Town & Country Dairy

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 517 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

TOWN & COUNTRY DAIRY 517
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Employees' Union, Local 919,
R.C.I.A., AFL-CIO, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against our employees in respect to hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with doss of employment because of
their union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees or applicants for employment that it is
against our policy to employ individuals who favor a union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union member-
ship or activities, or condition their further employment upon withdrawal
from the above-named union.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees' union activities.
WE WILL offer Ronald Bridgett immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and any
other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Ronald Bridgett for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or to remain members of the above Union.
BARKER'S EAST MAIN CORPORATION,
BARKER'S SUPERMARKET, 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.
Town & Country Dairy and General Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 697, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 6-CA-289.
March 203, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 21, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a brief in sup-
port of the Intermediate Report and the Respondent filed exceptions
and a statement in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
136 NLRB No. 48.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Respondent, Town & Country
Dairy, Wheeling, West Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 697, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the following appropriate unit :
All driver-salesmen, plant employees and special order men of Town
& Country Dairy at its Wheeling, West Virginia, plant; of Cloverdale
Dairy at its Wheeling, West Virginia, plant; and of Ohio Valley Dairy
at its Martins Ferry, Ohio, plant, exclusive of all other employees,
garage mechanics, plant mechanics, temporary employees, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
above-named labor organization or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Bargain collectively with Local 697 as exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees and, upon request, execute the same or
identical agreement as was signed with Local 697 by the Cloverdale
Dairy and by Ohio Valley Dairy covering the employees in the above-
found appropriate unit.
(b) Post in its plant in Wheeling, West Virginia, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall,
upon being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
TOWN & COUNTRY DAIRY 519
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
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 you that :
WE WILL bargain collectively with Local 697 as exclusive bar-
gaining representative of our employees and will, upon request,
execute the same, or identical, agreement as that signed by and
between Local 697 and Cloverdale Dairy Co. and Ohio Valley
Dairy on June 22, 1961, covering the employees in the following
appropriate bargaining unit :
All driver-salesmen, plant employees, and special order men
of Respondent at its Wheeling, West Virginia plant; of
Cloverdale Dairy at its Wheeling, Wrest Virginia plant; and
of Ohio Valley Dairy at its Martins Ferry, Ohio, plant, ex-
clusive of all other employees, garage mechanics, plant me-
chanics, temporary employees, 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 the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Lo-
cal Union No. 697, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing or 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.
TOWN & COUNTRY DAIRY,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 2107 Clark Building, 701-17 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh 22,
Pennsylvania, Telephone Number GRant 1-2977, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on June 15, 1961, by General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 697, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
hereinafter referred to as Local 697 or the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the General Counsel' and the
Board respectively, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated October 6, 1961, against Town & Country
Dairy, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent. The complaint alleged that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)'(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein called the
Act. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon Respondent and Local 697.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint
but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held at Wheeling West Virginia, on
November 8, 1961, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties appeared
at the hearing, were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to produce, examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence
material and pertinent to the issues, and were advised of their right to argue orally
upon the record and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions or both.
Oral argument was waived. Briefs have been received from Respondent and General
Counsel on December 11, 1961.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDING OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Town & Country Dairy is, and has been at all times material herein, a West
Virginia corporation with its only plant and office located in Wheeling, West Virginia.
Respondent is engaged in the business of processing and selling dairy products at
retail and wholesale. During the past year, Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, received at its Wheeling, West Virginia, plant, goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to said plant directly
from States of the United States other than the State of West Virginia.
The complaint alleged, Respondent admitted, and the Trial Examiner finds that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION INVOLVED
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 697,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
In the year 1953 Cloverdale, Ohio Valley, Warwood, and Ebenezer Farms Dairies
negotiated and executed individual, but identical, labor agreements with Local 697
covering the "driver,salesmen, plant employees, and special order men" employed
by said dairies and admittedly represented in collective bargaining by said Local.
Each of the dairies was represented at these negotiations by a representative. Ebe-
nezer Farms' representative was William C. Schuetz, its owner.
By virtue of similar negotiations separate, but identical, agreements were signed
in 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, and 1957 between Local 697 and Ebenezer Farm Dairy,
Warwood Dairy, both of which were represented by William C. Schuetz, Cloverdale
Dairy, and Ohio Valley Dairy.
After similar negotiations at which each of the dairies was represented at the bar-
gaining table with Local 697 on June 9, 1959, Local 697 signed a 2-year contract
'This term specifically Includes the counsel appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing
TOWN & COUNTRY DAIRY 521
expiring May 31, 1961, with Cloverdale, Ohio Valley, and Respondent, Town &
Country Dairy, a merger of the old Ebenezer Farms and Warwood Dairies and
represented by William C. Schuetz, president of the corporate owner. All parties
on this occasion signed the same agreement apparently as a matter of convenience in
that by so doing only 9 such agreements had to be executed whereas a total of ap-
proximately 30 such agreements had to be executed when each dairy signed individual
but identical agreements with Local 697.
On February 28, 1961,2 Local 697 received the following letter reading in part as
follows:
Under the terms of article XIII of our present contract with your organization
we wish to notify you that it is our desire to open the contract immediately and
discuss certain changes. Specifically we wish to discuss-
1. Driver's base pay.
2. Driver's collection bonus.
3. Driver's commission.
4. Health and Welfare Plan.
5. Hours of work for plant men.
6. Hourly rates for plant men.
Please advise when it will be convenient to meet with us.
Sincerely,
[s] Harry Pinsky,
HARRY PINSKY,
Cloverdale Co.,
[s] William C. Schuetz,
WILLIAM C. SCHUETZ,
Town & Country Dairy,
[s] Al Weiskircher,
AL WEISIURCHER,
Ohio Valley Dairy.
Thereafter Local 697 met with Schuetz of Town & Country Dairy, Barnes of
Cloverdale Dairy and Weiskircher of Ohio Valley Dairy attempting to negotiate a
succeeding agreement.
At a meeting on May 22 between these parties a change took place. William F.
Gutwein entered the negotiations. There is a dispute in the evidence as to whether
Gutwein introduced himself at this meeting as the representative of Respondent only
or as spokesmen for all the dairies. This was a short meeting as the employers
requested time so that Gutwein could familiarize himself with the contract proposals.
Negotiations resumed the following day, May 23. It is undisputed that Gutwein
was the spokesman for the employers and, as Gutwein himself testified, the other
employers acted as "observers" while he and the representative of Local 697 narrowed
the issues. Respondent's brief describes this meeting as follows: ". . Mr. Gut-
wein, as his own witness, testified under oath that he was engaged only by the
Respondent for the purpose of expediting the negotiations for the Respondent only.
The other employers were in fact observers during the proceedings until the issues
were narrowed down by general discussion to the point where each employer could
then exercise his freedom to agree or disagree on major issues as he saw fit. This was
actually agreed upon among the employers before Mr. Gutwein arrived on the
scene." 3
On May 25, Gutwein sent the following letter to Local 697 with carbon copies to
"each employer" reading in part as follows:
As I promised, I am enclosing my version of the understandings reached in
negotiations before we adjourned our meeting together May 23.
We agreed together at the close of our last meeting that the only issue which
needs to be resolved between us is the paid holiday question concerning the
drivers. It is my understanding that the last proposal of the Union was a request
for 6 paid holidays for drivers, to begin on June 1, 1962, at the rate of $13 pay
per holiday.
I am sending you this r6sum6 only for your approval as to language involving
the principles which were agreed to. The same is also subject to the under-
standing and approval of the Employers as far as language is concerned. Should
2 All dates hereinafter are in the year 1961 unless otherwise specified.
s The last sentence rests on information de hors the record
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you have any questions or suggestions, please let the Employers or myself
know about them so that we can be sure of the language before the negotiations
are completed.
Very truly yours,
The next negotiation session was held on May 31. Although Gutwein was present
in Wheeling in time for the meeting, he did not attend that session at, as he
testified, the request of the employers. Weiskircher of Ohio Valley, William Schuetz
of Respondent, and Barnes of Cloverdale Dairy represented the employers and gave
the Union what they called their "last offer" which actually amounted to a denial of
an extra holiday and a pension plan suggested by Local 697. In other regards the
parties were in agreement as to the terms of the contract including section 10 of
article VII thereof which in effect was a 2-year plan whereby the drivers would
receive a 5-day workweek. Regarding the employers acceptance of this last-mentioned
article Schuetz testified that the other employers verbally signified their acceptance
thereof while he "remained silent." At the conclusion of the meeting Dan Morris,
the representative of Local 697, stated that he would take the employers' last offer
to a meeting of the Union on June 2 and would immediately thereafter notify Weis-
kircher as to whether the membership accepted or rejected said offer.
Gutwein who was wandering ,the streets of Wheeling passing time while the nego-
tiations were in session happened to meet the representatives of Local 697 after
they had left the meeting and was told by them "we either have a contract or a strike."
Schuetz testified that about 6a.m. on the morning of June 1, three or four, Schuetz
himself being indefinite, of Respondent's drivers came to his office, objected to the
5-day week provisions of the proposed contract and requested him not to execute
the agreement. According to Schuetz, this gave him a "good faith doubt" that Local
697 still represented a majority of his employees. Schuetz further testified that this
2-year proposal to install a 5-day workweek would be costly to Respondent.
Following this conversation Schuetz and Gutwein, who was still in Wheeling,
drove to the Regional Office of the Board in Pittsburgh where Schuetz filed a repre-
sentation petition covering a unit of Respondent's employees described as follows:
"all driver-salesmen, including relief drivers and temporary employees, and special
order men at the Town & Country Dairy, Inc., plant of the employer but excluding
all other employees, office clerical employees, garage mechanics, plant mechanics
and guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended."
The union meeting was held as scheduled on June 2 where the membership voted to
accept the contract as proposed on May 31. Thereupon Morris of Local 697 so
notified Weiskircher as he had agreed.
On June 8 Morris took the mimeographed contracts to the Cloverdale Dairy where
Pinsky and Weiskircher discovered some typographical errors therein which they
desired changed prior to execution. Morris was agreeable thereto. Although noti-
fied of the meeting, Schuetz was not present.
On June 21 Morris met with Weiskircher, Pinsky, and Schuetz at the Cloverdale
Dairy and agreed upon certain wording changes which the dairies desired made in
the contract. Pinsky stated that he was anxious to have the contract signed the
following day and requested that separate but identical agreements be signed, which
was also agreeable to Morris.
On June 22 the documents were stenciled and presented to Cloverdale and Ohio
Valley each of whom signed the same without question. When the document was
presented to Schuetz for signature, he put it in his desk drawer refusing to sign until
he had consulted Gutwein.
The contract was still unsigned by Respondent at the time of the hearing.
B. Conclusions
Since 1953 the Wheeling dairies, including the predecessor of Respondent, have
been dealing with Local 697 as the acknowledged representative of their driver-
salesmen, plant employees, and special order men. Prior to May 31, 1961, no fewer
than six labor agreements covering such employees of the dairies have been executed.
While it is true that, except for the contract entered into in June 1959, each dairy
had executed separate but identical agreements with Local 697, the history of these
negotiations leaves no doubt but that this was in fact multiemployer bargaining in
a multiemployer unit with each individual employer participating therein, including
Respondent, intending to be bound by the results of such negotiations. The latest
or 1959 agreement, indeed, was a single agreement executed by all the parties. Quite
TOWN & COUNTRY DAIRY 523
obviously in view of this long history Respondent had voluntarily become an integral
part of this multiemployer bargaining process even though the employers had never
formalized themselves into an employers association, a requirement the Board has
never demanded. Substance rather than legalistic form is all the Board has ever
required in multiemployer bargaining.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner must find that by 1961 Respondent here was
definitely a member of an employers association engaged in multiemployer bargaining
with Local 697 as the recognized bargaining representative of the driver-salesmen,
plant employees, and special order men employed by Respondent, Cloverdale Dairy,
and Ohio Valley Dairy.
A participant in such multiemployer bargaining may, of course, withdraw there-
from upon sufficient notice given to all parties concerned at an appropriate time.
Respondent here apparently contends that it never was a part of such multiemployer
bargaining because, except for the 1959 contract, all contracts it entered into were
separate, albeit identical, contracts. As found above this tends to place form over
substance and is, therefore, not persuasive.
Next Respondent appears to contend that it withdrew from the multiemployer
bargaining in 1961 by bringing in William F. Gutwein to represent it exclusively
during the negotiations or else by reason of the representation petition it filed upon
the expiration of the 1959 contract on June 1, 1961.
As to the appearance of Gutwein at the negotiations of May 22 and 23, even if
it be assumed that Gutwein made it clear that he represented Respondent only at
these negotiations, which is doubtful, it is still clear that thereafter he became, as
admitted in Respondent's brief, and with the prior consent of all the dairies, the
actual spokesman for them all. In fact Gutwein's letter of May 25 to Local 697
with carbon copies to all the dairies indicates very clearly that Gutwein was in fact
the authorized spokesman for the association of employers. Confirmation of this
is found in the fact that Gutwein absented himself from the negotiations on May 31
on orders of the dairies, in which Respondent at least acquiesced.
It is also noteworthy that Respondent through Schuetz was still representing Re-
spondent as part of this multiemployer group when the employers gave Local 697
their "final offer" at the May 31 meeting. Thus there was on that occasion still no
indication of any withdrawal by the Respondent despite the alleged "silence" of
Schuetz when the employers accepted the 5-day week proposal at that meeting.
The employers' final offer was accepted by the membership of Local 697 on June 2
and that acceptance properly conveyed to the employers, including Respondent, there-
after as had been agreed on May 31. Any purported withdrawal by Respondent
during the time this final offer remained opened clearly would be untimely.
The other possible evidence of withdrawal by Respondent consisted of Respond-
ent's filing of a representation petition covering only its own driver-salesmen, plant
employees, and special order men upon the purported ground that the Respondent
had a "good faith doubt" that Local 697 still represented the majority of Respond-
ent's employees drawn from conversations earlier that same morning with three or
four of its own employees. It is hard indeed to consider the Respondent's belief re-
garding this purported loss of majority representation among even its own 20-odd
employees from conversations with at most four of such employees to constitute a
"good faith doubt." This is especially so in view of the fact that Schuetz himself ap-
parently opposed the proposed 5-day week as expensive for Respondent. Further-
more the appropriate unit involved in this multiemployer bargaining was, in fact, the
driver-salesmen, plant employees, and special order men of all three participating
dairies consisting of approximately 110 employees so that even if Respondent's 20-
odd drivers had all defected, Local 697 still remained the majority representative of
the employees in this appropriate unit. Unfortunately democracy being based upon
majority rule has never yet devised a method whereby every dissenter may also be
satisfied.
Furthermore the fact that Schuetz for the Respondent participated in the final
negotiations over phraseology changes in the contract on June 22 with Local 697
seems quite conclusively to indicate that his purported withdrawal was more a tactical
bargaining maneuver than a bona fide attempt to withdraw from the multiemployer
bargaining.
Consequently the Trial Examiner must find that Respondent's purported with-
drawal from the multiemplover bargaining was neither timely nor effectual. Thus
when Respondent on June 23, 1961, refused to execute the contract agreed upon
during the negotiations in which Respondent was a full participant, Respondent
refused to bargain in good faith with Local 697 as the representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has refused to execute an agreement with Local
697 containing the terms and conditions of employment offered to said union
by the employers on May 31 , 1961 , and embodied in final form on June 23, 1961,
the Trial Examiner will order that the Respondent sign an agreement with Local 697
identical with that executed heretofore on June 23, 1961 , by Cloverdale Dairy and
Ohio Valley Dairy.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is, and during all times material herein was, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material herein was engaged in,
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All driver-salesmen, plant employees and special order men of Respondent at
its Wheeling, West Virginia , plant; of Cloverdale Dairy at its Wheeling, West Vir-
ginia, plant ; and of Ohio Valley Dairy at its Martins Ferry, Ohio, plant, exclusive
of all other employees , garage mechanics , plant mechanics , temporary employees,
professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute, and during
all times material herein , constituted a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Local 697 was during the year 1961 , and at all times thereafter has been, the
recognized representative of all the employees in the above-described appropriate
unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on June 23, 1961, and at all times thereafter , to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization , the recognized representative of the em-
ployees in the above-described appropriate unit , Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain , Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO and
Saturn & Sedran , Inc. Cases Nos. 06-CB-136 and 06-CP-1
(formerly 10-CB-11 24 and 10-CP-2). March 23, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 23, 1960, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the
'An erratum was issued on May 24, 1960.
136 NLRB No. 44.