiliated Union is to use this con-
solidated proceeding as the vehicle to attack and obtain a review of the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 10-RC-5722, dated September 21,
1964. The focal point of that attack is the Board 's disregard in that Decision of an
existing contract between Respondent Employer and Respondent Unaffiliated Union
as a bar to the election ordered upon petition of the Affiliated Union.
By reason of all the foregoing I conclude that there are no factual issues in this
consolidated proceeding which require determination by me and that the General
Counsel is entitled to the relief warranted by-the-'facts pleaded in the two complaints.
On the entire record herein , including the complete record in Case No . 10-RC-5722
of which I have taken official notice , 1 -grant the General Counsel's motion for sum-
mary judgment in accordance with the findings and conclusions that follow.
EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
1261
Respondent Employer is, and has been at all times material herein, a Tennessee
corporation maintaining a plant and place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee, where
it is engaged in the processing and nonretail sale of meats and meat products. During
the year preceding the issuance of the complaints herein, which period is representa-
tive of all times material herein, Respondent Employer sold and shipped products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Tennes-
see. Respondent Employer admits, and I find, that at all times material herein it
was and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Affiliated Union and Respondent Unaffiliated Union are, and have been at
all times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On May 23, 1962, following a consent election, Respondent Unaffiliated Union
was certified as collective-bargaining representative of the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent Employer's Knox-
ville, Tennessee, plant, including the transportation department, shipping department,
and leadmen, but excluding office and plant clerical employees, salesmen, buyers,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On July 25, 1962, Respondent Employer and Respondent Unaffiliated Union
executed a collective-bargaining agreement expiring on July 25, 1965, covering the
employees in the above-described unit. On May 4, 1963, a majority of the member-
ship of that Union voted to become affiliated with the United Packinghouse, Food
and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO. On May 24, 1963, the Affiliated Union, through
its president, Frank Webb, requested that Respondent Employer meet with that Union
pursuant to the wage reopener provision of the contract aforementioned. Though
Webb, on June 5, 1963, informed Respondent Employer of the affiliation afore-
mentioned, the latter's attorney, on June 7, 1963, advised Webb that Respondent
Employer would refuse further recognition "to your group." A request by the
Affiliated Union to meet on job posting and seniority was rejected by Respondent
Employer by reference to the June 7 statement of its attorney aforementioned.
On July 11, 1963, the Affiliated Union filed a petition with the Board's Regional
Director, Case No. 10-RC-5200, seeking an order that the prior certification of the
Respondent Unaffiliated Union be amended to show its succession by the Affiliated
Union which petition was denied by the Regional Director on August 20, 1963. On
the following September 10, the Board denied the Affiliated Union's request for
review of the Regional Director's order "without prejudice to the filing of a new
representation petition."
On September 30, 1963, the Affiliated Union filed a petition in Case No. 10-RC-
5722 seeking certification as exclusive representative of the same unit described above
which petition was, however, dismissed by the Regional Director on October 16, 1963.
On January 21, 1964, the Board reversed that dismissal and remanded the proceeding
for hearing. That hearing, in which Respondent Employer, Respondent Unaffiliated
Union, and the Affiliated Union participated, was conducted before a Board Hearing
Officer on March 18 and 19, 1964. At that hearing, most of the facts found above
were disclosed. In addition, further testimony was adduced establishing a sharp
conflict between the three participants as to which union had the right to administer
the existing collective-bargaining agreement and to be recognized as collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent Employer's employees. On March 19, 1964,
the Hearing Officer transferred the proceeding to, and for determination by, the
Board.
On September 21, 1964, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election
in that proceeding in which it found and succinctly summarized the embroilment
mentioned in the preceding paragraph as follows: On or about July 24, 1963,
Respondent Employer received a letter "purporting to be from `the loyal members of
the [nonaffiliated] Union' stating they wished to bargain with the Employer under the
terms of the contract. In meeting with several signatories of the letter the Employer
advised them that he could not legally recognize them and advised them to retain
at attorney. On September 17, [1963, the Respondent Unaffiliated Union], through
its attorney, presented the Employer with a demand for recognition accompanied by
a petition bearing 156 signatures, which the Employer allegedly compared with its
checkoff list. The petition also resolved to remove officers of the affiliated and
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appoint new officers . The Employer by letter of September 18 [1963j, agreed to
meet with the negotiating team of the [Respondent Unaffiliated Union ]. Additional
names supporting the petition were presented to the Employer on September 27
[1963]. Between that date and October 31 , 11 meetings were held between the
Employer and the [Unaffiliated Union] during which a wage increase was agreed to
and approved by the membership [thereof] by a vote of 45 to 1 on November 1.
While the negotiations were proceeding , the [Respondent Unaffiliated Union], at
meetings called October 1, and October 22, [1963] attended by approximately 92
and 85 members , respectively , passed resolutions adopting the constitution and bylaws
of the Union, as they existed on January 1, [1963]; ratified the `action of disaffiliation'
taken by the petition by the Employer, and elected new officers. When Webb, at
the October 22 meeting, stood up and claimed he was president of the Union, he
was asked to leave on the ground he could not belong to the [Respondent Unaffiliated
Union and the Affiliated Union] at the same time. On October 10, [1963] the
Employer turned over to the treasurer of the [Respondent Unaffiliated Union] all
union dues collected since June, and since November the Employer has processed
grievances with the [Respondent Unaffiliated Union]."
Based on the entire record in that proceeding , the Board came to the following
conclusion : "It is apparent that both of the labor organizations involved recognized
the validity of the current contract, but each claims the right to administer it. In
these circumstances and on the basis of our conclusion that there exists uncertainty
and confusion as to which labor organization the employees desire to administer the
contract , we find a question concerning representation which can best be resolved
by an election among the employees involved. We shall, therefore , direct an election
among all members of the appropriate unit to determine whether [the Affiliated Union
or the Nonaffiliated Union] is the representative entitled to administer the contract."
At the election so ordered and conducted on October 19, 1964, 174 employees of
Respondent Employer voted for the Affiliated Union and 166 voted for Respondent
Unaffiliated Union. On December 14, 1964, the Affiliated Union was certified by
the Regional Director as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the same appropriate unit heretofore described.
Concluding Findings
By reason of all the foregoing , I further find and conclude that on and after
December 21, 1964 , Respondent Employer, though requested to do so, refused to
recognize or bargain with the duly certified Affiliated Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of Respondent Employer's employees in an appropriate unit thereby violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1) and ( 5) of the Act. By recognizing , since December 14, 1964,
and by maintaining a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Unaffiliated
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the same unit, Respondent
Employer assisted and supported said Respondent Unaffiliated Union thereby also
violating Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
By accepting, since and after December 14, 1964, recognition from and main-
taining a collective -bargaining agreement with Respondent Employer as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit described herein, Respondent Unaffiliated
Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R B. and Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp., 366
U.S. 731; Gerald Sklar et al, d/b/a Michigan Advertising Distributing Company,
134 NLRB 1289.
The defense and counterattack of all the Respondents urging that the Board's
disregard of the 1962 contract as a bar to the petition in Case No. 10-RC-5722 was
in violation of their constitutional rights, and contrary to Board precedent , is of no
avail to Respondents in this proceeding . It "is the established policy of the Board
not to allow a party to relitigate in a complaint proceeding such as this one the legal
effect of matters which the party has already litigated and Board has decided in a prior
representation proceeding." Ken Lee, Inc., 137 NLRB 1642, citing Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146,161-162.2
There remains for consideration the contention of the General Counsel and the
Affiliated Union that the Recommended Order herein include a provision requiring
Respondent Employer and Respondent Unaffiliated Union, jointly and severally, to
reimburse all employees for all dues and assessments deducted and withheld by the
Respondent Employer for and on behalf of Respondent Union since December 14,
1964. Though it is undenied that Respondent Employer, pursuant to checkoff
authorization signed by its employees , paid their union dues to Respondent Unaffili-
ated Union , there is no allegation or claim that the checkoff cards on which the
2 Cf. Local 1545, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. v. Vincent ( Pilgrim-Furniture),
286 F. 2d 127 (C.A. 2).
EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY 1263
Employer acted were the result of coercion by either Respondent Employer or
Respondent Union. The existing collective -bargaining agreement contains no provi-
sion requiring membership in Respondent Unaffiliated Union as a condition of
employment ,3 and it must , therefore , be assumed that membership in that union was
voluntarily maintained and that the checkoff cards were voluntarily executed. The
requested reimbursement order will , therefore , be denied . Local 60, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Mechanical Handling Systems), 365 U.S. 651;
Couch Electric Company, 143 NLRB 662; Jack W. Sellers et al., d/b/a Coca-Cola
Bottling Company of Sacramento, 146 NLRB 1045; Jomar Metal Finishing Corp.,
147 NLRB 1055.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All production and maintenance employees at Respondent Employer's Knox-
ville, Tennessee , plant, including the transportation department , shipping department,
and leadmen , but excluding office and plant clerical employees , salesmen , buyers,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2. The Affiliated Union since December 14, 1964, has been, and now is, the duly
certified and exclusive representative of the employees in the above -described unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent Employer with respect to
rates of pay , wages, hours , and other terms and conditions of employment of the
employees in said unit.
3. By recognizing and maintaining a collective-bargaining relationship, since
December 14, 1964, with Respondent Unaffiliated Union as the representative of
the employees in the unit described above, Respondent Employer rendered assistance
and support to that organization thereby violating Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.
4. By refusing, since December 21, 1964, to bargain collectively with the Affiliated
Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit, Respondent Employer violated Section 8 ( a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act.
5. By accepting recognition from, and maintaining a collective-bargaining rela-
tionship with, Respondent Employer as the representative of employees in the above-
described unit from and after December 14, 1964, Respondent Union has thereby
violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the findings of fact , conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is
recommended that:
A. Respondent East Tennessee Packing Company , Knoxville, Tennessee , its offi-
cers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting , contributing support to , or maintaining a collective-bargaining rela-
tionship with Respondent Unaffiliated Union, or recognizing said Union, or any suc-
cessor thereto , as the representative of any of its employees in the unit described
above for the purpose of dealing with said Unaffiliated Union with respect to griev-
ances, rates of pay, wages , hours of work , or other conditions of employment , unless
and until said organization shall have been certified by the Board.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Affiliated Union concerning the sub-
jects described immediately above.
(c) In any similar manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Upon demand , bargain collectively with the Affiliated Union as the exclusive
representative of all its employees in the above-described unit with respect to griev-
ances, rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Post at its Knoxville, Tennessee , premises , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
8 Tennessee has a so-called right-to-work law.
d If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice If the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and Order".
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for Region 10, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Company's representative,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent Company to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth immediately
above, and as soon as they are forwarded by said Regional Director, copies of the
Respondent Unaffiliated Union's notice herein marked "Appendix B."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps they have taken to comply with the
foregoing recommendations.5
B. Respondent Unaffiliated Union, Thomas Murphy, its president, its other officers,
business agents, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Demanding or accepting recognition from Respondent Employer as the repre-
sentative of employees in the above-described unit, or maintaining a collective-
bargaining relationship with said Employer, unless and until said Respondent Unaffili-
ated Union shall have been certified by the Board.
(b) In any similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in all of its offices, meeting halls, hiring halls, and
union halls, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 6 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 10, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent Unaffiliated Union's president, be posted by the said Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including its offices, hiring hall, meeting hall, and all places
where notices to members and other persons are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Unaffiliated Union to ensure that such materials
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to said Regional Director copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix B" for posting by Respondent Employer on its premises at all places where notices
to its employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Unaffiliated
Union's president, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent Unaffiliated
Union has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, all the Respondents notify said Regional
Director, in writing, that they will comply with the Recommended Order, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the said Respondents to
take the aforesaid action.
If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read, "Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
° See footnote 4, supra.
See footnote 5, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist, contribute support to, or maintain a collective-bargaining
relationship with Independent Union of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employ-
ees (Unaffiliated) or recognize said unaffiliated union, or any successor thereto,
as the representative of any of our employees in the unit described below for
the purpose of dealing with that organization with respect to grievances, rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment, unless and until
said unaffiliated union shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Independent Union of Meat
Cutters and Packinghouse Employees, Local No. 1110, United Packinghouse,
PIZZA PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ETC. 1265
Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, concerning the subjects described immedi-
ately above.
WE WILL NOT in any similar manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon demand , bargain collectively with Independent Union of Meat
Cutters and Packinghouse Employees, Local No. 1110, United Packinghouse,
Food and Allied Workers, affiliated with AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all our employees in the following unit:
All production and maintenance employees at our Knoxville , Tennessee,
plant including the transportation department , shipping department, and
leadmen , but excluding office and plant clerical employees , salesmen , buyers,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone
No. 876-3311, Extension 5357.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INDEPENDENT UNION OF MEAT CUTTERS AND
PACKINGHOUSE EMPLOYEES ( UNAFFILIATED)
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT demand or accept recognition from East Tennessee Packing
Company as the representative of its employees or maintain a collective-
bargaining relationship with said Company unless and until we have been certi-
fied by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
INDEPENDENT UNION OF MEAT CUTTERS AND
PACKINGHOUSE EMPLOYEES ( UNAFFILIATED),
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-
Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street , Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No. 876-3311,
Extension 5357.
Pizza Products Corporation and G & W Food Products of Ohio,
Inc. and United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America,
AFI-CIO . Case No. 8-CA-3668. July 2, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 26, 1965, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
153 NLRB No. 78.
796-027-66-vol. 153-81