Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company and Bakery &
Confectionery Workers International Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111. Case
16-CA-4532
March 21, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On January 26, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Henry L. Segal issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Oak Cliff-Golman
Baking Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
' The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY L. SEGAL, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
was heard in Dallas, Texas, on December 14, 1971.1 The
charge was filed by the Union on October 22 (amended
November 29), and the complaint was issued on November
23. The primary issue is whether the Respondent refused to
bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
by: (a) bargaining directly and individually with employees
in the unit, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and (b) unilaterally decreasing the rates of pay
specified in a collective-bargaining contract. The Respon-
dent answered denying the refusal to bargain.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
I All dates are in 1971 unless otherwise stated
2 The unit descriptions set forth at this point will only describe the
the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent,
and the Union, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent , a Texas corporation , is engaged in the
bakery business at its bakery in Dallas, Texas. During the
12 months' period from November 23, 1970, to November
23, 1971, a representative period , the Respondent received
gross income in excess of $500,000 from the sale and
distribution of bakery products . During the same period,
Respondent purchased and received within the State of
Texas goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from States of the United States other than the
State of Texas. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
During 1930, two bakery companies, Oak Cliff Baking
Company and Golman Baking Company, were established
by the same families. Each company was located at
separate plants in Dallas.
During 1965, while the two companies were separate
entities, the Union was certified as collective-bargaining
representative for employees in four separate units: 2
(a) All bakery production employees employed by
Oak Cliff Baking Company and Golman Baking
Company, Inc., at their Dallas, Texas, plants-certified
on July 21, 1965, in Case 16-RC-3913.
(b) All maintenance and sanitation employees and
porters employed by Oak Cliff Baking Company at its
Dallas, Texas, plant-certified on July 21, 1965, in
Case 16-RC-3913.
(c) All maintenance and sanitation employees and
porters employed by Golman Baking Company, Inc., at
its Dallas, Texas, plant-certified on July 21, 1965, in
Case 16-RC-3913.
(d) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff
Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant-certified
on September 10, 1965, in Case 16-RC-3979.
The two companies were merged into Oak Cliff-Golman
Baking Company on November 15, 1969. For economic
reasons the Golman Baking Company plant was leased to
another party not involved in this matter and the merged
company was located at one plant, the Oak Cliff plant. A
large number of the Golman employees were terminated
and the remainder were transferred to the Oak Cliff plant.
The Respondent and Union are currently parties to a
multiemployer collective-bargaining contract signed on
September 9, 1970, which provides with respect to duration
that the contract shall remain in full force and effect until
and including July 22, 1972.3
The agreement, by specific reference, covers employees
inclusions
3 The employer signatories to the contract are American Bakeries
202 NLRB No. 72
OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING CO 615
in units certified in vanous Board cases including those
mentioned above covering employees of the Respondent.
The only employees of Respondent not covered by the
contract are sales department, thrift store, and office
clerical employees.
B. The Relevant Contract Provisions
Article IX, section 9.4 of the contract provides for
specific increases in hourly wage rates for the vanous
classifications of employees effective the beginning pay
period nearest July 25, 1971.4
Article XIV provides for a grievance and arbitration
procedure to resolve "disputes ansing between the Em-
ployer and the Union and/or employees concerning the
interpretation and application of the provisions of this
Agreement."
Section 16.1 of article XVI provides a nonopening
clause, whereby each party agrees that the other party
would not be obligated to bargain with respect to any
subject matter covered in the agreement, or with respect to
any subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered
in the agreement, even though such subject or matter may
not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of
either or both the parties at the time the agreement was
negotiated or signed.
C. The Reduction in Hourly Wage Rates
The basic facts herein are mainly undisputed.
It was stipulated by the parties that Respondent was in
severe financial trouble in October. To keep from having to
close its business Respondent found it necessary to reduce
its costs. Among the steps taken to reduce costs the
Respondent revoked, effective on October 7, the wage
increase given on the pay period nearest July 25, pursuant
to section 9.4, article IX of the contract. This reduction was
reflected in the paychecks distributed on October 14 and
15.5
During October, management conducted a series of
meetings and conferences related to the wage reduction
which took effect on October 7. The principal spokesman
for management at the meetings was Larry Golman,
executive vice president.
The first conference conducted on October 5 was with
the President's five or six department heads. Larry Golman
explained problems Respondent had encountered with its
bank creditors and the difficulties of meeting competition.
He told the department heads that they would have to take
a 10-percent reduction in salaries. (Unlike unit employees
they had received no increases since 1970.)6 Golman also
advised the department heads that he was meeting with the
Union to obtain the Union's approval for a reduction in
wage rates for the unit employees and cautioned them not
to discuss the matter with the unit employees.
Later in the morning on October 5, pursuant to a
telephone call made by Larry Golman on October 4 to
Company, Mrs Baird 's Bread Company, ITT-Continental Baking Compa-
ny, Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company, The Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company, Incorporated, Dallas Bakery, Manor Baking Company;
Bakery Division, Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Dallas, Texas
' Most of the classifications were increased by 35 cents per hour
5 The Respondent also reduced its employee complement during the
Henry Molloy, financial secretary and business agent of
the Union, a meeting was held in Larry Golman's office.
The Union was represented by Molloy and Jack Kimber-
lin, assistant business agent. In addition to Larry Golman,
who was principal spokesman, Jake Golman, chairman of
the board, and Phillip Golman, president, were present for
the Respondent. Larry Golman reviewed the financial
problems of the Respondent and advised that the Golmans
had thought of closing down, but in deference to its good
employees they were taking drastic steps to keep the
Respondent in operation. He advised that nonunit person-
nel, including the officials, had taken a cut. Further, he
advised that he would have to reduce the wages of the
union people down to what their wages were before the
July 1971 increase given pursuant to the contract. He asked
for the Union's "blessings." Molloy explained that he
could not give the Union's "blessings" as employees were
involved who could grieve. Further, he explained that the
contract was a multiemployer contract and if the Union
agreed to a reduction the other employer signatories would
ask for the same decrease.? Golman indicated that he
understood the Union's position, but he had to do what
was necessary. Molloy noted that Earl Teatrick, executive
vice president of the International Union was coming to
town and requested that a meeting be arranged on the
matter when Teatrick could attend. Thereupon a further
meeting with Teatrick was agreed to for October 8. During
the course of the meeting, Golman offered financial
statements to Molloy and Kimberlin for their inspection,
but they declined as they did not question Golman's
contention as to the poor financial condition of the
Respondent. Also during the meeting, Golman requested
that Molloy and Kimberlin not discuss the matter of
reduction in wages with the employees.
A third meeting was conducted by Golman on October
5, this one with personnel from the sales department, who
were not represented by the Union. Golman reiterated the
same points that he had made in his earlier meeting with
the department heads.
The fourth meeting conducted on October 5 was with the
working foremen, who are included in the unit. Golman
explained the financial problems of the Respondent to the
working foremen and told them they would have to take a
reduction in wages back to what they were prior to the July
increase. He also requested that they discuss the situation
with their coworkers.
On October 8, the previously scheduled meeting was held
between Larry, Jake, and Phil Golman for the Respondent
and Molloy, Kimberlin, and Earl Teatrick, International
executive vice president, for the Union. Larry Golman
went over the same ground for Teatrick's benefit as he had
at the October 5 meeting with Molloy and Kimberlin. He
showed his books to Teatrick, but Teatrick also declined to
look at them as he agreed with Golman's version of the
latter part of 1971 by cutting 15 unit employees, 2 office employees, a sales
manager, 2 supervisors , and several routemen
6 Officials of the Respondent reduced their own salaries by 21 percent.
7 The Respondent pointed out in the record that the other employer
signatories are larger operations Some of them are segments of large chains
or divisions of large conglomerates.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's finances. Golman again asked for the
Union's blessings.8 Teatrick explained that the Union
could not go along with the wage reduction because the
contract was a multiemployer contract and the Union
would have to grant corresponding adjustments to the
other employers. Golman replied that he had no alternative
but to decrease the rates of pay or close the plant.
On October 12, 1971, Larry Golman posted a notice in
the bakery announcing a series of three meetings of
employees to be held in the production office on October
13, 1971. The notice requested that the employees try to
attend one of the meetings, and announced that the
meetings concerned the Company's situation. Further, it
stated that management would try to explain emergency
actions taken by the Company in order to "protect and
insure" the employees' future. A total of 72 employees out
of approximately 135 in the unit attended the meetings. At
all of the meetings, Larry Golman explained the financial
situation of the Company and announced that among the
actions taken to keep the Company in operation was a
reduction in wage rates of unit employees to what they
were prior to the July increase. Further it was announced
that this reduction would be effective October 7. Many
employees indicated that they were willing to accept the
decrease to protect theirjobs.9 One employee testified that
after the meeting he attended, Jake Golman talked to him
individually about the Respondent's problems. Other
employees overheard the conversation.
Subsequent to the reduction in wages, at the request of
some of the employees, the Union filed a grievance with
Respondent on behalf of each individual employee on
October 18, citing the wage reduction as a violation of
section 9.4 of article IX of the contract. As of the time of
the hearing, no action had been taken on the grievance.
D. Concluding Findings
It is undisputed that during the term of the parties'
collective-bargaining contract, the Respondent, in com-
plete disregard of its contractual comnutments, unilaterally
reduced the wage rates of its employees included in the
appropriate collective-bargaining units. Section 8(d) of the
Act, which defines the obligation to bargain, not only
imposes an obligation on each party to a contract to refrain
from modifying the contract without complying with the
notice and waiting periods therein set forth, but also
expressly provides that the "duties so unposed shall not be
construed as requiring either party to discuss or agree to
any modification of the terms and conditions contained in
a contract of a fixed term, if such modification is to
become effective before such terms and conditions can be
reopened under the terms of the contract." Here, the
contract was not subject to a reopener at the time the wage
rates were reduced. The Union did not agree to the
reduction and under the provisions of Section 8(d) it was
8 During the course of the meeting , Golman indicated that he had
spoken to the working foremen and had requested that they speak to the
other employees about the Respondent's problems , that the working
foremen reported back that the employees would rather take a decrease
than have the plant closed down
9 The Union was not advised that these meetings were to be held and no
nonemployee official of the Union was invited
10 Osage Manufacturing Company, 173 NLRB 458 , 461-462, C & S
not required to do so. The Respondent's unilateral change
in wages which is a basic term or condition of employment
manifestly constitutes a "modification" within the meaning
of Section 8(d). Such action by the Respondent clearly
being in derogation of its statutory obligation under
Section 8(d) was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.'° The Respondent contends principally that
economic necessity justified its actions. The General
Counsel and the Union stipulated that Respondent was in
poor financial condition, and the Respondent, at its
various meetings with the employees and Union stressed its
financial condition as necessitating the reduction. None-
theless, financial necessity is not a defense to such
unilateral action.ii In support of its position that its action
was justified, Respondent suggests in its brief that it
withdrew from the contract and cites a Board case U.S.
Lingerie Corp., 170 NLRB 750. There is no evidence in the
record that Respondent even attempted to withdraw from
the total contract (which it could not do lawfully), and the
case cited is distinguishable. That case involved the
timeliness of a withdrawal from a multiemployer associa-
tion under extraordinary circumstances, where the Em-
ployer's financial difficulty predated commencement of
negotiations and the Employer withdrew in order to
relocate to another geographical area.
The Respondent also contends that involved is a breach
of contract, and not an unfair labor practice. However, it
does not follow where given conduct is of a kind otherwise
condemned by the Act, that the Board is powerless to
determine whether an unfair labor practice was committed
and to afford appropriate remedial relief simply because
the conduct also constitutes a breach of contract.12
The Respondent contends further as a defense that
inasmuch as the contract provides for a grievance and
arbitration procedure to resolve disputes concerning the
interpretation and application of the provisions of the
contract, the Board should defer to that procedure,
especially since the Union did file a grievance. (As noted
the grievance is pending and no action was taken on it as
of the time of the hearing.) The Board, in a very recent
case, considered the issue of whether it should withhold its
processes where the contract prescribes a machinery for
resolving a dispute.13 The Board noted that, "Although
Section 10(a) of the Act, clearly vests the Board with
jurisdiction over conduct which constitutes a violation of
the provisions of Section 8, notwithstanding the existence
of methods of `adjustment or prevention that might be
established by agreement,' nothing in the act intimates that
the Board must exercise jurisdiction where such methods
exist." The Board did defer to arbitration. However, unlike
the present case, the Collyer case involved a situation
where the resolution of the dispute turned on the
interpretation of specific contractual provisions, and the
employer claimed contractual privilege. The Board stated
Industries, Inc, 158 NLRB 454, 457-459, C & C Plywood Corporation, 148
NLRB 414, 415, set aside 351 F 2d 224 (C A 9), reversed 385 U S 421
ii Osage Manufacturing Company, supra, at 462, C & S Industries, Inc,
supra, at 460
i2 Osage Manufacturing Company, supra, at 462, C & S Industries, Inc,
supra, at 458, Kinard Trucking Company, Inc, 152 NLRB 449,450
13 Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co, 192 NLRB
No 150
OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING CO 617
with respect to the issues involved, "In our view, disputes
such as these can better be resolved by arbitrators with
special skill and experience in deciding matters ansing
under established bargaining relationships than by the
application by this Board of a particular provision of our
statute." However, the instant case is distinguishable from
Collyer. The Respondent herein did not contend that the
contract clause providing for a wage rate increase in July
required any interpretation. In fact, in July, when the wage
increase was due, the Respondent did not question its
obligation and it did put the increase into effect. The
clause in question was clear and unambiguous, and did not
require the special competence of an arbitrator to deter-
mine its meaning . Under these circumstances, I do not
believe that the Board should withhold its authority to
resolve the unfair labor practice and defer to arbitration.14
The finding of an unfair labor practice here does not
conflict with the Board's theory in Collyer favoring
voluntary settlement of contractual disputes through
arbitral processes since there is no contractual dispute in
this case.
There remains one other issue for resolution. In addition
to the allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by unilaterally decreasing rates of pay,
the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent, during
the month of October, bargained directly and individually
with employees in the unit also in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. However, I do not find that the
Respondent engaged in individual or direct bargaining
with the employees at its meetings and conferences with
employees in the unit on October 5 and 13 in violation of
the Act. It is clear that Respondent had decided to reduce
the wage rates before any meetings were held. These
meetings , although the Respondent explained the reasons
for its actions, amounted to no more than notification to
the employees of a predetermined course of action to
which Respondent was committed.15
In sum, I find and conclude that the Respondent, by
unilaterally reducing the wage rates of its employees in the
unit on October 7 in derogation of its statutory obligation
under Section 8(d) of the Act, engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following constitute units appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act: 16
(a) All bakery production employees employed by
14 C & S Industries, Inc, supra, 459-460 See also C & C Plywood
Corporation, supra
15 See Huttig Sash and Door Company, 154 NLRB 811, 817, affd 377
F2d964(CA 8)
The many cases cited by the counsel for General Counsel and Union in
their briefs in support of the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully
Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas,
Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, technical
employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) All maintenance and sanitation employees and
porters employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Com-
pany at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff-
Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant,
excluding all other employees, including production
employees, maintenance employees, porter and sanita-
tion employees, office clerical employees, driver-sales
employees, transport drivers, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid units within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By unilaterally reducing the wages of the employees
in the aforesaid units during the term of its collective-
bargaining contract with the Union, the Respondent has
engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices insofar as the complaint alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act, including the posting of the notice attached to this
Decision.
Since the Respondent, in derogation of its statutory
obligation, unilaterally reduced the wage rates of its
employees during the term of the collective-bargaining
contract covering the employees involved, I recommend
that the Respondent be directed specifically to restore the
wage rates in effect prior to such unilateral action and to
refrain from making unilateral changes in wages, rates of
pay, or other terms and conditions of employment of its
employees in the above-described appropriate units during
the term of the contract without first reaching agreement
with the Union concerning such contemplated changes.
Further, I recommend that the Respondent make whole
the employees in the above-described appropriate units for
any losses they may have suffered as a result of the
unilateral reduction in wage rates, and include thereon
bargained directly with the employees are distinguishable. In the main, they
deal with situations where the employers made offers to employees seeking
acceptances , designed to repudiate their unions or to induce their return to
work in strike situations
16 I have modified the unit descriptions to reflect the new name of the
Respondent resulting from the merger described in sec II, A, above
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices, found to have been engaged in by Respondent, I
shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it is ordered that the Respondent, Oak Cliff-
Golman Baking Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 17
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Bakery &
Confectionery Workers International Umon of America,
AFL-CIO, Local No. I11, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the following units with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment:
(1) All bakery and production employees employed
by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas,
Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, technical
employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(2) All maintenance and sanitation employees and
porters employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Com-
pany at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(3) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff-
Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant,
excluding all other employees, including production
employees, maintenance employees, porter and sanita-
tion employees, office clerical employees, driver-sales
employees, transport drivers, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Instituting changes in wages, rates of pay, or other
terms and conditions of employment of its employees in
the above-described appropriate units during the effective
term of the contract covering said employees without first
consulting with and bargaining with the Umon concerning
such changes and reaching agreement on any modification
of the terms of the contract.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Restore to the employees in the above-described units
the wage rates in effect prior to the reduction in wage rates
unilaterally instituted by the Respondent on October 7,
1971, and make said employees whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of such reduction, and
include therein interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum
as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Dallas, Texas, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.19
I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found herein.
17 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 findings,
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
18 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days
from the date 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
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union
of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the units described
below, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment. The
units are:
(1) All bakery production employees em-
ployed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at
its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other
employees, professional employees, technical
employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All maintenance and sanitation employees
and porters employed by Oak Cliff-Golman
Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant,
OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING CO. 619
excluding all other employees, professional em-
ployees, technical employees, truckdrivers,
guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(3) All garage employees employed by Oak
Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas,
Texas, plant, excluding all other employees,
including production employees, maintenance
employees, porter and sanitation employees,
office clerical employees, driver-sales employees,
transport drivers, guards, watchmen, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT institute changes in wages, rates of
pay, or other terms and conditions of employment of
the employees in the above-described units during the
effective term of the current collective-bargaining
contract with the above-named Union without first
consulting with and bargaining with the Union con-
cerning such changes and reaching agreement on any
modification of the terms of the contract.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL restore to the employees in the above-
described units the wage rates in effect prior to the
unilateral reduction in wage rates instituted on October
7, 1971, and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of such reduction in wage
rates.
Dated By
OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN
BAKING COMPANY
(Employer)
(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 concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board 's Office , Room 8A24 , Federal Office
Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102,
Telephone 817-334-2921.