Holland Custard and Ice Cream, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM, INC. 1137
tract at a time when its majority representation was obtained by our assistance
and support, or by any other conduct proscribed by the Act.
WE WILL reimburse, jointly and severally with International Union, District
50, United Mine Workers of America, each of our present or former employees
at our Fallsington, Pennsylvania, plant for all initiation fees, dues, and other
moneys, if any, collected or deducted from moneys due said employees pur-
suant to our union-security agreement with the above-named labor organization
or pursuant to any checkoff authorizations executed by our employees in favor
of said labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees at our Fallsington, Pennsylvania, plant are free to become,
remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named
labor organization, or of Local 14-L, Lithographers & Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO, or of any other labor organization, except to the extent that
this right may be affected by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
PITTSBURGH METAL LITHOGRAPHING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 597-7617.
Holland Custard and Ice Cream , Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs
and Helpers Local Union No. 215, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case No. 25-CA-2257. May 26, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed, The Board has considered the Trial
158 NLRB No. 116.
221-731-61'-vol . 158-73
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire retold
in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,2 and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiper's Recommended Order
with the following modifications
[1 Add the following as paragraph 2(c) and consecutively relettei
the present 2 (c) and all paragraphs subsequent thereto
[(c) Notify all those employees who went on strike and have not
already been reinstated if presently serving in the Aimed Forces of
the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Seivice Act and the Universal
Militaiy Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Aimed Forces
[2 Add the following immediately below the signature line at the
bottom of the notice
[NOTE -We will notify all those employees who went on strike and
have not already been reinstated if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces
[3 Delete the next to last paragraph of the notice and substitute
the following thereto
[WE WILL make whole all employees discriminatorily denied
reinstatement following termination of the unfair labor practice
strike for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them ]
1 In adopting the Trial Examiner ' s finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5)
by refusing to recognize and bargain with the majority representative of emplo3 ees in an
appropriate unit we rely on his conclusion that Respondent engaged in a course of con
duct both before and after the Union s demand for recognition evidencing a complete
rejection of the collective bargaining principle and a desire to gain time in which to
undermine the Union See Joy Silk Mills, Inc 85 NLRB 1263 enfd as modified 185 F
2d782 (CADC)
2In adopting the Trial Examiners finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3)
and (1 ) by closing its Evansville depot we agree that the record fails to substantiate
Respondent's economic defense and that termination of the Evansville operations was un
lawfully motivated However , we do not adopt his comment with respect to the Supreme
Court's decision in Textile Workers Union v Darlington Mfg Co 380 U S 263 for
in our view, the instant closedown falls within the class of cases which the Court clearly
indicated would remain unaffected by its holding therein Thus insofar as Respondent
during the temporary period in which Evansville operations were suspended continued
to service a substantial portion of its Evansville accounts through facilities available at
another depot , the closedown is not materially dissimilar from the traditional runaway
shop situation Furthermore, the discontinuance of another portion of its Evansville
operations , having been designed obviously to discourage unionization in the entire
plant" ( Textile Workers Union v Darlington Mfg Co supra page 274 footnote 19) falls
within our decisions in Missouri Transit Company 116 NLRB 587 enfd 250 F 2d 261
(CA 8) and Savoy Laundry Inc, 137 NLRB 306 remanded on other grounds 327 F 2d
370 (CA 2) distinguished but cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Textile
Workers Union v Darlington Mfg 0, supra page 273, footnote 19
HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM, INC. 1139
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, was heard before Trial Examiner Phil Saunders in Evansville, Indiana,
,on November 16 and 17, 1965, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, which
was issued on August 31, 1965, on a charge and an amended charge dated June 15
and August 31, 1965, alleged that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act (a) by various specified
acts of interference, restraint, and coercion; (b) by closing its Evansville plant
and terminating the employment of certain employees, and refusing to reinstate
such employees upon their unconditional offer to return following their unfair
labor practice strike; and (c) by refusing to bargain with the Union as the
majority representative of its employees in an appropriate unit . Respondent
answered, denying the unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , a corporation
duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Indiana,
and is engaged in the processing and sale of milk and milk products at retail and
wholesale.
Respondent, during the past 12 months, which period is representative of all
times material herein processed, manufactured, sold, and shipped from its Indiana
facilities finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State
of Indiana.
During the past 12 months Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, purchased, transferred; and delivered to its Indiana ' facilities milk and
other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 were directly transported to said facilities from
points outside the State of Indiana, and during the past 12 months the Respondent
sold milk and milk products to consumers valued in excess of $500,000.
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times, material herein it has been
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local' Union No. 215, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union, is -a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Background, events, and issues
This record shows that the Union's drive to organize certain of the Respondent's
employees started in 1964. On June 30, 1964, the Union filed a petition in Case
No. 25-RC-2649 with a unit description of all sales drivers of the Company
numbering 80 employees in said unit. This petition was then withdrawn due to a
lack of the requisite showing of interest. In January 1965, the Union then began
its attempt to organize certain of the Respondent's Evansville, Indiana, employees.'
By April 8, 1965,2 the Union had secured signed authorization cards from 15 of
the Respondent's route drivers employed out of the Evansville depot, and on
April 8, the Union addressed a letter to the Respondent's Evansville branch demand-
ing' recognition in a unit of all wholesale and retail drivers. Three additional
cards were signed on April 9, 10, and 14, and on April 12 the Union addressed
its second demand letter to the Respondent's Evansville depot asserting the Union's
1 The Respondent's main or home plant is located at Holland, Indiana, and milk, fee
cream, and other milk products are made or processed in Holland, and then hauled by
trucks to the six depots or branches of the Respondent's located in various cities in
Indiana for distribution in those communities. We are concerned in this case with the
Respondent's branch depot at Evansville, Indiana.
All dates hereinafter are 1965 unless specifically stated otherwise.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority status in a unit of "all wholesale and retail drivers and dock workers at
the Evansville, Indiana, establishment." The Respondent did not reply to either
of the demand letters. The Union then filed a petition in Case No. 25-RC-2835
on April 13, and a hearing was held on this petition on May 18. The unit in this
petition was for all wholesale and retail drivers and dock workers at the Evansville,
Indiana, plant and numbering 21 employees in such a unit. On June 9 the
Board's Regional Director for Region 25 issued his Decision in Case No. 25-RC-
2835 with an appropriate unit determination of "all wholesale and retail drivers
and dock workers,. at the Evansville, Indiana, establishment, but excluding all
office and clerical employees , all professional employees , guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees."
Other important and main events in these records show that the Respondent's
route drivers at the Evansville branch went out on strike on April 23, and that
the strike was terminated on July 16. The record also shows that the Evansville
depot was closed beginning the first week in May and then reopened in late
August. Detailed testimony, contentions , and other aspects of these events and
circumstances will be set forth and discussed in subsequent sections herein.
The key issues raised herein are (1) whether Respondent engaged in conduct
which interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees, (2) whether the Respond-
ent may relitigate the unit question, (3) whether the-Respondent has violated the
Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union , (4) whether the strike
was an unfair labor practice strike, ( 5) whether the Respondent unlawfully closed
its Evansville depot , and (6 ) whether the Respondent made valid offers of
reinstatement.
B. The alleged interference , restraint, and coercion
The complaint specifically alleges, and the General Counsel contends, that the
Respondent 's supervisors threatened employees with loss of wages, commissions,
jobs, discharge , and a more strict enforcement of rules because employees joined
or otherwise assisted the Union.
Gene Crowley testified that in March the Respondent 's Evansville depot had a
sales meeting of their route drivers, and credibly stated that on this occasion
Respondent 's district sales manager , Noble Satkamp , brought up the subject of a
proposed contract in Kentucky with the Union , and stated that the commission
rate paid to drivers was 61/2 percent under this coiitract . 3 Crowley also testified
that Satkamp stated, "We was to receive the cream of the crop and none of the
undesirables that was in the contract ." Crowley further related that the
assistant manager for the Evansville branch , Ivan Tevault, also spoke at this March
meeting and told the drivers that if they joined the Union "we would have to start
picking up milk cartons on our days off if we had any schools ." 4 Crowley stated
that after this meeting had concluded one of the employees made a statement
relative to the Union and Satkamp then replied that he was afraid "of the conse-
quences," and that the Company could not operate under the expense.
Irvin Hill also attended sales meetings of the Respondent 's Evansville depot
dui ing March, and credibly testified that at one of the meetings Satkamp discussed
the proposed Kentucky contract , as aforestated , and stated that under this contract
the Evansville route drivers would receive a 61/2 pe, cent commission. At this time
the wholesale route drivers in the Evansville depot were receiving 81h percent com-
mission , and they also had a $70 per week guarantee . Hill further related that at
the second sales meeting in March, Satkamp announced to the drivers in Evans-
ville that their commission rates would be cut from 81/2 to 61/a percent with an
$80-a-week guarantee . Hill testified that at this second meeting there was also
considerable talk to the effect that the drivers were "going for the Union ," and that
assistant branch manager, Tevault, then told them that they would have to "look
sharp en our routes ," wear uniforms , and "that we would be off for so many
days, and finally discharged , if we went union."
Gene Crowley stated that a week to 10 days prior to the April 23 strike he went
to Branch Manager Stevens' office , and on Stevens' desk was one of the Union's
letters demanding recognition . Making reference to this letter Branch Manager
8 The Respondent has a wholly owned subsidiary company in Kentucky , and at the time
in question here the Respondent had under consideration union contract proposals per-
taining to their Kentucky operation.
4 The Company had the practice of picking up school cartons in a special truck. Tevault's
remarks were to the effect that the route drivers would have to do this work themselves
if they joined the Union.
HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM,-INC. 1141
Stevens then 'told employee Crowley that the Respondent's President Caldemeyer
"was very unhappy about this," and further told Crowley that "if the Union was
put in chances are we would be looking for new jobs." William Belwood also
credibly testifies that a week before the strike he had a discussion with Branch
Manager Stevens relative to the Union coming in, and that Stevens then told him
that Respondent's President Caldemeyer had said that "he would close the plant.
down before he would do that." Belwood replied that he did not believe the
Company would do this, and Stevens then stated, "Well, I believe he would."
This record further shows that during the same period in April, Stevens also asked
employees Young and Hill whether they had signed union cards, and inquired
of James English if he had attended a union meeting.
Stevens admitted in his testimony that a sales meeting was held in March for
all route salesmen in the Evansville depot, and that there was some discussion of
the proposed Kentucky contract. In reply to whether he asked English if he had
attended a union meeting-Stevens stated, "I possibly did." Satkamp admitted in
his testimony that in a sales meeting in March someone asked him how the
"Kentucky boys" were getting along, and admitted that in these meetings commis-
sion rates would be discussed, but "nothing officially." 5
Assistant Branch Manager Tevault testified that in a March sales meeting with
route drivers he mentioned uniforms, and told employees that in the proposed
Kentucky contract the drivers would be required to be in uniforms at all times.
Tevault admitted that when supervisors discussed the Kentucky contract at a sales
meeting statements were made to the effect that there might be changes in the
commission rates.
I have set forth some of the testimony given by Respondent's supervisors,
Stevens, Satkamp, and Tevault because it appears to me that portions of their
statements and admissions indirectly support, in several respects, the credited
testimony given by witnesses for the General Counsel. All three supervisors admit
that certain proposals in the Kentucky contract were openly discussed. Satkamp
admitted that commission rates were discussed, and Tevault admitted that he talked
about uniform requirements contained in the proposed Kentucky contract.
It is clear from this record that until at least March 22, the Evansville wholesale
drivers had always received 81/2 percent commission, and that the proposed Ken-
tucky contract contained a lower rate. Furthermore, it is clear that in the March
sales meetings this fact was continually emphasized by Satkamp, and also"there is
ample evidence that the reduction in commissions would substantially reduce the
earnings of the Evansville wholesale route drivers. Irvin Hill testified that he did
not wear a tie on duty and many of the drivers did not even wear the Respondent's
uniforms Thus, these remarks by the supervisors, including the threats to make
the drivers pick up empty milk cartons and call 'on prospective customers on their
"off duty" time, are obvious contemplated changes in working conditions of an
odious nature, entirely dependent on the employees' attitude toward the Union.
There can be no serious dispute in this proceeding as to the Respondent's knowl-
edge of the 1965 union campaign even during the initial period in question here.
Sales Manager Satkamp admitted that the Company was aware that the Union
"was around trying to organize," and the Company also knew that Evansville
employees were attending union meetings. As shown herein, after learning of the
Union's organizational efforts the Respondent embarked upon an unlawful course
of conduct by making various statements designed to defeat the Union. The fore-
going instances and statements that have been credited to the Respondent include
threats to, cut commissions of wholesale route drivers or loss of wages, threats of
loss of jobs and the discharge of employees, threatening employees with more
strict enforcement of rules and with extra duties, threatening to close the
plant, and interrogation of employees as to whether they had signed union
cards and attended union meetings. Certainly the constant and continual remind-
ers at sales meetings of the 61/2 percent commission rate in the Kentucky con-
tract-coupled with the statement- that Evansville drivers could get the "cream
of the crop" without a Union-must be viewed as a threat which was calculated
to influence drivers in dropping their support for the Union, and irregardless of
5 Satkamp testified that there was a change in the commission rates for the route drivers
of the Evansville depot, and that he individually informed the drivers of these changes on
March 22.
6 Satkamp even admitted on cross -examination that there never had been a policy of
the Respondent requiring drivers to wear a tie while working
1142 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whatever subsequent economic justification the Company had .7 Under the numerous
and many precedents of the Board and courts , the illegality of the above conduct
is most obvious . Threats of reprisals , such as closing the plant , discharge , loss of
wages and jobs, and strict rule enforcements in the event of unionization, along
with interrogations are clearly violative of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act, and I so
find. It is well settled by the Board and courts that in determining whether an
employer's conduct amounts to interference , restraint , or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), the test is not the employer 's intent or motive, but
whether the conduct is reasonably calculated, or tends to, interfere with the free
exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. If the setting, the conditions, the
methods of other probative context can be appraised, in reasonable probability, as
having the effect of restraining or coercing the employees in the exercise of such
rights, then his activity on the part of the employer is violative of this section of
the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Protein Blenders, Inc., 215 F. 2d 749, 750 (C.A. 9). This
is especially true in the insecure organizational period, as here, where the employer
can make some seemingly innocent question or remarks suggest his displeasure with
employees who support the union. It is equally clear that violations of Section
8(a)(1) are not rectified by being subsequently enacted or effectuated.
C. The Union's majority status
As stated the Union's first demand letter was dated April 8, and was received
by the Company on the next day and on April 9, the Respondent's payroll record
shows a total of 23 drivers and dockmen working at the Evansville branch.8 This
letter was sent to the Respondent 's Evansville depot . From the card exhibits intro-
duced by the General Counsel this record shows that by April 8, the Union repre-
sented 15 of the Respondent's 23 unit employees at the Evansville branch. On
April 13, the Respondent received the second demand from the Union, and by
this time the Union's majority had been increased to 17 out of 23. The second
demand letter, which was also sent to the Evansville depot , described the unit as
.,all wholesale and retail drivers and dock workers as the Evansville , Indiana,
establishment." The Union's petition filed on April 13 also set forth the unit in
accordance with the above description.
There is no evidence in the record of any employee attempts to revoke his
authorization card, nor is there any evidence whatsoever tending to show any coer-
cion or any form of union misrepresentation in securing the signed authorization
cards. Thus, on April 8 the Union had an established majority of 15 out of 23
and on April 12 had 17 out of 23 employees.
D. The strike
This record shows that about April 21, union supporters attended a meeting
and a discussion took place as to why the Company had not replied to the Union's
demand letters of April 8 and 12. A strike vote was then taken, and it was
unanimously agreed at this union meeting to strike the Evansville depot if an
additional contact with the Company also proved negative. On the morning of
April 23, the Evansville route drivers reported to their depot, but did not go out
on their routes. Shortly thereafter, Branch Manager Stevens arrived and inquired
as to the trouble. William Belwood testified that he then informed Stevens that
"what we wanted was to be recognized," and further told Stevens that when the
Union started "bargaining for us" the drivers would go back to work. Stevens
then called the Respondent's home office in Holland, and he also had a conversa-
tion with the president of the Local Union, Clifford Arden. Arden testified that
he told Stevens on this occasion "that the men didn't want to go to work unless
they [the Company] recognized us to bargain." After further consultation with
the home office in Holland, Stevens then informed the drivers to either get their
trucks out on the routes or to turn in their "keys" and "equipment." 9 At this
7 Satkamp testified that the Company was "going to get" all the Indiana depots on the
same rate basis.
8 The unit described in the Union's demand letter of April 8, was as follows:
All wholesale and retail drivers: excluding all other employees office clerical, all
guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
' Irvin Hill testified that on this occasion Stevens stated the following: "Either get out
on the trucks or turn our books and key,in, and if not we'd had it"
HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM, INC 1143
time the strike began, and out of the 18 route drivers at the Evansville depot-14
of them started picketing the plant The dockmen at this depot did not join in
the strike
E The "for sale' sign and closure of the plant
This record is clear that during the first week of the strike the Respondent
started moving products out of the Evansville depot, and shortly thereafter a "for
sale" sign was placed on the plant property and a "closed" sign was also put up on
or about May 15 The parties stipulated that the plant was closed during the first
week in May and was then reopened in late August or early September after the
strike had been terminated on July 16 The Respondent's personnel director,
Howard Hightower, testified that the Evansville depot was reopened on a temporary
basis Hightower further stated that the decision to close the Evansville branch
was made during the second week in May, because the Company could not get
their milk into the Evansville depot, and that it looked like the "cheapest way " 10
Hightower also testified that when the strike was terminated the Company could
get their products back into the Evansville depot, that the route truckdrivers did
not want to drive back and forth between Evansville and Holland, and that it
was not as "cheap" as the Company had figured at the time they closed the
Evansville branch
F Termination of the strike and reinstatement
By a letter to the Respondent dated July 16, the Union unconditionally offered
to return the strikers to work, called off the strike, requested negotiations, and
the strike was, in fact, terminated on July 16 By a letter dated July 20 the
Respondent replied that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit On July 20, the Respondent also sent a series
of individual letters to the strikers asking them to report to the Respondent's home
office in Holland, Indiana, to "make arrangements" for their reemployment Sub-
sequent thereto a few of the route drivers went back to work with the Company
while other drivers did not Route driver Clifford Young went to Holland on
three occasions The first two trips he was not offered any job, and on the third
trip was informed by the Respondent's personnel director, Hightower, that there
was a wholesale route available, and in accordance therewith Young gave his tem-
porary employer a 2 weeks' notice that he was quitting About a week later
Evansville Branch Manager Stevens told Young that there was no wholesale route
available but that he could take a retail route 11 Young refused this offer The
Respondent's witnesses then admitted in the hearing before me that since the strike
they have discontinued their retail routes out of the Evansville depot This record
also shows that on September 20 the Respondent's attorney contacted Young about
a wholesale route, but informed him that four of the customers on this particular
route would not allow Young to even come into their stores The Company could
offer no explanation for this after Young inquired as to their reasons Former
wholesale route driver Gene Crowley also made a trip to Holland after receiving
one of the letters from the Company Crowley was told that the Company had no
plans to reopen its Evansville branch, and that it might be 3 months to 2 years be-
fore they would have anything for them to do Branch Manager Stevens in a later
talk with Crowley told him that the Company would have a new retail route for
Crowley in a week or so, and advised Crowley to give his present employer notice
Nothing further happened in regard to this job offer by Stevens, and Crowley
testified that he had never been offered his old job back-that of a wholesale route
driver Wholesale route driver Belwood also went to Holland after receiving a
letter on July 20, and was offered part of his old route back Betwood testified
that he would have to travel back and forth to Holland each day and that this
route had "slipped down" to $80 a week Belwood stated that the "big pay cut" in
his route would not make his return to it worthwhile and that he so informed
10 During the strike the Company serviced their Evansville customers by loading their
route trucks in Holland The Company would then keep some of their loaded route
trucks in Evansville overnight by parking them at a service station and other places
where there was available electrical service or outlets to plug in the refs igeration units
of the trucks Supervisors and drivers who did not support the strike operated the
route trucks
11 Prior to the events herein Young had worked for the Company as a wholesale route
driver or salesman out of the Evansville depot
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS"BOARD
Stevens. This record shows that newly hired drivers were working after the strike
on wholesale routes out of the Evansville depot, and that striking route drivers
English and Hill were rehired after the termination of the strike, and by late
August or early September English returned to his old wholesale route. It is
pointed out and noted, however, that striking employees Brokaw, Crowley, Gentry,
Hawles, LaVarnway, Young, Bitter, and Zendell, while all receiving letters, were
not offered their former or equivalent jobs, and were not given any proposed as-
surances of a job or any starting dates. Belwood could only get his route back by
taking a substantial loss in his pay.
G. Conclusions
The 8(a)(5) and (3) allegations in the complaint are in essence predicated on
the basis that the Respondent refused to bargain after the Union's demands, as
set forth above; that the Respondent closed its Evansville depot without notice
and terminated the employment of its employees because of the strike; and that
after an unconditional offer to return to work the Respondent refused to reinstate
employees, and dealt directly with employees.
The Company contends that the `vacillation" on the part of the Union with re-
spect to the unit of employees is sufficient to cast doubt in the mind of Respondent's
management as to the Union's majority status in the appropriate unit, and that the
Respondent's knowledge of its own integrated operating procedure concerning milk
processing and distribution operations established its good-faith doubt as to , the
Union's majority status in the appropriate unit. The Respondent further argues that
the fact that this was "precisely" the basis of the Respondent's refusal to recognize
the Union is confirmed by the testimony of several witnesses which appeared be-
fore me, and refers to the testimony of Bright and Young.12 The Respondent also
argues that the Regional Director's unit finding, as stated heretofore, is contrary
to well-established Board precedent as to amount to an arbitrary and capricious
administrative determination. This record shows that the Respondent's contentions
as to employerwide unit had been raised previously in the representation proceeding
(Case No. 25-RC-2835-General Counsel's Exhibit 2), and its contention was
rejected. This record also shows that 'the Respondent then executed a waiver
whereby the Respondent expressly waived its right to request review of the Region-
al Director's decision (General Counsel's Exhibit 3). The law is settled that, absent
newly discovered evidence, the issues raised and determined in the prior representa-
tion proceeding may not be relitigated in the complaint proceeding.13 There is no
showing whatsoever of any newly discovered evidence since the representation
hearing. I have found that the Union had a majority, and I am bound by the
earlier unit determination in the representation proceeding and in which the Com-
pany executed a waiver in appealing. Therefore, the remaining questions in this
area must center around whether or not the Company had a'good-faith doubt, apd
in order to determine the validity of such a defense I must look to the Respondent's
entire course of conduct in the time periods material and pertinent to this case.
In my opinion the Respondent's refusal to meet and bargain with the Union after
it received the Union's demand letters of April 8 and 12 was not motivated by any
good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status in an appropriate unit, but by a
desire to undermine and destroy it. The Respondent's contention that the "vacilla-
tion" of the unit cast a doubt in management rests heavily upon the fact that the
Union's demand letter of April 8, and the first petition filed on April 9 did not
specify the employees at the Evansville depot. However, it is clear from the
record that the Respondent knew that the Union sought to represent employees at
Evansville. Thus, from the very first the Respondent directed their unlawful anti-
union campaign against employees of their Evansville branch. Moreover, the
demand 'letter of April 12, as aforestated, specifically named the wholesale and re-
tail drivers and dock workers at the "Evansville Indiana establishment." [Emphasis
12 Donovan Bright stated that before the strike Evansville branch manager, Stevens, told
him that the Respondent was concerned about dealing separately with each branch. Clif-
ford Young testified that at a union meeting on April 31, there was a discussion about
the Company wanting to include the Evansville branch with all the Indiana branches
as a unit.
v Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B, 313 U.S. 146, 157-158; N.L.R.B. v.
American Steel Buck Corp., 227 F. 2d 927, 929 (CA. 2) ; NL.R.B. V. Botany Worsted
Mille, 133 F. 2d 876, 882 (C.A. 3) ; N.L R.B. v. West Kentucky Coal Company, 152 F. 2d
198, 200-201 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 328 U.S. 866; Quaker City Life Insurance Company,
138 NLRB 61.
HOLLAND CUSTARD AND.ICE CREAM, INC. 1145
supplied.] It appears to me that if the Respondent had any doubt whatsoever
about the scope of the ugit„certainly. the letter of April 12, and the amended peti-
tion , filed on Aril 13, adequately cleared whatever confusion there might have
existed from • the Union's 'prior demand , letter and petition . ' In my opinion, an
employer who was prepared.to bargain ih good faith with his employees' representa-
tive,-but who'-had such doubt, would have'requested the Union to, remove from
his mind, any genuine uncertainty regarding,the unit's composition. The Respond-
ent did•not.reply to;.either of the Union's, demand letters nor did it assert a doubt
about anything, and the Respondent's unfair labor practices after the Union sought
bargaining, and particularly the unilateral closing and termination of its depot in
Evansville while still servicing many of its Evansville customers, clearly established
that their failure to answer the Union's bargaining demand was motivated not by
a doubt about the unit, but by an unwillingness to bargain at all. Furthermore,
it is again pointed out that both the Union's demand letters of April 8 and.12 were
addressed specifically to the Evansville depot.
Additional factors and circumstances in this case, further show that the Company
lacked a good-faith doubt as to the unit and its majority support. Certainly, Tevault
and Stevens could and "did observe for themselves the majority support by the
Evansville drivers for the Union on the morning of the strike before the picket
line was-set up. However , in this general area the Company relies on statements
made on the 'morning of the strike,' and specifically on the testimony of witnesses
Bright and Young, as aforestated, and, contending that such testimony was further
evidence that the Company entertained a valid doubt as to the unit. As far as
I am able to ascertain the statements given by Bright, as to what Stevens told him,
merely pronounced what the * Respondent desired and wanted in the way of an
employer-wide unit , and Young 's testimony only shows that at, a union meeting the
drivers were aware that the Company wanted'to include the Evansville depot with
all its other Indiana branches . Furthermore , William Belwood informed Stevens
the morning of the strike that, "All you have to do is recognize us now and we'll
go back to work." Since there were no other depots or branches of the Respond-
ent on strike it is most obvious that on April 23, the Respondent was once again
duly advised of the unit involved, and this time with the benefit of actual obser-
vations by its supervisors at its Evansville depot. The Respondent makes' some
contention in its brief to the argument that a majority of employees did not 'sup-
port the picket line activities, and contends this shows that the Company had a
good-faith doubt in its mind. However, this record shows that only four of
the drivers and the dockmen (only four of them) did not strike or join the picket
line on the morning of April 23. This leaves 15 employees or a majority of the
unit who did strike.
The Respondent contends that its decision to close down the Evansville operation
was strictly an economic decision due to loss of Respondent's retail customers, and
the refusal of the organized semitruckdrivers hauling products from Holland to
Evansville to cross the picket line.14 The Respondent admits as aforestated, that it
misjudged the economics of closing and with the complaints by drivers. who had
to make daily trips to Holland to pick up products, decided to reopen the, depot
in Evansville. I reject the Respondent's economic contentions for terminating the
Evansville depot, and find that the closure was unlawfully, -motivated. As stated
herein, during the strike the Respondent continued to distribute its products in the
Evansville area and operated its trucks from Holland with supervisors and other
nonstriking personnel as substitutes for the regular employees . , There is no evi-
dence or contention in this record that such drivers would have been hindered or
prohibited from crossing the picket line. On the other hand, there is a.good deal
of evidence that the Respondent used various places in Evansville as truck stops
with several drivers meeting at Assistant Manager Tevault's house, and which fact
shows the continual and real need of a central distribution point for the Evansville
customers.15
14 The decision to close the depot was made solely by company officials. . I
15 The Respondent produced considerable testimony ' to the effect that a few- of the
stores it serviced during the strike encountered damages to the products of the Company
after delivery of such products to the stores-such as slashed and "punctured milk cartons.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Union or the strikers were responsible
or in any way connected with such destruction. Branch Manager Stevens openly admitted
in his testimony that the Company had "no evidence to connect any members of the
Union to these incidents." As far as I can ascertain this testimony as to damaged
merchandise has no bearing on the issues in this case, and I have disregarded the same.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The "for sale" signs placed on the Company's property in Evansville, viewed in
the' light of earlier threats and interrogations , as set forth herein , also tends to
show that the closure was unlawfully motivated, and lacking in good faith' "-the
actual need . for a central distribution point still remained , and there is no evidence
in this record that the Company ever gave any serious considerations whatsoever
to, even'any contemplated sale of the Evansville plant. In the concluding analysis
here the Company admitted in the hearing before me the 'economy and conven-
ience factors required that it maintain the Evansville depot and also admitted that
ever since the depot has been closed management started discussing the reopening
"constantly" and "periodically." The Respondent further admits that the termina-
tion of the strike was, at least, one reason it reopened its Evansville depot.16 ,1
At the union meeting a few days before the strike, as indicated herein, a discus-
sion took 'place as to what action should be taken in view of the fact that the
Company had not replied to the demands for recognition. The strike vote was then
taken on whether the employees should strike if the Company continued in its
refusal. It was further agreed by the employees at this meeting as pointed out,
that Union Local President Arden, should make one additional effort to obtain rec-
ognition, and in accordance therewith Arden talked with Stevens and other people
in management on the morning of April 23, before the strike actually started.
Arden told Stevens "That the men didn't want to go to work unless they recog-
nized us to bargain." Driver Belwood testified, "We went out strictly to' get the
Teamsters in as a bargaining union. We never asked for nothing else that morn-
ing." It is clear to me that the cause of the strike was the Respondent's refusal
to recognize the Union, and as I have found that Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing
to bargain in good- faith, I also find that the strike was caused and prolonged by
Respondent's unfair labor practices and hence is an unfair labor practice strike.
It is of course well-settled law that unfair labor practice strikers, upon request,
are entitled to reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
and that an employer is further required to discharge, if necessary, any employees
hired to replace such strikers. The obligation to reinstate arises where a union
on behalf of the strikers, as heie, unconditionally applies for reinstatement. I
agree with the General Counsel that the subsequent attempts at individual bargain-
ing with several of the strikers will not cure the Respondent's failure to offer
reinstatement. It is noted that the letters sent to' the strikers about July 20,
made no valid offer of reemployment, but only suggested that the strikers go to
Holland and "make arrangements The trips made to Holland by Young,
Crowley, and Belwood, as aforesaid, also show the futility of the visits, and further
demonstrates that these letters were merely an expression for an opportunity to
talk with the strikers, and in at least one instant offering a retail route to a striker
after such routes had admittedly been abandoned by the Company. It is also well
settled that offers of reinstatement lacking in good faith and a bona fide attempt
to reemploy do not constitute valid offers and must be disregarded. It is sufficient
here to note that the reinstatement offers by the Company had numerous and many
conditions attached to them. None of the company letters offered the strikers their
former or substantially' equivalent jobs, and it was only after several personal
conferences with Hightower and Stevens that strikers English and Hill were put
back to work. Certainly their reemployment under such circumstances cannot
cure the Respondent's otherwise illegal attempts at reinstatement. To fill out the
entire picture it appears that striking employees Orville David, Earl David, and
Bill Bippus quit the strike a few days after it started and returned to their work
with the Company.
H. Final summary
From the Respondent's entire course of conduct it appears crystal clear to me
that the Company at no time here material had any good-faith doubt with respect
to the Union's majority or to the unit. Thus, when confronted with the demand
for recognition on April 8, the Respondent made no reply; when confronted with
the second demand on April 12, the Company made no reply and then further
failed to recognize the Union on the morning of the strike, April 23, when all
doubts of majority status and the unit involved were clearly resolved. Further-
more, in May the Respondent unilaterally and discriminatorily closed its Evansville
16 In the total aspects of this record the 'unilateral and discriminatory closing of the
plant bears and relates to considerations in both the 8 ( a)(5) and ( 3) allegations as does
also the Respondent 's conduct in dealing individually as to reinstatements.
' HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM, INC.- 1147
depot ; and the Company then attempted to bargain directly with strikers concern-
ing their reinstatements without making any valid offers of their former or equiva-
lent jobs. Moreover, in March, and on certain occasions shortly prior to the strike,
while knowing the Union was attempting to organize , supervisors threatened the
Evansville drivers with loss of jobs, commissions , discharges , closing of the - plant,
and a more strict enforcement of company rules along with certain other illegal
conduct as previously noted herein . I submit that- Respondent 's contention of a
good-faith doubt is nothing more than belatedly questioning the unit as the Com-
pany did not even raise the unit issue until the representation hearing on May 18,
and most assuredly the Respondent 's good-faith doubt is further compromised and,
in fact, totally destroyed by its conduct outlined and set forth above both prior
and subsequent to the Union 's demands for recognition . This course of conduct
by the Respondent belies any asserted good-faith doubt as to the appropriate unit,
but, on the contrary, indicates that the Respondent was motivated by a rejection
of the collective-bargaining principle and a desire to gain time within which to
destroy the Union's majority. Such a course of conduct is a flagrant example of
the type of conduct prescribed by Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd.
185 F. 2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914.
For all the foregoing reasons and upon the findings heretofore made I have
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act.
In addition to the above I have also found that the Respondent unlawfully closed
its Evansville plant with a concomitant discharge of- its employees. It is clear
that the closing was motivated by opposition to the employees' union activities.
The Respondent argues that its closing was based on economic factors. However,
the Board has held that an employer 's conduct is no less unlawful even if genuine
economic factors as well as employee 's union activities contribute motivation for
the shutdown. Darlington Mfg. Co , 139 NLRB 241, [enforcement denied 325 F. 2d
682 (C.A. 4); vacated and remanded ] 380 U.S. 263. This is a violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act, and I so find .17 The Respondent further violated
Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it denied reinstatement to the strikers
upon their unconditional application for reinstatement on July 16, 1965. Mitchell
Concrete Products Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 504.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent found to constitute unfair labor practices as
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 commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, I will recommend that, upon request, the Respondent bargain collectively
17 By the United States Supreme Court decision in Darlington, it was remanded to the
Board for further proceedings on the questions of whether Darlington is to be regarded
as an integral part of Deering Milliken enterprise . However, the Supreme Court held
that only when an employer closes his entire business , even if the liquidation is motivated
by vindictiveness toward the Union, such action Is not an unfair labor practice . But dis-
agreed with the court of appeals that such right includes the ability to close part of a
business no matter what the reason . The Supreme Court noted that a discriminatorily
partial closing may have repercussions on what remains of the business affording employer
leverage for discouraging the free exercise of Section 7 rights among remaining employees
of much the same kind as that found to exist in the runaway shop and temporary clos-
ing cases . In the instant case under consideration we had a clear cut discriminatory and
temporary partial closing of the Respondent 's operations ( its Evansville branch only) in
retaliation of their employees ' support of the Union , and thus, possible repercussions
among remaining employees of the Respondent . In the instant case there is no question
involved as to the Respondent closing Its entire business . See also E8ti Neiderman , et at.,
d/b/a Star Baby Co., 140 NLRB 678.
1145 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Union concerning rates of pay , wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached , embody such. in a
signed agreement.
. In view of the nature and extent of Respondent 's unfair labor practices, I deem
it necessary, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, to recommend a
cease-and-desist order couched in broad terms to prohibit any violations of
employee rights under the Act.
I have also found that the strike was caused and prolonged by Respondent'ss
unfair labor practices in failing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union
and hence was an unfair labor practice strike. I will therefore recommend that
the Respondent offer the unfair labor practice strikers, whose unconditional applica-
tion for reinstatement was unlawfully rejected on or about July 16, 1965, imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , discharging, if
necessary , any replacements in order to provide work for such strikers. I also
recommend that the Respondent make whole for any loss of pay that they may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's discrimination against them , by pay-
ing to each of these employees a sum of money equal to the amount that he nor-
mally would have earned as wages from the date of their unconditional application
for reinstatement to the date of the Respondent's valid offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during said period. The amount of backpay due shall be com-
puted according to the Board's policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289. Payroll and other records in possession of the Respondent are
to be made available to the Board , or its agent , to assist in such computation and
in determining the right to reinstatement . Interest on backpay shall be computed
in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following: -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in 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. By discriminatorily closing its Evansville depot, and by denying reinstatement
to strikers upon their unconditional application , the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
5. All wholesale and retail drivers and dockworkers at the Evansville, Indiana,
establishment , but excluding all office and clerical employees , all professional
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
6. At all times since April 8, 1965, the Union has been and continues to be the
exclusive representative of all the employees within said appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment , within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
7. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive represent-
ative of its employees in an appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
8. The strike which began on April 23, 1965, was caused and prolonged by
Respondent 's unfair labor practices , and therefore was an unfair labor practice
strike.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED- ORDER '
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I hereby recommend that Respondent
HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM, INC 1149
Holland Custard and Ice Cream, Inc, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(it) Threatening employees with loss of wages and commissions
(b) Threatening loss of jobs, discharges, and closing of the plant
(c) Threatening a more strict enforcement of company rules and additional
duties
(d) Interrogating employees as to their union activities
(e) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment
(f) Discriminatorily closing the Evansville depot because of thi.ir employee's
union activities
(g) Dealing with individual employees and placing conditions or qualifications
on their reinstatement
(h) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as the representative of
the employees in the unit herem found to be appropriate
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act
(a) Bargain collectively with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the above described unit and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement
(b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to all those employees who went
on strike, and have not already been reinstated, and make them whole in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy "
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all records necessary to analyze and compute the amount
of backpay, if any, which may be due under `The Remedy' section in this Decision
(d) Post at its plant in Evansville, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked
"Apne-idix " 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 25, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent,
be posted by it 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 to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 19
18 In the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board the words
'a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the v ords the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice In the further ei ent that the Board s Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals the words ' a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words a Decision
and Order"
19 In the event that this Recommended Order 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALI EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of wages and commissions
because of their union activities
WE WILL NOT threaten loss of jobs, discharges, and closing of the plant
WF WILL NOT threaten a more strict enforcement of company rules and
additional duties
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees as to their union activities
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily close our Evansville depot in retaliation for
employees' union activities
WP WILL NOT deal with individual employees, and place conditions and
qualifications on their reinstatements
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or. coerce
employees in their right to join or assist any union or to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with Teamsters, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local Union No. 215, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other, conditions of
employment , and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed contract.
The bargaining unit is:
All wholesale and retail drivers and dock workers at the Evansville,
Indiana, establishment, but excluding all office and clerical employees,
all professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
and all other employees.
WE WILL, upon application, offer immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority of other rights and privileges, to all our employees who participated in
the strike , and who have not already been reinstated , dismissing, if necessary,
all persons hired on or after April 23, 1965.
WE WILL make whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered those
employees who went on strike in accordance with the provisions herein.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members in good standing of the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization.
HOLLAND CUSTARD AND ICE CREAM, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office,
614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana, Telephone No.
633-8921.
Everest & Jennings, Inc. and' Truesdell S. Brown, Jr.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(AFL-CIO)
Everest & Jennings , Inc. Petitioner, and International Associa-
tion of Machinists, District Lodge 1578 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 31-CA-45 (formerly 21-CA-6491), 31-CA--65 (formerly
21-CA-6620), 31-RM-2 (formerly 21-RM-1171), and 31-RC-10
(formerly 21-RC-9451). May 26,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February •16, 1966, Trial Examiner. Wallace E. Royster issued.
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging ht: certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and -desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief.
158 NLRB No. 113.