Over-The-Road Drivers, Local 544

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 389 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

OVER-THE-ROAD DRIVERS, LOCAL 544 389
Over-the-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and
Market Drivers, Helpers & Inside Employees
Union, Local 544, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and ITT Conti-
nental Baking Co, Inc . and Emrich Baking Compa-
ny and Stewart In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minne-
sota, Inc. Cases 18-CC-487-1, 18-CC-487-2, and
18-CC-488
of Emrich, threatening management representatives
of Continental, picketing the premises of Emrich and
Continental, or threatening, coercing, or restraining
any other neutral employer within its jurisdictional
area, with an object of forcing these companies to
cease doing business with Stewart In-Fra-Red
Commissary of Minnesota, Inc."
DECISION
April 30, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On March 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter, the General Counsel filed an
exception and a supporting brief, and the Respon-
dent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exception and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order which is modified
herein to conform to his recommended Remedy.
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, as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Over-the-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and
Market Drivers, Helpers & Inside Employees Union,
Local 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
Delete paragraph 1 from the recommended Order
and substitute the following:
"1. Cease and desist from threatening to call a
strike of the employees of Bell Cold Storage, Inc., or
of Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, destroying
the products of Continental Baking Company,
threatening physical personal violence to employees
and management representatives of Emrich Compa-
ny, having its pickets physically occupy the building
210 NLRB No. 50
THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this proceeding was held on February 14, 1974, at
Minneapolis, Minnesota, on complaint of the General
Counsel against Over-The-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage,
Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers and Inside Employ-
ees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent or Local
544. On three separate charges filed, on January 8, 1974, by
ITT Continental Baking Co. (Case 18-CC-481-1), on
January 8, 1974, by Emrich Baking Company (Case
18-CC-487-2), and on January 18, 1974, by Stewart In-
Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc. (Case
18-CC-488), the complaint issued on January 25, 1974.
The sole issue in the case is whether the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(iiXB) of the Act.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Steward In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc., is a
Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture and
wholesale distribution of sandwiches and related food
products in Eden Praire, Minnesota. Stewart annually sells
goods valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount
valued in excess of $50,000 is shipped from its facility in
Minnesota annually to points directly outside the State.
ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail distrib-
ution of bakery products in and about the city of
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Its annual revenues exceed
$500,000 and it annually purchases goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000 shipped to its Minneapolis
location directly from sources outside the State.
Emrich Baking Company is a Minnesota corporation
engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of bakery
products also in the city of Minneapolis. Emrich annually
purchases goods and products valued in excess of $50,000,
of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 is shipped
to its Minneapolis location directly from out-of-state
sources.
I find that Steward In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minneso-
ta, Inc., ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., and
Emrich Baking Company, are engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Over-The-Road , Transfer , Cold Storage,
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Grocery and Market Drivers , Helpers and Inside Employ-
ees Union , Local 544, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issue Presented
This is a secondary boycott case. Throughout the events
explored at the hearing , Teamsters Local 544, the sole
Respondent cited in the complaint , was engaged in a labor
dispute with the Stewart Company, here therefore revealed
as the primary employer; Local 544 represented Stewart's
employees and had called them out on strike . Stewart
normally buys bakery products from Continental Baking
and Emrich Bakery, and it utilizes the storage facilities of
Minneapolis Cold Storage Company and Bell Cold Storage
Inc. The evidence shows that to further its objective against
Stewart, Local 544 tried, in a number of ways, to curtail, or
stop altogether , the business which Stewart did with all
four of these last companies , which, accordingly , are the
secondary or neutral employers in this proceeding. It had
its pickets follow the Stewart trucks to the premises of the
secondary companies and patrol them when they were at
these locations loading in the regular course of business; it
had its officers communicate with management representa-
tives of these companies in the effort to interrupt the
business carried on between the primary and the secondary
employers ; it had its pickets intimidate Stewart's employ-
ees while they worked at the premises of the neutrals; and,
it seems , it also had its pickets coerce and threaten
employees of the secondary companies so as to restrain
them too from working. There are also indications of acts
of violence committed against the property of the neutrals
and their employees-damage to the cars of secondary
employees , destruction of the automobile of the manager
of a neutral company, and bomb explosions in the
buildings of neutral companies.
The persuasiveness of the evidence offered to prove
much of this picture of misconduct and violence varies
from alleged incident to alleged incident ; some of it is not
clear . What is absolutely clear in the total picture of the
case is that the complaint is limited to a single proscriptive
section of the statute-and it is Section 8(bX4XiiXB). The
record as it stands could well support multiple unfair labor
practice findings under other sections of the Act. The
Respondent chose to rest at the close of the General
Counsel's case-in-chief. Whether or not the testimony of
the witnesses suffices to establish this or that asserted fact
is always a question , but absent some inherent and
fundamental implausibility in their stories , they must be
believed, for their testimony stands uncontradicted. It does
not follow, however, that findings of statutory violations
not alleged in the complaint can be made against the
Respondent merely because the General Counsel proved
them. Nor may unfair labor practice findings be made
against other persons or organizations , merely because
they have been proved, so long as such persons are not
named as respondents in the proceeding.
Clarification of this question is important at the outset
because there is a certain fuzz at the edges of both the facts
of record and the General Counsel 's arguments. It is
unlawful to induce and encourage the employees of neutral
companies to strike , when the Respondent has a secondary
objective . This is Section 8(bx4)(iXB). It is unlawful to
restrain and coerce any employees in the right to refuse to
join in with union, or concerted activities , no matter what
union so treats them . This is Section 8(b)(IXA). Neither of
these sections is mentioned in this complaint. Section
8(b)(4Xii)(B), which is in the complaint , says a union may
not "threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce . . . ." This means, and at this late date there is
no longer any question about it, that the union may not
threaten, or coerce, the employer, or any representative of
management. Section 8(b)(4XiiXB) has nothing to do with
how a union behaves towards employees-anybody's
employees-be it those of the primary or the secondary
companies . At the hearing the General Counsel seemed to
be arguing that if a union "induces" the neutral's
employees to cease doing their regular work , the union
simultaneously also thereby "coerces" their employer to
stop doing business . The proposition obliterates two clear
statutory distinctions-that separating inducement from
coercion, and that distinguishing between an employer and
its employees . Again, the General Counsel had a witness
say that tires on the cars of employees of a neutral were
slashed. Assuming it was proved this was done , on that
Company's employee parking lot , by agents of the
Respondent Union , it would be coercion upon those
employees to cease work and a violation of Section
8(b)(IXA). The General Counsel's reasoning then becomes,
as it must, that because a union coerces employees, it of
necessity by the same act threatens their employer, and
coercion of employees is thus equated with coercion of the
employer. It could as persuasively be argued that if
Congress had intended to make proof of violation of one
precise section of the statute automatic violation of a
totally separate one, it would have said so.
Violations of Section 8(b)(4)
1. Local 544 resorted to the technique of having its
pickets follow the Stewart trucks on their regular rounds.
In the morning of December 26, 1973, one such truck
arrived at the loading dock of Bell Cold Storage; two
pickets were there, standing near the truck but on Bell's
property, one with a sign saying "on strike-Stewart
Sandwiches." Local 544 also represents the employees of
Bell, and Charles Madden , president of Local 544, happens
to be a Bell employee . While the Stewart truck was at the
dock, Madden told Robert Golden, a general manager of
Bell, that Bell's "employees could not unload it or would
not unload it and our supervisor could not unload it," and
that Golden "was asking for trouble to go ahead and do
this." Gerald Robinson, Bell's assistant warehouse superin-
tendent , was also present then. At one point Golden told
him to go ahead and start unloading Stewart 's truck, but
Madden, and a Local 544 steward named Tabery, then
said, according to Robinson 's testimony: "if I proceeded to
pull the load out from out of the truck they would pull our
people out of the warehouse." The truck, and the pickets,
remained where they were , while on advice of counsel the
OVER-THE-ROAD DRIVERS, LOCAL 544 391
Bell people did nothing. After 3 in the afternoon they did
unload it. From that day to the time of the hearing on
February 14, no Stewart trucks have come to this location
of Bell's; by arrangement between the two companies they
have transacted their businesses elsewhere.
I find that by Madden's and Tabery's statements to the
Bell company management agents that they would call
Bell's employees out on strike if the Stewart trucks were
unloaded, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4Xii)(B) of
the Act.
2. Stewart also uses the cold storage facilities of
Minneapolis Cold Storage. On January 4, 1974, Gerald
Collier, vice president and business agent of Local 544,
went to the place of business of the Minneapolis company.
After talking to the union steward there, one John
Marjack, Collier talked to Morris Luby, the traffic
manager . From Luby's testimony: "He [Collins] said, `Did
you realize 544 is on strike against Stewart Sandwiches?'
... He said, `Well, the goods that you took into this
warehouse must not move from this warehouse.' He said,
`If this happens again, we will call out your men.' " From
that day to the hearing date Minneapolis Cold Storage has
told Stewart not to send any of its trucks there, and none
have gone. I find that by Collier's threat voiced to Luby
that Local 544 would call a strike of the Minneapolis plant
to enforce the demand that the Minneapolis company
cease doing business with Stewart, the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
3. On January 7, 1974, a Stewart truck arrived at the
premises of Emrich, one of the baking companies which
normally sells its products to Stewart. The pickets were
gathered outside the fence 30 minutes before the truck
came . When it did, about 14 pickets followed the truck into
Emrich's property close to the loading dock; two carried
signs reading "Stewart In-Fra-Red on strike. Stay away.
Teamster Local 544." As the driver of the truck and his
helper started to unload empty tray carriers of baked
goods, later to be taken into the building by Emrich
employees and loaded by them for replacement in the
truck, about six of the pickets went inside the building and
started to mill about. One of them asked Richard
Donnelly, the production superintendent, was he going to
help load the truck, and Donnelly said yes. There also
appeared then Jerome Froehlig, business agent of Bakery
Union 22; this is the union which represents Emrich's
inside production employees. Froehlig told Donnelly:
"What do you want to get involved in this for." One picket
stood outside a fence, perhaps 3 or 4 feet away from the
rear of the unloading truck, where the Stewart helper was
working. He yelled to the helper "he would tear his
goddamned head off. He called him a scab." With all the
confusion two policemen who were trying to keep things
quiet told the pickets to withdraw from the company
property and to stand outside, on the road or the sidewalk.
Soon no less than four company managers of one kind or
another were pushing carts out of the building to load them
onto the truck; these were Donnelly, Emrich, Anderson,
and Marsh. With this, five or six pickets again came on the
property along the side of the truck and one of them,
despite the efforts of a policeman to prevent him,
deliberately threw over a loaded carrier of bakery products
Emrich himself was trying to get onto the truck; the food
fell to the ground. Another picket stepped on it, then
himself threw over another fully loaded food carrier, and
said to Emrich : "We are going to get you." The police
finally persuaded the pickets to return to the sidewalk.
The two policemen then on duty testified at the hearing.
One of them, Anatoli Globa, said he took the lead
picket-the first to throw over the food carrier-to his
patrol car and checked his identity. It was Collier, the
Local 544 vice president. When the policemen told Collier
"he shouldn't be doing" such things, the answer was "he
wanted to scare them and wanted to teach them a lesson."
I find that by this total activity at the Emrich plant that
day the Respondent threatened and coerced the Emrich
company and its representatives in violation of Section
8(b)(4Xii)(B) of the Act. This was no mere following of the
truck of a primary employer to publicize a primary labor
dispute . Such mass picketing of a single truck having only
two employees of the primary employer, such unauthorized
occupation of the very inside premises of the secondary
employer, such direct threats voiced to management
agents, and outright physical destruction of the property of
the secondary company for the exact object of forcing it to
cease doing business with the primary employer, constitute
the clearest violations of the section in question.
Jeffery Emrich, the company witness, also testified that
on January 8, the day following this incident , he saw on the
parked cars of his employees, 15 slashed tires, and that on
November 27 a bomb had been exploded at his building,
the damage including many broken window panes. The
witness implied at the hearing it was his belief the
vandalism he described had been caused by the pickets,
and, of necessity , by agents of Local 544 . There is no
evidence otherwise tying responsibility to Local 544.
Suspicion is not tantamount to proof . I do not think it fair
to make the inference of illegal conduct by the Respon-
dent, as urged by the General Counsel, with respect to this
damage seen by Emrich.
4. Continental Baking also sells its products to Stewart;
its employees are represented by Teamster Local 289. On
November 26, Ray Wallin, business agent of Local 289,
telephoned Fred Grenier , general manager of Continental,
as Grenier testified, and ". . . instructed me or advised me
that I was not to deliver any products or produce any
products for Stewart In-Fra-Red because they were on
strike with Local 544. . . . He [Wallin] didn't want any of
his people handling any products that was going to Stewart
In-Fra-Red. He asked me if I knew who headed Local 544
and I said no, I didn't. He then told me that an individual
by the name of Fred Snyder was in charge of Local 544
and that Mr. Snyder was the type of an individual who
would resort to any means to get what he wanted . . .
Grenier told Wallin the Company would continue to do
business as it always had. The next day, still according to
Grenier, an explosive was thrown at the Continental
Baking Building, causing considerable damage.
There came a time when both Continental and Emrich
took to loading their products onto Stewart's trucks at
another location , a Continental plant 6 miles away from
where that Company normally did business with Stewart.
Here , on Monday, December 3, at a loading area of that
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant, a Stewart truck was : being loaded-back ^ to back
-from a Continental truck, and also from an Emrich
truck. As the work was going on, Wallin, of Local 289,
bargaining agent for Continental's route salesmen, ap-
peared, and told Frank Stupca, a Continental sales
supervisor: "we were to quit loading the Stewart truck or
we would be out of work, they would shut us down." The
loading of the Stewart truck ceased and it left.
Stupca also testified that "the weekend of December 1st
or 2nd," there was a fire in his garage and his car "burned
up.
On December 26, as a Stewart truck arrived at
Continental, Collier, the vice president of Local 544, came
and talked to the highest management representative then
present, John Sorenson, a sales supervisor. He said "I don't
want that Stewart truck loaded." Sorenson answered the
Stewart people loaded their own truck and that Continen-
tal's employees were represented by Local 289, not Local
544. To this Collier said "As of now this implicates you and
everybody here." Sorenson checked with his superiors and
went ahead with the regular work. The Stewart truck came
on the premises, Stewart pickets followed it in, and then
threw nails into the truck well, where the truck had to come
and stand. Sorenson ordered the pickets to remove the
nails , and they did, but only after the Stewart truck had
left.
That same day, Wallin, of Local 289, telephoned Robert
Gorden, another sales manager, and asked would he meet
with Wallin and a representative of the Bakers Union,
because he, Wallin, "was afraid that there might be a
possibility of somebody getting killed the way the Stewart
situation was going." The next day, December 27, there
was a meeting in the Radisson Hotel in Minneapolis.
Present were Froehlig, of Bakers Local 22, Wallin of Local
289, and Jack Jorgenson, president of Teamsters Joint
Council No. 32. Local 289 and Local 544 are both
members of the Joint Council. For employers, there were
Gordon of Continental, George Emrich, of Emrich Baking
Co., Jerry Grueland, of American Bakeries , and John
Coolidge, of Sinsmaster Bakery Company. Froehlig and
Wallin told the employer representatives they feared "some
physical violence erupting from the happenings," and had
been receiving calls from their members voicing fear of
violence in consequence of the strike and picketing
activities of Local 544. Jorgenson said he thought the
companies were "hindering the progress of the strike by
continuing to bake . . . he thought if we discontinued
baking the product and serving the account that they could
reach an agreement with Stewart." When a company agent
expressed fear he might lose the business to outsiders,
Jorgenson assured him the unions would find a way to
guard against that. The company people said they would
think about the suggestion and then Jorgenson said "if the
production continued, if the product continued to flow into
Stewart that he wouldn't be responsible for what might
happen so far as the picketing was concerned."
There is much on this record to indicate that word of the
excessive picketing activities by Local 544 at the premises
of neutral companies was passed from one of them to
another . When 14 pickets accompany a single truck, which
has only one or two employees of the primary company on
it, and they clutter about the loading platform at the
secondary situs , it is difficult to believe that that union's
object was solely to reach the loading or unloading of the
one truck . Picketing in such numbers carries a broader
threat that is not too thinly veiled. When Collier told
Sorenson he did "not want Stewart 's trucks loaded," his
words carried more than a polite request , it was more than
an invitation to voluntary cooperation. The Respondent
skirted the border of legality altogether too much; its
pickets regularly arrived long before Stewart's trucks and
sometimes stayed near the secondary premises for quite a
while only to have no Stewart truck arrive at all. They were
not "following the primary situs"; they were passing a
message to all employees in sight-and particularly those
of the secondary employers. In the light of everything else
shown here , I find that Collier 's statement to Sorenson
constituted a threat in violation of Section 8(bX4XiiXB). I
also find, on the basis of the testimony of several witnesses,
including one of the policemen, all uncontradicted, that by
appearing at the premises of both Emrich and Continental,
long before any Stewart truck arrived, as well as when it
did not arrive at all, and by picketing on and off the
premises of these secondary employers in numbers some-
times reaching into 12 and 14 persons , the Respondent
effectively picketed the premises of the neutral employers,
apart from any concept of following primary vehicles, and
thereby violated Section 8(b)(4XiiXB).
As to the activities of the other union agents , Froehlig,
Wallin, and Jorgenson, in their talks with Continental and
the other bakery companies in the hotel meeting, a
different question is presented. Concededly they gave no
overt indication they represented Local 544, or had been
sent by that particular local, or intended to speak on its
behalf. Certainly the fact that Respondent was a member
of the Council is not enough to merge Council and its
component member into a single labor organization for
purposes of prosecution under Section 8(b) of this Act.
Moreover, what they told the baking companies on its face
shows perfect objective basis for their request that the
secondaries voluntarily yield to what was no more than a
pure request. They had a right to ask for cooperation, they
articulated adequate grounds-fears expressed by their
members, and they were not named respondent here. To
base an unfair labor finding against Local 544 in this
proceeding upon what was said by anyone in that meeting
would require inference upon inference. It would have to
be inferred Jorgenson and the others intended a threat,
although they did not use threatening words. It would also
have to be inferred they were agents of Local 544, although
the evidence on its face does not show this. I find
unpersuasive the argument in the General Counsel's brief
that because the Respondent did not prove that Jorgenson
and Wallin did not represent Local 544, it follows that they
did represent Local 544. I can make no such conclusionary
finding of illegality with respect to Local 544 as the
complaint proposes.
I think the same must be said of the testimony about a
fire in the home garage of Frank Stupca and the damage to
the building of Continental Baking. There is no proof all of
this was the doing of Local 544 or its agents, and the
OVER-THE-ROAD DRIVERS, LOCAL 544 393
statute requires no less to support an unfair labor practice
finding.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent and its agents have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the statutory
scheme requires that an order be entered requiring it to
cease and desist from such practices. The violations of the
proscriptions of the statute reveal so flagrant and extensive
a disregard of the dictates of law as to require that the
Respondent be enjoined not only to cease and desist from
hereafter violating this section of the statute with respect to
these particular secondary employers, but also with respect
to any other neutral employers within its jurisdictional
area.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of all
four of the companies discussed 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. Stewart , Emrich, and Continental are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Local 544 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to call a strike of the employees of
Bell Cold Storage, Inc., and of Minneapolis Cold Storage
Company, by destroying the products of Continental
Baking, by threatening physical personal violence to
employees and management representatives of Emrich, by
having its pickets physically occupy the building of
Emrich, by threatening a management representative of
Continental, and by picketing the premises of Emrich and
Continental, all for the purpose of forcing each of these
named employers to cease doing business with Stewart In-
Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc., the Respondent
has violated and is violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER1
The Respondent, Over-the-Road, Transfer, Cold Stor-
age, Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers and Inside
Employees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, its officers, representatives, and
agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening to call a strike of
the employees of Bell Cold Storage, Inc., or of Minneapolis
Cold Storage Company, destroying the products of
Continental Baking Company, threatening physical per-
sonal violence to employees and management representa-
tives of Emrich Company, having its pickets physically
occupy the building of Emrich, threatening management
representatives of Continental, or picketing the premises of
Emrich and Continental, with an object of forcing these
companies to cease doing business with Stewart In-Fra-
Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said
notice, to be duly furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 18, shall, after being signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent Union, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the
Regional Director for Region 18, for posting by ITT
Continental Baking Company, Emrich Baking Company,
Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, and Bell Cold
Storage, such employers being willing, at all places where
notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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
its findings , conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
2 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain ITT
Continental Baking Company, Emrich Baking Compa-
ny, Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, Bell Cold
Storage, or any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce , where an object
thereof is to force or require it to cease doing business
with Stewart In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota,
Inc.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OVER-THE-ROAD , T* TSFER,
COLD STORAGE, GROOERY
AND MARKET DRIVERS,
HELPERS AND INSIDE
EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL
544, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 316
Federal Building, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401 , Telephone 612-725-2611.