Easton Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 1601 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

EASTON PACKING COMPANY
Easton Packing Company and Local 195 , Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO. Case 4-CA-4202
June 20, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On November 24, 1967, Trial Examiner William
J. Brown issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion . The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended dismissal as to them . Thereafter, the
Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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
Trial Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner , except as modified
below:
The complaint , as amended , alleges that the ap-
propriate unit of the Company's employees consists
of all meatcutters , shipping department employees,
truckdrivers , and maintenance employees , with the
usual exclusions . However, the Trial Examiner ex-
cluded the truckdrivers from the unit he found ap-
propriate because (1) he concluded another union
sought their separate representation , and (2)
neither the Meat Cutters nor the Respondent con-
sistently sought their inclusion . The Respondent ex-
cepts to the exclusion . The record shows that on or
about January 19, 1966, the date the Meat Cutters
sought recognition , the truckdrivers had signed
cards for the Teamsters Union, but there is no
evidence that that Union ever demanded recogni-
tion for such employees . Further , the record shows
that the truckdrivers spend about 15 percent of
1601
their time inside the plant doing less skilled meat-
cutting jobs in the area where unit employees work.
In these circumstances we can perceive no basis for
excluding the truckdrivers from the unit. Con-
sequently, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that the appropriate unit includes the drivers.' Ac-
cordingly, paragraph 4, of the Trial Examiner's
"Conclusions of Law" and the first paragraph of the
notice (the appendix to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion ) are modified to set forth the appropriate unit
All meatcutters, shipping and maintenance de-
partment employees, and truckdrivers, exclud-
ing all other employees, clerical department
employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined
in the Act.
as:
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Easton Packing Company, Easton, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
' Our result here does not adversely affect the Trial Examiner 's findings
that on and after January 19, 1967, a majority of employees in the ap-
propriate unit had signed Meat Cutters authorization cards.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the Act, came on to be
heard at Easton and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on
July 24, 25, and August 1, 1967.1 The original
charge of unfair labor practices was filed February
14 by the above-indicated Charging Party,
hereinafter referred to as the Union, and the
original complaint issued April 28; thereafter
amended charges were filed by the Union on June
14 and July 6 and an amended complaint issued on
July 12, alleging, in addition to jurisdictional
matter, the commission, on the part of the above-
indicated Respondent, hereinafter sometimes
referred to as the Company, of unfair labor prac-
tices defined in Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
Act. The Company's duly filed answer admits the
jurisdictional allegations of the amended complaint
and the supervisory status under the Act of Pre-
sident Murray Simon, Assistant to the President
' Dates hereinafter relate to the year 1967 unless otherwise noted.
171 NLRB No. 183
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cyrus Adler , and Butcher Foreman Sebastian
Nigrelli ;2 it denies the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged therein.
At the hearing the parties appeared and par-
ticipated as noted above with full opportunity to
present evidence and argument on the issues; sub-
sequent to the hearing briefs were received from
the General Counsel and the Company and have
been fully considered . On the entire record herein
and on the basis of my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
The Company is engaged in the processing, sale,
and distribution of quality meat products and re-
lated items . Its principal office is in Easton,
Pennsylvania, and its customers are restaurants,
hotels, and institutions . During the year preceding
issuance of the complaint herein the Company
purchased foodstuffs valued in excess of $50,000
and shipped directly from States outside the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania to the Company 's East-
on place of business. I find , as the Company con-
cedes, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence establish that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Summary of Events
This case concerns events occurring during the
relatively short period from January to March of
1967. In January the Company employed , in addi-
tion to supervisory personnel noted above, five
butchers ( Mario andp Americo Rossini , Giacomo
Famularo, Daniel Horoshock , and Emil Proch); two
shippers ( Donald Hunt and James Fuller ); three
truckdrivers (Leroy Tallada, D. Detweiler , and Ed-
ward Muth ); one maintenance man (Dato Notaro);
four outside salesmen and two girl clerical em-
ployees . The evidence indicates that , except for the
salemen and clericals, all supervisory and nonsuper-
visory personnel worked at some time or other for
varying periods in the processing of meat products;
it also reveals that the five meatcutters worked
varying amounts of time on routine maintenance
operations . The testimony of Simon , which I credit,
reveals that the Company had, for a considerable
time prior to January , experienced difficulties in
correlating the timing of receipt of salesmen's or-
ders from customers with the cutting of meat to fill
the order , with the concomitant necessity of sub-
stantial overtime required on the part of the meat-
cutters particularly on the latter days of each week.
I also credit his testimony that early in January a
new schedule of order taking by the salesmen was
instituted resulting in the spreading of order receipt
and meatcutting in connection therewith , so that by
the week prior to January 19 orders were so
scheduled as to result in less overtime work for the
meatcutters.
Shortly prior to January 19 William Deutsch, a
part-time union organizer, interested company
meatcutter Emil Proch in organizing company em-
ployees on behalf of the union , Proch signed a
union authorization card and obtained the signa-
tures of the four other meatcutters3 and the two
shipping department employees4 on union
authorization cards .5 On the morning of January 19
Union Business Representative James P. O'Malley
went to the company premises and demanded
recognition as representative of employees; when
this was not forthcoming the seven employee card-
signers struck and picketed . Shippers Hunt and
Fuller abandoned the strike and returned to work
on Monday , January 23 . On March 2 the Union on
behalf of the remaining strikers offered their un-
conditional return to work and on March 6 four of
the remaining strikers were reinstated. Emil Proch
was refused reinstatement.
The General Counsel alleges and the Company
denies that the refusal of the Company to recognize
the Union on January 19 was an unfair labor prac-
tice within the purview of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, and that such refusal caused or prolonged the
strike referred to above ; the General Counsel also
alleges and the Company denies that the refusal of
reinstatement of Proch was an unfair labor practice
within the scope of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The
General Counsel alleges and the Company denies
that after the strike the Company unilaterally al-
tered terms and conditions of employment and that
such action constituted violations of Section
8(a)(3) and ( 5) of the Act . The General Counsel
alleges and the Company denies that during the
course of the strike Simon and Nigrelli promised
striking employees wage increases and improved
hospitalization benefits if they would abandon the
strike thereby committing unfair labor practices
defined in Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act.
B. The Refusal To Bargain
As amended at the hearing the complaint alleges,
and the Company denies, that an appropriate unit
2 The supervisory status of Shipping Department Foreman Lawrence
Corrallo is established by a stipulation of the parties at the hearing.
' Mario and Americo Rossini , Giacomo Famularo , and Daniel
Horoshock.
Donald Hunt and James Fuller.
The cards are in evidence as G C. Exh. 3A-G. All dated January 16,
they are unequivocal designations of the Union as exclusive bargaining
agent of the signatories.
EASTON PACKING COMPANY
of company employees consists of all meatcutters,
shipping department employees, truckdrivers and
maintenance employees, excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act. The unit alleged ap-
propriate in the complaint is essentially a produc-
tion and maintenance unit of the Company s single
plant and, save for the matter of the inclusion of
truckdrivers, presumptively appropriate. The
evidence indicates that the Union never sought
representation of the truckdrivers although O'Mal-
ley, apparently in a cooperative effort with the
Teamsters Local in the area , was in possession of
cards signed by two of the truckdrivers on behalf of
that organization. Although the Company's drivers
are, like production and maintenance employees,
hourly rated and appear to do some (although less
than other employees) work in the meatcutting
operations, it appears that no party to the instant
case has consistently sought their inclusion and the
evidence indicates that another labor organization
is seeking to represent them. Under the foregoing
circumstances it appears that they should be ex-
cluded from the unit appropriate for purposes of
the instant case.
On the morning of January 19 O'Malley and
Deutsch went to the company premises sometime
prior to the starting hour of 7 a.m. After some
preliminary discussions with Adler and Simon dur-
ing which O'Malley claimed that the Union
represented certain of the company employees and
Simon expressed the need to consult with his attor-
ney, there was a meeting in Simon 's office between
O'Malley and Proch for the Union and Simon and
his attorney, Leonard Cohn; Adler was alternately
in and out of the meeting. O'Malley's account is
that he told Simon that the Union represented
seven out of the nine employees and desired recog-
nition as their bargaining agent . Cohn, according to
O'Malley, and corroborated by Proch, asked to in-
spect the union authorization cards and O'Malley
stated that if the Company examined the cards that
would amount to a cardcheck for recognition. I
credit O'Malley 's testimony that the Company ex-
amined the signatures on the seven union
authorization cards on this occasion and that, after
some discussion as to the reputation of the Union in
the area , the parties then proceded to discuss the
terms on which recognition should be accorded.
During the course of the discussion O'Malley of-
fered the Company a "letter of recognition," in
evidence as G.C. Exh. 4, and Resp. Exh. 5, which,
in addition to providing for company recognition of
the Union as sole bargaining agent of employees,
provides for negotiation of an agreement within 30
days and the agreement of the employer to employ
and retain only members of the Union in goody
standing - Adler and Cohn raised the question as to
whether this did not amount to a closed shop but I
credit O'Malley's testimony , as against that of
Simon and Cohn to the contrary, that in the ensu-
1603
ing discussion he explained that new employees
would come under the 30-day probationary period
in the Union's standard collective-bargaining agree-
ment and would be required to become union
members only on the 31st day after employment.
Under all the circumstances I find that the patently
illegal wording of the recognition agreement was
not in fact the real cause of or motive for the sub-
sequent refusal of recognition.
Following the discussion described above, the
meeting broke up. O'Malley testified that Cohn
promised to resume the discussions in a half hour
and this is consistent with Cohn's concession that
on the termination of the meeting he may have told
O'Malley that he would be in touch with him.
O'Malley and Proch credibly testified that the
Union's claim on the morning of January 19 as ex-
pressed to the Company was that it represented
seven out of the nine employees. This can
reasonably be construed as a claim to represent the
seven card signers who embraced the then existing
complement of meatcutters and shipping depart-
ment , the truckdrivers then being sought by the
Teamsters and the maintenance employee, Notaro,
being a recently hired part-time employee, who
although reasonably includable in a production and
maintenance unit, could well have been disregarded
by O'Malley on that occasion. I also find on the
basis of O'Malley's testimony that the Company's
ultimate refusal of recognition was not based on
any good-faith doubt as to the union majority status
or by a sincere desire for a Board election to
resolve any questions. This appears from the
testimony of O'Malley that when Simon raised the
question of an election O'Malley said that he had
had it by agreeing to the cardcheck of employee
signature to which Cohn, according to O'Malley,
stated that the cardcheck was not an election but
was coercion, and from Cohn's further admission
that he advised Simon that he could sign an agree-
ment with the Union but would face a closed shop
problem.
At the conclusion of the meeting in Simon's of-
fice, according to O'Malley's testimony which is un-
denied by company witnesses, Cohn said that he
would be in touch with O'Malley within a half hour.
O'Malley waited an hour and then established a
picket line of the seven card signers which con-
tinued until the return to work of all strikers except
Proch on March 6. Shippers Hunt and Fuller aban-
doned the picket line earlier, on January 23, and
worked thereafter.
On January 26 O'Malley met Simon at the plant
and asked for a conference but Simon was occu-
pied with other matters, though he did call O'Mal-
ley later and requested the return to work of the
strikers. There was a meeting between O'Malley
and Simon on February 2 at the Key City Diner in
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, at which there was
general discussion concerning the industry and a
particular discussion concerning the benefits of
353-177 0 - 72 - 102
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unionization . Simon testified that in the course of
talking with O'Malley at that time about the provi-
sions of union agreements he told O 'Malley that he
would have to think further about the matter. 0'-
Malley credibly testified that in the course of this
meeting Simon raised no question concerning the
matters of the unit appropriate for bargaining nor
concerning union security . Later that day Simon
called O 'Malley and reported that he had been una-
ble to communicate with his attorney.
It clearly appears from the foregoing that on
January 19 the Union represented a majority of
company employees in any conceivably appropriate
unit and demanded recognition for a unit of all
production and maintenance employees exclusive
of truckdrivers . The Company examined the union
authorization cards and had no genuine basis for
doubt of the Union 's majority status . It does not in
fact appear to have insisted upon or earnestly
desired a Board election and in fact during the
course of the February 2 meeting gave all evidences
of being resigned to recognizing the Union.
On the basis of the foregoing I find that on
January 19 the Union represented a majority of
company employees in the unit for which it then
sought recognition , viz, all production and main-
tenance employees exclusive of truckdrivers and
that the Company had no genuine good -faith doubt
as to such majority status of the Union . Its conduct
in subsequently (see infra) soliciting individual em-
ployees to abandon the strike and return to work
with increased benefits indicated a rejection of the
principle of collective bargaining . refusal of
recognition under all the circumstances set forth
above constituted an unfair labor practice within
the purview of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
On termination of the strike on March 6 the
Company, according to the complaint , engaged in
an unlawful refusal to bargain by instituting without
prior consultation with the Union a decrease in the
regular hours of employment . The documentary
evidence , G.C. Exh. 2, clearly reveals a diminution
in hours of work following their return after the
strike , yet it is conceded that the sales volume has
not decreased. Company witnesses Simon , Adler,
and Nigrelli testified that for some time prior to the
advent of the Union on the scene , substantial ef-
forts had been made to coordinate the scheduling
of the receipt of orders from salesmen so as to
spread the work more evenly over the workweek.
Prior to the strike , according to Simon, whose
testimony I credit in this regard , a system was in-
stalled under which the same amount of meat could
be processed in straight time work as formerly
required overtime . There is no evidence that the
new system was discriminatorily conceived or ad-
ministered and the consequences after March when
the cutters returned to work were no more than the
normal operations of a system lawfully adopted
prior to knowledge of union activity . I recommend
dismissal of the allegations of the complaint in this
regard. These same considerations also require
dismissal of the allegations that the diminution in
hours of work for the cutters on their return after
the strike constituted discrimination against them
within the purview of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
C. Refusal To Reinstate Emil Proch
As noted above Emil Proch was the employee
leader of the Union's organizational effort and his
status as such became evident to the Company
when he was the only employee accompanying O -
Malley to the meeting of January 19. Proch was
hired in October and was the junior meatcutter in
point of seniority with the Company at all material
times. Proch had prior experience at the trade and
appears to have received a raise in pay shortly prior
to the strike. The documentary evidence reveals,
however, that following the strike and quite clearly
as a result of the aforementioned change in the
method of scheduling salemen's orders, there was
less work for all the meatcutters. Thus G.C. Exh. 2
reveals that whereas prior to the installation of the
new system during the week ending January 14 the
cutters regularly worked substantial overtime, on
the termination of the strike during the week end-
ing March 11 and thereafter the four reinstated
meatcutters regularly worked less than 40 hours per
week. It also appears that while one new meatcutter
was hired during the strike he was not retained in
employment after the termination of the strike. The
evidence in short preponderates in favor of the con-
clusion that the refusal to reemploy Proch was
based on his junior seniority status and I recom-
mend dismissal of the allegations relating to dis-
criminatory refusal to reinstate Proch. It does ap-
pear however that the strike was called to protest
the Company's unlawful refusal to bargain and as
such was an unfair labor practice strike. In these
circumstances, an unconditional offer having been
made on behalf of Proch to return to work, he is
entitled to preference in rehiring as soon as a
vacancy occurs among the meatcutters; I shall
therefore recommend that he be placed on a
preferential hiring list to be employed in a meat-
cutter capacity as soon as a vacancy occurs among
the meatcutters classification.
D. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that
during the course of the strike Simon and Nigrelli
promised wage increases and new hospitalization
benefits if employees would return to work and
refrain from support of the Union.
Mario Rossini testified that 2 weeks after the
strike began Nigrelli called him and said that the
striking employees should come back to work and
that they would be given Blue Cross and Blue
Shield, would be paid for time lost due to the strike,
and would get a raise. Americo Rossini testified
EASTON PACKING COMPANY
that about 1 0 days after the commencement of the
strike Simon telephoned and asked him to meet
with him at the Key City Diner. There Simon asked
him to return to work and Rossini said that if the
Company signed a 2-year contract with Blue Cross
and Blue Shield and a pay increase to $ 3 he would
return. Giacomo Famularo testified that during the
first week of the strike Simon telephoned and
promised to give him anything he wanted to secure
his return to work and that thereafter Nigrelli said
that Simon would give Blue Cross and Blue Shield
if he returned to work.
Nigrelli concedes talking to Mario Rossini and to
Famularo but denied promising on behalf of Simon
that employees would be paid for lost time if they
returned to work; he also denied the promises at-
tributed to him. Simon denied making any promises
to Famularo.
I credit the testimony of the Rossinis and Famu-
laro and find that during the course of the strike
Nigrelli promised Blue Cross and Blue Shield
benefits, a pay increase and pay for time lost if em-
ployees would return to work, and that Simon
promised benefits to Famularo in return for his
abandoning the strike. By these offers of benefit
under the circumstances the Company engaged in
unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the Com-
pany's operations described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings set forth , above, to the ef-
fect that the Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend
that it be required to cease and desist therefrom
and from like or related unfair labor practices and
take such affirmative action as appears necessary
and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in this case , I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1605
3. By promising employees improvements in
conditions of employment in return for their
refraining from participation in concerted activities
the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. All meatcutters, shipping department em-
ployees, and maintenance employees, excluding all
other employees, clerical employees, truckdrivers,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. Since on or about January 19 the Union has
been and is now the exclusive representative of em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
6. By refusing from and after January 19 to bar-
gain with the Union as exclusive representative of
employees in the aforesaid unit the Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
8. Except as specifically found herein the Com-
pany has not engaged in unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in
this case, it is recommended that the Company, its
officers, directors, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Promising employees benefits in return for
their refraining from participation in lawful con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as exclusive representative of employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection or to refrain from such activities except
as their right to so refrain may be affected by an
agreement lawfully entered into pursuant to the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) On request bargain collectively with the
Union as exclusive representative of employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
understanding is reached , embody such understand-
ing in a signed memorandum of agreement.
(b) Place Emil Proch on a preferential hiring list
and offer him employment in his meatcutter clas-
sification as soon as a vacancy occurs therein and
prior to employment of any other person in such
classification.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available
to the Board or its agents , for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, and other records necessary to
analyze and give effect to the preferential reem-
ployment right of Emil Proch as above set forth.
(d) Notify Emil Proch if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its premises in Easton , Pennsylvania,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. "6
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 4, after being duly
signed by the Company's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Company immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Company to insure that said notices' are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Recommended
Order, as to the steps which have been taken to
comply with the terms hereof.'
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein be
dismissed as to allegations of unfair labor practices
not herein specifically found to have been engaged
in.
I In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words " a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Local 195, Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, as exclusive representative of em-
ployees in the following a propriate unit:
All meatcutters andp shipping and main-
tenance department em loyees, excluding
all other employees, clerical department
employees, truckdrivers, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits in
return for their refraining from participation in
strikes or other concerted activities for their
mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL on request bargain collectively with
the above Union with respect to wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment and embody
any understanding reached in a written and
signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to bargain with
the above Union or by promising benefits in
return for participation in concerted activities
or in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act.
WE WILL place Emil Proch on a preferential
hiring list and offer him reemployment in the
first vacancy as a meatcutter and we will notify
him if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to such
preferential hiring on discharge from the
Armed Forces.
EASTON PACKING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive 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, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut &
Juniper Streets , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania 19107,
Telephone 597-76177.