Josten Concrete Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1989

295 N.L.R.B. 1029 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

JOSTEN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO. 1029
Josten Concrete Products Co., Inc . and Internation-
al Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-10023
July 20, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND
DEVANEY
On January 31, 1989 , Administrative Law Judge
Hubert E . Lott issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge 's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Josten Con-
crete Products Co., Inc ., Mitchell and Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge 's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir . 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
In agreeing with the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(aX5) and (1) by bargaining in bad faith , Member Devaney finds it un-
necessary to rely on the statements made by the Respondent 's foreman,
Jensen, and, in the absence of a finding of impasse by the judge, on the
Respondent's insistence that employees and the Union waive their right
to file charges as a condition precedent to filing grievances or waive their
right to file grievances as a condition precedent to filing unfair labor
practice charges.
Larry Witherell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John Burke and John McDowell, Esgs., of Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, for the Respondent.
Stan Frank, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HUBERT E. LOTT, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on July 13
and 14, 1987, on unfair labor practice charges filed by
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO (Union) on April 9 and May 18, 1987,
against Josten Concrete Products , Co., Inc . (Respondent)
and on a complaint issued by the General Counsel on
May 18, 1987.
The issues in the case are whether or not Respondent
through its president , Clarence Josten and foreman,
Kenny Jensen, committed various independent violations
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and whether or not Re-
spondent bargained in bad faith in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by: ( 1) insisting that employees and/or
the Union waive or forfeit their statutory rights before
state or Federal agencies; (2) stating that it would oper-
ate the facilities as it desires and would not comply with
any contract ; (3) withdrawing from an agreement to
notify the union steward in writing when an employee is
discharged; (4) rejecting union proposals without consid-
ering them; (5) proposing wage reductions unreasonably
and for unlawful reasons ; and (6) engaging in 8(a)(1) vio-
lations while bargaining was in process.
Respondent's answer to the complaint, duly filed,
denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard,
to call , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce relevant evidence . Since the close of hearing
briefs have been received from the parties.
On 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 Company, a South Dakota corporation, with of-
fices and places of business in Sioux Falls and Mitchell,
South Dakota, has been engaged in the manufacture and
wholesale distribution of concrete products. During the
calendar year ending December 31, 1986 , the Company,
in the course and conduct of its business , purchased and
received at its South Dakota facilities goods and materi-
als valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out-
side the State of South Dakota . During the same period,
the Company sold and shipped from its South Dakota fa-
cilities products and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points outside the State of South Dakota. The
Company admits , and I find , that it is an employer en-
gaging in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act. The Respondent further admits,
and I find , that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union was certified on July 22, 1986,1 to repre-
sent:
All full-time and regular part -time production and
maintenance employees employed by the employer
at its Mitchell and Sioux Falls, South Dakota facili-
ties, including truck drivers; excluding office cleri-
cal employees , sales employees, managerial employ-
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
I All dates refer to 1986 unless otherwise indicated
295 NLRB No. 114
1030 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There are 12 unit employees at Sioux Falls and 4 unit
employees at the Mitchell facility . There were 31 negoti-
ating sessions from August 21 to July 3, 1987. During ne-
gotiations the Company was represented by Clarence
Josten and Attorney John Burke . The Union was repre-
sented by Business Agent Stan Frank and unit employees
Paul Christenson , Larry Eichmann , Gary Ihnen, Dale
Foster, and Russell Jacobsen.
Paul Christenson testified that 3 weeks prior to the
election , Clarence Josten told him that he (Josten) had a
pension plan for the employees but he could not imple-
ment it because of the union activity . He also told Chris-
tenson that under a union , the employees would be earn-
ing the same wages and he didn't think the Union would
do much for the employees.
Russell Jacobsen testified that the day before the elec-
tion Clarence Josten told him that if the employees voted
in the Union , they would be cut to 30 hours per week
and their wages would be reduced to $7 per hour.
Employee Steve Jubko testified that 2 days before the
election Clarence Josten told him that they did not need
a union , predicting that there would be a cut in hours if
the union prevailed . Josten also told him that it would
take up to 5 years to settle a contract.
Clarence Josten testified that he never told any em-
ployees that their hours would be reduced if the Union
prevailed.
B. Independent 8(a)(1) Allegations
1. Kenneth Jensen 's supervisory status : Kenneth Jensen
is the only foreman for the 12 Sioux Falls employees. He
did not vote in the Board-conducted election in July and
Clarence Josten does not consider him part of the collec-
tive-bargaining unit . Jensen , who is paid a salary, has
worked for Respondent for 37 years and employees are
told to report to him. Jensen assigns work to employees,
authorizes time off, approves timecards , and authorizes
corrections on timecards . Jensen schedules employees'
work and determines what days employees are to work
and what days they will take off. He verbally disciplines
and reprimands employees and discharged the only em-
ployee fired in recent memory. Jensen testified that he
believes he has authority to fire employees because it
"goes along with the jobs." Based on the foregoing, I
find that Kenneth Jensen is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
2. Paul Christenson testified that in January 1987 he
was instructed by Jensen to go to the Mitchell facility.
He was further instructed to keep his mouth shut while
he was there and if he was asked any questions by the
Mitchell employees, to tell them to keep their mouths
shut. Jensen admitted the conversation as testified to by
Christenson and further added that he was referring to
union activities . Jensen testified that he gave Christenson
those instructions because he did not think employees
should be discussing union matters on company time;
however, he neglected to inform Christenson of that
reason.
3. In October, the Union filed a complaint with OSHA
about Respondent's Sioux Falls facility. An inspection
was conducted on November 5 and November 6. Paul
Christenson testified that shortly thereafter Jensen came
into the lunchroom and told all the employees that who-
ever called OSHA really screwed up and that everything
that they had accomplished up to then , they could
scratch and start all over.
Larry Eichmann , who was also present, testified that
Jensen came into the lunchroom and told the employees
that they had really done it and they might just as well
start their negotiations over.
Dale Foster testified that Jensen told the employees
that they had really done it now and he (Jensen) didn't
figure they would ever get a contract now because
somebody called OSHA.
Steve Jubko testified that Jensen told him that the em-
ployees almost had the contract licked but , by calling
OSHA , they had to start all over . Jubko testified that he
attended some negotiations sessions and raised the issue
of plant ventilation which was poor . Thereafter , Jensen
told him that if he was going to run his mouth at negoti-
ating meetings, he was going to give him heat, i.e.,
watch him.
Jensen testified that he told employees that they were
a bunch of "dumb asses for" calling OSHA in when they
were trying to negotiate a contract with Josten.
4. In the early part of 1987 , the employees took a
strike vote authorizing a strike . The results appeared in
Arbus Leader (a local newspaper). In February 1987,
Jensen told Gary Ihnen that if the employees hadn't put
the strike vote in the newspaper and called OSHA, they
might have the contract settled but after what the em-
ployees did, he thought he would be retired before the
matter was settled . Jensen planned to retire in 2 years.
Jensen testified that he told employees that he would
probably be retired before they settled things at the rate
they were going.
5. Stan Frank and Gary Ihnen testified that at the Sep-
tember 3 or 25 negotiating sessions , Frank stated that
there had been much talk about a pension plan before the
election , and the Union was interested in a pension pro-
posal . Clarence Josten responded that the Company had
a pension plan all set up for the employees and they
went to the Union so he scrapped it. When Frank again
attempted to pursue the subject, Josten told the employ-
ee committee that if they hadn 't gone to the Union, they
would have had a pension . He said that copies of the
plan were sent out to some employees but the Company
had to withdraw them . Both John Burke and Clarence
Josten denied that Josten ever made these remarks.
Analysis and Conclusions
I credit the General Counsel 's witnesses ' testimony
concerning the statements made to them by Kenneth
Jensen because they were either admitted or undenied.
Respondent argues that Jensen had no authority to speak
for Respondent ; however, I reject this argument because
I have found that Jensen is a supervisor making Re-
spondent responsible for his remarks to the employees. I
also find that Jensen was not just a low-level supervisor
but in fact the only supervisor outside of Josten at the
Sioux Falls facility . Moreover, Respondent never dis-
avowed Jensen 's statements to employees although in
JOSTEN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO. 1031
some instances it actually knew what he was saying to
them.
I credit the General Counsel 's witnesses over the deni-
als of Respondent's witnesses with respect to Josten's re-
marks to employees at the bargaining sessions about a
pension plan because Josten 's comments are consistent
with his preelection statements and his other comments
and attitude during negotiations.
I therefore find that Respondent committed 8(a)(1)
violations by: (1) restricting employee discussion of con-
tract negotiations; (2) threatening not to agree to a con-
tract because employees had published their strike vote
and contacted OSHA; (3) threatening reprisals because
an employee raised issues at a negotiating session ; and (4)
threatening to withdraw a pension plan because employ-
ees had chosen the Union.
C. Refusal-to-Bargain Allegations
1. It is undisputed that from the beginning of negotia-
tions on August 28 to the last meeting on July 3, 1987,
the Respondent insisted that as a condition precedent to
filing a grievance , the Union and the employees surren-
der their right to file a charge with a Federal or state
agency . Conversely, if they chose to file charges with a
Federal or state agency, the Union's employees would be
required to relinquish their rights to process a grievance.
The Respondent's position is that this requirement avoids
multiple forums for litigating matters based on the same
facts . The Union consistently objected to his proposal.
2. Respondent's proposal of August 28 contained a
layoff and recall provision which provided that layoffs
would be governed by fitness , competence , company
need , and seniority if compatible with efficient operation
of the Company's business . The Union objected to this
provision because many employees had worked a long
time for the Company. According to Frank , Burke re-
sponded by stating that they were starting from scratch
and the Company did not intend to honor seniority on
layoff or recall . Burke added, "you people wanted a con-
tract and we are going to give you one. You want a
union and we are going to give you one." Josten then
slammed the proposals on the table saying, "What is all
this bull shit? We don't need that and-I own this plant
and nobody is going to tell me how to run it."
At the September 25 session the Union attempted to
discuss the early grievance proposals . According to
Frank, Josten stated , "What do you need this for? .. .
We have run this plant for seventy -five years , and what
is the need for all this stuff-if any of you have a prob-
lem, we could settle it in ten minutes ." Josten remarked
that he now understood why plants moved to Mexico.
The Union raised the issue of seniority on layoffs and re-
calls at this meeting and Burke stated that the Company
would pick and choose as they saw fit. Since the em-
ployees chose a union , they were going to do it the
"hard-ass" way . According to Christenson at several ne-
gotiating sessions when discussing layoff procedures,
Burke told the union committee that now that they were
writing it down in a contract , they have to do it the
"hard-ass" way because the Company had to protect
itself. According to Christenson , layoffs in the past were
according to seniority.
Frank testified that at the October 29 negotiating ses-
sion when the Union raised the subject of pensions,
Josten told the committee that he had not had time to
pursue the subject because he had been too busy, but
that there just absolutely wasn't going to be a pension
because of the Union. Josten further stated that if the
employees had just kept their shirts on and not gone
over to the labor temple , a pension would have been
available . Again at the November 6 negotiating session,
the Union raised the subject of pensions . Josten stated
that he had a pension plan ready but now things have
changed and there won't be "any damn pension as long
as this union thing exists ." The Union pursued it and was
told that the Company hadn't discussed it but if they had
just kept their shirts on , they would have had one.
Josten denied saying there would be no pension be-
cause of the Union. Burke testified that at the February
16, 1987 negotiating session , he proposed as a pension
plan that the Company contribute into an IRA account
$1 for every $2 employee contribution with a limit of
$650 per year . However, wages had to be agreed on
before the Company's pension offer could be discussed.
3. The Union had proposed on August 21 that the
Company should notify the Union in writing of any dis-
charge with reasons . Burke had agreed to this as early as
October 9 and the Company had incorporated this pro-
posal into its own proposals . According to Frank and
Paul Christenson, Josten vehemently protested this
agreement stating, "He wasn 't going to write no god
damn letter , he has got enough paper work to do."
Josten testified that he couldn 't remember making such
a statement.
4. There are 12 employees at the Sioux Falls plant. Six
employees earn from $9 . 65 per hour to $9. 10 per hour.
Five employees (excluding Leisinger who earns $6 per
hour because he was newly hired) earn from $8.70 per
hour to $8.30 per hour . The four employees at Mitchell
earn from $8.90 per hour to $8.30 per hour.
At the November 13 meeting Respondent proposed a
10-percent across-the-board wage cut . The Union coun-
tered with a wage proposal on November 19 but Burke
refused to discuss it. The Union offered another wage
proposal on December 3, proposing a wage increase so
that all employees would be earning $ 10 per hour the
first year , $10.30 per hour the second year and $ 10.60 an
hour the third year . Josten attempted to respond to the
Union's wage proposal when Burke told him not to.
Frank asked Burke how they were going to arrive at a
contract if his client didn 't respond. Burke said, "F-
your proposals." On December 17, the Company pro-
posed that all employees receive $9 per hour for the first
year, $9.18 per hour the second year, and $9 .36 the third
year . The Company stayed with this proposal through-
out the remainder of negotiations. The reasons given to
the Union for this wage proposal was that this $9-per-
hour offer represented the average hourly wage of all
employees and since all employees performed the same
job, they should receive the same wage . The Union
made several different wage proposals during February
and March 1987, but the company response never varied
except to say that some employees would have to suffer
1032 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a wage cut in order to bring others up to the $9-per-hour
wage rate . According to Frank , Burke also offered the
explanation that they wanted everybody equal because
that was the union way. Burke said, "You chose to have
a Union. That's the way we want it." At no time did the
Company plead inability to pay.
Burke offered labor bulletins published by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics indicating the employer paid over the
average monthly earnings of manufacturing employers in
South Dakota in 1986 and 1987 thus justifying the 10-
percent wage cut proposal. There was no evidence of-
fered that these bulletins were ever submitted or dis-
cussed at the negotiating sessions.
5. On April 18, 1987, Josten told a customer by the
name of Vance Walgrave that he would like to get rid of
his lawyer and the Union. He told Walgrave that money
was no problem, that he could pay his employees $20 an
hour-that the Union was the problem . Josten said that
he wasn't going to have a union come in and tell him
how to run his company and that the employees were
crazy if they thought he would even deal with them.
When the subject of strike was raised , Josten told Wal-
grave that he would close the doors before he would do
anything.
Josten admitted the conversation with Walgrave but
did not remember saying anything about closing the
doors if the employees struck.
Analysis and Conclusions
I credit counsel for the General Counsel's witnesses
with respect to statements made by Respondent because
in many cases the statements were corroborated , unden-
ied, and consistent with Respondent's attitude toward the
Union . On other aspects of the refusal -to-bargain allega-
tions, the evidence is undisputed.
Counsel for the General Counsel does not allege that
Respondent engaged in dilatory tactics or refused to
make proposals . However, there is ample evidence to
support the General Counsel 's other allegations. Evi-
dence of bad faith was shown by Respondent 's insistence
that employees relinquish their statutory rights as a pre-
condition to utilizing the grievance procedure. It was
also shown by Josten 's refusal to comply with a provi-
sion agreed on by the parties . Respondent 's position on
wages when viewed in light of credited statements made
both at and away from the bargaining table indicate that
Respondent 's wage proposal was intended to frustrate
bargaining and with the further intent of dividing the
employees and thus reducing their support for the Union.
I can find no other creditable reason for such an unpala-
table proposal.
The credited evidence also supports my finding that
statements made by Respondent including threats to em-
ployees both at negotiating sessions and away from the
bargaining table were calculated to punish the employees
for designating the Union to represent them.
Accordingly , I find that based on Respondent's con-
duct both at the bargaining table and away from the
table established that it had no intention of reaching
agreement and bargained in bad faith from beginning to
end. Hedaya Bros., 277 NLRB 942 (1985); Port Plastics,
279 NLRB 362 (1986).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees employed by the employer at its
Mitchell and Sioux Falls, South Dakota facilities , includ-
ing truck drivers; excluding office clerical employees,
sales employees, managerial employees , and guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material, International Union, Allied In-
dustrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO has been the ex-
clusive representative for purposes of collective bargain-
ing of all Respondent 's employees employed in the unit
described above in paragraph 3.
5. Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act
by:
(a) Restricting employee discussion of contract negoti-
ations.
(b) Threatening not to agree to a contract because em-
ployees had published their strike vote and contacted
OSHA.
(c) Threatening reprisals because employees raised
issues at negotiating sessions.
(d) Threatening to withdraw a pension plan because
the employees had chosen the Union.
6. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by:
(a) Insisting that employees/union waive their statuto-
ry rights as a precondition to filing a grievance.
(b) Stating that it would not comply with certain
agreed-to provisions.
(c) Stating that it would not agree to certain proposals
because the employees chose a union.
(d) Proposing a wage offer calculated to frustrate bar-
gaining.
(e) Approaching the bargaining sessions with no inten-
tion of reaching agreement.
(f) Engaging in 8(a)( 1) violations during negotiations.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged
in other unfair labor practices as alleged.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in acts and
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found
that Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good
faith with the Union . As a remedy, I shall recommend
that Respondent be ordered , on request , to resume bar-
gaining with the Union and to do so in good faith and, in
the event that an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement . Further in order to
JOSTEN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO. 1033
ensure that employees will be accorded the statutorily
prescribed services of their selected bargaining agent for
the period provided by law, I recommend that the initial
year of certification be deemed to begin on the date that
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the
Union. Port Plastics, 279 NLRB 362 (1986); K-Mart
Corp., 242 NLRB 855 (1979).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and on the entire record, I issue the follow-
ing recommended2
ORDER
"Appendix."3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being
signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
The Respondent , Josten Concrete Products Co., Inc.,
Mitchell and Sioux Falls, South Dakota, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Restricting employee discussion of contract negoti-
ations.
(b) Threatening not to agree to a contract because em-
ployees had published their strike vote and contacted
OSHA.
(c) Threatening reprisals because employees raised
issues at negotiating sessions.
(d) Threatening to withdraw a pension plan because
employees had chosen the Union.
(e) Insisting that employees/union waive their statuto-
ry rights as a precondition to filing a grievance.
(f) Stating that it would not comply with certain
agreed to provisions.
(g) Stating that it would not agree to certain proposals
the employees chose a union.
(h) Proposing a wage offer calculated to frustrate bar-
gaining.
(i) Bargaining in bad faith with International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
(j) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 oP the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) On request , bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment and , if an understanding is reached , embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees employed by the employer
at its Mitchell and Sioux Falls , South Dakota facili-
ties, including truck drivers ; excluding office cleri-
cal employees , sales employees , managerial employ-
ees, guards and supervisor as defined in the Act.
(b) Post at its facilities in Sioux Falls, and Mitchell,
South Dakota , copies of the attached notice marked
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall , as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules , be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
s 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrict employee discussion of contract
negotiations.
WE WILL NOT threaten not to agree to a contract be-
cause employees had published their strike vote and con-
tacted OSHA.
WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals because employees
raised issues at negotiating sessions.
WE WILL NOT threaten to withdraw a pension plan be-
cause employees had chosen the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
During contract negotiations WE WILL NOT:
Insist that employees/union waive their statutory
rights as a precondition to filing a grievance.
State that we will not comply with certain
agreed -to provisions.
State that we will not agree to certain proposals
because the employees chose a union.
Propose a wage offer calculated to frustrate bar-
gaining.
WE WILL, on request, bargain in good faith with the
Union and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment for our
employees in the bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees employed by the employer
at its Mitchell and Sioux Falls, South Dakota facili-
ty, including truck drivers; excluding office clerical
employees , sales employees, managerial employees,
guard and supervisors as defined in the Act.
JOSTEN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO., INC.