Interstate Bakeries Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 2008

353 N.L.R.B. 122 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
353 NLRB No. 14
122
Interstate Bakeries Corporation and Kirk Rammage
Teamsters Local Union No. 523, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters1 and Kirk
Rammage. Cases 17–CA–23404 and 17–CB–6146
September 25, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On October 31, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Ge-
rald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel and the Charging Party each filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs. The Respondent Union filed
an answering brief to the General Counsel’s and the
Charging Party’s exceptions. The Respondent Employer
filed an answering brief to the Charging Party’s excep-
tions.2
The National Labor Relations Board3 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.
The judge found that the Respondent Union and the
Respondent Employer did not violate the Act by agreeing
to endtail, rather than dovetail, the seniority of Charging
Party Rammage, following a unit merger. For the fol-
lowing reasons, we disagree with the judge and find that
the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) and the Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2), as alleged.
I. BACKGROUND
The Employer manufactures and distributes bakery
products under various names, including Dolly Madison,
Hostess, and Wonder Bread. Until late 2005, the Em-
ployer’s sales routes were structured along product lines.
Some of the route representatives were assigned to sell
and deliver only Dolly Madison products, while others
were assigned Hostess and Wonder Bread products. The

1 We have amended the caption to reflect the disaffiliation of the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters from the AFL–CIO effective July
25, 2005.
2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
Employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by advising Charging Party Kirk Ram-
mage that he would have to join the Union as a condition of continued
employment.
3 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
Union has historically represented the Dolly Madison
and the Wonder Bread/Hostess sales representatives in
separate units with separate collective-bargaining agree-
ments. The Dolly Madison contract, covering employees
in Tulsa and Muskogee, Oklahoma, ran from July 7,
2002, through November 5, 2005. The Wonder
Bread/Hostess contract, covering sales representatives in
Tulsa, Bartlesville, Ponca City, Woodward, Stillwell, and
Enid, Oklahoma, ran from August 19, 2001, through Au-
gust 19, 2006.
Kirk Rammage, the Charging Party, has been a Dolly
Madison sales representative for the Employer for about
15 years, beginning before the Employer purchased the
Wonder Bread/Hostess product lines. Rammage was
based in Ponca City, Oklahoma, where he originally
worked by himself from a Dolly Madison warehouse.
Then, after the Employer’s 1996–19974 acquisition of
Wonder Bread/Hostess, and for cost-saving reasons,
Rammage was moved to the Wonder Bread/Hostess
warehouse in Ponca City. Unlike the Ponca City Wonder
Bread/Hostess sales representatives based at that facility,
however, he continued delivering and selling only Dolly
Madison products. Rammage was not included in either
of the bargaining units. Rammage was considered by the
Employer to be an unrepresented employee, and he re-
ceived company benefits rather than the benefits stipu-
lated under either union contract.
Sometime before November 2005, the Employer de-
cided to consolidate routes: all sales representatives
would deliver and sell all products, and there would be
no differentiation between Dolly Madison and Wonder
Bread/Hostess routes. In early November 2005, Randy
Campbell, the president of the Union, met with various
representatives of the Employer, and they agreed that the
Dolly Madison and Wonder Bread/Hostess units would
be merged.5 The Dolly Madison contract, which was set
to expire, would not be renewed, and the employees cov-
ered by it would be dovetailed according to unit seniority
with the Wonder Bread/Hostess sales representatives,
whose contract would remain in effect as the sole con-
tract.6 In addition, the parties agreed that one Ponca City
route would be eliminated.
During that discussion, Mike Stewart, one of the Em-
ployer’s senior managers, informed the Union of Ram-
mage’s employment at Ponca City and that he had not

4 The judge inadvertently stated that the acquisition occurred in
1977.
5 The Muskogee employees, part of the Dolly Madison unit, were to
be transferred to a different unit and were no longer to be represented
by the Union.
6 An employee’s unit seniority under the Dolly Madison contract
was based on his length of continuous service with the company.
INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP. 123
been included in either unit. The Union was previously
unaware of Rammage. The parties agreed that Rammage
should be included in the merged unit, and they dis-
cussed where he would be placed on the seniority roster.
Although Rammage had no unit seniority, he had the
most company seniority of any sales representative based
in Ponca City. The Employer considered him to be its
best Ponca City employee and did not want to lose him.
Accordingly, it proposed that Rammage be dovetailed
into the merged unit according to his company seniority.
Union President Campbell refused, stating that the Un-
ion’s duty of fair representation to the employees it rep-
resented would be breached if the Union allowed that to
occur. Campbell insisted that Rammage be placed at the
bottom of the merged unit’s seniority roster, beginning
on the date he entered the unit. Ultimately, the Employer
agreed.
Subsequently, Division Manager Rodney Roberts,
Rammage’s supervisor, informed him that the Employer
and the Union had decided to use “union seniority” for
route bidding and vacation scheduling. In mid-
December 2005, Roberts told Rammage that the route of
one of the Ponca City sales representatives, Terry Tyler,
was to be eliminated and that Tyler had exercised his
option to bump Rammage in accordance with “union
seniority.” As a result, Rammage would lose his regular
route. Rammage asked Roberts to put that in writing,
and Roberts did so, attributing Rammage’s demotion to
an agreement between the Employer and the Union to
use “Union Security for Route Bidding.” After Roberts
handed Rammage the note, Rammage asked Roberts to
explain “why they can do this to me,” and Roberts re-
plied that it was because Rammage “was not in the Un-
ion.” Rammage continued working in Ponca City until
about January 12, 2006, when Sales Manager Kirk
Summers gave Rammage the option of working as a
sales representative out of the Bartlesville terminal if he
wanted to have a job. Summers told Rammage that he
was one of his best men and he did not want to lose him.
Summers also repeatedly told Rammage during the con-
versation that he “would have to join the Union.”7
Rammage asked Summers, as he had asked Roberts, why
this was happening to him, and Summers said it was be-
cause he was not in the Union. Rammage ultimately

7 The contract contains a maintenance of membership provision, re-
quiring that “all present employees who are members of the Local
Union on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain members of
the Local Union in good standing as a condition of employment.” The
contract also provides that “Each newly hired employee will be sent to
the Union Office before starting work, for an identification card which
will be issued by the Union without obligation on the part of said appli-
cant.” In short, Rammage was under no contractual obligation to join
the Union.
accepted the Bartlesville position, which required him to
commute over 70 miles each way.
II. JUDGE’S DECISION AND EXCEPTIONS
The judge found that the Respondent Employer vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by advising Rammage
that he would have to join the Union as a condition of
employment. No exceptions were filed to that finding.
The judge concluded, however, that neither the Respon-
dent Employer nor the Respondent Union violated the
Act by agreeing to endtail Rammage’s seniority.
The judge relied on Riser Foods, Inc., 309 NLRB 635
(1992). In that case, which involved the merger of two
employers, the Board held that a union, having a duty of
fair representation toward bargaining unit employees, did
not violate the Act by dovetailing the seniority of em-
ployees it had represented in different units prior to the
merger, but endtailing employees it had not formerly
represented who became unit employees as a result of the
merger. The Board found that the union had no duty of
fair representation to those employees that it did not yet
represent. The judge rejected the General Counsel’s con-
tention that Riser is inapplicable because it was a duty of
fair representation case.
The judge declined to apply Whiting Milk Corp., 145
NLRB 1035 (1964), enf. denied 342 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.
1965), on which the General Counsel and the Charging
Party had relied. In that case, the Board held that it was
unlawful in a unit merger situation to endtail employees
who were not formerly represented by any union, while
dovetailing employees represented in different units by
the same local union. While acknowledging that Whiting
Milk was “analogous if not identical” to the instant case,
the judge asserted that the Board “seems” to have
“obliquely” overruled Whiting Milk in Stage Employees,
IATSE Local 659 (MPO-TV), 197 NLRB 1187, 1189 fn.
8 (1972), enfd. mem. 477 F.2d 450 (D.C. Cir. 1973),
cert. denied 414 U.S. 1157 (1974). He further concluded
that because the Board in Riser did not “distinguish or
even mention Whiting Milk,”8 the Board “prefers its more
current Riser analysis” “to the extent the Board’s holding
in Whiting Milk is inconsistent with Riser.” Applying
Riser, the judge dismissed the endtailing complaint alle-
gations against both the Respondent Union and the Re-
spondent Employer.
In their exceptions, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party contend, in essence, that Whiting Milk is
controlling precedent and that it compels a finding that
the Employer and the Union violated the Act by endtail-
ing Rammage.

8 The judge in Riser extensively discussed and distinguished Whit-
ing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD124
III. ANALYSIS
As acknowledged by the judge, the facts in Whiting
Milk are “analogous if not identical” to those here. The
judge attempted to avoid the application of Whiting Milk
by asserting that the case has been “obliquely” overruled
in subsequent cases. The judge’s assertion, however, is
incorrect.
The Board twice explicitly reaffirmed Whiting after the
court of appeals’ denial of enforcement in that case and
stated that it did not agree with the court. Woodlawn
Farm Dairy, 162 NLRB 48, 50 fn. 2 (1966) (“Although
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
refused to enforce the Board’s Decision in Whiting Milk
Corporation, . . . we respectfully adhere to the position
stated in the Decision in that case.”);9 MPO-TV, supra,
197 NLRB at 1189 fn. 8 (“Although enforcement was
denied in Whiting, we believe the rationale in Hilton D.
Wall[10] to be correct, and we respectfully disagree with
the court’s rationale in Whiting.”). The fact that in reaf-
firming the Board’s Whiting Milk decision, the Board in
MPO-TV also referred, with approval, to Hilton D. Wall,
does not, contrary to the judge’s surmise, establish that
Wall was intended to limit the holding of Whiting Milk.11
In sum, MPO-TV cannot reasonably be read to limit
Whiting Milk.
Further, and contrary to the judge’s analysis here, there
is no indication that the Board in Riser implicitly over-
ruled Whiting Milk. The Board itself in Riser did not
mention Whiting Milk, but the judge in that case had dis-
cussed and distinguished it. The Board in Riser adopted
(with bolstering) the judge’s rationale, and nowhere in
the judge’s or the Board’s rationale is there anything to
suggest that Whiting Milk was overruled or limited.
Thus, there is no basis for the judge’s statement here that
the Board “prefers” its Riser analysis to that of Whiting
Milk.
In any event, Riser is distinguishable from this case.
The legal issue there was whether the union breached its
duty of fair representation. Riser held that no breach of
the duty of fair representation occurred where, at the time

9 In Woodlawn, the Board found unlawful a contract provision stat-
ing that in the event the employer acquired a branch or plant seniority
of union members would be dovetailed and seniority of nonmembers
would not.
10 Teamsters Local 480 (Hilton D. Wall), 167 NLRB 920 (1967),
enfd. 409 F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1969).
11 In Hilton D. Wall, the union’s conduct in placing an employee at
the bottom of its seniority list following a “merger” between two com-
panies was found unlawful because it was based on the fact that the
employee had not previously been represented by a labor organization.
The judge in Hilton D. Wall, affirmed by the Board, acknowledged the
existence of the First Circuit’s decision in Whiting Milk, but expressly
stated that he was following Board precedent.
the union took the position that the seniority of certain
employees should be endtailed, those employees were
not yet included in the bargaining unit and were not yet
represented by the union. But there is no breach of the
duty of fair representation allegation before us; that the-
ory was specifically disavowed by the General Counsel
here.12 Rather, the General Counsel is proceeding on a
Whiting Milk theory: that Rammage was unlawfully dis-
criminated against solely on the basis of his prior lack of
representation by the Union. As set forth above, Whiting
Milk has not been overruled, and it remains the law.13
The judge’s suggestion that the Union acted lawfully
because it was concerned only about unit, rather than
union, considerations is misplaced. At the time Ram-
mage became a unit employee, there was no established
combined unit to protect. In addition, the Union aban-
doned the principle of protecting the integrity of the
Wonder Bread/Hostess unit when it agreed to dovetail
the previously represented Dolly Madison employees.
The only difference between Rammage and those Dolly
Madison employees who were dovetailed was the fact
that Rammage had not previously been represented by
the Union. The Union admits that it treated Rammage
differently and unfavorably because he was not previ-
ously represented. In addition, the comments of Respon-
dent Employer’s managers Roberts and Summers to
Rammage, that he lost his seniority because “he was not
in the Union,” demonstrate that he was singled out be-
cause he had not previously been represented by a labor
organization.
The Union was legitimately concerned about its duty
to the employees it already represented. Nevertheless,
Whiting Milk and Hilton D. Wall hold that, in the context
of a unit merger, a union and an employer are not law-
fully permitted to dovetail the seniority of represented
employees while endtailing previously unrepresented
employees. Whiting Milk, 145 NLRB at 1037; Hilton D.
Wall, 167 NLRB at 920 fn. 1. Accordingly, we find that
the Respondents violated the Act by agreeing to endtail
Rammage on the unit seniority list, permitting Rammage
to be bumped from his job at the Ponca City facility, and
transferring Rammage to a job at the Bartlesville facility,
all because he was not previously represented by the Un-
ion.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Employer is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.

12 GC Br. 23.
13 Member Liebman questions the Whiting Milk line of cases. She
agrees, however, that it is controlling Board law on these facts.
INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP. 125
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent Employer has violated Section
8(a)(1) by telling Charging Party Kirk Rammage that he
would have to join the Union as a condition of continued
employment and that he lost his seniority because he was
not previously represented by the Respondent Union.
4. The Respondent Employer has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) by agreeing with the Respondent Union
to endtail Charging Party Kirk Rammage on the unit sen-
iority list, endtailing Rammage on the unit seniority list,
permitting Rammage to be bumped from his job at the
Ponca City facility, and transferring Rammage to a job at
the Bartlesville facility, because he was not previously
represented by the Union.
5. The Respondent Union has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding that Respondent Em-
ployer endtail Rammage on the unit seniority list, agree-
ing with Interstate Bakeries Corporation to discriminate
against Kirk Rammage with respect to seniority, on the
basis of his prior lack of membership in, or representa-
tion by, the Respondent Union, permitting Respondent
Employer to endtail Rammage on the unit seniority list,
permitting Rammage to be bumped from his job at the
Ponca City facility, and permitting Rammage to be trans-
ferred to a job at the Bartlesville facility based on his
placement on the unit seniority list.
6. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Employer and the
Respondent Union violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), respectively, we shall order
the Respondents to cease and desist from such conduct
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act. We shall order the Respon-
dents to credit Rammage with unit seniority based on the
length of his employment with the Respondent Em-
ployer. The Respondent Employer shall be ordered to
give Rammage the opportunity that he did not have when
the units merged to bid on a route based on that seniority,
and award Rammage the route to which he would have
been entitled by his bid. The Respondent Union shall be
ordered to notify Rammage and the Respondent Em-
ployer in writing that it has no objection to the dovetail-
ing of Rammage’s seniority based on the length of his
employment with the Respondent Employer, to allowing
Rammage to bid on a route based on that seniority, or to
awarding Rammage the route to which he would have
been entitled by his bid. We shall also order the Respon-
dents, jointly and severally, to make Rammage whole for
any losses suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him. Backpay shall be computed in the manner
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondents shall
also be ordered to grant Rammage any other rights and
privileges to which he would have been entitled absent
the discrimination against him.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
A. The Respondent Employer, Interstate Bakeries
Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling employees that joining the Union is a con-
dition of employment or that they lost seniority because
they were not previously represented by the Respondent
Union.
(b) Entering into, maintaining, or giving effect to any
agreement with Teamsters Local Union No. 523, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which
discriminates against Kirk Rammage or any employee
with respect to seniority, on the basis of his prior lack of
membership in, or representation by a labor organization.
(c) Discriminatorily endtailing Rammage on the unit
seniority list, permitting Rammage to be bumped from
his job at the Ponca City facility, and transferring Ram-
mage to a job at the Bartlesville facility, because he was
not previously represented by the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Credit Rammage with unit seniority based on the
length of his employment with the Respondent Em-
ployer, give Rammage the opportunity to bid on a route
based on that seniority, award Rammage the route to
which he would have been entitled by his bid, and grant
him any other rights and privileges to which he would
have been entitled absent the discrimination against him.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Union,
make Rammage whole for any losses suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful loss of Ram-
mage’s seniority, his bumping from the Ponca City facil-
ity, and his transfer to Bartlesville, and within 3 days
thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful conduct will not be used against
him in any way.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD126
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, time cards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amounts due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities covered by the 2001–2006 Wonder
Bread/Hostess contract, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix A.”14 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after
being signed by the Respondent Employer’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Em-
ployer and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent Employer to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent Employer has gone
out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent Employer shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all
employees employed by the Respondent Employer since
November 2005.
(f) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth above, as soon as forwarded by the Re-
gional Director, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix B.”
(g) Sign and return to the Regional Director for Region
17, sufficient signed copies of “Appendix A” for posting
by the Respondent Union at its business offices and
meeting halls, where notices to members are customarily
posted.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official, on a form provided by the Region,
attesting to steps that the Respondent Employer has taken
to comply.
B. The Respondent Union, Teamsters Local Union No.
523, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from

14 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(a) Entering into, maintaining, or giving effect to any
agreement with Interstate Bakeries Corporation, which
discriminates against Kirk Rammage or any employee
with respect to seniority, on the basis of his prior lack of
membership in, or representation by a labor organization.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Interstate Bakeries
Corporation to deprive employees of seniority rights be-
cause of their lack of membership in or representation by
the Respondent Union or any other labor organization.
(c) Discriminatorily demanding that Respondent Em-
ployer endtail Rammage on the unit seniority list, permit-
ting Respondent Employer to endtail Rammage on the
unit seniority list, permitting Rammage to be bumped
from his job at the Ponca City facility, and permitting
Rammage to be transferred to a job at the Bartlesville
facility, because he was not previously represented by
the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Credit Rammage with unit seniority based on the
length of his employment with the Respondent Employer
and grant him any other rights and privileges to which he
would have been entitled absent the discrimination
against him.
(b) Notify Interstate Bakeries Corporation and Ram-
mage in writing that it has no objection to the dovetailing
of Rammage’s seniority, to allowing Rammage to bid on
a route based on that seniority, and to awarding Ram-
mage the route to which he would have been entitled by
his bid.
(c) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Em-
ployer, make Rammage whole for any losses suffered as
a result of the discrimination against him, in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its business offices and meeting halls, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix B.”15 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being signed by the Respondent Union’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent Union and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees and members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth above, as soon as forwarded by the Re-

15 See fn. 14, supra.
INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP. 127
gional Director, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix A.”
(f) Sign and return to the Regional Director for Region
17 sufficient copies of “Appendix B” for posting by the
Respondent Employer at its facilities covered by the
2001-2006 Wonder Bread/Hostess contract, where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official, on a form provided by the Region,
attesting to steps that the Respondent Union has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that joining Teamsters
Local Union No. 523, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters is a condition of employment or that
they lost seniority because they were not previously rep-
resented by the Union.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to any
agreement with the Union, which discriminates against
Kirk Rammage or any employee with respect to senior-
ity, on the basis of his prior lack of membership in, or
representation by a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily endtail Kirk Rammage
on the unit seniority list, permit Rammage to be bumped
from his job at the Ponca City facility, or transfer Ram-
mage to a job at the Bartlesville facility, because he was
not previously represented by the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of
your rights set forth above.
WE WILL credit Kirk Rammage with unit seniority
based on the length of his employment with us, WE WILL
give him the opportunity to bid on a route based on that
seniority, WE WILL award him the route to which he
would have been entitled by his bid, and WE WILL grant
him any other rights and privileges to which he would
have been entitled absent the discrimination against him.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with the Union, make
Kirk Rammage whole for any losses suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful loss of Rammage’s seniority, his bumping from the
Ponca City facility, and his transfer to Bartlesville, and
within 3 days thereafter, WE WILL notify him in writing
that this has been done and that the unlawful conduct will
not be used against him in any way.
INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with your em-
ployer on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to any
agreement with Interstate Bakeries Corporation, which
discriminates against Kirk Rammage or any employee
with respect to seniority, on the basis of his prior lack of
membership in, or representation by a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Interstate Bak-
eries Corporation (the Employer) to deprive employees
of seniority rights because of their lack of membership in
or representation by us or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily demand that the Em-
ployer endtail Rammage on the unit seniority list, permit
the Employer to endtail Rammage on the unit seniority
list, permit Rammage to be bumped from his job at the
Ponca City facility, or permit Rammage to be transferred
to a job at the Bartlesville facility, because he was not
previously represented by us.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD128
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce any of you in the exercise of your rights set forth
above.
WE WILL credit Rammage with unit seniority based on
the length of his employment with the Employer and
grant him any other rights and privileges to which he
would have been entitled absent the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL notify Interstate Bakeries Corporation and
Kirk Rammage in writing that we have no objection to
the dovetailing of Rammage’s seniority, to allowing
Rammage to bid on a route based on that seniority, and
to awarding Rammage the route to which he would have
been entitled by his bid.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with the Employer,
make Kirk Rammage whole for any losses suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, plus interest.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 523, AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS (LABOR ORGANIZATION)
Michael Werner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gregory D. Ballew, Esq. (Fisher & Phillips, LLP), of Kansas
City, Missouri, for the Respondent Employer.
Steven R. Hickman, Esq. (Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, LLP),
of Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Respondent Union.
John C. Scully, Esq., National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, Inc., of Springfield, Virginia, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant
to notice a hearing in this matter was held before me in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, on August 15, 2006. The charges in these matters
were filed by Kirk Rammage, an individual, on January 13,
2006. An amended charge in Case 17–CB–6146 was filed on
April 25, 2006. Thereafter, on April 28, 2006, the Regional
Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board
(the Board) issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging
violations by Interstate Bakeries Corporation (Respondent Em-
ployer or Employer) of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, (the Act), and by Teamsters Local Union
No. 523, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO (Respondent Union or Union) of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The Employer and the Union, in
their answers to the complaint, duly filed, deny that they have
violated the Act as alleged.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to
call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs have
been received from counsel for the General Counsel (General
Counsel), counsel for the Employer, counsel for the Union, and
counsel for the Charging Party. Upon the entire record, and
based on my observation of the witnesses and consideration of
the briefs submitted, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer is a corporation with corporate headquarters
in Kansas City, Missouri, and facilities throughout the United
States, including multiple facilities located in Oklahoma, and
are engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and nonretail sale
of baked goods. In the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, the Employer annually purchases and receives at its
Oklahoma facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside the State of Oklahoma, and sells and ships
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Oklahoma facilities
directly to points outside the State of Oklahoma. It is admitted
and I find that the Respondent Employer is, and at all material
times has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that the Union is and at all times ma-
terial has been a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The principal issue in this proceeding is whether the Union
and the Employer have discriminated against the Charging
Party, Kirk Rammage, by agreeing to endtail rather than dove-
tail his seniority with the Employer.
B. Facts
The Union and the Employer were parties to two separate
collective-bargaining agreements covering certain employees at
various locations in Oklahoma. One contract (the Won-
der/Hostess contract), extended from August 19, 2001, through
August 19, 2006. This contract covered various classifications
of employees, including sales department employees (sales
representatives). The contract provides that departmental sen-
iority shall prevail, inter alia, for selection of new jobs and for
layoff and recall. The contract further provides that:
In the event a route is eliminated, the Sales person affected
shall be entitled to bid on the next open route in line of their
seniority. In the event of route elimination, if the Route Sales
person whose route is being eliminated has seniority, he/she
shall be entitled to displace the Route Sales person with the
least seniority, which shall in turn be entitled to displace the
Sales person with the least seniority.
The other contract (the Dolly Madison contract), covered
only sales representatives, and extended from July 7, 2002,
through November 5, 2005. This contract provides that, “Sen-
iority from length of continued service with the company shall
prevail” inter alia, for selection of new jobs and for layoff and
recall, and contains a similar, but not identically worded senior-
ity/bidding provision in the event of route elimination, namely;
that the person whose route is being eliminated may bump the
INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP. 129
employee with the least seniority.
Kirk Rammage, the Charging Party, has been a Dolly Madi-
son sales representative for the Employer for nearly 15 years,
beginning his employment prior to the time the Employer pur-
chased Wonder Bread/Hostess. Rammage was based in Ponca
City, Oklahoma, where he worked out of a Dolly Madison fa-
cility. Then, after the 1977 acquisition, for cost-saving reasons,
he was moved to the Wonder Bread/Hostess warehouse in
Ponca City. However, unlike the other Ponca City Wonder
Bread/Hostess sales representatives, he continued delivering
and selling only Dolly Madison products. As a result, first of
anomaly and inadvertence, and then by choice, he was not in-
cluded under either the Wonder/Hostess contract or the Dolly
Madison contract: The three other sales representatives at
Ponca City were covered under the Wonder/Hostess contract
and sold and delivered Wonder Bread and Hostess products but
not Dolly Madison products; and the Dolly Madison contract
covered sales representatives who sold only Dolly Madison
products in various locations but not in Ponca City.1
This arrangement was fine with Rammage, as he either was
not interested in being represented by the Union or did not un-
derstand that he could have requested to be included in a collec-
tive-bargaining unit. He was considered by the Employer to be
a nonunion employee, and as the union contract did not apply
to him he was given company benefits rather than the benefits
required under the union contract. Rodney Roberts, a division
manager and Rammage’s supervisor, testified that the Em-
ployer was also happy with this state of affairs because of the
greater flexibility it afforded the Employer in dealing with
Rammage. And apparently the Ponca City Wonder/Hostess
sales representatives were not concerned with Rammage’s
situation, as Dolly Madison sales representatives were not in-
cluded in their collective-bargaining unit. Accordingly, neither
Rammage, the Employer, nor the other Wonder/Hostess unit
employees advised union representatives of Rammage’s unique
situation. Thus, over a period of many years, Rammage was not
included within either unit.
Sometime prior to November 2005, the Employer, for rea-
sons of cost savings and efficiency, had decided to consolidate
the routes so that all sales representatives would be delivering
and selling all products, and there would be no differentiation
between Wonder Bread/Hostess routes and Dolly Madison
routes. In early November 2005, Randy Campbell, president
and principal officer of the Union, met with various representa-
tives of the Employer to discuss the matter and it was agreed
that the Wonder/Hostess and Dolly Madison units would be
merged. Accordingly, the Dolly Madison contract, which was
set to expire, would not be renewed, and the Tulsa sales repre-
sentatives under that contract would be dovetailed according to
unit seniority with the Tulsa sales representatives under the

1 It appears that when the Union filed a petition to represent the
Dolly Madison sales representatives it was not known that the Em-
ployer had a sales representative, Rammage, based in Ponca City.
Therefore, the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of Dolly Madison sales representatives only in Tulsa and
Muskogee.
Wonder/Hostess contract which remained in effect.2
It was also made known to Campbell that since the routes
were being re-structured or consolidated, one Ponca City route
was to be eliminated.
During this discussion, according to Campbell, he was ad-
vised by Mike Stewart, senior manager, labor relations, of one
sales representative, Rammage, who had not been included in
either unit. As noted, prior to this occasion, Campbell had not
known that Rammage was even an employee. Both parties
agreed that Rammage should be included within the merged
unit, and his seniority placement within the unit was discussed.
Although Rammage had no unit seniority, he had the most
company seniority of any sales representative in Ponca City;
indeed, the Employer considered him to be its best Ponca City
employee. The Employer did not want to lose Rammage, and
proposed that Rammage be dovetailed into the merged unit
according to his company seniority as he had no unit seniority.
Campbell refused, stated that the Union’s duty of fair represen-
tation to the unit employees would be breached if this were
allowed to occur, and insisted that Rammage’s unit seniority
begin on the date he became included within the unit, that is,
that he be endtailed.3 Believing that it could not prevail if the
matter went to arbitration, the Employer agreed to endtail Ram-
mage.
The parties entered into a “Side Agreement” dated Novem-
ber 16, 2005, memorializing their agreement, inter alia, to
dovetail the seniority of the unit employees. The side agree-
ment did not mention the verbal agreement reached concerning
Rammage.
Rammage testified that in mid-November 2005, apparently
after the parties had entered into the aforementioned November
16 “ Side Agreement, he was told by Division Manager Roberts
that the Company and the Union had decided to use “union
seniority” for route bidding and vacation scheduling.
Rammage testified that in mid-December 2005 Roberts told
him that the route of one of the Ponca City sales representa-
tives, Terry Tyler, was to be eliminated and that Tyler had ex-
ercised his option to bump Rammage in accordance with “un-
ion seniority.” Rammage asked Roberts to put that in writing,
and Roberts did so as follows:4
On Dec 19-2005 Because of Union Contracts you will loose
(sic) your Route. The Company & the Union has (sic) decided
to use Union Seniority for Route Bidding. Terry who has to
(sic) Union Seniority & whose Route has been cut has de-
cided to bump you & take your Route. You will be an extra
man Running Vacations & Riding with other Route men [.]
After Roberts handed Rammage the note, Rammage asked
Roberts to explain “why they can do this to me,” and Roberts

2 However, the Muskogee sales representatives under the Dolly
Madison contract were transferred into a different local, Local 516, and
were no longer represented by the Union.
3 Rammage became a unit member on December 5, 2005, the date
the two units were officially merged.
4 This document was received into evidence as GC Exh. 11, but has
not been included in the official exhibits. Therefore the wording of the
document has been copied from the General Counsel’s brief. There is
no dispute regarding its accuracy.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD130
replied, according to Rammage, “because I was not in the Un-
ion.”
Rammage continued working in Ponca City until about
January 12, 2006. On that day Kirk Summers, sales manager, in
the presence of Roberts, gave him the option of working as a
sales representative out of the Bartlesville terminal if he wanted
to have a job, and told him that Rammage was one of his best
men and he did not want to lose him. Rammage said he would
talk with his wife about the offer.5 According to Rammage,
Summers told him, “Two or three—gosh, it was four or five
different times, he mentioned that I would have to join the Un-
ion.”6 Rammage again asked Summers, as he had asked Rob-
erts, why this was happening to him, and Summers said it was
because he was not in the Union. On cross-examination, asked
whether Summers had told him to “go see” the Union rather
than to “join” the Union, Rammage answered, “Absolutely
not.”
Rammage testified that he did not “fully understand” the
“union stuff” that was being explained to him by Roberts and
Summers, and kept asking why this was happening to him.
During his conversation with Summers, Rammage claims that
he still did not know he was a unit employee covered under the
collective-bargaining agreement, stating, “I did not know, at
that time. I did not know what I had fallen under or nothing.”
He stated that he never asked anyone if he was covered by any
union agreement, and was never told by anyone that he was
covered by a union contract. In fact, he claims that until the
discussion on the record at the instant hearing, he had not
known that he was covered under the union contract. And when
asked, “You do realize that it is possible to be represented by
the Teamsters without joining the Teamsters,” Rammage re-
plied, “Not fully, I do not understand it at all.”
Summers testified that he had several conversations with
Rammage about the matter, and that either during a conversa-
tion with Rammage on November 21, 2005, or a second con-
versation with Rammage on January 12, 2006, he told Ram-
mage he would no longer be covered by the company benefits,
but would be covered by the “Collective Bargaining” benefits,
and further, that there would be no more deductions from his
paycheck for the Employer’s 401(k) plan, as he would now be
covered under the Union’s pension plan as contained in the
contract.
On January 12, 2006, Summers offered Rammage the posi-
tion in Bartlesville, possibly repeating what he may have said
on November 21, namely, that the position was covered by the
benefits in the union contract, that he was no longer being cov-
ered by the company benefits, and that he would no longer be
able to contribute to the company 401(k) plan. On direct ex-
amination, Summers did not unequivocally deny he told Ram-
mage he would have to join the union, but the substance of his
testimony is that he was not supposed to tell employees this;

5 Rammage did accept this position and is currently a unit employee
working out of the Bartlesville facility, requiring a commute of some
73 miles each way from his home in Ponca City.
6 The contract contains a maintenance of membership provision, re-
quiring that “all present employees who are members of the Local
Union on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain members of
the Local Union in good standing as a condition of employment.”
rather his practice is to tell employees they must go down and
talk to the Union, as required by the union contract.7 However,
on cross-examination, Summers, when asked whether it was his
understanding that Rammage “needed to join the union,” and
“had an obligation to join the union,” answered affirmatively,
stating, “Because he was going to a job that was covered by the
Collective Bargaining Unit.”
Roberts, who testified briefly about this January 12, 2006
conversation between Summers and Rammage, also alluded to
the fact that employees who become covered by the contract
are told they need to see the Union. However, like Summers,
Roberts did not unequivocally deny Rammage’s testimony that
Summers told Rammage he needed to join the Union.
Summers testified that various employees covered by the in-
stant contract who were initially in the bargaining unit, then
became supervisors or managers for a period of time, and then
returned to the bargaining unit, were not given seniority credit
under the union contract for their tenure outside the bargaining
unit and were required to be treated for seniority purposes as
new unit employees as of the date they returned to the unit.
This record evidence is unrebutted.
Rammage has not joined the Union, nor has he been sent by
the Employer to the union office upon becoming covered by the
collective-bargaining contract, nor has he been approached by
any union representative regarding the matter.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The Union and the Employer rely on Riser Foods, Inc., 309
NLRB 635 (1992). The Board states in Riser that “a union may
lawfully insist on the endtailing of new bargaining unit em-
ployees’ seniority when it is based on unit rather than union
considerations.” (Footnote omitted.) In Riser, the Board held
that in a unit merger situation, the union, having a duty of fair
representation toward bargaining unit employees, did not vio-
late the Act by dovetailing the seniority of employees it had
represented in different units prior to the merger; and con-
versely, it had no such duty toward employees it had not for-
merly represented who became unit members as a result of the
merger and were endtailed. Further, the Board stated it did not
matter when the union, by virtue of the merger, also acquired a
duty of fair representation toward the formerly nonunit em-
ployees, because its treatment of these employees, i.e., relegat-
ing them as new unit employees to the bottom of the unit sen-
iority list, “was not unfair or discriminatory and thus not unlaw-
ful.”8
The General Counsel in Riser argued that since the underly-
ing collective-bargaining agreements contained no language

7 Art. 3(A) of the contract provides: “Each newly hired employee
will be sent to the Union Office before starting work, for an identifica-
tion card which will be issued by the Union without obligation on the
part of said applicant.”
8 Citing Riser with approval, the Ninth Circuit in McNamara-Blad v.
Flight Attendants, 275 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2002), a case under the
Railway Labor Act, states at 1173:
Forc[ing] unions to protect the interests of any person who might be-
come a bargaining unit member to the detriment of current bargaining
unit members . . . would contravene the union’s statutory duty to pro-
tect the interests of its own bargaining unit members.
INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP. 131
regarding placement of unit employees in unit merger situa-
tions, the union “was therefore obligated to treat all these em-
ployees [i.e., the formerly represented and unrepresented em-
ployees] the same” as having equal status as of the date of the
merger. The Board found this argument to be without merit.
The General Counsel in the instant matter makes a seemingly
identical argument, maintaining that in the absence of specific
contract provisions regarding placement of unit employees in
merger situations, a “new unit” was formed as a result of the
merger and all such new unit employees should have been
treated the same. Relying on the Board’s language in Riser, I
similarly find this argument to be without merit.
The Charging Party asserts that by dovetailing the units the
Union “abandoned the concept of protecting the integrity” of
each of the distinct units it represented, and therefore “cannot
argue that the endtailing of Kirk Rammage was done for pur-
poses of protecting the integrity of bargaining unit seniority.”
While not entirely clear, it appears the Charging Party is argu-
ing that the Union, by agreeing to dovetail the units, has com-
promised and in effect abandoned its duty of fair representation
to the employees in each separate unit, and therefore its insis-
tence upon preferential treatment for these employees upon the
merger of the units, to the detriment of Rammage, was no
longer required of it as a “duty,” rather, its decision to endtail
Rammage should be viewed as a discriminatory act favoring
union over nonunion employees. In effect, the Charging Party’s
argument seems to be another version of the General Counsel’s
aforementioned argument that the merger created a new unit
with all of the unit employees beginning on an equal footing.
Again, as noted above, the Board in Riser has found this argu-
ment to be without merit. Further, contrary to the Charging
Party’s apparent contention that dovetailing connotes an aban-
donment of a union’s duty to fairly represent unit employees,
the Board in Riser states, 309 NLRB at 636:
Local 507 clearly fulfilled its duty of fair representation to-
ward both the Fisher and Seaway warehousemen by dovetail-
ing their seniority when they were merged into the single
Riser warehousemen unit, insuring that these employees re-
tained their relative seniority. [Emphasis supplied.]
The General Counsel, in distinguishing Riser, maintains that
the Board’s analysis in Riser is premised on complaint allega-
tions alleging that the union breached its duty of fair represen-
tation, but the complaint in the instant case advances a different
theory, namely, discriminatory conduct against Rammage be-
cause of his nonunion status. However, it is clear that this is a
distinction without a legal difference as the underlying legal
principles in each situation are identical, namely, what is the
union’s motivation for giving seniority preference to particular
groups of employee over another employee or group of em-
ployees. The General Counsel would also distinguish Riser
from the instant case on the basis that the underlying union
contracts in Riser contained successorship clauses that required
the successor employer, Riser, to honor the contracts’ unit sen-
iority provisions, while in the instant case there are no such
successorship clauses. The simple answer is that the Employer
in the instant case is not a successor but has remained the same
employing entity both before and after the unit merger.
The General Counsel and Charging Party rely principally on
Whiting Milk Corp., 145 NLRB 1035 (1964), enf. denied 342
F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1965). In Whiting Milk, the Board seemingly
held that it was unlawful in a unit-merger situation to endtail
employees who were not formerly represented by any union,
while dovetailing employees represented in different units by
the same local union, a factual situation analogous if not identi-
cal to the instant facts. In a later case, however, the Board
seems to obliquely overrule this holding by relying on the
analysis in yet another case as the correct holding in Whiting
Milk. Thus, in Stage Employees, IATSE Local 659 (MPO-TV),
197 NLRB 1187, 1189 fn. 8 (1972), enfd. 477 F.2d 450 (D.C.
Cir. 1973), the Board states, “Although enforcement was de-
nied in Whiting, we believe the rationale in Hilton D. Wall9 to
be correct, and we respectfully disagree with the court’s ration-
ale in Whiting.” Therefore, the Board seems to be stating that
its original rationale in Whiting Milk should be understood as
modified or explained in Hilton D. Wall.
In Hilton D. Wall, another case on which the General Coun-
sel and Charging Party rely, the trial examiner, discussing Whit-
ing Milk, relied on the unlawfulness of the explicit contract
provision in Whiting Milk that permitted dovetailing in merger
situations with “another Union company,” i.e., a company
whose employees are represented by any union, not necessarily
the same union that had initially represented both groups of
employees in separate units. Accordingly, if one such group of
employees came from a nonunion rather than a union company,
those employees would be discriminatorily relegated to the
bottom of the seniority list. It follows that Whiting Milk was
deemed by the Board in Stage Employees IATSE Local 659 to
be applicable to unit merger situations in which a union gave
preferential treatment to employees of any union company
regardless of whether the union owed those employees a duty
of fair representation. The Board’s holding in Hilton D. Wall is
consistent with this analysis: Although there was no similar
explicit contract language, the Board, affirming the analysis
and conclusions of the trial examiner, found that employee
Wall had been placed at the bottom of a merged seniority list
because he had not formerly been a union employee, and not, as
in the instant case, because he had not formerly been in a unit
represented by the union.10
The General Counsel and Charging Party also rely on Wood-
lawn Farm Dairy Co., 162 NLRB 48, 49 fn. 2 (1966). This case
is also inapposite. In Woodlawn Farm, the Board found it was
unlawful in a unit merger situation to discriminate against em-
ployees who had not formerly been “union members,” namely,
members of Local 869. In contrast, the Union herein insists that
it subordinated Rammage’s unit seniority not because Ram-
mage was not formerly a union member, but because he was
not formerly a unit member represented by the Union.

9 Teamsters Freight Local 480, 167 NLRB 920 (1967), enfd. 409.
F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1969).
10 The Board in Riser does not distinguish or even mention Whiting
Milk, even though the administrative law judge in Riser extensively
discusses that case, beginning above at 660. Accordingly, it appears to
the extent the Board’s holding in Whiting Milk is inconsistent with
Riser, the Board prefers its more current Riser analysis in such situa-
tions.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD132
The General Counsel and the Charging Party maintain that
Division Manager Roberts’ mid-December 2005 note and con-
comitant statement to Rammage, and Sales Manager Summers’
subsequent mid-January 2006 statements to Rammage—
namely that Rammage had not been a member of the Union,
that his seniority was subordinated because he had no union
seniority, and by repeatedly advising Rammage that he would
have to join the Union—reveal the Union’s and the Employer’s
true motivation in relegating Rammage to the bottom of the
merged seniority list.11 I disagree. There are no similar state-
ments made by representatives of the Union to either the Em-
ployer’s representatives or supervisors or to Rammage. Indeed,
no representative of the Union has ever spoken to Rammage.
Further, Rammage’s status was agreed on in November 2005
during a meeting between representatives of the Union and the
Employer, and neither Roberts nor Summers were in atten-
dance. At that meeting, Union President Campbell insisted that
Rammage be placed at the bottom of the seniority list because
the Union had a duty of fair representation toward its current
unit members who had accrued unit seniority as required by the
two collective-bargaining agreements. There is no record evi-
dence that the Union has either said anything or done anything
that could be deemed to be inconsistent with Campbell’s ex-
press rationale for the Union’s treatment of Rammage as a new
unit employee. Additionally, it is significant that the Union has
always been highly protective of continuous unit seniority and
has required unit members who had left the unit to take super-
visory positions to return to the unit at the bottom of the senior-
ity list because they had forfeited their prior unit seniority.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find the Union has not vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by insisting on
Rammage’s placement at the bottom of the merged seniority
list and, accordingly, I further find the Employer has not vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by agreeing to Ram-
mage’s placement at the bottom of the merged seniority list.
Riser, 309 NLRB at 635.
The complaint alleges as an independent violation the state-
ments to Rammage by Supervisor Roberts and Sales Manager
Summers that joining the Union was a requirement for contin-
ued employment. The applicable collective-bargaining agree-
ment contains a provision, article 1, “Union Shop” requiring
only that “present employees who are members of the Local
Union. . . shall remain members of the Local Union in good

11 The Employer maintains that Rammage was simply confused and
admittedly did not comprehend what he was being told by Roberts and
Summers, and therefore misunderstood Summers’s remarks that he
“see” or “talk” to the Union as a directive that he would have to “join”
the Union. However, Rammage’s insistence that he was told he would
have to join the union was persuasive, and, as noted, both Roberts and
Summers did not categorically deny Rammage’s testimony in this
regard. Accordingly, I credit the testimony of Rammage.
standing as a condition of employment.”12 Accordingly, Ram-
mage, as a new unit employee, was not required to become a
member of the Union. I therefore find, as alleged in the com-
plaint, the Employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
advising Rammage that he would have to join the Union as a
condition of employment. See Yellow Freight System of Indi-
ana, 327 NLRB 996, 997 fn. 6 (1999); Rochester Mfg. Co., 323
NLRB 260, 262 fn. 8 (1997).
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Employer has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by advising Rammage that
joining the Union was a requirement for continued employ-
ment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent Union has not violated the Act as alleged.
4. The Respondent Employer has violated the Act only to the
extent found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent Employer has violated and is
violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I recommend that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom and from in any other
like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of
the Act. I shall also recommend the posting of an appropriate
notice, attached hereto as “Appendix.”
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]

12 In September 2001, Oklahoma amended its constitution to include
a right-to-work provision, Okla. Const. art XXXIII, sec. 1A, prohibiting
any person “as a condition of employment or continuation of employ-
ment” to [p]ay any dues, fees assessments, or other charges of any kind
or amounts to a labor organization.” However, the parties herein take
the position that the applicable clause in the 2001–2006 Won-
der/Hostess collective-bargaining agreement, effective by its terms
prior to the constitutional amendment, remained in effect during the
term of that contract.