Overland Distribution Centers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 727 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

OVERLAND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, INC. 727
Overland Distribution Centers, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Warehouse,
Mail Order, Ice, Cold Storage, Soft Drink, Waste
Paper, Distribution Workers, Egg Breakers, Can-
dlers , Miscellaneous Drivers and Helpers, Kansas
City, Missouri, Kansas City, Kansas and Vicinities,
Local No. 838 and Independent Distribution Local
No. 77, Party to the Contract . Case 17-CA-4532
December 23, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On August 31, 1971, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions 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 Trial Examiner, as modified herein,
and hereby orders that the Respondent, Overland
Distribution Centers, Inc., its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order as so modified.
1 As the Respondent was not found to be in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, we will delete paragraph 1(d) of the recommended Order and
the third full paragraph of the recommended notice.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PHIL SAUNDERS , Trial Examiner : This case was tried at
Kansas City, Missouri, on April 27, 1971, The charge was
filed by the Union on January 5, 1971 (amended on March
11), and the complaint was issued on March 31 , The
primary issues are whether the Company or Respondent
unlawfully engaged in violative 8(a)(1) conduct , whether
Respondent dominated and assisted with the formation
and administration of a labor organization and thereby
engaged in violative 8(a)(2) conduct, and whether or not the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: I
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation engaged in the business
of providing storage or warehouse facilities for goods of
their customers at its facility in Independence, Missouri,
the only facility herein involved.
In the course and conduct of its business, the Respondent
renders services at an annual rate in excess of $50,000 to
corporations, business firms, and/or individuals which
themselves are directly engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act and which meet the
appropriate jurisdictional standards established by the
Board.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union and Independent Distribution Local No. 77,
herein Local 77 or the Independent Union, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
It appears in this record that Respondent was activated as
a business enterprise on October 13, 1970,2 and became an
operative corporation on or about October 14. Some of the
employees hired by the Respondent had previously worked
for the construction contractor who built the warehouse
facilities here in question.
The General Counsel produced testimony through
employee Harvey Zeman to the effect that when applying
for work Respondent Vice President Keith Crawford told
Zeman that the Respondent "wanted a union," and "had to
have a union to operate." Employees Ralph Cole and A. B.
South stated that even prior to the official activation date of
the Company they had been informed by Raymond Barker,
Respondent's maintenance foreman, that the Company
would like to have an "independent union."
It appears that in October the Union involved in this
proceeding also became interested in the Respondents'
employees. Zeman and another employee discussed
organizational procedures with a representative of the
Union, and a few days thereafter Vice President Keith
Crawford asked employee Ralph Cole if he and others were
trying to bring the Union in. Cole denied interest in the
Union, and Supervisor Raymond Barker then replied "that
all we wanted to hear." On or about October 19, 8 out of
approximately 11 employees signed authorization cards for
the Union.3 -
There is credited testimony by employees Zeman and
South to the effect that in November there were further
1 All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite
evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the
evidence as a whole.
2 All dates hereinafter are 1970 unless specifically stated otherwise.
3 The appropriate unit is described in the complaint as follows. All
warehouse employees and truckdrivers, including maintenance employees,
(Continued)
194 NLRB No. 113
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discussions by management about the Independent Union,
and in relation thereto both employees have recollection of
a proposed 10-year contract being circulated, read, and
explained to them. Zeman stated that in November
employees were called in to the office and Vice President
Crawford read a proposed contract to them,4 but at this
time they could not agree on certain provisions contained
therein.
On December 1 the Union filed a petition for an election
with the Board, and on the same date sent a telegram to the
Company demanding recognition as the bargaining agent
for their warehouse and maintenance employees. This
demand was received by the Respondent on the following
day.
On December 2 there were two meetings between
management and employees. At the first meeting around 1
p.m., Vice President Crawford again went over the
proposed 10-year contract with Local 77 as the bargaining
agent and which he had previously discussed with the
employees in November, and right then and there
management wanted the employees to sign this contract,
but there were still several objections to certain clauses
contained therein. At the time there was no Local 77, as
such, in existence and the Company admits that Local 77
did not come into existence until after December 2.
Sometime during the meetings on December 2, the
employees named Harvey Zeman as their spokesman. The
Company wanted "someone" to be elected president but
the employees refused this suggestion. Later in the day,
Respondent President Arthur Rhoades, a practicing
physician and surgeon, came to the warehouse and the
employees were again assembled and the entire proposed
10-year contract was then read and discussed from "cover
to cover." Dr. Rhoades agreed to cut the duration of the
proposed 10-year contract to 5 years and agreements were
also reached on certain pay scales and numerous other
provisions. It appears that after each clause or subject
matter was read, a showing of hands was had to vote the
acceptance of each clause. At the conclusion of the meeting
a final vote was taken and the employees approved the
contract by a 6 to 5 vote.5 At the meeting on December 2,
there was also a discussion between management and the
employees on the election of officers. Supervisor Crawford
told the employees they would have to have officers, and
these remarks 'apparently lead to the naming of Zeman as
temporary spokesman. On this date the employees received
overtime pay of 1 hour. Eight unit employees signed this
contract and it is noted that the agreement is quite extensive
in its coverage and scope. There is credited testimony by
several witnesses that the second meeting on December 2
lasted until about 7 that evening-the normal quitting time
is around 4:30 in the afternoon.
On December 3, Supervisor Barker came around the
employed by the Respondent at its underground warehouse located at
16500 East Truman Road, Independence, Missouri, but excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
4 See G.C Exh 2.
5 See G C. Exh 3 bearing an effective date of October 30 and with
Local 77 as the bargaining agent
6 Zeman testified Rhoades informed employees that the contract they
had signed was "null and void" because the Union had filed their petition,
and also told them if they wanted the Union they could have the Union,
warehouse with ballots for the election of officers for Local
77 and Zeman's name for president was printed at the top
of the ballots, but the remaining officers were left blank for
employees to write in their choice, and in accordance
therewith officers for Local 77 were elected.
Dr. Rhoades testified that on December 3 he contacted
the Board's Regional Office to ascertain what he should do
about the Respondent's signed contract with Local 77 since
he had been informed on the previous day that the Union
had a=majority of cards of unit employees and demanded
recognition, as aforementioned herein. Rhoades stated he
was advised that the contract signed with Local 77 on
December 2 was "probably not proper," because the Union
had filed their petition on December 1, and testified it was
further suggested to him that employees be sent to Kansas
City to further discuss the matter, and Rhoades then related
this information to the employees.6
On December 4, the employees went into Kansas City
and in doing so used the company station wagon for
transportation purposes. They left the premises of the
Company between 8 and 9 a.m., returning around 2 p.m.,
and were on pay status during this period.
On or about December 18, Rhoades, Zeman, Board
agents, and union representatives worked out arrangements
whereby a consent election was agreed to and the three
selections on the ballot included the Union, Local 77, and a
choice of for no union. The Board-conducted election was
held on December 28, and the tally of ballots showed that a
majority of employees in the agreed-to unit, set forth earlier
herein, had cast their votes for Local 77, and the parties
were so notified.
During the interval from December 28 to January 4,
1971, the Company and employees had three negotiation
sessions . On January 4, 1971, the current contract was
signed between the Company and nine employees with
Independent Warehouse Workers named as the bargaining
agent.? This record contains statements by Zeman to the
effect that the election of officers for Local 77 on December
3, as aforestated, was "ratified" by the employees on
December 29, and as a result the officers of the
Independent Warehouse Workers were the same as those
for Local 77. Zeman's written recollections as to this matter
also reveal that it was the intent that the current bargaining
agent, Independent Warehouse Workers, be separate from
Local 77 "previously proposed by Overland Distribution
Centers, Inc., for its employees."8 After the existing current
contract was signed Zeman was paid by the Company while
he took a week's time off from his warehouse duties to
familiarize himself of his duties as president of the
Independent Warehouse Workers Union.9
On January 5, 1971, the Union filed timely objections to
the election, and these objections have been consolidated in
the complaint before me.
and if they wanted an independent union the employees would have to
"see someone " Zeman stated the employees reached general agreement
among themselves to the Board's office the next day.
7 G.C. Exh. 4.
B See G.C. Exh. 5.
9 Rhoades testified he was informed of the name change from Local 77
to Independent Warehouse Workers at the time of the contract, but then
agreed it was the same entity. Independent Warehouse Workers is also
referred to hereinafter as the Independent Union.
OVERLAND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, INC. 729
There is evidence in this record that the Company
assured its employees they would receive backpay retroac-
tive to October 15 once a valid contract was signed.
Rhoades testified that during the negotiations for the
current contract it was determined the Company would
make up the difference in pay that employees would have
received had there been a contract in October, and stated
that the amount of money each employee actually received
in January 1971 was the difference between their old rate of
pay and the new rate of pay specified by the contract.
Employee A. B. South credibly stated that before the Board
election on December 29 there were discussions of a
yearend bonus.
Conclusions
There is undenied testimony that in October, Vice
President Crawford questioned employee Cole and others
about their role in the organizational efforts for the Union,
as previously noted. This interrogation was in excess of
permissible bounds and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Employee Gary Lusso gave credited testimony that in
late October he was told by Supervisor Barker, in reply to a
question, that if employees did not sign the proposed 10-
year contract for Local 77 they "would probably go out the
door." I find that Barker thereby sought to convey a fear
that a loss of jobs would necessarily and inevitably follow if
Local 77 did not prevail, and constituted a threat in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Dr. Rhoades testified that it was the employees who
indicated that they wanted to form a union because they
needed a contract to work for the Company. However, as
previously indicated, Vice President Crawford and Supervi-
sor Barker were the ones who actually proposed and
implemented the Independent Union, and the statements
and conduct attributed to them by employees in all these
respects stand undenied by them as neither one of the
supervisors testified. It is readily apparent from this record
that upon learning of the organizational efforts of the
Union, the Company took immediate steps to counteract it
and to promote their own independent organization. Thus,
almost simultaneously when protagonists for the Union
started their drive, supervisors for the Respondent let it be
known they wanted an inside union and a copy of a
proposed contract was then secured as a basis for their
initial discussion. This contract happens to have Local 77 as
the bargaining agent and accounts for the creation or birth
of this labor organization into this case, and the employees
had nothing to do with it. In November, the Company
again made extended efforts on behalf of Local 77 with
hopes the employees would then accept their contract.
Following receipt of the Union's demand telegram on
December 2, the Company immediately escalated and
intensified its activities for the Independent Union and
after two fast action meetings with employees on this date a
contract was signed, but Respondent's activity did not stop
at this point. On the following day Supervisor Barker
passed out ballots in order to elect officers for Local 77 and
Harvey Zeman's name was already printed on the ballots.
On December 4, the employees were given the use of the
company car in their trip to Kansas City and were again
paid for time away from work.
It is apparent from all foregoing, and I find, that the
Respondent by word and deed, encouraged, aided, and
abetted the formation of Local 77. Thus, (1) it suggested the
formation of the inside union to employees; (2) it initially
sponsored a 10-year contract with Local 77 as the
bargaining agent; (3) it assembled employees to discuss
contractual terms; (4) its employees were paid for time
spent in consultation with management and others; (5) and
it sponsored the ballots and insisted on the election of
officers for Local 77 along with numerous other acts of
assistance indicated earlier herein.
As this record stands the Independent Union cannot
demonstrate sufficient factors in its existence which would
indicate an arms-length relationship with Respondent. In
fact, Local 77 did not even exist or have officers when its
first contract was executed. Indeed, Respondent even
promised and gave wage increases in the contracts it signed
with its employees on December 2.10 A. B. South testified
that shortly prior to the election on December 28 there was
also considerable talk of granting a bonus or retroactive
backpay, but, in the final analysis hinging on the execution
of a valid contract. With the prevailing circumstances of
this case it is readily apparent that by such promises, grants,
and conduct the Company sought to convey to employees
that these benefits would follow with the full approval of
Local 77, and they would benefit economically by making
such a choice. In sum, therefore, I find that the foregoing
acts, occurring as they did, in a context of the hitherto
found acts of interference, restraint, and coercion exceeded
the bounds of permissible employer conduct; they consti-
tuted unlawful interference and assistance rendered to the
Independent Union in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
of the Act and presented a free choice of representatives.
The Board has also consistently declared that an inside
union of the type here involved also falls within the
category of domination.
Turning now to the 8(a)(5) aspect of the case. At the times
material herein, Respondent employed 11 warehouse and
maintenance employees within the appropriate unit set
forth previously herein. When the Union made its request
for recognition on December 1, the Union held authoriza-
tion from eight unit employees. On December 3, the
Company inquired as to the status of its contract with Local
77 signed on the previous day and there is testimony by the
Company as to advice they received, as aforestated herein.
Respondent's theory appears to be that after their
discussion with the Board agents they merely followed
procedure as outlined and then negotiated with the
Independent Union as it won out in the consent election. In
effect, the Respondent's position in the instant case seems
to be that when confronted by two contending unions it
should not be required, at its peril, to choose between them,
but may await a Board resolution of the problem (Midwest
Piping). This position may well be valid where neither of the
two unions is illegally assisted by the employer and the
io There is no question but that the first contract with Local 77 was 2-presumably sometime during the regular working day-and the last
signed by the parties after the Company received the Union's demand It is meeting with employees on this day did not conclude until about 7 that
admitted that the demand telegram was received on December evening.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer itself does not engage in conduct which serves to
thwart the Board process. Here, however, the Respondent
actually did choose between the two contending unions and
gave illegal assistance to one of them, making a free and
fair election impossible, as has been found. The Brescome
Distributors Corporation, 179 NLRB No. 137. Briefly
summarized, by the time of the election on December
28-the Company had initiated and insisted on the
formation of Local 77, had threatened discharge if Local 77
was not supported,ii 'had sponsored its contract, had the
president designated and the officers elected following the
signing of the first contract, had granted wage increases,
and had promised a bonus or retroactive backpay, and, as
indicated earlier herein, several acts of company assistance
and domination occurred following the Union's demand
and which factors strongly negates against any contentions
of a good-faith doubt. It is therefore found that by its
refusal to bargain, as set forth, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
Since the parties did not engage in oral argument and
failed to file briefs, it is difficult for me to contemplate or
ascertain all contentions, but possibly some argument
might be raised that the agreement of the consent election
acted as some sort of a waiver of any prior wrongdoing
mainly assistance giving to Local 77. However, Dr.
Rhoades admitted that in his discussion with the Board
agent he had not disclosed "what had transpired previous-
ly." Moreover, the Board, of course, will not knowingly
conduct an election involving an unlawfully assisted union
such as one whose showing of interest has been obtained
through the participation of supervisors. Ralph Cole stated
that during most of December he was also in contact with a
representative of the Union, and then agreed that the union
organizer knew all about the discussions Cole had with
Barker and others.12 Regardless of what information the
Union may or may not have had from employees about the
progress of assistance to Local 77-this in no way imputes
such knowledge to the Board under these most sketchy
circumstances.
Since the decision of the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v.
Gissell Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, the legal basis for a
bargaining order is whether the employer had engaged in
unfair labor practices of such a character as to preclude a
fair election and to permit a finding that a majority
established by cards is more reliable than an election as the
indicator of employee desires. The Union had a majority
when the Respondent intensified its course of unfair labor
practices directed at destroying this support, and the
subsequent diminution of support, as revealed by the
Union's loss in the election on December 28, can only be
attributed to Respondent's unlawful conduct. Therefore, I
shall recommend that Respondent bargain upon request,
with the Union not only to remedy its violation of Section
8(a)(5) but also its violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer whose operations affect
11 In addition to my specific 8(a)(1) finding in this regard, as
aforestated, there is also testimony that on December 2, employee South
asked Barker a question when the proposed 10-year contract was being
discussed and Barker replied, "If you don't like it, you don't have to work
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union and the Independent Union are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All warehouse employees and truckdrivers, including
maintenance employees, employed by the Respondent at its
underground warehouse in Independence, Missouri, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On October 19, 1970, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was, and continues to be the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit found above for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By the acts and conduct herein found violative of the
Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by various acts and
conduct giving aid, assistance , and support to the
Independent Union, it will be recommended that the
Respondent withdraw and withhold all recognition from
the Independent Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of any of Respondent's employees, and cease
giving effect to any collective-bargaining contract with the
Independent Union, or to any modifications, extensions,
supplements, or renewals of such contract or contracts.
Since Respondent has dominated the Independent Union, I
shall further recommend that it completely disestablish the
Independent Union as the representative of any of the
Respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
Nothing in the Recommended Order set forth hereunder,
however, shall be construed to require the Respondent to
vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other
substantive feature of the relationship between the
Respondent and its employees which may have been
established pursuant to any such contract, or to prejudice
the assertion by the employees of any rights they may have
under such contract or any established practice in regard to
wages, hours of employment, or conditions of employment.
Because of the pervasive nature of the violations found,
and in order to make effective for the employees of the
Respondent the guarantee of rights contained in Section 7
here" South testified this statement "made things a little complicated in
negotiating."
12 No organizer or representative for the Union testified at the hearing
before me
OVERLAND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, INC. 731
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from, in any manner, infringing upon the
rights guaranteed in that section.
RECOMMENDED ORDER13
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that:
Respondent, Overland Distribution Centers, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting, supporting, or interfering with the adminis-
tration of the Independent Union or any other labor
organization.
(b) Recognizing or contracting with the Independent
Union as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with said organization concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
(c) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way. enforcing
in favor of the Independent Union any bargaining contract,
in whole or in part, relatmg to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, hours of employment, rates of pay or other
conditions of employment.
(d) Discouraging membership in the Union (Teamsters
Local 838) or in any other labor organization of its
employees.
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees of the
Respondent in the appropriate bargaining unit described
above.
(f) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, by engaging in the conduct set forth herein.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
including the above-named organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act. -
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Independent
Union as a representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of work, and completely
disestablish the Independent Union as such representative.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit
herein found appropriate, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(c) Post at its plant in Independence, Missouri, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized
representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt 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 to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.15
Pursuant to the terms of the order consolidating cases
and the Regional Director's report on objections in Case
17-RC-6519, it is ordered that Case 17-RC-6519 be, and it
hereby is severed and remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 17 for further action in accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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.
14 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
15 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize , or deal with Local 77 or the
Independent Union as the representative of any of the
Company's employees in respect to terms or conditions
of employment , or enter into a collective -bargaining
contract with Local 77 or the Independent Union, or
give effect to any collective-bargaining contract with
that organization.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the
administration of the Independent Union, or with the
formation or administration of any other labor
organization of our employees, nor will we contribute
support to the Independent Union, or , to any other
labor organization of our employees;
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Warehouse , Mail Order,
Ice, Cold Storage, Soft Drink , Waste Paper, Distribu-
tion Workers , Egg Breakers , Candlers, Miscellaneous
Drivers and Helpers, Kansas City, Missouri , Kansas
City, Kansas and Vicinities , Local No. 838 , or in any
other labor organization of our employees, by discharg-
ing or refusing to reinstate any of our employees
because of their concerted or union activities , or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten or question you as to your
union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant wage increases or pay
other benefits in efforts to solicit your support in behalf
of the Independent Union or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the Union or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or
all of such activities.
WE WILL withdraw all recognition from the Inde-
pendent Union as a representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us concern-
ing grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, and other conditions of work, and
disestablish the Independent Union as such representa-
tive.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the Union
named above as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all employees in the following unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment:
All warehouse employees and truckdnvers, in-
cluding maintenance employees , employed by the
Company at its underground Independence,
Missouri, operations , excluding ' office clerical
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Dated By
OVERLAND DISTRIBUTION
CENTERS, INC.
(Employer)
(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, 610
Federal Building , 601 East 12th Street , Kansas City,
Missouri 64106 , Telephone 816-374-5181.