Gladiola Biscuit Co.

GLADIOLA BISCUIT COMPANY 591 number of signed copies of said notices for posting by Elco Electric, Inc., and Cleveland Construction Corp., if they desire to do so, at the site which was involved in this proceeding. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861, AFL-CIO 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, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Cleveland Construction Corp. or by any other person, other than Elco Electric, Inc., similarly engaged at the Louisiana Bank and Trust Company building site to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain Cleveland Construction Corp. or any other per- son similarly engaged at the aforesaid building site; where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Cleveland Con- struction Corp. or any other person similarly' engaged at the aforesaid building site to cease doing business with Elco Electric, Inc. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 861, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representati. e) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Fant Milling Company, Inc., d/b/a Gladiola Biscuit Company and John H. Jones, Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin. Cases Nos. 11-CA-1766-1, 11-CA-1766-2, and 11-CA-1766-3. November 22, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On August 9, 1961, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that 134 NLRB No. 70. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and,recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modification that provision 2(d) read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 2 i We adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation , to which no exceptions were filed, that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent interrogated and threatened employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act We also adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent discharged John H. Jones , Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; the record amply sup- ports his finding that the complainants were discharged because of their protected con- certed activity, such as John Jones' consultations with Hale about the grievances of fellow employees and the participation of the complainants in the meeting with Hale in February 1961 at which the employees' grievances against Kempner were aired. 2 In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as the Appendix , the words "Deci- sion and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order " INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner on July 25, 1961 , at Greensboro, North Carolina. The complaint herein alleged , in essence, that Respondent through a supervisor violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by in- terrogation of its employees as to their concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection, and by threatening to discharge its employees if they continued such activities . It also alleged that Respondent discharged three employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act because they engaged in such activities. Respondent in its answer admitted the discharges , but in all other respects denied said allegations. At the close of the hearing both General Counsel and Respondent presented oral argument and waived the filing of briefs . The Trial Examiner set a time for the GLADIOLA BISCUIT COMPANY 593 filing of memorandums of authorities should counsel desire to submit them. General Counsel submitted a memorandum. Upon the entire record in this case, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Texas corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing biscuits with plants located in various States, including the one involved in this pro- ceeding located at Greensboro, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as the Greensboro or Gladiola plant). Respondent, during the past calendar year, pur- chased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, which were shipped from points outside the State of North Carolina to its Greensboro plant, and shipped from said plant to points outside the State finished products valued in excess of $500,000. Respondent concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues The issues litigated in this proceeding were: (1) Whether Frank Kempner, who was at the time directing Respondent's truck- ing operations and admittedly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by asking Joseph W. Jones what occurred at a meeting Jones and five other of Respondent's truckdrivers had had with Grady Hale, sales manager of Respondent and also admittedly a supervisor. (2) Whether Kempner violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, in the course of a telephone conversation with Hale, by asking Hale in the presence of three drivers why he did not fire the "griping'truck drivers." (3) Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the admitted discharge of John H. Jones, Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin. B. The facts In August 1960, Kempner was employed by Respondent. Hale testified that with the approval of his immediate supervisor, B. T. Erwin, a vice president of Respond- ent, he lured Kempner to assist him (Hale) in the truck operations and planning of production, and that Kempner had no title. Kempner testified that when he was employed by Hale he was told that he was to be in charge of transportation and lining up of production, but understood that Hale was his superior. V. I. Martin, first vice president of Respondent and in general charge of the Gladiola plant, indi- cated in the course of his testimony that Hale had unwarrantedly assumed too much authority over Kempner's operations. It is clear, however, that Hale, Kempner, and the truckdrivers understood that Hale was responsible for the truck operations and that Kempner was subject to Hale's supervision. It appears that when the drivers did not like orders issued by Kempner, particularly with respect to allocation of routes and equipment, they appealed to Hale, whom they regarded as their "boss." Hale frequently reversed Kempner's orders. It further appears that they felt the need to appeal to Hale because Kempner often was adamant or lost his temper when they requested him to change an order. Hale invited the drivers to come to him with their complaints and endeavored to straighten out their differences with Kempner. Arrangements were made for the drivers to meet monthly with Hale and Kempner and three such meetings were held between October 1960 and January 1961, Hale attending two of the three. At these meet- ings attempts were made to work out problems involved in the trucking operations to the satisfaction of all involved, but apparently not with a great deal of success. It had been a long-standing practice to give preference in the choice of trucks and other equipment in accordance with seniority of the drivers and for a brief period (of a month or so) there was also an attempt to permit a choice of "runs" on the same basis. However, the choice of runs was abandoned because of imprac- ticability, but it was agreed among the drivers and the supervisors that Edward H Martin could retain a certain long run. In the middle of January 1961, Kempner assigned Martin's "regular run" to another driver with less seniority. Martin testi- fied that he did not attempt to discuss the change of assignment with Kempner, be- cause Kempner "would blow up and get mad, and you couldn't talk with him." So Martin telephoned Hale in Miami, Florida, and complained of the assignment of hJQ run to another man. Hale said he would "straighten it out" and by telephone in- 630849-62-vol. 134-39 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD structed Kempner to give the run to Martin. The two Joneses and Martin were with Kempner while he was conversing with Hale and heard him say, in anger, to Hale, "Why don't we fire all these damn griping truck drivers, and get some good drivers?" Kempner testified that he became angered because Hale told him that if he did not run the trucks the way he (Hale) wanted, he could pack his bags. There is detailed testimony with respect to only a few other disputes between Kempner and the drivers. In the middle of January 1961, John H. Jones protested Kempner's assignment of a conveyor or track (a device used by the driver to aid him in unloading) to a new man contrary to the seniority practice. Kempner claimed that, because of the number of stops he had to make, the new man had a greater need for the conveyor than did Jones. Joseph W. Jones (John's brother) and Martin heard of the dispute and attempted to persuade Kempner to change his decision. However, John Jones complained by telephone to Hale in Jacksonville, Florida, who told him he would "straighten it out" and call back. When Hale called back, he told Jones that Kempner would put the conveyor on his (Jones') truck. It was not done, so Jones put it on his truck himself.' It was agreed among the drivers that John Jones ask Hale to meet with them without Kempner being present in order to present their complaints against him. Such a meeting was held during the first week of February 1961 at Hale's home which was attended by six of the eight drivers then employed. The meeting started shortly after noon and lasted for approximately 11 hours. Besides discussing the drivers' complaints, it appears that the participants made something of a social occa- sion of the meeting in that there was some drinking and Hale took the drivers to a restaurant for dinner. Hale took notes of their grievances against Kempner, stated that he would "straighten out" their problems with Kempner or let Kempner go, assured them that Kempner could not fire them, and told them to come to him if there was any further trouble. Hale testified that he did not discuss the drivers' grievances with Kempner after the meeting, but that thereafter things went smoothly. General Counsel's witnesses verified that there was very little trouble with Kempner after their meeting with Hale in the first week of February. The only difficulty that Kempner had with the drivers subsequent to their meeting with Hale to which Respondent' s witnesses testified was with respect to a refusal by Joseph Jones to take a trip to a Kroger store in Salem, Virginia, in the latter part of March 1961. Kempner testified that Jones refused to take the trip, and W. F. McGill, general production superintendent of Respondent for the Gladiola and an- other plant, testified that he overheard the refusal. McGill also testified that he visited the Kroger store in the latter part of March and was told by one of its management that they were not satisfied with deliveries, that they arrived late be- cause of refusals of drivers to take the trip. The testimony as to the reason for the late deliveries, being hearsay, is of little probative value as to the truth thereof. Furthermore, Kempner testified to only one refusal to take the Kroger delivery. Joseph Jones testified that he did turn down such a trip and explained that he had not refused, but suggested that some other driver take it who had not been able to work because there were not enough trucks. Since the record discloses that there was a shortage of trucks at the time, that Kempner could not re- member what reason Jones gave for not taking the trip, and that McGill only heard a brief portion of the conversation which did not include any reference to a reason for refusal, I credit Jones' explanation . Kempner did not testify to any other in- cident of difficulty with the drivers after their meeting with Hale. He further testi- fied that John Jones had never disputed his authority or refused to follow orders, but that he heard him state that as long as Grady Hale was in charge he had nothing to worry about. He also testified that right after he was employed Martin refused to follow an order and that he overheard him say to someone in the warehouse "that there was no dispatcher going to tell him what to do. . Joseph Jones testified that during the week after the drivers' meeting with Hale, Kempner asked him what had happened at the meeting, and also said that he was aware of what had occurred. Kempner denied questioning Jones 2 Kempner testified, however, that he was aware of the fact that the meeting had been held and what took place at it, because the men joked about the affair in his presence. 'Besides this Incident there Is testimony with respect to two requests of Kempner by drivers for payment for extra mileage required to bypass truck scales with overloaded trucks During the month of February Kempner refused such payment to Joseph Jones and In March to John Jones, but did permit payment to the latter upon his agreement to take a second trip with an overloaded truck There is also testimony with respect to a refusal-to take a particular trip which Is discussed hereinbelow 2 As explained hereinafter, I find it unnecessary to resolve this credibility Issue GLADIOLA BISCUIT COMPANY 595 In the latter part of March 1961 , J. W. Bannister, vice president of Respondent, visited the Gladiola plant . During the course of this visit , Kempner complained to Bannister that the drivers did not cooperate with him and of their practice of taking their complaints to Hale. Kempner testified that they discussed the conflict of authority between Hale and himself . Bannister reported this to V. I. Martin, and shortly thereafter (in the first week - of April ), the two of them , Bannister and Martin, visited the Gladiola plant. Again Kempner complained about the drivers and the conflict of authority .3 Apparently about this time it was decided to define the authority of Hale and Kempner. Hale was told that he was relieved of responsi- bility for transportation and to confine himself solely to sales. Kempner was advised that he would be in charge of transportation . Martin testified that he returned to the home office on April 7. The following Monday he conferred with Fant, ap- parently with Bannister present , and they decided, in view of what they had learned and of what McGill had reported ,4 that they had to discharge either Kempner or the drivers of whom he complained . Their decision was to keep Kempner and Bannister was told to communicate this decision to Kempner. Kempner testified that on April 18 , 1961 , he received a telephone call from Ban- nister who told him to "discharge the drivers who wouldn't work along with me." Neither the names nor the number of drivers to be discharge were mentioned. They were to be paid up to April 29, 1961 . Kempner notified the Jones brothers of their discharge on the same day (April 18, 1961 ) and Martin the following day. John Jones testified that Kempner told him he had orders to "let the three of us go," that he did not know the reason , and was sorry he had to do it. Joseph Jones testi- fied that Kempner said he was instructed by Bannister "to let us go," and that he was sorry , but there was nothing he could do about it . He further testified that about 2 days later, Kempner, in a conversation with him , speculated about the reason for the discharges and stated that he did not understand or know why the orders were given . Edward Martin testified that Kempner told him, "This came direct from Dallas. I didn't have anything to do with it." Martin telephoned Ban- nister in Dallas who told him that Kempner was put in charge of transportation, that Kempner had told him that there were three men he wanted Ito get rid of, that he told him to go ahead , and that he did not know who the drivers were . Kempner testified that he selected the three men who were discharged "because they always wanted the best runs" and other preferential treatment. The drivers were given notices of their discharges which stated the reason therefor was "no work available." Kempner testified that he decided to ascribe this reason to make certain that the drivers would have no difficulty in obtaining unemploy- men compensation or in securing new employment . Respondent does not contend that this was the actual reason for the discharge. Conclusions It is evident that the actions which are alleged in the complaint as violative of the Act arose out of the conflict of authority between Hale and Kempner . Hale, on the one hand, had the responsibility for the operations of Respondent 's trucks, but did not direct the details of the operations . Kempner, on the other hand, directed the details of the operations , but apparently found that his authority was so limited that the effectiveness of his direction was hampered . The drivers found that when they were dissatisfied with Kempner's orders they frequently were able to have them altered or countermanded by appealing to Hale. John Jones testified without con- tradiction that he often consulted with Hale with respect to grievances of his fellow drivers and that Hale frequently reversed Kempner 's orders. Hale's interference with his direction of the truck operations inevitably led to a growing resentment on Kempner's part, and, as a matter of fact, Kempner testified that he resented the men going over his head to Hale. General Counsel contends that it has proved that Kempner interrogated Joseph Jones with respect to the meeting the drivers had with Hale to air their complaints against him. Kempner denied the interrogation . It appears to be unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the testimony , since, even if it were assumed that Kempner did ask Jones what happened at the meeting with Hale, I am unable to conclude that it had any coercive effect. It could not have discouraged Jones and his fellow drivers from continuing their concerted activity in presenting grievances to Hale, since Hale, Kempner's superior , completely negated any coercive effect of such interroga- tion by telling the employees that they could come to them with their complaints 8 Martin testified that the names of the drivers of whom he complained might have been mentioned , but could not definitely remember 4 McGill had reported the matters to which he testified as outlined above. 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and that Kempner could not fire them. Furthermore, according to Kempner's un- contradicted testimony, the drivers exchanged jokes in his presence about the meeting which would indicate that they had no feeling of need to conceal the matter from Kempner. Certainly it cannot be said that by such interrogation Respondent, through its supervisor, Kempner, was seeking to obtain information as to some protected activity of its employees, since Respondent had knowledge thereof through another supervisor, Hale. Also, I am not of the opinion that General Counsel sustained his contention that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Kempner's inquiry of Hale in the presence of the Charging Parties as to why he did not fire the "griping drivers." Whatever coercive effect it might have had (to restrain the drivers from continuing their concerted activity) was negated by the reassurances Hale (whom they regarded as Kempner's and their "boss") gave them at their meeting with him some 2 weeks later. Furthermore, it is evident that they were not discouraged from engaging in concerted activity by any implied threat in Kempner's inquiry, for, if anything, they increased such activity shortly thereafter by seeking and obtaining a meeting with .Hale without Kempner being present in which meeting they freely aired their .complaints. As to the discharges of the Joneses and Edward Martin, General Counsel contends that their employment was terminated because of their concerted activity protected under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent contends that its top management ordered Kempner to discharge the men because they felt that they could not retain both Kempner and the drivers of whom he complained and the decision to give him authority to discharge the drivers was made without any knowledge of their con- certed activity. The record demonstrates, however, that top management was advised by Kempner that he objected to the practices the drivers followed of going over his head to Hale with their objections to his orders. While it might be true that top management had not been advised as to whether the drivers presented their griev- ances to Hale individually or in concert, certainly Kempner was informed of the fact that the practice was not confined to isolated individual action. As a matter of fact, the last instance revealed in the record of a grievance being presented to Hale was at the meeting which the drivers requested and held in concert and of which Kempner-admittedly had knowledge. Some of- the grievances which were pre- sented over the period of their disputes with Kempner undoubtedly affected all of the drivers, such as their insistence that Kempner not disregard their right to select equipment according to seniority. The record demonstrates that Kempner did not have the authority to fire drivers prior to April 18, 1961. He testified that at that time he was told to discharge the drivers "who wouldn't work along" with him. The testimony indicates that they were not named, nor was he told how many to discharge. This does not appear to be of any moment one way or the other, since the fact remains that the reason he could not "get along" with the drivers whom he selected for discharge was that they re- fused to accept his authority and, instead, turned to Hale, who frequently counter- manded Kempner's orders. It is understandable that Kempner would resent this practice, and he testified to such resentment. The divided responsibility between Hale and Kempner, the authority in Hale and apparent lack of authority in Kempner, and Hale's willingness to listen to the drivers' grievances and act upon them, inevit- ably led to the situation which management attempted belatedly to rectify by deline- ating the authority between Hale and Kempner and by giving the latter carte blanche to discharge whichever men he wanted to "get rid of." He testified that he selected the three because they always wanted preferential treatment. It appears appropriate to infer that these three, having seniority status, were the ones who most frequently were involved in the complaints to Hale about his disregard of the preferences to which they felt their seniority entitled them in accordance with established policy. Also, it appears that John Jones was the unofficial spokesman for the drivers; he frequently consulted Hale on behalf of other drivers and it was he whom they asked to arrange the meeting with Hale. Thus, even though top management might have had in mind merely satisfying Kempner and establishing his authority by telling him to discharge the men he did not want, nevertheless the record clearly discloses that Kempner did not want them because of their practice of presenting grievances to Hale. Although there may have been instances when complaints were presented to Hale on an individual basis, it appears that to a large extent the complaints affected all of the drivers and were concerted in nature, culminating in the undoubtedly concerted action of their meeting with Hale. There is very little or no indication that grievances were pre- sented to Hale after that meeting. Certainly concerted activity in the presentation of grievances is a protected activity under Section 7 of the Act. Thus, having concluded that Kempner's desire GLADIOLA BISCUIT COMPANY 597 to get rid of the men he selected arose out of their participation in such protected activity, it follows that their discharge was in reprisal thereof and to discourage the continuation of such a practice. It cannot be contended that Kempner desired to rid himself of these men because they were in the habit of challenging his authority unwarrantedly, since it appears that Hale frequently upheld the drivers and reversed Kempner's orders. Hale indicated that in handling theii grievances he attempted to give effect to company policies. Accordingly, it is concluded that John H. Jones, Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin were discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Joanna Cotton Mills Company, 81 NLRB 1398; Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative, Inc., 124 NLRB 618; Latex Industries, Incorporated, 132 NLRB 1. It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent also violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by said discharges. Even if such a finding were made, no remedy additional to that flowing from the finding that the discharges were violative of Section 8(a) (1) would be available. Therefore, it would appear unnecessary to consider this allega- tion. Latex Industries, Incorporated, supra. III. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent discharged John H. Jones, Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin because they engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges. I shall also recommend that Respondent make each of them whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of his discharge by payment to each of them of a sum of money he would normally have earned from April 29, 1961, the date to which each of them had been paid when discharged, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. The backpay will be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Because the record does not disclose any other unfair labor practice, and in view of the circumstances which gave rise to that which was committed, it does not appear that a broad order is required in anticipation of the possibility of unlike or unrelated violations of the Act being committed by Respondent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The record establishes that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by discharging John H. Jones and Joseph W. Jones on April 18, 1961, and Edward H. Martin on April 19, 1961, because they engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection. 3. The record does not establish that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint. 4. For the reason above indicated, I make no finding with respect to whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)'(3) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates to the allegations of unfair labor practices in paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof. I further recommend that Fant Milling Company, Inc., d/b/a Gladiola Biscuit Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its employees for engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. (b) Interfering in any like or related manner with rights guaranteed its employees under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Offer to John H. Jones, Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered in the manner set forth herein in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cards, personnel records and reports, and all other such data required to compute the backpay due. (c) Post at its plant in Greensboro , North Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region , shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing , within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken in compliance therewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against our employees because they engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT interfere in any like or related manner with any of the rights guaranteed our employees under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer John H. Jones, Joseph W. Jones, and Edward H. Martin im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. FANT MILLING COMPANY, INC., D/B/A GLADIOLA BISCUIT COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Local 459, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and Friden, Inc. and Novelty Veiling Co., Inc. Cases Nos. 2-CC-603 and 2-CC-608. November 22, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On June 22, 1961, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow 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 Intermediate Re- port attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respond- ent filed a brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with 134 NLRB No. 61.