Bakery, Incorporated, The

766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Bakery, Incorporated and American Federation why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 58. Case 8- Judgment should not be granted. Respondent CA-14856-2 thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show December 16 1981 Cause and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. December 16, 1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DECISION AND ORDER National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Upon a charge filed on May 15, 1981, an amend- Board makes the following: ed charge filed on June 4, 1981, and a second Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment amended charge filed on June 25, 1981, by Ameri- can Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local In its answer to the complaint, its response to the 58, herein called the Union, and duly served on Notice To Show Cause, and its Cross-Motion for The Bakery, Incorporated, herein called Respond- Summary Judgment, Respondent admits its refusal ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor to bargain with the Union and to supply the Union Relations Board, by the Regional Director for with the requested information. Respondent denies, Region 8, issued a complaint on June 29, 1981, however, that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had and (1) of the Act, arguing that the election held engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- on November 13, 1980, should have been set aside tices affecting commerce within the meaning of for the reasons set forth in its exceptions to the Re- Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of gional Director's Report on Objections to Election. the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent also asserts that, since the Regional Di- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of rector did not conduct a hearing on Respondent's hearing before an administrative law judge were objections to the election, all affidavits referred to duly served on the parties to this proceeding. and relied on in his Report on Objections should With respect to the unfair labor practices, the be included in and made part of the record in Case complaint alleges in substance that on March 23, 8-RC-12270. 1981, following a Board election in Case 8-RC- Review of the record herein, including the 12270,1 the Union was duly certified as the exclu- record in Case 8-RC-12270, shows that on No- sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- vember 13, 1980, an election was held pursuant to spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- and that, commencing on or about May 11, 1981, tion in which a majority of the unit employees des- and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, ignated the Union as their representative for pur- and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec- poses of collective bargaining. Thereafter, Re- tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining spondent filed timely objections to the conduct of representative, although the Union has requested the election alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner and is requesting it to do so, and in addition has re- engaged in improper preelection offers to waive its fused and continues to date to refuse, as requested initiation fee for any employee who joined the Pe- by the Union, to provide the Union with informa- titioner prior to the election and that such conduct tion necessary for collective bargaining. On July interfered with the holding of a free election. The 10, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- objections were overruled in their entirety by the plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- Regional Director in his Report on Objections, legations in the complaint. issued December 12, 1980. In so doing, the Region- On July 23, 1981, counsel for the General Coun- al Director stated that the only evidence that was sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum- presented concerning an objectionable waiver of mary Judgment. Subsequently, on July 29, 1981, initiation fees under N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufactur- the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1975), was the testimony of ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause an employee witness that she believed she had been told by another employee that the waiver was con- 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, tingent upon signing a union membership card Case 8-RC-12270, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and prior to the election. The Regional Director found 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystemsn Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th there was no evidence that the employee alleged to Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 have made the statement was acting as an agent of F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 the Petitioner and he concluded that such a tate- (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. ment by one employee to another employee would 259 NLRB No. 99 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Bakery, Incorporated and American Federation why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 58. Case 8- Judgment should not be granted. Respondent CA-14856-2 thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show December 16, 1981 Cause and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DECISION AND ORDER National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Upon a charge filed on May 15, 1981, an amend- Bo a rd m a k e s t h e following: ed charge filed on June 4, 1981, and a second Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment amended charge filed on June 25, 1981, by Ameri- can Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local In its answer to the complaint, its response to the 58, herein called the Union, and duly served on Notice To Show Cause, and its Cross-Motion for The Bakery, Incorporated, herein called Respond- Summary Judgment, Respondent admits its refusal ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor to bargain with the Union and to supply the Union Relations Board, by the Regional Director for with the requested information. Respondent denies, Region 8, issued a complaint on June 29, 1981, however, that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had and (1) of the Act, arguing that the election held engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- on November 13, 1980, should have been set aside tices affecting commerce within the meaning of for the reasons set forth in its exceptions to the Re- Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of gional Director's Report on Objections to Election. the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent also asserts that, since the Regional Di- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of rector did not conduct a hearing on Respondent's hearing before an administrative law judge were objections to the election, all affidavits referred to duly served on the parties to this proceeding. and relied on in his Report on Objections should With respect to the unfair labor practices, the be included in and made part of the record in Case complaint alleges in substance that on March 23, 8-RC-12270. 1981, following a Board election in Case 8-RC- Review of the record herein, including the 12270, 1 the Union was duly certified as the exclu- record in Case 8-RC-12270, shows that on No- sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- vember 13, 1980, an election was held pursuant to spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- and that, commencing on or about May 11, 1981, tion in which a majority of the unit employees des- and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, ignated the Union as their representative for pur- and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec- poses of collective bargaining. Thereafter, Re- tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining spondent filed timely objections to the conduct of representative, although the Union has requested the election alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner and is requesting it to do so, and in addition has re- engaged in improper preelection offers to waive its fused and continues to date to refuse, as requested initiation fee for any employee who joined the Pe- by the Union, to provide the Union with informa- titioner prior to the election and that such conduct tion necessary for collective bargaining. On July interfered with the holding of a free election. The 10, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- objections were overruled in their entirety by the plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- Regional Director in his Report on Objections, legations in the complaint,.issued December 12, 1980. In so doing, the Region- On July 23, 1981, counsel for the General Coun- al Director stated that the only evidence that was sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum- presented concerning an objectionable waiver of mary Judgment. Subsequently, on July 29, 1981, initiation fees under N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufactur- the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1975), was the testimony of ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause an employee witness that she believed she had been told by another employee that the waiver was con- 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, tingent Upon signing a Union membership Card Case 8-RC-12270, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and prior to the election. The Regional Director found 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystents. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th there was no evidence that the employee alleged to cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 have made the statement was acting as an agent of F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 ,L ppt,,innr and hp rnnlnrfp that snch a <tate- (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 the Petitioner and he Concluded tat SUCH a state- (7th cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended, ment by one employee to another employee would 259 NLRB No. 99 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Bakery, Incorporated and American Federation why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 58. Case 8- Judgment should not be granted. Respondent CA-14856-2 thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show December 16, 1981 Cause and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DECISION AND ORDER National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Upon a charge filed on May 15, 1981, an amend- Bo a rd m a k e s t h e following: ed charge filed on June 4, 1981, and a second Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment amended charge filed on June 25, 1981, by Ameri- can Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local In its answer to the complaint, its response to the 58, herein called the Union, and duly served on Notice To Show Cause, and its Cross-Motion for The Bakery, Incorporated, herein called Respond- Summary Judgment, Respondent admits its refusal ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor to bargain with the Union and to supply the Union Relations Board, by the Regional Director for with the requested information. Respondent denies, Region 8, issued a complaint on June 29, 1981, however, that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had and (1) of the Act, arguing that the election held engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- on November 13, 1980, should have been set aside tices affecting commerce within the meaning of for the reasons set forth in its exceptions to the Re- Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of gional Director's Report on Objections to Election. the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent also asserts that, since the Regional Di- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of rector did not conduct a hearing on Respondent's hearing before an administrative law judge were objections to the election, all affidavits referred to duly served on the parties to this proceeding. and relied on in his Report on Objections should With respect to the unfair labor practices, the be included in and made part of the record in Case complaint alleges in substance that on March 23, 8-RC-12270. 1981, following a Board election in Case 8-RC- Review of the record herein, including the 12270, 1 the Union was duly certified as the exclu- record in Case 8-RC-12270, shows that on No- sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- vember 13, 1980, an election was held pursuant to spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- and that, commencing on or about May 11, 1981, tion in which a majority of the unit employees des- and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, ignated the Union as their representative for pur- and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec- poses of collective bargaining. Thereafter, Re- tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining spondent filed timely objections to the conduct of representative, although the Union has requested the election alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner and is requesting it to do so, and in addition has re- engaged in improper preelection offers to waive its fused and continues to date to refuse, as requested initiation fee for any employee who joined the Pe- by the Union, to provide the Union with informa- titioner prior to the election and that such conduct tion necessary for collective bargaining. On July interfered with the holding of a free election. The 10, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- objections were overruled in their entirety by the plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- Regional Director in his Report on Objections, legations in the complaint,.issued December 12, 1980. In so doing, the Region- On July 23, 1981, counsel for the General Coun- al Director stated that the only evidence that was sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum- presented concerning an objectionable waiver of mary Judgment. Subsequently, on July 29, 1981, initiation fees under N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufactur- the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1975), was the testimony of ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause an employee witness that she believed she had been told by another employee that the waiver was con- 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, tingent Upon signing a Union membership Card Case 8-RC-12270, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and prior to the election. The Regional Director found 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystents. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th there was no evidence that the employee alleged to cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 have made the statement was acting as an agent of F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 ,L ppt,,innr and hp rnnlnrfp that snch a <tate- (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 the Petitioner and he Concluded tat SUCH a state- (7th cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended, ment by one employee to another employee would 259 NLRB No. 99 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Bakery, Incorporated and American Federation why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 58. Case 8- Judgment should not be granted. Respondent CA-14856-2 thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show December 16, 1981 Cause and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DECISION AND ORDER National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Upon a charge filed on May 15, 1981, an amend- Bo a rd m a k e s t h e following: ed charge filed on June 4, 1981, and a second Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment amended charge filed on June 25, 1981, by Ameri- can Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local In its answer to the complaint, its response to the 58, herein called the Union, and duly served on Notice To Show Cause, and its Cross-Motion for The Bakery, Incorporated, herein called Respond- Summary Judgment, Respondent admits its refusal ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor to bargain with the Union and to supply the Union Relations Board, by the Regional Director for with the requested information. Respondent denies, Region 8, issued a complaint on June 29, 1981, however, that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had and (1) of the Act, arguing that the election held engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- on November 13, 1980, should have been set aside tices affecting commerce within the meaning of for the reasons set forth in its exceptions to the Re- Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of gional Director's Report on Objections to Election. the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent also asserts that, since the Regional Di- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of rector did not conduct a hearing on Respondent's hearing before an administrative law judge were objections to the election, all affidavits referred to duly served on the parties to this proceeding. and relied on in his Report on Objections should With respect to the unfair labor practices, the be included in and made part of the record in Case complaint alleges in substance that on March 23, 8-RC-12270. 1981, following a Board election in Case 8-RC- Review of the record herein, including the 12270, 1 the Union was duly certified as the exclu- record in Case 8-RC-12270, shows that on No- sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- vember 13, 1980, an election was held pursuant to spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- and that, commencing on or about May 11, 1981, tion in which a majority of the unit employees des- and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, ignated the Union as their representative for pur- and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec- poses of collective bargaining. Thereafter, Re- tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining spondent filed timely objections to the conduct of representative, although the Union has requested the election alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner and is requesting it to do so, and in addition has re- engaged in improper preelection offers to waive its fused and continues to date to refuse, as requested initiation fee for any employee who joined the Pe- by the Union, to provide the Union with informa- titioner prior to the election and that such conduct tion necessary for collective bargaining. On July interfered with the holding of a free election. The 10, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- objections were overruled in their entirety by the plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- Regional Director in his Report on Objections, legations in the complaint,.issued December 12, 1980. In so doing, the Region- On July 23, 1981, counsel for the General Coun- al Director stated that the only evidence that was sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum- presented concerning an objectionable waiver of mary Judgment. Subsequently, on July 29, 1981, initiation fees under N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufactur- the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1975), was the testimony of ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause an employee witness that she believed she had been told by another employee that the waiver was con- 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, tingent Upon signing a Union membership Card Case 8-RC-12270, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and prior to the election. The Regional Director found 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystents. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th there was no evidence that the employee alleged to cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 have made the statement was acting as an agent of F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 ,L ppt,,innr and hp rnnlnrfp that snch a <tate- (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 the Petitioner and he concuded tat SUCH a state- (7th cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended, ment by one employee to another employee would 259 NLRB No. 99 THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 767 not constitute grounds for setting aside the elec- two recent cases5 the Sixth Circuit has recognized tion. Thereafter, Respondent filed with the Board that "Congress has entrusted to the Board consid- its exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on erable latitude in resolving disputes concerning rep- Objections, essentially reiterating the allegations resentation . . ." and has declared that the "Court and contentions set forth in its objections and should be wary of reversing the Board on proce- citing additional authority in support thereof. In dural irregularities absent evidence of prejudice." addition, Respondent contended that, if the election Specifically, the Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed the were not set aside, the Board should order a hear- position taken in N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, ing on the issues raised by its objections. On March Inc.. Frosty Morn Division, 379 F.2d 172, 178 (6th 23, 1981, the Board issued its Decision and Certifi- Cir. 1967), cert. denied 398 U.S. 958, in which the cation of Representative 2 in which it adopted the court said: Regional Director's findings and recommendations To request a hearing a party must, in its ex- and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining ceptions, define its disagreements and make an representative of the employees in the appropriate offer of proof to support findings contrary to unit. In so doing, the Board found that the excep- those of the Regional Director. The Board is tions raised no issues requiring a hearing. entitled to rely on the report of the Regional By letter dated April 29, 1981, the Union re- Director in the absence of specific assertions quested a meeting with Respondent to negotiate a of error, substantiated by offers of proof. collective-bargaining agreement and also requested certain information for purposes of collective bar- Respondent has failed to meet the criteria set out gaining.3 By letter dated May 11, 1981, Respondent by the court in Tennessee Packers. Thus, in its refused, and to date is continuing to refuse, to rec- brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion ognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive for Summary Judgment, it failed to provide offers collective-bargaining representative of the unit em- of proof to support findings contrary to those of ployees and to furnish the Union with information the Regional Director. Consequently, we find that requested by it for purposes of collective bargain- Respondent has failed to raise substantial and mate- ing. rial issues that would require reconsideration of our In opposing the General Counsel's Motion for decision in Case 8-RC-12270. Summary Judgment, Respondent contends that the It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- affidavits and other materials relied on by the Re- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- gional Director in his Report on Objections should cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- have been forwarded to the Board as part of the leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled record in Case 8-RC-12270 and that the failure to to relitigate issues which were or could have been do so renders the certification invalid. In support litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 6 of this position, Respondent relies on decisions by All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- various courts of appeals, including the Sixth Cir- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior cuit's decision in N.L.R.B. v. North Electric Compa- representation proceeding, and Respondent does ny, Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580 (1981). 4 However, in not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does 'Not reported in volumes of Board Decisions. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein ' The information which the Union sought included the wages paid wi i in each employee, the classification of each employee, the hospitalization, which would require the Board to reexamine the life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, and any other benefits pro- decision made in the representation proceeding. We vided to employees and cost-ofliving data. therefore find that Respondent has not raised any 'On October 5, 1981, Respondent filed a motion to take administrative issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor notice of recently effective changes in the Board's Rules and Regulations. In its motion, Respondent directs the Board to the revisions to Sec. practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg- which appeared in the September 15, 1981, Federal Register (29 CFR met. 7 102; 46 F.R. 45922, et seq.) In response to Respondent's motion, on Octo- en ber 15, 1981, the General Counsel filed a cross-motion in which counsel for the General Counsel also moves the Board to take administrative "witnesses' statements always have been and 'still are' excluded from the notice of the revisions to the Rules and Regulations. Both Respondent's record." Thus, the revisions support our finding that the full record in and the General Counsel's motions are granted to the extent they ask the the underlying representation case was forwarded to the Board. Board to take administrative notice of the revisions to Sec. 102.69(g) of ' Reichart Furniture Co. v. N.LR.B., 598 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1981); Revco the Board's Rules and Regulations which appeared in the September 15, D.C, Inc.. and/or White Cross Stores Inc. No. 14 v. N.L.R.B., 653 F.2d 1981, Federal Register; however, we reject Respondent's argument that 264 (1981). these revisions are an admission by the Board that former Sec. 102.69(g) 'See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Ca v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); required the transmittal to the Board of statements of witnesses as part of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). the representation case underlying the proceeding herein. Rather we ' In light of our decision to grant the General Counsel's Motion for agree with the General Counsel's assertion that the supplementary infor- Summary Judgment, Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment mation published with the revisions makes clear that in no-hearing cases is hereby denied. THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 767 not constitute grounds for setting aside the elec- two recent cases' the Sixth Circuit has recognized tion. Thereafter, Respondent filed with the Board that "Congress has entrusted to the Board consid- its exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on erable latitude in resolving disputes concerning rep- Objections, essentially reiterating the allegations resentation . . ." and has declared that the "Court and contentions set forth in its objections and should be wary of reversing the Board on proce- citing additional authority in support thereof. In dural irregularities absent evidence of prejudice." addition, Respondent contended that, if the election Specifically, the Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed the were not set aside, the Board should order a hear- position taken in N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, ing on the issues raised by its objections. On March Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 379 F.2d 172, 178 (6th 23, 1981, the Board issued its Decision and Certifi- Cir. 1967), cert. denied 398 U.S. 958, in which the cation of Representative 2 in which it adopted the court said: Regional Director's findings and recommendations To request a hearing a party must, in its ex- and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining ceptions, define its disagreements and make an representative of the employees in the appropriate offer of proof to support findings contrary to unit. In so doing, the Board found that the excep- those of the Regional Director. The Board is tions raised no issues requiring a hearing. entitled to rely on the report of the Regional By letter dated April 29, 1981, the Union re- Director in the absence of specific assertions quested a meeting with Respondent to negotiate a of error, substantiated by offers of proof. collective-bargaining agreement and also requested certain information for purposes of collective bar- Respondent has failed to meet the criteria set out gaining.3 By letter dated May 11, 1981, Respondent by the court in Tennessee Packers. Thus, in its refused, and to date is continuing to refuse, to rec- brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion ognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive for Summary Judgment, it failed to provide offers collective-bargaining representative of the unit em- of proof to support findings contrary to those of ployees and to furnish the Union with information the Regional Director. Consequently, we find that requested by it for purposes of collective bargain- Respondent has failed to raise substantial and mate- ing. rial issues that would require reconsideration of our In opposing the General Counsel's Motion for decision in Case 8-RC-12270. Summary Judgment, Respondent contends that the It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- affidavits and other materials relied on by the Re- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- gional Director in his Report on Objections should cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- have been forwarded to the Board as part of the leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled record in Case 8-RC-12270 and that the failure to to relitigate issues which were or could have been do so renders the certification invalid. In support litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 6 of this position, Respondent relies on decisions by All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- various courts of appeals, including the Sixth Cir- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior cuit's decision in N.L.R.B. v. North Electric Compa- representation proceeding, and Respondent does ny, Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580 (1981). 4 However, in not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does INot reported in volumes of Board Decisions. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein I The information which the Union sought included the wages paid , ,. * ^i. n -i A * ti- each employee, the classification of each employee, the hospitalization, which would require the Board to reexamine the life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, and any other benefits pro- decision made in the representation proceeding. We vided to employees and cost-of-living data. therefore find that Respondent has not raised any 'On October 5, 1981, Respondent fied a motion to take administrative issue which is properly litigable in this Unfair labor notice of recently effective changes in the Board's Rules and Regulations. ' . » w* i .^i In its motion, Respondent directs the Board to the revisions to Sec practice proceeding. Accordingly, We grant the 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg- which appeared in the September 15, 1981, Federal Register (29 CFRtmet. 7 102; 46 F.R. 45922, et sey.) In response to Respondent's motion, on Octo- mn her 15, 1981, the General Counsel filed a cross-motion in which counsel for the General Counsel also moves the Board to take administrative "witnesses' statements always have been and 'still are' excluded from the notice of the revisions to the Rules and Regulations. Both Respondent's record." Thus, the revisions support our finding that the full record in and the General Counsel's motions are granted to the extent they ask the the underlying representation case was forwarded to the Board. Board to take administrative notice of the revisions to Sec. 102.69(g) of I Reicharl Furniture Co. v. N.LR.B., 598 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1981); Revo the Board's Rules and Regulations which appeared in the September 15, D.C, Inc.. and/or While Cross Stores. Inc. No. 14 v. N.L.R.B., 653 F.2d 1981, Federal Register; however, we reject Respondent's argument that 264(1981). these revisions are an admission by the Board that former Sec. 102.69(g) 'See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v. N.L R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); required the transmittal to the Board of statements of witnesses as part of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). the representation case underlying the proceeding herein. Rather we IIn light of our decision to grant the General Counsel's Motion for agree with the General Counsel's assertion that the supplementary infor- Summary Judgment, Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment mation published with the revisions makes clear that in no-hearing cases is hereby denied. THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 767 not constitute grounds for setting aside the elec- two recent cases' the Sixth Circuit has recognized tion. Thereafter, Respondent filed with the Board that "Congress has entrusted to the Board consid- its exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on erable latitude in resolving disputes concerning rep- Objections, essentially reiterating the allegations resentation . . ." and has declared that the "Court and contentions set forth in its objections and should be wary of reversing the Board on proce- citing additional authority in support thereof. In dural irregularities absent evidence of prejudice." addition, Respondent contended that, if the election Specifically, the Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed the were not set aside, the Board should order a hear- position taken in N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, ing on the issues raised by its objections. On March Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 379 F.2d 172, 178 (6th 23, 1981, the Board issued its Decision and Certifi- Cir. 1967), cert. denied 398 U.S. 958, in which the cation of Representative 2 in which it adopted the court said: Regional Director's findings and recommendations To request a hearing a party must, in its ex- and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining ceptions, define its disagreements and make an representative of the employees in the appropriate offer of proof to support findings contrary to unit. In so doing, the Board found that the excep- those of the Regional Director. The Board is tions raised no issues requiring a hearing. entitled to rely on the report of the Regional By letter dated April 29, 1981, the Union re- Director in the absence of specific assertions quested a meeting with Respondent to negotiate a of error, substantiated by offers of proof. collective-bargaining agreement and also requested certain information for purposes of collective bar- Respondent has failed to meet the criteria set out gaining.3 By letter dated May 11, 1981, Respondent by the court in Tennessee Packers. Thus, in its refused, and to date is continuing to refuse, to rec- brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion ognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive for Summary Judgment, it failed to provide offers collective-bargaining representative of the unit em- of proof to support findings contrary to those of ployees and to furnish the Union with information the Regional Director. Consequently, we find that requested by it for purposes of collective bargain- Respondent has failed to raise substantial and mate- ing. rial issues that would require reconsideration of our In opposing the General Counsel's Motion for decision in Case 8-RC-12270. Summary Judgment, Respondent contends that the It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- affidavits and other materials relied on by the Re- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- gional Director in his Report on Objections should cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- have been forwarded to the Board as part of the leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled record in Case 8-RC-12270 and that the failure to to relitigate issues which were or could have been do so renders the certification invalid. In support litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 6 of this position, Respondent relies on decisions by All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- various courts of appeals, including the Sixth Cir- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior cuit's decision in N.L.R.B. v. North Electric Compa- representation proceeding, and Respondent does ny, Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580 (1981). 4 However, in not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does INot reported in volumes of Board Decisions. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein I The information which the Union sought included the wages paid , ,. * ^i. n -i A * ti- each employee, the classification of each employee, the hospitalization, which would require the Board to reexamine the life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, and any other benefits pro- decision made in the representation proceeding. We vided to employees and cost-of-living data. therefore find that Respondent has not raised any 'On October 5, 1981, Respondent fied a motion to take administrative issue which is properly litigable in this Unfair labor notice of recently effective changes in the Board's Rules and Regulations. ' . » w* i .^i In its motion, Respondent directs the Board to the revisions to Sec practice proceeding. Accordingly, We grant the 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg- which appeared in the September 15, 1981, Federal Register (29 CFRtmet. 7 102; 46 F.R. 45922, et sey.) In response to Respondent's motion, on Octo- mn her 15, 1981, the General Counsel filed a cross-motion in which counsel for the General Counsel also moves the Board to take administrative "witnesses' statements always have been and 'still are' excluded from the notice of the revisions to the Rules and Regulations. Both Respondent's record." Thus, the revisions support our finding that the full record in and the General Counsel's motions are granted to the extent they ask the the underlying representation case was forwarded to the Board. Board to take administrative notice of the revisions to Sec. 102.69(g) of I Reicharl Furniture Co. v. N.LR.B., 598 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1981); Revo the Board's Rules and Regulations which appeared in the September 15, D.C, Inc.. and/or While Cross Stores. Inc. No. 14 v. N.L.R.B., 653 F.2d 1981, Federal Register; however, we reject Respondent's argument that 264(1981). these revisions are an admission by the Board that former Sec. 102.69(g) 'See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v. N.L R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); required the transmittal to the Board of statements of witnesses as part of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). the representation case underlying the proceeding herein. Rather we IIn light of our decision to grant the General Counsel's Motion for agree with the General Counsel's assertion that the supplementary infor- Summary Judgment, Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment mation published with the revisions makes clear that in no-hearing cases is hereby denied. THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 767 not constitute grounds for setting aside the elec- two recent cases' the Sixth Circuit has recognized tion. Thereafter, Respondent filed with the Board that "Congress has entrusted to the Board consid- its exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on erable latitude in resolving disputes concerning rep- Objections, essentially reiterating the allegations resentation . . ." and has declared that the "Court and contentions set forth in its objections and should be wary of reversing the Board on proce- citing additional authority in support thereof. In dural irregularities absent evidence of prejudice." addition, Respondent contended that, if the election Specifically, the Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed the were not set aside, the Board should order a hear- position taken in N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, ing on the issues raised by its objections. On March Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 379 F.2d 172, 178 (6th 23, 1981, the Board issued its Decision and Certifi- Cir. 1967), cert. denied 398 U.S. 958, in which the cation of Representative 2 in which it adopted the court said: Regional Director's findings and recommendations To request a hearing a party must, in its ex- and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining ceptions, define its disagreements and make an representative of the employees in the appropriate offer of proof to support findings contrary to unit. In so doing, the Board found that the excep- those of the Regional Director. The Board is tions raised no issues requiring a hearing. entitled to rely on the report of the Regional By letter dated April 29, 1981, the Union re- Director in the absence of specific assertions quested a meeting with Respondent to negotiate a of error, substantiated by offers of proof. collective-bargaining agreement and also requested certain information for purposes of collective bar- Respondent has failed to meet the criteria set out gaining.3 By letter dated May 11, 1981, Respondent by the court in Tennessee Packers. Thus, in its refused, and to date is continuing to refuse, to rec- brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion ognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive for Summary Judgment, it failed to provide offers collective-bargaining representative of the unit em- of proof to support findings contrary to those of ployees and to furnish the Union with information the Regional Director. Consequently, we find that requested by it for purposes of collective bargain- Respondent has failed to raise substantial and mate- ing. rial issues that would require reconsideration of our In opposing the General Counsel's Motion for decision in Case 8-RC-12270. Summary Judgment, Respondent contends that the It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- affidavits and other materials relied on by the Re- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- gional Director in his Report on Objections should cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- have been forwarded to the Board as part of the leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled record in Case 8-RC-12270 and that the failure to to relitigate issues which were or could have been do so renders the certification invalid. In support litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 6 of this position, Respondent relies on decisions by All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- various courts of appeals, including the Sixth Cir- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior cuit's decision in N.L.R.B. v. North Electric Compa- representation proceeding, and Respondent does ny, Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580 (1981). 4 However, in not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does INot reported in volumes of Board Decisions. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein I The information which the Union sought included the wages paid , ,. * ^i. n -i A * ti- each employee, the classification of each employee, the hospitalization, which would require the Board to reexamine the life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, and any other benefits pro- decision made in the representation proceeding. We vided to employees and cost-of-living data. therefore find that Respondent has not raised any 'On October 5, 1981, Respondent fied a motion to take administrative issue which is properly litigable in this Unfair labor notice of recently effective changes in the Board's Rules and Regulations. ' . » w* i .^i In its motion, Respondent directs the Board to the revisions to Sec practice proceeding. Accordingly, We grant the 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg- which appeared in the September 15, 1981, Federal Register (29 CFRtmet. 7 102; 46 F.R. 45922, et sey.) In response to Respondent's motion, on Octo- mn her 15, 1981, the General Counsel filed a cross-motion in which counsel for the General Counsel also moves the Board to take administrative "witnesses' statements always have been and 'still are' excluded from the notice of the revisions to the Rules and Regulations. Both Respondent's record." Thus, the revisions support our finding that the full record in and the General Counsel's motions are granted to the extent they ask the the underlying representation case was forwarded to the Board. Board to take administrative notice of the revisions to Sec. 102.69(g) of I Reicharl Furniture Co. v. N.LR.B., 598 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1981); Revo the Board's Rules and Regulations which appeared in the September 15, D.C, Inc.. and/or While Cross Stores. Inc. No. 14 v. N.L.R.B., 653 F.2d 1981, Federal Register; however, we reject Respondent's argument that 264(1981). these revisions are an admission by the Board that former Sec. 102.69(g) 'See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v. N.L R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); required the transmittal to the Board of statements of witnesses as part of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). the representation case underlying the proceeding herein. Rather we IIn light of our decision to grant the General Counsel's Motion for agree with the General Counsel's assertion that the supplementary infor- Summary Judgment, Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment mation published with the revisions makes clear that in no-hearing cases is hereby denied. 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the entire record, the Board spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- makes the following: clusive collective-bargaining representative of all ~FINDINGS OF FACT the employees in the above-described unit. In addi- FINDINGS OF FACT tion, since on or about April 29, 1981, the Union 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT by letter, has requested the Respondent to provide information including wages, classifications, hospi- Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at talization benefits, life insurance, sickness and acci- 4063 Fitch Road, Toledo, Ohio, where it is en- ta l z a t o benefits, lifinsurance, sickness and acci- dent benefits, cost-of-living data, and information gaged in the operation of a bakery. Annually, in the course of its business, Respondent receives on any other benefits provided by Respondent to goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its employees. This information is necessary for the points located outside the State of Ohio. Union's performance of its function as the exclusive We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargaining representative of the unit employees. spondent is, and has been at all times material Commencing on or about May 11, 1981, and con- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- assert jurisdiction herein. sentative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- May 11, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit and that Respondent has since that date III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES and at all times thereafter refused to supply infor- A. The Representation Proceeding mation requested by the Union, which information is necessary for collective bargaining. We find, 1. The unit that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in The following employees of Respondent consti- and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the --Act: -IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR Act: PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE All production employees, maintenance em- ployees, and packing employees employed by The activities of Respondent set forth in section the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, ations described in section I, above, have a close, professional employees, guards and supervisors intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- as defined in the Act. fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- 2. The certification structing commerce and the free flow of com- On November 13, 1980, a majority of the em- merce. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- ballot election conducted under the supervision of v. THE REMEDY the Regional Director for Region 8, designated the Having found that Respondent has engaged in Union as their representative for the purpose of and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the collective bargaining with Respondent. meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we The Union was certified as the collective-bar- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon request, bargain collectively with the Union on March 23, 1981, and the Union continues to be as the exclusive representative of all employees in such exclusive representative within the meaning of the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is Section 9(a) of the Act. reached, embody such understanding in a signed B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's agreement. We shall also order Respondent to Refusal supply the information necessary for collective bar- gaining requested by the Union.8 Commencing on or about April 29, 1981, and at __ all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- 'See Dynamic Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975). 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the entire record, the Board spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- makes the following: elusive collective-bargaining representative of all FINDINGS OF FACT the employees in the above-described unit. In addi- rINDINGS OF FACT ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^\no tion, since on or about April 29, 1981, the Union I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT by letter, has requested the Respondent to provide Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at information including wages, classifications, hospi- Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at ., . ,,..°' ., , * 4063 Fitch Road, Toledo, Ohio, where it is en- t a liz a tio n b e n e f i t s, life insurance, sickness and acci- gaged in the operation of a bakery. Annually, in den t b en efi ts, cost-of-living data, and information the course of its business, Respondent receives on any other benefits provided by Respondent to goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its employees. This information is necessary for the points located outside the State of Ohio. Union 's performance of its function as the exclusive We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargaining representative of the unit employees. spondent is, and has been at all times material Commencing on or about May 11, 1981, and con- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- assert jurisdiction herein, sentative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit. 1n. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- May 11, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit and that Respondent has since that date III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES and at all times thereafter refused to supply infor- A. The Representation Proceeding mation requested by the Union, which information is necessary for collective bargaining. We find, 1. The unit that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in The following employees of Respondent consti- and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the --- - * ~~~~~~~~~~IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR Act: PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE All production employees, maintenance em- ployees, and packing employees employed by T h e activities of Respondent set forth in section the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in I11 above, occurring in connection with its oper- Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, ations described in section I, above, have a close, professional employees, guards and supervisors intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- as defined in the Act. fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- 2. The certification structing commerce and the free flow of com- On November 13, 1980, a majority of the em- merce. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- ballot election conducted under the supervision of V. T H E R EM ED Y the Regional Director for Region 8, designated the Having found that Respondent has engaged in Union as their representative for the purpose of and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the collective bargaining with Respondent. meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we The Union was certified as the collective-bar- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon request, bargain collectively with the Union on March 23, 1981, and the Union continues to be as the exclusive representative of all employees in such exclusive representative within the meaning of the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is Section 9(a) of the Act. reached, embody such understanding in a signed B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's agreement. We shall also order Respondent to Refusal supply the information necessary for collective bar- gaining requested by the Union. 8 Commencing on or about April 29, 1981, and at g n q d t i all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- 'See Dynamic Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975). 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the entire record, the Board spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- makes the following: elusive collective-bargaining representative of all FINDINGS OF FACT the employees in the above-described unit. In addi- rINDINGS OF FACT ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^\no tion, since on or about April 29, 1981, the Union I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT by letter, has requested the Respondent to provide Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at information including wages, classifications, hospi- Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at ., . ,,..°' ., , * 4063 Fitch Road, Toledo, Ohio, where it is en- talization b e n e f i t s, life insurance, sickness and acci- gaged in the operation of a bakery. Annually, in den t b en efi ts, cost-of-living data, and information the course of its business, Respondent receives on any other benefits provided by Respondent to goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its employees. This information is necessary for the points located outside the State of Ohio. Union 's performance of its function as the exclusive We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargaining representative of the unit employees. spondent is, and has been at all times material Commencing on or about May 11, 1981, and con- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- assert jurisdiction herein, sentative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit. 1n. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- May 11, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit and that Respondent has since that date III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES and at all times thereafter refused to supply infor- A. The Representation Proceeding mation requested by the Union, which information is necessary for collective bargaining. We find, 1. The unit that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in The following employees of Respondent consti- and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the --- - * ~~~~~~~~~~IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR Act: PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE All production employees, maintenance em- ployees, and packing employees employed by T h e activities of Respondent set forth in section the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in I11 above, occurring in connection with its oper- Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, ations described in section I, above, have a close, professional employees, guards and supervisors intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- as defined in the Act. fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- 2. The certification structing commerce and the free flow of com- On November 13, 1980, a majority of the em- merce. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- ballot election conducted under the supervision of V. T H E R EM ED Y the Regional Director for Region 8, designated the Having found that Respondent has engaged in Union as their representative for the purpose of and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the collective bargaining with Respondent. meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we The Union was certified as the collective-bar- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon request, bargain collectively with the Union on March 23, 1981, and the Union continues to be as the exclusive representative of all employees in such exclusive representative within the meaning of the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is Section 9(a) of the Act. reached, embody such understanding in a signed B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's agreement. We shall also order Respondent to Refusal supply the information necessary for collective bar- gaining requested by the Union. 8 Commencing on or about April 29, 1981, and at g n q d t i all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- 'See Dynamic Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975). 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the entire record, the Board spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- makes the following: elusive collective-bargaining representative of all FINDINGS OF FACT the employees in the above-described unit. In addi- rINDINGS OF FACT ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^\no tion, since on or about April 29, 1981, the Union I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT by letter, has requested the Respondent to provide Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at information including wages, classifications, hospi- Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is located at ., . ,,..° ., , * 4063 Fitch Road, Toledo, Ohio, where it is en- t a liz a tio n b e n e f i t s, life insurance, sickness and acci- gaged in the operation of a bakery. Annually, in den t b en efi ts, cost-of-living data, and information the course of its business, Respondent receives on any other benefits provided by Respondent to goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its employees. This information is necessary for the points located outside the State of Ohio. Union's performance of its function as the exclusive We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargaining representative of the unit employees. spondent is, and has been at all times material Commencing on or about May 11, 1981, and con- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- assert jurisdiction herein, sentative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit. 1n. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- May 11, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit and that Respondent has since that date III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES and at all times thereafter refused to supply infor- A. The Representation Proceeding mation requested by the Union, which information is necessary for collective bargaining. We find, 1. The unit that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in The following employees of Respondent consti- and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the --- - * ~~~~~~~~~~IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR Act: PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE All production employees, maintenance em- ployees, and packing employees employed by T h e activities of Respondent set forth in section the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in I11 above, occurring in connection with its oper- Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, ations described in section I, above, have a close, professional employees, guards and supervisors intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- as defined in the Act. fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- 2. The certification structing commerce and the free flow of com- On November 13, 1980, a majority of the em- merce. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- ballot election conducted under the supervision of V. T H E R EM ED Y the Regional Director for Region 8, designated the Having found that Respondent has engaged in Union as their representative for the purpose of and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the collective bargaining with Respondent. meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we The Union was certified as the collective-bar- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon request, bargain collectively with the Union on March 23, 1981, and the Union continues to be as the exclusive representative of all employees in such exclusive representative within the meaning of the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is Section 9(a) of the Act. reached, embody such understanding in a signed B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's agreement. We shall also order Respondent to Refusal supply the information necessary for collective bar- gaining requested by the Union. 8 Commencing on or about April 29, 1981, and at g n q d t i all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- 'See Dynamic Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975). THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 769 In order to insure that the employees in the ap- 7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, selected bargaining agent for the period provided and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed fication as beginning on the date Respondent corn- them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a labor practices affecting commerce within the Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;R R Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- and the entire record, makes the following: lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Bakery, Incorporated, Toledo, Ohio, its offi- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. The Bakery, Incorporated, is an employer en- 1. Cease and desist from: gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning 2(6) and (7) of the Act. rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 2. American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- conditions of employment with American Feder- CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the ation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. exclusive bargaining representative of its employees 3. All production employees, maintenance em- in the following appropriate unit: ployees, and packing employees employed by the All production employees, maintenance em- Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in Toledo, ployees, and packing employees employed by Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, professional the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes professional employees, guards and supervisors of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- as defined in the Act. tion 9(b) of the Act. (b) Refusing to provide the above-named labor 4. Since March 23, 1981, the above-named labor organization with information requested by it for organization has been and now is the certified and purposes of collective-bargaining including wages, exclusive representative of all employees in the classifications, hospitalization benefits, life insur- aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- ance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) data, and information on any other benefits pro- of the Act. vided to its employees. 5. By refusing on or about March 11, 1981, and (c) In any like or related manner interfering at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- the above-named labor organization as the exclu- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of sive bargaining representative of all the employees the Act. of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent 2. Take the following affirmative action which has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act: Act. (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named 6. By refusing on or about May 11, 1981, to labor organization as the exclusive representative supply information requested by the Union includ- of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit ing wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost- other terms and conditions of employment and, if of-living data, and information on any other bene- an understanding is reached, embody such under- fits provided by the Respondent to employees, standing in a signed agreement. which information is necessary for collective bar- (b) Upon request, provide the above-named labor gaining, Respondent has engaged in, and is engag- organizaton with information requested by it for ing in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of the purpose of collective bargaining, including Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, life THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 769 In order to insure that the employees in the ap- 7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, selected bargaining agent for the period provided and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a labor practices affecting commerce within the Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; O R Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- and the entire record, makes the following: lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Bakery, Incorporated, Toledo, Ohio, its offi- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. The Bakery, Incorporated, is an employer en- 1. Cease and desist from: gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning 2(6) and (7) of the Act. rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 2. American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- conditions of employment with American Feder- CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the a t i o n o f G r ai n M il l e r s, AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. exclusive bargaining representative of its employees 3. All production employees, maintenance em- in t h e following appropriate unit: ployees, and packing employees employed by the All production employees, maintenance em- Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in Toledo, ployees, and packing employees employed by Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, professional the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes professional employees, guards and supervisors of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- as defined in the Act. tion 9(b) of the Act. (b) Refusing to provide the above-named labor 4. Since March 23, 1981, the above-named labor organization with information requested by it for organization has been and now is the certified and purposes of collective-bargaining including wages, exclusive representative of all employees in the classifications, hospitalization benefits, life insur- aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- ance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) data, and information on any other benefits pro- of the Act. vided to its employees. 5. By refusing on or about March 11, 1981, and (c) In any like or related manner interfering at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- the above-named labor organization as the exclu- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of sive bargaining representative of all the employees the Act. of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent 2. Take the following affirmative action which has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act: Act. (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named 6. By refusing on or about May 11, 1981, to labor organization as the exclusive representative supply information requested by the Union includ- of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit ing wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost- other terms and conditions of employment and, if of-living data, and information on any other bene- an understanding is reached, embody such under- fits provided by the Respondent to employees, standing in a signed agreement. which information is necessary for collective bar- (b) Upon request, provide the above-named labor gaining, Respondent has engaged in, and is engag- organizaton with information requested by it for ing in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of the purpose of collective bargaining, including Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, life THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 769 In order to insure that the employees in the ap- 7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, selected bargaining agent for the period provided and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a labor practices affecting commerce within the Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; O R Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- and the entire record, makes the following: lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Bakery, Incorporated, Toledo, Ohio, its offi- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. The Bakery, Incorporated, is an employer en- 1. Cease and desist from: gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning 2(6) and (7) of the Act. rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 2. American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- conditions of employment with American Feder- CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the a t i o n o f G r ai n M il l e r s, AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. exclusive bargaining representative of its employees 3. All production employees, maintenance em- in t h e following appropriate unit: ployees, and packing employees employed by the All production employees, maintenance em- Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in Toledo, ployees, and packing employees employed by Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, professional the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes professional employees, guards and supervisors of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- as defined in the Act. tion 9(b) of the Act. (b) Refusing to provide the above-named labor 4. Since March 23, 1981, the above-named labor organization with information requested by it for organization has been and now is the certified and purposes of collective-bargaining including wages, exclusive representative of all employees in the classifications, hospitalization benefits, life insur- aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- ance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) data, and information on any other benefits pro- of the Act. vided to its employees. 5. By refusing on or about March 11, 1981, and (c) In any like or related manner interfering at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- the above-named labor organization as the exclu- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of sive bargaining representative of all the employees the Act. of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent 2. Take the following affirmative action which has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act: Act. (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named 6. By refusing on or about May 11, 1981, to labor organization as the exclusive representative supply information requested by the Union includ- of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit ing wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost- other terms and conditions of employment and, if of-living data, and information on any other bene- an understanding is reached, embody such under- fits provided by the Respondent to employees, standing in a signed agreement. which information is necessary for collective bar- (b) Upon request, provide the above-named labor gaining, Respondent has engaged in, and is engag- organizaton with information requested by it for ing in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of the purpose of collective bargaining, including Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, life THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 769 In order to insure that the employees in the ap- 7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, selected bargaining agent for the period provided and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a labor practices affecting commerce within the Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; O R Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- and the entire record, makes the following: lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Bakery, Incorporated, Toledo, Ohio, its offi- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. The Bakery, Incorporated, is an employer en- 1. Cease and desist from: gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning 2(6) and (7) of the Act. rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 2. American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL- conditions of employment with American Feder- CIO, Local 58, is a labor organization within the a t i o n o f G r ai n M il l e r s, AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. exclusive bargaining representative of its employees 3. All production employees, maintenance em- in t h e following appropriate unit: ployees, and packing employees employed by the All production employees, maintenance em- Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in Toledo, ployees, and packing employees employed by Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, professional the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road facility in employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical, Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes professional employees, guards and supervisors of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- as defined in the Act. tion 9(b) of the Act. (b) Refusing to provide the above-named labor 4. Since March 23, 1981, the above-named labor organization with information requested by it for organization has been and now is the certified and purposes of collective-bargaining including wages, exclusive representative of all employees in the classifications, hospitalization benefits, life insur- aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- ance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) data, and information on any other benefits pro- of the Act. vided to its employees. 5. By refusing on or about March 11, 1981, and (c) In any like or related manner interfering at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- the above-named labor organization as the exclu- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of sive bargaining representative of all the employees the Act. of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent 2. Take the following affirmative action which has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act: Act. (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named 6. By refusing on or about May 11, 1981, to labor organization as the exclusive representative supply information requested by the Union includ- of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit ing wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost- other terms and conditions of employment and, if of-living data, and information on any other bene- an understanding is reached, embody such under- fits provided by the Respondent to employees, standing in a signed agreement. which information is necessary for collective bar- (b) Upon request, provide the above-named labor gaining, Respondent has engaged in, and is engag- organizaton with information requested by it for ing in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of the purpose of collective bargaining, including Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. wages, classifications, hospitalization benefits, life 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of- AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the exclusive repre- living data, and information on any other benefits sentative of the employees in the bargaining provided to its employees. unit described below. (c) Post at its Toledo, Ohio, facility copies of the WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the below- attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of described information requested by the Union said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- which is relevant to and necessary for the pur- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- pose of collective bargaining. spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in conspicuous places, including all places where them by Section 7 of the Act. notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or sentative of all employees in the bargaining covered by any other material. unit described below, with respect to rates of (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, tions of employment and, if an understanding what steps have been taken to comply herewith. is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United All produ n eplo , me States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by proucton empoyees, maintenance em- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ployees, and packing employees employed ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an by the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road fa- Order of the National Labor Relations Board." cility in Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all ~APPENDIX ~office clerical, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES WE WILL provide the Union with informa- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE tion requested by it for the purpose of collec- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining, including wages, classifica- An Agency of the United States Government tions, hospitalization benefits, life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively data, and information on any other benefits concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and provided to our employees. other terms and conditions of employment with American Federation of Grain Millers, THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of- AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the exclusive repre- living data, and information on any other benefits sentative of the employees in the bargaining provided to its employees,.unit described below. (c) Post at its Toledo, Ohio, facility copies of the WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the below- attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of described information requested by the Union said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- which is relevant to and necessary for the pur- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- pose of collective bargaining. spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in conspicuous places, including all places where them by Section 7 of the Act. notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or sentative of all employees in the bargaining covered by any other material. unit described below, with respect to rates of (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, tions of employment and, if an understanding what steps have been taken to comply herewith. is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United All production employees, maintenance em- States court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ployees, and packing employees employed ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an by the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road fa- Order of the National Labor Relations Board." c in T Ohio b i all cility in Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all APPENDIX office clerical, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES WE WILL provide the Union with informa- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE tion requested by it for the purpose of collec- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining, including wages, classifica- An Agency of the United States Government tions, hospitalization benefits, life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively data, and information on any other benefits concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and provided to our employees. other terms and conditions of employment with American Federation of Grain Millers, THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of- AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the exclusive repre- living data, and information on any other benefits sentative of the employees in the bargaining provided to its employees,.unit described below. (c) Post at its Toledo, Ohio, facility copies of the WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the below- attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of described information requested by the Union said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- which is relevant to and necessary for the pur- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- pose of collective bargaining. spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in conspicuous places, including all places where them by Section 7 of the Act. notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or sentative of all employees in the bargaining covered by any other material. unit described below, with respect to rates of (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, tions of employment and, if an understanding what steps have been taken to comply herewith. is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United All production employees, maintenance em- States court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ployees, and packing employees employed ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an by the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road fa- Order of the National Labor Relations Board." c in T Ohio b i all cility in Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all APPENDIX office clerical, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES WE WILL provide the Union with informa- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE tion requested by it for the purpose of collec- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining, including wages, classifica- An Agency of the United States Government tions, hospitalization benefits, life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively data, and information on any other benefits concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and provided to our employees. other terms and conditions of employment with American Federation of Grain Millers, THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of- AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the exclusive repre- living data, and information on any other benefits sentative of the employees in the bargaining provided to its employees,.unit described below. (c) Post at its Toledo, Ohio, facility copies of the WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the below- attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of described information requested by the Union said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- which is relevant to and necessary for the pur- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- pose of collective bargaining. spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in conspicuous places, including all places where them by Section 7 of the Act. notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or sentative of all employees in the bargaining covered by any other material. unit described below, with respect to rates of (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, tions of employment and, if an understanding what steps have been taken to comply herewith. is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United All production employees, maintenance em- States court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ployees, and packing employees employed ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an by the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road fa- Order of the National Labor Relations Board." c in T Ohio b i all cility in Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all APPENDIX office clerical, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES WE WILL provide the Union with informa- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE tion requested by it for the purpose of collec- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining, including wages, classifica- An Agency of the United States Government tions, hospitalization benefits, life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively data, and information on any other benefits concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and provided to our employees. other terms and conditions of employment with American Federation of Grain Millers, THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of- AFL-CIO, Local 58, as the exclusive repre- living data, and information on any other benefits sentative of the employees in the bargaining provided to its employees,.unit described below. (c) Post at its Toledo, Ohio, facility copies of the WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the below- attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of described information requested by the Union said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- which is relevant to and necessary for the pur- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- pose of collective bargaining. spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in conspicuous places, including all places where them by Section 7 of the Act. notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or sentative of all employees in the bargaining covered by any other material. unit described below, with respect to rates of (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, tions of employment and, if an understanding what steps have been taken to comply herewith. is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United All production employees, maintenance em- States court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ployees, and packing employees employed ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an by the Employer at its 4063 Fitch Road fa- Order of the National Labor Relations Board." c in T Ohio b i all cility in Toledo, Ohio, but excluding all APPENDIX office clerical, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES WE WILL provide the Union with informa- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE tion requested by it for the purpose of collec- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining, including wages, classifica- An Agency of the United States Government tions, hospitalization benefits, life insurance, sickness and accident benefits, cost-of-living WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively data, and information on any other benefits concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and provided to our employees. other terms and conditions of employment with American Federation of Grain Millers, THE BAKERY, INCORPORATED