Tennessee Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. FROSTY MORN DIVISION 819
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of the above named or any other labor organization.
HUTTIG SASH AND DOOR COMPANY , INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated-------- ----------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office,
4459 Federal Building, 1520 Market Street , St. Louis, Missouri , Telephone No.
Main 2-4142.
Tennessee Packers, Inc. Frosty Morn Division and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local No. 405 . Case No. 26-CA-2053. August 31, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 10, 1965, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 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 Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
'We affirm the Trial Examiner 's refusal to permit the Respondent to relitigate in this
complaint proceeding its objections previously considered by the 'Board in the representa-
tion proceeding , Case No. 26-RC-2030. On July 6, 1965, the Respondent filed a motion
to reconsider the Board 's Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative
issued on December 11, 1964, in Case No. 26-RC-2030. This motion was denied on
August 5, 1965 . The Respondent 's exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision rely
upon the same arguments advanced in the recent motion to reconsider and ale clearly
without merit.
154 NLRB No. 73.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent , Tennessee Packers, Inc. Frosty Morn
Division, Clarksville , Tennessee , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec-
ommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Based upon a charge filed on March 11, 1965, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 405, herein
called the Union against Tennessee Packers, Inc. Frosty Mom Division , herein
called the Respondent , the Regional Director for Region 26, on April 5, 1965,
issued a complaint alleging that notwithstanding the fact that following a Board-
conducted secret election the Board on December 11, 1964, had certified the
Union as exclusive bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of Respond-
ent's employees, Respondent has continued to refuse to recognize , meet, or
bargain with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and in deprivation
of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec 151 , et seq. Upon Respondent 's answer admitting
it has continued to refuse to recognize , meet, or bargain with the Union, while
generally denying certain other material allegations of the complaint , General
'Counsel on April 16 moved for relief in the nature of judgment on the pleadings,
striking out the answer and providing appropriate remedy . On April 22, Trial
Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued an order requiring Respondent to show
cause on or before May 5 why this motion should not be granted . Respondent's
papers in response to this order were received on May 10, and thereafter General
Counsel's papers in reply.
All pleadings, papers, and proceedings herein , and in underlying Board Case
No. 26-RC-2030, of which official notice is taken herein , having been fully
considered , upon the basis thereof, I make the following:
FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS; LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
In its answer Respondent admits, and I find , that at all material times Respond-
ent has been and is a Tennessee corporation with its plant and principal place
of business in Clarksville , Tennessee , where it is engaged in processing meat and
meat products ; that during the 12 -month period preceding issuance of the com-
plaint Respondent in the course and conduct of its said business operations sold
and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside the State of Tennessee ; that at all of said times Respondent has been
and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act; and that at all of said times the Union has been and is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I further find
that assertion of jurisdiction herein is proper.
If. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As has been indicated , Respondent is charged with refusal to recognize, meet, or
bargain with the Union although it has been duly certified by the Board tinder the
Act following a Board-conducted secret election . The issues tendered by Respond-
ent's answer to the complaint , as well as by its papers in opposition to General
Counsel 's motion for judgment on the pleadings , will now be considered.
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. FROSTY MORN DIVISION 821
A. Issues tendered by Respondent 's answer
The following chart recapitulates the allegations of the complaint and the,
responsive pleadings in the answer . The extreme right column contains the
Trial Examiner's comments based upon the record.
Complaint Complaint allegation Answer Trial Examiner 's comments
Par No. allegation
1______________ Charge filed and served March 11, Admitted ---
1965
2, 3, 4, and 5 _ _ Jurisdictional facts re Employer and Admitted--_
Union
6(a)___________ Supervisory status of Respondent ' s Admitted-__
plant supt and gen. mgr
6(b)___________ Agency status of Respondent attor- Denied______ Immaterial for purposes of present
ney motion.
7______________ Description of appropriate unit - ----- Denied ---- -- 1 This unit was stipulated to by
Respondent in writing on Septem-
ber 11, 1963 in Case No 26-RC-
2030
2 This unit was established by the
Board in its Decision of December
11, 1964, in Case No . 26-RC-2030
8______________ Selection of Union as bargaining Denied ------ Established in Board Decision
representative in Board-con - ( Supplemental Decision and Certi-
ducted secret election on June 19- fication of Representative) of
20, 1964, and Board certification of December 11, 1964, in Case No.
Union on December 11, 1964 26-RC-2030.
9______________ Union has been and is exclusive Denied ------ Legal conclusion flowing from facts
bargaining representative of unit alleged in complaint, paragraphs
employees under Act Section 9 (a). 7 and 8, established by Board
Decision of December 11, 1964, in
Case No 26-RC-2030.
10_____________ Since December 22, 1964, Union has Admitted___
been requesting Respondent to
bargain with it on behalf of unit
employees.
11_____________ Since December 22 , 1964, Respondent Admitted---
has continued to refuse to recog-
nize , meet, or bargain with Union
as representative of unit em-
ployees
12_____________ By acts described in complaint , Denied --- --- Conclusory allegations flowing from
paragraph 11, Respondent has facts alleged in preceding para-
violated Section 8(a) (1), depriving graphs of complaint.
employees of their Section 7 rights
13 (final) ------ By acts described in complaint , Denied____ __ Conclusory allegations flowing from
paragraph 11, Respondent has facts alleged in preceding para-
violated Section 8(a) (5). graphs of complaint.
In view of the state of the pleadings as shown by the foregoing chart, I issued the
order requiring Respondent to show cause why General Counsel's motion for relief
in the nature of judgment on the pleadings should not be granted and the answer
stricken out. A copy of the order to show cause is appended (Appendix A).
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Issues tendered by Respondent's response to order to show cause
The order to show cause allowed Respondent ample time to file "any and
all papers, exhibits, and briefs (including, if so advised, proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law, with supporting reasons therefor,' in opposition to
said motion and to the granting of the relief sought thereby." The only document
filed by Respondent is captioned "Amendment to Answer showing cause why
decision should not be rendered against Respondent on the pleadings." 2 While
not withdrawing any of the admissions contained in the original answer, the
document purports "by adding to its answer in regard to the allegations con-
tained in paragraphs 10 and 11" to explain why Respondent in its opinion is
"not obligated to bargain" with the Union. The explanation is twofold; first,
that an earlier election (1963) than the one (1964) resulting in the Union's cer-
tification was for various reasons improperly set aside by the Board; and second,
that even if the earlier (1963) election was properly set aside by the Board, the
Board's decision with regard to challenged ballots and the parties' stipulation for con-
sent election "was erroneous both as to fact and to law as to the 1964 election."
The order to show cause herein expressly required, with regard to any papers
to be filed in response to General Counsel's motion:
. . . that any papers so filed shall include plain, concise, and separately
numbered statements of each and every alleged triable issue which Respond-
ent contends is raised by the pleadings herein and which is required to be
litigated at a hearing, together with a written offer of proof in support
of each thereof sufficient clearly to identify in substance the proof pro-
posed to be adduced in support of each such separately numbered alleged
triable issue.
Respondent does not appear to have complied with this requirement, nor has
it advanced any reason for not complying. The document filed by it fails to
number and set forth triable issues as required, and fails to set forth the proof
proposed to be adduced in support of each such separately numbered alleged
triable issue; thereby obscuring the matters raised by General Counsel's motion,
and rendering nugatory, by noncompliance with the order to show cause,
my attempt to define and bring into fair and sharp focus all issues tendered by
Respondent.
Analysis of the record in underlying representation case, Case No. 26-RC-
2030, officially noticed herein, indicates that the document filed by Respondent
in purported compliance with the order to show cause merely reiterates certain
contentions or arguments which were either heretofore raised by Respondent
and disposed of by the Board, or which could have been raised by Respondent
before the Board, in Case No. 26-RC-2030 resulting in the Board's December 11,
1964, Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative; upon the basis of
which contentions Respondent now maintains that the Board erred in its Decem-
ber 11, 1964, decision and certification or actions which preceded it.
There is no contention by Respondent as to any newly discovered evidence,
nor is there any basis for concluding that any may be involved. Indeed, even
the arguments now raised by Respondent were advanced before the Board and
disposed of in the representation case.3 Indeed, comparison of Respondent's
1 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S C.A. Section 1007(b).
s No application or leave was sought to amend the answer. Cf Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Section 102 23. The document is here treated as an
amended answer and its contents considered accordingly.
3 Thus, Respondent now reiterates the following contentions raised before and disposed
of by the Board in representation case, Case No. 26-RC-2030: (1) That the election of
1963 was improperly set aside by the Board on the basis of a meeting of employees
called by Respondent, allegedly held prior to the "cutoff date" ; but that even if that
meeting was held after the "cutoff date" there was no grant of benefits or change in
conditions of employment, but merely reduction to writing of existing practice in regard
to truckdrivers. In support of this contention, Respondent again (as it did before the
Board) urges that union objection No. 4 to the election refers to a meeting of em-
ployees called by Respondent, at which Respondent told them to sign a petition disavow-
ing the Union, whereas the Regional Director in his report sustaining the objections
refers to it as a meeting at which Respondent approved truckdrivers rules effecting a
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. FROSTY MORN DIVISION 823
current "Amendment to Answer showing cause why decision should not be
rendered against Respondent on the pleadings" with Respondent's December 13,
'1963, "Exceptions to Report on Challenged Ballots and Objections" of the
Regional Director dated December 6, 1963, shows not only that the same
arguments are now sought to be renewed before me which failed before the Board,
but that a substantial portion of Respondent's current "Amendment to Answer" is a
verbatim copy of its December 13, 1963, Exceptions which were disposed of by the
Board. Respondent thus appears to be seeking to have me reverse or reopen the
Board's December 11, 1964, decision and certification. It is unnecessary to state
that the Trial Examiner lacks such power; and it should be unnecessary to remind
Respondent that if it desires reopening or reargument of the representation case, its
request should be addressed to the Board, which decided it.
It has repeatedly been held that the Trial Examiner is bound by the Board's
determinations in antecedent representation cases, noncompliance with which
forms the basis for a Section 8(a) (5) unfair labor practice charge; and that
issues which were or could have been litigated in the representation case may
not-barring special circumstances not here shown, claimed, or present-be
relitigated in the subsequent unfair labor practice case. Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company v. N L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 158, 161-162.4 There is here no claim or basis
for concluding that any evidence now proposed to be adduced was previously
unavailable or that it relates to events subsequent to the Board' s Decision in
the representation case.5 Nor would acceptance in the subsequent unfair labor
practice case of proffered proof which could have been advanced in the rep-
resentation case be proper in order to vary the result thereof. Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., supra, at 161-162; Olson Rug Company v. N.L.R.B.,
260 F. 2d 255 (C.A. 7); Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B.,
supra, at 440-441; N.L.R.B. v. Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation, 159 F. 2d
516 (C.A. 4), enfg. 66 NLRB 1165, 1175, cert. denied 330 U.S. 844; N.L.R.B.
v. West Kentucky Coal Company, supra, at 200-201. The same would be true
as to any current attempt to proffer proof of objections previously asserted
but unsupported by proof in the representation case, since such failure amounted
"in law and in fact to a waiver or abandonment of them, and the [Regional]
Director and Board were right in their position that, since respondent [employer]
had not undertaken to support them, they would not be considered as present-
ing any vice in the election." N.L.R.B. v. Huntsville Manufacturing Company,
203 F. 2d 430, 433 (C.A. 5).
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that neither Respondents answer nor
its paper filed in opposition to General Counsel's motion raises a triable issue.
"Neither the statute, nor the Constitution, gives a hearing where there is no
issue to decide." Charles Fay, as president of Amalgamated Machine Instrument
and Metal Local 475, UE v. Douds (Parker-Kalon Corp.), 172 F. 2d 720, 725
beneficial change in their working conditions. Respondent contends that this finding
of the Regional Director was unwarranted and that it had no opportunity to meet it.
Respondent's exceptions filed with the Board to the Regional Director's report show con-
clusively, however, that Respondent made the very same contention before the Board,
which rejected it. (2) That even if the 1963 election was properly set aside, the Board's
decision on the challenged ballots and its construction of the parties' 1963 consent-election
stipulation was erroneous in relation to the 1964 election This likewise was litigated
before the Board and passed upon by it in its December 11, 1964, Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative.
A See also: N.L.R.B. v. Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 319 F. 2d 690 (C.A. 4) ;
N.L R.B. V. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., 297 F. 2d 74 (C.A. 5) ; N.L.R.B. v. Burroughs Corpo-
ration, 261 F. 2d 463, 465-466 (C A. 2) ; N L R B. v. American Steel Buck Corp, 227 F.
2d 927, 929 (C A. 2) ; N.L.R.B. v. Esquire, Inc. (Coronet Instructional Fibres Division),
222 F. 2d 253, 255 (C A. 7) ; N.L.R B. v. Worcester Woolen Mills Corporation, 170 F.
2d 13, 16 (C,A. 1), cert denied 336 U S. 903; Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company v.
N.L.R.B., 162 F. 2d 435, 440-441 (C.A. 7) ; N.L R B. v. West Kentucky Coal Company,
152 F 2d 198, 200-201 (CA. 6), cert denied 328 US 866; Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226, 229, entd. sub noire N L.R.B. v. Commerce Company, d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 328 F.
2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; The Mountain States Telephone and Tele-
graph Company, 136 NLRB 1612, 1615, enfd. 310 F. 2d 478 (CA 10).
6 Singer Sewing Machine Company v. N.L.R B., 329 F. 2d 200, 204, 206 (C.A. 4).
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(C.A. 2). See also Harvey Aluminum, Inc., et al. v. N.L.R.B., 335 F. 2d 749,
757-758 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. Clearfield Cheese Company, Inc., 322 F. 2d 89,
92, 93 (C.A. 3); Producers Livestock Marketing Assn. v. United States, 241 F. 2d
192, 196 (C.A. 10), affd. 356 U.S. 282, and cases therein cited. There being no
triable issue and therefore no necessity for the taking of testimony herein upon the
pleadings and paper presenten, General Counsel's motion for relief in the nature
of judgment upon the pleadings is hereby granted, Respondent' s answers and
amended answer are stricken out, and Respondent's offers of proof 6 are rejected.?
In accordance with the request for relief in the moving papers, and upon the
entire record (including the record in Board Case No. 26-RC-2030), I state
the following:
In. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times Respondent has been and is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. At all material times the Union has been and is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees , including truckdrivers, at
Respondent's Clarksville, Tennessee, plant, excluding all office clerical employees,
clerical employees, salesmen, part-time employees, watchmen, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On June 19 and 20, 1964, a majority of Respondent's employees in the unit
stated above , by a secret ballot election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 26, National Labor Relations Board, in Case No.
26-RC-2030, designated and selected the Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Respondent and on December 11, 1964,
the Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in said unit.
5. At all times since June 20, 1964, and continuing to date, the Union has been
the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in
the unit stated above, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is
the exclusive representative of all employees in said unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment.
6. Commencing on or about December 22, 1964 , and continuing to date, the
Union has requested and is requesting Respondent to bargain collectively with it
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all of Respondent 's employees in said unit.
7. Commencing on or about December 22, 1964, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to recognize , meet with , or bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of all employees in said unit, notwithstanding the fact that the Union has at all
of said times been and is the duly designated and National Labor Relations
Board-certified exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all of Respond-,
ent's employees in said unit.
8. By refusing to recognize, meet, and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective -bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in said unit on
or about and since December 22, 1964, Respondent has-
(a) Refused and is refusing to bargain collectively with the representatives of
its employees , and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
(b) Interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining,
and coercing, its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to said employees in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaced in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices in violtaion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
'It Is noted that some of these are purely perfunctory or conclusionary , contrary to
the requirements of the order to show cause
7 Cf The Diversey Corporation v. N.L R.B., 325 F 2d 489 , 490-491 (CA. 7) ; KVP
Sutherland Paper Company-Sutherland Division, 143 NLRB 834 , 836-837.
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. FROSTY MORN DIVISION 825
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of -Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall also recommend that
Respondent be required to post an appropriate notice.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and the entire record
in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Tennessee Packers, Inc.
Frosty Morn Division, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing or failing to recognize , meet with , or bargain collectively in good
faith with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 405, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, at Respond-
ent's Clarksville, Tennessee, plant, excluding all office clerical employees, clerical
employees, salesmen, part-time employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 405, to meet with Respond-
ent and to negotiate for or represent the employees in the above unit as their
exclusive bargaining representative.
(c) Interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
through refusing or failing to recognize, meet with, or bargain collectively with
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 405, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in
said unit.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any 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 and all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
'policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize, meet, and bargain collectively in good faith with
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 405, as the exclusive representative of all of Respondent's employees
in the appropriate unit described in paragraph 1(a) above, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post in its plant and premises in Clarksville, Tennessee, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
e In the event that this Recommended Order he adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a 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".
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days
from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
therewith.9
APPENDIX A
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DECISION
SHOULD NOT BE RENDERED AGAINST
RESPONDENT UPON THE PLEADINGS
A motion upon due notices having been made by General Counsel for relief
in the nature of judgment upon 1 re pleadings herein, NOW, upon reading and
filing said notice of motion, dated April 16 , 1965, with Exhibit A (Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative in Case No. 26-RC-2030, by the
National Labor Relations Board , dated December 11, 1964 ) thereto annexed,
with proof of due service thereof, and upon the complaint dated April 5, 1965,
and the undated answer thereto served April 14, 1965 , and upon all proceedings
heretofore had herein, it is hereby
ORDERED , that Respondent Tennessee Packers, Inc. Frosty Morn Division
show cause before Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum why said motion should
not be granted and an order entered striking out Respondent 's said answer and
rendering decision against Respondent upon the pleadings herein, for the relief
called for by the complaint ; and it is further
ORDERED , that Respondent be and it is hereby allowed to and including the
5th day of May, 1965, to file with the Chief Trial Examiner National Labor
Relations Board, attention of Trial Examiner Ohlbaum, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave-
nue, NW., Washington. D.C. 20570, any and all papers, exhibits, and briefs (includ-
ing, if so advised ), in opposition to said motion and to the granting of the relief
sought thereby, as it may be advised, together with proof of due service thereof upon
all other parties to this proceeding ; and it is further
ORDERED , that any papers so filed shall include plain, concise, and separately
numbered statements of each and every alleged triable issue which Respondent
contends is raised by the pleadings herein and which is required to be litigated
at a hearing , together with a written offer of proof in support of each thereof
sufficient clearly to identify in substance the proof proposed to be adduced in
support of each such separately numbered alleged triable issue; and it is further
ORDERED, that General Counsel be and he is hereby allowed to and includ-
ing May 12, 1965, to file, as aforedescribed, with proof of due service thereof,
any and all papers, exhibits , and briefs ( including, if so advised , proposed find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law, with supporting reasons therefor ), in reply
to any papers , exhibits , and briefs filed by Respondent as aforesaid.
B 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX B
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 National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL recognize , meet with , and bargain collectively in good faith with
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 405, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The
bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees , including truckdrivers, at
our Clarksville, Tennessee , plant, excluding all office clerical employees,
clerical employees , salesmen, part -time employees , watchmen , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 405, to
WEBB MANUFACTURING, INC. 827
meet with us and negotiate for or represent the employees in the above
bargaining unit as their exclusive bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Congress in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , by refusing or failing to recog-
nize, meet, or bargain collectively in good faith with Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No.
405, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the
above unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. FROSTY MORN DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone
No. 534-3161.
Webb Manufacturing, Inc. and Larry A. Cline and William E.
Montgomery and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 8-CA-3600, 8-CA-3600-3, and 8-CA-3605. August 31,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 8, 1965, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Zagoria].
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, the brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner.
154 NLRB No. 63.