Spalding Avery Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1516 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership by our employees in any labor organi-
zation, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership
and activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees because of their union
membership and activities or hold out job advantages should they refrain
from such membership and activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, 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 or protection, 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.
WE WILL offer to Bert DeLarme immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seni-
ority or other rights and privileges enjoyed and make him whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
BEAVER MEADOW CREAMERY, 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.
SPALDING AVERY LUMBER COMPANY, BURKE LUMBER & COAL COMPANY,
EDWARDS & BROWNE COAL COMPANY, FULLERTON LUMBER CO., E. S.
GAYNOR LUMBER COMPANY , SKIDMORE SAWMILLS, FORD LUMBER &
COAL CO., AND OMAHA HARDWOOD LUMBER Co. and GENERAL DRIVERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 383, A. F. OF L. Case
No. 18-CA-4.929. April 3,1953
Decision and Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on August 8, 1952, by General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 383, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the General
103 NLRB No. 128.
SPALDING AVERY LUMBER COMPANY 1517
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respec-
tively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued a complaint
dated November 5, 1952, against Spalding Avery Lumber Company,
herein called Respondent Spalding, Burke Lumber & Coal Company,
herein called Respondent Burke, Edwards & Browne Coal Company,
herein called Respondent Edwards, Fullerton Lumber Co., herein
called Respondent Fullerton, E. S. Gaynor Lumber Company, herein
called Respondent Gaynor, Skidmore Sawmills, herein called Re-
spondent Skidmore, Ford Lumber & Coal Co., herein called Respond-
ent Ford, and Omaha Hardwood Lumber Co., herein called Respond-
ent Omaha, all collectively called herein the Respondents, alleging that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as. amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint and charge were duly served upon the Respondents and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that on or about July 22, 1952, the Respondents laid off
and locked out all of their employees, and failed and refused to rein-
state and reemploy said employees until on or about August 7, 1952,
because the Union had threatened to call and had called a strike against
Schoeneman Lumber Co., herein called Schoeneman, and Walensky
Lumber Co., herein called Walensky, who, together with the Respond-
ents, were members of Sioux City Coal Merchants Association, herein
called the Association, thereby discriminating against said employees,
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing said employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. On or about November 6,
1952, the Respondents filed their answer to the complaint, in which
they admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, and that
they had locked out their employees as alleged, but denied that they
had committed the alleged unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, desiring to avoid the need for a hearing, all parties
entered into a stipulation, which set forth an agreed statement of facts.
The stipulation further provided that : (1) The complaint and answer
be amended in certain respects; (2) the facts set forth in the stipula-
tion be received in evidence with the same force and effect as if evi-
dence with respect thereto had been given under oath before a Trial
Examiner or the Board; (3) the parties waive their right to a hear-
ing before a Trial Examiner, the Board, or any Member thereof, to the
preparation and filing of an Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, and to the making and issuance by the Board of proposed find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law; (4) the stipulation and all ap-
1518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendices thereto, the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing, the
affidavit of service of the foregoing documents, and the Respondents'
answer, shall constitute the entire record in this proceeding, and shall
be filed with the Board, which may issue an order transferring the
case to the Board; (5) the parties reserve the right to file briefs with,
and to request to argue orally before, the Board, subject to the provi-
sions of Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations; and
(6) the Board may thereafter issue its Decision and Order based upon
the stipulation and the record described therein.
On February 9, 1953, the Board issued an Order, approving the
stipulation and making it a part of the record herein, and transfer-
ring this proceeding to and continuing it before the Board. The
Order also provided that the parties might file briefs with, and request
permission to argue orally before, the Board. Thereafter, the Re-
spondents filed a brief with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, the Respondents' brief,
and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, all of which are members of the Association, are
each engaged at Sioux City, Iowa, and Respondent Burke is also en-
gaged at South Sioux City, Nebraska, in the purchase and retail sale
of coal, lumber, liquid fuels, and related products. Respondent
Fullerton is a Minnesota corporation; all the other Respondents are
Iowa corporations.
During the 12-month period ending September 1, 1952, the Re-
spondents collectively made purchases valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which more than 90 percent represented purchases and shipments
to their respective places of business in Sioux City, Iowa, from points
outside the State of Iowa. During this same period, Respondents
collectively made sales valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more
than 15 percent represented sales and shipments from their respective
places of business in Sioux City, Iowa, to points outside the State
of Iowa.
During the same 12-month period, each Respondent, with the ex-
ception of Respondent Ford, individually made purchases valued in
excess of $150,000, of which in excess of $140,000 represented pur-
chases and shipments to their respective places of business in Sioux
City, Iowa, from points outside the State of Iowa, and each Re-
SPALDING AVERY LUMBER COMPANY 1519
spondent, with the exception of Respondent Ford, individually made
sales valued in excess of $200,000, of which in excess of $25,000 rep-
resented sales and shipments from their respective places of business
in Sioux City, Iowa, to points outside the State of Iowa. During this
same period, Respondent Ford made purchases valued in excess of
$125,000, of which in excess of $118,000 represented purchases and
shipments to its place of business in Sioux City, Iowa, from points
outside the State of Iowa, and sales valued in excess of $150,000, of
which in excess of $6,000 represented sales and shipments from its
place of business in Sioux City, Iowa, to points outside the State of
Iowa.
The Respondents admit, and we find, that they are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.,'
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization which admits to membership
employees of the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The sequence of events
Since about 1947 the members of the Association, including the
Respondents, acting through the Association, and the Union have
negotiated and executed various collective-bargaining agreements,
=encompassing in a single unit all regular hourly paid employees of
members of the Association, excluding clerical employees and super-
visors. The most recent contract, prior to the events which gave rise
to this proceeding, was executed on November 5, 1951, for a period
until March 31, 1952, and from year to year thereafter, in the absence
of 60 days' notice to modify or terminate?
On January 28, 1952, the Union requested, and on January 29,1952,
the representative of the Association agreed to, negotiations for
changes in the then current contract. The negotiations, which were
conducted by a committee representing the Association and a com-
mittee representing the Union, began in February 1952 and continued
until about July 15,1952. As of the latter date, the parties had reached
an impasse, the basic issue in dispute being wages.
I The Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., et al., 93 NLRB
1081, 1083, and cases cited therein.
8 This contract was executed by all of the Respondents herein, except Respondent Skid-
more, and was also executed by Schoeneman , Walensky , and certain other companies which
were not made Respondents herein. Although Respondent Skidmore executed neither this
contract , nor the earlier contracts appended to the stipulation, the parties stipulated that
all Respondents were members of the Association , and that the Union represented the
employees of all members of the Association.
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 17, 1952, the Union notified the Association that because
it was unable to reach an agreement with the Association, it desired
to bargain separately with each individual member of the Association.
On the same day, the Union requested each member of the Associa-
tion to bargain individually, for the same reason. The Union also
advised each member of the Association that no strike action had been
taken against it, and that in the event such action became necessary,
the Union would give at least 48 hours notice thereof. On July 18,
1952, the Association advised the Union that, although the associa-
tion members believed that association bargaining should be continued
if possible, they were willing to bargain individually if that was the
Union's desire; the representative of the Association was authorized
by each of the members to arrange for bargaining conferences. On
the following day, July 19, the Union notified Schoeneman and
Walensky that if no agreement was reached with them before 7 a. m.
on Wednesday, July 23, 1952, a strike would be called against each
of them at that time. At the same time, the Union sent copies of such
strike notices to the Association, and also advised the association rep-
resentative that it was willing to meet with him for the purpose of
negotiations. On July 21, 1952, the Association acknowledged receipt
of the strike notices and informed the Union that, although the asso-
ciation members had assumed that the Union desired negotiating con-
ferences with Schoeneman and Walensky, the Union had apparently
concluded that such conferences would be ineffective, in view of the
association-wide bargaining history. The Association also informed
the Union that in the event of a strike against one or more members
of the Association, all members "will treat such action as a strike
against each of them and will act accordingly."
On July 22, 1952, the Union reiterated its willingness and desire
to meet with the individual members of the Association, and particu-
larly Schoeneman and Walensky. Later that day, the Association
advised the Union that if any of the members of the Association were
struck, all members of the Association would shut down operations.
At their respective quitting times on that date, all of the Respondents
notified all of their employees represented by the Union that they
were being laid off because the Union had called a strike against
Schoeneman and Walensky, and all such employees were given their
checks. The following morning, the employees of all of the Respond-
ents reported for work at their usual time but were told by all of the
Respondents, except Respondent Ford, that they would not be per-
mitted to work until the strike at Schoeneman and Walensky was over.
The employees of Respondent Ford were permitted to work that morn-
ing but were laid off at noon of that day, and were given their checks;
SPALDING AVERY LUMBER COMPANY 1521
at that time they were told that they would not be recalled until the
strike at Schoeneman and Walensky was over.
Negotiations between the Association and the Union were resumed
on July 28, 1952, and the strike and lockout were settled by the exe-
cution, on August 7, 1952, of a contract encompassing an association-
wide unit .3 On that day, all laid-off employees were offered reem-
ployment as of August 8, 1952.
B. Contentions and conclusions
The Respondents contend that they locked out their employees
solely for economic reasons, and that such lockout was purely defen-
sive in nature. Assumingarguenda_the,validity of these contentions,
we nevertheless find, contrary to the Respondents' further contentions,
and for the reasons set forth in the Davis and Morand cases,' that by
such a lockout the Respondents restrained and coerced their employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and dis-
criminated to discourage membership in the Union, thereby violating
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. We further find that the Order
provided for will effectuate the policies of the Act.
The record in this case, however, does not support the Respondent's
contentions that the lockout was purely defensive, and was motivated
solely by economic considerations. As set forth hereinbefore, bargain-
ing between the Union and the Association had reached an impasse;
thereafter, the Union requested, and the Association and its members
agreed, to abandon multiemployer bargaining and to substitute sin-
gle-employer bargaining. To implement its bargaining position with
respect to Schoeneman and Walensky, the Union then threatened to
call a strike against them if agreements were not reached with them
by a certain date. Although the Union reiterated its willingness and
desire to negotiate with the association members individually, in-
cluding particularly Schoeneman and Walensky, the Respondents
elected to react to the threatened strike as if they were immediately in-
volved. Nevertheless, the association- members did not attempt to
rescind their agreement to engage in individual employer bargaining.5
It is clear, on these facts, that the Respondents had no collective
economic interests to protect when they resorted to a lockout. Having
3 With the exception of one company not involved in this proceeding , this contract was
executed by the same employers as executed the contract referred to in footnote 2, supra.
4 Davis Furniture Co., et al., 100 NLRB 1016; Morand Brothers Beverage Co., et at., 99
NLRB 1448.
Member Peterson did not participate in the Davis and Morand cases. He considers it
unnecessary to assume arguendo that the lockout was solely for economic reasons and
purely defensive in nature but nevertheless violative of the Act for the reasons set forth
in the Davis and Morand cases.
5 We do not pass on the question of whether such an attempt would have been material
to the issues in this case.
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed not to insist upon multiemployer bargaining, the Respondents
no longer had any basis for attempting to protect the previously exist-
ing multiemployer bargaining pattern from further efforts by the
Union to bargain with individual members of the Association and
to secure favorable contracts from them. Moreover, in agreeing to
give up the prior multiemployer bargaining arrangements, the Re-
spondents must necessarily have envisaged the possibility of variations
in the results of individual bargaining. Consequently, they had no
valid basis for attempting thereafter to protect, by economic action,
the uniformity of results which had prevailed during the period of
multiemployer bargaining. Nor is there any evidence in the record
to support a contention that the Respondents had any individual eco-
nomic interests to be protected by such action, particularly in view
of the Union's assurances, which it had honored with respect to
Schoeneman and Walensky, that it would give each of the Respond-
ents 48 hours' notice of any contemplated strike action.6 We find, ac-
cordingly, that the lockout was neither defensive in nature nor caused
by economic considerations.
In view of the agreement to substitute individual employer bargain-
ing for multiemployer bargaining, and in the absence of support in
the record for the Respondents' contentions that the lockout was ec-
onomic and defensive, the only reasonable inference to be drawn
from the Respondents' conduct, and we so find, is that they locked out
their employees in reprisal for the actions of the Union in threatening
to strike, and in striking, Schoeneman and Walensky. Such reprisal
directly interfered with, restrained, and coerced all employees repre-
sented by the Union in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), and also constituted
discrimination in the hire and tenure of employment of the Respond-
ents' employees because of the Union's actions, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. Whether the Respondents' conduct be viewed as a violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) or of Section 8 (a) (3), we find that effectuation of
the policies of the Act requires that the Respondents' employees be
made whole in the manner set forth hereinafter in the section en-
titled "The Remedy."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, and each of them, set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondents set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
Compare Betts Cadillac Olds , Inc., et al, 96 NLRB 268.
SPALDING AVERY LUMBER COMPANY 1523
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the Respondents interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their employees, and discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of their employees, by locking them out
during the period from July 23 to August 7, 1952, both inclusive.
Although each of these employees has been offered reinstatement, he
is entitled to reimbursement for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the Respondents' unfair labor practices. We shall therefore order
that each of the Respondents make each of its locked-out employees,
as listed on Appendix A, whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the Respondents' unfair labor practices, by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages from the date of the lockout to the date of the Re-
spondents' offers of reinstatement, less his net earnings 7 during the
said period. We shall also order each of the Respondents to make
available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to
facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due .8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
383, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., 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 employ-
ment of their employees, thereby discouraging membership in General
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 383, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., the Respondents, and each
of them, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Re-
7 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 311
U. S. 7.
1 F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289.
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondents, and each of them, have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
4. 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 this case and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Spalding
Avery Lumber Company, Burke Lumber & Coal Company, Edwards
& Browne Coal Company, Fullerton Lumber Co., E. S. Gaynor Lum-
ber Company, Skidmore Sawmills, Ford Lumber & Coal Co., and
Omaha Hardwood Lumber Co., Sioux City, Iowa, and each of them,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in General Drivers, Warehousemen
and Helpers Local Union No. 383, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L., or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by locking them out or otherwise discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 383, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole each of its employees in the manner set forth in the
section hereinabove entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its places of business in Sioux City, Iowa, and, in the
case of Respondent Burke, also at its place of business in South Sioux
City, Nebraska, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appen-
SPALDING AVERY LUMBER COMPANY 1525
dix B." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished each Respondent by the
Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minne-
sota), shall, after being duly signed by an appropriate representative
of each Respondent, be posted by said Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by each Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back
pay clue under the terms of this Order.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
9 Each of the Respondents shall insert therein following the sentence "Wa WILL make
whole the following named employees for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our unfair
labor practices ," the names of its employees , as set forth in Appendix A.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted in the notice for the words "A Decision and Order" the words
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
Appendix A
LOCKED-OUT EMPLOYEES
Spalding Avery Lumber Co.
Harry Bartelt
Jack Swolley
Alfred Bradley
Elmer Wulf
Frank Drain
Leo Schmidt
John Clark
Bill Trotter
Burge Lumber & Coal Co.
Leonard Christie
James McCall
Vic Spaulding
Orval Jorgenson
Elwood Oakley
Wm. LeClair
Harold King
257965-54-vol. 103-97
Earnest Saltzman
Jack Smith
James Smith
Harold Moes
Edwards & Brown Coal Co.
Don Wilmot
Floyd Poe
Frank Girdler
Wm. Holbrook
Fullerton Lumber Co.
Wm. McPeek
Donald McPeek
Clair Blair
Matt Schafer
Melvin Johnson
Earnest Wold
Paul Kroll
1526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
E. S. Gaynor Lumber Co.
Wm. Miller
John Appleton
John Graham
Glenn Graham
Pat J. Keane
Harry Winters
Otto Brown
James Haynes
Skidmore Sawmills
Patrick Cole
Henry Wolf
George Sanford
Ed Irons
Arlo Van Buskirk
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gerald Bliven
Chas. Giles
Minor Riibe
Henry Kirk
Franklyn Williams
Marcus Knapp
Ford Lumber & Coal Co.
Walter Jenkins
Quentin Hogan
Cecil Boggs
Louis Schenzel
Omaha Hardwood Lumber Co.
James Rexroat
Wm. Freese
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in GENERAL DRIVERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 383, affiliated
with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., or in any
other labor organization, by locking out our employees or other-
wise discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT In any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self -organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist GENERAL
DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No . 383,
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF
L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual 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 by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
MODEL MILL COMPANY, INC. 1527
WE WILL make whole the following named employees for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of our unfair labor practices:
All our employees are free to become or remain or to 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. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment against any employee
because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
-------------------------------
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.
MODEL MILL COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED
BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS,
CIO, PETITIONER
MODEL MILL COMPANY , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED
BREWERY, FLOUR , CEREAL, SOFT DRINK & DISTILLERY WORKERS OF
AMERICA , CIO. Cases Nos. 32-RC-424 and 32-CA-.77. April 3,
1953
Decision and Order
On January 27, 1953, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 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. The Board has considered the Inter-
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Mem-
bers Styles and Peterson].
103 NLRB No. 129.