Victor Ryckebosch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victor Ryckebosch , Inc. and General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers Local Un-
ion 982 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.
Case 31-CA-1594
March 18, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On September 21, 1970, Trial Examiner Herman
Corenman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
limited exception.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
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 the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Victor Rycke-
bosch, Inc., Lancaster, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of any rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
Act."
2. In paragraph 2(d), substitute "on forms provid-
ed" for "to be furnished."
3. In footnote 16 of the Trial Examiner's Decision
substitute "20" for "10" days.
4. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Trial
Examiner's Appendix B.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers Local Union 982, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, as the exclusive representa-
tive of our coop truckdrivers with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally, and without consul-
tation and bargaining with the aforesaid Union,
change wage rates, wages, hours, and other
working conditions.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of our
employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed
to them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole employees who have been
deprived of benefits by unilateral changes effected
by us since May 31, 1969.
VICTOR RYCKEBOSCH,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000 Wil-
shire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024,
Telephone 213-824-7351.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner . This case was
heard on May 26, 27, and 28 and June 1 , 2, and 3, 1970,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner, upon a
189 NLRB No. 8
VICTOR RYCKEBOSCH, INC.
complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, and answer of
Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., herein called Respondent. The
issues litigated were whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, herein called the Act.'
Upon the entire record,2 including consideration of briefs
filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, and upon
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The pleadings establish, and I find, that Respondent is a
California corporation with its principal office and place of
business at Lancaster, California, and is engaged in the
production and marketing of live poultry to poultry
processing plants in California. It is further established by
the pleadings, and I find, that the Respondent, in the course
of its business operations, has annual gross sales in excess
of $8 million, and annually purchases and receives, at its
places of business in California, grain and other supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States other than
California. Upon the basis of the foregoing, I find that
Respondent at all times material herein has been, and is
now, an employer engaged in commerce and in business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman &
Helpers Local Union 982, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, herein called the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues-Preliminary Statement
Respondent , a large grower and marketer of poultry, in
March 1969 bought the trucking equipment of Patterson
Trucking Company, a contract carrier which previously
had been devoting approximately 80 percent of its work to
the hauling of Respondent 's live poultry from the farms of
contract growers to processing plants which had engaged
the services of Patterson Trucking Company. At the time of
the purchase in March 1969 , Patterson Trucking Company
was party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union covering a unit of its truckdrivers . After the
purchase , Respondent leased back the trucking equipment
to Patterson Trucking Company temporarily till June 1,
1969. On this date the Respondent took possession of the
truck equipment and employed Patterson Trucking Com-
' A consolidated complaint in Cases 31-CA-1558 and 31-CA-1594 issued
April 10, 1970, based on charges in Case 31-CA-1558 filed on September 8.
1969. and on charges in Case 31-CA-1594 filed on October 14, 1969. At the
outset of the hearing on motion of the General Counsel and by agreement
of the parties, Case 31-CA-1558 was severed and discontinued: and the
41
pany's employees to continue their truckdriving functions
of hauling Respondent's live poultry from the farms of
contract growers to the processing plants. The Respondent
has refused to recognize or bargain with the Union which
had represented Patterson's truckdrivers, contending that
(1) the truckdrivers are now agricultural laborers and are,
therefore, excluded from the term "employee" within the
meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act, and (2) assuming,
arguendo, they are employees within the definition of
Section 2(3) of the Act, the Respondent nevertheless has no
duty to recognize or bargain with the Union as it is not a
"successor" to Patterson Trucking Company.
Query: (1) Are the truckdrivers, engaged in driving
Respondent's live poultry to the processing plants from the
farms of contract growers, agricultural laborers excluded
from the term "employee" as defined in Section 2(3) of the
Act? (2) In the event the truckdrivers are "employees"
within the definition of Section 2(3) of the Act and not
"agricultural laborers," is the Respondent a "successor" to
Patterson Trucking Company and, therefore, legally
obligated to recognize and bargain with the Union?
B. Background
The Respondent's president and general manager is
Victor Ryckebosch. He and his family own and control not
only the Respondent, but also a corporate cooperative at
Lancaster known as the Antelope Valley Turkey Growers
Association, a turkey processor which slaughters and
dresses turkeys and another corporation known as
Ryckebosch & Sons which owns and operates a feed and
grain mill at Lancaster producing poultry feeds for the
exclusive consumption of the Respondent's poultry grown
on the farms of contract growers. The Respondent owns
and operates two chicken hatcheries at Lancaster, Califor-
nia, and a turkey hatchery at Hemet, California. The
Ryckebosch family owns three neighboring 80-acre parcels
of farm land at Lancaster, where alfalfa is raised and on
which are situated the family home and office headquarters
as well as two of the chicken hatcheries.
Ryckebosch first ventured into turkey farming in 1930
with the purchase of a small acreage at Lancaster,
California, on which he began operations with eight female
turkeys and one male turkey, From this humble beginning,
the Ryckebosch holdings have pyramided so that today his
poultry enterprise is valued by him as follows:
Antelope Valley Turkey
Growers Association plant (turkey
processor) $750,000
240 acres (three 80-acre
parcels at Lancaster owned by the
Ryckebosch family) 192,000
Ryckebosch & Sons Feed Mill 815,366
complaint was deemed amended by the withdrawal of all 8 (a)(3) and
derivative 8(a)(I) allegations from the complaint.
2 The transcript of record has been noted and corrected in accordance
with unopposed Respondent's motion.
42
Turkey hatchery at Hemet
2 chicken hatcheries at
Lancaster
Hatchery chick vans
Feed-hauling equipment
Live poultry-hauling
equipment
163,286
154,000
12,515
307,935
132,899
In addition to the aforesaid land, buildings , and truck-
hauling equipment , the Respondent at all times has on
hand an average inventory of chickens of 1,250 ,000 birds
valued at $500 ,000, an average inventory of turkeys valued
at $2,500 ,000; breeder chickens and turkeys valued at
$200,000 ; poultry feeds valued at $250 ,000; and accounts
receivable of $1 million . The Respondent sends to market
for processing an output of about 125 ,000 chickens per
week and 50 ,000 turkeys per week.
The Respondent procures its chicken hatching eggs from
breeder farms in Arkansas .3 The fertile eggs are transported
to the Respondent 's chicken hatcheries at Lancaster, where
they are hatched into baby chicks The I-day old baby
chicks or baby poults are then placed in boxes and
transported to anyone of 188 contract turkey or chicken
growers in California These growers are spread out
through the southern half of California. They operate
poultry farms, roughly speaking within a radius of
approximately 150 to 220 miles in every direction from
Lancaster, California The major portions of the poultry
farms are clustered in the vicinity of Lancaster and Los
Angeles County . When the fryers or turkeys , as the case
may be , reach marketable age, the Respondent picks them
up at the contract growers' farms and transports them by
truck to the processing plant.
It appears from the evidence that the evolution of
Ryckebosch from a turkey farmer growing turkeys on his
own ranch to Respondent 's current practice of placing the
birds (fryers or turkeys) on the farms of contract growers
evolved from a number of considerations which Mr.
Ryckebosch explained were ( 1) to minimize exposure to
disease , 4 (2) the demand for birds became greater ; and (3)
the utilization of contract growers eliminated the necessity
for additional capital investment in land and poultry
raising equipment.5
C. The Contract Growers
There are 188 contract growers Some own their farms,
others lease them. Their capital investment in their farm
and equipment is substantial . For example , contract grower
Herbert L. Shipp has a 10-acre farm with a capacity of
80,000 fryer chickens. He values his property at $75,000 His
wife and children help him operate the poultry farm.
Occasionally he hires extra help Contract grower Sher-
wood owns a 40-acre poultry farm with 100,000 square feet
of brooder house with a single flock capacity of 60,000
broilers He values his farm at $180 ,000 and has plans to
i The turkey eggs are produced on breeder farms in California and are
transported to the Respondent 's turkey hatchery at Hemet California
' it is established without dispute that as a method of preventing
decimation of the flock by disease , it is the recommended practice to
minimize the size of the flocks , spread them over farms several miles apart
to avoid airborne disease , and to move the flock into and out of the
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
invest an additional $ 45,000 to increase the capacity of his
farm from an annual output of 250 ,000 birds to 500,000
birds. Sherwood 's son and daughter help him care for the
chickens . Raising the chickens requires continuous care day
and night; including such matters as proper heat and
ventilation ; adequate clean water and feed, clean litter to
bed down the birds, and constant attention to the
automatic feeding and watering equipment so as to prevent
or repair breakdowns in the mechanical equipment. The
contract grower keeps a daily mortality count of the birds
for submission to Respondent and is on guard at all times
against illness or disease in birds which can result in
destruction of the flock. Where disease occurs , the grower
with the advice of one of the Respondent 's "field
representatives " administers the proper medication to the
birds The grower guards against predatory animals such as
cats, dogs , and coyotes by enclosures and fencing. Where
indicated , the grower, in cooperation with the Respondent's
field representative , sends diseased chickens to the State of
California Veterinary Laboratory at San Gabriel for
diagnosis and advice on treatment of the flock.
The Respondent enters into a written contract with each
grower. Under the contract terms, the grower agrees to (1)
raise Respondent 's birds, (2) furnish at his own expense
land, poultry buildings and growing yards, field storage
facilities , and necessary equipment such as feeders, water
founts, shade , roosts, fencing , and brooders ; (3) provide at
his own expense adequate supply of water and electricity,
(4) provide adequate labor to carry through all operations,
such as brooding, feeding, and growing, and to assist in
loading of birds on trucks to the processor and in unloading
feed delivered to the grower, (5) provide adequate
sanitation and general care of birds to assume maximum
growth and health under efficient growing practices and to
give maximum protection to the birds against the hazards
of fire, theft , predatory animals, and sickness; (6) follow the
recommendations of Respondent or its employees and
agents regarding the growing methods , care , management,
disease, health , feeding, and sanitation of such chicks and
to abide by the decision of Respondent as to the proper
market age , market size , and market condition of the birds,
and (7) supply at his own expense adequate compensation
insurance to cover all of his employees
Respondent agrees to (1) furnish birds in number and
kind suitable to the growing area of the grower and at dates
to be determined by Respondent , (2) furnish feed in
amounts and qualities which Respondent deems best to
properly feed the birds from date of delivery through to
market age ; (3) furnish brooding fuel, litter, vaccines, and
medicants necessary for the proper growth and health of
the birds, (4) insure the birds at Respondent 's option to be
charged to the project ; (5) make a final accounting showing
the sales price , costs charged, and profit and/or loss, and
should a loss occur it will be borne by the Respondent
The Respondent agrees to pay the grower a minimum of
I cent per pound to a maximum of 2-1/2 cents per pound
ranches on an "all in - all-out" basis as baby chicks frequently succumb to
diseases which older chickens harbor but from which they are immune
The capital investment of a single contract grower is exemplified by
the testimony of Robert Sherwood He testified his ranch contained 40
acres with a capacity of 250 ,000 broilers a year It has 100,000 square feet of
brooder house He valued his present investment at $180000
VICTOR RYCKEBOSCH, INC 43
for all chickens marketed, the precise amount per pound
paid depending on the total costs in relation to other
growers This method of payment offers an incentive to the
grower to exercise all the possible skills of poultry
husbandry in raising the chickens so as to get the maximum
weight at the least cost for those items supplied by the
Respondent, namely, the birds, feed, litter, brooder fuel,
and medicines.
The agreement also provides that the Respondent retains
legal and equitable title to the birds and all other supplies
furnished to the growers with the full and exclusive right to
sell, mortgage, transfer, or otherwise hypothecate the birds
It also reserves to Respondent the right to inspect the flocks
at the grower's ranch at any time and to examine the
grower's facilities, and the grower agrees to permit ingress
and egress on his ranch for these purposes The grower
agrees to maintain adequate inventory records of the birds
and to report abnormal mortalities to Respondent, and
where directed to hold carcasses for inspection. The
agreement further provides that the grower is an independ-
ent contractor and is not a partner, agent, servant, point
venturer, assistant, or employee of Respondent. The
agreement also provides that if in the opinion of the
Respondent, the grower is neglecting the birds or otherwise
breaches the agreement, Respondent may without notice
terminate the agreement and immediately retake the birds,
feed, and all other supplies furnished by Respondent
The record testimony shows that the Respondent and the
growers are substantially carrying out the terms of the
agreement. The Respondent has five field representatives
who, in addition to other duties, call on the growers at least
once each week and oftener where required by special
problems in connection with the welfare of the flock. The
Respondent's representatives determine when the birds
have reached marketable state, usually in 10 weeks from
date of hatching for chickens and 20 weeks for turkeys
They inspect the equipment and flocks and make
recommendations to the growers with respect to care of the
flocks, and they make arrangements for a new flock to
replace the old flock on the "all-in-all-out" system of
raising and marketing the birds When the birds have
reached marketable age, Respondent makes arrangements
for its coop trucks to transport the birds to the processing
plants located in the Los Angeles or Lancaster area
To prevent cannibalism among the chickens, they are
debeaked by the Respondent's employees at the hatchery
before being transported to the contract growers' farms.
The turkeys are debeaked by a crew of Respondent's
employees after they have been delivered to the contract
growers' farms This same crew also de-toes certain
chickens for the kosher retail trade to prevent unsightly skin
scratches on the bird and the crew occasionally inoculates
birds on the contract grower's farm
D The Respondent's Succecsorship to the Patterson
Trucking Company
Wesley Patterson had been the president and operating
manager of the Patterson Trucking Company for a number
of years. The true name of the corporation which did
business as Patterson Trucking Company was the Scarbor-
ough Corporation. Patterson Trucking Company was a
contract carrier under license by the California Public
Utilities Commission. Its customers were primarily poultry
processing plants in the Los Angeles and Lancaster area
who, when poultry became of marketable age, engaged
Patterson Trucking Company to pick up the poultry at the
poultry farm and deliver it to the processing plant The
processing plant paid the freight.
Prior to 1959, Respondent hauled the live poultry to the
processing plants with its own equipment In 1959, the
Respondent, desiring to discontinue transportation of its
poultry with its own equipment, but at the same time
wanting to assure itself of a carrier ready, able, and willing
to perform all of its live poultry hauling needs to market,
transferred its live poultry hauling equipment to Patterson
Trucking Company and advanced approximately $ 80,000 in
cash for operating capital on a long-term basis to Patterson
Trucking Company. As security for the loan, Patterson
Trucking Company issued 4,535 shares of its capital stock
to the Respondent Although this transaction vested in the
Respondent a substantial shareholder's interest in the
Patterson Trucking Company, it was clearly understood
between Wesley Patterson and Victor Ryckebosch that the
Respondent would not participate in the operation of the
Patterson Trucking Company and that the shareholder's
certificates were being held by the Respondent only as
security for the loan. By the year 1968, the indebtedness of
Patterson Trucking Company to the Respondent had been
reduced to approximately $41,000. Patterson Trucking
Company began having financial difficulties in 1968 and
was approaching bankruptcy Because of Ryckebosch's
concern that there be sufficient live hauling coop equip-
ment to carry his birds to the processing plants and to avert
the impending bankruptcy of Patterson Trucking Compa-
ny, the Respondent in March 1969 purchased the
truck-hauling equipment used by the Patterson Trucking
Company, consisting of seven diesel tractors and coop
trailers.", The equipment transferred to the Respondent was
effected under the California bulk sale law The total
consideration for the transfer of the equipment amounted
to $110,664, which consisted of $ 22,000 cash paid by the
Respondent toward accounts payable by Patterson Truck-
ing Company, cancellation of indebtedness due the
Respondent of $47,581, cancellation of indebtedness due
Ryckebosch & Sons (feed mill) of $981, and the assumption
by the Respondent of $40,101 still owing as a contract
balance on the trucking equipment. For an approximate
3-month period until June 1, 1969, the equipment was
leased back by the Respondent to the Patterson Trucking
Company On June 1, 1969, the Respondent took
possession of the equipment and together with some
additional equipment purchased elsewhere utilized the
equipment thenceforth exclusively for the live haul of his
own birds from the farms of Respondent's contract growers
to the processing plants in Los Angeles and to the Antelope
Valley Turkey Growers Association processing plant in
Lancaster, owned and controlled by the Ryckebosch
Patterson retained title to one flatbed trailer which he did not transfer
to the Respondent
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
family. In May 1969, preparatory to taking possession of
the equipment, Ryckebosch met with Wesley Patterson and
his drivers and agreed to hire Patterson's seven drivers as
his drivers He told them that he had no obligation to deal
with the Union as his operations were in agriculture.
Effective June 1, 1969, Patterson's seven drivers became
truckdrivers of the live-haul equipment (the coop-trucks)
for Respondent. The Respondent also effective June 1,
1969, hired Wesley Patterson, former president of the
Patterson Trucking Company, to become the supervisor of
the live poultry drivers and the catchers. These truckdrivers
and catchers were the identical employees who had been
employed by Patterson Trucking Company. They contin-
ued in their same functions
Wesley Patterson, now as Respondent's supervisor,
continued to supervise his former employees As before, he
continued to dispatch the truckdrivers from his home. As
before, at the appointed hour, the truckdriver would go to
the scale at Lancaster, weigh in his empty coop trailer, then
start for the designated contract grower's farm where he
would meet the catchers after dark who would then catch
the poultry and load them into the coops (also called racks)
on the trucks The trailer loaded, the driver would then
return to the scale at Lancaster where he would weigh in
again with a full load and from that point deliver the load to
the designated processing plant
Thus the drivers still perform substantially the same
duties as before, they drive the same trucks, load up live
poultry at the farms of contract growers at night time as
before, are still dispatched by and work under the
supervision of Patterson, but are now employed by the
Respondent instead of the Patterson Trucking Company
Although the Respondent employs other truckdrivers to
drive the vans containing baby chicks from the hatchery to
the contract growers and still other drivers to drive the tank
trucks containing feed from the feed mill to the contract
growers, the record is clear that there is no interchange of
the live haul coop drivers-formerly employed by
Patterson-with the Respondent's other drivers; and
Patterson's former drivers, now in the employ of Respon-
dent, remain a clearly identifiable, homogeneous group of
coop truckdrivers performing a distinct and well delineated
function in the Respondent's operations.
The differences which now appear since the sale to
Respondent, namely, that the Respondent operates the
truck without a California Public Utility permit, whereas
Patterson operated with such certificate; that the Respon-
dent hauls only his own poultry whereas Patterson operated
as a contract carrier for hire, and that 80 percent of
Patterson's load involved the carrying of Respondent's
poultry, whereas now 100 percent of the cargo is
Respondent's poultry, in my opinion, are too insignificant
to preclude the conclusion that the Respondent is the
successor to the Patterson Trucking Company.
It is clear and undisputed that with the transfer of the
equipment, the coop truckdrivers, under the same supervi-
sion, namely, that of Patterson, perform the same duties
and engage in the same functions, and the employing
7 This conclusionary finding is based on the assumption that the coop
truckdrivers are not excluded from the definition of "employee" in Section
2(3) of the Act
industry has remained essentially the same despite the
change in ownership . Having chosen a bargaining repre-
sentative , there is no reason to believe that the employees
will change their attitudes merely because the identity of
their employer has changed.
I am convinced , and I find, that the Respondent is the
successor to Patterson Trucking Company within the
meaning of such cases as Ranch-Way, Inc., 183 NLRB No.
116, Suffolk Mack, Inc, 183 NLRB No. 55; William J
Burns Detective Agency, Inc, 182 NLRB No. 50; S-H Food
Service, Inc., 183 NLRB No. 124; Overnice Transportation
Company v. N L.R.B, 372 F.2d 765 (C.A. 4); N.L R B. v.
Colten d/b/a Kiddie Kover Mfg Co, 105 F 2d 179 (C A. 6);
Randolph Rubber Company, 152 NLRB 492 ; N L.R B v.
Armato, 199 F.2d 800 (C.A. 7). Cf . Tallakson Ford, Inc., 171
NLRB No. 67
That being the case , the Respondent , I find, was
burdened with the same obligation to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the representative of the live haul
or coop drivers as had developed upon the predecessor,
Patterson Trucking Company.?
E. The Coop Truckdrivers Status as "Employee" or
"Agricultural Laborer"
The seven coop truck, or live-haul poultry, drivers were
formerly employed by the Patterson Trucking Company.
After the sale of the truck-hauling equipment to Respon-
dent, these seven drivers (on June 1, 1969) became
employees of Respondent. The Respondent refuses to
recognize or bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its coop truckdrivers, inter alia, on the
asserted ground that they are employed in agriculture and,
therefore, excluded from coverage within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act.8
The congressional standard for determining whether
employees are agricultural laborers is set forth in Section
3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C Sec. 203(f)).
Since 1946, the appropriations acts for the Board have
regularly carried a rider which provides that the term
"agricultural laborer" shall be defined in accordance with
Section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This
provision reads in pertinent part as follows:
"Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and
includes the raising of poultry, and practices . . .
performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to, or in
conjunction with, such farming operations . . . .
The Supreme Court stated with respect to this provision
in Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co v McComb, 337 U S.
755, 762-763, "this definition has two distinct branches."
The primary meaning, which is admittedly inapposite here,
involves actual farming operations such as the raising of
produce from the soil or the raising of poultry.9 The
secondary definition in the Court's words, "includes any
practices, which are performed either by a farmer or on a
farm, as an incident to or in conjunction with `such'
farming operations, including preparation for market,
delivery . to market or to careers for transportation to
market " (Ibid )
8 Section 2(3) of the Act provides that the term "employee"-" shall
not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer
" No one contends that the coop truckdrivers are "raising poultry "
VICTOR RYCKEBOSCH, INC.
Query Are the conditions of the secondary meaning
satisfied with respect to the coop truckdrivers in this case?
The Supreme Court in the Farmers Reservoir case, supra,
specifically pointed out that under the second branch of the
statutory definition of agriculture, it is not only necessary
that the practices in question be performed "by a farmer or
on a farm," but they must also be incidental to "such"
farming as is performed under the first branch of the
definition. 337 U S at 766-767. The Supreme Court's
footnote 15 at pages 766-767 expressed its view concerning
the second branch of the definition as follows:
.. there is the additional requirement that the
practices be incidental to "such" farming. Thus,
processing on a farm of commodities produced by other
farmers is incidental to or in conjunction with the
farming operation of the other farmers and not
incidental to or in conjunction with the farming
operation of the farmer on whose premises the
processing is done Such processing is, therefore, not
within the definition of agriculture Bowie v. Gonzalez,
117 F.2d 11 (C.A. 1, 1941).
In cases where the employees are claimed to be
agricultural laborers by their employer, on the ground that
they are engaged in the second branch of the agricultural
definition, namely, in practices performed by a farmer or
on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such
farming operations, the courts have by the great weight of
authority rejected the claimed agricultural status of the
employees where it appeared that the employees were
handling or working on agricultural products produced on
farms other than their own employer.10
Thus, in N L R B v Olaa Sugar Company, 242 F.2d 714
(C.A. 9), while the employer, Olaa Sugar Company,
harvested sugar cane from its own farms as well as from the
farms of independent growers and then transported the cut
cane to the sugar mill, the court held that the hauling of the
cane from the independent grower's field was not an
incident to Olaa's farming operations and hence not within
the agricultural exemption The court said-
Our view, however, is that this hauling from the fields of
the independent growers must be treated differently
from the hauling from Olaa's own fields. We have noted
that there are here two groups of farming
operations-one by Olaa on its farm, and the other, the
farming operations of the independent growers. Since
the teaching of Waialua [349 U.S 254] is that we must
approach these transportation operations with the
inquiry whether they are "incident to or in conjunction
with" farming operations, we must note that under the
language of the Act ( . . . ), these practices must be
performed as an incident to such farming operations.
Without doubt Olaa is a farmer and its own cane lands
constitute a farm, but the hauling of the cane from the
independent growers' fields cannot be said to be an
incident to such farming operations, that is to say,
Olaa's farming operations. This we believe is in line
10 Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co v McComb, 337 U S 755 766, 767,
fn 15 (1949), N L R B v Olaa Sugar Compam, 242 F 2d 714, 718, (C A 9),
Bowie v Gonzalez, 117 F 2d 11 (C A I), Waldo Rohnert Co v N L R B, 322
F 2d 46 (C A 9), Mitchell v Huntsville Wholesale Nurseries, Inc, 267 F 2d
286 (C A 5). Mitchell v Hunt, 263 F 2d 913 (C A 5), Chapman v Durkin,
214 F 2d 360 (C A 5), cert denied 348 U S 897 Fort Mason Fruit Co v
45
with the decision in Bowie v . Gonzalez , 1 Cir., 117 F.2d
11, 18.
The Board has accorded great weight to the interpretative
bulletins and the administrative advice of the Department
of Labor in the construction and application of Section 3(f)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Section 780.141 of
Interpretative Bulletin, Title 29, Part 780, Code of Federal
Regulations , provides in pertinent part as follows. Opera-
tions must be performed "by"a farmer
"Farmer" includes the employees of a farmer . It does
not include an employer merely because he employs a
farmer or appoints a farmer as his agent to do the actual
work . . . . One who merely performs services or
supplies materials for farmers in return for compensa-
tion in money or farm products is not a "farmer." Thus,
a person who provides credit and management services
to farmers cannot qualify as a "farmer " on that
account... Where crops are grown under contract with
a person who provides a market , contributes counsel
and advice , makes advances and otherwise assists the
grower who actually produces the crop, it is the grower
and not the person with whom he contracts who is the
farmer with respect to that crop (Mitchell v. Huntsville
Nurseries, 267 F.2d 286).
Section 780 .134, Title 29, Part 780, C.F.R., provides in
pertinent part as follows: "However , feeding, fattening and
caring for poultry over a substantial period may constitute
the `raising' of poultry."
Section 780 .135, Title 29, Part 780, C.F .R., provides as
follows:
Contract arrangements for raising poultry
Feed dealers and processors sometimes enter into
contractual arrangements with farmers under which the
latter agree to raise to marketable size baby chicks
supplied by the former who also undertake to furnish all
the required feed and possibly additional items.
Typically, the feed dealer or processor retains title to the
chickens until they are sold. Under such an arrange-
ment, the activities of the farmers and their employees
in raising the poultry are clearly exempt. The activities
of the feed dealer or processor, on the other hand, are
not "raising of poultry" and employees engaged in them
cannot be exempt on that ground. Employees of the
feed dealer or processor who perform work on a farm as
an incident to or in conjunction with the raising of
poultry on the farm and engage in no nonexempt
activities during the workweek may, however, be
exempt as employed in "secondary" agriculture (see
sections 780 137 et seq., and Johnston v Cotton
Producers Assn. 244 F.2d 553).
The foregoing interpretative bulletins for the Department
of Labor to which reference is above made justify a
conclusion that the independent growers in the instant case
who are caring for, feeding and fattening the poultry on
Durkin, 214 F 2d 363, cert denied 348 US 897, Wirtz v Osceola Farms
Company, 372 F 2d 584, 587-589 (C A 5), Sweetlake Land and Oil Co v
NLRB, 334 F 2d 220, 222-223 (C A 5) Cf NLRB v John W
Campbell, 159 F 2d 184, 185-187 (C A 5), Dofflemeyer Bros v N L R B, 206
F 2d 813 (C A 9) See also Maneia v Waialua, 349 U S 254, 262 (1955)
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their farms, are farmers engaged in raising poultry, but not
so the Respondent merely because it has supplied the baby
chick or poult, the feed, fuel, and medicine, the market, and
counsel and advice. See Mitchell v. Huntsville Nurseries, 267
F.2d 286 (C A 5, 1959).
In Norton & McElroy Produce, Inc, 133 NLRB 104, in
holding that truckdrivers and stitchers engaged in packing
and transporting lettuce were not agricultural laborers
when their employer did the harvesting, packing, and
shipping grown by others on lands owned or leased by
them, the Board said.
If his employer ships from his own farms, but also from
other growers' farms, the driver is not an agricultural
laborer to the extent he regularly hauls from the
independent growers' farms Even where the shipper
engages in some incidental farm practices on a grower's
farm, his drivers would not thereby be converted into
employees engaged in work incidental to or in
conjunction with these farm operations rather than to
the employer's primary operation, shipping and market-
ing. The same distinction applies to a stitcher, who also
is performing a nonfarm task. When he stitches cartons
for his employer who is not the grower of the produce,
his work is incidental to the shipping operations of his
employer, not the operations of the grower Although
the stitcher works "on a farm," his work must be
incidental to farming operations in order to qualify for
the agricultural exclusion.
The truckdrivers and stitchers in the instant case are
agricultural laborers and subject to the Section 2(3)
exclusion only to the extent that they are employed by a
farmer in work incidental to or in conjunction with such
farming operations. We cannot hold under any of the
economic arrangements herein that the Employer is a
"farmer." In all the arrangements the Employer either
invested in a crop cultivated by another or, together
with other parties, set up a separate entity which, with its
own employees, cultivated the crop. Those employed by
the shipper, in the shipping operation, are not employed
in the farming operation, which is independent, even
though the shipping operation has invested in, or owns a
share in, the farming operation.
The Board's rationale articulated in Norton & McElroy
Produce, Inc, supra, is applicable to the instant case. Here
even though the Respondent has invested in and owns a
substantial equity in the poultry raising operation, it is
nevertheless not the "farmer" who is raising the poultry on
the farm The contract grower is the "farmer" raising the
poultry on land in his possession and control The
Respondent is predominately an investor, a marketer, and a
shipper of poultry to processing plants.
The Respondent's contention that it is a farmer, raising
poultry "from cradle to grave" is not supported by the
Board decision in Samuel B Gass, et al, 154 NLRB 728 11
In that case, the major part of the truckdrivers' work
involved the delivery from the employer's feed mill to 10
farms owned by the employer and to 150 to 200 farms on
which independent farmers raised the employer's chickens.
In rejecting the employer's contention that these truckdri-
vers were agricultural laborers, the Board said-
We find, upon consideration of the above, that the work
of the drivers is performed as an incident to or in
conjunction with the operations of the feedmill rather
than to the operations of any farmer or farm
Accordingly, these drivers are "employees" within the
meaning of the Act subject to the jurisdiction of the
Board.
On the basis of the Board's holding in Samuel B. Gass,
supra, affirmed by the First Circuit, it is reasonable to
conclude that the Respondent's operations in supplying
feed from its feed mill to the 188 contract growers is not an
agricultural operation but rather an industnal operation
which, inter aha, defeats its claim that it is a farmer
In Waldo Rohnert Co v. N LR.B, 322 F.2d 46 (1963), the
Ninth Circuit agreed with the Board that seed mill
employees handling seed, 75 percent of which was grown
by farmers pursuant to contract with the employer,
Rohnert, did not qualify for the agricultural exemption,
notwithstanding the fact that Rohnert furnished the
planting seeds for the seed crops, retained legal title to the
growing plants and seeds, and controlled and supervised
the farming operations, and in some instances provided
harvesting machines, but in case of crop failure or
undergrade seed yield, the seed contract growers were liable
for the planting seed at an agreed rate; and contract
growers were paid on the basis of the number of pounds of
acceptable seed produced. Employer Rohnert inspected the
growing crops, did all roguing (removing undesirable
plants), and decided when to irrigate (with the landowners'
water), when to weed and spray, and finally when to
harvest; provided the harvesting equipment; and trucked
the seed to the mill where it was weighed, cleaned, graded,
sacked, stored, and eventually shipped to wholesale buyers
and jobbers.
In rejecting Employer Rohnert's contention that his seed
mill employees were agricultural, the court adopted the
language of the Fifth Circuit in Mitchell v Hunt, 263 F.2d
913, 917, a Fair Labor Standards Act case, concerning the
meaning of "farmer" in section 3(f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, in which the court said:
To bring himself within the exception, the appellee
[farmer] must prove that not merely some but
substantially all of the farming operations to which the
practices are incident were operations of the appellee
farmer himself
Also in accord with the Fifth Circuit's decision in Mitchell
v. Huntsville Wholesale Nurseries, 267 F.2d 286, the Ninth
Circuit in Waldo Rohnert Co., supra, quoted with approval
the Fifth Circuit's language at page 290 on similar facts
involving a crop-growing contract as follows:
Thus processing on a farm of commodities produced by
other farmers is incidental to, or in conjunction with,
the farming operation of the other farmers and not
incidental to, or in conjunction with, farming opera-
tions of the farmers on whose premises the processing is
done. Such processing is therefore not within the
definition of agriculture.
Attention is specially directed to Strain Poultry Farms,
Inc, 160 NLRB 236. In Strain the Board directed an
election in a unit of Strain's "coop" truckdrivers, who, like
" Enfd N L R B v Gass, 65 LRRM 2221 (C A I, 1967)
VICTOR RYCKEBOSCH, INC
the "coop" truckdrivers in the instant case, hauled the
poultry of marketable age from the poultry farms of
independent contract growers to the processing plant
Strain, the employer, opposed the holding of an election on
the ground that the "coop" truckdrivers were excluded
from the definition of "employee" in Section 2(3) because
they were agricultural laborers within the definition of
section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Strain's
operations were very similar to that of the Respondent in
the case at bar, and his relationship with the independent
contract growers was similar to that of the Respondent and
the contract growers in the instant case. Strain's coop
truckdrivers functioned the same as the Respondent's coop
truckdrivers in question.
The Board recited the facts in capsule form as follows.
The Employer, a Georgia corporation with its
principal office and hatchery in Dalton, Georgia, is
engaged in the production an' sale of poultry products.
The Employer owns a numuer of poultry farms and
operates a hatchery where eggs are incubated and
hatched. The chicks are then transported by the
Employer to its farms and to independent farmers who
raise the chickens to marketable size. The farmers are
paid on a per pound basis for their work, but at all times
the chickens are owned by the Employer who supplies
all feed and transportation and has employees who visit
the farms to vaccinate and debeak the chickens. When
the chickens are ready for market, between 16 and 18
"coop" truckdrivers haul coops from the Employer's
Dalton and Acworth, Georgia, operations to the
independent farms where contract loaders fill the coops
and load the trucks with the cooped chickens.
Relying on N.L R.B v. Olaa Sugar Company, Ltd., et a!,
supra, Norton & McElroy Produce, supra; Farmers Reservoir
& Irrigation Co v. McComb, supra; U. S. Supreme Court;
and Samuel B. Gass, supra, the Board held the coop
truckdrivers were not "agricultural laborers" but were
"employees" and directed an election.
The union won the election and was duly certified as the
exclusive representative of the coop truckdrivers. Strain
refused to honor the Board certification In subsequent
unfair labor practice proceedings described in 163 NLRB
972, the Board, inter aka, affirmed its certification and
ordered Strain to bargain with the union as the certified
representative of the coop truckdrivers. The Board
instituted enforcement proceedings before the Court of
Appeals of the Fifth Circuit. The court of appeals at 405
F 2d 1025 denied enforcement of the Board's order
Commenting on cases cited by the Board as well as other
cases, the court concluded that Strain was engaged in
farming as that term is used in the primary definition of
section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court
reasoned that:
The fact that Strain hired the independent growers to
raise its birds and contract loaders to catch the birds for
12 The Board 's subsequent decision in Arkansas Valley Industries, Inc.
167 NLRB 391 , where truckdrivers employed at the hatchery transported
eggs from breeder farms to the hatchery and the baby chicks from the
hatchery to the broiler farms, held the drivers to be exempt as hatchery
employees engaged in exempt activities In In 6 on page 391 , the Board
referred to the Strain case D'Arrigo Bros Co of California, 171 NLRB No
5, is inapposite There all of the land on which crops were grown and
47
loading onto its trucks, would not seem to destroy its
claim to having raised the poultry Furthermore, the
trucking activities were part of Strain's poultry raising
venture. They were performed incident to or in
conjunction with Strain's poultry raising operations and
Strain was not a poultry raiser conducting a trucking
operation on the side. The trucking operation was a part
of an integrated poultry raising operation .. .
In seeking to distinguish cases cited by the Board, the
court said:
.. the distinction between those situations and the
present one is that these birds belonged to the
respondent [Strain] and, although the raising of them
was shared with independent growers, Strain's activities
were more nearly that of one engaged in the "raising of
.. . Poultry" than of a purchaser, jobber, etc.
In summary, the court concluded that Strain's arrange-
ment with the independent growers did not remove it from
the primary pertinent definition of agriculture, namely,
"the raising of poultry."
The court was not persuaded by the Board's arguments
that the coop truckdrivers' work was not incidental to or in
conjunction with farming, as follows: that the poultry
hauled by the coop truckdrivers had been raised by
independent growers on their farms and not by Strain, that
Strain merely provided a necessary service essential to the
agricultural activity comparable to an irrigation company's
service to farmers; that the independent farmers raise the
birds and Strain has little to do with the actual raising; that
these coop drivers are hired by Strain and appear on
Strain's payroll as a separate division "whose function is the
delivery of poultry for sale", that the drivers are not
involved in raising chickens and they report to and from
work at Strain's garages.
I am unable to discern any significant factual distinction
between the instant case and the Strain case. There is
nothing to indicate that the Board has abandoned its
position asserted in Strain 12 Therefore, notwithstanding
the fact that the Fifth Circuit in reversing the Board in
Strain has taken the position which, the Respondent assets,
should be applied here, I am, with due respect to the court,
nevertheless required to, and I do, adhere to the Board's
Decision in Strain I may not assume, as the Respondent
suggests, that because the Board did not seek Supreme
Court review in the Strain case, that the Board has accepted
the Fifth's Circuit's decision in Strain "as the law on the
facts thereof." The Board's reasons for not requesting
review may be, and often are, entirely unrelated to its
opinion of the broad question of the law involved Novak
Logging Company, 11 9NLRB 1573,1575, from which I quote,
states as follows:
It has been the Board's consistent policy for itself to
determine whether to acquiesce in the contrary views of
a circuit court of appeals or whether, with due deference
to the court's opinion, to adhere to its previous holding
cultivated was land leased by the employer and, except for a small amount
of broccoli, "the employer performed all of the farming operations- from
preparing the land for planting to harvesting the mature crop with its own
employees" With respect to the broccoli, the employer provided the seed,
supervised the growing operation, and -bsequently harvested the mature
crop The lessorfor $10 peracre plus costs provided the necessary machinery
and labor to bring the crop to maturity
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled
otherwise But it is not for a Trial Examiner to speculate
as to what course the Board should follow where a
circuit court has expressed disagreement with its views.
On the contrary, it remains the Trial Examiner's duty to
apply established Board precedent which the Board or
the Supreme Court has not reversed. Only by such
recognition of the legal authority of Board precedent,
will a uniform and orderly administration of a national
act, such as the National Labor Relations Act, be
achieved
1, therefore, find that the coop truckdrivers' activities in
hauling poultry from the poultry farms of the independent
contract growers do not cause them to be agricultural
laborers within either the primary or secondary definition
of agriculture as defined by section 3(f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act I find that although the contract growers are
farmers engaged in the raising of poultry, the activities of
the Respondent with respect to those operations, namely,
the supplying of baby chicks, feed, fuel, litter, medicines-
consultation and advice, a market, and transportation from
the poultry farm, do not make the Respondent a farmer
Inasmuch as the coop truckdrivers are not employees of
the contract growers, who are farmers, but are employees of
the Respondent, and the coop truckdrivers deliver the
results of someone else's farming efforts, namely, the
contract growers, in that case the drivers' functions do not
constitute "practices which are performed either by a
farmer, or on a farm, incidental to or in conjunction with
such farming operations."
I. therefore, find that the coop truckdrivers are
"employees" within the definition of Section 2(3) of the
Act
F The Respondent's Refusal to Recognize or
Bargain with the Union
At the time that the truck-hauling equipment of
Patterson Trucking Company was sold to the Respondent
in March 1969, there existed an unexpired
collective--bargaining agreement between the Union and
Patterson Trucking Company, covering a unit of truckdri-
vers which by its terms was due to expire May 31, 1969.
When the Union sought to reopen the contract in April or
May 1969, Union Representative Grundy was advised by
Patterson of the sale to the Respondent. Grundy sought to
contact Ryckebosch on several occasions to request
bargaining, but without success The Respondent concedes
that it informed the Union in July 1969 that it was refusing
to recognize or bargain with it because the truckdrivers
formerly in the employ of Patterson Trucking Company
had, by their employment with the Respondent, become
agricultural employees, excluded from the coverage of the
National Labor Relations Act Without consulting the
Union, the Respondent increased the pay of the drivers
from $ 2.75 to $3 per hour and provided its own insurance
program rather than the program set forth in the
collective-bargaining agreement
G Conclusionary Findings
I have found that the coop truckdrivers are "employees"
within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act and not
"agricultural laborers." I have also found that the
Respondent is the successor to the Patterson Trucking
Company. I further find that the coop truckdrivers
employed by the Respondent on and after June 1, 1969,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act,
and the Union is their exclusive representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment. Strain Poultry Farms, Inc, 160
NLRB 236. I, therefore, find that the Respondent on and
after June 1, 1969, had the legal duty to recognize and
bargain with the Union and to refrain from engaging in
unilateral action with respect to the wages, hours, and
working conditions of the coop truckdrivers The failure
and refusal of the Respondent to recognize and bargain
with the Union on and after June 1, 1969, and its unilateral
changes in the rates of pay, fringe benefits, and insurance
coverage of the coop truckdrivers constituted unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act.
Upon the entire record, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All the coop truckdrivers of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union, at all times material herein, has been, and
now is, the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5 From the period commencing on June 1, 1969, and at
all times thereafter to the present, the Respondent in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act has refused to
bargain collectively with the Union and has unilaterally
changed the rates of pay, wages, and working conditions of
the aforesaid coop truckdrivers without consultation or
bargaining with the Union.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, it is
recommended that the Respondent, Victor Ryckebosch,
Inc , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union 982,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, with respect to
wages, hours, and conditions of work, as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit as
found in this Decision
(b) Unilaterally changing the rates of pay, wages, hours,
VICTOR RYCKEBOSCH, INC 49
and working conditions of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit without consultation or bargaining with
the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local
Union 982, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Make whole the employees in the aforesaid appropri-
ate unit for any loss of employment benefits suffered by
them by reason of the Respondent's unilateral discontin-
uance of benefits previously enjoyed by such employees 13
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
1 i NLRB v Strong Roofing & Insulating Co, 393 U S 357, N L R B
v Katz, 369 U S 736
1 Any backpay should accumulate interest as provided in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co. 138 NLRB 176
1' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings conclusions, recommendations and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions, and Order
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay14 due under
this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its offices at Lancaster, California, and mail to
each of its drivers in the aforesaid appropriate unit , copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."15 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall 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 customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.16
and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the
event that the Board 's 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 be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
16 In the event that the Recommended order is 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 "