Harvard Folding Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1981

259 N.L.R.B. 686 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc. and Boston Local 1980, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint
No. 600, Graphic Arts International Union, admitting in part, and denying in part, the allega-
AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 1-CA-17917 tions in the complaint. On June 3, 1981, Respond-
December 11, 1981 ent filed an answer to the amendment to the com-December 11, 1981 plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al-
DECISION AND ORDER legations in the amendment to the complaint.
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND On September 16, 1981, counsel for the General
ZIMMERMAN Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September
Upon a charge filed on October 2, 1980, by 22, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the
Boston Local No. 600, Graphic Arts International proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
duly served on Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc., mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- Cause.
gional Director for Region 1, issued a complaint Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
and notice of hearing on November 17, 1980, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Uon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Section 8(a)(l), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2(6) Bord e the following:
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. On May 28, 1981, an amendment to the Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
complaint issued, alleging additional violations of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Copies of In its answer to the complaint and response to
the charge and complaint and notice of hearing the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits its
before an administrative law judge and amendment refusal to bargain but challenges the Union's certifi-
to the complaint were duly served on the parties to cation on the basis that the Board erred, first, in
this proceeding. certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the representative of Respondent's employees and,
complaint alleges in substance that on September second, in failing to review an affidavit which was
11, 1980, following a Board election in Case 1-RC- taken by the Regional Director during his investi-
16868, the Union was duly certified as the exclu- gation, but was not forwarded to the Board as a
sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- part of the record. Respondent further argues that
spondent's employees in the unit found appropri- granting of the General Counsel's motion will
ate;' and that, commencing on or about September result in a duplication of effort because additional
25, 1980, and at all times thereafter, Respondent allegations in the complaint, not at issue in the
has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bar- General Counsel's motion, require a hearing and
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive will also be subject to court review. In the Motion
bargaining representative, although the Union has for Summary Judgment, counsel for the General
requested and is requesting it to do so. It is further Counsel alleges that Respondent seeks to relitigate
alleged that since on or about September 23, 1980, issues previously considered in the underlying rep-
Respondent has failed and refused to supply infor- resentation case, and, also, that no factual issues
mation requested by the Union regarding the warranting a hearing are presented in this case con-
names, addresses, classifications, dates of hire, and cerning the issues which are the subject of his
wage rates of unit employees.2 On December 24, motion.
Our review of the record herein, including the
Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, record i , inu l,
Caue -RC-16868, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and record in ase -RC-16868, discloses, inter alia,
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See that pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
LTV Electrosystems Inc, 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th Upon Consent Election, an election was conducted
Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co.. 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Ca v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 among the employees of the stipulated unit on May
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 29, 1980, and that the tally of ballots furnished the
(7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
I The General Counsel moves for summary judgment solely on these parties after the election showed 52 votes cast for
allegations of the complaint. He moves that the remaining allegations in
the complaint, as amended by the amendment to the complaint, be con- and (5) of the Act raise genuine issues of material fact. We therefore shall
sidered at the scheduled hearing before an administrative law judge. We remand the issues raised by those allegations of the complaint to the Re-
find that the remaining allegations of violations of Sec. 8(aXI), (3), (4), gional Director for hearing thereon.
259 NLRB No. 102
d
. I-
December , , . ._ ^ i
y , I , I , .On t , ,
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, ANDfiled directly with the Board a Motion for
.
t, , t -
l t it
o i ,
^^ i p
B
(l
,
------ ~~~~~~~~~~Our ,
I Offici O r e f here i n/-' iin«_^, i clud i lgt,
u l- , e
e c o d n C as e l s ,
trosysler , ( ), e f . 388 . 683 (4th s t lecti , an election as conducted
l ,
type .
,
ded.nartii» after thp pipctinn ihnwpr 52 vntM cast for
I r l l f r r j t l l t P e t VOt S

sl
M
,
HARVARD FOLDING BOX CO. 687
and 38 votes cast against the Union. There was one the information requested by the Union, which Re-
challenged ballot, an insufficient number to affect spondent concedes would be relevant and neces-
the results of the election. Respondent filed timely sary for the Union's performance of its function as
objections which alleged that a campaign leaflet the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit
distributed by the Union contained material misrep- employees if the Union were the lawful bargaining
resentations concerning the wages paid to employ- representative. Respondent denies that the Union is
ees of a competitor. On July 3, 1980, the Regional the exclusive representative of its employees and
Director issued his Report on Objections and Rec- seeks to have the election results set aside based on
ommendations in which he recommended that the the alleged misrepresentations that were the subject
objections be overruled in their entirety and that of the objections.
the Board issue a certification of representative. In It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
so doing, he found that the Petitioner's leaflet was covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
an accurate recitation of a listing of wage rates cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
paid under certain of the Petitioner's area con- leging a violation of Section 8(aXS) is not entitled
tracts, and of the wages paid to employees in the to relitigate issues which were or could have been
Petitioner's bargaining unit at Lawrence Packing litigated in a prior representation proceeding.3
Corporation (one of the Employer's competitors). The issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
He further found that, even assuming a material ing concerning the merits of its exceptions to the
misrepresentation was made, the Employer had suf- Regional Director's Report on Objections were or
ficient time to reply. Respondent filed timely ex- could have been litigated in the prior representa-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report reiterat- tion proceeding, and Respondent does not offer to
ing the contentions set forth in its objections and adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or previ-
arguing, inter alia, that the Petitioner's leaflet was ously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that
an incomplete disclosure and a half-truth. On Sep- any special circumstances exist herein which would
tember 11, 1980, the Board issued a Decision and require the Board to reexamine the decision made
Certification of Representative adopting the Re- in the representation proceeding.
gional Director's findings and recommendations urther, we find no merit to Respondent's con-
(not reported in volumes of Board Decisions). tention that it was denied due process because
Respondent then submitted on September 29, Melvin Ross' affidavit was not transferred to the
1980, a request for reconsideration of the Board's Board as part of the record. First, statements of
Decision and Certification of Representative. Its re- witnesses which were before the Regional Director
quest was found to be untimely filed and was not in his disposition of election objections and chal-
considered. On October 8, 1980, Respondent again lenged ballots are not part of the record in a repre-
submitted a request for review seeking to overturn sentation case as provided in Section 102.69(g) of
the ruling as to the untimeliness of its earlier re- the Boards Rules and Regulations, Series 8 as
quest. On October 23, 1980, the Board reaffirmedquest. n ctober 23, 1980, t r r ffir amended. Indeed, such affidavits are expressly ex-
its rejection of Respondent's request for reconsider- cluded from the definition of documentary evi-cluded from the definition of "documentary evi-ation stating again that it had been filed in an un- den in the September 9, 1981, amendment to
timely manner. On April 26, 1981, Respondent filed eci n 102.. See Sec. 1069((1)) Second,
a "Motion To Reopen the Record and a Request Section 102.69. (See Sec. 102.69(gXl)(ii).) Second, ti eopen the ecord and a Request
for Oral Argument" alleging, inter alia, that prior Respondent has no been prejudiced by the Re-
to April 1, 1981, it was not aware that the afidavit gional Director's failure to transfer the affidavit toto April 1, 1981, it was not aware that the affidavit the Board. The affidavit was attached to Respond-
of Respondent's president, Melvin Ross, taken by a enth s "otion To Reopen the Record" and to its
Board agent during the investigation, had not been ent s Mo tio n ToMoton f or S m ary Judgment and
forwarded to the Board by the Regional Director "Oppositionto Motion for Summary Judgment andforwarded to the Board by the Regional Director Request for Transfer to the Board." Although such
as part of the record. It maintained that failure to Requt Transf to the Board" Although such
consider the affidavit resulted in a denial of Re- a attachment is normally part of the record onlyspondens due process. By telegraphic order of when it has been timely submitted to the Regional
May 11spondent's 1981, he Board denied Respondents Director, we shall consider it part of this record in
motion without prejudice to raising the issues of light of Respondent's assertion that it was unawaremotion without prejudice to raising the issues of
the contents of the record and the right to a hear- that the Regional Director had not forwarded the
ing in the election objections proceeding in the Ross affidavit. Accordingly, we have reviewed the
unfair labor practioce casectospoedn nt affidavit and we find it raises no material issues of
unfair labor practice c se. fact or law which warrant a reversal or modifica-
In its answer to the complaint, as amended, Re-
spondent admits that it refused to bargain collec- ee Pittsbugh Plate Glass Ca v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
tively with the Union and that it refused to furnish Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102 67( and 102.69(c).
5
3
i ' ti t
u i ri l r i ti
i r r t ti , l f i l r '
fi i t ti t l . t l l l tig
ti t t i l ir ' i i t
i t t ti t f t i it j ti ri l i
i , i lih ti i ' f il l ,
an i l t i l r lf-tr t . i i l
, i i i
rtifi ti t ti ti t ti i
gional ir t r' fi i r ti F , i i '
(not reported i v l s f r i i s).ion i i
t i t , ' f i i t f t
, r t f r r i r ti f t r ' ar t
i i rtifi ti f r ntati . i l
t f t ti l fil iti l ti l
i . , t i l
sub itted a r t f r r i ki t t
t r li s t t ti li f it rli r r - te rd' l l ti , i
. I c idavi ar e
i ,mndd I e d sui- j fiavt e * .* r .. j eits rejectio of Respondent's request for reconsider ati st ti i t t it fil i
ti ly anner. ril 26, 1981, s t fil Sd enc eton t he September 91, 6g 1)(ii). t o
a "Motion To R t R r t Section 102.69. (See Sec. 102.69(gbl)(ii).) Second,
for ral rgu ent" alleging, inter alia, that prior gi"onaDeo f n Prejudiced by afi Re-
t ril , . it t ff vit g lo nal l r e to r s fa l l u re to t r ansf er th e afi d avi t to
f t' i t, l i t et.'s"ot To w as at t c hed tps-
r t ri t i ti ti , t tps o ti on ootpio th e R ec o rd " and t o ts
i l i ppositi nrto otion for Su ary Judg ent and
rt f t r r . i t i t t f il r t anattachm T rans fn t t r t o lt
i f i l i l h tt ll l
spondent's due process. By telegraphic order of w h enD c h as been timely submitted to the Regional
May 11. 1981, the Board denied Respondent's lDirectorf we shall consider it part of this record in
ti it t r j i t r i i t i lt gh t of Regponal D'i assertion that it was unaware
t t t t at 1 ^ 10 1" 1! i t t f r r the
l ti i i i t a R o ss ffi it. ccordingly, we have reviewed the
f ir l r r jec ase gaffidavit ri llabor practice fact
l i
t it t t it r f t i ll S o . ., ,1
Wit I 2,67(0
li ,
i i ). t a
9 1981 amendm nt to
y»
atthched o Respond-
nattahe i f
n
espondenta s t fr
unfaits labsr practoe complaint, as amended, Re fac t or law w h ic h w ar r ant a r ev ersa l o r odifica- , ,
'
ti
ta r fer
1^
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of our previous Decision and Certification of III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Representative in Case 1-RC-16868. We therefore
find that Respondent has not raised any issue A. The Representation Proceeding
which is properly litigable in this unfair labor prac- i. The unit
tice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant summary
judgment with respect to the allegations of the The following employees of Respondent consti-
complaint that Respondent refused to bargain with tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
representative of all employees in the appropriate Act:
unit and that Respondent refused to furnish certain All production and maintenance employees
information requested by the Union, relevant and employed by Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc.
necessary for the Union's performance of its func- at its plant located at 71 Linden Street, West
tion as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- Lynn, Massachusetts, including truckdrivers,
sentative.4 We find, however, that genuine issues of but excluding office clerical employees, sales
material fact exist as to the remaining allegations of employees, professional employees, guards and
the complaint, as amended. We therefore remand supervisors as defined in the Act.
those issues to the Regional Director for hearing 2. The certification
before an administrative law judge as scheduled.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board On May 29, 1980, a majority of the employees of
makes the following: Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
FINDINGS OF FACT Director for Region 1, designated the Union as
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent.
Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc., a Massachusetts The Union was certified as the collective-bar-
corporation, with an office and place of business at gaining representative of the employees in said unit
71 Linden Street, West Lynn, Massachusetts, is en- on September 11, 1980, and the Union continues to
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of be such exclusive representative within the mean-
folding boxes and related products. Annually in the ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
course and conduct of its business, Respondent
causes large quantities of cardboard and other ma- B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
terials to be purchased and transported from and Refusal
through various States of the United States other Commencing on or about September 16, 1980,
than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Re- and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested
spondent also causes substantial quantities of fold- Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
ing boxes to be sold and transported from its plant exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachu- the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
setts. In addition Respondent annually sells and mencing on or about September 25, 1980, and con-
ships quantities of folding boxes valued in excess of tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
$50,000 directly to points outside Massachusetts. has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
spondent is, and has been at all times material sentative for collective bargaining of all employees
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within in said unit.
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Commencing on or about September 23, 1980,
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and at all times thereafter, the Union, by letter, has
assert jurisdiction herein. requested Respondent to furnish the Union with
names, addresses, classifications, dates of hire, and
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED wage rates of all the employees in the bargaining
Boston Local No. 600, Graphic Arts Internation- unit. This information is necessary for and relevant
to the Union's performance of its function as the
al Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization t te colective-argaining representation he
witn te meang of S n 25 . exclusive collective-bargaining representative ofwithin the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. the unit employees. Since on or about Septemberthe unit employees. Since on or about September
25, 1980, Respondent has failed and refused to fur-
See pars. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. 19, and 20 of the complaint, as amend- 18 e spon ha fe an reset
ed by the amendment to the complaint, and pa. 23 and 24 of the com- nish the Union with the information described
plaint, insofar as they relate to the above-noted paragraphs. above.
r t ti i - - . t r f r A
t tion ing
1.
ti
ll ti i i
A c t :
4
i l ri
I. I t h ei r nt ti l ti
i i t
,
T h e R e '

oston ry
, Bo s on o caN a 6 0 ' r sl h l c A r t s I n t r n a o n '
l i ti h U on'stperformaningo r resenctivea of
with th meai of ctio () ofthe ct.exclusive ll ti - r i i r r t ti fit i t i f ection 2(5) of the ct. the it l . i pt r
------ , , t s f il r f t f r-
ecpl, 2 r ri
bove.
con'stperf r i
cpl,
HARVARD FOLDING BOX CO. 689
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since ing truckdrivers, but excluding office clerical em-
September 25, 1980, and at all times thereafter, re- ployees, sales employees, professional employees,
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respond- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor of the Act.
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and 4. Since September 11, 1980, the above-named
(1) of the Act. labor organization has been and now is the certified
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR and exclusive representative of all employees in the
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
The activities of Respondent set forth in section of the Act
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- 5. By refusing on or about September 25, 1980,
ations described in section I, above, have a close, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
fic, and commerce among the several States andfic, and commerce among r the several States and clusive bargaining representative of all the employ-
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Respondent in the appropriate unit, and byees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, and bystructing commerce and the free flow of co- refusing to furnish the Union with the information
merce. ~~~~~~~~~merce. ~it requested in its letter of September 23, 1980, Re-
v. THE REMEDY spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
ing fnd tht R nnt n in labor practices within the meaning of SectionHaving found that Respondent has engaged in ) o A.
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the 8 ) o t A.
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union and s interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
as the exclusive representative of all employees in employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-
reached, embody such understanding in a signed gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
agreement. within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap- 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their labor practices affecting commerce within the
selected bargaining agent for the period provided meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- OR
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-ORDER
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc., West Lynn, Massa-
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 chusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; shall:
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1. Cease and desist from:
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
and the entire record, makes the following: conditions of employment with Boston Local No.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 600, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, as the exclusive bargaining representative of1. Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc., is an employ- its employees in the following appropriate unit:
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees
2. Boston Local No. 600, Graphic Arts Interna- employed by Respondent at its plant located at
tional Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organiza- 71 Linden Street, West Lynn, Massachusetts,
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. including truckdrivers, but excluding office
3. All production and maintenance employees clerical employees, sales employees, profes-
employed by Respondent at its plant located at 71 sional employees, guards and supervisors as
Linden Street, West Lynn, Massachusetts, includ- defined in the Act.
si
t f rt i secti of the ct.
, rri i ti i it .
ri ti l ll i f i l ti l
i ti t , t nti l r l ti i t tr , l i ti
fi , and c rc t r l t t ^lusive i i t ti ll l
t t l t l r i t r i - e t i t i t i
str cti c rc t fr fl f m- rfi t i it t i f r ti
c c
it re este in its letter f e te er 23, , e-
Having found at espo dent has e gaged „ .*..
.
) . t h e i r f l t r i , s -
e n t h a s i t it , r str i , a coerced,
an d is , t i i , r i ,
i t t
th e m n
nt, within )(l)
ORDER
. . ; ll:
t ti , 149 1419, 1. ease and desist fro :
64 , 350 2d 57 to
r , t sis f t f r i f t r t f , , r , t t
i i l l
1. Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc., is an employ- , as t l si r i i r r s t ti f. l i . I c., is an e ploy- it e ployees in the follo ing appropriate unit:
t i f i e
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Refusing to supply the aforesaid labor organi- APPENDIX
zation with information necessary for collective
bargaining, including the names, addresses, classifi-ICE To EMPLOYEES
cations, dates of hire, and wage rates of all the em- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
ployees in the bargaining unit. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner interfering An Agency of the United States Government
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
the Act. concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
2. Take the following affirmative action which other terms and conditions of employment
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the with Boston Local No. 600, Graphic Arts In-
Act: ternational Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the ex-
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named clusive representative of the employees in the
labor organization as the exclusive representative bargaining unit described below.
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the above-
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and named Union with information necessary for
other terms and conditions of employment and, if collective bargaining, including the names, ad-
an understanding is reached, embody such under- dresses, classifications, dates of hire, and wage
standing in a signed agreement. rates of all the employees in the bargaining
(b) Upon request, supply the above-named labor unit.
organization with information necessary for collec- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
tive bargaining, including the names, addresses, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
classifications, dates of hire, and wage rates of all ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
the employees in the bargaining unit. them by Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Post at 71 Linden Street, West Lynn, Massa- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
chusetts, copies of the attached notice marked above-named Union as the exclusive repre-
"Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- sentative of all employees in the bargaining
vided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after unit described below, with respect to rates of
being duly signed by Respondent's representative, pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon tions of employment and, if an understanding
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- is reached, embody such understanding in a
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
eluding all places where notices to employees are All production and maintenance employees
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken employed by Harvard Folding Box Co., Inc.
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not at its plant located at 71 Linden Street, West
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Lynn, Massachusetts, including truckdrivers,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in but excluding office clerical employees, sales
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, employees, professional employees, guards
what steps have been taken to comply herewith. and supervisors as defined in the Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be, WE WILL, upon request, supply the above-
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Direc- named Union with information necessary for
tor for Region 1 for the sole purpose of holding collective bargaining, including the names, ad-
the scheduled hearing before an administrative law dresses, classifications, dates of hire, and wage
judge to resolve the issues raised by those allega- rates of all the employees in the bargaining
tions of the complaint upon which summary judg- unit.
ment has not been granted.
HARVARD FOLDING Box Co., INC.
' In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
ll P OST ED BY O RD ER OF T H E
i i i I I
f t it t t r t
W E W IL NOT r e fu s e t r i ll ti l
f ti o t h e r t er m s a n d iti f l t
w i th B o s to n L o c a l N o . 6 0 0 , r i rts I -
( ) r t, i
c l u si v e t ti f t l i t
i ti l i t ti i i it ri l .
ll i i W E W I L L N OT r f
u se t o s l t h e ab o v e -
n a m e d io n w it h i f r ti c ss ry f r
i l if ll ti r i i , i l i t s, ad-
t i , r , l ifi ti , t f ir , and age
i r a t e s o f a t h e i i
( ) t,
u t
W E W ILL i li r r l t r
it , t i , r r l -
i t ri t r t
th em t t.
W E W ILL , r t, r i it t e
t l i r r -
' i t i i
u n it t

t i o n s o f l t , if r t i
i s t i i
. i i it is:

I I t t t i r i , I , t, t
it r i , t t i l i ry
t r f r i I f r t s l r s f l i ng ll ti r i i , i l i t s, -
t l ri f r i i t ti l , l ifi ti , t i
j t r l t i i t ll t ll
ic su ary judg- unit.
"

r f to
r t l t v
it
, ll