Suder Beverage Distributors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 63 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS 63
Emerson Suder and David Suder d/b/a Suder Beve--
age Distributors and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union No. 453. Case 6
CA- 10866
January 24, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY. AND TRUESDALI
On September 14, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Jennie M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order, as modified.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Emerson Suder and David Suder d/b/a Suder Bever-
age Distributors, Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, their
agents, successors, and assigns. shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made b the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Drs Wall Products. Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefull\
examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
2 e do not agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that
the character of the unfair labor practices found in this proceeding requires
a broad remedial order to full) effectuate the purposes of the Act. Accord-
ingly, we have narrowed the scope of the recommended Order to provide
that Respondent cease and desist from "in an) like or related manner"
interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Sec. 7 of the Act.
In order to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit will be
accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period pro-
vided by law, we shall construe the initial period of certification as begin-
ning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the
Union as the recognized bargaining representative In the appropriate unit
See ar-Jac Poultry Company. Inc.. 136 NLRB 785 (1962: Commerce Com-
panv, d, ba Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226. 229 (19625, enfd. 328 F2d 600 (5th
Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 .s. 817: and Burnett Construction Companm.
149 NI.RB 1419. 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965)
240 NLRB No. 3
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(i):
"(i) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICF To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question our employees' judg-
ment in joining a union.
WE WILL NOT encourage or assist our employ-
ees to withdraw their membership from the
Union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to
why they went to the Union initially, why they
attended union meetings, or why they did not
come to see us instead.
WE WILL. NOT invite our employees to bargain
directly with us, thereby bypassing their chosen
representative.
WF WILL NOI grant to our employees wage in-
creases. vacation benefits, or other benefits with-
out negotiating in good faith with their represen-
tative.
WE WILL Nor refuse to meet with or withdraw
recognition from International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union No. 453, as
the duly selected and certified representative of
our employees in the following unit:
All drivers, warehousemen and helpers em-
ployed by Respondent at its Meyersdale,
Pennsylvania, facility, excluding all other em-
ployees and guards, professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bargain
collectively with the aforesaid Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all
employees in the appropriate unit, described
above, with regard to rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is
SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
EMERSON SUDER AND DAVID SUDER d/b/a
SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: This is a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.), hereinaf-
ter referred to as the Act. Based on charges filed on Janu-
ary 18, 1978, as amended on March 23, 1978, a complaint
was issued on March 24, 1978, presenting allegations that
Emerson Suder and David Suder d/b/a Suder Beverage
Distributors, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, com-
mitted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8(aX)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respon-
dent filed a letter, treated herein as an answer, denying that
it committed the violations of the Act as alleged. Upon due
notice, the case was heard before me in Somerset, Pennsyl-
vania, on July 17, 1978.' Representatives of all parties en-
tered appearances and had an opportunity to participate in
the proceeding.
Based on the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of arguments, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a partnership formed under the laws of
Pennsylvania doing business as Suder Beverage Distribu-
tors, with its sole facility located in Meyersdale, Pennsylva-
nia, is engaged in the wholesale distribution of beer and
other beverages. During the year preceding issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 for use at
its Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, facility from enterprises
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which are en-
gaged in interstate commerce.
Respondent admits and I find that it is now, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 453, hereinafter referred to as
the Union, is now, and has been during all times material
B The official transcript and exhibits inadvertently, but erroneously, con-
tain the date July 13, 1978. They are hereby corrected.
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
After a Board election conducted on December 16, 1977,
in a unit of all drivers, warehousemen, and helpers em-
ployed by Respondent at its Meyersdale, Pennsylvania fa-
cility, excluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees and guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, the Union was certified on December
27, 1977,2 as the statutory bargaining representative of the
employees of Respondent in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
By letter dated December 30, the Union submitted to Re-
spondent its proposals for a collective-bargaining agree-
ment and requested that Respondent, after it had time to
study the proposals, notify the Union of a date to begin
negotiations.
A few days after the employees had selected the Union
as their representative in the election there were conversa-
tions in the warehouse between the two employees in the
unit and the two Suder partners. According to David Su-
der, he and Emerson Suder expressed to the employees a
question of whether the employees had done the right thing
by joining the Union. The employees responded that they
really did not know whether they had or not. The Suders
indicated that they did not know whether there was any-
thing that could be done (apparently meaning to nullify the
selection of a collective-bargaining representative by its
employees), but undertook the task of finding out.
On January 3, in a conversation with Emerson Suder in
Respondent's office, employee Richard Irwin stated to Su-
der that he wondered how he could get out of the Union.
Suder replied, "if you want to know, call the Union." Irwin
asked Suder for the Union's phone number and for permis-
sion to use the office telephone. Suder supplied both and
after Irwin dialed the number Suder left the office. Shortly
thereafter Irwin came into the warehouse where Suder was
with employee William Durst. Irwin reported his unsatis-
2 By certified mail Respondent dispatched to the Union. with a copy to
Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board, a letter notaraized on
December 27, 1977, which reads as follows:
In regard to said Case named above. Mr. Edison informed me and Mr.
Joseph Freno, representing the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousement [sic] and Helpers. Local Union #453, of the
results of the said election and told us that it would not be official until
notified by the Labor Relations Board within 5 (five) working days follow-
ing the said election by Certified Mail.
This election was conducted Friday, December 16, 1977 at my place of
business, and to this date, December 27. 1977, I have not been notified of
this action by the Labor Relations Board or by the Local Union #453. This
is a period of more than 5 (five) working days.
I consider this a violation of the agreement made in good faith with the
N.L.R.B. and the International Brotherhood Local Union #453. Thus, with
this notorized notice sent by Registered Mail this 27th day of December,
1977 I withdraw my place of business and my name, Emerson Suder, from
all previous agreements and declare this Case No. 6-RC-8033 VIOD [sic]
and CLOSED and not to be re-opened for any election for representation
by Local Union #453 Teamsters or any other union for a period of one year
and one day from the notarized date of this notice. That named Local #453
or any union, person or persons are forbidden to call a strike or picket
Suder's Beverage Distributors during this period of time.
The Regional Director's reply dated December 30, 1977, explaining the
exclusion of Saturdays. Sundays, and holidays from the computations of the
time period adequately disposes of the issue raised by Respondent's letter.
SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS 65
factory conversation with the union president. Emerson
Suder's recollection of the conversation that ensued is re-
flected in the record as follows:
Q. (By the General Counsel) What was said? After
he explained about the response, what was said then?
A. I just said to them in a gentlemanly way, I said.
listen fellows, I said, my son and I are human beings.
I said, we can talk together, if you guys want to talk to
us.
I said, in the first place, why did you go to the
Union's secret meetings, you didn't tell us anything
about it...l said, we're human, why didn't you come
and talk to us, and they said, we're not allowed to,
we're signed up with the Union now.
Q. Let me make sure I've got this right. You asked
your employees why they went to the Union in the
first place?
* *
A. Yes, if they weren't satisfied with the working
conditions, why couldn't they come and talk to us.
According to Emerson Suder, at the end of this con-
versation Irwin asked him to obtain information con-
cerning how they could withdraw from the Union. Su-
der promised to seek such information from his
attorney. Suder called the Multi-Beverage Distributors
Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to which
Respondent belonged, and talked with an attorney
who handled labor matters in the legal department.
Suder understood this individual to advise of a proce-
dure whereby the employees could write a letter of
withdrawal to the Union within 30 days of the elec-
tion, with a copy to the Board, and "they would have
to honor it." Irwin asked Suder if he would help write
the letter. Suder told Irwin "I'm not allowed to." Nev-
ertheless, the letter was drafted for the use of the em-
ployees in the unit. A handwritten letter of withdrawal
from the Union was supplied by David Suder to each
of the employees with instructions to rewrite it if they
chose to send it and to change it if they wished to do
so, but to send Respondent a copy. Both of the em-
ployees followed these instructions. 3
On January 11, 1978, having received no response
to its December 30, 1977, letter requesting bargaining,
the union business agent, William Peterson, talked by
telephone with David Suder. David advised that Re-
spondent had turned the Union's proposals over to the
Company attorney. On January 16, Peterson called
again4 and was advised by Emerson Suder that their
3 Durst testified he did not know that he could withdraw from the Union
and did not ask Emerson Suder about withdrawal. Emerson Suder brought
it up to him and David Suder supplied the handwritten letter which Durst's
wife typed for him. Emerson Suder came to him home while he was off
work with the flu to get the letter and mail it for him because Suder said it
should be sent within 30 days.
4Before this phone call the Union had received substantially identical
letters dated January 9 and I.I respectively, from Durst and Irwin indicat-
ing that they wished to "withdraw" their "Union Card" and "to sever all
affiliation" with the Union The Union wrote to each employee announcing
the January 22, 1977, union meeting and inviting them to attend. Neither of
them came. The Union made no specific written response to their with-
employees no longer belonged to the Union and there
was nothing for them to negotiate about. Peterson re-
called that Emerson Suder then advised he had turned
the matter over to his attorney. Suder raised the ques-
tion of who would pay for the meeting place if negoti-
ations were undertaken. Peterson informed Suder that
meetings could be held in the company office, in the
union office, in the attorney's office, or they could get
a room somewhere in which event the cost was usually
split 50-50 between the parties. According to Emerson
Suder he told Peterson:
You're the fellows who want to negotiate, and you'-
re the fellows who will pay for the negotiating place
. . . we're not meeting in my office, and I'm not com-
ing to your office, we'll meet on mutual [sic] grounds
and I'm not paying for the expenses.
Suder denied Peterson's testimony that Suder informed Pe-
terson that the Company lawyer was pretty busy and
maybe he would contact the Union in a month or so. In-
stead, Suder testified he told Peterson he had given the
Union's proposal to his attorney and said, "When he goes
over it and lets me know, I'll negotiate." Peterson accused
him of refusing to negotiate. Suder denied this was the fact,
but Peterson kept repeating the accusation so Suder hung
up the phone. Respondent never contacted the Union. Da-
vid Suder testified that after they had received copies of the
employee's letters sent to the Union and had heard nothing
from the National Labor Relations Board they assumed
that the withdrawals had been recognized and were under
the impression that they were not obligated to bargain with
the Union.
Emerson Suder testified that he had told the employees,
"Maybe we'll negotiate for a month, or maybe it will be 6
months or a year. You guys will work for the same salary,
we cannot give you a raise." Suder did not fix the time of
this remark. While the charges herein were being investi-
gated both Suders spoke with the board agent, and
Emerson Suder spoke by telephone with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 6, about whether they were permitted to
give raises to the employees. Both recalled that in these
conversations they were told it would be lawful to give the
employees raises if this was the annual practice, whether or
not they were negotiating. Respondent granted raises to
the employees and also announced to them that, in addi-
tion to their established -week vacation, they would re-
ceive a week of leave time which they could take a day at a
time, at random.5
David Suder testified that Respondent acquired a going
business in November 1973. In December there was an
increase in the price of beer and at that time the Company
gave a raise. Since that time whenever there was an in-
crease in the price of beer the Company gave a wage in-
drawal letters.
Durst was sure the raise was effective March 3, 1978. Irwin testified he
received his raise the same time that Durst did but then set the date as May
3. Durst set the announcement of the additional leave time as during Janu-
ary whereas Irwin fixed the time as around the time of the raise. David
Suder indicated that both were in March. and Emerson Suder placed the
event of the raise as occurring after he spoke with the Regional Director
during investigation of the charges herein. I accept March 3 as the probable
date for both increases in benefits.
SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS
* * *
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
crease to employees. In 3 of the 4 years the price raise and
wage increase occurred in the spring. This year the price of
beer for one supplier was increased on March 1, with other
sources increasing the price during April. Irwin testified
that when he was hired 2 years previous to the hearing he
was told by David Suder that the Company would try to
give an annual raise. Admittedly, there was no practice of
annually increasing vacation benefits. Respondent did not
submit company business records, which of necessity
would have been in its possession if they existed, to support
its assertion of an established practice of giving annual
raises at a given time. Durst, who worked for Respondent
from its inception, recalled that he had received previous
raises but could give no suggestion as to when these may
have occurred. It would seem that if employee raises as-
sumed a repetitive pattern this would have registered and
set in his memory. The statement attributed by Irwin to
David Suder at the time of his hire that the Company
would try to give a raise annyally does not establish that
Respondent had set a pattern of doing so. Further, David
Suder's self-serving and undocumented testimony that the
Company gave employees a raise every time there was an
increase in the price of beer reveals that any such policy
was a contingent one based upon decisions and timing be-
yond Respondent's control. Although in retrospect it may
have occurred on a fairly regular basis, it did not assume a
set and predictable pattern or practice. Finally, if the
March 3 raise was based on the price increase in beer, it
was instituted according to Respondent's own testimony,
immediately upon the action of a single supplier and well
before the other suppliers in the industry followed suit. On
the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that there was no
fixed practice of granting annual raises at a specified time
which warranted Respondent's changing the wage rates of
employees who had selected a bargaining representative
with whom Respondent was legally obligated to bargain.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent interfered with the
Section 7 rights of its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act by:
1. Questioning employees, shortly after the election,
about whether they had done the right thing in joining the
Union, and encouraging them to withdraw their member-
ship in the Union at a time when Respondent was obli-
gated by statute to bargain with their collective-bargaining
representative.
2. Interrogating employees in the warehouse as to why
they went to the Union initially, why they attended union
meetings, and why they did not come to Respondent' offi-
cials instead.
3. Telling employees, "We can talk together, if you guys
want to talk to us," thus inviting employees to bargain di-
rectly and bypass their chosen representative.
4. Assisting employees to withdraw membership in the
Union.
(a) When Emerson Suder advised Irwin to call the Union
and to ascertain how to "get out," supplied the telephone
number, and granted him permission to use the office tele-
phone for that purpose.
(b) When Respondent promised employees he would ob-
tain information from his attorney as to any procedure
whereby they could withdraw from the Union.
(c) When Respondent advised employees of the informa-
tion received concerning such a procedure.
(d) When Respondent supplied employees with a drafted
letter designed to institute such withdrawal procedure.
(e) When Respondent undertook to pick up and mail
such letter signed by employee Durst.
I further find that Respondent unlawfully refused to bar-
gain within the meaning of Section 8(d) in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and () of the Act:
(a) When Respondent failed to respond to the Union's
request to bargain dated December 30, 1977.
(b) When it bypassed the Union and invited employees
to bargain directly with Respondent's officials.
(c) When on January 16, 1978, it withdrew recognition
from the Union by telling the Union that its employees had
withdrawn their membership and that there was nothing
for them to bargain about.
(d) When Respondent granted to employees wage in-
creases and additional vacation benefits without bargain-
ing with the certified bargaining representative of its em-
ployees.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire rec-
ord in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent, Emerson Suder and David Suder d/b/a
Suder Beverage Distributors, is, and has been at all times
material herein, an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Lo-
cal Union No. 453, is, and has been at all times material
hereto, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material, the Union has been, and is, the
statutory representative, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act, of Respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective-bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act, described as follows:
All drivers, warehousemen and helpers employed by
Respondent at its Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, facility,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees and guards, professional employees and supervis-
ors as defined in the Act.
4. At all times material herein, and in particular since
December 30, 1977, the Union has demanded that Respon-
dent bargain with the Union as the certified collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid
unit.
5. Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act and has committed unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act by the following con-
duct:
(a) By voicing to its employees a question of whether
employees had done the right thing in joining the Union.
SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS 67
(b) By encouraging employees to withdraw their mem-
bership in the Union.
(c) By interrogating employees as to why they went to
the Union initially, why they attended union meetings, and
why they did not come to Respondent's officials instead.
(d) By inviting employees to bargain directly with Re-
spondent and bypass their chosen representative.
(e) By assisting employees to withdraw membership in
the Union.
6. Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit and has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and () of the Act by the follow-
ing conduct:
(a) By, at all times material, and in particular since De-
cember 30, 1977, failing and refusing to bargain with the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the aforesaid unit.
(b) By, commencing on January 16, 1978, and continu-
ing to date, withdrawing recognition of the Union as the
exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the
aforesaid unit.
(c) By, at all times after March 3, 1978, making and
continuing changes in the wages, vacation benefits, and
terms and conditions of employment of the employees em-
braced within the aforesaid appropriate unit without giving
the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to such
changes.
7. The aforesaid unlawful conduct constitutes unfair la-
bor practices affecting commerce with the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES LIPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III.
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take the affirmative action set forth be-
low in the recommended Order designed and found neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found
that Respondent has unlawfully withdrawn recognition
from the Union and has failed and refused, upon demand,
to bargain collectively with the Union as required by the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to recognize and,
upon request, bargain with the Union as exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Nothing
herein is to be construed as requiring Respondent to res-
cind any benefits granted to the employees.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, Emerson Suder and David Suder
d/b/a Suder Beverage Distributors, Meyersdale, Pennsyl-
vania, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Voicing to its employees a question of whether em-
ployees had done the right thing in joining the Union.
(b) Encouranging employees to withdraw their member-
ship in the Union.
(c) Interrogating employees as to why they went to the
Union initially, why they attended union meetings, and
why they did not come to Respondent's officials instead.
(d) Inviting employees to bargain directly with Respon-
dent and bypass their chosen representative.
(e) Assisting employees to withdraw membership in the
Union.
(f) Refusing to bargain with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, ocal Union No. 453, upon request,
as the certified and exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate bargaining unit:
All drivers, warehousemen and helpers employed by Re-
spondent at its Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, facility, exclud-
ing all other employees, office clerical employees and
guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(g) Withdrawing recognition of the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the aforesaid unit.
(h) Granting to employees in the aforesaid collective-
bargaining unit, unilaterally and in derogation of the bar-
gaining representational status of the Union, and without
negotiating in good faith with said Union, wage increases
and vacation benefits, without prejudice, however, to any
benefits heretofore granted.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed un-
der Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 453, as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit described above, with regard to rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms or conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National abor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided n Sec 102
48 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted bh the Board and become its
findings. conclusions, and Order, and all hjections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes
SUDER BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, facility copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
ized representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.