Marhoefer Baking Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 511 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

MARHOEFER BAKING COMPANY, INC.
Marhoefer Baking Company, Inc. and Teamsters
Local Union #110 a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America and Salesmen's Com-
mittee, Party in Interest. Case 6-CA-13327
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On June 15, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein. 3
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In affirming the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondent
committed various violations of the Act, we do not rely on his finding
that Respondent's president, Louis Marhoefer, made a testimonial admis-
sion of a predetermination to frustrate the Union's campaign by resort to
prohibited action. We also expressly disavow the Administrative Law
Judge's erroneous criticism of the complaint for supposedly itemizing
complaint allegations "in repetitive and pointless detail."
2 The General Counsel excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's fail-
ure to conclude that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by continuing to
recognize the Salesmen's Committee after the April 3, 1980, Board certi-
fication of the Union. In support of this argument, the General Counsel
relies on a document admitted into evidence which purports to be a
record of a disciplinary interview of an employee conducted on May 12,
1980, and which indicates that Paul Gagermeier was present representing
the Salesmen's Committee. The record shows no further evidence con-
cerning the circumstances of the meeting. Because this matter was not
fully litigated, we do not pass on its merits.
I In his recommended remedy, the Administrative Law Judge uses the
broad cease-and-desist language, "in any other manner." However, we
have considered this case in light of the standards set forth in Hickmot
Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and have concluded that a broad re-
medial order is inappropriate inasmuch as it has not been shown that Re-
spondent has a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egre-
gious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for
the employees' fundamental statutory rights. Accordingly, we shall sub-
stitute the phrase "in any like or related manner," for "in any other
manner" in the recommended Order and notice. We shall also modify the
recommended Order and notice to require Respondent to disestablish the
unlawful Salesmen's Committee and to bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its unit employees.
258 NLRB No. 71
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Marhoefer Baking Company, Inc., Altoona, Penn-
sylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragaph (d):
"(d) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act."
2. Insert the following as paragraphs 2(a) and (b)
and reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from
and completely disestablish the Salesmen's Com-
mittee, or any successor thereto, as a representative
of its employees.
"(b) Upon request, bargain with Teamsters Local
#110, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, as the certified exclusive representative of its
driver-salesmen unit employees with respect to
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."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee complaints
and grievances in order to discourage our em-
ployees from engaging in union activities or
seeking union representation by a union of
their choice.
WE WILL NOT promise to correct such
grievances in order to discourage independent
union activity by our employees.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we
will sell our business in order to avoid collec-
511
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive bargaining through a union of their
choice.
WE WILL NOT threaten to refuse to sign any
collective-bargaining agreement with a union
of our employees' choice.
WE WILL NOT vary or abandon any benefits
granted to our employees through the medium
of the Salesmen's Committee.
WE WILL NOT in fact negotiate with such a
committee for that purpose.
WE WILL NOT poll our employees, after a
majority have voted for a union of their
choice, to inquire whether they wish to be
represented by the union in collective bargain-
ing.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in their exercise of the rights to self-organi-
zation, to join or assist Teamsters Local Union
#110 a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization of
their choice, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choice, to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recogni-
tion from and completely disestablish the
Salesmen's Committee or any successor there-
to, as a representative of our employees.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Team-
sters Local #110 a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, as the certified
exclusive bargaining representative of our
driver-salesmen for the purpose of collective
bargaining concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
MARHOEFER BAKING COMPANY, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. RIcc, Administrative Law Judge: A hear-
ing in this proceeding was held in Altoona, Pennsylva-
nia, on November 6, 1980, on complaint of the General
Counsel against Marhoefer Baking Company, Inc., herein
called the Respondent or the Company. The complaint
was issued on May 29, 1980, upon a charge filed on
April 3, 1980, by Teamsters Local Union #110 a/w In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the
Union. The issues presented are whether the Respondent,
through its agents, committed a number of unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Briefs
were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Marhoefer Baking Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania cor-
poration, has its office in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where
it is engaged in the nonretail sale of baked goods. During
the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint,
in the course of its business the Respondent purchased
and received goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 sent to it in Pennsylvania from out-of-state
sources. During that same period, in the course of its
business it sold and shipped from its Pennsylvania loca-
tion goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 to
out-of-state locations. I find that the Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Teamsters Local Union #110 a/w Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou-
semen and Helpers of America is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. A Picture of the Case
A move towards union representation started in early
February 1980 among the Respondent's approximately 25
bakery driver-salesmen. On February 15 Local 110 of the
Teamsters International filed a Board petition seeking an
election among these employees. Aware of the union ac-
tivity, of course, the Company called a meeting of all the
salesmen on March 4 where Louis Marhoefer, the
owner, asked them to speak to him about what it was in
their existing conditions of employment that caused them
to turn to the Union. He also passed a clear message that
persistence in the union resolve would endanger their
jobs. To help resolve whatever problems the employees
felt existed, the owner proposed establishment of a com-
mittee of employees and management representatives to
work things out. As Egon Marhoefer, the owner's son,
put it at the hearing as a defense witness, "So then my
father asked well, don't we have this committee going
that we used to have going to get all our thoughts in one
place and try and resolve them."
The Board election was held on March 26 as sched-
uled. Before that, on March 17, as proposed by the
owner, the first meeting of the employee-management
committee took place. It consisted of four rank-and-file
employees plus Howard Mitchell, the director of person-
nel, and Edward Belin, the sales manager. Leonard Ga-
germeier, a salesman with the Company for 19 years, tes-
tified as to the selection of employees to sit on the com-
512
MARHOEFER BAKING COMPANY, INC.
mittee, "Howard Mitchell asked me if I would maybe
get two or three guys together and sit down with man-
agement." The minutes of that meeting were written up
by Mitchell and distributed to all the unit employees on
March 17; it lists 13 items as having been discussed, most
of them directly involved with conditions of employ-
ment.
On March 24 a second meeting of the committee was
held, this time five rank-and-file employees meeting with
the same two management agents. And again employee
problems arising from their employment were discussed
in the continuing effort by the Respondent to satisfy the
employee grievances.
At the Board election on March 26 the Union won,
and a regular Board certification issued to the Teamsters
on April 3 as exclusive bargaining agent. Nevertheless, in
the face of this statutory certification, 9 days later, on
April 12, the personnel director distributed to every em-
ployee covered by the certification his detailed writeup
of the March 24 employer-employee committee meeting.
In his report to the employees, in addition to recom-
mending that the committee thereafter meet "biweekly
instead of weekly," Mitchell also said that everybody
should "feel free to discuss any problem you may have
encountered or any opportunity you can foresee for the
Company with the Committeemen." This time Mitchell
listed 15 items directly related to the employees' terms
and conditions of employment as having been discussed
at the committee meeting and pending further resolution.
While all this was going on a number of the salesmen
decided to hold a meeting-limited to themselves with
neither company nor union representatives present-for
the purpose of formulating whatever their economic pro-
posals, or demands, should be. They planned this meet-
ing for Tuesday, April 1, after a majority had voted in
favor of the Union the previous Wednesday, and one of
the salesmen involved was Gagermeier. On Monday, the
day before the meeting, Mitchell, at Gagermeier's re-
quest, printed ballots to be used at the employee meeting.
The purpose was for them to vote "yes or no for [the]
Union." But on the ballot, immediately above the vote
uestion, was printed the following statement:
Mr. Marhoefer has said he will not sign any con-
tract of any type with the Teamsters because he
personally feels the committee, under the complete
direction of Mr. Mitchell, can handle any problem,
big or small, as a team.
The essential elements of the complaint are that, by so-
liciting grievances from the employees after learning
they had filed a union petition for an election, by propos-
ing to them the formation of an employee committee to
deal with the Company in place of the Union, by in fact
establishing and dealing with the employees directly
through that committee, by announcing it would in no
event sign a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union, and by using Gagermeier as its agent to carry
that intimidating threat to the employees, the Respond-
ent committed one unfair labor practice after another.
The Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices. Affirmatively, it asserts, through its wit-
nesses, Mitchell and Louis and Egon Marhoefer, that the
March 4 meeting was only called by management to
inform the employees of a decision previously reached to
replace an undesirable manager with Mitchell because
the Company was losing money, and that the polling of
the employees after they had voted for the Union, and
the statement on the ballot that Louis Marhoefer would
in no event sign up with the Teamsters, was entirely Ga-
germeier's idea, and no management agent had anything
to do with that at all. The owner denied having said
flatly that he would in no event sign a Teamsters con-
tract. His version is that all he did say was that he would
never sign without first bargaining, and he would never
sign any union contract that might be forced on him.
B. Further Evidence and Analysis and Conclusions
In the light of the total record-in major part docu-
mentary proof written by the Respondent's own supervi-
sors-I find every complaint allegation of wrongdoing
proved beyond a doubt.
Egon Marhoefer, Respondent's vice president, testified
that he called a salesman's meeting on January 15 be-
cause there had been "a decrease in sales." A man named
Burchinal was, and had long been, manager over the
salesmen. In the discussion that took place that day there
was antagonistic talk between Burchinal and some of the
drivers. The vice president's father, an elderly man and
the owner, was in Florida at the time, on vacation, it
would appear. His son said that, with the economic
problem very bad, he turned to his father for help, and
that the next employee meeting on March 4, where the
owner did talk to the employees, was for the purpose of
remedying the pressing economic difficulty. His essential
assertion, at the hearing was that in his mind the purpose
of the meeting was solely to improve the economic situa-
tion. The father's testimony was offered to strengthen
that same fundamental contention-that management was
only concerned about sales decreases at that time. In this
respect I do not believe either of the Marhoefers.
The owner did not return from Florida until the last
few days of February. His son's explanation for this
delay was that he first "had to get the complete reports"
as to the extent of the decline in sales or volume of busi-
ness. But if he called the January meeting because of the
very bad decline in sales, it means that he certainly knew
then how bad things were. The idea that he had to docu-
ment what he already knew puts his testimony in a very
bad light. It was after that January meeting that the
union activity started with the Teamsters election peti-
tion filed on February 15. And in telling his story the
father, among other things, said that before he called the
March 4 meeting, Burchinal, then still the sales manager,
talked to him about the Union. Thus, Louis Marhoefer
testified, "What happened was, when I came back from
Florida, Tom [Burchinal] said to me, he said Mr. Mar-
hoefer, we have a problem with the boys from the union,
I said so what.... He said, well, but you have to see
. . . if you would talk to them if you would see them
they wouldn't join the union. I said okay, I'll see them."
This was a direct admission by the Respondent's own
witness of an intent to frustrate the union campaign by
513
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resort to prohibited action. That said meeting, where
Louis Marhoefer admittedly solicited the employees'
grievances and suggested that a company employee com-
mittee be formed, was called in direct consequence of
the filing of the petition for the purpose of dissuading the
group from its prounion resolve is therefore a clear fact,
and I so find. This basic finding in this case is strength-
ened by a letter to all the employees Louis Marhoefer
wrote on March 19. He spoke at length about how "you
take a grave risk to destroy the Company, your own jobs
and the livelihood of some 300 employees." Again in this
letter Marhoefer urged the advisability of an employee
committee. He reminded them of another company's
"thousand and thousands who had it [job securityl in our
industry and lost it . . . let your conscious be your
guide."
With this by the owner, I credit employee Steven
Seidel, who testified that Marhoefer also said that day,
March 4 "that the Teamsters had closed down a bakery
he owned in Pittsburgh a few years ago . . . he said he
wouldn't close our bakery down if the union was voted
in, he said he might sell."
I find that, by Louis Marhoefer's conduct on March 4
in soliciting employee grievances, in proposing an em-
ployer-employee committee to resolve employee griev-
ances in place of the Union, and in threatening to discon-
tinue the operation in retaliation if the employees chose
to be represented by the Teamsters, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
As to the actual implementation of the Company's idea
of having an employer-employee committee, there is no
reason to set out the evidence in precise detail, for it is
clear that the Respondent did induce the employees to
form the committee, and that management agents did
meet twice with the employees so chosen, during compa-
ny paid-time, and did discourse on a variety of straight
conditions of employment with them. In so doing, each
time the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of
the Act. G. Q. Security Parachutes, Inc., 242 NLRB 508
(1979).
The complaint itemizes, in repetitive and pointless
detail, each successive step in the formation and work-
ings of this committee, calling every component part a
separate unfair labor practice. But no meaningful purpose
would be served by burdening, and delaying, this Deci-
sion with such unnecessary repetitions. Especially is this
true in the case at bar in the light of the fact that the
Respondent has since that time formally, at least, recog-
nized the Union as bargaining agent, and was, at the time
of the hearing, in the process of exchanging contract
proposals. Given the very clear expressions of an intent
to frustrate correct and lawful statutory collective bar-
gaining, it may be that the Respondent is only going
through a pretense of bargaining; i.e., not really bargain-
ing in good faith. But there is no reason, on this record,
for so finding now. I think it more advisable, therefore,
not to string out this proceeding with cumulative subsidi-
ary findings which would in no event change the reme-
dial order that is in any event warranted. The impor-
tance of expediting other, more pressing pending cases,
must take precedence.
One additional unfair labor practice committed was of
so serious a nature that it must be found, and must be
stopped. Gagermeier, the oldtime employee, testified that
on Sunday, March 30, Manager Mitchell called him at
home on the telephone and told him that "[Louis Mar-
hoefer] was very put out the way the election had gone,
Mr. Marhoefer was very upset they didn't know exactly
what they were going to do, things were up in the air."
Gagermeier continued to testify that Mitchell then
"asked me if I would talk to the men at that time and
present Mr. Marhoefer's feeling toward the situation as it
stood . . . I believe he mentioned again . . . that Mr.
Marhoefer would not sign a contract with the Teamsters
union because of his previous dealings, he had just a bad
feeling towards the Teamsters."Garermeir continued to
testify that he agreed to do what his friend Mitchell had
asked him to do; i.e., set forth Marhoefer's position to
the drivers. Gagermeier also said that he had personally
heard Louis Marhoefer say, before that Sunday tele-
phone call, that he would never sign up with the Union.
I credit this testimony by Gagermeier.
Mitchell's version of this telephone conversation is
that he telephoned the employee only to say that he
could not give him any advice as to how to proceed, but
only give him a "generalization" about the existing situa-
tion. He also said that it was Gagermeier who told him
of a rumor among the employees that Marhoefer had
said he "would not sign a Teamsters contract," and
asked did Mitchell "think Mr. Marhoefer would sign a
contract with the Teamsters." His answer, according to
the manager, was that "Marhoefer would not sign an ex-
isting contract." On the precise question whether he told
Gagermeier directly that Marhoefer would refuse to sign
any contract with the Teamsters, Mitchell's testimony is
not clear. In any event, I will assume he meant to deny
that part of Gagermeier's testimony. But considering
what happened the next day in his office, I do not credit
the manager's denials however phrased.
On Monday Gagermeier came to the office with some
roughly written notes-"a rough sketch" as he called
it-about polling the employees to ascertain whether
they wished to be represented by the Teamsters. He
talked with Mitchell and asked him as a favor to have
printed ballots made up. Mitchell then wrote in precise
language what he thought Gagermeier wanted and
showed it to him, asking "[I]s this what you want?" Ga-
germeier said, "Yes," and the manager then went out
somewhere to a printer and had many copies made up.
The document was received in evidence. As set out
above, immediately over the plain phrase "vote yes or no
for the Union," there was printed the very plain state-
ment that Louis Marhoefer, the owner, would never sign
a Teamsters contract.
The next day, Tuesday, a majority of the driver-sales-
men voted against being represented by the Teamsters.
With the printed statement staring them in the face that
the owner would never sign any contract with the
Teamsters, it is difficult to see how they could do other-
wise. When Gagermeier told Mitchell of the results the
next day, the manager was "pleased," to quote Gager-
meier's uncontradicted recollection.
514
MARHOEFER BAKING COMPANY, INC.
I think the complaint correctly states that the Re-
spondent, through the manager, made Gagermeier its
agent that day to carry a message to the employees not
only that the Company was opposed to the union activi-
ties, but also that it intended absolutely to frustrate any
further attempt on their part to bargain collectively with
the Company. Dorsey Laboratory, Division of Sandoz, Inc.,
239 NLRB 857 (1978). If only because he agreed to have
Gagermeier tell his fellow employees the Company
would never sign a Teamsters contract, I do not believe
a word out of Mitchell's mouth. He knew the Union had
been certified as exclusive bargaining agent a week earli-
er, and he knew the Company was legally bound to deal
with the Union and only with the Union. However his
activities be viewed that weekend, he was dealing unilat-
erally first with an individual employee-Gagermeier-
and then with the employees on Tuesday behind the
back of the Union-the most blatant unfair labor practice
that could be committed.
But, even were I to believe-which I do not-that Ga-
germeier alone, out of a clear sky, dreamed up the idea
of telling the salesmen Louis Marhoefer would never
sign a Teamsters contract, I would still find that Mitch-
ell, by knowingly helping him do that, made him an
agent of management. Especially would this finding be
warranted, even in such a hypothetical situation, where
the message was immediately followed by the question
whether the employees still wished to be represented by
the certified Teamsters. The polling of the employees on
whether at that time they did or did not want the Union
was Gagermeier's idea. But, as he very plausibly testi-
fied, he conceived that notion as a result of what Mitch-
ell had said to him on the telephone on Sunday-that
there was no hope for success through the Teamsters. A
further reason for his doubt of the moment stemmed
from the continued existence of the employer-employee
committee. With the owner already having told every-
body they might lose their jobs if they did not deal with
him via the committee instead, Gagermeier had reason to
be worried.
But the determinative factor here is that Mitchell
knew before the Tuesday meeting that the threat out of
the owner's mouth was going to be quoted by Gager-
meier-via the printed ballot-to the employees. Mitch-
ell even started by equivocating, at the hearing, on the
plain question whether he had read, and understood,
what was written on the ballot. He finally admitted that
he had, and even conceded that he did nothing to stop
Gagermeier from so quoting the owner. Were it true that
Marhoefer had not voiced the exact threat spelled out in
the ballot, Mitchell would surely have told Gagermeier
to at least rephrase the quotation. He did not. Any em-
ployer who knowingly permits any employee to quote it
as threatening to resort to plainly illegal action to put a
stop to union activity makes the employee its agent for
that purpose-period! This is even more so where, as did
the manager in this case, the employer assists and en-
courages the employee to carry such a message to the
entire employee complement.
I find that, by Mitchell's conduct in telling Gagermeier
to inform the employees that the Company would resist
any attempt towards collective bargaining by the Union
despite the Board certification and that Louis Marhoefer
would never sign a Teamsters contract, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
The Respondent must be ordered to cease and desist
from the commission again of the kind of unfair labor
practices found above. In the light of the severity of the
unfair labor practices shown, it must also be ordered to
cease and desist from in any other manner violating the
statute.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By establishing the employer-employee committee
for the purpose of resolving the employees' grievances
concerning conditions of employment, and by in fact ne-
gotiating with that committee for that purpose, the Re-
spondent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act.
2. By telling its employees, after a majority had chosen
to be represented by the Teamsters, that it would in no
event sign a collective-bargaining agreement with that
Union, and by polling its employees, after the majority
had voted in favor of the Teamsters, as to whether they
wished to be represented by the Teamsters, the Respond-
ent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
3. By the foregoing conduct, and by soliciting employ-
ee complaints and grievances that had led the employees
to seek union representation, by promising to correct
them in order to discourage independent union activity,
by proposing establishment of an employer-employee
committee to carry on direct negotiations over condi-
tions of employment during the dependency of a Labor
Board election, by telling employees it would sell its
business to avoid collective bargaining through a union
of their choice, and by threatening it would in no event
sign a collective-bargaining agreement with a union of
the employees' choice, the Respondent has violated and
is violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
515
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER'
The Respondent, Marhoefer Baking Company, Inc.,
Altoona, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Establishing an employer-employee committee for
the purpose of resolving the employees' grievances con-
cerning conditions of employment, or recognizing or in
fact negotiating with that committee for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
(b) Telling its employees, after a majority had selected
a union of their choice, that it would in no event sign a
collective-bargaining agreement with the union of their
choice, or polling its employees, after a majority had
chosen a union, as to whether they wish to be represent-
ed by that union.
(c) Soliciting employee complaints and grievances that
had led the employees to seek union representation,
promising to correct such grievances in order to discour-
age independent union activity, proposing establishment
of an employer-employee committee to deal directly
i In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 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.
with the employer over conditions of employment
during dependency of a Labor Board election, telling its
employees it would sell its business to avoid collective
bargaining through a union of the employees' choice, or
threatening it would in no event sign a contract with the
union of their choice.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Altoona, Pennsylva-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent's representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 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."
516