Eureka Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 162 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eureka Chemical Company and International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union , Local No . 6. Case 20-CA-3995.
May 31,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On January 17, 1967, Trial Examiner Eugene K.
Kennedy issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief to Respondent's
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings 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 recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Eureka
Chemical Company, San Francisco, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
I These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon
credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner, to which the
Respondent has excepted After a careful review of the record, we
conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not
contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence
Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d
362 (C A 3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE K. KENNEDY, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard in San Francisco, California, on October 13, 14, 18,
19, and 25, 1966.' It involves the issues of whether Eureka
Chemical Company, herein Respondent , unlawfully
interfered with the rights of its employees by making
threats and promises of benefit in connection with union
organization , whether there was an unlawful refusal to
bargain, and unlawful discriminatory discharges , violative
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein
the Act.
Upon the entire record , my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses , and a consideration of the briefs
submitted by Respondent and the General Counsel, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND JURISDICTION OF
THE BOARD
The Respondent is and at all times material herein has
been a California corporation with its manufacturing
facilities and principal place of business located in San
Francisco, California. It is engaged in the manufacture,
distribution, and sale of surface chemical products. Its
principal product is called fluid film which is a rust and
corrosion preventive. During the past year, Respondent
purchased and received in California, goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it
directly from outside the State of California. Also during
the past year Respondent sold and shipped goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of California. Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Although denied in its answer , Respondent stipulated
that International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union , Local No. 6, herein the Union , is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Comments
The stock in Respondent Company is entirely owned by
Mrs. Rae Hess, who is the president and treasurer of the
Company. Her son, Paul Hess, is vice president. One of
his principal functions is connected with the sale of
Respondent's products. Respondent has sales
representatives in various parts of the world. Anna Hess,
the daughter of Mrs. Hess, is the secretary. As of
March 11, 1966, the date the Union requested recognition,
Respondent's personnel, located in San Francisco,
consisted of the three alleged discriminatees, Chalmers
Jones, Archie Brown, and Marion Brooks. In addition
there were Plant Manager Robert Mikesell, laboratory
technicians Raymond Lynch and Joseph Lawrence, Chief
Chemist Thomas Stanton, Turner Richards, head of
photographic research, Helen Koski, bookkeeper, and
Ross Thomas, West Coast sales manager. The facilities in
San Francisco include a two-story building and a parking
and storage area. The lower floor is the area where the
chemical products are made and the raw materials stored.
The upper floor contains offices for the clerical personnel
' The charge in this case was filed on March 17, 1966 The
complaint was issued on June 29,1966
165 NLRB No. 7
EUREKA CHEMICAL CO. 163
and officers of Respondent, a laboratory, and a storage
section.
This record contains several credibility issues to be
resolved as well as requiring a resolution of the issues
presented. At the outset, a general observation will be
made which pervades all the testimony in the case and
which, although not specifically repeated hereafter, is a
factor bearing on the findings made herein. Paul Hess and
his mother, Mrs. Rae Hess, appeared to be intensely
affected emotionally when testifying with respect to the
events involved. The impression was obtained that their
objectivity as witnesses was impaired by an extreme
hostility to the Union. For example, when testifying as to
conversations with union officials, Paul Hess stated with
emphasis that when King, a union official, addressed him
outside the plant to arrange a discussion, Paul Hess
responded: "I don't speak to you or anyone else in the
middle of the street." In his conversations with union
officials concerning recognition of the Union, Paul Hess
never invited them to sit down and also testified with
emphasis: "Mr. King has never been in my private office."
Similarly Mrs. Rae Hess testified that she "apprehended"
Chalmers Jones one night going into the plant. As her
testimony unfolded it developed according to her version
that she unlocked the door to let Jones in and that he told
her he was returning to get his wallet. Nothing in the
record indicates that he was returning to the plant for any
other purpose.
B. The Events and Violations of the Act
1. The refusal to bargain
On March 11, 1966 , LeRoy King, International
representative for the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union , commonly referred to as the
ILWU, and Keith Eickman, business agent for the Union,
met with Respondent 's vice president , Paul Hess, in the
waiting room of his office in San Franc isco.z King advised
Hess that the Union represented his warehouse and
production employees and that "we would like to sit down
and talk to him about recognizing the Union."' Hess
asked , "What do you want me to do about it?" King then
handed Hess a document entitled , "Recognition
Agreement" and requested that Hess sign it. The
proposed agreement provided for Respondent's
recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative of
Respondent ' s warehouse employees excluding clericals,
guards, and supervisors . After Hess looked at it he asked
King, "How do I know you represent my employees." King
then handed Hess the three recognition cards signed by
Jones, Brooks, and Brown , the alleged discriminatees.
Hess removed a paper clip holding them together and
examined every card and then said , "I will have to check
and find out if these are my employees' signatures."4 Hess
also told King and Eickman that two employees in the unit
were going in the Army.' King indicated this was not
significant and renewed his request that Hess sign the
recognition agreement and a contract could be negotiated
later. Hess then said he was leaving the city and that he
could not give King and Eickman an answer until
March 28,1966.6
Hess also testified that he told King that the corporate
officers had to be advised of the request that this
recognition agreement be signed and considered. The
insincerity of this claim can be assessed by events
occurring subsequently. On the evening of March 15,
1966, Chalmers Jones, one of the discharged employees,
called King and asked why he had not heard about the
progress of union recognition. King replied that Hess
would be out of town until March 28, 1966. Jones told King
that Hess was still around and also advised King that none
of the three employees in the unit were going in the Army.
On the evening of March 16, 1966, Chalmers Jones,
Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown were fired although
there was additional work to be done; they were fired on a
day that was not the end of a pay period. A picket line was
established on the morning of March 17, 1966. King
unsuccessfully tried to see Hess on March 17 but did talk
to him in his office on March 18, 1966. King had tried to
contact Hess by phone on March 16, 1966. He had left his
telephone number with Hess' secretary but did not receive
a call. After the picket line was established on the morning
of March 17, 1966, King spoke to Hess and Hess said he
would meet with King at 2 p.m. that afternoon. Hess did
not appear for the appointment. King waited until 3 p.m.
and then left. On the morning of March 18, 1966, King
again requested recognition of the Union which Hess
refused, but in his testimony he admitted he may have
recognized the Union if the pickets were withdrawn and
King had been more genteel. This admission points up the
fictitious nature of the claim that Paul Hess lacked
authority to recognize the Union or that he doubted it
represented a majority of the production or plant
employees, or that there was any issue between
Respondent and the Union as to the appropriateness of the
bargaining unit. The record establishes that the refusal to
recognize the Union on March 11, 1966, was in bad faith.
Although on that occasion Paul Hess stated he wished to
verify the signatures of the employees, he made no effort
to do so and his giving the reason for postponing a further
meeting until March 28, 1966, was clearly designed to
provide time to maneuver into a position to avoid
recognizing the Union. The precipitous discharge of the
three and only union adherents on March 16, 1966,
supports the reason assigned for the delay by Paul Hess in
recognizing the Union.
Although the record indicates Respondent has some facilities
in Mobile, Alabama , all the events here under consideration
occurred in San Francisco
On March 8, 1966, King had obtained signed authorization
cards from Respondent's three production and maintenance
employees , the total number in the unit
The above version of the incident was given by King and
corroborated by Keith Eickman Both appeared to be objective,
straightforward, and truthful witnesses The version given by
Hess of this incident is not credited He testified to the effect that
King did not give him the cards for examination but held them in
his hand about 6 feet away from Hess
s Hess testified he told King one or two of the employees were
to be drafted There was no basis for this as Jones had a physical
disability, and Brooks and Brown were each about 40 years old
and beyond draft age. Viewing the whole record, it is apparent
that Respondent, acting chiefly through Paul Hess, advanced a
variety of fictitious reasons for refusing to accord recognition to
the Union
6 King recalls that Hess said he had to go to a southern State
below the Mason - Dixon line. Eickman recalls that Hess said he
had to go to Mobile, Alabama (Respondent has a warehouse in
that city ) Hess testified he told King and Eickman he was going to
Los Angeles The record indicates Hess did not go to any of those
places or, in any event if he did , his visit was very brief and not a
plausible reason for postponing his answer until March 28, 1966,
on the basis that he would be out of town
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All the ingredients of an unlawful refusal to bargain and
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act are present. The
demand and refusal first occurred on March 11, 1966, and
was reenacted on March 18, 1966. It is patent the unit of
employees is appropriate. They are low paid hourly
employees with a pay range from $2 an hour for Brown and
Brooks to $2.13 an hour for Jones. Their work consists of
mixing materials and chemicals under the supervision of
Robert Mikesell, the plant manager, and other types of
manual work such as cleaning 55-gallon steel drums,
truckdriving, and janitorial work. Although Plant Manager
Mikesell spent a portion of his time doing some of the
same kind of work as Jones, Brooks, and Brown,
Respondent concedes, and it is clear, he is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. The balance of the
employees are officers of the Respondent or salaried
employees with educational degrees and one salesman for
the West Coast. Since the work of the employees involved
in the request for union recognition does include
production and maintenance work in the plant, it is found
that the appropriate unit consists of: All production and
maintenance employees, excluding clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The apparent contention of Respondent that Jones,
Brooks, and Brown were casual laborers and consequently
should not constitute a bargaining unit is not tenable.
Jones commenced work in July 1965, and worked
regularly in addition to working overtime until he was
discharged on March 16, 1966. Brooks and Brown
commenced working for Respondent in November 1965,
until their termination on March 16, 1966, along with
Jones. All three were hired initially on a temporary basis
through the casual labor department of the State of
California Employment Service. However, after working a
few days, each was told by Mikesell that they could work
on a permanent basis. Jones received two increases in his
wages; Brooks and Brown each received one. Brooks and
Brown as well as Jones worked a regular 5-day week as
well as overtime. For the purposes of collective bargaining,
it is found Jones, Brooks, and Brown are regular
employees and eligible members of the bargaining unit.
Since the entire complement of the unit extended
authorization rights to the Union, the majority
representation is established.
2. Interrogation, threats, and promises of benefit
On March 10, 1966, ILWU Representative King visited
Respondent's plant and asked Plant Manager Mikesell to
speak to Mr. or Mrs. Hess. Upon being informed they were
not present, King left his business card with Mikesell.
Later the same day Mikesell asked Chalmers Jones, one of
the alleged discriminatees, who in the plant was
advocating the Union. Mikesell then stated to,Jones that
' Mikesell denies the above version of Jones His/testimony is
set forth below Neither his denial or other aspects of his
testimony is credited. Mikesell's manner of testifying reflected
that he was carrying out the policy of Mrs Hess and Paul Hess
which was dedicated so strongly to avoiding"unionization that the
objectivity of their testimony was severely impaired On the other
hand, Chalmers Jones gave the'lmpression of an honest,
ingenuous witness. His confusion with respect to some dates and
times is regarded as not relevant to the portion of his testimony
significant to the issues presented Mikesell's version is that he
commented to Jones that Mrs Hess was generous in giving sick
leave to Jones Then according to Mikesell, Jones said maybe he
should not have joined the Union Mikesell also testified that he
asked Jones why he wanted to join the Union since he was going to
he would discharge anyone he found was advocating the
Union.
After King presented his request for recognition of the
Union to Paul Hess on the morning of March 11, 1966,
Mikesell in effect told Jones he could get him a raise to
$2.30 an hour, but that he did not want to do it at that time
because later he could get Jones some kind of a
managerial job as Respondent was going to expand and
build a new plant.' Mikesell also told Jones that the
Respondent was "against the Union in any form."
Following this comment, Mikesell told Jones to "take it
easy for awhile." In the context of the described events, it
seems probable that Mikesell was implicitly suggesting to
Jones, the senior employee in the bargaining unit, that he
would be rewarded with a better job with Respondent if he
abandoned the Union, and it is so found.
On March 11, 1966, after King's visit to Paul Hess,
Mikesell asked Jones if it were true the employees had
signed authorization cards. Inasmuch as Paul Hess had
stated he wanted to verify the fact the employees had
signed such cards, there is a color of justification for such
questioning by Mikesell. In any event it would add nothing
to the proposed remedy and order to find this a separate
violation.
3. Discrimination against employees Jones, Brooks, and
Brown
At the end of the workday on March 16, 1966, Plant
Manager Mikesell gave Jones, Brooks, and Brown their
checks. This was not an ordinary payday. Previously on
that day, Mikesell had given Jones instructions related to
working with Respondent's products and had told Brown
that on the following day he was to go to South San
Francisco to pick up a pump and also to make a delivery in
Palo Alto, both communities located within a radius of 30
miles of San Francisco. When the three employees were
handed their checks, all of them recall the reason for
discharge or layoff as given by Mikesell as relating to lack
of work. Brown and Brooks recalled Mikesell saying to
them that he would call them when work picked up.
As reflected above, the Respondent had knowledge the
three discriminatees had authorized the Union to
represent them. The actions and comments, particularly of
Paul Hess, corroborated in part by Mikesell, establish that
Respondent was intensely hostile to union organization.8
The timing of the discharge coming shortly after
Respondent had knowledge of the union organizational
activity and the precipitous nature of the discharge not on
a regular payday when there was work remaining to be
done for the discriminatees are also factors in establishing
a strong prima facie case of unlawful discrimination.
The defenses of Respondent will next be considered. In
view of the findings made herein, there are no defenses
work at Hunters Point (a naval shipyard) where there was civil
service and no unions
8 The fact that apparently the officers of the Respondent, the
salaried supervisors, and technical employees did take over the
manual labor involved in the production of fluid film, the
Respondent 's main product , retrospectively supports the finding
that Respondent was extremely hostile to union organization
when it was occurring and took every means within its power to
stop it, including the discharge of the three union adherents.
Evidence of the Respondent's continued hostility to union
organization is also found in the fact that the three discrimmatees
were not recalled and Respondent's officers and supervisors
continued to perform manual production work apparently at least
until the date of the hearing herein
EUREKA CHEMICAL CO.
meriting discussion of the violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1). Respondent in its answer admits it refused to
recognize the Union. With reference to the defenses
advanced to the alleged 8(a)(3) violations, some discussion
is indicated.
At the outset the record indicates that Hess never
indicated to King or Eickman that the reason he refused to
recognize the Union or fire the three discriminatees was
because of lack of orders or raw materials. At the hearing
the lack of wool grease, an essential component of
Respondent's main product, and the lack of orders
emerged as the chief defense for the discharges.
Mrs. Hess and Paul Hess testified production
terminated on March 14 or 15, 1966. The three
discriminatees testified that production was in effect
through March 16, 1966, as did Plant Manager Mikesell.
Mrs. Hess testified that Respondent did not
manufacture goods for inventory in the last half of 1965 or
1966. However, Paul Hess contradicted her by testifying
the sales of approximately $14,000 per month in March
and April 1966 all came from inventory.
Paul Hess testified there were several discussions
among officers and supervisors of Respondent concerning
a layoff prior to March 1966. However, he modified this by
saying there was just one meeting for the purpose of
reducing the payroll which was held on either March 14 or
15, 1966. There was a daytime meeting and an evening
meeting, on one of these days. One of the topics was the
subject of the Union's request for recognition. Allegedly
there was also discussion about the lack of wool fat to
produce Respondent's main product, fluid film. There was
also mention of the lack of orders for their Respondent's
products.
Assuming a decline in orders for fluid film, there were
prior occasions, according to Paul Hess and Mikesell,
when there were no orders when the plant and warehouse
personnel were not terminated. At no time from January
1965 until March 16, 1966, did Respondent employ less
than two full-time plant employees although in March
1965, there were no orders for Respondent's products.
According to the credited testimony of the discriminatees,
there were several days' work remaining when they were
terminated. In addition to the completion of production of
some fluid film, there were about 150 drums to be cleaned
which would take several days.
At the meeting of March 14 or 15, 1966, Mrs. Hess
allegedly said that because of shortage of materials and
orders the plant must be shut down immediately. It is
curious, to say the least, that shutting down the plant
consisted in terminating only the three union adherents
while all the higher paid personnel were retained, and, in
fact, activity at the plant continued. According to
Respondent's records, production in March 1966 was
8,904 gallons; in April, 800; in May, 3,578; in June, 6,802;
and in July, 13,200 gallons. Certainly by July there was
warrant for recalling the discriminatees if Respondent was
sincere in its reason for discharging them.
Because of the many unreliable facts of Respondent's
evidence, the extracts from their records, particularly the
lack of wool grease is viewed with skepticism. However,
even assuming the data on this to be accurate, the record
establishes by a heavy preponderance of evidence, Jones,
Brooks, and Brown were fired for their union adherence
and were not recalled for the same reason.
165
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 Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an
employer within the meaning of the Act and is and has
been engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is, and has been at all times material, a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. Commencing on March 11, 1966, and continuing
thereafter, Respondent has refused and continues to
refuse to bargain with the Union, thereby violating Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and
Archie Brown, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By the acts set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 and by
making threats and promises of benefit to an employee to
induce him to abandon the Union, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom.
It will be recommended that upon request the
Respondent bargain in good faith with the Union and if an
agreement be reached the same be reduced to writing and
signed.
It is further recommended that Respondent make
Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie Brown
financially whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them by payment to them of a
sum of money equal to that amount of wages they would
have earned but for said discrimination from the date of
their discharge to the day they are offered reinstatement,
together with interest thereon. Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716. The loss of pay shall be computed in
accordance with the formula and method prescribed by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
The nature and scope of Respondent's violations of the
Act warrant a cease-and-desist order appropriate to
counter the potential threat of further violations.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, it is ordered that Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages,
hours, and other terms of employment with International
299-352 0-70-12
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local
No. 6, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit.
All of Respondent's production and maintenance
employees excluding clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.9
(b) Discouraging membership in any labor organization
of its employees, by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire,
or tenure of employment, except as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) Interrogating its employees or promising them
benefits in an unlawful manner with relation to their Union
or concerted activities, and in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is' reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks, and Archie
Brown immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
seniority or other rights and privileges and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as described in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll
records and reports, and all other records necessary to
compute the amount of backpay due.
(d) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
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 offices in San Francisco, California,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."19
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith." Unless
Respondent so notifies said Regional Director, it is
recommended that the Board issue an Order requiring
Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
u The complaint characterized the unit as consisting of
warehouse employees. Since the record is clear that these
employees do production and maintenance work, they have here
been designated as production and maintenance employees.
"' 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
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, Local No. 6 as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees or promise
them benefits in any unlawful manner with relation to
their union or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership and activity
in any labor organization of our employees
by discriminating in any manner in regard to hire,,
tenure, or other terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All of Eureka Chemical Company's production
and maintenance employees excluding clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by
the Act.
WE WILL offer Chalmers Jones, Marion Brooks,
and Archie Brown immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them. '
EUREKA CHEMICAL
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of their 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.
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, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, Box 36047 , San Francisco , California 94102,
Telephone 556-3197.
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."