Concordia Creamery Co.

In the Matter of FAIRMONT CREAMERY COMPANY, D/B/A CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY, AT CONCORDIA, KANSAS, and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFFILI- ATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. 0-2649.-Decided July 23, 1943 DECISION AND ORDER On June 16,1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support in its exceptions. The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond- ent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Fairmont'Creamery Com- pany, doing business as Concordia Creamery Company, Concordia, Kansas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organ- ization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 51 N. L. R. B., No. 110. 651 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Con- cordia, Kansas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the condlvct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. CHAIRMAN Mills took no part in the consideration of the above, Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. John A . Weiss, for the Board. Mr. Leonard A. Flansburg , of Lincoln , Neb. and Mr. C. B . Evinger, of Omaha, Neb , for the respondent. Mr. T. J. Lloyd, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on May 19, 1943 , by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City , Missouri ) issued its complaint dated May 21, 1943 against Fairmont Creamery Company, doing business as Concordia Creamery Company, Concordia, Kansas, herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and.Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notices of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance ; (1) that since about January 1, 1943, the respondent , by its officers , agents and supervisory employees , has sought to dissuade its employees from affiliating with any labor organization ; uttered statements whiclh were prejudicial or derogatory to the Union , its members and officers , and labor organizations in general ; ques- tioned its employees concerning their union membership and attendance upon union meetings ; made false statements concerning other affiliates of the Union which had organized the employees of other plants of the respondent ; required employees , who were members of the Union , to work at a time when they were planning to attend a scheduled meeting of the Union ; sought to discredit the Union, its affiliates and other national labor organizations ; and (2 ) that by the aforesaid acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Concordia, Kansas, on June 2, 1943, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel ; the Union by its representative. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 653 At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint in respect to its business, but denying all material averments relating to the unfair labor practices. At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for lack of proof. Ruling on this motion was reserved by the Trial Examiner, which motion is, at this time, denied by the undersigned. The motion of the Board's counsel, made at the conclusion of the hearing, to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to minor inaccuracies as to dates and the spelling of names, was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument on the record was made before the Trial Examiner by counsel for the Board and the respondent, respectively. Opportunity to file briefs with the Trial Examiner was afforded the parties. On June 14, counsel for the respondent filed a brief with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Fairmont Creamery Company, is a Delaware corporation having its principal office in Omaha, Nebraska. It is duly licensed to do business in the State of Kansas, where it owns and operates a number of plants. At its Concordia, Kansas, plant, which it purchased in 1927, the respondent is doing business under the firm name and style of Concordia Creamery Company,' where it is engaged in the purchase and sale of poultry, eggs and dairy products. During the calendar year 1942 the respondent purchased the aforesaid products for its Concordia plant to a value in excess of $50,000, of which 10 percent was purchased outside of Kansas and shipped from points outside of Kansas to its Concordia plant. During that period the respondent sold and distributed finished products processed at its Concordia plant to a value in excess of $50,000, of which 65 percent was shipped, to points outside of Kansas. The respondent normally employs a total of approximately 190 employees at its Concordia plant. The respondent admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that since January 1, 1943, it has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the first part of 1943 the Union began an organizational campaign in the respondent's Concordia plant and approximately 7 organizational meetings were held in Concordia. As a result of these meetings, a number of the respondent's employees joined the Union. The first few meetings were fairly well attended, from 26 to 30 persons being present, but only 2 or 3 persons attended the last 2 meetings. From February 25 to March 9 these meetings were conducted by Robert Nielubowski, international representative of the Union. Prior to that time two other representatives of the Union conducted the campaign. i The 'respondent owns and operates other creamery plants in Kansas and Nebraska ; however, its Corcordia, Kansas, plant is the only plant involved in this proceeding. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' On February 24 the Union distributed at the plant a number of copies of a handbill, herein called the February handbill, advertising a union meeting the next day at 8 p. M.,2 which stated inter alia that the Union h'a.d already secured contracts with the respondent covering the employees at the respondent's plants at Omaha, Crete, and Grand Island, Nebraska, and that it had just organized the respondent's employees 'at its plant in Alliance, Nebraska ; that the .Union had secured a raise in pay for all these employees-women to 44 cents per hour and men to 53-581/2 and 60 cents per hour; and that an open meeting would be held at the Roller Rink, Concordia, Kansas, February 25. According to the credible testimony of Erhart Edquist, manager of the re- spondent's Concordia plant, and C. B. Evinger, the respondent's general person- nel director in the head office at Omaha, Nebraska, in February, Edquist learned of the Union's activity in the plant ; about that time Evinger came to Concordia ; Evinger told Edquist the foremen were not to discriminate against any em- ployee on account of membership or non-membership in any union, and that-the respondent did not want to become involved in union matters, except when questions were asked by employees, and then "to tell them the truth." Evinger also told Edquist that on the date the February handbill was distributed, the respondent had contracts with the Union at its Omaha, Crete, and Grand Island plants, but not at the Alliance plant, and no election had been held at Alliance to determine the Union's majority; also that the wage rates set out in the February handbill were the rates obtaining only at the Omaha plant. Edquist and Evinger told the foremen 8 that the statement in the February handbill I This handbill stated as follows : TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO. - CONCORDIA, KANSAS GREETINGS : They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that goes for other things too. DO YOU KNOW- That we, "The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen A F. of L." have signed contracts with the Fairmont Creamery Company in the following cities : Omaha, Nebraska ; Crete, Nebraska ; Grand Island, Nebraska, and have just organized Alliance, Nebraska. DO YOU KNOW- That we have raised the pay for all these workers who work for Fairmont, to the following scale : Women 440 per. hour ; men 53-58i/2 and 600 per hour. These people worked for about the same wage you are working for, when we organized them. They now receive time and one-half for all time worked over forty (40) hours in,any one week. They receive a vacation with pay after being in the employment of the company one year and they receive many other benefits through their Union. DO YOU KNOW- That the Company must recognize the Union of your own choosing? YES and the laws of the United States gives you this right and their protection as an American Citizen DO YOU KNOW- That we have clean rest rooms, and two ten (10) minute rest periods every day, one in the forenoon and one in the afternoon for the Fairmont Workers in these other cities we have organized. Now so that you as employees may enjoy better working conditions and open the door for better wages we are holding an open meeting with all workers cordially invited. THURSDAY FEBRUARY 25-8 p in. at the ROLLER RINK-W. 6tb STREET- CONCORDIA, KS. Signed : THE AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTHRS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF N. A. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. It was stipulated by the parties that the following employees of the respondent at Its Concordia plant, at all times material herein, were foremen occupying supervisory positions, with authority to hire, fire, direct, and reprimand other employees ; Frank Phillips, poultry department ; William Frundell, creamery department ; Arnold Schroeder, engineering depart- ment ; and Lyle Carmichael, personnel department. CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 655 that the Union had organized the Alliance plant, and the inference that the Union had secured a raise in pay for all of - the employees, other than the Concordia plant, were not true. They told the foremen that they would have to take a neutral attitude toward the Union's activities, as the Act forebade them "taking any side one way or the other, but if the employees asked them questions about the Union they should go ahead and answer them to the best of their ability" ; that "it was entirely up to the employees, and that should be our attitude, but when they were asked by an employee, or asked their opinion, they had a perfect right to explain their opinion , so long as it wasn't coercion of the employee, or anything like that ; that we would stand for no threats, and should not let it affect any employee's tenure of hire with us in any way, shape or form." The respondent did not inform the employees in general that this was its policy. It only instructed the foremen. Neither did the respondent post any notice or in any other way inform the nonsupervisory employees that the February handbill was not true. On February 24 or 25, Foreman Schroeder said to Albert Aldrich, an employee in the engineering department , "I heard you joined the union." Aldrich replied in the negative. Schroeder then said, "I would like to talk to somebody who did, and see what they would gain by joining the union." Aldrich said that he would join the Union if he could get more pay by doing so. Schroeder re- plied that the unions in the East could not get a raise in pay, and he did not think that the Union could in the respondent's plant 4 In connection with this conversation between Schroeder and Aldrich, Schroeder testified as follows : I told him [Aldrich] I had heard he had joined the union, and I asked him if he did . . . I heard he [Aldrich] joined the union, and I told him I would like to get his ideas why he did, or someone's ideas, just to see what the reason would be. Evidently he would be dissatisfied, and I would like to kiiow his reasons for doing that. According to the undenied testimony of Pearl Barker ,' which is credited by the undersigned , on February 24 or 25 Foreman Phillips came up to Barker in the plant and after saying that probably Barker was a union man, Phillips began to comment on the February handbill, a copy of which he had in his hand. He told Barker that the Alliance plant was not organized ; that the employees in the Omaha plant were entitled to higher wages than the Concordia plant employees because of the higher living expenses in Omaha ; that there were not many more Union members left in the Omaha plant ; and that he did not think the Union could do them "a bit of good." Alfred Rarick, an employee in the poultry department, testified that he had several conversations with Foreman Phillips about the Union ; that in February Phillips said to him, "I understand you are the ringleader trying to get the em- ployees to join"; that he denied it, and then Phillips said to him "Do you know what I ought to do with you fellows who join the union? I ought to work you your union (sic) 40 hours a week, and then let you lay off the rest of the week", that Phillips further told him it would cost $28 or $29 a year to belong to the Union, and that the respondent would check-off the union dues; that on another occasion Phillips said to him, "I understand you are telling the employees they have to join the union or quit"; that he denied this statement and asked Phillips who told him, and Phillips refused to tell him ; that Phillips then said to him, "If 4 This finding is based on the undenied testimony of employee Albert Aldrich. Aldrich did not join the Union. c Barker was employed by the respondent from' September 1942 to the middle of April 1943 in the poultry department. 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD you've got so much money to throw away on unions, why don't you give some of it to me, I can use it"; that on February 24, Phillips read to him the February handbill and said that the Alliance plant was not organized ; that the Omaha employees should get higher wages than the other plants; that-the Crete plane employees, with the exception of one woman supervisor, did not receive any higher pay than the Concordia plant employees ; that Phillips then asked him if he was going to the union meeting- the next night ; and that Phillips told him a number of times he could not see where it would do him any good to join the Union. Clayton Hillan ° testified that during 1943, while he was employed in the plant, he had three or four conversations with Foreman Phillips about the Union during working hours ; that on the one occasion Phillips asked him if he was going to a union meeting the next day, and when he replied in the affirmative, Phillips told him if he knew what was good for him he had better stay away from the meeting ; that on another occasion Phillips asked him if he had attended a union meeting, how many had joined the Union, and who was the first one to join ; that he replied he had gone to the meeting, and all of those present, except one, had joined, and either he, or employee Elvin Smith was the first to "sign up"; that Phillips further said to him that it would not do him any good if the Union "did go through", they might get a "little more money per hour, but the union would more than get what raise" they got. Phillips testified that he talked about the Union more to the employees who were members of the Union than he did to the non-members because "He [Phillips] was asking what they knew about it [the union]. I didn't know much about the union, and I like to learn things as I go along. If there is union activity, it is only natural that you want to learn what they had " Phillips further testified that he had brought up the subject of unions in his talks with the employees without first having been asked any questions by the employees. The only part of Rarick's testimony that was denied by Phillips was that he said to Rarick that he should work the union employees 40 hours a week and then lay them off for the rest of the week, and that he told, him that it would cost $28 or $29 to belong to the Union. He did not remember saying to Rarick that it would not do him any good to join the Union. In respect. to the testimony of Hillan as related above, Phillips testified that he had talked to Hillan about the Union and that he understood that Hillan was a member of the Union; and that on one occasion he asked Hillan "just what it [the Union] was all about." However, Phillips denied that he asked Hillan if he was going to a union meeting and also denied having said to Hillan that he had better stay away from the meeting if he knew what was good for him. The undersigned does not credit the partial denial of Phillips in respect to the testimony of Rarick and Hillan and in view of the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned finds that Phillips made the statements substantially as testified to by Rarick and Hillan. Loyal Parratt 7 testified that during ,February and March, while working in the plant, he had a number of conversations about the Union with his fore- man, William Frundell; that on one occasion Frundell called his attention to a newspaper article about the failure of the miners to receive higher wages, and Frundell said to him, "There you are. That will show you the union can't do ,you any good" ; that at another time, Frundell asked him if he still belonged ° IIillan was employed by the respondent from April 1942 to sometime in February 1943, in the poultry department. 7 Parratt was employed by the respondent from April 1942 to the first part of March 1943 In the creamery department. CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 657 to the Union, and upon being told that he did, Frundell said "What do you expect to get out of it? . . . Don't you know all those guys want to do is to get your money and leave with it? . . . If they sell you the union and leave town, what have you got?" Frundell further said to him, "You have a lot of friends here in the plant . . . Mr. Edquist is your friend . If you go ahead and join this union, you are just putting a wall between yourself, and that's a slap in Mr. Edquist's face" ; that on February 24 Frundell came up to him while he was at work and read to him the February handbill, a"copy of which Frundell had in his hand, and criticized several of the statements therein ; that Frundell said "If we wanted to, we could made it pretty tough for those guys. They haven't got Alliance organized yet" ; that the next day after the union meeting on February 25, Frundell asked him if he had attended the meeting , how many of the employees were there, and who they were : that he replied, he and approximately 20 others were there, but only one, Ralph Minard, was from the creamery department ; that the day after another union meeting, which was held on March 4, Frundell started another conversation with him in regard to the February handbill , and said to him, "Hey, do you know they 've got one [union ] at Crete? . . . They're not satisfied with it up there, the boys at Crete were drawing 42 cents, and all the union ever got them was 44 cents. All they raised them was 2 cents . That wasn't much of a raise . . . They're sick of it up there. They never got over a 2-cent raise" ; that Frundell further told him that after the Crete employees joined the Union the hours were reduced to 40 a week and that some of the employees had to quit and seek work elsewhere because they could not make a living at the Crete wages ; that Frundell also told him that it would cost $25 to join the Union and at least $5 a month to main- tain his membership . Parratt further testified that Frundell asked him what good he expected to get out of the Union ; that he replied , possibly there were several benefits, for example, that the employees had no guarantee that the respondent would not lay them off after the war and hire the returning service men, in which event the Union might protect them , that Frundell replied "We won't do that. And if we did, what can the union do about it? They can't put you back to work . . . Well, the union can't do you any good there." Ralph Minard 8 testified that during February and March he had six or eight conversations about the Union with his foreman, William Frundell, in the plant ; that on one occasion Frundell called his attention to an article in the Topeka State Capitol newspaper in regard to some labor legislation in Kansas , and that Frundell said to him "that shows you the union can't get you any place, be- cause .. ." ; that usually the next day after a meeting of the Union , Frundell would make some remark about the meeting, such as "There wasn 't much of a turn-out at the meeting last night . There wasn't many of them falling for the union" ; that he had never told Frundell how many persons attended the union meetings ; that on another occasion Frundell told him that the $25 the Union charged would go out of the country and "wouldn't do anybody any good, and then they would soon leave, and there you were" ; that Frundell also told him that he could not get the raise in.wages stated in the February hand- bill, that, in fact , 60 cents an hour was all that he was getting ; that Frundell further said to him, in reference to the February handbill, "If they want to get tough, we can get tough, too . We can make you work right up to quitting time, instead of going to the dressing room and having 10 minutes until you get out." 8 Minard was employed by the respondent from November 1942 to March 23, 1943, first in the poultry department and then in the creamery department. a 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Frundell made no substantial denial of the testimony of Parratt and Minard. In respect to his conversation with Parratt, Frundell testified as follows : Q. You didn't have any conversation with him trying to prevent him from joining the union? A. No, I did not. He was a great fellow to talk, and I was a kind of a daddy to him, and we would discuss those things. Sometimes he would start it, and sometimes I would. Frundell admitted that he asked Parratt why he thought he would be bene- fited by joining the Union and that he talked more to Parratt about the Union after he "was pretty sure" that Parratt had joined the Union. Frundell ad- mitted that he talked to Parratt about the February handbill but that he did not remember showing Parratt a newspaper item in regard to the coal miners' strike. He further admitted that he told both Parratt and Minard that he did not think they were going to gain so much by belonging to the Union. How- ever, he denied that he told Minard that the Union "would-make away with the union dues." In view of the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits the testimony of Parratt and Minard and finds that Frundell made the statements substantially as testified to by'Parratt and Minard. According to the undenied testimony of Nielubowski, which the undersigned credits, on or about March 3 Nielubowski and T. L. Lloyd, international vice- president of the Union, were walking on the public sidewalk, which ran along- side of the respondent's dock at the Concordia plant, and one of them said to two employees who were working on the dock, "It's kind of cold to work to- night." Thereupon Foreman Phillips came out of the office and said to Nielu- bowski and Lloyd "You get the hell out of here before I call the officers of the law." Nielubowski and Lloyd said they would remain as they had done nothing wrong. Phillips then went back into the office and presently came out and told them that the officers of the law were busy. Nielubowski recognized Phillips as he had seen him before. Phillips had seen Nielubowski before when the latter was distributing union handbills at the plant. According to the undenied testimony of Rarick, which is credited by the undersigned, about March 10 Lyle Carmichael, the respondent's Concordia plant personnel director, questioned Rarick about the rumor that he, Rarick, was the ringleader in the Union and that he had told the employees they had to join the Union or quit work. Rarick denied the accusations. Carmichael said it would make no difference to him whether the employees joined the Union or not. Carmichael further said to Rarick "What good is the union doing you? Well, I think Erhart [Edquist] can do as much for you as the union can." Car- michael admitted having had a conversation with Rarick in which he told Rarick that "remarks had been made about his talking among the employees about labor unions." There is no merit in the contentions of the respondent that once having in- formed its supervisory staff that itj attitude toward the Union was neutral, its liability under the Act ceased, and whatever the foreman said to the employees about the Union, was their own opinion ; that the employees knew it made no difference to the respondent whether they joined the Union or not, and there- fore they could not be coerced by anything the foremen said ; that the conversa- tions with the employees about the Union, engaged' in by the foremen, were with employees who had already joined the Union and therefore they were not in- fluenced by what was said. The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the statements and acts of Frank Phillips, William Frundell, Arnold Schroeder and Lyle Carmichael, described above, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 659 employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The complaint alleged that the respondent required employees, who were members of the Union, to work at a time when they were planning to attend a scheduled union meeting. The evidence does not substantiate this allegation. The facts disclosed in the record are that the Union distributed handbills advising that a meeting would be held on March 4 at 8 p. in.; that on that day, Foreman Phillips requested Barker, Walden, and Rarick, all employees in the poultry department, to work overtime that night, because the respondent had an order for a car- load of eggs to go to the Army, and it was necessary to work overtime to get it ready. At that time there were 18 or 20 employees in the poultry department and 6 or 8 of them were members of the Union, but only 3 of them were asked to work overtime. Barker told Phillips that he wanted to get off at 8: 00 p. m. Phillips did not say anything. Barker left at 8: 00 p. in. and went to the union meeting. Walden testified that he nailed egg cases until 8:00 p. in. because he had gotten behind that day and had to 'catch up. He left at 8:00 p. m, and went to the union meeting. Rarick told Phillips that he had a date at 8: 00 p. in. and Phillips said nothing. Rarick worked until 8: 00 p. in. and went to the union meeting. The respondent made no complaint whatsoever against these employees for stopping work at 8: 00 p. m. and attending the union meeting. It was not unusual for employees to work overtime on occasions, and most of them were glad to get overtime work, as it paid time and one-half. The undersigned finds that these employees were not requested to work overtime in order to pre- vent them from attending the union meeting, and that by this request, the respond- ent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section 1, 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the evidence does not sustain the allegation of the com- plaint that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8'(1) of the Act, by requiring Pearl Barker, Walter Walden and Alfred Rarick to work overtime on March 4, 1943, the undersigned will recom- mend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, affil- iated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in 540612-44-vol. 51-43 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not, by requiring Pearl Barker, Walter Walden and Alfred Rarick to work overtime on March 4, 1943, engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the respondent, Fairmont Creamery Company, doing business as Concordia Creamery Company, at Concordia, Kansas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : - (a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organi- zations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Con- cordia, Kansas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) of the aforesaid recommendations. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleges that the respondent, by requiring Pearl Balker, Walter Walden and Alfred Rarick to work overtime on March 4, 1943, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, be dismissed. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the- National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. W. P. WEBB, Trial Examiner. 'Dated June 16, 1943.