Glover Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 454 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Glover Packing Company and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
(AFL-CIO). Case 28-CA-2136
December 24, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On September 28, 1970, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, granting General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment, finding no merit in various
contentions made by Respondent in its Answer to
Notice To Show Cause and Request for Hearing, and
finding on the pleadings that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
The Trial Examiner recommended that Respondent
cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions, and a brief in support
thereof, to the Trial Examiner's Decision. General
Counsel has filed a brief in answer to Respondent's
exceptions. A brief in answer to the General Counsel's
motion to strike portions of Respondent's brief has
also been filed by Respondent.'
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 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 recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Glover Packing Company, Roswell,
New Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.2
I We hereby grant General Counsel's motion to strike certain portions
of Respondent 's brief and argument in support of Respondent 's exceptions
and its opposition to the Trial Examiner 's Decision granting summary
judgment on the grounds that no substantial evidence has been offered or
submitted to support the alleged statements of fact contained in specific
portions of the brief
2 In footnote 6 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision substitute "20" for "10"
days
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN , Trial Examiner : The case arises on
a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by counsel for the
General Counsel upon an admitted refusal by the
Respondent to bargain with the certified Charging Union,
the Respondent contending that the certification of the
Union in the related representation case is invalid.
The Representation Proceeding'
Upon a petition filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act on September 26, 1969 , by Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the Union
and Glover Packing Company , the Respondent herein,
entered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election on October 17, 1969, which was approved by the
Regional Director for Region 28 of the Board on October
20, 1969.
Pursuant to the stipulation an election by secret ballot
was conducted on November 7, 1969 , under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 28,
among the employees in the unit agreed upon by the
parties . At the conclusion of the election the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 200 eligible voters, 188 cast ballots, of which
105 were for the Union , 67 were against , and 16 were
challenged.
On November 17, 1969, Respondent filed timely
objections to the election and to conduct affecting the
results of the election , alleging:
B. The following acts and activities of the Petitioner,
its agents , ostensible agents, and Employer's employees
substantially interfered with reasonable and realistic
standards necessary for a fair election. The violation of
these standards prevented a free and untrammelled
choice in the selection or rejection of a collective-
bargaining representative by the employees noted
above in the "Included :" unit.2
1. Employees of Employer threatened employees
with physical harm if they did not vote for or support
Petitioner.
2. Agents of Petitioner threatened employees with
bodily injury if they did not vote for or support
Petitioner.
3. Agents of Petitioner induced and coerced
employees to vote for Petitioner by stating to employees
that only way additional benefits could be achieved
i Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding , Case 28-RC-1966, as the term "record" is
defined in Secs 102.68 and 102 69(f) of the Board 's Rules and Regulations
and Statements of Procedure 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968 ); Section 9(d) of
the NLRA
2 All conduct complained of herein occurred between the filing of the
petition which was September 26, and the close of the election voting
period which was 12 p in (MST), November 7
187 NLRB No. 64
GLOVER PACKING COMPANY
would be through Petitioner as employees' bargaining
agent
4 Agents of Petitioner coerced employees to vote
for Petitioner by relating to employees either orally or
by hand billing that they would have to vote for
Petitioner in order to retain any benefits they now have
5 Agents of Petitioner intimidated employees into
voting for Petitioner by telling them their jobs would be
lost if they did not vote for Petitioner
6 Agents of Petitioner intimidated, induced and
coerced employees by misrepresenting to them that
those who signed union cards had to vote for Petitioner
7 Employees were threatened with physical vio-
lence if Petitioner won and they did not honor a picket
line if said picket line was thrown up
8 Material misrepresentations were made to em-
ployees by agents of Petitioner regarding benefits paid
to other employees at a plant for which Petitioner is the
bargaining agent by
(a) Either producing or reproducing a purported
check in the amount of $28 00 as representing a
weeks wages before Petitioner became the
"bargaining agent" and
(b) Either producing or reproducing a purported
check which purported to show approximately an
increase of six hundred (600) % in wages alone,
by virtue of its initial contract with said plant after
Petitioner had become "bargaining agent"
(c) Relating "puffed" benefits acquired as
"bargaining agent"
These and other gross misrepresentations of benefits
were made in order to induce, incense and coerce
employees into believing that this 600% increase was
solely because the employees had voted in Petitioner
who then became the causal factor for said increases
and benefits
(d) Guaranteeing the "Big Four"3 contract would
be their reward for voting for Petitioner and
further stating that Employer could pay these
rates if the "Big Four" could, since the price of
their products at the consumers' level were the
same and irrespective of the "Big Four" being in
the "so called" conglomerate grouping
(e) Grossly understating and misleading employ-
ees as to benefits given by the Employer
9 Agents of Petitioner induced, coerced and
intimidated employees by misrepresenting to employees
that Employer had violated the Wage and Hour law in
many respects Further, Petitioner lured employees into
believing they would receive two years back wages for
the said violations and that Petitioner should be
rewarded for this by yes votes
10 Employees were induced and coerced into
voting for Petitioner by statements of misrepresentation
in that the Employer had violated other laws and that
Petitioner would rectify these inequities
I1 Employees were induced and coerced by
Petitioner's agents by misrepresentations that only
Petitioner could initiate proceedings to enforce regula-
The Big Four is a common expression in the meat packing business3
and refers to the four largest meatpackers in the United States which but
455
tions that were supposed to have been violated by the
Employer
12 Other gross misrepresentations were made to
the employees by agents of Petitioner which were
(a) Enoi mous profits were and are being made by
the Employer
(b) The enormous profits were made during the
past five years of Employer's operations
(c) This past year's profits reaped by the
Employer amounted to thirty million
($30,000,000) dollars
(d) Similar false documentary devices were used
by agents of Petitioner in inducing employees to
vote for Petitioner by telling them that Employer
had
(1) Claimed at least one million ($1,000,000)
dollars worth of depreciation during the past year
at its plant, but
(2) Employer had only reinvested a quarter of
a million ($250,000) dollars during this same year,
and
(3) told, induced and coerced employees that
Employer reaped a windfall of seven hundred fifty
thousand ($750,000) dollars just this past year
alone
(e) Agents of Petitioner stated to employees that
Employer had never had any losses at any time in
its operational history
13 Agents of Petitioner grossly and totally misre-
presented to employees that Glover and Harris, officers
of Employer, were owners of Roswell's two largest
banks
The gross misrepresentations listed in paragraphs 12
and 13 were related in words articulately and clearly
maneuvered to induce employees into believing that
these misrepresentations were backed by infallible
documentary evidence which was obtained from
governmental or some other sources of reliability
14 Agents of Petitioner induced employees to vote
for it by stating to employees that Employer only
wished their services for one more year in order to
exploit them further, then the Employer was going to
leave them "high and dry" and the only protection
against this exploitation and cessation of business was by
voting for Petitioner
15 Agents of Petitioner induced and coerced
employees by telling the employees that Glover and
Hams had acquired ownership of these banks by
exploiting its employees
16 Agents of Petitioner induced, coerced and
intimidated employees from exercising their unfettered
choice by telling employees that Petitioner could and
would require the Employer as a matter of law, to sign
an illegal "closed shop" agreement which would thereby
preclude those who wanted no part of the union and,
therefore, they had better vote yes
not necessarily in exact order as to bigness are Swift Morrel Wilson, and
Armour
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
17. Agents of Petitioner induced employees to vote
for Petitioner by telling them that they , the employees,
had the absolute right to , and Petitioner could and
would dictate to Employer whom the supervisors and
other managerial employees would be and for whom the
"bargaining unit" employees would work for.
18. Stating that dues would be increased for those
who did not vote for Petitioner , notwithstanding the
guarantee of a secret ballot , and that Petitioner would
know who did not vote for the Petitioner.
The conduct complained of was made to a group of
employees who were not knowledgable and lacked the
faculties necessary to evaluate said conduct and to
place them in their proper perspective.
The statements rendered and handbills distributed was
not the type of "puffing" that is easily recognized by the
employees.
The conduct complained of was made to a group of
people at a plant where there are high turnovers in
employment. This is a group of employees who have
never been faced with , let alone became accustomed to,
such electioneering broadsides of misrepresentative
magnitude.
The misrepresentations stated herein occurred within a
period when the Employer did not have such informa-
tion in order to timely rebut same.
The conduct complained of created a general atmos-
phere of fear, coercion , apprehension and commotion
so as to render invalid the employees choice of a free
election.
Considering the above, this afforded the employees
ample reasons to be apprehensive about their future if
they did not vote for Petitioner.
As a result of the actions complained of herein as well
as other conduct the employees were not able to vote a
free choice under the "laboratory conditions" so sought
by the Board.
On March 6 , 1970, the Regional Director issued a Report
on Objections . In the report the Regional Director stated
that an investigation of the Respondent 's objections had
been conducted during which all parties were afforded an
opportunity to submit evidence bearing on the issues. After
discussion of the evidence , the Regional Director conclud-
ed in his report that Respondent 's objections raised no
substantial or material issues with respect to the election
results . The Regional Director consequently recommended
to the Board that the Respondent 's objections be overruled
in their entirety and that the Union be certified as the
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit.
On March 30 , 1970, Respondent filed with the Board in
Washington , D.C., timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report . In its brief in support of said exceptions
the Respondent specifically prayed that the election be set
aside and a second election directed , and specifically in the
alternative that the Board order a hearing to be conducted
in Roswell , New Mexico , "for the purpose of hearing
testimony under oath by all who have knowledge of the
circumstances as contended by the various parties to this
controversy , and thereby resolve questions of credibility
and give all parties the opportunity to have his day in
court."
On June 12 , 1970, the Board issued a Decision and
Certification of Representatives in which the Board
adopted the Regional Director's findings , conclusions, and
recommendations and certified the Union as bargaining
representative . In said decision the Board made the specific
findings:
In our opinion , the Employer's exceptions raise no
material or substantial issues of fact or law which would
warrant a reversal of the Regional Director 's findings
and recommendations or require a hearing.
The Unfair Labor Practice Case
On July 7, 1970, the Union filed the instant unfair labor
practice charge alleging that since the certification, the
Respondent had refused and continued to refuse to bargain
with the Union.
On July 17, 1970, the Regional Director issued a
complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent
had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union as bargaining representative, though
requested to do so since the certification.
On July 27, 1970, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint wherein it admitted the factual allegations of the
complaint but denied the commission of unfair labor
practices . In its answer Respondent states:
Respondent admits that it has refused to bargain
pursuant to the Union 's request on or about June 22,
1970. However , Respondent affirmatively states that it
has refused to meet with the Union for the reason that
the Board 's certification was in error.
By way of affirmative defense the answer avers:
A. On or about November 14, 1969 Respondent filed
timely "Objections to the Election " wherein it alleged
"specific evidence of specific events from or about
specific people" which warranted the setting aside of
the election or alternatively a hearing.
B. That on or about March 6 , 1970 the Regional
Director for the Twenty- Eighth Region after an ex parse
investigation and without a hearing erroniously recom-
mended that the Board overrule all of Respondent's
"Objections" which precluded a hearing on Respon-
dent's "Objections."
C. On or about March 27, 1970 Respondent timely
filed with the Board its "Exceptions" to the Regional
Director's "Recommendations."
D. That on or about June 12 , 1970 the Board as a
mere formality adopted the Regional Director's
"Recommendations."
E. The Board did not review the affidavits or any
other investigatory material pertaining to the Repre-
sentation proceeding.
F. The Board did not articulate in any manner its
reasons for summarily dismissing Respondent's
"Objections."
G. The Board's failure to review the complete file in
the Representation proceeding, to set aside the election,
or its failure to articulate its basis for summarily
dismissing Respondent's "Objections " under the cir-
cumstances was a denial of due process.
H. Because of the reasons contained in A, B , C, D, E,
GLOVER PACKING COMPANY 457
F, and G above the Board erroniously certified the
Union as the bargaining agent of the unit described in
paragraph 7 of the complaint.
On July 31, 1970, counsel for the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that
Respondent's answer did not raise any triable issue
requiring hearing. On August 20, 1970, Trial Examiner
James R. Hemingway issued a Notice To Show Cause, to
which Respondent filed a timely response on September 1,
1970.
Respondent in its Answer to Notice To Show Cause and
Request for Hearing, describes in detail evidence which it
could and should have presented to the Regional Director
in aid of his investigation of Respondent's objections.
Respondent does not assert that any of the evidence
tendered is in any sense newly discovered or previously
unavailable. Respondent argues that the "specific evidence
of specific events from or about specific people" set forth in
its answer to the General Counsel's motion has a basis in
fact and law sufficient to overturn the election and that a
hearing is required because:
The Regional Director conducted an ex parte
investigation of Respondent's Objections. From a
reading of the Regional Director's Report it must be
assumed that his investigation disclosed head-on
clashes between Respondent's evidence and the Un-
ion's answers thereto. Notwithstanding these diametri-
cally opposed contentions, the Regional Director
resolved credibility in favor of witnesses that the Union
presented or witnesses that the Regional Director may
have uncovered. His resolutions were arrived at without
a hearing on specific events from specified persons. This
approach was a denial of procedural fair play.
The Board did not evaluate Respondent Objections.
The Board did not review the affidavits or any other
investigatory material pertaining to the representation
proceeding ... .
The Board failed to review the complete file in the
representation proceeding.
The Board did not articulate in any manner its
reasons for summarily dismissing Respondent's Objec-
tions.
The Board, in adopting the Regional Director's
Report, under the circumstances of this case, com-
pounded the error of its Regional Director.
The Board, in giving cavalier treatment to Respon-
dent's Objections, and its "rubber stamp" approval of
the Regional Director's Report, in this instance in
unsupportable.
The Board's Certification of Representatives in this
instance is unwarranted at this time. A hearing is
therefore necessary and indispensable if a proper and
fair resolution of the disputed facts, taken with the facts
which the Regional Director may have considered as a
2 Krieger -Ragsdale & Co., Inc, 159 NLRB 490, enfd 379 F 2d 517 (C A
7, 1967), cert denied 389 U S 1041; N LR B v. Macomb Pottery, 376 F 2d
450 (C A 7, 1967), Howard Johnson Company , 164 NLRB 801,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 163 NLRB 579 See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co v NLR B, 313 US 146, 162 ( 1941), NLRB Rules and
result of his ex parse investigation , are to be made by the
Trial Examiner or the Board.... .
Due process prohibits the Board from shutting off a
party's right to conduct cross-examination material to
the issues , nor has the Board the right to foreclose
Respondent 's case until it has an opportunity to be
fairly heard . United States Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., 373
F.2d 602, (C.A. 5, 1967) and N. L.R.B. v . Bill's
Institutional Commissary Corporation, 418 F.2d 405
(C A. 5, 1969).
Since substantial and material factual issues exist,
they can be resolved only after a formal hearing before
the proper forum ; and any refusal to bargain is
justifiable at this time for the reasons stated herein.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
It is established Board policy, in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence, not to
permit litigation before a Trial Examiner in an unfair labor
practice case of issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior related representation proceeding.2 Such
a hearing is not a matter of right unless substantial and
material issues are raised by the objections.3 That there are
no such issues here has been decided by the Board, and the
Respondent offers no new evidence. At this stage of the
proceedings the Board's determination is therefore the law
of the case.
There thus being no unresolved issues requiring an
evidential hearing the motion of the General Counsel for
summary judgment is granted, and I hereby make the
following further:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Glover Packing Company is, and has been at all times
material herein, a New Mexico corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Roswell, New
Mexico, where it is engaged in the business of operating a
packinghouse including the processing and sale of meat
and byproducts of meat.
During the last calendar year, Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, sold and distributed
products, the gross value of which exceeded $500,000.
During the same period of time Respondent purchased,
transported and received goods, including livestock and
packaged meat, valued in excess of $50,000 at its place of
business, in interstate commerce directly from States of the
United States other than the State of New Mexico.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Regulations, Secs 102 67(f) and 102 69(c).
3 Bufkor-Pelzner Division, Inc, 169 NLRB No 139, N L R B v E-Z
Davies Chevrolet and N L R B v Carl Simpson Buick Inc, 395 F 2d 191
(CA 9, 1968), enfg 161 NLRB 1389
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All hourly paid production and maintenance employ-
ees, all truckdrivers and shipping clerks of Glover
Packing Company in Roswell, New Mexico, excluding
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
On November 7, 1969, in an election by secret ballot
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board, a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit
designated and selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative.
On June 12, 1970, the National Labor Relations Board
certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative; as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act of all of
the employees in the above-described unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
On or about June 22, 1970, the Union requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
Since on or about June 22, 1970, Respondent has refused
and continues to refuse to recognize and bargain collective-
ly with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
By thus refusing to bargain collectively Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in the case, I recommend that the Board issue
the following:
ORDER
Glover Packing Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from: representative of all of the
employees in the following
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining appropri-
ate unit:
All hourly paid production and maintenance em-
ployees, all truckdnvers and shipping clerks of Glover
Packing Company in Roswell, New Mexico, excluding
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to negotiate
for or represent employees as such exclusive collective-
bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment , and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.4
(b) Post at its office and place of business in Roswell,
New Mexico , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ."5 Copies of said notice , on forms to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 28, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Respondent , be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in
writing , within 20 days from receipt of this recommended
Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.6
4 For the purpose of determining the duration of the certification, the
initial year of certification shall be deemed to begin on the date the
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit The
purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees in the appropriate
unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the
period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry Co, 136 NLRB 785,
Commerce Co d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600
(C.A 5, 1964), cert denied 379 U S. 817; Burnett Construction Co, 149
NLRB 1419,142 1, enfd 350 F 2d 57 (C A 10, 1965)
s In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 28, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-
GLOVER PACKING COMPANY
bargaining representative of all the following employ-
ees
All hourly paid production and maintenance em-
ployees, all truckdrivers and shipping clerks of Glover
Packing Company in Roswell, New Mexico, excluding
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act
WE WILL not interfere with the efforts of the Union to
negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive
collective-bargaining representative
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an under-
standing is reached, we will sign a contract with the
Union
Dated By
459
GLOVER PACKING COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
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
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 7011
Federal Building and U S Courthouse, 500 Gold Avenue,
S W, P O Box 2146, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101,
Telephone 843-2555