Independent Stave Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 156 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Independent Stave Company and Coopers
International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 17-CA-3530
March 28, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On November 20, 1968, Trial Examiner Melvin
Pollack issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision together with a brief in
support thereof, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting statement and
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions,
cross-exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions," and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
At in 7 of his Decision , the Trial Examiner found that the no-strike
clause in the Barrel Shop contract "is on its face inapplicable to
sympathetic strike action " We find it unnecessary to pass upon this
finding, as neither the Barrel Shop contract nor the walkout of the Barrel
Shop employees on March 25 is an issue in this case
'The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Examiner ' s failure to
find that the Green Mill stoke was caused or prolonged by the
Respondent ' s unlawful insistence to impasse upon nonmandatory
bargaining subjects The record shows, and the Trial Examiner found, that
the Green Mill employees ended their strike and returned to work in May
1968 - before the contract negotiations reached impasse It is not
contended that any of the returning Green Mill strikers were denied
reinstatement when the strike ended Accordingly , we find it unnecessary
to label the strike as either an "unfair labor practice " or an "economic"
dispute, since such designation could not affect our remedy herein
'The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility resolutions made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board ' s established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Dry Wall
Products . Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Independent Stave
Company, Lebanon, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner. This case was heard
at Lebanon, Missouri, on September 4, 1968, pursuant to
charges filed on April 1, May 6, and May 27, 1968, and a
complaint issued on May 29, 1968. The complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by insisting upon certain contractual provisions
as a condition to signing a collective-bargaining agreement
with the charging Union, and that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening pickets with
physical harm and by withholding paychecks from striking
employees.
Upon the entire record in the case, my consideration of
a brief filed by the General Counsel, and my observation
of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Missouri corporation, manufactures
whiskey barrels and other products at its premises in
Lebanon, Missouri. Respondent's annual interstate
purchases and sales each exceed $50,000 I find, as
Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union, Coopers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III 1 HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
Respondent's operations include a "Green Mill" (saw
mill) for the production of staves, a Barrel Shop, and a
Diversified Industries Division which manufactures
wooden housewares. The production and maintenance
employees engaged in these operations, which are
conducted on adjoining premises, are represented in
separate bargaining units by the Union. The Barrel Shop
employees are covered by a collective-bargaining contract
effective July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1969 A strike for a
contract by the Diversified Industries employees began in
October 1967 and ended in May 1968.' Pursuant to a
Board election conducted in December 1967, the Union
was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of
the Green Mill employees. The Union and Respondent
started contract negotiations on March 1, 1968.
'A Board Trial Examiner issued a decision on April 30, 1968, in Case
17-CA-3390, finding that the strike was caused by Respondent 's unlawful
refusal to bargain with the Union and directing Respondent inter alia to
reinstate the strikers upon application The Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order was adopted pro forma by the Board on May 29,
175 NLRB No. 25
INDEPENDENT STAVE CO. 157
B. Threats of Physical Harm
On Wednesday, March 13, 1968,2 James Boswell,
Respondent's president, called the Union's recording
secretary, David Darrow, to his office Boswell said he
had heard rumors that "there was going to be a picket
line . . . all the way across" Respondent's premises' He
asked Darrow what the men would do if that happened
and Darrow replied that most of the men "would not walk
across the picket line." Boswell asked Darrow if he would
come to work "if there was a driveway open." Darrow
said he would do so if he did not have to cross the picket
line. Boswell said his private drive would be open, that
"we could come in there and go to work," and that "he
would whip the s.o.b that got in it."
The Green Mill employees struck on Monday, March
25, and the Union stationed pickets at all the entrances to
Respondent's facilities' About Wednesday, Charles
Whittaker was picketing at the "highway right-of-way"
section of the Y driveway whose branches lead to
President Boswell's home and to the Diversified Industries
parking lot ' President Boswell drove into the driveway
from the highway, stopped his car past Whittaker, opened
the door, and told Whittaker, using vulgar language, that
he would beat Whittaker if he did not leave. Whittaker
kept quiet and Boswell drove on. Boswell came back later
with a camera and took a picture of Whittaker who was
carrying a sign with an "unfair labor practices" legend.
I find from the foregoing facts that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening
employees with physical harm for engaging in Union
picketing.'
C The Withholding of Paychecks
Some 40 employees in the Barrel Shop refused to cross
the picket line established by the Union on March 25,
1968 ' One of these employees, Norman Harold, testified
that Wednesday, March 27, was payday in the Barrel
Shop and that he and his brother went through the picket
line that day to get their checks but were told by Office
Manager Raymond Scott, in the presence of President
Boswell, that their checks would be mailed to them "or to
come on to work and we could get it." Scott testified that
he had new personnel in his office and that they were not
able to get the complete Barrel Shop payroll finished in
time. According to Scott, he decided to give priority to
the checks for the employees who were working. About
1968, and was enforced August 2, 1968, by the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit The Board previously issued an order on April 25, 1964,
based on a finding that Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain with
the Union as the representative of the Barrel Shop employees Independent
Stave Company, 148 NLRB 431, enfd 352 F 2d 553 (C A 8), cert denied
384 U S 962
'A11 dates hereafter are in 1968 unless otherwise noted
'There are five driveways to Respondent's premises which front along a
highway A sixth driveway is in the shape of a Y with one branch of the Y
leading to Boswell ' s home and the other branch to the Diversified
Industries parking lot
The Green Mill employees returned to work along with the Diversified
industries employees in May 1968
'Whittaker called Supervisor Patton upon seeing a newspaper
advertisement "where the company was advertising for help " and was told
"to come on out, they could probably use me" Whittaker decided not to
cross the Union ' s picket line and called a union steward Whittaker
became a paid union picket
'Whittaker , as an applicant with a reasonable expectancy of
employment , was an "employee" under the Act Walton Manufacturing
Co . 124 NLRB 1331, 1337 (fn 17)
160 Barrel Shop employees were at work . All those
employees were "paid in the normal fashion " Checks for
the 40 Barrel Shop employees who had refused to cross
the Union ' s picket line were "all ready by the following
Monday " Boswell testified that when he found out that
there would be a delay in getting out the Barrel Shop
checks, he " might have suggested that those who were
working should be given first consideration " He added,
under cross-examination , that "it is only human nature to
help those who help you" and that he decided " if there
were going to be checks that were going to be late, they
should be the ones ." The record shows that the Barrel
Shop employees were paid on time the Wednesday before
the strike and that Scott had the same office personnel
available to him the week of the strike.
I do not credit Scott ' s explanation for the failure to pay
the striking Barrel Shop employees on time and find from
the foregoing circumstances that Respondent deliberately
delayed their paychecks in reprisal for their refusal to
cross the Union ' s picket line , thereby interfering with its
employees ' right to engage in sympathetic strike activity
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L R.B v
Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Company, Inc., 130
F.2d 503 (C.A. 2).
D. The Refusal To Bargain
At a negotiating session for the Green Mill unit on
April 2, 1968, Respondent submitted a complete contract
proposal to the Union, described in an accompanying
letter "as a last and final proposal made in an effort to
reach agreement and end the strike" The proposal
included the following provisions:
ARTICLE XIX
NO STRIKE--NO LOCKOUT
Section 1. There shall be no strike, work stoppage,
slowdown or other interruption of work by the Union
or the employees during the life of this agreement, or a
lockout on the part of the Company.
Section 2 Any employee engaging in a strike or
walkout not authorized or sanctioned by the Coopers
International UNion shall either be discharged, or
disciplined, and/or authomatically (sic) forfeits his or
her rights to vacations, holiday pay, show-up pay, and
insurance for a period of twelve months following the
beginning of the walkout or strike in the exclusive
discretion of of the company For the purpose of this
section "slow downs" shall be considered the same as
"walk out" or "strike" regardless of authorization or
sanction of the Coopers International Union.
This section is not subject to "Grievance and
Arbitration" as set forth in Article XVI of the
Contract.
'Respondent claims that the Union encouraged these employees to stoke
despite a no -strike clause in the Barrel Shop contract The clause in
question prohibits strikes arising out of disputes "between the Company
and the Union or any employee in the unit as to the meaning and
application of this Agreement " and therefore is on its face inapplicable to
sympathetic strike action
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARTICLE XX
PICKET LINE
Section 1. It is recognized by the Company and the
employees that there are several locations at which the
Company conducts various phases of its operations,
such as Diversified Industries Division (commonly
referred to as "the Bowl Factory"), the Lebanon Green
Mill, and the Barrel Factory. The above three
operations are located at Lebanon, Missouri, on
adjoining premises In addition, there are other plants
belonging to the Company. It is further recognized that
although the employees at each of the above-mentioned
locations are employed by the Company, the employees
at each such location constitute a separate bargaining
unit for purposes of collective bargaining. It is further
recognized that the employees at several of the
above-mentioned locations have selected as their
bargaining representative the Coopers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC• namely, the
employees at the Barrel Factory, at the Bowl Factory,
and at the Lebanon Green Mill.
Section 2 Because of the above facts, the employees
working under this Agreement shall be required to
cross any picket line established at the Company's
premises unless that picket line is legally established.
Section 3 The employees working under this
Agreement shall not honor any picket line established
at the entrance of the employees of any other
bargaining unit employed by the Company nor shall the
employees working under this Agreement engage in
sympathetic action with employees of any other
bargaining unit employed by the Company
Section 4, In the event of a picket line established by
employees of any other bargaining unit employed by
the Company, the employees working under this
Agreement shall be required to cross such picket line
and perform their normal work assignments.
Section 5 It is agreed that picketing by any bargaining
unit shall be limited to the entrance assigned that unit.
Section 6. It is agreed the Union will not punish any
employee who refuses to walk on a picket line or who
works during a work stoppage or strike.
The union negotiators reviewed Respondent's proposed
contract and gave answers to each provision. They
rejected articles XIX and XX as "illegal" and there was
no further discussion of these articles'
A letter dated April 5 from Respondent's attorney,
Ransom Ellis, to the Union's attorney, J. F Souders,
stated that a Union representative had advised President
Boswell on April 4 that the Union would accept
Respondent's contract proposal if Respondent deleted
article XIX, section 2 and article XX, and if it accepted
the Union's proposed management rights clause. The
letter further stated that Respondent would not modify its
contract proposal in those respects Souders replied on
April 9 that the Union would file unfair labor practice
charges with the Board unless word was received by April
I t that Respondent "would be agreeable to executing the
remainder of its contract proposal" minus article XIX,
section 2 and article XX. Ellis responded on April 11,
saying in part that Respondent had "no intention of
asking for an unlawful clause in the contract" and that the
picket line clause was intended to stop sympathetic
picketing in violation of a no-strike pledge.
'Article XIX, section 2, and article XX, section 6, had not been
previously proposed by Respondent Article XX, section 5, was first
proposed by Respondent about March 18
At a bargaining session on June 25, attended by Ellis,
Souders, and Union President Higdon, the parties again
reviewed Respondent's contract proposal of April 2 The
Union said it would accept article XIX, section 1, and, in
addition to the no-strike clause, would agree to a
provision that "if any type of work stoppage did occur,
the Union would notify the employees by telegram to
return to work or they would be subject to discharge."
The Union again rejected article XIX, section 2, and
article XX as "illegal." Souders asserted that article XX
"would bind the other two units" and therefore that
Respondent "was bargaining way beyond" the-Green Mill
unit . He further asserted that Respondent "was getting
into some internal union matters on this punishment
situation." Ellis replied that "his client felt strongly about
these clauses and intended to keep them in."
By letter dated June 27, Ellis notified Souders that
Respondent insisted on articles XIX and XX as submitted
and gave Respondent's position on certain other matters
on which the parties had not reached full agreement
Souders answered on June 28 to the effect that the Union
accepted Respondent's position on all outstanding matters
except for articles XIX and XX and requested Ellis to
notify him by July 3 whether Respondent "agrees to be so
bound on the Green Mill contract."'
On July 28, Souders sent Ellis for execution by
Respondent copies of a contract identical with
Respondent's April 2 contract proposal except for the
incorporation of two modifications previously accepted by
Respondent" and the deletion of section 5 of article XX.
In an accompanying letter, Souders declared that section
5 was "an inappropriate and illegal demand" because it
"relates to other than the contract unit under
negotiation." Ellis did not reply to this letter.
The foregoing facts establish that Respondent and the
Union reached agreement by June 28 on Respondent's
April 2 contract proposal except for articles XIX and XX,
that Respondent refused at that time to be "bound" to a
contract without these articles, and that Respondent about
July 28 refused to sign a Union contract virtually identical
with its April 2 proposal except for the omission of
section 5 of article XX. I find from these circumstances
that Respondent insisted, as a condition precedent to
signing an agreement, that the Union accept articles XIX
and XX as submitted in the April 2 proposal. Respondent,
therefore, committed an unlawful refusal to bargain if
articles XIX and XX contained proposals which did not
apply to the wages, hours, and conditions of employment
of the members of the bargaining unit and hence were not
"mandatory" subjects for bargaining under Section 8(d) of
the Act. N L.R.B. v Wooster Division of Borg-Warner
Corporation, 356 U.S. 342
Section 1 of article XIX is a conventional no-strike
clause and section 2 makes each employee in the
bargaining unit subject to discharge or other disciplinary
action for striking in violation of this clause. Article XIX
does not on its face make the Union liable financially or
otherwise for employee actions not authorized or ratified
by the Union. I find that Respondent 's insistence on
article XIX was not violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, 123 NLRB 647,
649 I further find that Respondent properly insisted on
'The record does not show whether or not Ellis replied to this letter
"Article XVI of the proposal was modified to furnish Respondent with
one rather than three copies of a grievance , and article XViI was modified
to provide that the standards of workmanship and quantity of work set by
Respondent would be "reasonable "
INDEPENDENT STAVE CO. 159
the first four sections of article XX, which require "the
employees working under this Agreement" to cross picket
lines and not otherwise " engage in sympathetic action
with employees of any other bargaining unit employed by
the Company," as these sections are only ancillary to the
no-strike provisions of article XIX. As article XIX and
the first four sections of article XX are separable from
sections 5 and 6 of article XX, I find no merit in the
General Counsel's contention that these latter sections
"taint" articles XIX and XX in their entirety.
I find, however, that Respondent improperly insisted on
including sections 5 and 6 of article XX in a contract.
Section 5 provides that "picketing by any bargaining unit
shall be limited to the entrance assigned that unit" and
hence is on its face applicable not only to the employees
in the Green Mill unit but also to the employees in the
Barrel Shop and Diversified Industries units. Respondent
could not insist on provisions applicable to employees
outside the certified unit. Cf. Douds v. International
Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278 (C.A. 2). I
find no merit in Respondent's claim that the purpose of
section 5 was simply to ensure that the Green Mill
employees would honor a no-strike commitment should
the Barrel Shop or Diversified Industries employees picket
the entrance to the Green Mill, as this purpose is
accomplished by the preceding sections of article XX.
Section 6 of article XX provides that "the Union will
not punish or attempt to punish any employee who refuses
to walk on a picket line or who works during a work
stoppage or strike." The Board has held that an employer
may not insist that a union accept contract provisions
which intrude on the disciplinary powers over its members
expressly reserved to unions by the proviso to Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Allen-Bradley Company, 127
NLRB 44, reversed 286 F.2d 442 (C.A. 7)." Section 6 of
article XX therefore falls outside the scope of mandatory
bargaining as its proposed restriction on the Union's
power to "punish" any employee for refraining from
strike action is broad enough to preclude every form of
internal union discipline, including the application by the
Union of its membership rules.'
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act by insisting, as a condition precedent to the
execution of a contract, that the Union accept sections 5
and 6 of article XX of its April 2 contract proposal, and
by refusing to sign the contract submitted by the Union
on July 28. N.L.R.B. v. Dalton Telephone Company, 187
F.2d 811 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 342 U.S. 824.
Conclusions of Law
1. 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 insisting as conditions of signing a contract that
the Union accept a picketing provision applicable to
employees outside the bargaining unit and that the Union
agree not to punish employees who refrain from picketing
"I am bound by the Board 's decision as the Board has not acquiesced in
the Seventh Circuit' s adverse ruling . See Local 283. UAW ( Wisconsin
Motor Corp.). 145 NLRB 1097, 1102-03, enfd. sub nom . Scofield v.
N.L.R.B.. 393 F.2d 49, cert. granted October 14, 1968 (No. 273). The
Seventh Circuit, in enforcing the Board 's order, distinguished , and adhered
to, its Allen-Bradley ruling.
"The proviso to Sec. 8(b)(l)(A) states: "That this paragraph shall not
impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein."
or striking, Respondent has refused to bargain with the
Union and thus has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with physical harm for
engaging in picketing, and by withholding paychecks from
employees for engaging in sympathetic strike activity,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Inasmuch as
the Union on July 28, 1968, accepted Respondent's
position on all outstanding matters except for section 5 of
article XX, the order I recommend requires Respondent,
upon the Union's request, to sign a contract containing all
the provisions agreed upon with the Union excluding
section 5 of article XX," to give retroactive effect to the
terms and conditions of that agreement, and to make
whole its employees for any loss of wages or other
employment benefits they may have suffered as a result of
Respondent's failure or refusal to sign that agreement."
Cf. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 149 NLRB 545, enfd. as
modified 375 F.2d 497 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 389 U.S.
843; Huttig Sash and Door Company, 151 NLRB 470,
enfd. as modified 362 F.2d 217 (C.A. 4); Service Roofing
Company, 173 NLRB No. 44. If no such request is made,
Respondent, upon the Union's request, shall bargain
collectively with the Union with respect to the terms of a
collective-bargaining contract and sign an agreement if
reached. Arlington Asphalt Company, supra.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon
the entire record in this case, I recommend, pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, that Respondent, Independent
Stave Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing, if requested to do so by the Union, to sign
a contract containing all the provisions of its April 2, 1968
contract proposal, as agreed upon with the Union,
excluding section 5 of article XX; if no such request is
made, refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the Green
Mill unit with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is
reached, embodying such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Threatening employees with physical harm for
engaging in picketing.
(c) Withholding paychecks from striking employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
"Arlington Asphalt Company, 136 NLRB 742, 748, enfd . 318 F.2d 550
(C.A. 4).
"Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall bear interest as
prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act. APPENDIX
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon the request of the Union, sign a contract
containing all the provisions of its April 2, 1968, contract
proposal, as agreed upon with the Union, excluding
section 5 of article XX;
(b) Give retroactive effect to the terms of said
agreement, including but not limited to the provisions
relating to wages and other benefits; and make whole
employees for any losses they may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's refusal to execute the agreement,
in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy." If no such request is made,
bargain collectively with the Union for the Green Mill
unit with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to determine the amount due as
backpay and other benefits for employees.
(d) Post at its place of business in Lebanon, Missouri,
copies of' the attached notice marked "Appendix."' S
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 17, shall, after being signed by
Respondent's representatives, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL, if requested to do so by Coopers
International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO-CLC, sign a contract for the Green Mill
employees containing all the provisions contained in our
April 2, 1968, contract proposal to the above-named
Union, as agreed upon with the Union, excluding
provisions applicable to employees outside the Green
Mill bargaining unit; we will give retroactive effect to
the terms and conditions of said contract, including but
not limited to the provisions relating to wages and
other employment benefits; and we will make whole our
employees for any losses they may have suffered by
reason of our refusal to sign the said contract. If no
such request is made, we will, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Union for the Green Mill
employees with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All employees at the Lebanon, Missouri, green mill
of Independent Stave Company, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to bargain, by threats of
physical harm to pickets, by withholding paychecks
from strikers , or in any other manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under the Act.
writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, INDEPENDENT STAVE
what steps have been taken to comply herewith." COMPANY
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
the words " a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order be 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."
"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 the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
Dated By
(Employer)
(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, 610 Federal
Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone 816-374-5282.