Lehigh Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 1122 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lehigh Lumber Company and Brown-Borhek Compa-
ny and Local 773, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America. Case 4-CA-8147
July 25, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On April 26, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Irwin
Kaplan issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the Respondent Lehigh Lumber
Company filed exceptions and a supporting brief; the
General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respon-
dent's exceptions and brief, cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief; Respondent filed a brief in answer
to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions and briefs;
and the Charging Party filed its brief previously
submitted to the Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,t and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondents, Lehigh Lumber
Company, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Brown-
Borhek Company, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
i The Administrative Law Judge found a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) for
Respondent Lehigh Lumber's promising an employee increased wages and
benefits to induce him to abandon the Union. The General Counsel has
excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to find a violation of Sec.
8(a)(5) for that conduct. Since dealing directly with employees about terms
and conditions of employment. as well as offering employees benefits not
offered the Union, have been found to be conduct violative of Sec. 8(aX5) as
well as 8(aX i), we find a violation of 8(aX5) for the promises of higher wages
and benefits made directly to an employee. See J. H. Bonck Company, Inc.,
170 NLRB 1471, 1482(1968).
The Respondent asserts that the Administrative Law Judge's resolutions
of credibility, findings of fact. and conclusions of law are the result of bias.
After a careful examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that this
allegation is without merit. There is no basis for finding that bias and
partiality existed merely because the Administrative Law Judge resolved
important factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel's witnesses. As
the Supreme Court stated in N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Company. 337
U.S. 656, 659 (1949), "[Tlotal rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself
impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact." Furthermore, it is the
230 NLRB No. 164
Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRWIN KAPLAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at Allentown, Pennsylvania, on January 19-20,
1977. The charge was filed by Local 773, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the
Union, on August 9, 1976 (amended August 25, 1976), and
the complaint thereon issued on November 19, 1976
(amended at the hearing). The complaint and the amend-
ments thereto alleged that Lehigh Lumber Company,
hereinafter Lehigh, and Brown-Borhek Company, herein-
after Brown-Borhek and jointly referred to herein as
Respondents, engaged in various acts of unlawful interfer-
ence such as threats, promises of benefits, bargaining
directly with employees in derogation of the Union's
exclusive bargaining status, and assisting and abetting
employees in the filing of decertification petitions in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by counsel for General Counsel,' Respon-
dents, and the Union, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondents are, and have been at all times material
herein, Pennsylvania corporations engaged in the whole-
sale and retail sale of lumber and building supplies.
Respondent Lehigh's facility is located at 1030 North
Sherman Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Respondent
Brown-Borhek's facility is located at 3283 Easton Avenue,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. During the past year, each had
gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During the same
period, Respondents each purchased in excess of $50,000
worth of goods directly from firms located outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and sold in excess of
$50,000 worth of goods directly to firms located outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondents admit, and
I find, that each is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents have, admittedly, entered into collective-
bargaining agreements with the Union, the most recent of
which expired May 1, 1976, covering, inter alia, Respon-
dent Lehigh's employees employed at 1030 North Sherman
I Counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion for special leave to file
reply bnef, with accompanying reply brief which was received by the
Division of Judges on March 17, 1977. For reasons stated below, the request
is hereby denied. See fn. 35.
1122
LEHIGH LUMBER CO.
Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Respondent Brown-
Borhek's employees employed at 3283 Easton Avenue,
Belthlehem, Pennsylvania. The record further reveals that
at all material times herein certain employees of Respon-
dents have been members of the Union. Based on the
foregoing and the record as a whole, I find that the Union
is and was at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Background - Collective-Bargaining
History
For many years, employees of Respondents employed as
truckdrivers, mobile lumber handling equipment operators,
helpers, and yardmen have been represented by the Union.
Since June 1972, Respondents have been members of the
Lehigh Valley Lumbermen's Association. Sometime prior
thereto Respondents had been members of the Lehigh
Valley Contractors Association and from time to time
members of other associations for collective-bargaining
purposes. The Lehigh Valley Lumbermen's Association
which negotiated the most recent agreement which by its
terms was effective May i, 1973, until May 1, 1976,
commenced negotiations for a new contract in April 1976.
The parties had, approximately, eight or nine negotiating
sessions, the last occurring on July 31, 1976, without
reaching an agreement on a contract. Thereafter, the
Union requested in writing to meet and bargain but
Respondents have refused on the basis that the Union has
lost its majority status.
The principals for Respondents are Bruce Ferretti
president of Lehigh and Carl Del Nero, president of
Brown-Borhek.
B. The Appropriate Unit
It is undisputed that at all times material herein,
Respondents have been members of the Lehigh Valley
Lumbermen's Association, a multiemployer association
composed of employers in the lumber business which
exists, inter alia, for the purpose of representing its
employer members in the negotiation of collective-bargain-
ing agreements with the Union. The following employees
of employer-members of the Lehigh Valley Lumbermen's
Association, including employees of Respondents herein,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All truckdrivers, mobile lumber handling equipment
operators, helpers, and yardmen, excluding supervisors
as defined in the Act.2
2 The classifications with regard to unit inclusions appear as described in
the complaint and in the most recently expired collective-bargaining
agreement. At the heanng counsel for Respondent noted that office clerical
employees traditionally have been excluded although there is no reference to
office clerical employees in the aforementioned agreement. As there is no
substantive dispute between the parties regarding the composition of the
relevant unit, I make the finding as expressed hereinabove.
C. The Alleged Conduct at Lehigh
On or about April 29, 1976,3 Bruce Ferretti, president
and sole owner of Lehigh, met with Eddie Kremposky, Sr.,
Eddie Kremposky, Jr., Joseph Kremposky, Robert Piatt,
and John Sekoch. 4 Ferretti gave each of the employees in
attendance a sheet of paper which outlined the proposal
which he had just recently made to the Union. After Feretti
read the proposal to the employees he asked for a
discussion. Ferretti testified that he was surprised that the
employees did not ask any questions. According to the
testimony of the employees when Ferretti distributed
copies of the proposal to each of the employees, he,
Ferretti, stated that "this is my final offer and if you do not
accept it, there will be no work the following Monday."
Ferretti then told Sekoch, Piatt, and Joseph Krerrposky to
return the keys to the company yard. From on or about
May I for a period of approximately 6 weeks the
employees in the Teamsters unit did not work.5 The
employees returned to work only after Respondent Lehigh
sent letters requesting that they return.
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent Lehigh not
only unlawfully bargained directly with employees during
the above-described meeting of April 29, but that on
various occasions during the months of April, June, July,
and August engaged in independent acts of unlawful
interference, threats, and promise of benefits designed to
undermine and dissipate the Union's majority status. In
support thereof, Edward Kremposky, Sr., and his son,
Edward Kremposky, Jr., testified that on or about April 24,
Ferretti told the senior Kremposky in the presence of his
son that the Teamsters were giving him a "screwing" and
that he should look for another union. The senior
Kremposky also testified that Ferretti told him on or about
June 22 that it only takes three out of five employees to
vote the Union out. Further, Edward Kremposky, Sr., his
son, and other employees testified that, on July 2, Ferretti
held a meeting attended by all five Teamsters unit
employees in the garage. According to the testimony of
General Counsel's witnesses, Ferretti anounced at the
meeting that negotiations with the Union had gotten
nowhere and that he, Ferretti, was of the view the union
business agent, Caskie, was going to call a strike. The
employees testified that Ferretti warned them that they
would never work for Lehigh again if they engaged in the
strike. Edward Kremposky, Sr., testified that minutes after
the garage meeting Ferretti repeated the aforesaid threat to
him while he was working alone on the forklift truck.
Ferretti admits that he called the employees together for a
meeting in the garage on July 2, but only to review the
latest offer to the Union. Ferretti denies making the other
statements attributed to him. A strike commenced on or
about July 6 with all five Teamsters unit employees
participating in the picketing.
Still further, John Sekoch testified that on about August
3 Ferretti promised him while he Sekoch was on the picket
3 All dates hereinafter refer to 1976 unless otherwise noted.
4 The Teamsters unit at Lehigh comprised these five individuals.
While it is not clear whether the employees during this period were on
strike, or locked out, it is noted that no unfair labor practice strike is alleged.
1123
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
line that if he returned to work he would be paid the same
wages as the mill employees, 6 but that there would be no
contract with the Union. Joseph Kremposky testified that
on August 4 while on the picket line, Ferretti told him that
if he didn't return to work the following day and abandon
his support for the Union he would never work for Lehigh
again.
D. The Alleged Conduct at Brown-Borhek
The strike against Brown-Borhek commenced on July 26.
On July 27 Carl Del Nero, president of Brown-Borhek, told
his striking employees that the employees of Ritter and
Smith 7 had withdrawn from the Union and were not on
strike. He suggested to Rober Stahr, a striking employee,
that he listen in on his phone conversation with the owner
of Ritter and Smith to verify what he just told them. The
owner of Ritter and Smith with Stahr on the extension told
Del Nero that his employees had not gone on strike and
had withdrawn from the Union. Stahr then went outside
the facility and in the presence of Del Nero told the other
striking employees what he heard on the extension. The
employees decided to return to work the same day.
According to the testimony of General Counsel's witnesses
sometime between July 27 and 29, Stahr and employee
Ralph Minnich went to see Del Nero in his office to urge
him to resolve the problems with the union contract. Del
Nero described the benefits he was willing to give and
those items he would not provide. However he pointed out
that Lehigh and Ritter and Smith no longer had to deal
with the Union and Brown-Borhek would not be the only
company stuck. He added that he didn't want to be
bothered with the Union anymore. Del Nero had Stahr
listen in on the extension while he telephoned his attorney.
At one point during the phone conversation Del Nero
asked his attorney what would happen if the employees
dropped out of the Union to which the attorney responded
that, aside from phone calls in the middle of the night and
harassment, the Union could do nothing. Stahr testified
that he also heard the attorney state that the employees of
Ritter and Smith had sent papers to the Labor Board and
had written the Teamsters president that they no longer
desired to be affiliated with the Teamsters. During this
same session Del Nero told Stahr and Minnich that if they
wanted to get out of the Union only they could send the
decertification papers in. Stahr and Minnich remarked that
they wouldn't do anything until Kenneth Deck, an
employee, returned from his vacation.
On or about August 2, Del Nero called Kenneth Deck,
Ralph Minnich, Robert Stahr, and Fred Weider8 for a
meeting in the lunchroom and made a proposal. He said,
inter alia, that he could give a 20-cent increase the first
year, 15 cents the second, and 15 cents the third year, an
insurance policy, and pension if the employees dropped out
of the Union. He warned that if they refused they would
not work. Sometime later and during the month of August
Del Nero called Deck and Minnich to his office to explain
" The mill employees are represented by the Carpenters and Joiners
Union (herein Carpenters).
7 Ritter and Smith Company was a signatory member-employer to the
most recent contract which expired on May I, 1976. There are no allegations
herein with regard to Ritter and Smith Company.
the procedure for getting the appropriate papers to the
Labor Board and dropping the Union.
Del Nero denies that he made any of the above-
described threats or that he conditioned benefits on the
employees abandoning the Union.9
E. Credibility Resolutions
A substantial portion of the allegations herein depend
largely on credibility. Thus, a separate section herein is
devoted to its resolution. On the basis of demeanor, a
careful reading of the record, and consideration of what is
reasonably plausible, I have credited General Counsel's
witnesses over Respondents' witnesses in those areas where
the testimony is in conflict.
With regard to Respondent Lehigh, I found Bruce
Ferretti to be evasive, unresponsive, and unconvincing. For
example, the last question asked of Ferretti on direct
examination was whether he had ever refused to bargain
with the Union. He responded categorically "I've never
refused to bargain with the Union." When counsel for the
General Counsel immediately thereafter on cross-examina-
tion attempted to explore Ferretti's answer that he had not
refused to bargain with the Union, Ferretti asked that
question be repeated or rephrased. The question was
repeated, but again Ferretti failed to respond. I found it
necessary to caution the witness that his testimony will be
accorded less weight if he continued to be unresponsive.
While Ferretti responded to questions I put to him, he
continued to be evasive and unresponsive on cross-exami-
nation.
According to Ferretti he had no knowledge that the
Union made any request to meet and bargain after the last
bargaining session of July 31. The evidence however
reveals that the Union subsequent to July 31, on a number
of occasions, sent letters to Louis Busch, counsel for
Respondents, requesting further bargaining sessions.10 In
this connection it is noted that Attorney Busch acknowl-
edged receipt of the aforesaid letters. The evidence further
reveals that Ferretti was not merely casually interested in
the progress of the negotiations but was intimately
involved therein. He attended and participated in all but
one of the approximately nine bargaining sessions. In these
circumstances Ferretti's assertion that he was unaware of
the Union's further requests to meet and bargain is
unpersuasive.
In view of the foregoing, and other reasons delineated
below, and the record as a whole, I find Ferretti's
testimony to be unreliable.
With regard to Respondent Brown-Borhek, I find that
the testimony of Carl Del Nero was also unconvincing and
unreliable. The uncontroverted testimony of Robert Stahr
reveals that sometime between July 27 and 29 Del Nero
had him listen in on a phone conversation with Attorney
Busch. During this conversation Attorney Busch related,
inter alia, that employees of Ritter and Smith had sent
papers to the Labor Board and had written to the union
8 It appears that these individuals were the only Brown-Borhek unit
employees employed at that time.
9 Del Nero's position will be discussed more fully infra.
10 See C.P. Exhs. I and 2.
1124
LEHIGH LUMBER CO.
president that they no longer wanted to be represented by
the Union." Stahr also credibly testified that on July 27
Carl Del Nero interviewed him and other employees while
they were engaged in picketing on the second day of the
strike and informed them that employees at Ritter and
Smith had not gone on strike and had withdrawn from the
Union. It is undisputed that Del Nero invited Stahr to
listen in on the extension while he telephoned the owner of
Ritter and Smith to verify. According to Del Nero, it was
the employees who approached him regarding the situation
at Ritter and Smith and he asked Stahr to listen in on the
extension for both the strikers and his own "peace of
mind."
In these circumstances I am unimpressed with Del
Nero's attempt to shift the onus to the striking employees.
Even by his own account the employees asked him whether
Ritter and Smith's employees were working. He volun-
teered the information that employees wrote to the union
president advising that they no longer wanted the Union to
represent them and the filing of the decertification petition.
In view of the foregoing, demeanor, and consideration of
what is reasonably plausible I find that the testimony of
Del Nero is unreliable.
On the other hand I find that the testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses was generally consistent and worthy of
belief.
F. Discussion and Findings
1. Section 8(aX)(1) allegations - Lehigh
As previously noted, the most recent collective-bargain-
ing contract expired on May 1, 1976. The credited
testimony reveals that approximately I week prior there-
to,' 2 Ferretti approached the senior Ed Kremposky in the
presence of his son and remarked that the Teamsters were
no good, were giving him a "screwing" and that he ought to
look for another union. I find that Ferretti's remarks were
intended to denigrate the Union in the eyes of the
employees and violative of Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act.'3
Approximately I week later, on April 29, Ferretti called a
meeting of all five Teamsters unit employees. Four of the
five employees testified to the event and the content was
substantially the same. According to the employees,
Ferretti gave each of them a piece of paper containing the
highlights of the Company's last proposal to the Union and
remarked that this was his final offer and added that the
employees could not work the following Monday if the
proposal was not accepted by them. He then read the
proposal and asked for a discussion, but the employees had
nothing to say. He also asked Sekoch, Piatt, and Joseph
Kremposky for their keys to the company yard. Piatt had
" Attorney Busch objected to the testimony on the basis that Stahr was a
statutory supervisor at the time of the telephone conversation and therefore
any conversation that he had with Del Nero was privileged and inadmissi-
ble. It is noted that no authority was cited in support of the objection and
that Respondent's brief makes no reference thereto or to Stahr's alleged
supervisory status. In any event the record reveals that Stahr did not hire,
give time off, promote, discipline, or discharge employees nor did he have
the authority. He punched a timeclock. and received the same fringe
benefits as other unit employees. Further, his terms and conditions of
employment were governed by the union contract. In view of the foregoing,
and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that Stahr at all
times material herein was a nonsupervisory unit employee.
his key for over I month and this was the first time Ferretti
asked him for it. Ferretti concedes to conducting the
meeting but insists that he merely wanted the employees to
know of his latest proposal to the Union. He denies he
expressed an ultimatum and denies asking for the keys to
be returned at that meeting. Counsel for Respondent
Lehigh in his brief asserts that Ferretti merely informed the
employees of proposals made to the Union without any
attempt to deal directly or negotiate separately with its
employees and that such information is within the free
speech privilege of Section 8(c) of the Act.14 Ferretti's own
account of what transpired at the last bargaining session,
which Ferretti states may have been held on April 28,
probably provided the impetus and setting for the April 29
meeting. At that session, Ferretti requested that Union
Business Agent Caskie take the company offer to the
employees to which Caskie replied that he would when he
is good and ready. Caskie remarked to Ferretti that the
men had taken a strike vote. According to Ferretti, as far as
he was concerned, the Union was on strike from that point
on. In view of Ferretti's admitted estimation of the
situation, the testimony of the employees to the effect that
Ferretti gave them an ultimatum to accept the proposal or
there will be no work takes on greater credence. Ferretti's
demand that employees return their keys adds further
support that he gave the employees an ultimatum. Ferretti
admits that he asked for a discussion of the proposal, and
was surprised that none of the employees had anything to
say. In the face of an ultimatum, the employees had little
option. In these circumstances, I find the testimony of the
General Counsel's witnesses more plausible than Ferretti's
uncorroborated version.
Accordingly, on the basis of the credited testimony, I
find Respondent Lehigh, by its president, threatened its
employees with reprisals if they rejected the proposal. Such
acts and conduct violated not only Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, but represent an attempt to bargain separately with
the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) as
well.'1
The employees did not work from May 1 to on or about
June 10 at which time they returned pursuant to the
Company's request. The credited testimony reveals that on
or about June 22, Ferretti approached Edward Kremposky,
Sr., while the latter was working on the forklift truck, and
stated that he was standing pat on the proposal and was
not going to budge. He suggested to Kremposky that if he
did not like working for the Company that he could leave.
A few minutes later, Ferretti approached Kremposky again
and advised "You know it only takes three out of five to
vote the Union out of here."
12 While the complaint as amended at the hearing alleges that this
occurrence took place on April 29, the testimony clearly reveals that the
event took place approximately I week earlier.
i3 Daisy's Originals. Inc., of Miami, 187 NLRB 251, 255-256 (1970).
i4 Sec. 8(c) provides:
The expressing of any views, argument. or opinion, or the
dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual
form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice
under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no
threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
5 Typoservice Corporation, 203 NLRB 1180 (1973).
1125
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ferretti denies that the conversation regarding an
election occurred in the context as testified by Kremposky.
According to Ferretti, he had two conversations with
employees while they were engaged in picketing. He had
one such conversation with John Sekoch, by himself, and a
second conversation with Sekoch in the presence of
Edward Kremposky, Sr., Joe Kremposky, and Bob Piatt.
Ferretti testified that Sekoch did the talking on both
occasions, because he was the union steward. Ferretti
further testified that Sekoch approached him on both
occasions and inquired of Ferretti whether it would help if
they got rid of Caskie to which Ferretti responded that he
would check with his attorney. Thereafter, he passed on to
his employees that his attorney advised him that a majority
of the employees could vote the Union out.
I find Ferretti's attempt to place the event in context
both awkward and unconvincing. In this regard, Ed
Kremposky, Sr., testified credibly that the disputed
conversation took place after the employees returned to
work and not while they were engaged in picketing.
Further, I find it highly improbable that Sekoch, a union
steward, would have to ask twice whether it would help if
the employees got rid of Caskie. Still, further, even by
Ferretti's account, Sekoch asked only whether it would
help if the employees got rid of Caskie, not the Union. I
find that Ferretti's act of volunteering to Edward Krempo-
sky, Sr., that it takes only three out of five to vote the
Union out was an attempt to promote a decerfication
proceeding and violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.16
It is undisputed that on July 2, Ferretti conducted a
meeting in the garage attended by all five Teamsters unit
employees. The General Counsel's witnesses testified
credibly that Ferretti announced that there had been no
progress during negotiations and that he, Ferretti, believed
that Caskie was going to call a strike. Ferretti warned the
employees that, if they went on strike, they would never
work for the Company again. Approximately 5 minutes
after the meeting, Ferretti repeated his threat to Ed
Kremposky, Sr., that if the employees strike, they would
never work for the Company again. Later that same
morning, Ferretti alluded once again to the strike and told
Kremposky that if the men strike, he would get rid of them
and the - Union once and for all. Ferretti denies making
any of the statements attributed to him by Kremposky and
the other employees. He asserts that he got the Teamsters
unit employees for a meeting merely to review the
Company's offer at that time.
As I have credited General Counsel's witnesses regarding
the events of July 2,'7 I find that Respondent Lehigh
threatened its employees with reprisals if they engaged in
the strike in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.18
1i See Royal Himmel Distilling Co., 203 N LRB 370 (1973).
'? It is also alleged in the complaint that Ferretti told its employees on
June 25 that if they went out on strike they would be replaced and would no
longer work for Lehigh Lumber. Only Robert Piatt testified in support of the
aforesaid allegation and it is clear that he was confused about the date and
must have been referring to the events of the July 2 meeting. Thus Piatt first
testified that the event occurred in early July, then later testified that it
happened somewhere around June 24. Further Piatt places the meeting 2-
I/2 weeks after the employees returned to work in mid-June. This would
A strike commenced on or about July 5, participated in
by all five unit employees. At the time of the instant
hearing, all five individuals were still engaged in the strike.
John Sekoch credibly testified that on or about August 3,
while he was engaged in picketing at the gate to the facility,
he was approached by Ferretti who asked whether he
would consider returning to work. Ferretti commented that
he, Sekoch, should be more concerned about himself and
noted that things must be rough at home. He offered
Sekoch the same wages that mill employees were earning.' 9
Sekoch questioned Ferretti about his pension, to which
Ferretti replied that the government would take care of it.
Sekoch also asked Ferretti about the other employees.
Ferretti told Sekoch that he would take Joseph Kremposky
back, but not Ed Kremposky, Sr., his son, and Bob Pratt
because they are troublemakers and agitators. During this
conversation, Ferretti stated that the National Labor
Relations Board would conduct an election, and a
combination of employees from the other two companies
and new employees would out vote the Teamsters support-
ers. Sekoch asked about the Teamsters contract, and was
told by Ferretti that there would not be a contract.
Ferretti concedes that he spoke with Sekoch while the
latter was on the picket line on August 3, but denies that he
asked him to return to work or that he made any promises
of benefits to him. According to Ferretti, he had replaced
Sekoch with a new employee and he was concerned about
Sekoch's welfare and family and that was the extent of the
conversation. I find that Ferretti's expressions of compas-
sion and concern in these circumstances unconvincing. In
weighing the aforementioned contrasting versions, the
account given by Sekoch is further strengthened by the
testimony of Joseph Kremposky. In this regard, Joseph
Kremposky credibly testified that, on August 4, Ferretti
asked him whether Sekoch had talked to him about
returning to work. Ferretti made it clear to Kremposky that
he could return to work only if he abandoned the Union.
He also told Kremposky to tell Caskie "that there will be
no Union in here." Kremposky did not respond and started
to walk away from Ferretti when the latter pointed out that
Kremposky should think about his family. Finally, Ferretti
warned Kremposky that if he did not return to work the
following morning that he would never work for Lehigh
again.
Thus, on the basis of credited testimony, I find that
Respondent Lehigh by its President Ferretti, on or about
August 3 and 4, promised employees increased wages and
other benefits to induce them to abandon the Union,
threatened employees that if they continued to strike that
they will not be reemployed, and threatened employees
that the Company would not have a contract with the
further tend to support the July 2 date. Moreover, while Piatt testified that
all the Teamsters unit employees attended the meeting, and all of them
testified, there was no corroboration regarding any such meeting on or
about June 25. In these circumstances, I find that no such meeting was held
on June 25, and I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation of the
complaint.
is Typoservice Corporation, supra.
'9 The record reveals that mill employees covered by the Carpenters
contract earn higher wages than Teamsters unit employees.
1126
LEHIGH LUMBER CO.
Union. Such acts and conduct violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act. 20
It is further alleged in the complaint that on or about
July 12, 1976, David Miller, as agent for Respondent
Lehigh, told an employee on two occasions that certain
employees could not return to work because they engaged
in union and other protected activities. Miller21 testified
credibly that he approached Ferretti in early July because
he wanted to be of some help in ending the strike. He told
Ferretti that he believed that if he spoke to Sekoch and got
him to come in he "would bring the whole thing to a head,
the whole strike situation." According to Miller, all Ferretti
said was that he thought it would be a good idea. Edward
Kremposky, Sr., testified that, on or about July 16, Miller
told him that Ferretti would take back Sekoch and Joe
Kremposky but no one else. Kremposky further testified
that Miller told him that Ferretti would take Sekoch and
Joe Kremposky back with or without the Union. No
evidence was adduced tending to show that Ferretti
authorized Miller to talk to Edward Kremposky and there
was no testimony as to what if anything Miller said to
Sekoch. With regard to whether Miller's statement to
Kremposky is coercive it is noted that Miller expressly
pointed out that Ferretti would take back Sekoch and Joe
Kremposky with or without the Union. I find that Miller
did not possess any such strategic position with the
Company so that Respondent Lehigh was responsible for
his acts on an agency basis or on any other basis.22
Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation be
dismissed.
2. Section 8(a)(I) allegations-Brown-Borhek
The employees of Brown-Borhek went on strike on or
about July 26. Employee Robert Stahr testified credibly
that, on July 27, Del Nero informed the employees on the
picket line that the employees of Ritter and Smith had
withdrawn from the Union, and were not on strike and
urged Stahr to listen in on the extension while he
telephoned the owner of Ritter and Smith to verify. Del
Nero then placed the telephone call with Stahr on the
extension. Stahr heard the owner of Ritter and Smith tell
Del Nero that his men had not gone on strike. Stahr then
went outside the building and told the other striking
employees what he heard on the extension. The employees
discussed the matter in Del Nero's presence and decided to
go back to work.
Del Nero concedes that he had the conversation with his
striking employees regarding the Union situation at Ritter
and Smith and further admits that Stahr listened in on the
phone extension pursuant to his request. However, he
asserts it was the striking employees who initiated the
discussion. According to Del Nero, the picketing employ-
ees called him over to verify that Ritter and Smith's
employees were working. Del Nero testified that since the
20 Tiposervice Corporation, supra.
21 At all times material herein David Miller was a nonsupervisory mill
employee and member of the Carpenters Union. He functioned as a shop
steward although not officially designated and was a member of the
Carpenters negotiating committee.
22 E.g.. Crown Corrugated Container, Inc., 123 NLRB 318, 324 (1959);
Page Bor Compman, Inc., 107 NLRB 126. 130{1953).
employees asked him about the situation at Ritter and
Smith, he could tell them that it was his understanding that
the employees wrote a letter to the Union stating that they
no longer wanted to be represented and that they filed a
decertification petition with the National Labor Relations
Board. Thus, by Del Nero's own account, he did not
merely inform his employees that the employees of Ritter
and Smith went back to work but informed his employees
that Ritter and Smith's employees wrote to the Union
stating that they no longer wanted it to represent them and
further that the employees also filed a decertification
petition.
In view of subsequent events and because Del Nero's
version is less convincing than Stahr's and as I have
otherwise discredited Del Nero, I find that Del Nero
initiated the discussion concerning the union situation at
Ritter and Smith as part of a campaign designed to
promote a decertification petition and rid himself of the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(X) of the Act.23
The credible evidence reveals that some time between
July 27 and 29, Stahr and employee Ralph Minnich went to
see Del Nero in his office to urge him to resolve the
problems with the contract. Del Nero listed the benefits he
could provide but he pointed out that Lehigh and Ritter
and Smith no longer had to bargain with the Union and
that he would not be the only one stuck with the Union. He
requested either one of them to listen in on the extension
while he telephoned his attorney. Stahr listened in on the
extension and heard the Company's attorney describe the
situation at Ritter and Smith. At one point during the
telephone conversation, Del Nero asked his attorney what
would happen if the employees dropped out of the Union
to which the attorney responded that, aside from phone
calls in the middle of the night and harassment, the Union
could do nothing.24 Stahr's testimony with regard to the
foregoing telephone conversation was virtually uncontro-
verted. During the session, Del Nero told Stahr and
Minnich that, if they wanted to get out of the Union, only
they could send the decertification papers in. They stated
they would not do anything until employee Kenny Deck
returned from vacation. I find that Del Nero's threat that
his company would not be the only one "stuck with the
Union" and his further efforts to promote a decertification
petition, to be acts and conduct violative of Section 8(a)(I)
of the Act. 25
The credited testimony reveals that, when Kenneth Deck
returned from his vacation on or about August 2, Del Nero
called all four unit employees into the lunchroom and
made a proposal. He offered, inter alia, wage increases,
insurance policy, and a pension, but only if the employees
withdrew from the Union. He cautioned them that if they
refused the proposal they would not work for Brown-
Borhek. Within a few days Del Nero called employees
Deck and Minnich to his office to explain the procedure
for getting the appropriate papers to the Labor Board.
23 See Royal Himmel Distilling Co., supra.
24 In the absence of any allegation, and in view of my other findings I
deem it unnecessary to discuss the propriety of the attorney's participation.
Stahr credibly testified that Del Nero told the attorney that Stahr was on the
extension.
25 Typoservice Corporation, supra; Royal Himmel Distilling Co., supra.
1127
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Later the same month employees Deck and Minnich filed a
decertification petition in Case 4-RD-718.26 For reasons
stated heretofore, I do not credit Del Nero's denial
regarding the events in August described hereinabove.
I find that on or about August 2, and on or about August
3, Respondent Brown-Borhek promised its employees that
they would enjoy greater benefits if they abandoned the
Union, and threatened employees with termination if they
continued their allegiance to the Union. I further find that
the decertification petition filed by employees Deck and
Minnich resulted largely, if not entirely from Respondent
Brown-Borhek's conduct. Such acts and conduct violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.27
G. The Union's Majority Representation
It is undisputed that Respondents and the Union have
been parties to a long series of successive collective-
bargaining agreements.2 8 The last agreement by its terms
was effective May 1, 1973, to May 1, 1976, and was placed
in evidence by General Counsel.2 9 It has been held that the
General Counsel can meet his initial burden of proving a
union's majority status by showing a past agreement, which
gives rise to a presumption of continuing majority upon
expiration.3 0 This is true whether the union obtained its
initial bargaining position pursuant to certification or
recognition.3s
Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case it is
clear that General Counsel has established a prima facie
case regarding the Union's majority status. However, an
employer may challenge or rebut an incumbent union's
bargaining status whenever a collective-bargaining agree-
ment expires, if it can demonstrate by objective considera-
tions that it has lost its majority.3 2
In the instant case Respondents argue that an impasse
was reached on July 31 and thereafter the employees had
become disenchanted with the Union. According to
Respondents this disenchantment was manifest by decerti-
fication petitions and attempts by employees to bypass
their representative and deal directly with Respondents.
Thus, Respondents assert it was absolved from any
obligation to continue to meet and bargain with the Union.
Respondents embarked on its antiunion campaign and
engaged in serious unfair labor practices long before July
31 when the alleged impasse was reached. With regard to
Respondent Lehigh, Ferretti began his campaign to
undermine the Union in April, even before the most recent
contract expired. With regard to Respondent Brown-
Borhek, the credited testimony reveals that Del Nero on or
about July 27 told employees that Lehigh and Ritter and
Smith no longer had to deal with the Union and he made it
clear that Brown-Borhek would not be the only company
-" See G.C. Exh. 3.
17 Dais 's Originals, Inc., of Miami, supra; Typoservice Corporation, supra.
2" The record does not disclose how the Union initially obtained its
bargaining status.
2" G.C. Exh. 2.
30 Erich R. Weber, et al., d/b/a Weber's Bakery, 211 NLRB 1. 10 (1974);
Automated Business Systems, etc., 205 NLRB 532 (1973); Terrell Machine
Company. 173 NLRB 1480. 1480-81 (1969), enfd. 427 F.2d 1088 (1970).
:{ Bartenders, Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees Bargaining Associa-
tion of Pocatello, Idaho. 213 NLRB 651 (1974); Emerson Manufacturing
Compan,, Inc., 200 NLRB 148, 150(1972).
"stuck." He then set about to provide the climate that
would most certainly guarantee that this would happen.
Thus, he bargained individually with the employees and
threatened them with termination if they refused to accept
his proposal. Further, he directed the employees to the
Labor Board which resulted in the filing of the decertifica-
tion petition.
In these circumstances Respondents cannot rely on
rejections due to their own misconduct to sustain their
assertion that it had valid grounds for doubting the
Union's majority status.3 3 Respondents were under a
continuing duty to meet and bargain with the Union and
their refusal to do so was violative of Section 8(a)(5).34
Counsel for Respondents argues additionally and for the
first time in his brief that the union bargaining relationship
is void ab initio on the basis that the most recent collective-
bargaining agreement and its predeccesor agreements
contained a construction industry union-security clause.
His reliance however on Zanetti Riverton Bus Lines, 128
NLRB 1389 (1960) is misplaced. The Board in Zanetti held
that as the union-security provision failed to conform to
Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act, the contract could not
serve as a bar to an election. It made no reference therein
as to whether the bargaining relationship was unlawful.
In the instant case it cannot be determined conclusively
whether Section 8(f) of the Act (construction industry
proviso) applies to either of the companies involved herein.
It was not raised in the answer, nor was the matter
litigated, although Respondents had the opportunity to do
so. In this connection it is noted that General Counsel's
offer to place the most recent contract in evidence was
objected to on the basis of relevance. While Respondent's
counsel makes the naked assertion that all previous
contracts contained the same provision, none of those
agreements are in evidence nor were they offered. In any
event the record does not demonstrate that employees were
coerced into becoming union members. On the contrary,
each of the unit employees strongly supported the Union
and at various times engaged in picketing in support
thereof. Under all the circumstances noting particularly
that the matter had not been litigated, I find it inappropri-
ate to consider this defense at this stage of the proceeding.
See Printing Utilities Branch of New York Typographical
Union No. 6 (Pandick Press Inc), 228 NLRB 1360 (1977).35
IV. THE EFFECT AT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth above in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
32 Creative Engineering, Inc., 228 NLRB 582; United States Gypsum Co.,
157 NLRB 652.
33 J. H. Patterson Company, 217 NLRB 1030; Hoyt Motor Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 1043 (1962); Weber's Bakery, supra, Daisy's Originals, Inc. of
Miami, supra.
34 J. H. Paterson Company, supra; Weber's Bakery supra, Typoservice
Corporation, supra, Royal Himmel Distilling Co., supra.
35 In view of the foregoing finding and noting that the Boards Rules and
Regulations contain no provision for the filing of reply briefs, I have denied
General Counsel's motion for permission to file said reply brief. See fn. I,
above.
1128
LEHIGH LUMBER CO.
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Respondents be ordered to
cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices
found herein and take certain affirmative action, as
provided in the recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Lehigh and Brown-Borhek are employ-
ers 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. All truckdrivers, mobile lumber handling equipment
operators, helpers, and yardmen, excluding supervisors, as
defined in the Act, employed by members of Lehigh Valley
Lumbermen's Association, 36 including employees em-
ployed by Respondent Lehigh and Respondent Brown-
Borhek constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. At all times material herein the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a)of the Act.
5. Respondents violated Section 8(a)(X) of the Act by
(a) threatening that it would not reemploy employees who
engaged in a strike; (b) threatening employees that it would
not sign a contract; (c) soliciting employees to withdraw
their membership from the Union; (d) promoting decertifi-
cation proceedings; (e) promising employees increased
wages and other benefits to induce them to abandon their
allegiance to the Union.
6. Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by (a) bargaining directly with employees in contra-
vention of their obligation to meet and bargain with the
Union; and (b) withdrawing recognition of the Union.
7. Respondents did not engage in unfair labor practices
other than those found herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER3 7
A. Respondent, Lehigh Lumber Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
:'6 The record does not reveal whether Ritter and Smith Company timely
withdrew from the association. The standing with regard to Ritter and Smith
company was not litigated and it does not appear that there were any other
employer members of the association at the time the last contract expired.
:1? In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the above-described bargaining unit.
(b) Bargaining directly with employees with respect to
their wages or terms and conditions of employment instead
of through their exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(c) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by (I)
suggesting and promoting the filing of union decertification
petitions by employees; (2) threatening that employees who
engage in a strike will not be reemployed; (3) threatening
that it will not sign a contract with the Union; and (4)
promising its employees increased wages and other benefits
to induce them to abandon their allegiance to the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union, as
the sole and exclusive representative of its employees in the
above-described unit with respect to rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Allentown facility copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A."3 8 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4,
after being duly signed by Respondent Lehigh's representa-
tive, shall be posted by Respondent Lehigh immediately
upon request thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
Lehigh to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent, Brown-Borhek Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the above-described bargaining unit.
(b) Bargaining directly with employees with respect to
their wages or terms and conditions of employment instead
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
3a In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
1129
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of through their exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(c) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by (I)
suggesting, encouraging, and assisting the filing of union
decertification petitions by employees; (2) threatening
employees with discharge if they refuse to abandon their
allegiance to the Union; (3) threatening that it will not sign
a contract with the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as
the sole and exclusive representative of its employees in the
above-described unit with respect to rates of pay, hours of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Bethlehem facility copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B." Copies of the said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4,
after being duly signed by Respondent Brown-Borhek's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent Brown-
Borhek, immediately upon request thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Brown-Borhek to insure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides have presented evidence,
it has been found that we have violated the National Labor
Relations Act in certain respects. To correct and remedy
these violations, we have been directed to take certain
actions and to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended by:
(I) Threatening employees that WE WILL NOT sign a
contract with Local 773, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
(2) Threatening employees that if they engage in a
strike they will not be reemployed.
(3) Promising employees increased wages and other
benefits to induce them to abandon their allegiance to
Local 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America.
(4) Encouraging or promoting a decertification
petition to be filed by our employees against Local 773,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
(5) Bargaining unilaterally with employees in contra-
vention of our obligation to bargain with Local 773,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the sole
and exclusive representative of our employees, with
respect to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to form, join, -or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Local 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America;
as the sole exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the unit described below and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is:
All truckdrivers, mobile lumber handling
equipment operators, helpers, and yardmen,
excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
LEHIGH LUMBER COMPANY
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides have presented evidence,
it has been found that we have violated the National Labor
Relations Act in certain respects. To correct and remedy
these violations, we have been directed to take certain
actions and to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by:
(I) Threatening employees that we will not sign a
contract with Local 773, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
1130
LEHIGH LUMBER CO.
(2) Threatening employees with discharge if they
refuse to abandon their allegiance to Local 773,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
(3) Promising employees increased wages and other
benefits to induce them to abandon their allegiance to
Local 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
(4) Encouraging or assisting our employees to file a
decertification petition against Local 773, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America.
(5) Bargaining unilaterally with employees in contra-
vention of our obligation to bargain with Local 773,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the sole
and exclusive representative of our employees, with
respect to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Local 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the unit described below and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is:
All truckdrivers, mobile lumber handling equip-
ment operators, helpers, and yardmen, excluding
supervisors as defined in the Act.
BROWN-BoRHEK COMPANY
1131