Snow Crop Omaha, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 826 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Snow Crop of Omaha, Inc., Millard Warehouse , Inc. and General
Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Case No. 17-CA-2443. March 19,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 7, 1964, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modi-
fications :
Add the following as paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, and those subsequent thereto being con-
secutively relettered:
"Notify Jerry Kayl if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondents, Snow
Crop of Omaha, Inc., and Millard Warehouse, Inc., their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The complaint herein, as amended (issued June 23, 1964; charge filed May 11,
1964), alleges that the Company has violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National
151 NLRB No. 94.
SNOW CROP OF OMAHA, INC., ETC. 827
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, by discharging Jerry Kayl on or
about May 6, 1964, and failing to reinstate him, because of his union activities; and
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogation and threats in connection with union
activity and giving testimony at this hearing, suggesting that an employee resign,
and engaging in or creating the impression of surveillance. The answer denies the
allegations of agency, supervisory status, and violation, and alleges that Kayl had not
been employed by Millard during the past 2 years.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan at Omaha, Nebraska,
on July 30, 1964. Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, briefs have since been
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondents, the time to do so having been
extended.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
1. THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Jurisdiction as alleged appears to depend on the relationship between the respond-
ent corporations. While itself presenting no great problem, this issue of relationship
was the most seriously contested at the hearing; as will be noted, the denials of the
testimony concerning violation were at best limited.
Howard C. Larsen owns a majority of the stock of Snow Crop. He and his son
each owns 50 percent of the stock of Millard. Larsen is president of Snow Crop;
his son-in-law is vice president; his daughter is secretary-treasurer; and the three are
the directors of that corporation. Of Millard, Larsen is president and treasurer; his
son is vice president and secretary; and these two, with Larsen's wife, are the
directors.
Snow Crop is Millard's tenant with respect to the latter's public warehouse and
loading facilities. While the office employees of the two companies are in separate
locations on the same floor, Snow Crop having three and Millard two in addition to
its warehouse manager and assistant manager, we are told that the telephone oper-
ator works for each part time, sits in the room occupied by Millard's office help,
and is paid by both companies. There is one other admitted instance of inter-
change or joint employment: a boy puts up Snow Crop orders in the morning, then
works in the warehouse in the afternoon. Larsen testified also that Snow Crop has
seven employees in all, including those in the office, salesmen, and truckdrivers, and
that Millard has five full-time employees in the building and four or five part time.
Larsen further testified that he does not know whether the telephone operator and
the various clerks are paid by check of one or the other corporation, or both, or
whether one or two separate payrolls are maintained. At least as significant as
would be payment of all by check of one of these companies, is the apparent lack
of importance to the president of both whether employees are paid by one or the
other.
Beyond this, Kayl testified that when he worked as truckdriver and as warehouse
foreman, the latter clearly a Millard function, he was paid by Snow Crop check;
likewise more recently when he was employed as salesman by Snow Crop; and that
he has never seen a Millard check. To the extent that an employee's impression is
relevant,' Davis, who testified that he fills orders and makes deliveries for Snow
Crop and unloads trucks and does maintenance work for Millard, averaging approx-
imately half of his time on each job, and is paid by Snow Crop check, stated his
impression that, when Larsen inquired about "everyone" signing a union card, infra,
the reference was to both Millard and Snow Crop employees. Employee Hatcher,
like Davis, testified that he did not know whether he worked for one company, the
other, or both.
Aside from the reliance which the Board has placed on common ownership of
stock and control as distinguished from operational cooperation, and further aside
from the existence of a corporate veil,'' the various operational facts and the entire
evidence in this respect indicate that this is a case of closely complementary inter-
ests so maintained by a single employer engaged in multiple enterprises which meet
the Board's jurisdictional standards.
I thus find that Snow Crop and Millard maintain their principal place of business
at Omaha, Nebraska, where they are engaged in the warehousing and wholesale
distribution of institutional foods; that they annually receive from points outside
1 Cf. J. P. Stevens Company , Exposition Plant , 147 NLRB 1133 , quoting from the
Trial Examiner 's Decision in that case and at footnote 1.
2Darlington Manufacturing Company, 139 NLRB 241 , 255, 287 passim, 301.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the State of Nebraska goods, products , and material valued at more than $50,000;
that they constitute a single integrated enterprise and a single employer; and that
they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It was admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1)
Kayl, the alleged discriminatee , and Davis went to the union hall on April 28,3
obtained information about forming a union, signed cards, and obtained other cards,
which they gave to other employees that same or the following day. Company
knowledge of union activities is indicated directly and may further be inferred from
the evidence concerning the interference alleged. The Union 's representation peti-
tion was filed May 1 and was presumably received on May 2 or 4.
The agency, authority, and supervisory status of both Larsen and Morton, the sales
manager, are so clearly indicated in the record as to make the denial thereof in the
answer quite frivolous and recital of the details unnecessary.
In several instances , the testimony concerning a given conversation indicates sev-
eral types of violation. It will be quite unnecessary to cite every type with the
reference to each conversation. Thus Davis testified that on or about May 4 Larsen
called him into the office and, after declaring that he had heard that Davis had been
passing out union cards , remarked that Davis was earning more than union men were
and that his wages could be dropped from $2.40 to $2.34 per hour. Larsen also
asked Davis whether everyone had signed a union card. Answered in the affirmative,
Larsen asked why Davis did not leave if he did not like the way things were run;
and when the latter replied that he had a wife and four children, told Davis to think
it over and let him know in the morning.
On May 5 Larsen asked Davis whether the men had talked any more about the
Union. Then pointing out on or about May 20 that another company had just
settled a strike with the Union by an agreement to pay only $1.90 an hour, Larsen
warned Davis and Hatcher that he could find a thousand ways to fire a man, whether
there was a union or not.
Again, 2 days before the hearing herein, Larsen called Davis into his office,
threatened that before the Union came in he would close the place down, and warned
him to think it over. He also stated that if Kayl wanted to return with backpay,
the warehouse employees should not come to the hearing to help him ; and that he
would himself "fix" Kayl with his present employer. Davis further testified that he
had been subpenaed to testify and that on the morning of the hearing Larsen
threatened that if he went to the hearing and testified things would be rough for him.
About April 29 or 30 Larsen asked Hatcher how he had voted with respect to
the union card, and was told that there was no voting in that connection . On July 28
Larsen called Hatcher into his office and told him that , if the Union got in , he would
have to close the shop since he could not pay union scale wages to all of the
employees.
Further interrogation and threat occurred on May 4 when Larsen asked Murphy
whether he was happy with his job and whether he was for or against the Union,
which be had heard the men were trying to get in; and told him that: If the Union
got in , he would drive a hard bargain, coffee breaks would be out, the Union could
not do better for the men, and he could get rid of his drivers and hire replacements
for $1.25 per hour. When Murphy replied that under such circumstances there was
no point in getting the Union in, Larsen replied that was all he wanted to know.
Larsen also warned Murphy of his thousand ways to get rid of a man whether or
not the Union came in. Thereafter, on July 28, Larsen told Murphy that he knew
he was going to the union hall that evening, and that if the plant went union he
would have to close the doors and that he would not be able to meet requirements
for an operating engineer and assistant.
Beyond employer knowledge of union activities generally and opposition to such
activities indicated by all of this testimony of interference with lawful protected con-
certed activities, more specific evidence of knowledge of Kayl's activity is seen in
Larsen's asking him on May 4 what he and Davis were trying to do with the Union.
Charging Kayl with responsibility for passing out the cards, and saying that he had
made up his mind to fire him, Larsen declared that everyone would have to take a
8 Davis placed the visit to the union hall on April 29 But Kayl testified that It
occurred the day before , and employee Hatcher mentioned the earlier date, when they
came to his house and he signed Employee Murphy also testified that he signed on
April 28.
SNOW CROP OF OMAHA, INC., ETC. 829
pay cut if the Union got in, and that he could get men for $1.25. When Larsen
added that he had heard 4 that Kayl would like to go back to the warehouse, the
latter asked how much he would get, and was told, "$2.34, same as Davis after the
[threatened] cut." At this point Morton came in. There was no further talk about
Kayl's union activity, but Morton told him that he could do whatever he wanted if
he put his mind to it. Replying to Larsen, Kayl said that it would be easier to go
to the warehouse if he earned what he had been paid before, $2.50 per hour. Larsen
thereupon suggested that Kayl sleep on the question of going back to the warehouse
while he would himself sleep on the pay question.
In the face of all of this detailed testimony concerning repeated interference,
Larsen did not describe the various conversations testified to by the General Counsel's
witnesses. Without specific references he denied in general and conclusionary terms
that he had ever threatened to fire employees because of union activities or to reduce
wages or remove benefits because of such activities. Here we can credit Larsen with
a decent reluctance to offer detailed but untruthful testimony. Having heard through
the grapevine that there were union activities, he admittedly asked employees what
was going on and what was wrong. Pressed further in this connection, he testified
that he did not know for "quite a long time" that Kayl and Davis were behind the
union activity, and further that Kayl and Davis on May 4 did admit that they had
been contacted by the Union, although he did not think that they admitted that they
had been to the union hall.
I credit the testimony that Larsen at various times and in the manner alleged
interfered with employees' protected concerted activities.
B. The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(3)
As the Respondents' testimony was submitted, it was clear that they sought to
separate Larsen's knowledge of union activities generally and of Kayl's specifically
from Morton's alleged lack of knowledge; and not only to place the responsibility for
the discharge on Morton, but to absolve Larsen from any connection with it. Not
only do Larsen's and Morton's positions and relationship preclude any finding of
such separation, but several bits of the evidence indicate the contrary.
Kayl, employed in 1959, was the oldest employee in point of service. While he
was calling in some orders from his route on May 6, Morton told him to return to
the plant. According to Kayl, Morton told him that he had talked with Larsen
about what they had discussed on May 4; Morton now said that he did not like
Kayl's attitude, that he was uncooperative, and Morton wanted him to resign. At
this point Larsen came in and, referring to a claim by Kayl for backpay, said that
he would have to be sued for it. Kayl asked whether he was being asked to resign
from his sales work to return to the warehouse, or to resign "altogether." Morton
indicated the latter. Since Larsen had left up to Kayl the question of returning to
the warehouse, Morton was here exercising authority beyond that which the
Respondents maintained that he had, or he was now authorized to speak on behalf
of Larsen for Millard. As Larsen withdrew, Kayl pointed out that he was not being
given much choice. Morton agreed, told him to turn in his book and keys, and got
him his check.
While it is clear that Morton urged Kayl to make more calls, sell new items,
and get new accounts, it is equally clear that Morton, as sales manager, similarly
urged and encouraged all of the salesmen. As Morton put it, it is "natural to
encourage a man." It is uncontradicted that Morton frequently praised Kayl, both
orally and in writing, for doing good work. The transcript reveals, and Morton's
manner even more so, the weakness of his testimony that Kayl's record was "not
too good," that he spent more time with Kayl than with the other salesmen, and
that Kayl did get some new accounts but mostly when Morton was with him.
Morton was quite as unconvincing as he testified concerning his lack of knowl-
edge of the union activities. After first declaring that he first heard of the union
organizational campaign sometime after Kayl's discharge, he testified that he "learned
more" about it after Kayl left, and then that he may have heard about it before-
he did not recall. I find that Morton had in fact before May 6 heard of the organi-
zational campaign and Kayl's union activity. Both Larsen, who allegedly had
nothing to do with Kayl's discharge, leaving it entirely in Morton's hands despite
his own union animus, and Morton, both from Larsen and in the light of the testi-
mony concerning himself, had knowledge of Kayl's union activities.
k This is the sole, if inadequate, basis indicated for Larsen's later letter to the effect
that Kayl had asked to be released
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We recall that Larsen's conversation with Kayl on May 4 before Morton came in
had included interrogation and threats concerning union activity and Kayl's role in
such activity; and that after Morton came in there was talk of Kayl returning to work
in the warehouse although Morton did not indicate that Kayl was in danger of dis-
charge. Morton did not deny that he had talked with Larsen about the latter's prior
conversation with Kayl; he did deny that he had discussed Kayl's union activity, this
presumably to separate Larsen's knowledge of such activity from his own. I can-
not believe that Larsen and Morton at that time, when both had faced Kayl and only
2 days before the discharge, as well as at other times, did not speak of his union
activities which both opposed. Here again we must conclude that there was a
specific connection between Morton and awareness of Kayl's union activities.
Morton testified that he had eailier considered discharging Kayl. But asked
whether he had before May 6 spoken to Kayl concerning possible discharge, Morton
replied that he had concerning a "personal reason," clearly not because of the busi-
ness which he did or failed to do, or because of the now alleged poor work. There
is neither claim nor suggestion that this personal reason prompted the discharge, and
under the circumstances counsel for the Respondents quite properly and decently
spared us the details. As for the quality of Kayl's work, we recall that there was no
serious criticism by Morton 2 days before the discharge; this in addition to the
evidence of frequent praise. Further, Morton's statement noted supra that Kayl
could do whatever he put his mind to, while not necessarily complimentary, gave no
hint of any intent to discharge him.
Thus it is not claimed on the one hand that Kayl was discharged for the personal
reason which was not considered at the hearing and concerning which Morton had
spoken to him; while the alleged reason that his work was poor had never been cited
to him as possible cause for discharge, despite the usual exhortation to greater
efforts and results, noted, supra. This latter apparently loomed as suddenly serious
with the advent of the Union, although Kayl's unsatisfactory performance had
allegedly existed, as Morton described it (and according to the figure submitted which
we shall next consider), since his own advent as sales manager at the beginning of
the year.
Aside from the failure to warn Kayl about allegedly poor work,5 we can consider
the evidence submitted to support the Respondents' claim that his work was poor and
that he was discharged for that reason. Aside from the praise noted, any comparison
as submitted between Kayl's work and that of Caniglia, his predecessor, would pre-
sumably take into account that the latter had 20 years of sales experience as against
Kayl's 8 months. Nor, whatever allowance might be warranted on a comparative
basis, was Kayl's work such as to warrant discharge. Whether or not comparative
experience was considered, Morton admitted variously that Kayl's production was
always higher than that of the other salesmen, and that his earnings were frequently
higher than the others. In the face of such testimony, Morton's earlier general and
not-so-sure statement that he was "sure the other salesmen were more forceful" serves
but to reflect on his reliability as he thus sought to establish a nondiscriminatory
reason for Kayl's discharge.
To support the discharge as for cause, it was shown that Kayl's sales in March
and April 1964 were markedly below those of Caniglia for the same months the
year before. Larsen testified that Kayl had the same route as did his predecessor
except for the loss of two customers and the addition of two new ones. On the
other hand, and more reliably, Kayl named 2 big customers and 11 small ones served
by Caniglia, who were taken from the route as he served it. Of the latter, Morton
testified that only two or three (with the large ones, this would still be more than
the number cited by Larsen) had belonged to Caniglia; he did not produce the records
although he claimed that they so indicate.
Beyond this and perhaps of greater significance, Kayl cited substantial losses with
respect to five customers whom Caniglia had taken in whole or in part when he had
left for employment elsewhere. In this connection he recited, without contradic-
tion, his efforts and partial success in getting these back; there is no suggestion of
i I do not suggest that warning is a prerequisite to discharge . But the absence of
warning over a period of months does suggest that the stated reason was in fact pre-
-textual: it did not carry the significance which the Respondents now allege.
SNOW CROP OF OMAHA, INC., ETC . 831
criticism with respect to these. Presumably company records were available to con-
firm or confute Kayl's testimony in this respect and thus to impeach him generally.
The "route avulsion" (to borrow a term from the locale) exceeded by far the two-
customer accretion when Kayl succeeded to the route.
To Morton's credit, he did not go beyond indicating that he is himself a more
forceful salesman than Kayl. But the facts as well as the manner in which they were
presented indicate that Kayl had performed acceptably and that he had in fact been
accepted as satisfactory both before and after Morton became sales manager. Here
we distinguish between urging, encouragement, and assistance by an active manager
on one hand, and complaints and criticism of shortcomings on the other. The dis-
charge here was prompted by the union activities, and I so find.
Were further consideration necessary in the analysis of the testimony and resolution
of the problem of credibility, it could be noted that the attempted defense in Larsen's
statement that Kayl had asked 6 to be released, submitted in Larsen's letter of May 14
to the Board but not supported by a word of testimony from either Larsen or Morton,
casts doubt on the Respondents' testimony generally.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, commerce, and traffic among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in certain
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondents, by discharging Jerry Kayl, discriminated
against him in respect to his hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondents cease and
desist therefrom and from infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. I shall further recommend that the Respondents 7 offer to
Kayl immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of pay sustained by reason of the discrimination against him, with interest
at 6 percent, computation to be made in the customary manners I shall further
recommend that the Board order the Respondents to preserve and make available to
the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
amount of backpay due.
6 According to Davis, Larsen on May 4 had remarked that he did not like Kayl's work
and would talk to Kayl about going back to work in the warehouse We need not pass
on Davis' credibility at this point (Larsen made no denial) or determine whether such
statements, not clearly connected with the discussion at the time, were testified to in
order to overcome this attempted defense by Larsen
713y letter dated September 11, 1964, from the attorney for the receiver, I have
been notified that on September 2, 1964, upon the consent of the debtor, an order was entered
in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska adjudging Snow Crop
of Omaha, Inc , a bankrupt ; and that liquidation of its assets was in process That
letter has been marked and received as "Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1."
I need not here indicate what steps should be taken to pursue the remedy recom-
mended with respect to the Respondents while recognizing the authority of the district
court Substantially equivalent employment shall include employment as a salesman
by Snow Crop or its successor or, in the justified absence of that possibility , employment
in the warehouse.
8 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch,
65 NLRB 82T; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v.
N.L.R B., 331 U.S 7; F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294; Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has been further found that the Respondents, by interrogation, threats, suggesting
that an employee resign, and creating the impression of surveillance, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section (a) (1) of the Act. I
shall therefore recommend that they cease and desist therefrom.
No more than the operation and control of both companies can we separate the
authority and knowledge of Larsen, the president of both, and the authority which
vested in Morton. Coextensive is the liability of each company, both of them
operated, as found, as a single integrated enterprise.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jerry Kayl,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the Respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by interrogation, threats, suggestion that an employee
resign, and creation of the impression and surveillance, thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that the Respondents, Snow Crop of
Omaha, Inc., and Millard Warehouse, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, their officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall severally and jointly:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Geneial Drivers and Helpers Union Local No.
554, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America or in any other labor organization by discriminatorily
discharging any of their employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating or threatening employees in connection with protected concerted
activities, unlawfully suggesting that employees resign, or creating the impression of
surveillance.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Jerry Kayl immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(b) Make said Jerry Kayl whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other
records, as set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision.
(d) Post at their place of business in Omaha, Nebraska, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 0 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents' representa-
tives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
9In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order"
SNOW CROP OF OMAHA, INC., ETC. 833
tained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10
to In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in General Drivers and Helpers Union
Local No. 554, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America or any other labor organization
by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any
other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten employees in connection with protected
concerted activities, unlawfully suggest that employees resign, or create the
impression of surveillance.
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 organi-
zations, to join or assist General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively 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 such activities.
WE WILL offer to Jerry Kayl immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the interference, restraint, coercion, and discrimination against him.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America or any other labor organization.
SNOW CROP OF OMAHA, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
MILLARD WAREHOUSE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto
Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore 1-7000,
Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
783-133-66-vol. 151-54