Western Meat Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 444 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent , shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that ,said notices
are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing , within 20 days from
the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Trial Examiner 's Decision the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Direc-
tor, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order,8 the
National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the
aforesaid action.
8 In the event 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 therewith "
APPENDIX
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 464, American
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO , as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate unit
described below, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work , and other
terms and conditions of employment, and we will , upon request, embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached . The bargaining unit is:
All production, maintenance , warehouse , and shipping employees, in-
cluding receiver, mixers, preparers , bakers, wrappers, packagers , shippers,
maintenance mechanics , and watchmen of the Employer at the Paxton
Street, Harrisburg , Pennsylvania , plant, but excluding all office clerical
employees , driver salesmen , truckdrivers , garage mechanics , retail store
clerks, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the efforts of the above-
named Union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said Union
as the representative of our employees in the appropriate unit.
CAPITAL BAKERS, INC.,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612 , if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Western Meat Packers, Inc. and Amalgamated -Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634,
AFL-CIO . Case No. 27-CA-1460. August 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 16, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
148 NLRB No. 52.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC. 445
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a brief 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
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 and the entire record in this case, including the
Respondent's exceptions and brief, 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 Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , was initiated by a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union . The complaint issued on February 14, 1964, alleges that West-
ern Meat Packers , Inc., herein called the Respondent , engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 5) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The issues arise from Respondent 's alleged action
in refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union, the duly designated
collective-bargaining representative of its employees . The Respondent 's answer
denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Sidney Lind-
ner on April 21, 1964. The General Counsel and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel , participated fully in the hearing, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to present evidence and argument of the issues . After the close of the
hearing, briefs were received from the parties and have been duly considered.
Upon consideration of the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Western Meat Packers, Inc., a corporation duly organized under and existing
by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado , has at all times material herein main-
tained its principal office and place of business at Grand Junction , Colorado, where
it is engaged in the processing of meat and meat products . Since July 1962, when
Respondent obtained Federal meat inspection from the U.S . Department of Agricul-
ture, it has, on an annual basis , processed, sold, and shipped directly from its Grand
Junction plant, meat and meat products valued in excess of $50,000 to points and
places outside the State of Colorado . The Respondent 's answer admits, at the
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing it was conceded , and I find, that since July 1962 and at all times material
herein Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local
Union No. 634, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background-events prior to April 25, 1963
The Respondent has been engaged in the meat processing and packing business
for some 30 years. It appears from the record that until July 1962, when it was
granted Federal meat inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, its busi-
ness was solely intrastate. Thereafter, as found above, it sold and delivered its
products across State lines and has been engaged in commerce.
It was stipulated by the parties at the hearing that on March 12, 1962, the Union
filed a representation petition with Region 27 of the Board seeking to be certified
as the collective-bargaining representative of all employees of Respondent employed
at its Grand Junction plant, exclusive of clerical help, guards, watchmen, nonwork-
ing supervisors, plant managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.,
By letter dated March 21, 1962, the Regional Director informed the parties that the
Board lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
On April 11, 1962, the Industrial Commission of Colorado, herein sometimes
referred to as the Commission, pursuant to a petition filed by the Union for an
election to determine a collective-bargaining unit as provided by section 5, Colorado
Labor Peace Act, conducted an election among Respondent's employees in the unit
heretofore described and stipulated to be appropriate. The Union lost.
A second election among Respondent's employees was conducted on October 30
and 31, 1962, by the Industrial Commission of Colorado. On November 5, 1962,
it certified that a majority of employees eligible to vote at such election voted for
the Union as a collective-bargaining agent?
During the period November 29, 1962, to March 28, 1963, representatives of the
Respondent and the Union met on five different occasions and agreed on various
contract proposals and counterproposals in an effort to arrive at a collective-
bargaining agreement.
B. Events of April 25, 1963, and thereafter
On the evening of April 25, 1963, a union committee consisting of Secretary-
Treasurer G. W. Dean, International Representative Williard Ferson, Business
Representative Albert DeWitt, and plant employees Martinez and Bowen met with
Wirt Burns, owner of a half interest in Respondent Corporation, in the latter's
office at the plant. Although the Union had been meeting and negotiating with
Respondent at five meetings prior to this date, this was the first negotiation session
attended by Wirt Burns.
Ferson testified without denial that when Dean mentioned at the outset it was a
meeting for negotiations, Wirt Burns told the committee that even though the Union
had previous meetings with Respondent, his reason for being there was not to con-
summate an agreement, "he, and he alone would be the one to make the deter-
mination of whether a contract could be signed with the Union; and that no other
person had the authority to make this decision." 3
Dean testified that as spokesman for the union committee he told Wirt Burns
that Respondent and the Union had been negotiating for a considerable period
of time; that the issues had been narrowed down to the point where there were
only a few left; and they would like to conclude a contract. Wirt Burns, accord-
ing to Dean, made some remark and then said he could not sign an agreement with
the Union and never had any intention of signing a contract.
'Stipulated by the parties to be the appropriate unit in this proceeding.
2 Of 40 qualified voters, 40 cast ballots with 29 votes cast for the Union and 11 votes
cast against the Union.
8 The record reveals that Respondent 's representatives at previous meetings were Plant
Manager Woltemath and Office Manager John Burns.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC 447
Dean admitted that at this point he became angry and said to Wirt Burns, "Do
you call yourself a Christian m-in under those circumstances where we had -i11 those
negotiations believing that we were making a working arrangement, cieating a
collective-bargaining agreement and you tell me now that you had no intentions of
ever signing a contract?" Wirt Burns, according to Dean, replied that he lived by the
law of the Bible He reached for his Bible and quoted a Scripture which Dean
thought dealt with the fact that he (Burns) could not consort with infidels,4 and
he therefore could not sign a labor agreement
Dean explained to Wirt Burns that he did not have to join the Union, that his
employees were the only people who would be affected by belonging to a union, and
that by his actions and statements Respondent was violating the law which re-
quired it to bargain in good faith Wirt Burns, while willing to talk and discuss,
persisted that he would never sign a contract with the Union
Ferson corroborated Dean's testimony regarding Wirt Bums' statement that be-
cause of his belief in the Bible and because he lived by the law of God he never
intended to enter into a labor agreement with the Union Ferson also testified
without contradiction that during the discussions Wirt Burns said that when the people
went to work in Respondent's plant, they knew the working conditions and wages, and
it they did not like it, they were free to quit
Wirt Burns' testimony regarding what took place at the April 25, 1963, negotiation
meeting varies in certain respects from the testimony of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses Wirt Burns testified that on April 22 or 23 be received a telephone call from
a union representative asking for an appointment for a meeting and he agreed to meet
on the evening of April 25 Dean, according to Wirt Burns, opened the meeting with
the statement that he and Ferson came from Denver for no other reason except to get
a contract signed with Respondent Wirt Burns testified he told the committee
Respondent has been losing money and was in no financial position to raise wages,
grant fringe benefits, or change any other working conditions, further, some em-
ployees had come to him to advise that they "would not work under the Union" and
would leave Respondent's employ "because of the closed shop " For these reasons,
Respondent was not able to sign a conti act Dean, according to Wit I, Burns said,
"We did not come to discuss your financial status, we came merely to have a contract
signed " Dean asked Wirt Burns if he did not want to help his employees Wirt
Burns replied he always wanted to help them, but financially Respondent could not
do any more than it was doing Wirt Burns testified that Dean became angry and
said the Union's $3 million treasury would be used to "break" Respondent Wirt
Burns remarked that would not take very long, because Respondent was already
broke
Wirt Buins admitted that in the course of the discussion Dean asked if he considered
himself a "Christian " He also admitted he told the union committee that according
to his understanding of the Bible, he could not belong to a secret organization-the
Union-and that Dean explained to him that only Respondent's employees could
become members of the Union, that he was not eligible for union membership and that
as one of the owners of Respondent all he had to do was to sign a contract with the
labor organization representing Respondent's employees
He also admitted that he interpreted the Scripture from the Bible, supra, which he
read to the union committee to mean that he could not enter into a binding contract
and that he discussed his religious beliefs which did not enable him to enter into a
union contract with Respondent's board of directors before he attended the April 25
neeotrition meeting
Wirt Burns testified the meeting ran for about 2 hours, that no agreement was
reached, and he told the union committee he was not going to sign a contract
Dean denied there was any discussion at the meeting about Respondent's inability
to pay increased wages or about using union funds to "break" Resnondent He did
not deny that the meeting consumed about 2 hours He admitted that heated words
were exchanged after Wirt Burns said he did not intend to sien a contract, which he
placed "from the very first time we ever sat down at the table " He also 'Admitted
he was aneered by the position which Wirt Burns expressed, and that he did not re-
member all that was said
I Based on Wirt Burns' testimony in/r¢ and Dean's iecollection, the quotation from the
Bible was from II Corinthians chapter G, verses 14 and 15
BP ve not unequilly yoked together with unbelievers for what feiloashin pith
righteousness with unrighteouaness' And whit communion hath light with darkness'
And whit concord bath Christ with Belial" Or chat part bath he that belleveth
with an infidel'?
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I credit Wirt Bums' testimony regarding the issues discussed at the April 25 meeting.
There is, however, some confusion in the record as to the precise chronology of the
various issues discussed . I find , based on the testimony and admissions of Wirt Bums,
the undenied testimony of Ferson , and the testimony of Dean corroborated by Ferson
which I credit, that Wirt Burns told the union committee that even though there
had been previous meetings with Respondent, he was not attending this meeting
(April 25) to consummate an agreement ; that he alone for the Respondent , had au-
thority and would make the decision of whether a contract should be signed with the
Union; that he discussed with Respondent 's board of directors his religious beliefs
which did not enable him to sign a contract with the Union; and, further, that be-
cause of his religious beliefs he never intended to and did not sign a contract with the
Union.
On April 29, 1963, the Union filed a charge against the Employer with Region 27
of the Board, the basis of which was that Respondent , since on or about April 25.
1963, refused to bargain collectively with it in violation of Section 81(a) (5) and (1)
of the Act.
Dean testified without denial that in the latter part of June or early July, Attorney
Wagner ( counsel for Respondent in this proceeding ), called him on the telephone
to advise that he had been retained by Respondent to represent it, and that he had
recommended to his client that it sit down and try to negotiate with the Union. In
view of this Wagner asked Dean to withdraw the charge, which the latter did.
On July 2, 1963, the Acting Regional Director approved the withdrawal of the
charge by the Union.
A meeting took place in Attorney Wagner's office in Denver on July 22, 1963, at-
tended by the same union committee as above, Wagner, and John Burns, Respondent's
office manager. The participants discussed the union-shop proposal. Ferson testi-
fied without denial that Wagner offered his opinion that sometimes a union shop
was best for the employer since it afforded him the opportunity to get better help.
No commitment was made by Respondent , nor was agreement reached on this issue.
Wagner inquired if the Union was in a position to help Respondent make its opera-
tions more profitable. Wagner was told the International Union employed a research
director and time-study man who could study the plant and assist in making it more
efficient . A general discussion then ensued, provoked by Wagner's inquiry as to
whether the Union in its various day-to-day contacts, could help in the sale of Re-
spondent's product, in the event the plant went union.
Wagner said he would advise his client to try to go ahead and conclude a contract.
He told the union committee at the conclusion -of the meeting he would contact it at
a later date regarding Respondent 's position and about another meeting.
No further negotiation meetings were held.
John Burns testified that on or about September 15, 1963, Business Representative
Al DeWit stopped in at the plant to inquire if Respondent had any plans to go ahead
and negotiate a contract with the Union. DeWit told Burns if the Union did not hear
from Respondent shortly it would file unfair labor practice charges with the Board.
John Burns testified further he told DeWit he would talk to Mr. Seavers ( unidentified)
and his father about the matter and call him the next day in Denver . John Burns
called DeWit and told him that neither Mr. Seavers nor his father was very satisfied
with the length of time the contract negotiations had taken; that there had been many
changes, "both through Federal Inspection and through employees . over this
period of time of a year or better, and that I thought possibly in wages" and perhaps
the best thing under the circumstances would be to petition for a new election. John
Burns also told DeWit "if a new election showed that the majority of the em-
ployees still wanted a contract, or if the Union had already prepared a contract, there
would be a counterproposal to the offer." DeWit stated he did not know what the
Union would do.
On September 23, 1963, another charge was filed by the Union docketed as Case
No. 27-CA-1460.
By letter dated November 29, 1963, the Regional Director for Region 27 notified
the parties that an investigation of the charge revealed insufficient evidence of
violation and that he was refusing to issue a complaint . The Union was also advised
of its right to have such action reviewed by the General Counsel's office in Wash-
ington, D.C. The Union requested such review.
On February 3, 1964, the Regional Director notified the parties that he had re-
considered the matter in Case No. 27-CA-1460 . He concluded that his determina-
tion not to issue complaint was in error ; that such determination was being withdrawn
and a complaint alleging the appropriate violations would issue in due course. The
complaint and notice of hearing in this proceeding was issued on February 14, 1964.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC. 449
Contentions and Conclusions
It is the General Counsel's contention raised at the hearing and in his memorandum
brief to the Trial Examiner that: (1) the Union established its majority status in a
valid State-conducted election on October 30 and 31, 1962, and the results thereof were
certified by the Industrial Commission of Colorado on November 5, 1962; (2) absent
any irregularity in a State-conducted election proceeding the Employer is required to
honor the certification issued by the State agency for a period of 1 year as in cases
of the Board's own certification unless there are present unusual circumstances war-
ranting the suspension of the 1-year ruling; (3) since the Union clearly demonstrated
its majority in winning the second State-conducted election and Respondent recognized
and bargained with it, Respondent's subsequent refusal to bargain violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act and the fact that the second State election was held less
than 12 months after the first State election does not affect the validity of evidence of
majority; and (4) once shown, the authority of the bargaining agent continues until
the contrary is shown.
The Respondent contends on the other hand that: (1) the election conducted by the
Industrial Commission of Colorado on October 30-31, 1962, was void and the last
valid election among the Respondent's employees in April 1962, which the Union lost,
has continued in full force and effect to the present; (2) the Respondent bargained
in good faith and the Union did not; and (3) the Regional Director upon notifying
the parties on November 29, 1963, of his refusal to issue a complaint exhausted his
powers and thereafter had no right to revoke his prior refusal to issue a complaint.
Turning now to a determination of whether the October 30 and 31, 1962, election
conducted by the Industrial Commission of Colorado was void, the Respondent sub-
mits that since the Board's jurisdiction was exclusive at all times after July 2, 1962,
when Respondent commenced shipping its products interstate, the Commission's
activities with respect to Respondent, including its conduct of the second election,
were void for any purpose. The Respondent also argues that the Union's demon-
strated majority in October 1962 has no standing under the Federal statute because
the Board in accordance with Section 9(c) (3) of the Act could not have conducted
an election until after April 11, 1963.
If the Board had conducted the April 1962 election which the Union lost, I would
agree with Respondent that under Section 9(c)(3) of the Act, it would have been
prohibited from directing a second election among Respondent's employees in any
bargaining unit or any subdivision within which in the preceding 12-month period
a valid election had been held. However, this is not the situation we are confronted
with here, since the Board was' neither petitioned to, nor did it, conduct the October
1962 election. The record does not disclose nor does Respondent contend that the
Commission's election in October 1962 was attended by irregularities or lacked the
proper safeguards. Furthermore, it does not appear that Respondent in any manner
objected to the conduct of the October 1962 election by the Commission. In fact
after the Union demonstrated its majority in the October 1962 election the Respond-
ent recognized the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees
and met with it over a period of months. In September 1963 for the first time a ques-
tion was raised by Respondent about the jurisdiction of the Commission to conduct
the October 1962 election.5
It is well established that a Board election is not the sole means by which a union
may validly secure recognition as bargaining representative. See United Mine Work-
ers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62. And the Board in Ekco
Products Company, 117 NLRB 137, 143, stated, "No provision of the Act specifically
forbids an employer to recognize a union during the 12-month period during which a
representation election is barred, nor may such a prohibition be implied from the
language of Section 9(c) (3)."
In The West Indian Co., Ltd., 129 NLRB 1203, the Board, in spite of preemption,
attributed the same effect to the election conducted by the Virgin Islands Department
of Agriculture and Labor as if the department had been authorized to conduct the
election in the first instance. The Board has also recognized as fact State election re-
5 See General Counsel's Exhibit No. 5 It is interesting to note that even though
Attorney Wagner in his letter to the Union questioned the Commission's authority to con-
duct the October 1962 election because the Respondent had been engaged in interstate
commerce since July 1962, he nevertheless suggested, "If you decide not to rely on the
validity of the October 1962 election, you may want to ask for another election under
either the Federal or State law." If the Union accepted this counsel and went to another
State election and won, it seems only fair to inquire if Respondent would then have
accepted such demonstration of majority.
760-577-6 5-vol. 148-30
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
suits and precluded itself from holding second elections. See Bluefield Produce &
Provision Company, 117 NLRB 1660. It follows, therefore, as in the instant situation,
where there is no prohibition against the holding of a second election by the State,6
that the Board will and should give effect to the results of such election. I do not
accept Respondent's contention that the election conducted by the Industrial Com-
mission of Colorado on October 30 and 31, 1962, was void and that the results thereof
cannot be given effect by the Board.
With regard to the contention raised in its brief that Respondent bargained in good
faith and the Union did not, it states, among other things, that Respondent's
reluctance to sign the union contract as tendered was based primarily on the fact
that it was losing money. Although Respondent's economic condition was mentioned
at the April 25, 1963, negotiation meeting by Wirt Burns, I have heretofore found
its claimed inability to change wage rates or fringe benefits or to go along with the
union-shop proposal was not the reason for the breakdown in negotiations. The real
reason was Wirt Bums' declaration, as conceded in Respondent's brief, that because
of his religious beliefs he never intended to and was not able to enter into a union
contract. Respondent's refusal to comply with its statutory obligation that it bargain
in good faith cannot be justified by reliance on religious scruples. "The fact that an
act is done only as a matter of religious worship will not protect a person from the
consequences if such act has been prohibited by law." 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional
Law, sec. 312. See also Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ v. U.S., 136 U.S.
1; Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145.
The Respondent claims that the Union was using unfair tactics against Respondent
and therefore it should be absolved of its duty to continue "fruitless" bargaining. It
cites as examples the circulation, "perhaps narrowly," of a boycott circular urging
people not to buy Respondent's products and Dean's remark during the April 25
negotiation meeting that the Union's treasury of $3 million would be used to `break"
Respondent. The only evidence in the record regarding the handbill is that several
copies were given to employee Bowen who brought one into the plant and the em-
ployees discussed its contents. There is not a scintilla of evidence that it was otherwise
distributed. Further, I find nothing of such an awesome nature in Dean's remark,
uttered in anger after the Union heard that Wirt Burns never had any intention of
entering into a collective-bargaining contract with it, which prevented Respondent
from continuing to bargain, if it was so minded, and which absolved it of such duty.
See N.L.R.B. v. Insurance Agents International Union (Prudential Insurance Co.),
361 U.S. 477.
I find no merit in the Respondent's third contention that when the Regional Director
gave notice of his refusal to issue a complaint, he exhausted his powers and his sub-
sequent acts had no legal effect. In Fant Milling Company, 117 NLRB 1277, the
Board, faced with a situation practically similar in all respects to the one herein, with
respect to the first refusal to issue a complaint by the Regional Director, his with-
drawal of the refusal, and his subsequent issuance of the complaint while an appeal
was pending, decided the complaint was validly issued. See also The Randall Com-
pany, Division of Textron, Inc., 133 NLRB 289, footnote 1.
In sum, I conclude and find from all the above and the record as a whole that
Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) .
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its business operations 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 commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor-practices. it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to bargain with the Union
upon request as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
9 See Colorado Labor Peace Act, codified as article 5, chapter 80„ section 80-5-5,
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1953-subdivision (4).
WESTERN MEATPACKERS, INC . . 451
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. _
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. .
2. All employees of Respondent employed at its Grand Junction plant, exclusive
of clerical help, guards, watchmen, nonworking supervisors, plant manager, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute at all times material herein,
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. The Union at all times since on or about October 31, 1962, and at all times
material herein has been and is now the exclusive representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively, and by interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) and 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 in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recom-
mended that the Respondent, Western Meat Packers, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment with Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634,
AFL=CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all its employees
in the appropriate unit.
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of the above-named Union to
bargain collectively with Respondent. o
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634, AFL-CIO, as the ex-
clusive representative of all the employees in the above-described appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions
of employment and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its plant in Grand Junction, Colorado, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 7 Copies 'of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 27, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8
It is finally recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt
of this Decision the Respondent notify said Regional Director, in writing, that it
will comply with the terms hereof, the Board issue an order requiring it to take
such action.
7In the event that this Recommended Order be 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."
'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."
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , Local Union No. 634, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive 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 employment and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
The bargaining unit is:
All employees at our Grand Junction plant exclusive of clerical help,
guards, watchmen , nonworking supervisors , plant managers , and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees in the above-described
appropriate unit.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date o f posting
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609
Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa , Denver, Colorado , Telephone
No. 534-3161 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Sagamore Pulp Corporation ; Yank Waste Co., Inc. and Herr-
mann Lydecker . Case No. 3-CA-2212. August 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1964, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents
had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety,.as set
forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Decision, the exceptions, and the brief,
148 NLRB No. 50.