Golden Arrow Dairy

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Golden Arrow Dairy and Salesdrivers , Helpers & Dairy
Employees, Local Union 683 , International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America . Case 21-CA-9876
December 8, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On August 26, 1971, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in
answer to Respondent's exceptions and in support of
his cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
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
the Respondent, Golden Arrow Dairy, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544,
enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
AND
ORDER SEVERING CASES AND
REMANDING REPRESENTATION
PROCEEDING TO THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On July 7, 1971, a
1 The posthearing motion of the General Counsel to correct the
stenographic transcript is granted.
hearing was held in the above-entitled matters in San
Diego, California. The complaint, issued April 28, 1971, is
based on a charge filed March 11, 1971, by Salesdrivers,
Helpers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 683, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, herein called' the Union, and alleges
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by Golden Arrow Dairy, herein called
Respondent.
On January 15, 1971, Respondent and Union entered
into an agreement' for consent election (21-RC-12045)
pursuant to Section 102.62(a) of the Board's Rules and
Regulations thereby agreeing that "the rulings and
determinations by the regional director of the results
thereof shall be final..... On April 30, 1971, the Regional
Director ordered that a hearing be held on objections by
the Union to conduct of the Employer affecting the results
of the consent election, that the hearing on said objections
be consolidated with the hearing on complaint theretofore
issued, and that at the conclusion of the consolidated
hearing, Case 21-RC-12045 be remanded to him for
further proceedings.
Upon the entire record' in these proceedings, including
my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration
of the posthearing briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the
operation of a wholesale and retail dairy, with its principal
office and plant located in San Diego, California, and
branches in Vista and Chula Vista, California. Respondent
annually sells products valued in excess of $500,000 and
annually receives supplies valued in excess of $3,000
shipped from points located outside the State of California,
directly to its California facilities.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
CONDUCT OF EMPLOYER ALLEGED BY UNION TO
HAVE AFFECTED RESULTS OF ELECTION
A. The Issues
The complaint alleges in material substance:
1. Respondent through its production manager, Eli
Barnhard, (a) Threatened employees with discharge
because they supported the Union, (b) Threatened
employees with loss of employment and other reprisals in
the event, they selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative, (c) Threatened to suspend
employees because of their union membership, sympathies,
and activities, and (d) Threatened to refuse to sign a
194 NLRB No. 81
GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY
contract with the Union even if the employees selected the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative;
2. Respondent through its assistant to the General
Manager, Edward Hodge, promised benefits to employees
to induce them to forego their support of the Union;
3. Respondent through Barnhard and its working
foreman, Ernest Becerra, restricted employees to their work
stations because of their union membership, sympathies,
and activities; and
4. Respondent refused to compensate a union observer
for worktime spent during the Board election, while
compensating its own observer at the same election.
B. Sequence of Events
Christian Labor Association was certified by the Board in
1969 following an election in which Teamster's Union
participated. Respondent's contract with Christian Labor
Association expired December 31, 1970.
The Union's petition in 21-RC-12045 was filed January
4, 1971. The agreement for consent election was approved
by the Regional Director on January 15, 1971, and the
election was conducted on February 17, 1971, in two
separate bargaining units. Christian Labor, Association
disclaimed interest and did not appear on the ballot. There
were 81 eligible voters in Unit A and 13 in Unit B. The
election in Unit A resulted in 34 votes for the Union and 47
votes against the Union with no challenged ballots.
On February 23 and 24, 1971, the Union filed 11 timely
objections to the election in Unit A. Five of these
objections were overruled by the Regional Director. The
acts described in the six remaining objections are the same
as those described in the complaint. No objections were
filed to conduct affecting the results of the election in Unit
B.
C. Statements of Production Manager Barnhard
Alleged to Constitute Interference, Coercion, and
Restraint
1. The testimony
James Michael Bennett had worked for Respondent since
1964. Eli Barnhard was hired as production manager
September 1, 1968. Barnhard was responsible for the work
of about 35 employees, under three "working foremen" at
Respondent's San Diego plant. Bennett testified:
Q. , (By Mr. Litvack) Calling your attention to the
time period from January 4th, 1971 until February 17,
1971, during this period, did you have any conversa-
tions with Mr. Barnhard regarding the upcoming
election at the plant?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Approximately how many such conversations
did you have?
A. About five or six
*
[On January 4, 19711 We started talking about the
Union and the election and he told me that if the Union
won that they would call us out on strike and that he,
the company, could replace us with anybody they
475
wanted to and that they would be calling the men out
on the job and, although they would be negotiating,
they wouldn 't sign a contract.
Q. You mentioned that you had several other
conversations with Mr. Barnhard during this time
period. ... Do you recall the specific dates or times of
these conversations?
A. No.
* * *
Q. How long would these conversations last?
A. About five or six minutes.
Q. Would you state for the Trial Examiner what
would be said during these conversations?
A. Basically they were all the same as the first
conversation and that was that the men would be voting
for their jobs and they would never sign a contract and
why didn't the, men see that.
Under cross-examination Bennett testified:
Q. (By Mr. McGrath) When you related the
conversation [of January 4, 19711 is it not true that Mr.
Barnhard had indicated to you that it was possible if the
teamsters were elected that they could request a strike
vote?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did he not also indicate to you that if a strike
vote was passed and if there was an economic strike that
the Company might have the right to replace economic
strikers?
A. He,didn't say economic strikers. He said they
would call us out on strike and he would replace anyone
out on strike.
Q. If the Union was out on strike, the Company
could replace them?
A. Yes sir.
Q_ Now these other conversations with Mr. Barn-
hard, would you relate as completely as possible exactly
what Mr. Barnhard said to you?
A. As I recall, I had been eating, going to or from
lunch, and the time clock is by his office and he would
see you as you punch in or out and he would ask me
how I thought or what I thought about the Union, and I
told him that I was pretty sure that the Teamsters would
win and he would shake his head and say that he didn't
understand that and he would ask me if they didn't
understand that they were not going to sign and he said
that they would negotiate, but that they wouldn't sign;
and he said that the men just won't understand that.
Q. During the period, Mr. Bennett, prior to the
election and for a brief time after the election, is it not
true that you had many conversations with Mr.
Barnhard where he cited you for your continual
tardiness?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That, in fact, one time it became necessary for
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Barnhard to place you on a three-day suspension is that you never told Mr. Bennett that a vote for the
because of your tardiness? union was a vote for his job?
A. Yes sir. A. Sir, I don 't believe I made that remark to any
Q. After you returned for duty, he again cited you man in my employment.
for continual tardiness and ultimately issued a notice of Q. So is it your testimony that you never made a
discharge? remark that the men would be voting for their jobs
during the next election?
A. My answer still stands.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Bennett, you have stated that Mr.
Barnhard discussed with you that the Company would
never sign a contract. Is that the best of your
recollection?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Is it not true that Mr. Barnhard discussed with
you that himself once had a business that he operated?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Is it not also true that he indicated that the
business had been unionized?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That he had experienced in his prior business
certain economic reversals?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Is it not also true that what he stated to you was
because of his prior business experience and that he did
not know how the Company could compete in the
industry if it was unionized by this particular union?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Is it not also true that he never represented that
this was management's opinion?
A. No sir.
Barnhard did not directly deny making any of the
statements attributed to him by Bennett. Barnhard
testified:
Q. (By Mr. McGrath) . . . Now, do you have any
recollection on or about January 4th of having called
Mr. Bennett into your office-be it the 3rd or 5th or
6th-but somewhere around that time?
A. No, I honestly don't recall. I do recall calling
him in and filling out some cards, but I don't recall
calling him into my office to discuss the union.
Q. My question is: When he came in to fill out the
cards [for new insurance forms] did the subject of the
union come up, if you have any recollection?
A. Again, I don't remember.
Q. Did you ever discuss the Union with Mr.
Bennett?
A. Of the men employed, I had just about everyone
walk up to me, and a number of them came in
concerned about their jobs, and came in to me and
discussed the union. I might have discussed the Union
with Jim Bennett, yes.
Q. Do you have any recollection of ever telling Mr.
Bennett that a vote for the company was a vote to keep
his job, and a vote for the Union would be a vote to lose
his job?
A. Absolutely not.
2. Conclusions
I find that Barnhard did say to Bennett, in substance, on
one or more occasions, (1) that Respondent would not sign
a contract with the Union, (2) that the Union would strike
and strikers would be replaced, and (3) that the men would
be voting for their jobs in a Board-conducted election.
Barnhard discussed the Union with "just about every one"
of the employees under his supervision and had no
recollection of any statement made to Bennett. Barnhard's
equivocal denial of the statement that "the men would be
voting for their jobs" is weakened by the sentence in his
pretrial affidavit:
I do not recall ever making the specific statement that
the men would be voting for their jobs to anyone.
Barnhard's statement of anticipatory refusal to sign a
contract violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Webb Tractor
and Equipment Co., 167 NLRB 383. Barnhard's statements
that the Union would strike, that strikers would be
replaced, and that the men would be voting for their jobs,
constitute a "coercive threat" rather than an "honest
forecast," and violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 616-620.
D. Statement of Assistant Manager Edward Hodge,
Alleged To Be a Promise of Benefit
Hodge is one of the assistants to management and is the
son of one of the owners of Respondent. After the first
voting session , February 17, he had a brief conversation
with the Union's observer, Bennett, in the locker room.
1. The testimony
Bennett testified:
Q. (By Mr. Litvack) ... what was said during this
conversation with Mr. Hodge?
A. I asked him how he thought the election was
going to go and he told me he was confident that
management was going to win and I told him I had
worked hard for the Teamsters to get them elected
because I thought we needed representation. He said
that even if we do win, meaning management, that we
would set up a Steering Committee and set up
negotiations and benefits for employees and I said if
they did that, if they set up this Steering Committee to
work things out, that I would be glad to serve on it; and
he said he would see about it.
Q. (By Mr. Litvack) Mr. Barnhard, your testimony
Q. (By Mr. McGrath) I believe you testified that
Mr. Hodge told you that the Company could set up a
GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY 477
steering committee or a grievance committee. Is that
correct?
A. He stated that they would set up a steering
committee if they won the election.
Q. I ask you to think back. Is it not true that you
raised the question to Mr. Hodge about whether or not
there would be any form of grievance or steering
committee?
A. I did not. That was the first I ever heard of it,
that is, when he spoke of it to me.
Q. Is it not true that you stated to Mr. Hodge that
the main reason that you are for the Union was that the
employees needed a grievance committee?
A. I stated that they needed a Union to make the
dairy adhere to the things they signed in the contract.
Q. Now, at this time, is it your best recollection that
you made no mention of a grievance or steering
committee to Mr. Hodge?
A. I did not.
Q. Again directing your attention to Mr. Hodge's
statement, is it not true that Mr. Hodge stated to you
that the company could not or would not set up a
grievance committee among the employees whether or
not the Union won the election?
A. That is not what he said.
Edward M. Hodge testified that between 9 a.m. and 9:30
a.m. on February 17, 1971, after the first half of the voting
was over:
[Mr. Bennett] was already in the locker room when
I walked in there, and he asked me how the election was
coming, and I'told him I wasn't at liberty to discuss it,
and I wasn't sure. And he brought up the fact that he
had heard rumors that there was going to be a grievance
committee formed, or something of that nature. I think
he stated that he wanted a union. He felt we ought to
have a union, because he stated you couldn't go to
management because we didn't have a grievance
committee, or something of that nature. He asked me if
we were going to have one whether they won or not, and
I stated it wasn't the prerogative only of a union to have
a grievance committee. We could have one without the
union. It wasn't necessarily a patent that they had
something of that nature.
Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Bennett that if the
company was successful, or if the Union lost the
election, that management would institute a grievance
committee.
A. No, I did not.
2. Conclusion
Both witnesses testified honestly to the best of their
respective recollections . I conclude , on the basis of
probabilities , that the recollection of Hodge is the more
accurate . Hodge's statement , as reported by himself,
contains no promise of benefit and it is true that an
employer may have a grievance procedure (with appropri-
ate safeguards) with or without a union contract . N.L.R.B.
v. North American Aviation, Inc., 136 F .2d 898 (C.A. 9,
1943).
E. Restriction of Employees to Their Work Stations
1. The testimony
Howard Lee Faber operated the Uniloy machine (which
made plastic milk bottles) the silk screen printing machine
(which printed the labels on the- bottles) and the bottle-
filling machine on the day shift from 12 noon to 3:30 p.m.
Robert Jasmund was hired in January 1971 and operated
the bottling machine during the regular evening shift hours
of 3:30 p.m. to midnight. Faber who had been sent to
management training school by Respondent was directed
to instruct Jasmund in the operation of the Uniloy. It was
explained to Faber that from time to time, he should "go
away from the machine and keep an eye on him so that he
would learn the trade better." Faber's workday ended at
8:30 p.m. Ernest Becerra was the working foreman on the
evening shift and, from about 5 p.m., when Barnhard
normally left for the day, until midnight, was the only
person in the plant with any supervisory authority. In the
agreement for consent election, approved by the Regional
Director, working foremen were included in the bargaining
unit, and Becerra voted in the election without challenge.
Faber testified that he had many conversations with
Becerra concerning the Union and the upcoming election.
On Wednesday, February 3, 1971, between 8 p.m. and 8:35
p.m.:
Mr. Becerra made the remark that if the Teamsters
got in that Calori [Respondent's vice president and
general manager] would never negotiate. I know that.
To this, my response was, and these remarks were made
in a high tone of voice, I responded, "Would you like to
see it on black and white," and his response to me was,
"No, I don't want to hear any more about it, and if I
did, I wouldn't believe it anyway."
Faber further testified that on Friday, February 5, at
about 4 p.m. he was in the milkbox cooler to check on the
run of homogenized milk for the day (away from his
machines):
Mr. Becerra approached me and he said, "Howard,
it is necessary for us to know where all our employees
are, so we will restrict you to your machine and you will
stay there."
To this, I replied, "Good. I will go to my machine
and that way you will know where I am at all times"
... I went to my machine and I remained there until
lunch break.... When it was time for me to take my
lunch break, I left my machine to report my absence to
Mr. Becerra and I raised my hand and I said, "Teacher,
I am going to coffee...."
* s •
February 8th, at approximately 4:00 to 4:30 p.m. I
was called in to Mr. Barnhard's office.... When I
entered the room and took my seat, Mr. Barnhard asked
of me if I had an argument with Mr. Becerra over the
union, to which I replied, "Yes, sir."
Then he informed me that Mr. Becerra also told him
that I made a nasty remark to him to which I replied,
"Yes sir."
At this point he informed me that he had given all of
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his foremen instructions to send any man home and
give him three days off for any snippy or nasty remarks.
... This is where that conversation ended, and I asked
Mr. Barnhard if I could speak to him in private at which
time he asked Mr. Becerra to leave. . . . Then Mr.
Barnhard told me he was not interested in any personal
problems of mine and would talk to me only concerning
the operation of my machine or problems concerning it.
At this point the conversation ceased and Mr. Barnhard
made this final remark; "Come to me after the election
and we will shake hands and be friends...." I asked
him if that was a promise and he said that was a promise
and from there I departed and I returned to my work
station.
Becerra testified that one night in January Barnhard
found 95 percent of the staff upstairs and told Becerra that
he was supposed to see that all of his men were at their
stations in the plant. The following evening Becerra told the
men on his crew, individually, that they should be at their
machines. On the same evening, and before he instructed
Faber to return to his machine.
I received a complaint from Bob Jasmund. He was a
new employee. He was working in on Uniloy and
learning the filler. He told me that Howard Faber was
walking away from his machine, Uniloy, and he was a
little nervous and I don't blame him for being a bit
nervous because it is a pretty big machine,
* * * * *
I reprimanded Howard because he was leaving his
machine, the Uniloy, and this led to Howard calling me
as I was going by and he would raise his hand and he
would say, "Teacher." He had done this two or three
times, so I told Howard, I think we better go see Mr.
Barnhard, which we did. We both went in the office
with Barney. Barney proceeded to tell him that my word
there was to be followed and that was it.
Barnhard testified:
Well, Ernie came to me, and it was approximately
after four o'clock, and he was very upset, and he had
talked to Howard, and Howard was mocking him in
front of the other men and making -a remark of
"teacher". He had asked the man to stay on the job, and
he had been making flip remarks of "teacher" three or
four times to him and he was very shook up ... .
Well I called Howard and Ernie both to my office. I
asked Ernie to bring Howard in. And' as best I can
recall, I tried to explain to Howard that I was holding
Ernie responsible for the operation. He was the working
foreman. When he asked a man to do something, the
man should attempt to do it. I didn't think it was
necessary to make a flip remark, and it was definitely a
flip remark calling him "teacher" three or four times.
Q. (By Mr. McGrath) Prior to this conversation
with Mr. Faber and Mr. Becerra had you given any
instructions to Mr. Becerra regarding the employees'
staying at their work stations?
A. Yes ... I can't exactly recollect what the time
was. It was definitely before this incident, but I did walk
in there after eleven o'clock one night, and all of the
men were sitting upstairs. They were due to go home at
twelve o'clock. I waited until the next day, and I called
Ernie in. I explained to Ernie that there was plenty of
work to be done on the premises, and they were to work
until twelve o'clock. I expected him as the working
foreman to know where these men are, and that when I
come in there I can ask him where these men are, and he
is aware of what is going on.
Q. (By Mr. Litvak) Isn't it a fact that during this
conversation with Mr. Faber, and while Mr. Becerra
was present, that you told Faber,if he made any more
remarks like that, that he would be subject to being sent
home?
A. What remarks.
Q. Snippy remarks.
A. No. I think I told the man that he was to do as
the foreman told him to do, or he would be liable for a
three-day suspension, as would any other man that was
under Ernie's supervision.
2. Conclusion
Becerra's instruction to Faber to return to his work
station was prompted by Barnhard's reminder, and by
Jasmund's complaint and by nothing else. Becerra and
Faber had many arguments about the union, in one of
which Faber stated that "the Teamsters can bring in some
hard guys from Chicago, and start a little something here."
The fact that one of these arguments occurred shortly
before Faber was directed to return to his machine and stay
there was purely coincidental.
F. Failure to Pay Bennett for Worktime Spent as
Observer for Union at National Labor Relations
Board Election
1. The stipulation
The following stipulation was received:
Employee James Bennett acted as the observer for the
Union during the conduct of the representation election
at Employer's plant at 2750 Burtz Street, San Diego,
California between the hours of 4:00 o'clock a.m. and
8:30 a.m. on February 17th, 1971. Employee Bennett's
normal work shift began at 4:00 o'clock a.m. and ended
at 12:30 p.m. Employee Bennett was not paid for the
four and a half hour period in which he acted as the
Union observer and during which he did not perform
his normal work duties. Employee Bennett was told not
to punch in at 4:00 o'clock but, rather, at 8:30 a.m., the
time at which his duties in the election ended. Employee
Bennett was only paid for the time he actually
performed his work for the Employer on February 17,
1971 while those employees of the employer acting as
observers for the Employer during the conduct of the
election were paid for the time they spent in such
capacity.
2. Conclusion
Employees selected by- Respondent to act as observers at
GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY
the Board-conducted election were performing a service for
the Respondent and were paid for the service. Bennett,
while acting as an observer at the Board-conducted
election, was performing a service for the Union. Bennett
occupied a key position in Respondent's operation. He was
the Uniloy operator, and it was necessary for the employer
to pay his replacement, or to take the graveyard shift
working foreman off supervision to maintain production
during the first voting session. Bennett was not compelled
to act as observer during his regular hours of work, and the
Union could have designated an off-duty employee. In a
similar situation, the Board has recently held that an
employer did not violate the Act when, after three
employees had been subpoenaed by a union as witnesses at
a Board Hearing, it failed to pay them for time lost, while
paying the regular wages of employee witnesses called by
the employer. Electronic Research Co., 190 NLRB No. 143.
The fact that the union in Electronic Research paid its
witnesses, and that there is no evidence in this record that
Bennett was compensated by the Union, is a distinction
without a difference. The liability of an employer to make
such payments should not be determined by the whim of
the union.
IV. ORDER SEVERING AND REMANDING CASE
21-RC-12045
The foregoing findings and conclusions are applicable
both to the Complaint in Case 21-CA-9876 and to the
Objections to Election in Case 21-RC-12045. Pursuant to
the provisions of Sections 102.35 (h) and 102.62(a) of the
Board's Rules, and pursuant to the Regional Director's
order of April 30, 1971, it is ordered that Case
21-RC-12045 be severed from the instant proceeding and
remanded to the Regional Director.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described 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.
VI. THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it
is necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like
or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights, and
to take certain affirmative action including the posting of
appropriate notices.
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 45 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
479
1. Respondent is 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
Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees with loss of employment in
the event they selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative and by threatening to refuse to
sign a contract even if the employees selected the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative Respondent has
engaged 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 affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 2
ORDER
Respondent, Golden Arrow Dairy, its officers, succes-
sors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening loss of employment or other reprisals to
discourage membership in or activities on behalf of the
Union or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening to refuse to sign a collective-bargaining
agreement with any labor organization designated or
selected by its employees to be their exclusive collective-
bargaining representative.
(c) In any like or related 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 Union or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant and facilities in San Diego, Vista, and
Chula Vista, California, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix" .3 Copies of said notice on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, shall be posted 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
3 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"
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith .4
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
4 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
representative, and by threatening to refuse to sign a
contract with said Union if it should be so selected:
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with loss of
employment to discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to sign a contract with any union
selected by our employees to be their exclusive
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with our employ-
ees' union activities.
GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY
(Employer)
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated Federal law by threatening employees
with loss of employment if they selected Salesdrivers,
Helpers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 683, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, as their collective-bargaining
Dated By
(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,
Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los
Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5254.