Over-The-Road Drivers, Local 544

OVER-THE-ROAD DRIVERS, LOCAL 544 389 Over-the-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers & Inside Employees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America and ITT Conti- nental Baking Co, Inc. and Emrich Baking Compa- ny and Stewart In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minne- sota, Inc. Cases 18-CC-487-1, 18-CC-487-2, and 18-CC-488 of Emrich, threatening management representatives of Continental, picketing the premises of Emrich and Continental, or threatening, coercing, or restraining any other neutral employer within its jurisdictional area, with an object of forcing these companies to cease doing business with Stewart In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc." DECISION April 30, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On March 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed an exception and a supporting brief, and the Respon- dent filed an answering brief. 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 exception and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order which is modified herein to conform to his recommended Remedy. 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Over-the-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers & Inside Employees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi- fied: Delete paragraph 1 from the recommended Order and substitute the following: "1. Cease and desist from threatening to call a strike of the employees of Bell Cold Storage, Inc., or of Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, destroying the products of Continental Baking Company, threatening physical personal violence to employees and management representatives of Emrich Compa- ny, having its pickets physically occupy the building 210 NLRB No. 50 THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in this proceeding was held on February 14, 1974, at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on complaint of the General Counsel against Over-The-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers and Inside Employ- ees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent or Local 544. On three separate charges filed, on January 8, 1974, by ITT Continental Baking Co. (Case 18-CC-481-1), on January 8, 1974, by Emrich Baking Company (Case 18-CC-487-2), and on January 18, 1974, by Stewart In- Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc. (Case 18-CC-488), the complaint issued on January 25, 1974. The sole issue in the case is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(iiXB) of the Act. Upon the entire record and from my observation of witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Steward In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture and wholesale distribution of sandwiches and related food products in Eden Praire, Minnesota. Stewart annually sells goods valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 is shipped from its facility in Minnesota annually to points directly outside the State. ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail distrib- ution of bakery products in and about the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Its annual revenues exceed $500,000 and it annually purchases goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 shipped to its Minneapolis location directly from sources outside the State. Emrich Baking Company is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of bakery products also in the city of Minneapolis. Emrich annually purchases goods and products valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 is shipped to its Minneapolis location directly from out-of-state sources. I find that Steward In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minneso- ta, Inc., ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., and Emrich Baking Company, are engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find that Over-The-Road, Transfer, Cold Storage, 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers and Inside Employ- ees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Issue Presented This is a secondary boycott case. Throughout the events explored at the hearing, Teamsters Local 544, the sole Respondent cited in the complaint, was engaged in a labor dispute with the Stewart Company, here therefore revealed as the primary employer; Local 544 represented Stewart's employees and had called them out on strike . Stewart normally buys bakery products from Continental Baking and Emrich Bakery, and it utilizes the storage facilities of Minneapolis Cold Storage Company and Bell Cold Storage Inc. The evidence shows that to further its objective against Stewart, Local 544 tried, in a number of ways, to curtail, or stop altogether, the business which Stewart did with all four of these last companies, which, accordingly, are the secondary or neutral employers in this proceeding. It had its pickets follow the Stewart trucks to the premises of the secondary companies and patrol them when they were at these locations loading in the regular course of business; it had its officers communicate with management representa- tives of these companies in the effort to interrupt the business carried on between the primary and the secondary employers; it had its pickets intimidate Stewart's employ- ees while they worked at the premises of the neutrals; and, it seems, it also had its pickets coerce and threaten employees of the secondary companies so as to restrain them too from working. There are also indications of acts of violence committed against the property of the neutrals and their employees-damage to the cars of secondary employees, destruction of the automobile of the manager of a neutral company, and bomb explosions in the buildings of neutral companies. The persuasiveness of the evidence offered to prove much of this picture of misconduct and violence varies from alleged incident to alleged incident ; some of it is not clear. What is absolutely clear in the total picture of the case is that the complaint is limited to a single proscriptive section of the statute-and it is Section 8(bX4XiiXB). The record as it stands could well support multiple unfair labor practice findings under other sections of the Act. The Respondent chose to rest at the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief. Whether or not the testimony of the witnesses suffices to establish this or that asserted fact is always a question, but absent some inherent and fundamental implausibility in their stories, they must be believed, for their testimony stands uncontradicted. It does not follow, however, that findings of statutory violations not alleged in the complaint can be made against the Respondent merely because the General Counsel proved them. Nor may unfair labor practice findings be made against other persons or organizations , merely because they have been proved, so long as such persons are not named as respondents in the proceeding. Clarification of this question is important at the outset because there is a certain fuzz at the edges of both the facts of record and the General Counsel's arguments. It is unlawful to induce and encourage the employees of neutral companies to strike, when the Respondent has a secondary objective. This is Section 8(bx4)(iXB). It is unlawful to restrain and coerce any employees in the right to refuse to join in with union, or concerted activities, no matter what union so treats them. This is Section 8(b)(IXA). Neither of these sections is mentioned in this complaint. Section 8(b)(4Xii)(B), which is in the complaint, says a union may not "threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce . . . ." This means, and at this late date there is no longer any question about it, that the union may not threaten, or coerce, the employer, or any representative of management. Section 8(b)(4XiiXB) has nothing to do with how a union behaves towards employees-anybody's employees-be it those of the primary or the secondary companies. At the hearing the General Counsel seemed to be arguing that if a union "induces" the neutral's employees to cease doing their regular work, the union simultaneously also thereby "coerces" their employer to stop doing business. The proposition obliterates two clear statutory distinctions-that separating inducement from coercion, and that distinguishing between an employer and its employees. Again, the General Counsel had a witness say that tires on the cars of employees of a neutral were slashed. Assuming it was proved this was done, on that Company's employee parking lot, by agents of the Respondent Union, it would be coercion upon those employees to cease work and a violation of Section 8(b)(IXA). The General Counsel's reasoning then becomes, as it must, that because a union coerces employees, it of necessity by the same act threatens their employer, and coercion of employees is thus equated with coercion of the employer. It could as persuasively be argued that if Congress had intended to make proof of violation of one precise section of the statute automatic violation of a totally separate one, it would have said so. Violations of Section 8(b)(4) 1. Local 544 resorted to the technique of having its pickets follow the Stewart trucks on their regular rounds. In the morning of December 26, 1973, one such truck arrived at the loading dock of Bell Cold Storage; two pickets were there, standing near the truck but on Bell's property, one with a sign saying "on strike-Stewart Sandwiches." Local 544 also represents the employees of Bell, and Charles Madden, president of Local 544, happens to be a Bell employee . While the Stewart truck was at the dock, Madden told Robert Golden, a general manager of Bell, that Bell's "employees could not unload it or would not unload it and our supervisor could not unload it," and that Golden "was asking for trouble to go ahead and do this." Gerald Robinson, Bell's assistant warehouse superin- tendent, was also present then. At one point Golden told him to go ahead and start unloading Stewart 's truck, but Madden, and a Local 544 steward named Tabery, then said, according to Robinson's testimony: "if I proceeded to pull the load out from out of the truck they would pull our people out of the warehouse." The truck, and the pickets, remained where they were, while on advice of counsel the OVER-THE-ROAD DRIVERS, LOCAL 544 391 Bell people did nothing. After 3 in the afternoon they did unload it. From that day to the time of the hearing on February 14, no Stewart trucks have come to this location of Bell's; by arrangement between the two companies they have transacted their businesses elsewhere. I find that by Madden's and Tabery's statements to the Bell company management agents that they would call Bell's employees out on strike if the Stewart trucks were unloaded, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4Xii)(B) of the Act. 2. Stewart also uses the cold storage facilities of Minneapolis Cold Storage. On January 4, 1974, Gerald Collier, vice president and business agent of Local 544, went to the place of business of the Minneapolis company. After talking to the union steward there, one John Marjack, Collier talked to Morris Luby, the traffic manager. From Luby's testimony: "He [Collins] said, `Did you realize 544 is on strike against Stewart Sandwiches?' ... He said, `Well, the goods that you took into this warehouse must not move from this warehouse.' He said, `If this happens again, we will call out your men.' " From that day to the hearing date Minneapolis Cold Storage has told Stewart not to send any of its trucks there, and none have gone. I find that by Collier's threat voiced to Luby that Local 544 would call a strike of the Minneapolis plant to enforce the demand that the Minneapolis company cease doing business with Stewart, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. On January 7, 1974, a Stewart truck arrived at the premises of Emrich, one of the baking companies which normally sells its products to Stewart. The pickets were gathered outside the fence 30 minutes before the truck came. When it did, about 14 pickets followed the truck into Emrich's property close to the loading dock; two carried signs reading "Stewart In-Fra-Red on strike. Stay away. Teamster Local 544." As the driver of the truck and his helper started to unload empty tray carriers of baked goods, later to be taken into the building by Emrich employees and loaded by them for replacement in the truck, about six of the pickets went inside the building and started to mill about. One of them asked Richard Donnelly, the production superintendent, was he going to help load the truck, and Donnelly said yes. There also appeared then Jerome Froehlig, business agent of Bakery Union 22; this is the union which represents Emrich's inside production employees. Froehlig told Donnelly: "What do you want to get involved in this for." One picket stood outside a fence, perhaps 3 or 4 feet away from the rear of the unloading truck, where the Stewart helper was working. He yelled to the helper "he would tear his goddamned head off. He called him a scab." With all the confusion two policemen who were trying to keep things quiet told the pickets to withdraw from the company property and to stand outside, on the road or the sidewalk. Soon no less than four company managers of one kind or another were pushing carts out of the building to load them onto the truck; these were Donnelly, Emrich, Anderson, and Marsh. With this, five or six pickets again came on the property along the side of the truck and one of them, despite the efforts of a policeman to prevent him, deliberately threw over a loaded carrier of bakery products Emrich himself was trying to get onto the truck; the food fell to the ground. Another picket stepped on it, then himself threw over another fully loaded food carrier, and said to Emrich: "We are going to get you." The police finally persuaded the pickets to return to the sidewalk. The two policemen then on duty testified at the hearing. One of them, Anatoli Globa, said he took the lead picket-the first to throw over the food carrier-to his patrol car and checked his identity. It was Collier, the Local 544 vice president. When the policemen told Collier "he shouldn't be doing" such things, the answer was "he wanted to scare them and wanted to teach them a lesson." I find that by this total activity at the Emrich plant that day the Respondent threatened and coerced the Emrich company and its representatives in violation of Section 8(b)(4Xii)(B) of the Act. This was no mere following of the truck of a primary employer to publicize a primary labor dispute. Such mass picketing of a single truck having only two employees of the primary employer, such unauthorized occupation of the very inside premises of the secondary employer, such direct threats voiced to management agents, and outright physical destruction of the property of the secondary company for the exact object of forcing it to cease doing business with the primary employer, constitute the clearest violations of the section in question. Jeffery Emrich, the company witness, also testified that on January 8, the day following this incident , he saw on the parked cars of his employees, 15 slashed tires, and that on November 27 a bomb had been exploded at his building, the damage including many broken window panes. The witness implied at the hearing it was his belief the vandalism he described had been caused by the pickets, and, of necessity, by agents of Local 544 . There is no evidence otherwise tying responsibility to Local 544. Suspicion is not tantamount to proof . I do not think it fair to make the inference of illegal conduct by the Respon- dent, as urged by the General Counsel, with respect to this damage seen by Emrich. 4. Continental Baking also sells its products to Stewart; its employees are represented by Teamster Local 289. On November 26, Ray Wallin, business agent of Local 289, telephoned Fred Grenier, general manager of Continental, as Grenier testified, and ". . . instructed me or advised me that I was not to deliver any products or produce any products for Stewart In-Fra-Red because they were on strike with Local 544. . . . He [Wallin] didn't want any of his people handling any products that was going to Stewart In-Fra-Red. He asked me if I knew who headed Local 544 and I said no, I didn't. He then told me that an individual by the name of Fred Snyder was in charge of Local 544 and that Mr. Snyder was the type of an individual who would resort to any means to get what he wanted . . . Grenier told Wallin the Company would continue to do business as it always had. The next day, still according to Grenier, an explosive was thrown at the Continental Baking Building, causing considerable damage. There came a time when both Continental and Emrich took to loading their products onto Stewart's trucks at another location, a Continental plant 6 miles away from where that Company normally did business with Stewart. Here, on Monday, December 3, at a loading area of that 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant, a Stewart truck was : being loaded-back ^ to back -from a Continental truck, and also from an Emrich truck. As the work was going on, Wallin, of Local 289, bargaining agent for Continental's route salesmen, ap- peared, and told Frank Stupca, a Continental sales supervisor: "we were to quit loading the Stewart truck or we would be out of work, they would shut us down." The loading of the Stewart truck ceased and it left. Stupca also testified that "the weekend of December 1st or 2nd," there was a fire in his garage and his car "burned up. On December 26, as a Stewart truck arrived at Continental, Collier, the vice president of Local 544, came and talked to the highest management representative then present, John Sorenson, a sales supervisor. He said "I don't want that Stewart truck loaded." Sorenson answered the Stewart people loaded their own truck and that Continen- tal's employees were represented by Local 289, not Local 544. To this Collier said "As of now this implicates you and everybody here." Sorenson checked with his superiors and went ahead with the regular work. The Stewart truck came on the premises, Stewart pickets followed it in, and then threw nails into the truck well, where the truck had to come and stand. Sorenson ordered the pickets to remove the nails, and they did, but only after the Stewart truck had left. That same day, Wallin, of Local 289, telephoned Robert Gorden, another sales manager, and asked would he meet with Wallin and a representative of the Bakers Union, because he, Wallin, "was afraid that there might be a possibility of somebody getting killed the way the Stewart situation was going." The next day, December 27, there was a meeting in the Radisson Hotel in Minneapolis. Present were Froehlig, of Bakers Local 22, Wallin of Local 289, and Jack Jorgenson, president of Teamsters Joint Council No. 32. Local 289 and Local 544 are both members of the Joint Council. For employers, there were Gordon of Continental, George Emrich, of Emrich Baking Co., Jerry Grueland, of American Bakeries, and John Coolidge, of Sinsmaster Bakery Company. Froehlig and Wallin told the employer representatives they feared "some physical violence erupting from the happenings," and had been receiving calls from their members voicing fear of violence in consequence of the strike and picketing activities of Local 544. Jorgenson said he thought the companies were "hindering the progress of the strike by continuing to bake . . . he thought if we discontinued baking the product and serving the account that they could reach an agreement with Stewart." When a company agent expressed fear he might lose the business to outsiders, Jorgenson assured him the unions would find a way to guard against that. The company people said they would think about the suggestion and then Jorgenson said "if the production continued, if the product continued to flow into Stewart that he wouldn't be responsible for what might happen so far as the picketing was concerned." There is much on this record to indicate that word of the excessive picketing activities by Local 544 at the premises of neutral companies was passed from one of them to another. When 14 pickets accompany a single truck, which has only one or two employees of the primary company on it, and they clutter about the loading platform at the secondary situs, it is difficult to believe that that union's object was solely to reach the loading or unloading of the one truck. Picketing in such numbers carries a broader threat that is not too thinly veiled. When Collier told Sorenson he did "not want Stewart's trucks loaded," his words carried more than a polite request, it was more than an invitation to voluntary cooperation. The Respondent skirted the border of legality altogether too much; its pickets regularly arrived long before Stewart's trucks and sometimes stayed near the secondary premises for quite a while only to have no Stewart truck arrive at all. They were not "following the primary situs"; they were passing a message to all employees in sight-and particularly those of the secondary employers. In the light of everything else shown here, I find that Collier's statement to Sorenson constituted a threat in violation of Section 8(bX4XiiXB). I also find, on the basis of the testimony of several witnesses, including one of the policemen, all uncontradicted, that by appearing at the premises of both Emrich and Continental, long before any Stewart truck arrived, as well as when it did not arrive at all, and by picketing on and off the premises of these secondary employers in numbers some- times reaching into 12 and 14 persons, the Respondent effectively picketed the premises of the neutral employers, apart from any concept of following primary vehicles, and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4XiiXB). As to the activities of the other union agents, Froehlig, Wallin, and Jorgenson, in their talks with Continental and the other bakery companies in the hotel meeting, a different question is presented. Concededly they gave no overt indication they represented Local 544, or had been sent by that particular local, or intended to speak on its behalf. Certainly the fact that Respondent was a member of the Council is not enough to merge Council and its component member into a single labor organization for purposes of prosecution under Section 8(b) of this Act. Moreover, what they told the baking companies on its face shows perfect objective basis for their request that the secondaries voluntarily yield to what was no more than a pure request. They had a right to ask for cooperation, they articulated adequate grounds-fears expressed by their members, and they were not named respondent here. To base an unfair labor finding against Local 544 in this proceeding upon what was said by anyone in that meeting would require inference upon inference. It would have to be inferred Jorgenson and the others intended a threat, although they did not use threatening words. It would also have to be inferred they were agents of Local 544, although the evidence on its face does not show this. I find unpersuasive the argument in the General Counsel's brief that because the Respondent did not prove that Jorgenson and Wallin did not represent Local 544, it follows that they did represent Local 544. I can make no such conclusionary finding of illegality with respect to Local 544 as the complaint proposes. I think the same must be said of the testimony about a fire in the home garage of Frank Stupca and the damage to the building of Continental Baking. There is no proof all of this was the doing of Local 544 or its agents, and the OVER-THE-ROAD DRIVERS, LOCAL 544 393 statute requires no less to support an unfair labor practice finding. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent and its agents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the statutory scheme requires that an order be entered requiring it to cease and desist from such practices. The violations of the proscriptions of the statute reveal so flagrant and extensive a disregard of the dictates of law as to require that the Respondent be enjoined not only to cease and desist from hereafter violating this section of the statute with respect to these particular secondary employers, but also with respect to any other neutral employers within its jurisdictional area. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of all four of the companies discussed above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Stewart, Emrich, and Continental are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent Local 544 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening to call a strike of the employees of Bell Cold Storage, Inc., and of Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, by destroying the products of Continental Baking, by threatening physical personal violence to employees and management representatives of Emrich, by having its pickets physically occupy the building of Emrich, by threatening a management representative of Continental, and by picketing the premises of Emrich and Continental, all for the purpose of forcing each of these named employers to cease doing business with Stewart In- Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc., the Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of 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: ORDER1 The Respondent, Over-the-Road, Transfer, Cold Stor- age, Grocery and Market Drivers, Helpers and Inside Employees Union, Local 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening to call a strike of the employees of Bell Cold Storage, Inc., or of Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, destroying the products of Continental Baking Company, threatening physical per- sonal violence to employees and management representa- tives of Emrich Company, having its pickets physically occupy the building of Emrich, threatening management representatives of Continental, or picketing the premises of Emrich and Continental, with an object of forcing these companies to cease doing business with Stewart In-Fra- Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be duly furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent Union, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the Regional Director for Region 18, for posting by ITT Continental Baking Company, Emrich Baking Company, Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, and Bell Cold Storage, such employers being willing, at all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 1 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. 2 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain ITT Continental Baking Company, Emrich Baking Compa- ny, Minneapolis Cold Storage Company, Bell Cold Storage, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require it to cease doing business with Stewart In-Fra-Red Commissary of Minnesota, Inc. 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OVER-THE-ROAD, T* TSFER, COLD STORAGE, GROOERY AND MARKET DRIVERS, HELPERS AND INSIDE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 544, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) 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, 316 Federal Building, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 , Telephone 612-725-2611.