Press Specialties Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 361 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PRESS SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURING CO.
Press Specialties Manufacturing Co. and District
Lodge 24, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and Press Spe-
cialties Manufacturing Co. Employee Committee,
Party to the Contract . Cases 36-CA-2615 and 36-
RC-3342
September 16, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On March 19, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the
Union filed exceptions and Respondent filed a brief
in support of its exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Press Specialties Manufac-
turing Co., Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: These
cases were heard at Portland, Oregon, on January 8, 1975,
based on a charge and amended charge filed August 26
and November 13, 1974, respectively,' and complaint is-
sued November 13 with concurrent order consolidating
cases and notice of hearing on the complaint and on objec-
tions to an election conducted August 20. The complaint
alleges that Press Specialties Manufacturing Co., called Re-
spondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by interrogating em-
All dates and named months hereafter are in 1974, unless indicated
otherwise. Where context warrants, 1974 may be shown.
361
ployees concerning their activities on behalf of District
Lodge 24 , International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, called the Union , threat-
ening employees with plant closure in the event they select-
ed the Union as their bargaining representative and render-
ing assistance and support to the Press Specialties
Manufacturing Co. Employee Committee , called the Com-
mittee , by executing a collective -bargaining agreement
with the Committee notwithstanding that ( 1) the Commit-
tee assertedly did not at the time represent an uncoerced
majority of employees covered by such agreement and (2)
the Union had made a demand on Respondent for exclu-
sive recognition and filed a petition for certification of rep-
resentative.
Upon the entire record , including my observation of the
witnesses , and upon consideration of oral argument made
by General Counsel and a posthearing brief filed by Re-
spondent , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
INVOLVED
Respondent, a corporation located in Portland, Oregon,
engages in the manufacture of printing press accessories. It
annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from its Portland, Oregon, facility to points outside
the State of Oregon. I find, as Respondent admits, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union and.the Com-
mittee are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Facts and Discussion
Respondent and the Committee 2 were parties to a four-
page "agreement" with provisions covering wages (rates as
of May 1, 1973), hours and other terms of employment.
This agreement was negotiated by a committee consisting
of employees Leroy Lockwood, Don Mays, Paul Adams,
and Dewey Sparks. Although wage rates set forth in the
agreement were to be "for one (1) year," new rates were
negotiated in late 1973 and reduced to writing on a one-
page document 3 dated January 4.
An election among employees established the original
composition of a committee to renegotiate the 1973-74
agreement. T. H. (Thomas) Kinney, acting in the capacity
of recording secretary, handprinted a three-page document
dated May 14 in letter format addressed to "PSM Manage-
ment ." This document referred to a "[M]eeting of the em-
2 References shall appear both to the Committee and to committee(s) of
employees. This is respectively intended to mean the legal entity as party to
this proceeding and the group of individuals, fluctuating as to composition,
which functioned as a collective negotiating body, handler of documenta-
tion exchanged relative to the negotiation process and communicator to and
between its constituency (represented at the most material point in time by
the 19 numbered employees listed in the lower portion of G.C. Exh. 4).
3 A tool requirement for employees and a provision for periodic 6-month
evaluation were also expressly contained in this document.
220 NLRB No. 65
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees [held May 6 ] for the purpose of discussing a renew-
al of the agreement between the employees and manage-
ment" and specified 20 items for bargaining . Kinney later
handprinted a one -page document dated June 20 in similar
format which alluded to "long delay" and requested a
meeting for June 27. By letter dated July 15 Respondent
addressed the "Negotiating Committee" and proposed a
]-year agreement with wages based on $6 per hour
journeyman's base , an unchanged medical plan, a change
to noncontributory retirement program, and a pledge to
discuss complaints and foreman problems .4
On or about July 15 committee members Lockwood,
Mays, and Marvin Haworth, together with employees
Sparks (Dewey) and Alan Swartz, contacted the Union by
appearing at its office and speaking with Business Repre-
sentative Robert Kennedy. Lockwood testified that the
group's purpose at this point was to "threaten the company
with [the Union] " by having a "wedge or lever [as in
1973] " and "get our contract settled." On July 16 Lock-
wood and others again appeared at the Union's office. This
time authorization cards were obtained . Committee mem-
bers passed them out among employees and by late in the
day approximately 15 signed cards had been returned to
Lockwood's possession. He delivered them to Grand
Lodge Representative Richard M . Russell that evening.
The cards were promptly used in support of a petition filed
July 17 by the Union as Case 36-RC-3342. A copy of this
petition was mailed to Respondent on July 17 and conced-
edly received during the afternoon of July 19 by Al (Elmer
R.) Thomsen , Respondent 's president.5
On July 18 Al Thomsen approached Lockwood at the
latter's work station and commenced a conversation. Lock-
wood testified that after several remarks Al Thomsen
asked if he (Lockwood) knew anything about "a rumor
that the fellows want the union in." Lockwood falsely de-
nied any knowledge on the point. Subsequently that day
both Al Thomsen and Norman Thomsen appeared at the
morning coffeebreak and spoke to assembled employees.
Norman Thomsen spoke of costs involved in joining a
union and Al Thomsen added that Respondent was a small
company that possibly could not pay union wages and
would instead close. Al Thomsen then spoke of hearing
,.we were thinking about getting a union" to which Lock-
wood (breaking an apparently awkward silence) volun-
teered that "the union's already been contacted." Al
° Two documents received in evidence are noteworthy to the chronology
of negotiations . First is a handprinted three-page document with status
statements associated to the original 20 items for bargaining and concluding
paragraph relative to wage retroactivity . A second handprinted document
bears the date July 10 and harmonizes with Respondent 's bargaining posi-
tion as stated in its July 15 writing . Both documents lack conventional
evidentiary foundation ; however, the extent of recognition conceded by
Lockwood and surrounding circumstances permit the inference , which I
make , that they were each prepared by or on behalf of a committee member
to formalize dealings at fixed points in time
5 On July 19 Respondent also received the Union 's recognition request
letter dated July 17. Al Thomsen observed the envelope containing this
letter during "late afternoon" on July 19 but did not then open it since
it was addressed to Norman Thomsen , his son and Respondent's general
manager. Norman Thomsen was away from Respondent 's office on July 19
and returned July 22 (Monday).
Thomsen's reaction was to promptly declare the meeting
adjourned.
On July 19 committee members met with Al Thomsen .6
Respondent increased its pay offer for journeyman by 15
cents per hour in reflection of recent wage settlements by
the Union in the geographic area and vacation language
was clarified.' After concluding discussion with Al Thom-
sen, the latest status of negotiations was presented to a
group meeting of employees during late morning of July
19. They voted the subject and chose to accept what had
been "finally [gotten] together" with Respondent. A pro-
posed contract document of four typed pages was soon
prepared and actually executed 8 on July 24. This new
agreement revised medical coverage, transferred the $15
monthly cost of employee retirement program to Respon-
dent and, by slightly restructured and enlarged language,
continued the right of "employees representative and or
the employee committee" to discuss or negotiate "items of
importance."
Subsequent to this, Respondent and the Union entered
into an agreement for consent election upon which ballot-
ing was conducted August 20. Four votes were cast for the
Union and 14 against. On August 26 the Union filed timely
objections asserting the Respondent had engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 7 of the Act and signed an agree-
ment "reached in illegal negotiations" while a question of
representation existed. The Union contended by its objec-
tions that these acts made "impossible" a free choice in the
election by employees.
The merits of this case are primarily geared to the Mid-
west Piping doctrine .9 The evidence shows a course of pro-
crastinative bargaining which Lockwood countered by
contrived liaison with the Union. The dynamics so set in
motion resulted in creation of majority representation 10 by
the Union at and from the point of July 16. This fact,
coupled with the timely petition, II suffices to meet the first
branch of the Midwest Piping doctrine; namely, that a real
-question concerning representation exists. Secondly, execu-
tion of the 1974-75 agreement on the fifth calendar day
after knowledge of such rival claim breached Respondent's
obligation of neutrality. The absence of vigorous organiza-
tional efforts, the manipulative development of the Union's
card majority, and the closeness of issues remaining in dis-
pute between the parties to bargaining are all inconsequen-
6 The only testimony concerning bargaining events occurring on July 19 is
Lockwood's This witness' general recollection was sketchy I believe he
deliberately obscured basic factual framework of the case As to July 19, he
repeatedly described this as a day when his faculties were sub-standard.
Bargaining also dealt with the wage "spread" between classifications
Committee members believed it was "too close" from specialist to journey-
man (parenthetically identified in the original 1973 agreement as "90%").
The January wage changes left this spread at 25 cents or 95.3 percent, the
final wage rate pattern for 1974-75 showed a spread of 45 cents or 92.7
percent
8 This agreement , to be effective from May 1 (1974) to May 1, 1975, bears
six signatures The stated date of execution is based on par. V11 of
Respondent's answer Lockwood' s signature appears, but he was not ques-
tioned about when he signed.
9 Midwest Piping & Supply Co, Inc, 63 NLRB 1060
10 It was stipulated that during the period July 17-19 Respondent em-
ployed 19 persons in the production and maintenance unit (described in the
Union's recognition request letter, its petition, and the consent election
agreement) and of these 15 signed authorization cards for the Union
11 Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160 (1958).
PRESS SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURING CO.
tial factors,12 What controls is the showing that Respon-
dent "arrogated " to itself the resolution of a representation
issue by the significant step of purportedly concluding a
pending course of bargaining at the very time that a sub-
stantial rival claim formally existed. This conduct amounts
to extending unlawful assistance and support to the Com-
mittee in a manner violative of Section 8(a)(2). See 13 Sig-
nal Oil and Gas Company, 131 NLRB 1427 (1961); Peter
Paul, Inc., 185 NLRB 281 (1970); Playskool, Inc., et al., 195
NLRB 560 (1972); Tappan Knitting Industries, Inc., 201
NLRB 3 (1973); Inter-Island Resorts, Ltd., d/b/a Kona Surf
Hotel, 201 NLRB 139 (1973); Haley Bros., Inc., 201 NLRB
389 (1973); Suburban Transit Corp., 203 NLRB 465 (1973);
Traub's Market, Inc., 205 NLRB 787 (1973).
Respecting allegations of interrogation and threat of
plant closure, these must be viewed in larger case context.
The general tenor of Respondent's conduct does not show
a renunciation of collective bargaining, by accepted mean-
ing of the phrase. It is true that Respondent appeared com-
fortable with the weak bargaining tactics advanced by
rank-and-file employees diffusively functioning as the
Committee. Further, and assuming Respondent acquired
knowledge of the comprehensive card signing conducted
on July 16, reaction was as much related to whether good
strategy dictated an acceleration of negotiations as com-
pared to directly opposing the Union. During the span of
time the Committee functioned it relied openly and exten-
sively on contract terms achieved elsewhere by the Union.
In such circumstances , the individual questioning of Lock-
wood smacks more of inquiry necessary only to
Respondent's immediate position in pending committee
negotiations . Similarly the remarks to employees assem-
bled together on a break period, given the smallness and
permeating informality of relationship between them and
Respondent 's family management , were more in the nature
of permissible predictions tied to the prospect of institu-
tionalized unionism . Neither Lockwood nor employee Jo-
seph Smith testified to the actual utterances with particular
certainty. Overall, I do not find sufficiently substantial evi-
dence to support paragraph 8 of the complaint."
12 Since execution of the new agreement was completely separate in point
of time from receipt of the Union's petition , it is unnecessary to rely on
inferential analysis relating to the "meeting " conducted by the Thomsens on
July 18.
The Peter Paul, Playskool, Kona, Suburban, and Traub's cases were each
denied enforcement 467 F.2d 700 (C.A. 9, 1972), 477 F.2d 66 (C.A. 7, 1973),
507 F.2d 411 (C.A. 9, 1974), 499 F.2d 78 (C.A. 3, 1974), and 507 F.2d 730
(C.A. 3, 1974), respectively . The Board adheres to Midwest Piping notwith-
standing the disposition of several courts of appeals , most significantly the
Third, Seventh, and Ninth , to view the issue of what constitutes a real
question concerning representation in a way conceptually different from the
Board's. See N.L.R.B. v. Swift & Company, 294 F.2d 285 (C.A. 3, 1961). i am
bound by the Board 's continuing respectful disagreement with the courts'
general posture on this issue . See Traub 's Market, supra
14 The proclivity of Respondent's employees to ride free with the Union
at their convenience made Al Thomsen's remarks of July 18 more in the
nature of "[A]n opinion based on demonstrable facts as to the economic
consequences which might reasonably be expected to result from unioniza-
tion." B. F. Goodrich Footwear Company, 201 NLRB 353, 354 (1973) Cf.
Fiberfil, Division of Dart Industries, 210 NLRB 1086 (1974), Peter Paul, Inc,
supra at 285 , 286. Sufficient contrast is found between this and the instance
of threatening a plant closure not "[L]inked to economic conditions outside
[a] respondent 's control ." Swain Manufacturing Company, 201 NLRB 681,
684 (1973) Cf. Versatube Corporation, 203 NLRB 456 (1973); J C Penney
Co., Inc., 209 NLRB 313 (1974); Benner Glass Co, 209 NLRB 686 (1974).
363
The vice in Respondent's action is thus confined to exe-
cution of the 1974-75 agreement on July 24. Respondent's
contention that this was "simply" a formality misses the
primary issue. Transformation of the agreement from oral
to written (meaning with signatures constituting legal exe-
cution) form after full notice of the rival petition deepens
Respondent's commitment to one labor organization in de-
rogation of the other. This is exactly what Midwest Piping
seeks to prohibit by holding such matters in status quo, to
await resolution of the conflicting claims by Board pro-
cesses. Respondent's reliance on Felix Audye, d/b/a Audye
Construction, The Gates Rubber Company, and Utility Tree
Service 15 is utterly misplaced as none of these cases are
germane to a Midwest Piping adjudication.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All production and maintenance employees of Re-
spondent, excluding all office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, draftsmen, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act and all other employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2. Respondent, by executing a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Committee on July 24, 1974, at a time
when a question concerning the representation of its em-
ployees existed, and by maintaining this collective-bargain-
ing agreement and giving it effect, has rendered and is ren-
dering unlawful assistance and support to the Committee
and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its employees in
the exercise of Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respect
other than as specifically found.
REMEDY
General Counsel has proven perfected majority repre-
sentation by the Union and unlawful support of the Com-
mittee (constituting a derivative violation of Section
8(a)(1) ). From this a bargaining order is requested on the
authority of Steel Fab, Inc., 212 NLRB 363 (1974).
The Steel Fab doctrine essentially represents decisional
policy to eschew Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in Gissel-type 16
cases warranting a bargaining order. The rationale of this
change has been thoroughly explicated in the face of per-
sistent disavowal by the two Board members. It suffices to
note that Steel Fab pertains to "numerous and egregious
violations" and its progeny require a similar showing,17
Such is not the scope or thrust of Respondent's conduct
is 173 NLRB 1346 (1968), 182 NLRB 95 (1970). and 215 NLRB No 152
(1974), respectively
16 N L R.B v. Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U.S. 575 (1969)
17 Variously characterized as "substantial ," `serious," and "pervasive" in
Premiere Corp, 212 NLRB 382 (1974), Oahu Refuse Collection Co., Inc, 212
NLRB 224 (1974) and M & J Trucking Co, Inc, 214 NLRB No. 63 (1974),
respectively See also Blaser Toot & Mold Company, Inc. 196 NLRB 374
(1972); Howard Creations, Inc., 212 NLRB 179 (1974) Gerbes Super Market,
Inc, 213 NLRB 803 (1974); Hennepin Broadcasting Associates, Inc, 215
NLRB No. 32 (1974) But cf Kimmel's Shop Rite, 213 NLRB 440 (1974).
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
here. The case is more one of personalities than doctrine.
The role of Lockwood is fully exposed since he alone, of
committee members, testified to events. My harsh apprais-
al of him is solely based on the obligation to resolve credi-
bility issues. The exploitive tactics of the Committee, by
action of its individual members or collectively, is not my
concern, other than as how this drew Respondent into a
Midwest Piping violation. Paramount throughout is the
question of employee rights under the Act and how they
may best be preserved. It is doubtful that by August 20 the
employees of the voting unit seriously considered the ques-
tion of authorizing representation for the future. The dy-
namics involved in recent ostensible conclusion of their
contract had usurped that interest, making the actual bal-
loting sterile and mechanistic . It is appropriate to now re-
quire that further recognition of the Committee be with-
drawn and maintenance of the agreement be discontinued
(with protective qualification)."
THE REPRESENTATION CASE
It is settled that conduct during the critical postpetition
period that constitutes an unfair labor practice is, a fortiori,
interference with the exercise of a free and untrammeled
choice in an election. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137
NLRB 1782 (1962); Sayers Printing Company, 197 NLRB
73 (1972). Accordingly, it is recommended that the Region-
al Director for Region 19 sustain the Union's objections,
set aside the election of August 20, and conduct a second
election at such time as circumstances are deemed to per-
mit free choice in whether to have a bargaining representa-
tive.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact with resolution of
credibility of witnesses, conclusions of law, and the entire
record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER 19
Respondent, Press Specialties Manufacturing Co., Port-
land, Oregon , its officers , agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to the Press Spe-
cialties Manufacturing Co. Employee Committee, by re-
cognizing or contracting with such labor organization as
the exclusive representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining at a time when there exists
a real question concerning representation.
(b) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way enforcing
the collective-bargaining agreement executed with the
16 By its terms the contract has only approximately 6 weeks to run. It
contains no provision for automatic renewal ; thus, its viability is completely
lost by this recommendation.
19 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
Committee on July 24, 1974, covering its employees, or to
any modification, extension, renewal, or supplement there-
to, unless and until the Committee has been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of such employees; provided, how-
ever, that nothing herein shall require Respondent to vary
or abandon any wages, hours, seniority, or other substan-
tive feature of its relations with its employees which have
been established in the performance of said agreement, or
to prejudice the assertion by such employees of any rights
they may have thereunder.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist District Lodge 24, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such
activities except to the extent that such rights may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
Press Specialties Manufacturing Co. Employee Committee
as the representative of its employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining unless and until the said labor organi-
zation has been duly certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of such employ-
ees.
(b) Post at its place of business in Portland, Oregon,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 19, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in
all other respects.
IT IS ALSO FURTHER ORDERED that Case 36-RC-3342 be
severed and returned to the Regional Director for Region
19 to set aside the election of August 20, 1974, and conduct
a second election at an appropriate future time.
20 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."
PRESS SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURING CO. 365
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to the Press
Specialties Manufacturing Co. Employee Committee
by recognizing or contracting with this labor organiza-
tion as the exclusive representative of our employees
for the purpose of collective bargaining while a real
question concerning representation exists.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the agreement executed
with the Committee on July 24, 1974, covering our
employees or to any renewal, extension, modification,
or supplement thereof, unless and until the Committee
has been duly certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of our em-
ployees, but nothing herein shall require that we vary
or abandon any existing term or condition of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization , to form labor orga-
nizations , to join or assist District Lodge 24, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor 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 engaging in any or all
such activities , except to the extent that such right 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 Act , as modified
by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from the Press Specialties Manufacturing Co. Employ-
ee Committee as the collective - bargaining representa-
tive of our employees unless and until this labor orga-
nization has been certified as such by the National
Labor Relations Board.
PRESS SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURING CO.