Frost-Whited Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 980 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

980 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL - LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
to this group of employees represented by Local 1778, but not to Local
1778 or to its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing findings , and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following Determination of. Dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
Employees engaged as glass handlers are entitled to move to the
construction elevator , hoist to the proper floor , and move from the ele-
vator to various locations , crated glass on glass contracting jobs per-
formed by Binswanger in the Houston , Texas, area. Accordingly,
'Local 1778 is not entitled to force or require Binswanger , by means
:proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work to
.outside glaziers.
Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and Determination of
Dispute, Glaziers Local Union No. 1778, Brotherhood of Painters;
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region , in writing, whether or
not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Binswanger Glass Com-
pany, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the
work in dispute to outside glaziers.
American Compress Warehouse , Division of Frost-Whited Com-
pany, Inc. and United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Work-
ers, AFL-CIO. ' Cases Nos. 15-CA-1998 and 15-CA-4000. June
28, 196$
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 220962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not, engaged in certain other..unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has .delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions
137 NLRB No. 111.
AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE, ETC. 981
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Original charges in the above -entitled cases were filed by United Packinghouse,
Food and Allied Workers, AFL.-CIO, on October 5 and 10, 1961 , respectively.
Amended charges in both cases were filed on December 15, 1961 . Also on the
latter date an order consolidating the cases and a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon were issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board . Pursuant to notice , a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, was held in Shreveport , Louisiana, on January 29 and 30, 1962,
before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to
present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally , and to file briefs . Briefs
have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint, upon which
ruling was reserved at the hearing , is made by the following findings , conclusions,
and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made , and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
American Compress Warehouse, Division of Frost-Whited Company, Inc., is a
Louisiana corporation, maintaining its principal office in Shreveport, Louisiana, with
places of business in Shreveport, Natchitoches, Opelousas, and Alexandria, all in
Louisiana, where it is engaged in the warehousing and compressing of cotton. Only
the Shreveport and Natchitoches plants are directly involved in these proceedings.
During the 12-month period ending November 30, 1961, the Respondent received
more than $50,000 for services rendered in connection with the warehousing and
processing of cotton shipped to it from points outside the State of Louisiana and
foreign countries.
During the same period it received more than $50,000 for services performed for
various employers located outside the State of Louisiana and/or employers engaged
in the shipment of goods valued at more than $50,000 annually in interstate and
foreign commerce.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
As noted above, only the Respondent's Shreveport and Natchitoches plants are
involved in these proceedings.
All of the events and conduct raised as issues by the complaint occurred during
the summer and fall of 1961, after an organizational campaign conducted by the
Charging Party late in 1960 had resulted in a representation hearing in January 1961,
and a Board Order directing an election on June 12, 1961.
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that management representatives
unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union membership and sympa-
thies, promised economic benefits if employees would reject the Union, unlawfully
discharged employee Simon Littleton, and unlawfully refused to rehire certain sea-
sonal employees (J. C. Comick, Oscar Davis, Homer Ford, Jr., E. L. McCann,
Edward Davidson, Jr., and James Sims).
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Credible evidence establishes the following:
(1) When seasonal employees Holmes and Brooks were called to the Natchitoches
plant to reapply for work upon resumption of operations in the fall of 1961, they
were asked by Foreman James how they felt about the Union. Holmes said he had
forgotten all about it. James told them that if they would agree not to vote for
the Union he would see what he could do about putting them back to work. Brooks
agreed. Both were recalled to work thereafter.)
(2) Plant Superintendent Lawson, at the Natchitoches operation, and General
Manager Boone, both told employee French some 2 or 3 months before the hearing
that employee J. C. Comick, a seasonal employee, had been trying to organize the
Union and would never work there again .2
(3) Foreman Stahl, at the Shreveport plant, asked employee Logan, shortly
before Christmas in 1961, if he was "for" the Union. Logan replied that he did
not know anything about it. Stahl then told him, in effect, that if the Union got in,
he could only "tie" cotton and would not be permitted to put in more time on other
jobs, as had been the custom 3
The above-described conduct clearly interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and clearly
expressed management's hostility toward the Union.
C. The discharge and refusals to hire
1. Simon Littleton
Littleton had been an employee at the Shreveport operation for about 5 years
when he was summarily discharged on September 27, 1961. He had been injured
while on the job in the spring of that year and thereafter had been given light work.
The circumstances surrounding the discharge are not substantially in dispute. It
appears that the day before the actual dismissal, Superintendent Dupuy approached
Littleton and asked him what be thought about this "damn Union." Littleton
replied that he did not know much about it. Dupuy countered, ",Oh, hell yes, you
know about it." He added that they had been "working on it" for a year or so, that
the time for voting was approaching, and that Littleton ought to know "which way"
he was going. When Littleton protested that he did not know much about it, Dupuy
declared that "we" had been "good" to the employees, and reminded him that "we"
were providing insurance, paid doctor bills, and "if you die or you get killed your
wife will get $2000." Littleton bridled at this and declared, "Why are you always
telling me that. I put myself in insurance. If you don't do something I'll do some-
thing myself." The superintendent then asked him, in effect, if he had ever worked
where a union represented him. Littleton replied that he had on the Kansas City
Southern Railroad. Dupuy then insisted that they did not need a union at the plant
and warned the employee not to say anything about their conversation, and ended
the interview by advising Littleton to get another job, if he was dissatisfied.
Dupuy, however, told Boone of the conversation, and the next day the general
manager summoned Littleton, gave him his check, and discharged him.
As a witness Boone claimed that he fired Littleton because the employee had been
"insolent" and "insubordinate" to Dupuy-apparently when he had objected to
being reminded of benefits the Company was providing.
The Trial Examiner finds no merit in Boone's claim as to his reason for discharging
Littleton. The incident, trivial at most, was not precipitated by the employee, but
by the superintendent, when the latter pressed him, unlawfully, concerning his vote
in a Board election and his feeling toward the Union.
According to his own testimony Boone had openly expressed his hostility toward
employee Comick who, as found below, was a leader among the employees in
organizing. The Trial Examiner is convinced, and concludes and finds, that the
real reason Littleton was discharged was because he had been reported to Dupuy to
be a union adherent.
1 James admitted talking to the two employees and asking them what they thought
about the Union, but denied asking them not to vote for the Union. The denial is not
credited.
2 Lawson merely testified that lie did not recall this incident. As a witness Boone ad-
mitted that he told employees at this plant "It is our understanding that J. C. Comick
has been doing some hard talking about this Company. I do not know why he is doing
this because he no longer works for us "
8 Logan's account was not specifically contradicted by Stahl.
AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE, ETC . 983
2. J. C. Comick
Comick had worked as a seasonal employee at the Natchitoches plant off and on
since 1943 . He was the chosen representative of the employees at this operation in
dealing with the Union during its organization. He filed with the employer a
written application for rehire before the fall opening of the 1961 season. He has
not been called for work.
Management offered no reason for not recalling this employee of long service.
The real reason, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds, is revealed by the facts,
noted in a preceding section, of the expressed intention of Superintendent Lawson and
Boone not to rehire him because he had been trying to organize the Union .4
3. Oscar Davis
Also at the Natchitoches operation this employee had worked seasonally since 1956.
In advance of the 1961 season, and apparently in August, he was called to the plant
and asked by Superintendent Lawson to fill out the Company's application form.
He did so.
The superintendent, as a witness, admitted that on this occasion he asked Davis
what he thought of the Union. It is his testimony that Davis gave him no answer.
Davis testified that he merely told him he was "always for more money."
The only evidence of union activity or adherence on the part of this employee is
to be found in the fact that he, like many others, sometime in August sent in
applications for hire during the coming season on forms bearing the union letter-
head. Since other evidence establishes that the Respondent did hire at least seven
seasonal employees who had sent in similar union-drafted applications, the Trial
Examiner is unable to conclude that the Respondent refused to rehire him merely
because of such application.
He was not rehired that season.
According to Davis' own testimony his employment in the 1960 season had been
summarily terminated in January 1961, following an argument with his foreman
about leaving his work without permission. He admitted that he was told by the
foreman that he was "fired."
As a witness, Boone said that he gave instructions to Lawson not to rehire Davis
because of his having been discharged earlier that year.
It appears to the Trial Examiner that in the case of this employee a reasonable
cause existed for not rehiring him. In any event, the evidence is insufficient to sup-
port the allegation of the complaint to the effect that the refusal was because of his
union activity.
4. James Sims
For 12 years Sims had been a seasonal employee at the Shreveport plant when,
in the fall of 1961, he sent in an application on the union form. Later he went to
the plant and filled out a company form. He was told to come back later, that at
the time they were not hiring. He returned, and applied to Superintendent Dupuy.
It is undisputed that the superintendent told him, "You don't want to work for us
if you are going to work for Homer Ford and the Union." (Ford was the employee
organization leader at the Shreveport operations, a fact well known to management
as discussed below.)
Sims applied several times thereafter but each time was refused employment.
In view of the uncontradicted fact that Dupuy in effect declined to hire Sims
because of his association with Ford and the Union, the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that the refusal was unlawfully discriminatory .5
4 The belated claim in the Respondent's brief that the only reason Comick was not re-
hired was because be failed to go to the plant and file a company application does not
bear scrutiny. As a witness Boone admitted that he inaugurated the company application
policy after July 1901, when he took over as general manager-which was after Comick
and other season employees of the 1960 season had been laid off. Other credible testimony
is to the effect that reapplying employees in the fall of 1961 learned for the first time that
it was necessary to sign a company application
6 Boone's extravagant effort, as a witness, to have it believed that Sims is a mouth-
frothing epileptic, and that for this reason he was not rehired, is without corroborative
support and is not accepted as the truth It is true that Sims appeared to have some
speech impediment, somewhat in inverse ratio to Boone's loquacity. If Sims had actually
been as much of a hazard to himself and others as Boone depicted, there is no explana-
tion as to why he had been recalled repeatedly each season for the past 12 years
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Edward Davidson, Jr.6
Davidson, who also had worked for the Respondent about 12 years, was not
rehired for the 1961 season. While the Trial Examiner cannot accept at face value
Boone's claim that he decided not to rehire this employee because in the past he had
been "reckless" driving a lift machine, on the other hand there is insufficient evidence
in the record to support a conclusion that management had knowledge or even a sus-
picion that Davidson was active in the Union. According to the employee's own
testimony Dupuy asked him, when he applied for work, if he had signed a union card
and he replied that he had not.
Under such circumstances, which arouse hardly a suspicion, the Trial Examiner
is unable to find that a preponderance of evidence sustains the complaint as to this
employee.
6. E. L. McCann
The record reveals sharp dispute in the accounts given by this seasonal employee
and Superintendent Dupuy concerning what was said when McCann applied for
rehire as well as what actual circumstances of his employment elsewhere existed
at the time.
According to McCann, he applied either in August or September to Dupuy, who
told him it was unnecessary to file a written application but instructed him to see
hire foreman, Stahl, and if there was work available he would get it. According to
Dupuy, he told McCann that since he was already working for another local em-
ployer, Agricultural Enterprises, he should obtain a release there before filling out
an application for rehire at American Compress.
Although McCann's further testimony, to the effect that he did see Stahl who told
him there was no work then available, is not contradicted, and while the case is not
free of doubt, the Trial Examiner accepts Dupuy's version as the more plausible.
His testimony is supported by that of the manager of Agricultural Enterprises who
said that McCann had been employed by him from August 7, 1961, continuously
until shortly before the hearing, when he notified the Respondent of his release.
Another fact tends to support Dupuy. All others who applied for work at the plant,
even those who previously had sent in applications on union forms, were required
to fill out company forms, a policy Boone had inaugurated in July.
Moreover, even if McCann's account of his interview with Dupuy is accepted, his
testimony reveals no remark either by the superintendent or Stahl which would indi-
cate that he was being brushed aside because of his union adherence.
The only evidence in the record which might tend to support a finding that man-
agement had reason to suspect his union membership is the fact that he was a witness
called by the Union at the representative proceeding. His own testimony shows,
however, that he was subpenaed by the Union to testify, and General Counsel cited
no part of such testimony which would indicate that he was a union supporter.
In short, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance of credible
evidence fails to sustain the complaint as to this employee.
7. Homer Ford, Jr.
There is no question but that Ford was well known by management to be the
employee leader of the Union at Shreveport in late 1960. It is likewise clear that
he was refused rehire at the opening of the 1961 season.
It has been heretofore found, on the basis of undisputed testimony, that Superin-
tendent Dupuy refused to hire employee Sims and told him, "You don't want to work
for us if you are going to work for Homer Ford and the Union."
Such circumstances, when considered in the light of other findings regarding
the Respondent's expressed hostility toward the Union, give inferential support to
General Counsel's claim of unlawful discrimination as to Ford.
On the other hand, and despite the Trial Examiner's disbelief of Boone on other
matters, it appears that Ford himself created a far more cogent and credible reason
for management's refusal to rehire him.
The transcript of a Board hearing in Case No. 15-RC-2315, et al. (not published
in NLRB volumes), held on January 25, 1961, reveals that Ford testified:
Well, we-classing myself- . . . we consider ourselves [sic] a year around
man. When the work period is slack we do not have to put in the ordinary
work that the new man puts in to make our salaries. In other words, if we work
6 The complaint and both briefs refer to this individual as "Lemmie Davidson." The
spelling is as recorded by the reporter.
AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE, ETC. 985
7 hours they will give us 8 and if the work is slack all we have to do is hide. We
don't have to appear and do no work at all-just stay out of the way of the
boss . . . and during the work season when the cotton is at its peak and they
have a general crew there if we happen to go down to the warehouse to help
break out the cotton we do not have to work like those other men do. In other
words we can break out a bale of cotton and go up on top of the cotton and hide
just as long as we keep the boss from catching us.
As a witness, Boone said that after his attorney called this testimony to his atten-
tion, at or about the time it was given, he decided that as soon as the "rush" period
was over Ford would be terminated. In view of Ford's own claim, both at this
hearing and at the R-hearing that since 1958 he had been a full-time employee, it
appears that Ford's layoff on March 3, 1961, and the failure to rehire him, consti-
tuted an effective "termination."
The Trial Examiner cannot say that an employer must retain on his payroll one
who states publicly, even at a Board hearing, that it is his practice to "hide" from
the boss and do no work.
In short, the Trial Examiner is not persuaded that as to Ford, General Counsel
has sustained the allegations of the complaint.
D. Conclusions
In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged Simon Littleton, and refused to rehire J. C. Comick and
James Sims, in order to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the
Union, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by the Act.
It is further concluded and found, however, that the Respondent did not un-
lawfully refuse rehire to employees Davis, Davidson, McCann, and Ford.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Certain of the activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As the Respondent's continued unlawful activities indicate a purpose to defeat
self-organization rights of its employees, the Trial Examiner is convinced that they
are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and
that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the
Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be
thwarted unless the remedy is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order
to make effective the independent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer employees Simon Littleton, J. C.
Comick, and James Sims immediate and full reinstatement, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he would normally have earned from the date of the discharge,
or refusal to rehire, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period. The backpay provided for herein shall be com-
puted in accordance with the Board formula set out in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against employees Simon Littleton, J. C. Comick, and James
Sims, to discourage membership in the above-named labor organization, the Respond-
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in the case , it is recommended that American Compress Warehouse,
Division of Frost-Whited Company, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Packinghouse , Food and Allied Workers,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discharging , laying off, refusing
to rehire , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment of employees , or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees regarding their union adherence or activities in a
manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
^(c) Promising employees benefits to discourage membership in any labor
organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist the above -named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment , as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer employees Simon Littleton , J. C. Comick, and James Sims immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them , in the manner above set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
;(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under this Recommended
Order.
(c) Post at its plants in Shreveport and Natchitoches , Louisiana , copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice , to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall , after being duly signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative , be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are
not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.8
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to employees Davis,
Davidson, McCann , and Ford.
7 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
B In the event that these recommendations be 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 987
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Packinghouse, Food and
Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging,
laying off, refusing to reinstate employees, or in any other manner discriminat-
ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union adherence or
activities in a manner violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise employees economic benefits to discourage member-
ship in the above-named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Simon Littleton, J. C. Comick, and James Sims immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them.
AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE, DIVISION OF
FROST-WHITED COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone
Number, 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 and
Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 and
Continental Baking Company
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 and
Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco
Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484; and
Continental Baking Company and Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a
Sunrise Transportation . Cases Nos. 20-CC-2147, 20-CC-248,
20-CC-219, and 20-CE-5. June 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise
Transportation, herein called Aksland or Sunrise; Continental Baking
137 NLRB No. 98.