Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Co.

614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company and Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111. Case 16-CA-4532 March 21, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On January 26, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Henry L. Segal issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu- sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. ' The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HENRY L. SEGAL, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, was heard in Dallas, Texas, on December 14, 1971.1 The charge was filed by the Union on October 22 (amended November 29), and the complaint was issued on November 23. The primary issue is whether the Respondent refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by: (a) bargaining directly and individually with employees in the unit, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment, and (b) unilaterally decreasing the rates of pay specified in a collective-bargaining contract. The Respon- dent answered denying the refusal to bargain. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of I All dates are in 1971 unless otherwise stated 2 The unit descriptions set forth at this point will only describe the the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, a Texas corporation, is engaged in the bakery business at its bakery in Dallas, Texas. During the 12 months' period from November 23, 1970, to November 23, 1971, a representative period, the Respondent received gross income in excess of $500,000 from the sale and distribution of bakery products . During the same period, Respondent purchased and received within the State of Texas goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States of the United States other than the State of Texas. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background During 1930, two bakery companies, Oak Cliff Baking Company and Golman Baking Company, were established by the same families. Each company was located at separate plants in Dallas. During 1965, while the two companies were separate entities, the Union was certified as collective-bargaining representative for employees in four separate units: 2 (a) All bakery production employees employed by Oak Cliff Baking Company and Golman Baking Company, Inc., at their Dallas, Texas, plants-certified on July 21, 1965, in Case 16-RC-3913. (b) All maintenance and sanitation employees and porters employed by Oak Cliff Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant-certified on July 21, 1965, in Case 16-RC-3913. (c) All maintenance and sanitation employees and porters employed by Golman Baking Company, Inc., at its Dallas, Texas, plant-certified on July 21, 1965, in Case 16-RC-3913. (d) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant-certified on September 10, 1965, in Case 16-RC-3979. The two companies were merged into Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company on November 15, 1969. For economic reasons the Golman Baking Company plant was leased to another party not involved in this matter and the merged company was located at one plant, the Oak Cliff plant. A large number of the Golman employees were terminated and the remainder were transferred to the Oak Cliff plant. The Respondent and Union are currently parties to a multiemployer collective-bargaining contract signed on September 9, 1970, which provides with respect to duration that the contract shall remain in full force and effect until and including July 22, 1972.3 The agreement, by specific reference, covers employees inclusions 3 The employer signatories to the contract are American Bakeries 202 NLRB No. 72 OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING CO 615 in units certified in vanous Board cases including those mentioned above covering employees of the Respondent. The only employees of Respondent not covered by the contract are sales department, thrift store, and office clerical employees. B. The Relevant Contract Provisions Article IX, section 9.4 of the contract provides for specific increases in hourly wage rates for the vanous classifications of employees effective the beginning pay period nearest July 25, 1971.4 Article XIV provides for a grievance and arbitration procedure to resolve "disputes ansing between the Em- ployer and the Union and/or employees concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Agreement." Section 16.1 of article XVI provides a nonopening clause, whereby each party agrees that the other party would not be obligated to bargain with respect to any subject matter covered in the agreement, or with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in the agreement, even though such subject or matter may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both the parties at the time the agreement was negotiated or signed. C. The Reduction in Hourly Wage Rates The basic facts herein are mainly undisputed. It was stipulated by the parties that Respondent was in severe financial trouble in October. To keep from having to close its business Respondent found it necessary to reduce its costs. Among the steps taken to reduce costs the Respondent revoked, effective on October 7, the wage increase given on the pay period nearest July 25, pursuant to section 9.4, article IX of the contract. This reduction was reflected in the paychecks distributed on October 14 and 15.5 During October, management conducted a series of meetings and conferences related to the wage reduction which took effect on October 7. The principal spokesman for management at the meetings was Larry Golman, executive vice president. The first conference conducted on October 5 was with the President's five or six department heads. Larry Golman explained problems Respondent had encountered with its bank creditors and the difficulties of meeting competition. He told the department heads that they would have to take a 10-percent reduction in salaries. (Unlike unit employees they had received no increases since 1970.)6 Golman also advised the department heads that he was meeting with the Union to obtain the Union's approval for a reduction in wage rates for the unit employees and cautioned them not to discuss the matter with the unit employees. Later in the morning on October 5, pursuant to a telephone call made by Larry Golman on October 4 to Company, Mrs Baird's Bread Company, ITT-Continental Baking Compa- ny, Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company, The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Incorporated, Dallas Bakery, Manor Baking Company; Bakery Division, Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Dallas, Texas ' Most of the classifications were increased by 35 cents per hour 5 The Respondent also reduced its employee complement during the Henry Molloy, financial secretary and business agent of the Union, a meeting was held in Larry Golman's office. The Union was represented by Molloy and Jack Kimber- lin, assistant business agent. In addition to Larry Golman, who was principal spokesman, Jake Golman, chairman of the board, and Phillip Golman, president, were present for the Respondent. Larry Golman reviewed the financial problems of the Respondent and advised that the Golmans had thought of closing down, but in deference to its good employees they were taking drastic steps to keep the Respondent in operation. He advised that nonunit person- nel, including the officials, had taken a cut. Further, he advised that he would have to reduce the wages of the union people down to what their wages were before the July 1971 increase given pursuant to the contract. He asked for the Union's "blessings." Molloy explained that he could not give the Union's "blessings" as employees were involved who could grieve. Further, he explained that the contract was a multiemployer contract and if the Union agreed to a reduction the other employer signatories would ask for the same decrease.? Golman indicated that he understood the Union's position, but he had to do what was necessary. Molloy noted that Earl Teatrick, executive vice president of the International Union was coming to town and requested that a meeting be arranged on the matter when Teatrick could attend. Thereupon a further meeting with Teatrick was agreed to for October 8. During the course of the meeting, Golman offered financial statements to Molloy and Kimberlin for their inspection, but they declined as they did not question Golman's contention as to the poor financial condition of the Respondent. Also during the meeting, Golman requested that Molloy and Kimberlin not discuss the matter of reduction in wages with the employees. A third meeting was conducted by Golman on October 5, this one with personnel from the sales department, who were not represented by the Union. Golman reiterated the same points that he had made in his earlier meeting with the department heads. The fourth meeting conducted on October 5 was with the working foremen, who are included in the unit. Golman explained the financial problems of the Respondent to the working foremen and told them they would have to take a reduction in wages back to what they were prior to the July increase. He also requested that they discuss the situation with their coworkers. On October 8, the previously scheduled meeting was held between Larry, Jake, and Phil Golman for the Respondent and Molloy, Kimberlin, and Earl Teatrick, International executive vice president, for the Union. Larry Golman went over the same ground for Teatrick's benefit as he had at the October 5 meeting with Molloy and Kimberlin. He showed his books to Teatrick, but Teatrick also declined to look at them as he agreed with Golman's version of the latter part of 1971 by cutting 15 unit employees, 2 office employees, a sales manager, 2 supervisors, and several routemen 6 Officials of the Respondent reduced their own salaries by 21 percent. 7 The Respondent pointed out in the record that the other employer signatories are larger operations Some of them are segments of large chains or divisions of large conglomerates. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's finances. Golman again asked for the Union's blessings.8 Teatrick explained that the Union could not go along with the wage reduction because the contract was a multiemployer contract and the Union would have to grant corresponding adjustments to the other employers. Golman replied that he had no alternative but to decrease the rates of pay or close the plant. On October 12, 1971, Larry Golman posted a notice in the bakery announcing a series of three meetings of employees to be held in the production office on October 13, 1971. The notice requested that the employees try to attend one of the meetings, and announced that the meetings concerned the Company's situation. Further, it stated that management would try to explain emergency actions taken by the Company in order to "protect and insure" the employees' future. A total of 72 employees out of approximately 135 in the unit attended the meetings. At all of the meetings, Larry Golman explained the financial situation of the Company and announced that among the actions taken to keep the Company in operation was a reduction in wage rates of unit employees to what they were prior to the July increase. Further it was announced that this reduction would be effective October 7. Many employees indicated that they were willing to accept the decrease to protect theirjobs.9 One employee testified that after the meeting he attended, Jake Golman talked to him individually about the Respondent's problems. Other employees overheard the conversation. Subsequent to the reduction in wages, at the request of some of the employees, the Union filed a grievance with Respondent on behalf of each individual employee on October 18, citing the wage reduction as a violation of section 9.4 of article IX of the contract. As of the time of the hearing, no action had been taken on the grievance. D. Concluding Findings It is undisputed that during the term of the parties' collective-bargaining contract, the Respondent, in com- plete disregard of its contractual comnutments, unilaterally reduced the wage rates of its employees included in the appropriate collective-bargaining units. Section 8(d) of the Act, which defines the obligation to bargain, not only imposes an obligation on each party to a contract to refrain from modifying the contract without complying with the notice and waiting periods therein set forth, but also expressly provides that the "duties so unposed shall not be construed as requiring either party to discuss or agree to any modification of the terms and conditions contained in a contract of a fixed term, if such modification is to become effective before such terms and conditions can be reopened under the terms of the contract." Here, the contract was not subject to a reopener at the time the wage rates were reduced. The Union did not agree to the reduction and under the provisions of Section 8(d) it was 8 During the course of the meeting, Golman indicated that he had spoken to the working foremen and had requested that they speak to the other employees about the Respondent's problems , that the working foremen reported back that the employees would rather take a decrease than have the plant closed down 9 The Union was not advised that these meetings were to be held and no nonemployee official of the Union was invited 10 Osage Manufacturing Company, 173 NLRB 458, 461-462, C & S not required to do so. The Respondent's unilateral change in wages which is a basic term or condition of employment manifestly constitutes a "modification" within the meaning of Section 8(d). Such action by the Respondent clearly being in derogation of its statutory obligation under Section 8(d) was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.'° The Respondent contends principally that economic necessity justified its actions. The General Counsel and the Union stipulated that Respondent was in poor financial condition, and the Respondent, at its various meetings with the employees and Union stressed its financial condition as necessitating the reduction. None- theless, financial necessity is not a defense to such unilateral action.ii In support of its position that its action was justified, Respondent suggests in its brief that it withdrew from the contract and cites a Board case U.S. Lingerie Corp., 170 NLRB 750. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent even attempted to withdraw from the total contract (which it could not do lawfully), and the case cited is distinguishable. That case involved the timeliness of a withdrawal from a multiemployer associa- tion under extraordinary circumstances, where the Em- ployer's financial difficulty predated commencement of negotiations and the Employer withdrew in order to relocate to another geographical area. The Respondent also contends that involved is a breach of contract, and not an unfair labor practice. However, it does not follow where given conduct is of a kind otherwise condemned by the Act, that the Board is powerless to determine whether an unfair labor practice was committed and to afford appropriate remedial relief simply because the conduct also constitutes a breach of contract.12 The Respondent contends further as a defense that inasmuch as the contract provides for a grievance and arbitration procedure to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of the contract, the Board should defer to that procedure, especially since the Union did file a grievance. (As noted the grievance is pending and no action was taken on it as of the time of the hearing.) The Board, in a very recent case, considered the issue of whether it should withhold its processes where the contract prescribes a machinery for resolving a dispute.13 The Board noted that, "Although Section 10(a) of the Act, clearly vests the Board with jurisdiction over conduct which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 8, notwithstanding the existence of methods of `adjustment or prevention that might be established by agreement,' nothing in the act intimates that the Board must exercise jurisdiction where such methods exist." The Board did defer to arbitration. However, unlike the present case, the Collyer case involved a situation where the resolution of the dispute turned on the interpretation of specific contractual provisions, and the employer claimed contractual privilege. The Board stated Industries, Inc, 158 NLRB 454, 457-459, C & C Plywood Corporation, 148 NLRB 414, 415, set aside 351 F 2d 224 (C A 9), reversed 385 U S 421 ii Osage Manufacturing Company, supra, at 462, C & S Industries, Inc, supra, at 460 i2 Osage Manufacturing Company, supra, at 462, C & S Industries, Inc, supra, at 458, Kinard Trucking Company, Inc, 152 NLRB 449,450 13 Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co, 192 NLRB No 150 OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING CO 617 with respect to the issues involved, "In our view, disputes such as these can better be resolved by arbitrators with special skill and experience in deciding matters ansing under established bargaining relationships than by the application by this Board of a particular provision of our statute." However, the instant case is distinguishable from Collyer. The Respondent herein did not contend that the contract clause providing for a wage rate increase in July required any interpretation. In fact, in July, when the wage increase was due, the Respondent did not question its obligation and it did put the increase into effect. The clause in question was clear and unambiguous, and did not require the special competence of an arbitrator to deter- mine its meaning. Under these circumstances, I do not believe that the Board should withhold its authority to resolve the unfair labor practice and defer to arbitration.14 The finding of an unfair labor practice here does not conflict with the Board's theory in Collyer favoring voluntary settlement of contractual disputes through arbitral processes since there is no contractual dispute in this case. There remains one other issue for resolution. In addition to the allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally decreasing rates of pay, the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent, during the month of October, bargained directly and individually with employees in the unit also in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. However, I do not find that the Respondent engaged in individual or direct bargaining with the employees at its meetings and conferences with employees in the unit on October 5 and 13 in violation of the Act. It is clear that Respondent had decided to reduce the wage rates before any meetings were held. These meetings , although the Respondent explained the reasons for its actions, amounted to no more than notification to the employees of a predetermined course of action to which Respondent was committed.15 In sum, I find and conclude that the Respondent, by unilaterally reducing the wage rates of its employees in the unit on October 7 in derogation of its statutory obligation under Section 8(d) of the Act, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following constitute units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 16 (a) All bakery production employees employed by 14 C & S Industries, Inc, supra, 459-460 See also C & C Plywood Corporation, supra 15 See Huttig Sash and Door Company, 154 NLRB 811, 817, affd 377 F2d964(CA 8) The many cases cited by the counsel for General Counsel and Union in their briefs in support of the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and super- visors as defined in the Act. (b) All maintenance and sanitation employees and porters employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Com- pany at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff- Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, including production employees, maintenance employees, porter and sanita- tion employees, office clerical employees, driver-sales employees, transport drivers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid units within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By unilaterally reducing the wages of the employees in the aforesaid units during the term of its collective- bargaining contract with the Union, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices insofar as the complaint alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act, including the posting of the notice attached to this Decision. Since the Respondent, in derogation of its statutory obligation, unilaterally reduced the wage rates of its employees during the term of the collective-bargaining contract covering the employees involved, I recommend that the Respondent be directed specifically to restore the wage rates in effect prior to such unilateral action and to refrain from making unilateral changes in wages, rates of pay, or other terms and conditions of employment of its employees in the above-described appropriate units during the term of the contract without first reaching agreement with the Union concerning such contemplated changes. Further, I recommend that the Respondent make whole the employees in the above-described appropriate units for any losses they may have suffered as a result of the unilateral reduction in wage rates, and include thereon bargained directly with the employees are distinguishable. In the main, they deal with situations where the employers made offers to employees seeking acceptances , designed to repudiate their unions or to induce their return to work in strike situations 16 I have modified the unit descriptions to reflect the new name of the Respondent resulting from the merger described in sec II, A, above 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716. Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor practices, found to have been engaged in by Respondent, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is ordered that the Respondent, Oak Cliff- Golman Baking Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 17 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Umon of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. I11, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the following units with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment: (1) All bakery and production employees employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and super- visors as defined in the Act. (2) All maintenance and sanitation employees and porters employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Com- pany at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (3) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff- Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, including production employees, maintenance employees, porter and sanita- tion employees, office clerical employees, driver-sales employees, transport drivers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Instituting changes in wages, rates of pay, or other terms and conditions of employment of its employees in the above-described appropriate units during the effective term of the contract covering said employees without first consulting with and bargaining with the Umon concerning such changes and reaching agreement on any modification of the terms of the contract. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Restore to the employees in the above-described units the wage rates in effect prior to the reduction in wage rates unilaterally instituted by the Respondent on October 7, 1971, and make said employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of such reduction, and include therein interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Dallas, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19 I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. 17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 18 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the units described below, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. The units are: (1) All bakery production employees em- ployed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, professional employees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All maintenance and sanitation employees and porters employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING CO. 619 excluding all other employees, professional em- ployees, technical employees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (3) All garage employees employed by Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company at its Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees, including production employees, maintenance employees, porter and sanitation employees, office clerical employees, driver-sales employees, transport drivers, guards, watchmen, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT institute changes in wages, rates of pay, or other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the above-described units during the effective term of the current collective-bargaining contract with the above-named Union without first consulting with and bargaining with the Union con- cerning such changes and reaching agreement on any modification of the terms of the contract. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL restore to the employees in the above- described units the wage rates in effect prior to the unilateral reduction in wage rates instituted on October 7, 1971, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of such reduction in wage rates. Dated By OAK CLIFF-GOLMAN BAKING COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material . Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.