Wade & Paxton

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the Seamprufe Employees' Association (of Easton), has been designated and selected by a majority of em- ployees of Seamprufe, Inc., in the unit hereinabove found appropriate as the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive bargaining agent of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment. HERBERT L. WADE, JERRY PAXTON AND G. F. MCGEE, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A WADE & PAXTON and CITRUS, CANNERY WORKERS AND FOOD PROCESSORS, LOCAL UNION 24473, AFL. Case No. 39-CA-166. October 5, 1951 Decision and Order On June 5, 1951, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.' The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report,3 the Respondent's exceptions, and the entire record in the case and adopts the findings, conclusions, and the recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and mod- ification. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union on and after Novem- ber 9, 1950, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 1 The Respondent has requested oral argument before the Board. In our opinion the record, the briefs submitted to the Trial Examiner, and the Respondent's exceptions fully present the issues and the positions of the parties. Accordingly, this request is denied. Y Pursuant to the provisions. of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Mem- bers Houston and Reynolds]. 8 The Intermediate Report erroneously states that during the Respondent's operating season, from November 1949 until July 1950, Respondent's sales were $58,000. This figure is corrected to read $52 ,000 to conform, to the record evidence . This minor and apparent typographical error does not affect the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclusions or our concurrence therein. 96 NLRB No. 93. WADE & ,PAXTON 651 Where, as here, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain less than 3 months after the Union had been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, no circum- stance appears to alter the Respondent's statutory obligation under Section 8 (a) (5). In the interest of industrial stability, the Board has long held that, absent unusual circumstances, the majority status of a certified union is presumed to continue for a period of 1 year after the date of certification.4 Congress, in adopting the 1947 amend- ments to the Act, carefully considered and ratified this established rule.5 The rule was given statutory sanction in 1947 when Congress amended Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act to read, "No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held." 6 Once employees have designated their bargaining represent- ative in accordance with the Act, recognition of that representative during the certification year is not a matter which an employer may or may not grant when and as he chooses. We have carefully considered the Respondent's contention that it was under no duty to bargain with the certified representative of its employees during a period when the employees were not actually working. Although Respondent states in its exceptions that at the time the plant closed the previous season all employees were dis- charged, we do not understand the Respondent's view to be that the employee relationship, as defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act, was thereby terminated for all purposes. That very question, involving the continuing employment status of workers during a seasonal lay- off, was squarely presented to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v. N. L. R. B.7 The Court, sustaining the Board's position, held that during a sus- pension of plant operations due to the seasonal nature of the busi- ness, employees must be considered as merely laid off and not dis- 4N. L. R. B. v. Whittier Mills Co., 111 F. 2d 474 (C. A. 5) ; Celanese Corporation of America, 95 NLRB 664. 5 The Board had reiterated the rule in its annual report to the President and the Con- gress for the year immediately preceding the amendments to the Act and for the year before that as well. N. L. R. B, Twelfth Annual Report ( Gov't Printing Off., 1948 ), p. 13 ; N. L. R. B., Eleventh Annual Report ( 1947 ), p. 17. See H. R. Rep . No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess , 39 (1947) ; Sen. Rep. No . 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess, 25 ( 1947) ; H. Conf. Rep . No. 410, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 49 (1947). 6 Indeed, Respondent does not question the validity of this rule , as it states in its excep- tions to the Intermediate Report, "The respondent stands ready, willing and able to nego- tiate at any time with any of its employees or any group or organization certified to nego- tiate for it ; .. . ' And in its brief, submitted to the Trial Examiner , the statement ap- pears - "Respondents recognize the Union as the certified bargaining agent for its em- ployees whether they be the same employees who had previously worked in this plant or other employees." 7 109 F. 2d 76 , certiorari denied 310 U . S. 632. Cited with approval in Fishgold v. Sulli- van Corp., 328 U. S. 275, footnote 11 at 287 , where the Supreme Court said, "Temporary suspension of an employee's work commonly does not affect the continuance of his-status." 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ' charged. In holding that they retain their status as employees, the Court emphasized : "The relation of employer and employee does not always depend upon continuity of actual every day work." The record here shows that all the employees are from Raymondville, the location of the Respondent's shed, and that most, or 75 percent of them, return year after year to work for the Respondent. The Re- spondent's temporary cessation of work operations cannot be consid- ered, therefore, as accomplishing a termination of the employer-em- ployee relationship. Respondent's contention that the Act imposes no obligation to bar- gain when no one is working was made clear to the Union in the letter of November 29, 1950, from Respondent's counsel to the Union secre- retary, C. C. Turner, stating that "it has been and is now their position that until such time as there are some employees at the plant for you and your union to bargain for, that there is no necessity for negotia- tions." This position apparently rests on the premise expressed in the Respondent's brief filed with the Trial Examiner, "It would cer- tainly have been a waste of time to have spent bargaining sessions discussing the terms of a contract covering an empty plant," and that Respondent had no duty to bargain until the plant was operating or until it knew that operations would be resumed. But, as the Trial Examiner found, at the time of the Respondent's prior refusal to bar- gain on November 9, 1950, there was little indication that plant opera- tions would be curtailed. Although G. F. McGee, the Respondent's copartner, testified that a drought had affected the crops, it was not until the second severe freeze in January 1951 that it appeared cer- tain that operations would be suspended shortly for the season. The employees reasonably could have expected to return to work'when the plant reopened, and had a right to bargain with the Respondent concerning the reopening of the plant, the terms and conditions thereof, and other related matters a Respondent's refusal to bargain, if sanctioned in these circum- stances, would completely nullify the employees' franchise. In a seasonal business like that of the Respondent, as in other enterprises, collective bargaining negotiations may continue several days and even weeks. On Respondent's theory, although negotiations may commence during the operating season of the Respondent's shed, as it is not un- 8 American Radiator Company, 7 NLRB 1127, 1151. The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner 's finding that there were employment conditions which the employees wanted to settle prior to the operating season is not sup- ported by the record . This contention lacks merit. E. C. DeBaca , the union representa- tive, testified without contradiction that the Union's members desired that a contract be negotiated prior to resumption of seasonal operations. The terms of the proposed con- tract, introduced in evidence, adequately support the Trial Examiner's finding that "there were questions involving preference of employment and seniority as well as wages and other conditions of employment that were vital to the employees and that they wanted settled before the season opened." WADE & PAXTON 653 likely that operations might be suspended temporarily-again be- cause of seasonal factors-before a contract agreement is reached, the Respondent would again be free to renew its contention that it is not required to bargain because the Union's request is unseasonable. This diversion, if repeated from season to season, would serve to deprive employees of their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, as guar- anteed by the Act. The Board foresaw this difficulty in determining the appropriate time for conducting elections in seasonal industries. In following its usual practice in representation cases of directing an election in a seasonal industry at or near the peak of the season, the Board recog- nized that this procedure might often make it impossible to complete a contract which would take effect before the end of the current operat- ing season. In this connection the Board said: We recognize the contract difficulties adverted to by the Inter- venor. However, a contract negotiated during a year following a Board certification is a bar to a rival petition, and such a con- tract in a seasonal industry will determine employment condi- tions for the year after the election. We think the fact of the ineffectiveness of the contract for the current year is a lesser evil than not permitting the seasonal employees any voice in the selection of their bargaining representative.' Significantly, at the time of the November 29, 1950, letter written by the Respondent's counsel, the Respondent had already opened its shed on the previous day and had known on November 27 that opera- tions would be resumed on November 28. Neither Respondent nor its counsel ever advised any of the union representatives that the situation had changed and that the employees were then working. Although the Respondent may not have communicated its intention to resume operations to its counsel, in view of the final remarks in the letter of November 29 to the union secretary, some effort to com- municate with union representatives could reasonably have been re- quired. The Respondent's letter, advising the Union that it would not negotiate because it had no employees working, closed with these remarks : "At the present time there is no certainty as to when the plant will open. Consequently, it is impossible to give you a definite date as to when we can begin negotiating." No effort was made by Respondent after operations were resumed on November 28 to retract the statement that it had no employees, or to correct the erroneous impression it had communicated. 9 Libby, McNeal & Libby, 90 NLRB No. 89. not reported in bound volumes of Board deei- sions. See, also, Arena-Norton Co.. 62 NLRB 1077. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent's requirement imposed on the union representatives at the November 9, 1950, meeting-that they be accompanied by a local committee- further demonstrates the Respondent's failure to bargain in good faith. As stated by the court in N. L. R. B. v. George P. Pilling & Son Co.: 10 "Sec. 7 of the Act guarantees to the employees the right to bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing and it is not for the employer to restrain or interfere with the exercise of that right by insisting upon unwarranted conditions." This right includes the right of the duly elected bargaining agent to select the individuals who will act in its behalf in negotiations with the em- ployer, free from control by the latter." We will modify the recommended order of the Trial Examiner by providing that the Respondent post the required notices for a 60-day period when seasonal operations are in progress.12 Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Herbert L. Wade, Jerry Paxton and G. F. McGee, Co-Partners, d/b/a Wade & Paxton, Ray- mondville, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Citrus, Cannery Work- ers and Food Processors, Local Union 24473, AFL, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Respondent's packing shed at Raymondville, Texas, including tomato crate makers and cabbage crate makers, but exclud- ing purchasing agents, bookkeeper-weigher, office and clerical em- ployees, guards, watchmen, tomato crate chief, shed foreman, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Requiring that a committee of its employees accompany the authorized representative of its employees in bargaining negotiations, or in any other manner establishing conditions pertaining to such representation. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the ex- clusive representative of all of its employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit. Io 119 F. 2d 32, 38 (C. A. 3). 11 See Lane Cotton Mills, 9 NLRB 952, 967-968, enforced 111 F. 2d 814 (C. A. 5) ; N. L. if. B. v. Blanton Co., 16 NLRB 951, 964, enforced 121 F. 2d 564 (C. A. 8). 12 Southern Fruit D,strtibutors, Inc., 81 NLRB 259 ; Charbonneau Packing Corporation, 95 NLRB 1166. WADE & PAXTON 655 (b) Post at its plant at Raymondville, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 13 Copies of this notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, while the plant is in full operation. Said notices shall be posted in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with CITRUS, CAN- NERY WORKERS AND FOOD PROCESSORS, LOCAL UNION 24473, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the follow- ing appropriate bargaining unit : All production and mainte- nance employees at the Raymondville packing shed, including tomato crate makers and cabbage crate makers,, but excluding pur- chasing agents, bookkeeper-weigher, office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, tomato crate chief, shed foreman, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT require the representative of our employees to be accompanied by a committee of our employees who are working at the time, or in any other way interfere with the employees' choice of a bargaining representative by establishing conditions pertaining thereto. HERBERT L. WADE, JERRY PAXTON AND G. F. MCGEE, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A WADE & PAXTON, Employer. Dated --------------- By ------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) is In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order," the words, "A Decree of the United States Court of Appals Enforcing." 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,BOARD This notice must remain posted from the date hereof, and for 60, days while the plant is in full operation. It must not be altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on November 14, 1950, by Citrus, Cannery Workers and Food Processors, Local Union 24473, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated Febru- ary 9, 195551, against Herbert L. Wade, Jerry Paxton and G. F. McGee, Co-Partners, d/b/a Wade & Paxton, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respond- ent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. A copy of the charge was duly served upon the Respondent, and copies of the complaint and notice of hearing on the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent on or about October 11, 1950, and at various times there- after, refused to bargain with the Union as the authorized representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. The Respondent's answer admits the nature bf its business as described in the complaint, and that on May 18, 1950, a ma- jority of its employees selected the Union as their representative, but denies all allegations of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 1, 1951, at Raymondville, Texas, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, the Union by a n AFL organizer. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the taking of testimony the General Counsel and the Re- spondent's attorney argued briefly on the record, and all parties were given an opportunity to file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law subsequent to the close of the hearing. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent copartnership, Wade & Paxton, at all times material herein has had its principal office and place of business in the city of Raymondville, Texas, where it purchases, packs, sells, and distributes fresh vegetables. The business is seasonal, operations beginning in November or December of each year and continuing on through the following June. During the operating season from November 1949 until July 1950, Respondent purchased vegetables from var- ious growers located in and around Raymondville, of the approximate value of $300,000. During the same period its sales were in excess of $300,000, of which over 75 percent was 'shipped to points located outside the State of Texas. Because of a drought, freeze, and poor crop conditions during the short operating season from November 1950 to February 21, 195'1, the partnership's purchases from the WADE & PAXTON 657 above sources were about $38,000, and its sales about $58,000, of which 90 percent was shipped to points outside Texas . I find from the above facts , and as conceded by the Respondent, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Citrus, Cannery Workers and Food Processors, Local Union 24473, AFL, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent 1 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein On July 24, 1950, following a Board-ordered election, which was won by the Union, the Respondent's objections to the conduct of the election were overruled and the Board certified the Onion as the- exclusive representative for collective bargaining of all the Respondent 's production and maintenance employees at its packing shed in Raymondville , including tomato crate makers and cabbage crate makers, but excluding purchasing agents, bookkeeper-weigher, office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, tomato crate chief, shed foreman, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. I therefore find that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act the Union at all times material herein has been and now is the representative of the Respondent's employees for the purposes of collective bar- gaining in the above appropriate unit. B. Bargaining efforts As heretofore found, the Respondent does not normally operate its packing shed from about the end of June to November or December of each year. It is a member of the Texas Citrus and Vegetable Growers and Shippers Association, herein called the Association , which handles business matters for the Respondent (and presumably its other members) including collective bargaining. On October 11, 1950, as the packing season approached, E. C. DeBaca, heretofore referred to, on behalf of the Union wrote Scott Toothaker at McAllen, Texas, attorney for the Association, requesting bargaining negotiations with the Respondent. On October 13 Toothaker wrote Austin E. Anson, executive manager of the Association at Harlingen, Texas,' enclosing a copy of DeBaca's letter and re- questing that Anson advise when it would be "convenient for you to meet with DeBaca and the writer [and] I will be glad to advise him," sending a copy of his letter to DeBaca. Not hearing anything further about the request, the Union on October 30 through its secretary, C. C. Turner, wrote C. F. McGee, one of the partners, calling attention to the October 11 request and concluding, 'In its brief, the Respondent Points out that the record lacks proof that the Union involved herein is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. E. C. DeBaca, a representative of the American Federation of Labor assigned to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, testified that, on behalf of the Union , he represented employees of the various companies who were members of the Texas Citrus and Vegetable Growers and Shippers Association, including the Respondent . The Board' s Decision and Direction of Election in Case No . 39-RC-155, dated April 27, 1950, upon which the present proceeding is grounded in part, was received in evidence herein without objection . In that decision the Board specifically found that the Union herein involved was a labor organization . I there- fore reject the Respondent's contention in the above respect. 2 McAllen is about 65 miles , and Harlingen about 20 miles , from Raymondville, Texas, where the Respondent 's plant is located. 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We wish to again notify you that we desire at this time to begin bargaining negotiations with your company and further request that you make arrange- ments to have a representative of your organization available for continued negotiations so that we might complete a contract in the near future. No answer was made to Turner 's communication , but on November 6 Toothaker wrote DeBaca that arrangements had been made to meet at the Association's offices in Harlingen Thursday afternoon , November 9, "for the purpose of negotiating this contract." At the appointed time and place DeBaca and Turner met with Toothaker, McGee, and Anson. The meeting lasted only about 30 minutes. After some discussion of the weather and the crop conditions generally , DeBaca distributed copies of the Union 's proposed contract . Before there was an opportunity to discuss or even read the proposal, the Respondent's representatives announced (1) the Respondent's shed was not in operation and there was a question whether it would open during the season due to the drought and poor crops; (2) as the Respondent had no employees , there was nothing to negotiate about; and (3) when and if the shed started packing , the Respondent's negotiators would, on request, again meet with DeBaca and Turner to negotiate a contract , provided the union representatives were also accompanied by a committee of the Re- spondent's employees . The meeting then closed without any arrangements for a later meeting, after DeBaca had collected the copies of the proposal. On November 22 following , Turner wrote Toothaker : Re : Wade and Paxton negotiations DEAR MR. TOOTHAKER : We are indeed sorry that the Company took the view at our last meeting in Harlingen , that they would not negotiate with 'us for the reason that the plant is not now operating. We still feel as we did at the above men- tioned meeting, that this fact is no bar to negotiating a contract . We request that the Company meet with us in your office in McAllen next Tuesday, Novem- ber 28th at 2:00 P. M. If this time and place is satisfactory ,,please let me know. On November 29 Toothaker replied : In re : Wade & Paxton negotiations DEAR MR. TURNER : We acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 22nd , in regard to the above matter, which letter was received by the writer while he was absent from the office due to an eye infection. It has not been the Company's position that they would not negotiate for the reason that the plant is not now operating, but it has been and is now their position that until such time as there are some employees at the plant for you and your union to bargain for, that there is no necessity for negotiations. At the present time there is no certainty as to when the plant will open. Consequently, it is impossible to give you a definite date as to when we can begin negotiating. Actually, the shed began operations on November 28 but with a reduced force in order to handle cabbages and some turnips that began coming into the shed. Due, probably, to a very severe freeze the latter part of January 1951 ,8 which 8 There was also a less serious freeze the previous December. WADE & PAXTON 659 destroyed all growing crops, the shed closed on February 9. It remained closed until the 19th and then reopened , but only for 3 days and then closed for the season on February 21. No more than 20 production workers were at any time employed by the Respondent during this short production season. Normally it employs from 50 to 75 workers. C. Conclusions as to the refusal to bargain allegation The contention that the Respondent was not required to negotiate with its employees in this seasonal business unless and until it actually had employees on the job lacks merit in my judgment . In the off-season there were questions involving preference of employment and seniority as well as wages and other conditions of employment that were vital to the employees and that they wanted settled before the season opened. We do not have here a situation where there was no reasonable expectancy that the operations would ever be resumed, under such circumstances the above contention would probably be well taken, but here the Respondent normally opened for operations late each fall . In fact, as the record shows, on November 29, 1950, the shed had already been opened when Toothaker, answering the Union's request of the Respondent stating that negotiations be resumed, wrote that there was no certainty as to when the shed would open.4 In a seasonal industry, or an operation where actual production is intermit- tent, the fact that employees are not actually at work just does not justify the employer's refusal to bargain with the employees ' authorized representative.' The Board has also held that a question concerning the representation of em- ployees exists during the off season of a seasonal industry' The Respondent's announced refusal to negotiate unless the Union brought a committee of the Respondent's employees to the bargaining table also constituted a refusal to bargain. The employees had made their official choice of a bargaining repre- sentative, and it was not for the Respondent to interfere with that choice by "establishing conditions pertaining thereto." ' I find therefore , contrary to the contentions of the Respondent, that on November 9, 1950, and thereafter, the Respondent failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the authorized representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activity of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 4 Manager McGee 's testimony that on November 9, 1950, he did not know whether the shed would operate that season is not credited . True, at that time the drought had lim- ited the amount of vegetables then available, but there were crops to be handled as was clearly proven by the fact that the shed opened at about the normal time with a reduced force. It was the two freezes that followed later, particularly the January freeze, which was the worst experienced in that area in many years, that destroyed the replanted or growing vegetables and forced the early closing in February. 5 J. W. Beasley, etc., 7 NLRB 1069. Cf. Piqua Munising Wood Products Company, 7 NLRB 782 ( enforced in 109 F. 2d 552 (C. A. 6) ). 6 Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company, 74 NLRB 443. 7 N L R B . v George P Pilling and Son Co , 119 F 2d 32 (C. A. 3). 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Respondent, by refusing to negotiate with the Union during a period when Respondent's employees were not actually working, and by insisting that the union representatives be accompanied in future negotiations by a committee of the Respondent's employees, has refused to bargain collec- tively. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent be required, upon request, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit found to be appropriate, regardless of whether the Respondent's employees are actually working at the time of the request. It will also be recommended that the Respondent cease and. desist from in any other manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bar- gain collectively with it. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 321 U. S. 426. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Citrus, Cannery Workers and Food Processors, Local Union 24473, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The above Union is now, and during all times material herein, has been the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act, of all the employees of the Respondent in the unit heretofore found to be appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. By refusing on November 9, 1950, and thereafter to bargain collectively with the above Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the afore- said unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 4. By said acts, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL No. 1604 OF SAVANNAI-I, GA., AFFILIATED WITH RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1494. October 5, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul L. Harper, hearing 96 NLRB No. 88.