Anderson Clayton & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 396 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paymaster Oil Mill Co ., a Division of Anderson,
Clayton & Co., Inc . and International Chemical
Workers Union . Case 15-CA-3593
Union, the Respondent contending that it was improperly
denied a hearing on its objections to the election in the
related representation case and that the certification of the
Union is therefore invalid.
March 2, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On November 7, 1969, Trial Examiner Charles
W. Schneider issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, granting General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding
no merit in various contentions made by Respondent
in its Response to the Trial Examiner's Order to
Show Cause why the Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted, and finding on the
pleadings that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Trial
Examiner recommended that Respondent cease and
desist from such unfair labor practices 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
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 and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts
as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Paymaster
Oil Mill Co., a Division of Anderson, Clayton &
Co., Inc., Vicksburg, Mississippi, its officers, 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
The Issue
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER , Trial Examiner: The case
arises on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Counsel for the General Counsel upon an admitted refusal
by the Respondent to bargain with the certified Charging
A The Representation Proceeding'
Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. 159(c)) on November
20, 1968, by International Chemical Workers Union,
herein called the Union, the Union and Paymaster Oil
Mill Co., a Division of Anderson, Clayton & Co., Inc.,
the Respondent herein, entered into a Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election on November 27,
1968, which was approved by the Acting Regional
Director of Region 15 of the Board on December 2, 1968.
Pursuant to the stipulation an election in an
appropriate bargaining unit, described hereinafter, was
held on January 3, 1969, under the direction and
supervision of the Acting Regional Director to determine
the question of representation. Upon conclusion of the
election the parties were furnished a tally of the ballots
which showed that of approximately 67 eligible voters, 31
cast ballots for the Union, 23 against, and 7 cast
challenged ballots
On January 7, 1969, the Respondent filed timely
objections to the election and to conduct affecting the
results of the election, alleging, in substance, the
following:
1. Authorization cards were illegally obtained by the
Union.
2. The Union illegally promised monetary and other
benefits to induce employees to sign cards and to vote for
the Union.
3. The Union threatened employees and their families if
employees continued to oppose the Union or did not join
the Union.
4. The Union illegally induced employees to vote for
the Union.
5. The Union thus interfered with, coerced, and deluded
the employees in such a manner that a proper election
could not be held
6. By the above and other conduct the Union interfered
with, threatened, coerced and intimidated employees and
made a free election impossible.
In conclusion the Respondent requested that the
election be set aside. No request was made in the
objections for a hearing.
On February 26, 1969, the Acting Regional Director
issued a Report on Objections. In the report the Acting
Regional Director stated that an investigation of the
Respondent's objections had been conducted during which
all parties were afforded opportunity to submit evidence
bearing on the issues. After discussion of the evidence, the
Acting Regional Director concluded in his report that the
Respondent's objections raised no substantial issues of
fact or law with respect to the election or its results. The
'Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding , Case 15-RC-4037, as the term "record" is
defined in Section 102 68 and 102 69(f) of the Board 's rules (Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure , National Labor Relations
Board , Series 8 as amended ) See LTV Electrosvstems, Inc, 166 NLRB
No. 81, enfd. 388 F 2d 683 (C.A 4); Golden Age Beverage Co. 167
NLRB No. 24, enfd 415 F.2d 26 (C A 5), Intertype Co v Penello, 269
F.Supp 573 (D C Va ), Intertype Co v. N L R B , 401 F.2d 41 (C A 4),
Follett Corp. 164 NLRB No 47, enfd 397 F.2d 91 (C A 7), Section 9(d)
of the National Labor Relations Act
181 NLRB No. 59
PAYMASTER OIL MILL CO. 397
Acting Regional Director consequently recommended to
the Board that the Respondent's objections be overruled in
their entirety and that the Union be certified as the
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit
On March 20, 1969, the Respondent filed with the
Board in Washington, D.C. exceptions to the Acting
Regional Director's Report, in which the Respondent
requested that a hearing be held on its objections
On June 9, 1969, the Board issued a Decision and
Certification of Representative in which the Board
adopted the Acting Regional Director's findings,
conclusions and recommendations, and certified the Union
as the bargaining representative.2
B. The Unfair Labor Practice Case
On July 22, 1969, the Union filed the instant unfair
labor practice charge alleging that since the certification
the Respondent had refused and continued to refuse to
bargain with the Union.
On August 21, 1969, the Regional Director issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging that the
Respondent had committed unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by refusing
to recognize, meet with, or to confer with the Union as
bargaining representative, though requested to do so since
the certification.
On August 29, 1969, the Respondent filed its Answer to
the Complaint in which it admitted most of the material
allegations of the Complaint but denied the commission of
unfair labor practices. The Answer admitted that since on
or about July 18, 1969, the Respondent has refused and
continues to refuse to meet with or bargain with the
Union, for the reason that the Respondent desires to test
the correctness of the Board's Decision and Certification
of Representative.
On September 12, 1969, Counsel for the General
Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the
ground that the Respondent's Answer did not raise any
triable issue requiring hearing On September 15, 1969, I
issued an Order to Show Cause on the Motion for
Summary Judgment returnable September 30, 1969. On
September 29, 1969, the Respondent filed a Response to
the Order to Show Cause No responses have been
received from the other parties
C. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent opposes the motion for summary
judgment on the ground that the Respondent was invalidly
denied a hearing on its objections in the representation
case. Subsidiary thereto the Respondent in its response to
the order to show cause asserts a number of contentions,
considered hereinafter.
It is established Board policy, in absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence not to
'With respect to the Respondent 's objections to the election the Board
said
The Board has considered the Acting Regional Director 's Report and
the Employer 's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Acting
Regional Director 's findings , conclusions , and recommendations, as the
Employer has raised no material or substantial issue of fact or law
which would warrant reversal of the Acting Regional Director or require
a hearing.
As we have overruled all of the objections , and as the tally of ballots
shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots
cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit
permit litigation before a trial examiner in an unfair labor
practice case of issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior related representation proceeding.' This
policy is applicable even though no formal hearing on
objections has been provided by the Board Such a hearing
is not a matter of right unless substantial and material
issues are raised.' Respondent does not claim to present
any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.
We turn now to the Respondent's contentions.
Some of the Respondent's assertions in its response to
the order to show cause are in essence reiterations of
contentions advanced by the Respondent, either to the
Acting Regional Director or to the Board, in connection
with its objections to the election, as, for example, its
right to a hearing on those issues. Relitigation of those
matters or consideration of them by the Trial Examiner
are precluded under existing authority, no representation
being made by the Respondent that it possesses new or
previously unavailable evidence. Authority cited by the
Respondent, such as the case of Hometown Foods, Inc v.
N L R B, 379 F.2d 341 (C.A 5), 1967, turned on the
correctness of the Board's determination that the
objections to the election raised no substantial or material
issue - a matter which the courts may review, but which
the Trial Examiner may not
The other contentions stated by the Respondent may be
summarized as follows:
I That the Board's rules make no provision for a
motion for summary judgment on the pleadings and that
such a procedure is in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
2. That the representation case pleadings, reports,
decisions and orders are inadequate for the Trial
Examiner to make a decision on the General Counsel's
motion, and that there is no published decision of the
Board of which the Trial Examiner may take official
notice, and that consequently the General Counsel seeks a
judgment without evidence in support of the allegations of
the Complaint.
3. That the Board's procedures deprive employers of
due process of law by denying hearings on objections and
by requiring employers to present evidence in support of
objections to elections. The bases for this contention are
that (a) employees are permitted by the Board to refuse to
cooperate with employers attempting to adduce evidence
of union misconduct (citing Johnnie's Poultry Co.. 146
NLRB 770, 775); and (b) the Board refuses to issue
investigative subpoenas to an employer requiring
compulsory testimony regarding union misconduct.
I find these contentions of the Respondent not to be
sustained for the following reasons:
1. Board orders based on summary judgments have
'Krieger-Ragsdale & Co. Inc, 159 NLRB 490, enfd 379 F.2d 517
(C A 7), cert denied, 389 U S 1041, N L R B v Macomb Pottery, 376
F 2d 450 (C A 7), Howard Johnson Company, 164 NLRB No 121;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 163 NLRB 579. See Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co v N L R H. 313 U S 146, 162, NLRB Rules and
Regulations, Sections 102 67(f) and 102 69(c).
'O K Van and Storage, Inc. 127 NLRB 1537, enfd. 297 F 2d 74 (C A
5) See Air Control Window Products, Inc, 335 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5)
"If there is nothing to hear, then a hearing is a senseless and useless
formality " See also N L R B v . Bata Shoe Co. 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C.A
4), cert den 389 U S. 917• ". there is no requirement , constitutional or
otherwise , that there be a hearing in the absence of substantial and
material issues crucial to determination of whether NLRB election results
are to be accepted for purposes of certification.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been enforced by the large majority of the U.S Courts of
Appeals.'
The Board has uniformly rejected contentions that there
is no authority for summary judgment in, variously, the
National Labor Relations Act, the Administrative
Procedure Act, or the Board 's procedures or rules.'
I am cited to no case in which a court has refused
enforcement of a Board order on the ground that the
Board may not use summary judgment procedure. On the
contrary , whenever the issue has been raised , the Courts
have uniformly upheld the Board ' s authority to utilize
such procedure where there were no issues requiring an
evidential hearing.'
In several other summary judgment cases the courts,
while refusing enforcement of Board orders on the merits,
specifically upheld or assumed the authority of the Board
to issue summary judgments . See, for example, N L R B
v. Chelsea Clock Co, 411 F.2d 1 89 (C.A. 1); N L R B v.
Ortronix Inc, 380 F .2d 737 (C.A. 5).
2. Assuming the correctness of the Board's
determinations in the representation case, as I must at this
stage of the proceeding in the absence of new or
previously undiscovered evidence , the official facts of
record and the admissions of the Respondent constitute
adequate legal basis for concluding that there are no
unresolved factual issues requiring hearing before a trial
examiner and that the case may therefore be disposed of
on the existing record as a matter of law. That there is no
published decision of the Board in the sense of one
'See, for example , the following cases decided within the last 3 years'
Baumritter Corp v N L R B. 386 F 2d 117 (C A 1), N L R B v Puritan
Sportswear Corp , 385 F 2d 142 (C A 3), N L R B v Certified Testing
Laboratories, Inc, 387 F 2d 285 (C A 3); N L R B v Carolina Natural
Gas Corp, 386 F 2d 571 (C A 4), LTV Electrosystems, Inc , v N L R B.
388 F 2d 683 (C A 4), NLRB v Aerovox Corp, 390 F 2d 653 (C A 4),
N L R B v Rish Equipment Co. 401 F 2d 597 (C A 4), N L R B v
Union Brothers, 403 F 2d 883 (C A 4); N L R B v Aerovox Corp, 409
F 2d 1004 (C A 4), N L R B v Hevi-Duty Electric Co, 410 F 2d 757
(C A 4), N L R B v Clement-Blythe Companies, 415 F 2d 78 (C A 4),
Neuhoff Bros Packers, Inc v NLRB , 362 F 2d 611 (C A 5) '
Southwestern Portland Cement Co v N L R B. 407 F 2d 131 (C A 5);
N L R B v Capitan Drilling Co, 408 F 2d 676 (C A 5), Riverside Press,
Inc v NLRB, 415 F 2d 281, (CA 5), NLRB v Golden Age
Beverage Co , 415 F 2d 26, (C A 5), NLRB v Crest Leather Mfg
Corp , 414 F.2d 421 (C.A 5); N L R B v Tennessee Packers, Inc. 379
F 2d 172 (C A 6, 1967), cert . denied 389 U S 958; NLRB v
Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc, 413 F 2d 809 (C A 6), N L R B v
National Survey Service, Inc, 361 F 2d 199 (C A 7), Macomb Pottery
Co v NLRB B. 376 F 2d 450 (C A 7), N L R B v Krieger-Ragsdale &
Company, Inc , 379 F 2d 517 (C A 7), cert denied 389 U S 1041, Follett
Corp v NLRB , 391 F 2d 91 (C A 7); N L R B v Hollywood Brands,
Inc, 398 F 2d 294 (C A 7), N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co , 399
F 2d 409 (C A 7), N L R B v Red Bird Foods, Inc, 399 F 2d 600 (C A
7), N L R B v E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 395 F 2d 191, (C A 9), N L R B v
Continental Nut Company, 395 F 2d 830 (C A 9)
'See, for example , Liquid Carbonic Corporation , 116 NLRB 795;
Krieger-Ragsdale & Co, Inc. 159 NLRB 490; E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161
NLRB 1380; Union Brothers . Inc, 162 NLRB 1505, Reno's Riverside
Hotel, Inc, d/b/a Riverside Hotel . 163 NLRB 280; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, 163 NLRB 579; Harry T Campbell Sons'
Corporation , 164 NLRB No 36 and cases there cited , Red-More Corp,
d/b/a Disco Fair, 164 NLRB No. 93, Ore-Ida Foods, 164 NLRB No. 64,
Clement-Blythe Companies . 168 NLRB No 24 , State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company . 169 NLRB No. 122, Chelsea Clock Co.
170 NLRB No 21
'See, for example , the following cases cited in In. 5 and 6, supra
Baumritter Corp, Certified Testing Laboratories, Puritan Sportswear
Corp. Carolina Natural Gas Corp, LTV Electrosystems, Aerovox Corp
(both cases ), Union Bros , Clement-Blythe Companies , Caption Drilling
Co, Crest Leather Mfg Corp, Brush-Moore Newspapers. Inc, and E-Z
Davies Chevrolet
published in an official volume of Board Decisions is
immaterial. The Board's Decision and Certification of
Representative constitutes, an official decision open to
public inspection.
3. We come then to the Respondent's contention to the
effect that Board procedures in representation cases deny
employers due process of law by denying hearings on
objections, and by requiring the submission of evidence in
support of objections to elections As we have seen,
hearings on objections are not required in the absence of
substantial or material issue. That the Board properly
requires parties filing objections to elections to present
evidence in support of their objections has been
established. N L R B v 0 K Van and Storage. Inc,
supra; N L R B v. Bata Shoe Co. 377 F.2d 821 (C A 4)'
The suggestion of the Respondent that efforts by it to
secure testimony from employees in the instant case would
have been fruitless and perhaps unlawful is not borne out
by the authorities.
In the case of N L R B v National Survey Service,
Inc., 361 F 2d 199 (C.A. 7), the court held that proper
attempts by an employer to secure evidence from
employees in connection with objections to an election are
not unlawful. The court said:
It has been held that, in preparing for an unfair labor
practice case, an employer may question employees
provided his questions are relevant to the issues and are
likely to yield substantial evidence. [Citing cases ]
The court went on to hold that principle applicable to
representation cases, saying that the authorities "disclose
that employer interrogation is not unlawful per se We see
no reason for not extending this rule to representation
proceedings."
The Johnnie's Poultry case cited by the Respondent is
inapplicable on its facts. That case involved interrogation
of employees in furtherance of unlawful conduct. The
Board there specifically said:
. Respondent's interrogations were but part and
parcel of its efforts to avoid recognizing and bargaining
with a statutory representative. In circumstances such
as these we do not believe that Respondent may rely
upon privilege to justify an unwarranted intrusion into
the protected activity of employees
Nothing in the Johnnie's Poultry decision forecloses a
legitimate effort by an employer to secure evidence in a
representation case from his employees.
Concerning the Respondent's inability to secure
investigative subpoenas, it is quite true that Respondent
cannot. The reason is that there is no provision in the
National Labor Relations Act, the Administrative
Procedure Act, or other law authorizing parties other than
'In the 0 K Van case the 5th Circuit said the following in part
The action of the Board was unexceptionable In order to be entitled
to a hearing on its objections to an election, an objecting party must
supply the Board with specific evidence which prima facie would warrant
setting aside the election [Citing authorities ] The burden is not on the
Board to show that the election was fairly conducted , but on Respondent
to show that it was not.
The Board makes it a practice to hold post -election hearings on
objections to elections , but in keeping with the spirit of the Act does so
only when it appears that the allegations relied on to overturn the
election have a basis in law and that there is evidence to support them
The opportunity for protracted delay of certification of the results of
representation elections which would exist in the absence of reasonable
conditions to the allowance of a hearing on objections is apparent An
objecting party who fails to satisfy such conditions has no cause for
complaint when and if his demand for a hearing is denied
PAYMASTER OIL MILL CO. 399
the Board to use investigative subpoenas in Board
proceedings The Board has such authority, but only has it
because it is conferred by Section I l(1) of the NLRA
That Section 11 authorized the Board to issue
subpoenas in aid of its investigation of a charge prior to
issuance of a complaint was established early in the
history of the Board. N L R B v. The Barrett Company,
120 F.2d 583 (C.A. 7) Attempts to revoke such authority
in unfair labor practice cases at the time of the
Taft-Hartley amendments to the Act in 1947 were rejected
by Congress, although Section 11 was amended in other
respects.' The Act does not authorize the use of
investigative subpoenas by parties other than the Board
Schrementi Bros v. McCulloch, 69 LRRM 2253 (D.C.
Ill 1968).
The Respondent's contentions advanced in its response
to the order to show cause are therefore found not to be
supported.
Upon the basis of the record before me I make the
following further:
collective bargaining, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act the Union is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the said unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment and other terms and
conditions of employment.
Since on or about July 18, 1969, though requested by
the Union to bargain, the Respondent has refused and is
continuing to refuse to recognize the Union and to meet
and to bargain collectively with the Union as such
representative.
By thus refusing to bargain collectively Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Board
issue the following.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, a corporation authorized to do, and doing, business
in the State of Mississippi where it operates a soybean
and warehouse facility in Vicksburg.
During the preceding 12 months, the period
representative of all times material herein, Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, received
goods valued in excess of $1,000,000 from points located
directly outside the State of Mississippi.
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
iI. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and at all times material herein has been,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Vicksburg, Mississippi plant, including
shipping and receiving employees, but excluding all
office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
On June 9, 1969, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of
'The House bill contained a provision deleting such authority in unfair
labor practice cases but continuing it in representation cases (H R 3020,
Section 11), Legislative History of the Labor- Management Relations Act
1947 p 201, House Committee Report No 245 p 45, Legislative History
p 334 However the provision was eliminated in Conference (House
Conference Report No. 510 p 58, Legislative History p 562)
The amendments to Section II which were adopted deleted the Board's
former authority to reject requests for subpoenas , made compliance with
such requests mandatory , added a provision for a revocation procedure,
and spelled out the grounds for revocation
ORDER
A. For the purpose of determining the duration of the
certification, the initial year of certification shall be
deemed to begin on the date the Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized
exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit lo
B Paymaster Oil Mill Co , A Division of Anderson,
Clayton & Co., Inc , its officers, agents, successors and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Chemical Workers Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate bargaining unit
All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Vicksburg, Mississippi plant, including
shipping and receiving employees, but excluding all
office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to
negotiate for or represent employees as such exclusive
collective-bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International
Chemical Workers Union as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit 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
(b) Post at its place of business in Vicksburg,
Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked
"The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining
agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry Co , 136
NLRB 785, Commerce Co, dlb/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, 328
F 2d 600 (C A 5), cert denied 379 U S 817, Burnett Construction Co .
149 NLRB 1419, 1421, 350 F 2d 57 (C A 10)
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 15 shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by the Respondent
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 15, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Recommended
Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.' S
"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, 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 "
"In the event these recommendations are adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 15, in writing , within 10 days from receipt of this Order what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Chemical Workers Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the following
employees:
All production and maintenance employees at our
Vicksburg, Mississippi plant, including shipping and
receiving employees, but excluding all office clerical
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union
to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive
collective-bargaining representative
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit, and if an
understanding is reached we will sign a contract with
the Union.
PAYMASTER OIL MILL
CO, A DIVISION OF
ANDERSON , CLAYTON &
CO, 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„
T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue,
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361