Golden Arrow Dairy

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Golden Arrow Dairy and Salesdrivers, Helpers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 683 , International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case 21-CA-9876 December 8, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On August 26, 1971, Trial Examiner George H. O'Brien issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and in support of his cross-exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Golden Arrow Dairy, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND ORDER SEVERING CASES AND REMANDING REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On July 7, 1971, a 1 The posthearing motion of the General Counsel to correct the stenographic transcript is granted. hearing was held in the above-entitled matters in San Diego, California. The complaint, issued April 28, 1971, is based on a charge filed March 11, 1971, by Salesdrivers, Helpers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 683, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called' the Union, and alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by Golden Arrow Dairy, herein called Respondent. On January 15, 1971, Respondent and Union entered into an agreement' for consent election (21-RC-12045) pursuant to Section 102.62(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations thereby agreeing that "the rulings and determinations by the regional director of the results thereof shall be final..... On April 30, 1971, the Regional Director ordered that a hearing be held on objections by the Union to conduct of the Employer affecting the results of the consent election, that the hearing on said objections be consolidated with the hearing on complaint theretofore issued, and that at the conclusion of the consolidated hearing, Case 21-RC-12045 be remanded to him for further proceedings. Upon the entire record' in these proceedings, including my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the posthearing briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the operation of a wholesale and retail dairy, with its principal office and plant located in San Diego, California, and branches in Vista and Chula Vista, California. Respondent annually sells products valued in excess of $500,000 and annually receives supplies valued in excess of $3,000 shipped from points located outside the State of California, directly to its California facilities. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND CONDUCT OF EMPLOYER ALLEGED BY UNION TO HAVE AFFECTED RESULTS OF ELECTION A. The Issues The complaint alleges in material substance: 1. Respondent through its production manager, Eli Barnhard, (a) Threatened employees with discharge because they supported the Union, (b) Threatened employees with loss of employment and other reprisals in the event, they selected the Union as their collective- bargaining representative, (c) Threatened to suspend employees because of their union membership, sympathies, and activities, and (d) Threatened to refuse to sign a 194 NLRB No. 81 GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY contract with the Union even if the employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative; 2. Respondent through its assistant to the General Manager, Edward Hodge, promised benefits to employees to induce them to forego their support of the Union; 3. Respondent through Barnhard and its working foreman, Ernest Becerra, restricted employees to their work stations because of their union membership, sympathies, and activities; and 4. Respondent refused to compensate a union observer for worktime spent during the Board election, while compensating its own observer at the same election. B. Sequence of Events Christian Labor Association was certified by the Board in 1969 following an election in which Teamster's Union participated. Respondent's contract with Christian Labor Association expired December 31, 1970. The Union's petition in 21-RC-12045 was filed January 4, 1971. The agreement for consent election was approved by the Regional Director on January 15, 1971, and the election was conducted on February 17, 1971, in two separate bargaining units. Christian Labor, Association disclaimed interest and did not appear on the ballot. There were 81 eligible voters in Unit A and 13 in Unit B. The election in Unit A resulted in 34 votes for the Union and 47 votes against the Union with no challenged ballots. On February 23 and 24, 1971, the Union filed 11 timely objections to the election in Unit A. Five of these objections were overruled by the Regional Director. The acts described in the six remaining objections are the same as those described in the complaint. No objections were filed to conduct affecting the results of the election in Unit B. C. Statements of Production Manager Barnhard Alleged to Constitute Interference, Coercion, and Restraint 1. The testimony James Michael Bennett had worked for Respondent since 1964. Eli Barnhard was hired as production manager September 1, 1968. Barnhard was responsible for the work of about 35 employees, under three "working foremen" at Respondent's San Diego plant. Bennett testified: Q. , (By Mr. Litvack) Calling your attention to the time period from January 4th, 1971 until February 17, 1971, during this period, did you have any conversa- tions with Mr. Barnhard regarding the upcoming election at the plant? A. Yes sir. Q. Approximately how many such conversations did you have? A. About five or six * [On January 4, 19711 We started talking about the Union and the election and he told me that if the Union won that they would call us out on strike and that he, the company, could replace us with anybody they 475 wanted to and that they would be calling the men out on the job and, although they would be negotiating, they wouldn't sign a contract. Q. You mentioned that you had several other conversations with Mr. Barnhard during this time period. ... Do you recall the specific dates or times of these conversations? A. No. * * * Q. How long would these conversations last? A. About five or six minutes. Q. Would you state for the Trial Examiner what would be said during these conversations? A. Basically they were all the same as the first conversation and that was that the men would be voting for their jobs and they would never sign a contract and why didn't the, men see that. Under cross-examination Bennett testified: Q. (By Mr. McGrath) When you related the conversation [of January 4, 19711 is it not true that Mr. Barnhard had indicated to you that it was possible if the teamsters were elected that they could request a strike vote? A. Yes sir. Q. Did he not also indicate to you that if a strike vote was passed and if there was an economic strike that the Company might have the right to replace economic strikers? A. He,didn't say economic strikers. He said they would call us out on strike and he would replace anyone out on strike. Q. If the Union was out on strike, the Company could replace them? A. Yes sir. Q_ Now these other conversations with Mr. Barn- hard, would you relate as completely as possible exactly what Mr. Barnhard said to you? A. As I recall, I had been eating, going to or from lunch, and the time clock is by his office and he would see you as you punch in or out and he would ask me how I thought or what I thought about the Union, and I told him that I was pretty sure that the Teamsters would win and he would shake his head and say that he didn't understand that and he would ask me if they didn't understand that they were not going to sign and he said that they would negotiate, but that they wouldn't sign; and he said that the men just won't understand that. Q. During the period, Mr. Bennett, prior to the election and for a brief time after the election, is it not true that you had many conversations with Mr. Barnhard where he cited you for your continual tardiness? A. Yes sir. Q. That, in fact, one time it became necessary for 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Barnhard to place you on a three-day suspension is that you never told Mr. Bennett that a vote for the because of your tardiness? union was a vote for his job? A. Yes sir. A. Sir, I don't believe I made that remark to any Q. After you returned for duty, he again cited you man in my employment. for continual tardiness and ultimately issued a notice of Q. So is it your testimony that you never made a discharge? remark that the men would be voting for their jobs during the next election? A. My answer still stands. A. Yes sir. Q. Now, Mr. Bennett, you have stated that Mr. Barnhard discussed with you that the Company would never sign a contract. Is that the best of your recollection? A. Yes sir. Q. Is it not true that Mr. Barnhard discussed with you that himself once had a business that he operated? A. Yes sir. Q. Is it not also true that he indicated that the business had been unionized? A. Yes sir. Q. That he had experienced in his prior business certain economic reversals? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Is it not also true that what he stated to you was because of his prior business experience and that he did not know how the Company could compete in the industry if it was unionized by this particular union? A. Yes sir. Q. Is it not also true that he never represented that this was management's opinion? A. No sir. Barnhard did not directly deny making any of the statements attributed to him by Bennett. Barnhard testified: Q. (By Mr. McGrath) . . . Now, do you have any recollection on or about January 4th of having called Mr. Bennett into your office-be it the 3rd or 5th or 6th-but somewhere around that time? A. No, I honestly don't recall. I do recall calling him in and filling out some cards, but I don't recall calling him into my office to discuss the union. Q. My question is: When he came in to fill out the cards [for new insurance forms] did the subject of the union come up, if you have any recollection? A. Again, I don't remember. Q. Did you ever discuss the Union with Mr. Bennett? A. Of the men employed, I had just about everyone walk up to me, and a number of them came in concerned about their jobs, and came in to me and discussed the union. I might have discussed the Union with Jim Bennett, yes. Q. Do you have any recollection of ever telling Mr. Bennett that a vote for the company was a vote to keep his job, and a vote for the Union would be a vote to lose his job? A. Absolutely not. 2. Conclusions I find that Barnhard did say to Bennett, in substance, on one or more occasions, (1) that Respondent would not sign a contract with the Union, (2) that the Union would strike and strikers would be replaced, and (3) that the men would be voting for their jobs in a Board-conducted election. Barnhard discussed the Union with "just about every one" of the employees under his supervision and had no recollection of any statement made to Bennett. Barnhard's equivocal denial of the statement that "the men would be voting for their jobs" is weakened by the sentence in his pretrial affidavit: I do not recall ever making the specific statement that the men would be voting for their jobs to anyone. Barnhard's statement of anticipatory refusal to sign a contract violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Webb Tractor and Equipment Co., 167 NLRB 383. Barnhard's statements that the Union would strike, that strikers would be replaced, and that the men would be voting for their jobs, constitute a "coercive threat" rather than an "honest forecast," and violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 616-620. D. Statement of Assistant Manager Edward Hodge, Alleged To Be a Promise of Benefit Hodge is one of the assistants to management and is the son of one of the owners of Respondent. After the first voting session, February 17, he had a brief conversation with the Union's observer, Bennett, in the locker room. 1. The testimony Bennett testified: Q. (By Mr. Litvack) ... what was said during this conversation with Mr. Hodge? A. I asked him how he thought the election was going to go and he told me he was confident that management was going to win and I told him I had worked hard for the Teamsters to get them elected because I thought we needed representation. He said that even if we do win, meaning management, that we would set up a Steering Committee and set up negotiations and benefits for employees and I said if they did that, if they set up this Steering Committee to work things out, that I would be glad to serve on it; and he said he would see about it. Q. (By Mr. Litvack) Mr. Barnhard, your testimony Q. (By Mr. McGrath) I believe you testified that Mr. Hodge told you that the Company could set up a GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY 477 steering committee or a grievance committee. Is that correct? A. He stated that they would set up a steering committee if they won the election. Q. I ask you to think back. Is it not true that you raised the question to Mr. Hodge about whether or not there would be any form of grievance or steering committee? A. I did not. That was the first I ever heard of it, that is, when he spoke of it to me. Q. Is it not true that you stated to Mr. Hodge that the main reason that you are for the Union was that the employees needed a grievance committee? A. I stated that they needed a Union to make the dairy adhere to the things they signed in the contract. Q. Now, at this time, is it your best recollection that you made no mention of a grievance or steering committee to Mr. Hodge? A. I did not. Q. Again directing your attention to Mr. Hodge's statement, is it not true that Mr. Hodge stated to you that the company could not or would not set up a grievance committee among the employees whether or not the Union won the election? A. That is not what he said. Edward M. Hodge testified that between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. on February 17, 1971, after the first half of the voting was over: [Mr. Bennett] was already in the locker room when I walked in there, and he asked me how the election was coming, and I'told him I wasn't at liberty to discuss it, and I wasn't sure. And he brought up the fact that he had heard rumors that there was going to be a grievance committee formed, or something of that nature. I think he stated that he wanted a union. He felt we ought to have a union, because he stated you couldn't go to management because we didn't have a grievance committee, or something of that nature. He asked me if we were going to have one whether they won or not, and I stated it wasn't the prerogative only of a union to have a grievance committee. We could have one without the union. It wasn't necessarily a patent that they had something of that nature. Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Bennett that if the company was successful, or if the Union lost the election, that management would institute a grievance committee. A. No, I did not. 2. Conclusion Both witnesses testified honestly to the best of their respective recollections. I conclude, on the basis of probabilities, that the recollection of Hodge is the more accurate. Hodge's statement, as reported by himself, contains no promise of benefit and it is true that an employer may have a grievance procedure (with appropri- ate safeguards) with or without a union contract . N.L.R.B. v. North American Aviation, Inc., 136 F.2d 898 (C.A. 9, 1943). E. Restriction of Employees to Their Work Stations 1. The testimony Howard Lee Faber operated the Uniloy machine (which made plastic milk bottles) the silk screen printing machine (which printed the labels on the- bottles) and the bottle- filling machine on the day shift from 12 noon to 3:30 p.m. Robert Jasmund was hired in January 1971 and operated the bottling machine during the regular evening shift hours of 3:30 p.m. to midnight. Faber who had been sent to management training school by Respondent was directed to instruct Jasmund in the operation of the Uniloy. It was explained to Faber that from time to time, he should "go away from the machine and keep an eye on him so that he would learn the trade better." Faber's workday ended at 8:30 p.m. Ernest Becerra was the working foreman on the evening shift and, from about 5 p.m., when Barnhard normally left for the day, until midnight, was the only person in the plant with any supervisory authority. In the agreement for consent election, approved by the Regional Director, working foremen were included in the bargaining unit, and Becerra voted in the election without challenge. Faber testified that he had many conversations with Becerra concerning the Union and the upcoming election. On Wednesday, February 3, 1971, between 8 p.m. and 8:35 p.m.: Mr. Becerra made the remark that if the Teamsters got in that Calori [Respondent's vice president and general manager] would never negotiate. I know that. To this, my response was, and these remarks were made in a high tone of voice, I responded, "Would you like to see it on black and white," and his response to me was, "No, I don't want to hear any more about it, and if I did, I wouldn't believe it anyway." Faber further testified that on Friday, February 5, at about 4 p.m. he was in the milkbox cooler to check on the run of homogenized milk for the day (away from his machines): Mr. Becerra approached me and he said, "Howard, it is necessary for us to know where all our employees are, so we will restrict you to your machine and you will stay there." To this, I replied, "Good. I will go to my machine and that way you will know where I am at all times" ... I went to my machine and I remained there until lunch break.... When it was time for me to take my lunch break, I left my machine to report my absence to Mr. Becerra and I raised my hand and I said, "Teacher, I am going to coffee...." * s • February 8th, at approximately 4:00 to 4:30 p.m. I was called in to Mr. Barnhard's office.... When I entered the room and took my seat, Mr. Barnhard asked of me if I had an argument with Mr. Becerra over the union, to which I replied, "Yes, sir." Then he informed me that Mr. Becerra also told him that I made a nasty remark to him to which I replied, "Yes sir." At this point he informed me that he had given all of 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his foremen instructions to send any man home and give him three days off for any snippy or nasty remarks. ... This is where that conversation ended, and I asked Mr. Barnhard if I could speak to him in private at which time he asked Mr. Becerra to leave. . . . Then Mr. Barnhard told me he was not interested in any personal problems of mine and would talk to me only concerning the operation of my machine or problems concerning it. At this point the conversation ceased and Mr. Barnhard made this final remark; "Come to me after the election and we will shake hands and be friends...." I asked him if that was a promise and he said that was a promise and from there I departed and I returned to my work station. Becerra testified that one night in January Barnhard found 95 percent of the staff upstairs and told Becerra that he was supposed to see that all of his men were at their stations in the plant. The following evening Becerra told the men on his crew, individually, that they should be at their machines. On the same evening, and before he instructed Faber to return to his machine. I received a complaint from Bob Jasmund. He was a new employee. He was working in on Uniloy and learning the filler. He told me that Howard Faber was walking away from his machine, Uniloy, and he was a little nervous and I don't blame him for being a bit nervous because it is a pretty big machine, * * * * * I reprimanded Howard because he was leaving his machine, the Uniloy, and this led to Howard calling me as I was going by and he would raise his hand and he would say, "Teacher." He had done this two or three times, so I told Howard, I think we better go see Mr. Barnhard, which we did. We both went in the office with Barney. Barney proceeded to tell him that my word there was to be followed and that was it. Barnhard testified: Well, Ernie came to me, and it was approximately after four o'clock, and he was very upset, and he had talked to Howard, and Howard was mocking him in front of the other men and making -a remark of "teacher". He had asked the man to stay on the job, and he had been making flip remarks of "teacher" three or four times to him and he was very shook up ... . Well I called Howard and Ernie both to my office. I asked Ernie to bring Howard in. And' as best I can recall, I tried to explain to Howard that I was holding Ernie responsible for the operation. He was the working foreman. When he asked a man to do something, the man should attempt to do it. I didn't think it was necessary to make a flip remark, and it was definitely a flip remark calling him "teacher" three or four times. Q. (By Mr. McGrath) Prior to this conversation with Mr. Faber and Mr. Becerra had you given any instructions to Mr. Becerra regarding the employees' staying at their work stations? A. Yes ... I can't exactly recollect what the time was. It was definitely before this incident, but I did walk in there after eleven o'clock one night, and all of the men were sitting upstairs. They were due to go home at twelve o'clock. I waited until the next day, and I called Ernie in. I explained to Ernie that there was plenty of work to be done on the premises, and they were to work until twelve o'clock. I expected him as the working foreman to know where these men are, and that when I come in there I can ask him where these men are, and he is aware of what is going on. Q. (By Mr. Litvak) Isn't it a fact that during this conversation with Mr. Faber, and while Mr. Becerra was present, that you told Faber,if he made any more remarks like that, that he would be subject to being sent home? A. What remarks. Q. Snippy remarks. A. No. I think I told the man that he was to do as the foreman told him to do, or he would be liable for a three-day suspension, as would any other man that was under Ernie's supervision. 2. Conclusion Becerra's instruction to Faber to return to his work station was prompted by Barnhard's reminder, and by Jasmund's complaint and by nothing else. Becerra and Faber had many arguments about the union, in one of which Faber stated that "the Teamsters can bring in some hard guys from Chicago, and start a little something here." The fact that one of these arguments occurred shortly before Faber was directed to return to his machine and stay there was purely coincidental. F. Failure to Pay Bennett for Worktime Spent as Observer for Union at National Labor Relations Board Election 1. The stipulation The following stipulation was received: Employee James Bennett acted as the observer for the Union during the conduct of the representation election at Employer's plant at 2750 Burtz Street, San Diego, California between the hours of 4:00 o'clock a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on February 17th, 1971. Employee Bennett's normal work shift began at 4:00 o'clock a.m. and ended at 12:30 p.m. Employee Bennett was not paid for the four and a half hour period in which he acted as the Union observer and during which he did not perform his normal work duties. Employee Bennett was told not to punch in at 4:00 o'clock but, rather, at 8:30 a.m., the time at which his duties in the election ended. Employee Bennett was only paid for the time he actually performed his work for the Employer on February 17, 1971 while those employees of the employer acting as observers for the Employer during the conduct of the election were paid for the time they spent in such capacity. 2. Conclusion Employees selected by- Respondent to act as observers at GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY the Board-conducted election were performing a service for the Respondent and were paid for the service. Bennett, while acting as an observer at the Board-conducted election, was performing a service for the Union. Bennett occupied a key position in Respondent's operation. He was the Uniloy operator, and it was necessary for the employer to pay his replacement, or to take the graveyard shift working foreman off supervision to maintain production during the first voting session. Bennett was not compelled to act as observer during his regular hours of work, and the Union could have designated an off-duty employee. In a similar situation, the Board has recently held that an employer did not violate the Act when, after three employees had been subpoenaed by a union as witnesses at a Board Hearing, it failed to pay them for time lost, while paying the regular wages of employee witnesses called by the employer. Electronic Research Co., 190 NLRB No. 143. The fact that the union in Electronic Research paid its witnesses, and that there is no evidence in this record that Bennett was compensated by the Union, is a distinction without a difference. The liability of an employer to make such payments should not be determined by the whim of the union. IV. ORDER SEVERING AND REMANDING CASE 21-RC-12045 The foregoing findings and conclusions are applicable both to the Complaint in Case 21-CA-9876 and to the Objections to Election in Case 21-RC-12045. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 102.35 (h) and 102.62(a) of the Board's Rules, and pursuant to the Regional Director's order of April 30, 1971, it is ordered that Case 21-RC-12045 be severed from the instant proceeding and remanded to the Regional Director. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, as set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VI. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it is necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights, and to take certain affirmative action including the posting of appropriate notices. 2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 45 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 479 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening employees with loss of employment in the event they selected the Union as their collective- bargaining representative and by threatening to refuse to sign a contract even if the employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(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. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 2 ORDER Respondent, Golden Arrow Dairy, its officers, succes- sors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening loss of employment or other reprisals to discourage membership in or activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization. (b) Threatening to refuse to sign a collective-bargaining agreement with any labor organization designated or selected by its employees to be their exclusive collective- bargaining representative. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant and facilities in San Diego, Vista, and Chula Vista, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" .3 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said 3 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board" 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .4 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 4 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " representative, and by threatening to refuse to sign a contract with said Union if it should be so selected: WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with loss of employment to discourage membership in or activities on behalf of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT refuse to sign a contract with any union selected by our employees to be their exclusive collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with our employ- ees' union activities. GOLDEN ARROW DAIRY (Employer) APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal law by threatening employees with loss of employment if they selected Salesdrivers, Helpers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 683, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as their collective-bargaining Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5254.