Protein Blenders, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 890 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC. and TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS
UNION LOCAL NO. 238, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. Case No . 18-CA-416.
June 30, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Teamsters and
Helpers Union Local No. 238 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called, respectively, the
General Counsel and the Board, by the Acting Regional Director
for the Eighteenth Region ( Minneapolis , Minnesota), issued his
complaint on October 6, 1952, against Protein Blenders, Inc.,
of Iowa City , Iowa, herein called the Respondent , alleging that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat . 136, herein called the : ct . Copies of the complaint, the
charge, and notice of hearing were served upon the Respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as
amended at hearing, alleges in substance that onApril 4, 1952,
the Respondent polled its employees to determine whether they
supported the Union and desired the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative ; that the Respondent questioned its
employees as to who were the leaders and instigators of the
union activity , and told its employees that joining , supporting,
or assisting the Union would be harmful to their economic
interests, and that wage rates wouldnotbe increased under any
consideration if the employees joined, supported , and assisted
the Union or selected the Union as their collective -bargaining
representative ; and that said conduct was violative of Section 7
of the Act , more particularly Section 8 ( a) (1) thereof.
The Respondent duly filed its answer admitting the allegations
in the complaint as to the Board ' s jurisdiction and the fact that
it did conduct a poll on or about April 4, 1952, among its em-
ployees, but contending that the poll was not for the sole purpose
of determining whether the employees supported a union and
desired the Union as their collective -bargaining representative
as stated in the complaint , but for additional purposes of deter-
mining labor costs to aid in buying and selling policies, of
determining whether a foreman should be rehired, and deter-
mining the desired length of a workweek . It denied all allega-
tions of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Iowa City, Iowa, on
November 18, 1952, before Louis Plost , the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel, the Respondent , and the Union were represented by
105 NLRB No. 137.
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC. 891
counsel . All parties participated in the hearing and were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues , to argue orally on the record , and to file briefs, pro-
posed findings of fact, and conclusions of law with the Trial
Examiner . The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 22, 1953 , the Trial Examiner issued his Inter-
mediate Report , copies of which were duly served upon the
parties, in which he found that the Respondent had not engaged
in any unfair labor practices , as alleged in the complaint, and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Thereafter , the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report , and a supporting brief . The Respondent filed a
brief supporting the Trial Examiner's findings andrecommen-
dation.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions , the briefs , and the entire record in the case. Be-
cause of the extent of our disagreement with the findings, con-
clusions , and recommended order of the Trial Examiner, we
make our own findings , conclusions , and order ,' as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Protein Blenders , Inc., an Iowa corporation with its prin-
cipal plant in Iowa City , Iowa , is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of livestock and poultry feeds. During the calendar
year 1951 , the Respondent purchased grain byproducts and
meal amounting in value to more than $ 1 , 000,000, of which
more than 25 percent was shipped to its Iowa City plant from
points outside the State of Iowa . During the same period the
Respondent sold more than $ 1,000,000 worth of feeds, of which
more than $ 200 , 000 worth was shipped to points outside Iowa.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters and Helpers Union Local No. 238, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , A. F. of L., is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Events
Interest in union organization began at the Respondent's
plant in the summer of 1950. Sometime inJanuary 1951 a union
representative called upon the Respondent ' s president , stated
that he represented the employees, and suggested that the
Respondent sign a contract . Shortly after this conversation,
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent- -which had previously sought the majority
opinion of its employees concerning conditions of employment
such as hours of work, uniforms, and hospitalization--conducted
a poll to determine the union sentiment of its employees. A
majority of the employees voted against union organization.
Thereafter on January 24, 1951, the Respondent wrote its
employees at their homes, stating the Respondent's satisfaction
with the results of the poll and expressing its appreciation for
the "vote of confidence" shown by the employees.
Another attempt to organize the Respondent's employees
began about April 1952. The present complaint is concerned
with the Respondent's conduct during this campaign.
On April 1, 1952, the Respondent discharged Night Foreman
Robert Aubrecht. About the time Aubrecht was_ discharged,
Mill Superintendent Frank Donahue had a conversation with
employee Donald Shull near a pellet machine. According to
Donahue, whose testimony the Trial Examiner credited as does
the Board, he called Shull to showhim a special mix which was
to go in the feed being prepared and asked Shull what was wrong
with the men that morning. Donahue's testimony concerning the
conversation is as follows:
And so your testimony is you said to him, "What has
happened to the men this morning ," is that it?
What was wrong with the men this morning, something
to that effect.
And what did he say to you?
He thought there was talk of a union.
And then did you not say to him, "Did you bring the
union in here? "
No, sir.
Did you not then say to him, "Who brought the union ip
here?"
No, sir. All I said was, "I wonder who is behind that."
When you said, "I wonder who is behind that?" What
were you referring to?
The union.
And what did he say then?
He thought Aubrecht was.
And then what did you say?
I didn't say anything.
Do you remember saying to him "That is a hell of a
note. "
No, sir.
Are you sure you didn't say it?
If I remember correctly I walked out of the door and that
was the end of it.
On April 3, 1952, the Union wrote a letter to the Respondent.
The letter declared that the Union represented "a very sub-
stantial majority" of the Respondent's employees and requested
recognition by the Respondent. It also stated that the Union had
petitioned the Board for a certification election. The Respond-
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC. 893
ent, which usually receives its mail in the morning , received
the Union ' s letter on April 4, 1952.
On the afternoon of April 4 at about 4:30 p.m., the Respond-
ent assembled its employees in a room in the plant and polled
them on three issues : union organization , the reemployment of
Aubrecht , and the length of the workweek . The parties stipulated
that the poll was conducted in the following manner : ( 1) Before
the ballots were distributed all supervisors and company offi-
cials left the room . The Respondent ' s attorney remained and
was the only person in the room not voting. ( 2) The poll was
held in the same room that was later selected for the conduct of
the official Board election . The room contains two doors, both
of which remained unbarred and unlocked . ( 3) The ballot--a
separate one for each question --was a small , white piece of
paper containing the words " Yes" and " No" on a horizontal
line with a blank space between the words . ( 4) Ballots were
distributed by two employees selected at random . ( 5) Ballots
were removed from the ballot box and counted by employees
selected at random . ( 6) Each employee marked his ballot in
complete privacy . During the distribution and niarking of ballots
the Respondent ' s attorney kept his back turned -so as not to see
the voter approaching the ballot -marking table or the ballot box.
Before and during the balloting the Respondent ' s attorney
spoke to the assembled employees . His remarks were recorded
and a copy of them was received in evidence by stipulation. The
copy reads in part as follows:
If you want a union- -and you employees who were here
last year know that this is our point of view--if you want
a union, you can have one . If you want a union, you can
have one , and Protein Blenders will not punish any man
in here for joining it and, on the other hand , Protein
Blenders won't give any man a dime for not joining the
union.
If you want a union , you can have one.
Jake says that he never told any man here which church
he should belong to , or never told any man here how he was
supposed to vote ( Unless he did it in a joke), and he won't
tell any man whether he's supposed to join the union or
not.
:Tat' s entirely your business and no one man will be
punished for joining and if anyone says that he's canned
for - joining -or will be fired for joining , it's nonsense.
No man will ever be discharged from this organization
for having joined the union.
. . . If the union comes in here you will not get one damn
dime in additional pay because the union came in, because
before the union can get the- increase Jake and the rest
have got to agree to It , and Jake won ' t give another dime
because we simply can 't afford it.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the other hand, the minute this organization can afford
to give a wage increase, it will give the wage increase. If
the union comes in and Jake feels that you've got that money
coming, he'll pay it even though the union does come in; and,
if the union comes in and he can't afford it, he won't pay it.
The union will simply do you no good as far as a wage
increase is concerned, and that's final and complete for the
simple reason that the profits won't permit it.
What Protein Blenders sell here is the product of labor.
Our labor costs are very important to us. If the union is
going to come in here and incite the men to strike, or if
you come here and find strange pickets and you're afraid
to come to work, or if other difficulties arise--and we hope
they won't and we are going to try to stop them, and if the
union comes in and we'll try to deal with them reasonably,
we don't want a strike, but if those things were to occur
our. costs will go up and we can't estimate our costs. So,
we want to do something today, with your permission and
cooperation. We want to find out how you employees feel
about management.
Now, the door has always been open. It's always been
open here . . . and here's an opportunity for you to express
yourself with an open door because we're going to ask you
to vote on certain subjects, and we'll just leave it up to
you.
Now, we come to the final question and that's a question
that is important to all of us. That's the question as to
whether you want representation by a union.
Now the reason that we're having this ballot cast right
now is that we want to know if the alarm was as false this
year as it was last year; we also want to know whether we
can go out and compute our costs or whether we can't
compute our costs. This business is competitive. One of
the biggest costs is the cost of labor, and we've got to
know what it is.
If you employees feel that you have gotten a fair shake
out of Jake; if you think conditions have improved here; if
you think that you should give him additional opportunity to
keep running this place, then we'd like to have you vote
'yes'. On the other hand, if you think that the grievances
here are so great and that the employees have been so
unfairly dealt with that you want to bring in strangers to
run the place and turn the leadership away from Jake, then
vote in the union.
Now we would like to know how things stand. We have not
offered you a dime to vote against the union--and we won't.
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC 895
We don't threaten you; we're going to be fair ; but we want
you to think and to use your judgment , and we'd like to have
you cast your ballots.
Okay. Now I am going to take these ballots again and
we'll put them over in another spot and we ' ll pass out
these ballots and then the electioneering is done here--and
we hope the results are what management wants. If the
results aren 't what management wants, we'll do our best
to get along.
Okay, same fellers , if you will, here . . . I'll give you
more than that to hand out . . . Be sure not to look how
the next guy is voting --observe all the privacyin the world.
Now, if you are for management , you vote 'yes'. If you
want management to have the union come in and you want
new leadership , then you vote 'no'. A vote of 'yes' is that
you are going to string along with management . . that
you're going to string along with management . A vote of
'yes' if you' re stringing along with Jake and the rest of
management.
. . . Don't watch the way a man votes. It's his own busi-
ness . I know that you won't , but I mean, don't even make
him feel ill at ease about it. Draw a circle around 'yes' if
you are for management and, if you want to vote against
management, around 'no'.
The copy of the remarks made at the poll shows that after
the results of the balloting had been announced , indicating that
a majority of the employees had voted against union organiza-
tion , the Respondent' s president briefly thanked the employees
for their loyalty.
On the same day the poll was conducted the Respondent
replied to the Union' s letter of April 3. The Respondent in-
formed the Union that the employees had voted overwhelmingly
for no union and the Respondent therefore thought that the
Union did not represent the employees and that no conference
was necessary.
On April 9, 1952, the Respondent mailed to its employees a
letter similar to the one it had sent them in 1951. The Re-
spondent therein thanked the employees for their "vote of
confidence ," recited some of the benefits which the employees
enjoyed , and explained that the 1951 and April 5, 1952, polls
were not "Official Government Elections" but there might be
such an election in the future . The letter, which assured em-
ployees that the Respondent would not discriminate against an
employee for joining the Union nor give him a bonus for not
joining, reads in part as follows:
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If the union comes in, you will not get one dime increase
in wages . We can't afford to give you an increase in wages,
therefore , you will not get one. On the other hand, if the
union did come in and we were to discover that your pro-
duction was good enough so that you had a wage increase
coming, we would give it to you just the same as though
there were no union . The union will not make any change
in our pay policies, as our spokesman announced. Our
policy here has been to pay as much as we can possibly
afford to pay and still keep our business sound enough to
meet emergencies and meet the payroll when business
slacks off. Last year our profit was down 30 %-- but we
increased your pay!
We are rather confident that the union will not bother us
here for some time and probably won't even insist on an
official election . They quit last year you know. If the union
does ask for an election and the Government decides that
it wants one held here , we trust that all of you will stick
with us and not turn over the leadership of this organization
to strangers.
I won't ever deny your right to join a union. If the union
comes in, I will treat union and non-union men alike. I will
do my best to be fair , ( but I will certainly be disappointed
if you decide against me).
The Respondent ' s president , its secretary and treasurer, and
its attorney presented a panel discussion to the employees on
April 30 , 1952 . The attorney announced that a personnel plan
was going to be distributed and stated : "Now I would like to
emphasize in that connection that the plan was made before the
union came in. The plan was gone through , and if the union does
come in , we will still have showers, and if the union doesn't
come in, we will still have showers . . . ." He also explained
that the plan "won't contain any new benefits , the reason we
are not giving you any new benefits is that we don't want anyone
to feel that we are trying to buy you off." About May 1 the plan
was distributed by mail to the ' employees . It was entitled
"This Is the Protein Blenders Personnel Plan." Before setting
forth working conditions at the plant it stated:
As a result of the survey that we recently conducted (at
considerable expense and with excellent employee co-op-
eration) this Personnel Plan has been drafted and is now
being posted and distributed in order to fully inform all
of our employees as to their rights and privileges here at
Protein Blenders.
The benefits listed below have been established at Pro-
tein Blenders for a long period of time and they shall con-
tinue to be offered so long as we receive reasonable
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC. 897
co-operation from you, our employee. Additional benefits
will be granted as they have been in the past as our business
develops and as we become capable of paying for those new
things that will make our plant a better place for you to
work.
Pursuant to the representation petition which the Union had
filed (Case No. 18-RC-1482) the Respondent and the Union
executed a consent-election agreement on May 1, 1952. Between
May 1 and May 12, the date of the election, the Respondent sent
its employees two letters, explaining the mechanics of the elec-
tion, expressing arguments against the Union, and emphasizing
the benefits which employees enjoyed at its plant. Each letter
referred to the fact that wages were frozen. On this subject
one letter, dated May 9, stated:
Remember : wages are frozen.
We cannot now give an increase in wages, we cannot
afford it, and we shall not, union or no union. We have
given virtually all the law will allow in increased pay to
date, under the Wage Stabilization Rules, so if the union
were to win we would not give an increase --not a single
dime (on the other hand, union or no union, we shall give
increases as soon as we can afford them for we have
always done so in the past and we'll continue).
On the day of the election the Respondent's attorney addressed
the employees. He explained the eligibility list and the manner
in which the election would be conducted and emphasized that the
voting would be secret and that no one would be discharged if the
Union did or did not come in. He also discussed provisions of
bargaining contracts at certain other companies where em-
ployees were organized. At the close of the attorney's speech,
the Respondent's secretary and treasurer expressed the hope
that management would not lose and that "everything works out
all right so our relations are really friendly and all like they
are now." The attorney then concluded his speech with the
assurance : "If the Union were to come in we'd try to stay
friendly, but we think the best way to keep things pleasant around
here is to keep the Union out. No man is going to. be threatened
or hurt if the Union comes in. We would like, however, to have
them . . you know . . about a thousand miles from here."
On May 22, the Respondent informed its employees by letter
that it had received an official certificate from the Board stating
that the Union did not represent the employees. The Respondent
thanked the employees for the "splendid showing of loyalty."
Conclusions
The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent has violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employee Shull, by
threatening in its letters and speeches to retaliate economically
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against its employees if they supported the Union, and by polling
its employees as to their union sentiment. The Respondent
argues that although it vigorously opposed the Union, its speech
remained within th. permitted bounds of intellectual discussion.
It urges that the poll was not violative of the Act, that it was
conducted in accordance with the Respondent's custom of
ascertaining its employees ' opinion on various matters and
for the purpose of determining labor costs , and that the em -
ployees were assured that neither harm nor benefit would
result from their vote.
The Board has considered the circumstances of Superin-
tendent Donahue ' s conversation with em ployee Shull and believes
that Donahue's remarks did not constitute unlawful interroga-
tion. The Board is likewise of the opinion that the comments
made by the Respondent in its campaign against the organization
of its employees are privileged under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
The Respondent ' s letters and speeches containno actualthreats
or promises of benefit , and we do not think that the remarks
concerning wages and employee benefits , considered in con-
text, constitute implied threats of economic reprisal as urged
by the General Counsel.'
The Board is of the opinion, however, that by polling its
employees on April 4, 1952, as to whether or not they wanted
the Union, the Respondent violated the Act. The Board has often
found that employer-conducted polls on union questions consti-
tute unfair labor practices or interference with an election.
Upon reconsidering the question of employer polls in the light
of the facts of this case and the arguments presented by the
Respondent , the Board concludes that in most situations such
polls --apart from any other unfair labor practices--are
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The Board's position has consistently been that Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act is violated when an employer questions his
employees concerning any aspect of union activities. In ex-
plicating its reasons for holding that interrogation of individual
employees is unlawful, the Board in the recent case of Syracuse
Color Press, Inc., 103 NLRB 377, reaffirmed the view it
expressed in the earlier case of Standard-Coosa-Thatcher
Company, 85 NLRB 1358, that "inherent in the very nature of
the rights protected by Section 7 is the concomitant right of
privacy in their enjoyment--'full freedom' from employer
intermeddling, intrusion, or even knowledge." The Board
further emphasized its conclusion that any attempt on the
part of an employer to elicit information from employees
concerning union activity, regardless of the employer's purpose
in seeking such information , is reasonably calculated to arouse
the fear that some form of reprisal will follow once the
information is obtained.
1Member Houston dissents in part from this finding. He would find in the Respondent's
statement in the personnel plan that benefits "shall continue to be offered so long as we
receive reasonable co-operation from you, our employees" a veiled threat to withdraw
benefits if the employees organize, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC. 899
An oral poll of employees is mass interrogation with the
attendant threat of economic detriment to individuals opposing
the employer ' s views concerning concerted activity . A poll by
written ballot when conducted by a party interested in obtaining
a particular result is susceptible to abuse in presenting the
issue to be voted upon in a biased or confusing manner, in
impairing the secrecy of the ballot , and in tampering with the
results of the voting . Even where secrecy of the ballot is in
fact preserved and the results of the election are accurately
tabulated --as the Respondent contends is the situation in this
case --an employer poll may constitute an invasion of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act . Although the identity of
individual union adherents may not be revealed by such a poll
and employees may be so assured by the employer , they can
never be certain that their vote is secret nor do they have the
guarantee of anonymity which is afforded by an election con-
ducted by the_ Board . The fear of retaliation against the em-
ployees as a group , should they oppose the desires of the
employer, is also present . Thus even a poll by secret ballot
when conducted under the auspices of a partisan employer
involves elements of coercion . Declarations that no detriment
will result to employees whatever their vote , as made by this
Respondent , are ineffective to dispel employees' fears in these
circumstances , particularly when the employer at the same
time, as here , makes known his strong desire that employees
vote against the union and establishes opposition to the union
as the test of loyalty to the employer.
In addition to the coercive effect they have upon the individual
voters , employer polls are an effective means of undermining
a union and interfering with self -organization of employees. By
use of such polls an employer may force a union to a show of
strength under conditions within the control of the employer,
and at a stage of organization when employees have not had a
full opportunity to persuade their fellow employees to their
views concerning union activity . Such a premature test tends
to frustrate self -organization. Voting results unfavorable to
union organization may cause postponement of a request to
bargain , or the filing of a representation petition, as the
Respondent recognized in its letter of April 9 , or may provide
the employer with an apparent basis for refusing to recognize
a union when the union in fact represents a majority of the
employees. A union ' s failure to secure a majority vote in such
a poll tends to cause union adherents to abandon their support
of the union and to discourage undecided employees from joining
the union , not as the result of persuasion protected by Section
8 (c) but as the result of conduct reasonably calculated to
produce fear.
Where a union has made a claim of majority representation,
as in the instant case, an employer by conducting a poll as to
whether its employees want to be represented by the union, in
effect resolves the question of representation, a functionwhich
the Act assigns exclusively to the Board. Determination of a
question of representation under conditions controlled by an
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer, or, indeed, by a labor organization, rather than by
an impartial agency interested solely in safeguarding the
fairness of the election , does not guarantee a free expression
of employee desires as to representation , nor does it provide
for a proper determination of an appropriate bargaining unit.
Employer-conducted elections for the determination of a
question concerning representation are an unwarranted private
assumption of a function assigned to the Board under the
statute.
For the foregoing reasons we find that the Respondent, by
conducting a private poll of its employees to determine their
union sentiment, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forthin section 111, above,
occurring in connection with operations of the Respondent de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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.
V. T11E REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees by polling them as to
their union desires, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case , the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Teamsters and Helpers Union Local No. Z38, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
Z. By polling its employees as to their union sentiment the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC 901
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Protein Blenders, Inc., and its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from conducting polls among its em-
ployees to determine their union sentiment or in any other
like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
Teamsters and Helpers Union Local No. 238, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing,, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and pro-
tection, or to refrain from 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Iowa City, Iowa, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix."' Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Member Peterson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify
you that:
WE WILL NOT poll our employees concerning their
desires or wishes relative to the Teamsters and Helpers
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and order" the words "Pur-
suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union Local No. 238, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, or in any like
or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations , to join or assist the
above -named union 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 bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all of 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.
All of our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain
from becoming or remaining members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization , except to the extent that
this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity'with
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
PROTEIN BLENDERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ............. ... By....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof , and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, #915 (AFL) AND
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL and THE
DAILY REVIEW CORPORATION. Case No. 2-CB - 14. June
30, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On December 21, 1949, the Board issued its Decision and
Order in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the evidence
did not support the alleged violation by the Respondents of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A), 8 (b) (1) (B ), 8 (b) (2), and 8 ( b) (3) of
the Act, and dismissing the complaint .' Thereafter, the
charging party (hereinafter called the Company) filed a
petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, hereinafter called the Court, attacking the validity
of the Board ' s Decision and Order.
187 NLRB 1263.
105 NLRB No. 140.