Max Factor & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciationwide unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All painters and hardwood finishers, their helpers, and apprentices,
excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
In view of the foregoing, we shall also direct elections in Case No.
30-RC-1309 among the following groups of employees of members
of the associationwide unit, Denver, Colorado, excluding from each
voting group, employees in the unit described above :
(a) All production and maintenance employees, excluding pack-
ers, craters, and shippers, truckdrivers, office clericals, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All packers,, craters, and shippers, excluding all other em-
ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (b) cast their ballots
for the Petitioner seeking a unit consisting of both voting groups, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a part of the
existing unit described in voting group (a) and their votes shall be
pooled with those cast in voting group (a), in which event the Board
finds that the combined voting groups constitute an appropriate
unit, and the Regional Director shall issue a certification consistent
with the results thereof. If a majority in voting group (b) cast their
ballots against this Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain outside the existing unit, and the Regional
Director will issue a certificate of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Max Factor & Company and Beatrice Deobler, Madeleine,
Simeone, Doris Wilcox, Ellen Wadleigh, Ursella Wadleigh,
Marie June Park, Gladys Heiser, Lola Gandio, Ethel Bradley,
Carmen Villagran , Jeannette Barnes, Pauline Owings, Sonja
Hoover, Helen Baker, Esther Tward and Hazel Cobbley
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Local 986, AFL-CIO
and Beatrice Deobler , Madeleine Simeone, Marie June Park,
Gladys Heiser, Lola Gandio , Ellen Wadleigh, Ursella Wadleigh,
Doris Wilcox, Ethel Bradley, Carmen Villagran, Jeannette
Barnes, Pauline Owings, Sonja Hoover, Helen Baker , Esther
Tward and Hazel Cobbley. Cases Nos. 21-CA-24.91 and 21-CB-
810. July 26,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed on May 28, 1956, by Beatrice Deobler, Madeleine
Simeone, Doris Wilcox, Ellen Wadleigh, Ursella Wadleigh, Marie
118 NLRB No. 97.
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY 809
June Park, Gladys Heiser, Lola Gandio, Ethel Bradley, Carmen Vil-
lagran, Jeannette Barnes, Pauline Owings, Sonja Hoover, Helen
Baker, Esther Tward, and Hazel Cobbley, the General Counsel for
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Coun-
sel, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, issued a
consolidated complaint dated July 1, 1956, against Max Factor &
Company, herein called the Company , and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Local 986 , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, both
herein also called the Respondents , alleging that the Respondent Com-
pany had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), and
(3) of the Act, and that the Respondent Union had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Copies
of the complaint , the charges , and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the Respondents and the Charging Parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges
in substance that on or about April 15, 1956, the Respondents entered
into an exclusive recognition collective -bargaining agreement, and
thereafter engaged in other conduct, including execution of a second
contract on or about June 13, 1956, whereby the Company rendered
unlawful assistance to the Union, discriminated against its employees
on the basis of union activities , and interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in their freedom to engage or to refuse to en-
gage in self-organization activities , and whereby the Union caused, or
attempted to cause, the Company to discriminate unlawfully against
its employees and restrained and coerced the Company's employees
in the exercise of their freedom to engage or to refrain from engaging
in union activities.
Thereafter, on August 28, 1956, all parties entered into a stipulation
setting forth an agreed statement of facts, including five exhibits
labeled appendixes . The stipulation provides that all parties waive
their right to the filing of an answer, to a hearing before a Trial Ex-
aminer, and to an Intermediate Report, and that the stipulation shall
be the only evidence received and considered by the Board. The
stipulation further provides that the parties may file motions to dis-
miss the complaint or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
with accompanying briefs.
By an order issued on September 13, 1956, the Board approved the
aforesaid stipulation , made it a part of the record herein, and trans-
ferred the matter to and continued it before the Board. Thereafter,
the Company and the Union filed motions to dismiss the complaint,
and the General Counsel filed proposed findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law . The Company and the General Counsel also filed
supporting briefs.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, and the entire record in
the case, including the motions, proposed findings, and briefs filed
by the parties, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY INVOLVED
Max Factor & Company is a corporation organized and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal office
and place of business in the city of Los Angeles, California, with
other offices and places of business in various States. In the 12-month
period preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint in this
proceeding, Respondent Company has, in the course and conduct of its
business, caused its products to be shipped to, and through, the States of
the United States other than the State of California in interstate
commerce from points within the State of California of a value in
excess of $50,000.
We find that Max Factor & Company is, and at all times material
herein has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 986, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Basically, the complaint in this case rests on the fact that the Max
Factor & Company and Teamsters Local 986, both named Respond-
ents, agreed and took affirmative steps to deprive the Company's em-
ployees of their statutory freedom to choose or reject any union, and
to coerce them into accepting this Teamsters Local as their bargaining
agent. The facts are agreed and simple.
The Company operates four plants in the county of Los Angeles.
On January 24,1956,a Board-supervised election was held in the usual
all-inclusive production and maintenance unit embracing the four
locations. Approximately 204 employees were eligible to vote; 46
voted in favor of Processors' and Fabricators' Union, Local 802,
AFL-CIO,' 31 voted for Teamster Local 986, 2 cast void ballots, and
4 ballots were challenged, and 103 voted against any union. A
certificate of results was issued on February 1, 1956, by the Acting
Regional Director.
1 This union was the Petitioner in Case No . 21-RC-4198, which resulted in the elec-
tion . It does not appear that this union thereafter continued any organizational
activities among the employees.
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY 811
Despite the employees' unequivocal rejection of any majority repre-
sentative, the Company and Local 986 shortly thereafter held several
meetings and discussed a collective-bargaining agreement. On April
151 1956, they executed a complete contract, covering the same produc-
tion and maintenance unit which had voted less than 3 months earlier ; 2
in the contract, the Company recognized Local 986 as the exclusive
representative of all the employees. The contract also contained a
union-security provision requiring, as a condition of employment,
currently employed members of Local 986 to retain their membership,
current employees who might later join to remain members, and new
employees to become members within 60 days. The next day, April 16,
a company representative, Levi, read a prepared statement to the
Los Angeles employees assembled in four groups in their separate
locations, advising them for the first time of the Company's exclusive
recognition of Local 986, of the reasons for the Company's desire to
have Local 986 be the union for its employees, and of the Company's
desire that that particular union prosper and flourish among Max
Factor workers.
Thereafter, Local 986 requested a mailing list of all employees but
the Company was unable to furnish it. At the Union's request, there-
fore, on about May 9 the Company distributed to each employee a
sealed envelope furnished by the Union. The Company knew that each
envelope contained a notice of meeting; but it did not know that
each envelope also contained an application for membership in Local
986 and a card authorizing payroll dues deductions in favor of the
Union.
Sixteen individual employees filed charges of unfair labor practices
against both Company and Union on May 28, 1956. Copies of the
charges were served on the Respondents the next day. Between April
15, when the contract was made, and May 29, when the charges were
received, the Company, through its officers and supervisors, advised
newly hired employees of the existing contract and of their obligation
to join the Teamsters Local as a condition of continued employment.
The Respondents executed a new agreement on June 13, 1956, in
which they first expressly rescinded the April contract. But for two
changes, the new agreement was exactly like the earlier one; the
recognition clause was altered so as to recognize Local 986 only as
representative of its members, and the union-security clause was
deleted. Aside from an annual wage modification clause, this con-
tract, like the earlier one, was binding upon the parties for 10 years.
2 Although the pleadings in this case and both of the contracts made by and between
the Respondents refer to employees of the Company without limitation to the Los
Angeles area , it is clear from the record as a whole that the parties, including the
General Counsel, proceeded on the theory that the entire proceeding was intended to be,
and is, limited to the Company's four Los. Angeles locations.
-812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At no time after the January election or up to and including April
15, 1956, has the Respondent Union represented or claimed to repre-
sent a majority of this Company's employees in a unit appropriate
for collective bargaining, and at all times since that election and up to
the making of the contracts described above the Respondent Company
knew that the Teamsters Local did not represent a majority of
its employees in any appropriate bargaining unit or claim such
representation. .
The complaint does not point to any particular act of the Respond-
ents as constituting a separate unfair labor practice in itself. It
alleges instead that by all the foregoing conduct the Company unlaw-
fully restrained and coerced its employees in their freedom to choose
or reject a union, rendered illegal assistance to Local 986, and discrimi-
nated against its employees for the purpose of encouraging them to
join that union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the
Act. It also alleges that by entering into the two contracts, Local 986
coerced the employees in their union choice and caused the Company
to discriminate against them unlawfully, in violation of Section 8
(b) (1) (A) and (b ) (2) of the statute . In its motion to dismiss,
the Company asserts that none of its conduct was unlawful. Its
principal defense, however, is that whatever illegal coercion may
have been caused was fully dissipated by the rescission of the April
contract 2 months later, and by the limitation which the Company
imposed upon the Union's recognition in the members-only contract
of June 13. The Respondent Union offered no different defense.
If the record showed nothing more than execution of the April
contract, it would suffice to establish clear violations of each of the
sections of the Act as alleged in the complaint. The Union did not
represent a majority of the employees involved when the contract was
signed; no claim of majority had ever been made; and the Company
knew it was dealing in April with a minority representative. The
Board has held that the mere execution of such a union-security and
exclusive-recognition agreement under these factual circumstances
violates Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (b) (2).3
Apart from the April contract itself, the record otherwise affirma-
tively reveals the Company's determination to assist Local 986 and to
entrench it in the Max Factor plants in complete disregard not only
of its employees' right to make their oNvn choice in the matter, but
also of their express rejection of this same Union. Levi's explanation
to the employees on April 16-discussed below-of the Company's
, Charles W. Carter Co., 115 NLRB 251, page 262, and the several cases cited there.
In that case, the same Teamsters Local 986 forced a union-security exclusive contract
upon another Los Angeles company in the absence of any majority status, in striking
similarity to the facts in the instant case.
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY 813
decision leaves no doubt that the entire course of action was to assist
Local 986 regardless of how unlawful the methods had to be.
Thus, from the date of the contract to the day that charges in this
case were served upon the Company, its representatives told new
employees that their jobs depended upon willingness to become
members of the Teamsters Local. Further, the Company itself dis-
tributed to its employees invitations to a Local 986 meeting. We
cannot, as the Company suggests, view this form of encouragement
towards a particular union as a mere courtesy occasioned by inability
to furnish a standard mailing list. On May 9, Teamsters Local 986
was already an unlawfully assisted union in these plants. In the
total picture of a plan designed to render unlawful aid to the
Teamsters Local, the distribution of these invitations is but another
step taken by the Company to further its overall purpose.
We are also convinced, on the record as a whole, that the
Respondents resorted to the members-only contract of June 13 as but
a further device to assist Local 986, and that such ostensible limited
recognition was not extended for the purpose of enabling a minority
group to engage in collective bargaining limited to themselves. The
Company argues that a members-only contract in itself is entirely
legal and that, therefore, in no event may its execution constitute an
unfair labor practice, either independently or as part of a total course
of conduct. The General Counsel, on the other hand, contends in his
brief that such an agreement is per se violative of the Act.
We find it unnecessary to pass upon the legality, in isolation, of a
members-only contract in this case. We view the June contract as an
integral part of the Respondents' entire course of conduct (the com-
plaint so reads) from which there emerges a clear design to cut off
any freedom of choice by the employees, or, as the General Counsel
calls it in his brief, "organization from the top." The clearest evidence
of this overall plan is in Levi's prepared speech of April 16. He
equated the employees' interest in selecting the Union with that of
the Company. "I hope that from now on our interest will be so much
in common...." Yet he knew the employees did not want the Team-
sters Local. ". .. it [Company recognition of the Teamsters] must
come as a very great shock to you." He threatened them. ". . . what
is good for the employer must be good for the employees, and what is
bad for the employer must also be bad for the employees. . . . If .. .
we are forced to close down . . . you people are not going to be
helped . . . if we can keep going . . . with a minimum of . . . labor
interference . . . then you folks are going to keep ahead of the game
with . . . constant pay envelopes. . . ."
Although Levi did not openly articulate the reason the Company
agreed to commit unfair labor practices in April, it appears clearly
between the lines as fear of economic pressure by the Teamsters. The
Company was not concerned with what Max Factor employees might
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do or want. Levi went on to tell the Los Angeles employees ":.. if,
for example, the Chicago warehouse should be picketed or closed down,
then we here in California would have to all take a layoff and close
clown.. .." Unmistakably, the Company was interested in the, Union
apart from the employees. "We are not too concerned about future
employees being forced to join the Union . . . now that we have
decided to sign with the Union, our attitude is going to be that we
are going to do everything in our power to make the Union suc-
cessful.... I would be very happy had the Unions never heard of us
or found our little hideaway but as long as they did...."
There is nothing to indicate that this clearly unlawful motivation
in dealing with Local 986 at all, ceased, or was replaced by any proper
and lawful intent within less than 2 months. Instead, all that appears
in explanation is the immediate protest by the Los Angeles employees
and the receipt of copies of charges from the Regional Office. In such
a chain of events even the 10-year term of the June contract appears
more as a deliberate plan to root Local 986 into the Company than any
reasonable dealing with a minority group of employees.
When the June 13 contract was made, Local 986 had been established
in a position of prestige and even power in the Max Factor plants
through the clearly unlawful April agreement. Thus, even the limited
membership which Local 986 may have enjoyed on June 13 was not
clearly an uncoerced membership, for the April contract compelled
Teamster adherents to retain membership on pain of discharge .4
Further, in announcing the second contract, the Company only assured
the employees that they were. free to join or reject Local 986; it did
not reassure them of freedom to select any other labor organization.
And finally, that the entire purpose in executing the members-only
contract was to persist-under colorable legality-in the unaltered
determination to entrench Local 986 despite its overwhelming rejection
shortly before, is an inescapable conclusion from the entire record.
In conclusion, we find, on the basis of all the facts in the record,
that the Respondent Company committed unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and that the
Respondent Union committed unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A).'
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and
' See Newark Newsdealers Supply Company , 94 NLRB 1667, where , in commenting
upon an unlawful union -security contract , the Board said :
Moreover , by including the unlawful union security provision in the 1948 contract
the Respondent also interfered with the right of union members to give up their
union membership , as, under the terms of the contract , the exercise of that right
could result in reduction in benefits or even discharge if the union so desire.
See Sunbeam Corporation, 99 NLRB 546.
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY 815
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the Respondent Company unlawfully recog-
nized and rendered support to Respondent Local 986 and unlawfully
entered into a collective-bargaining contract containing union-security
provisions. We shall therefore order that the Respondent Company
withdraw and withhold all recognition from Respondent Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, unless and
until it is certified by this Board as such representative. As we have
also found that the second contract, dated June 13, 1956, granting
limited recognition to the Respondent Union was, in the total facts
of this case, a further form of unlawful assistance to the Union, we
shall also order the Respondent Company to cease giving effect to
that contract, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, or to any superseding contract. Moreover, as one of the forms
of unlawful assistance to the Respondent Union was the use of a
members-only contract, we shall enjoin the Respondent Company from
recognizing the Respondent Union even to the limited extent of
members-only recognition until such time as the Union is certified as
exclusive bargaining agent by this Board.
Clearly, there is no merit in the Company's contention that the June
contract served to dispel the effects of any earlier unfair labor prac-
tices, and that therefore no further remedy is now required. As stated
above, we are not now deciding whether a members-only contract,
standing apart from any other unlawful conduct by the contracting
parties, is per se a violation of the statute. Even assuming, however,
that a members-only contract is not per se unlawful, such fact alone
could not serve to limit the Board's broad power to remedy the unfair
labor practices committed. The Board has repeatedly issued like re-
straining orders respecting exclusive recognition contracts despite a
union's majority status, contracts which per se certainly would not
be unlawful, and the courts have uniformly approved its orders.' In
any event, a respondent's conduct after the commission of unfair labor
practices cannot affect the Board's power in its discretion to issue a
remedial order.'
The Respondent Company's coercion of employees to join Respond-
ent Union, the potent support and assistance rendered to that organ-
ization, including its unlawful recognition in bargaining with it as
the exclusive representative of employees, demonstrate that the com-
mission of similar unlawful labor practices may be anticipated in the
future. Our remedy should be coextensive with the threat. We
shall therefore order that the Respondents cease and desist from
See, for example, N. L. R. B. v. Wemyss, 212 F. 2d 465, 473-474 (C. A. 9).
IN. L. R, B. v. Mexia Textiles Mills, 339 U. S. 563.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Company as set forth in section
III above, occurring in connection with its operations as described in
section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 986, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By recognizing, by executing and maintaining a contract con-
taining union-security provisions with Respondent Union, by enforc-
ing said provisions, thereby encouraging membership in Respondent
Union, and by otherwise assisting Respondent Union, Respondent
Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (2) and (3) of the Act.
3. In the foregoing manner, by interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. By executing and maintaining a contract containing union-
security provisions, and by causing the Respondent Company to dis-
criminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Union has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting- commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
I. The Respondent Company, Max Factor & Company, Los Angeles,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY 817
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Encouraging membership in Respondent Union, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 986, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization of its employees, by compelling them to become or remain
members of that organization under threat of discharge, or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent
authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) Giving effect to its contract of June 13, 1956, with the above-
named labor organization, or to any extension, renewal, modification
or supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement, unless and
until said labor organization shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as the representative of Respondent Com-
pany's employees.
(3) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Withhold and withdraw all recognition from Respondent
Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 986, AFL-
CIO, as the representative of its Los Angeles employees (even limited
to its members) for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and
until said labor organization shall have been duly certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of
such employees.
(2) Post in conspicuous places, at its places of business, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent Company, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
8In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an
Order."
450559-59-vol. 118-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. The Respondent Union, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Local 986, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents,
shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Company, Max
Factor & Company, to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) Giving effect to the contract of June 13, 1956, with the Re-
spondent Company, or to any extension, renewal, modification or
supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement, unless and
until Respondent Union shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as the representative of the aforesaid em-
ployees of Respondent Company.
(3) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of the
Respondent Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(1) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." 9 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Re-
spondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(2) Mail to the Regional. Director for the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of the notice for posting, the Respondent Company
willing, in places where notices to the employees of the Company are
customarily posted, for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after. Copies of said notice shall be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector, signed by the Respondent Union, and forthwith returned to
the Regional Director for posting.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
9 See footnote 8, supra.
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
819
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees and
prospective employees that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 986, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization, by compelling our employees to become or remain
members of said labor organization under threat of discharge,
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment,
except to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the contract of June 13, 1956, with
Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO,
or to any extension, renewal, modification or supplement thereof,
or to any superseding agreement, unless and until said labor
organization shall have been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL withhold and withdraw all recognition from Local
986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, as the
representative of our Los Angeles employees (even limited to its
members) for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and
until said labor organization shall have been duly certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive repre-
sentative of such employees.
MAx FACTOR & COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 986 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
MAX FACTOR & COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Max Factor & Company
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the contract of June 13, 1956, with
Max Factor & Company, or to any extension, renewal, modifi-
cation or supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement,
unless and until Local 986, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL-CIO, shall have been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the representative of the employees of Max
Factor & Company.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of Max Factor & Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
LOCAL 986, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , AFL-CIO,
Union.
Dated----- ----------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Southern Wire and Iron , Inc. and Construction and General
Laborers ' Union Local No. 438, International Hod Carriers',
Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 10-CA-2646. July 25,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 20, 1956, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
118 NLRB No. 100.