American Beef Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 1117 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS
American Beef Packers, Inc. and Arthur L. Morgan
Union . Case 17-CA-4542
November 2, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On July 21, 1971, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Trial Examiner's Decision attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
American Beef Packers, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BISGYER , Trial Examiner : This proceeding , with all
the parties represented , was heard on May 20 and 21, 1971,
i The complaint is based on original and amended charges filed by the
Union on January 14 and February 24, 1971, copies of which were duly
served on the Respondent by registered mail on January 14 and February
25, 1971, respectively
2 Section 8(a)(I) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7 " Insofar as pertinent, Section 7 provides
that "[e ]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
1117
at Omaha, Nebraska, on the complaint of the General
Counsel, issued on March 5, 1971,1 as amended at the
hearing, and the amended answer of American Beef
Packers, Inc., herein called the Respondent or Company.
Litigated in this case is the question whether the
Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,2 failed to
perform its bargaining obligation owing to Arthur L.
Morgan Union, herein called the Union, the employees'
conceded bargaining representative, by refusing to process
and discuss with the Union three grievances submitted to
the Company pursuant to the parties' collective agreement;
unreasonably delaying consideration of eight other griev-
ances; and refusing to furnish certain information request-
ed by the Union. Decision was reserved on the Respon-
dent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint made and
argued at the close of the hearing. Briefs were subsequently
received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. As
discussed below, I find merit in the unfair labor practice
allegations of the amended complaint and accordingly
deny the Respondent's motion.
Upon the entire record,3 and from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and with due consideration
being given to the arguments advanced by the parties, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Iowa corporation, is engaged at its
various plants in several States in the slaughtering,
processing and wholesale distribution of meat and meat
products. Only the Omaha, Nebraska, plant is involved in
this proceeding. In the course and conduct of its business
operations, the Respondent annually sells and ships
products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located
outside Nebraska. It also annually purchases goods
exceeding $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection... .
Section 8 (a)(5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to
refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees"
designated by a majority of them in an appropriate unit."
3 By motion attached as an appendix to his brief which was duly served
upon the parties , the General Counsel requests that the transcript of
testimony be corrected in certain respects No objection having been
received , the motion is granted and the transcript is accordingly ordered to
be corrected
193 NLRB No. 170
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged Refusal to Process Grievances
1. The facts
Since April 15, 1968, the Union has been the exclusive
representative of the Respondent's employees. In effect at
the time of the events herein was the collective-bargaining
contract the parties executed effective from April 18, 1968,
to April 18, 1971.4 This contract provided for a three-step
procedure for the processing and handling of grievances of
the "union or any individual employee . . . pertaining to
the violation of the Agreement, or violations of employees'
working conditions...." Pursuant to these provisions, the
Union submitted to the Respondent between November 11,
1970, and January 12, 1971, 11 written grievances for
adjustment. There is no question that these complaints were
proper subjects for discussion under the contractual
grievance procedure.
Not hearing from the Respondent with respect to eight
grievances which were then pending undisposed,s the
Union on December 18, 1970, sent a letter to the
Respondent in which it sought the reason for the
Respondent's failure to answer these grievances. As this
letter was also ignored,6 the Union's president, Arthur L.
Morgan, wrote the Respondent on January 4, 1971,7
complaining that its previously filed grievances had not yet
been acted upon. The letter also called the Respondent's
attention to the fact that
One of my Stewards was threatened by the Manager in
front of me, that he would get even with him for turning
in a Safety grievance concerning the Manager running
around the plant with a knife in his hand. I want to
know if this is going to be the policy of the Company, to
threaten my Steward for turning in grievances and
refusing to answer them. If so I am forced to take other
action.8
Despite these reminders, the grievances went unanswered
with the result that the Union on January 149 filed the
unfair labor practice charge herein which was subsequently
amended on February 24 to allege specifically, as violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, the Respondent's
failure to process grievances, as well as to furnish relevant
information separately considered below.
It appears that the Respondent did not act on any of the
grievances in question until after the filing of the amended
charge. At the hearing, the Union conceded that on
undisclosed dates seven grievances had been adjusted and
a See American Beef Packers, Inc, 180 NLRB No 97, where the Board,
in dismissing the complaint , found, among other things, that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act in
recognizing and executing this contract with the Union
The appropriate unit is described in this contract , as follows
[A111 production employees of American Beef Packers, Omaha
Division, but excluding office clerical employees, salesmen, guards,
truck drivers, helpers, shipping and receiving clerks , professional
personnel , engineers , employees of independent contractors , and all
management personnel on salary or hourly basis within the meaning
of the Act
It was stipulated that excluded from this unit were the fabrication division
employees who were subsequently covered by a separate agreement
executed by the parties
5 These were filed between November I I and December 16, 1970.
that it was not presently pursuing an eighth one because the
employee with which it was concerned was no longer in the
Company's employ. However, according to the undisputed
and credited testimony of Union President Morgan, the
action on the resolved grievances was not taken within the
time prescribed in the contract but was unnecessarily
delayed for 30 to 60 days after submission. Moreover,
Morgan credibly testified without contradiction that these
responses were verbal and did not conform with past
practices of reducing the Company's decision to writing
and serving it on the Union within 2 or 3 days following the
filing of a gnevance.10
As for the remaining three grievances, it is contended that
they have neither been processed by the Respondent nor
otherwise explored or discussed with the Union. The first of
these grievances was filed on December 7, 1970, by Steward
K. L. Morgan, the union president' s son , complaining that
safety precautions were still being violated by employees
and management "walking around on the kill floor with
knives in their hands." To be sure, this was not a new
problem. On prior occasions, the Union had filed similar
grievances and had discussions with the Company with the
view of rectifying this situation. As a result, the Company
had posted notices in the plant warning employees to
refrain from walking around in the plant with unsheathed
knives or risk being disciplined for infraction of this safety
precaution. However, this warning apparently went un-
heeded and, in fact, it appears that it was Plant Manager
Wade's conduct in this respect that prompted Steward
Morgan to file the grievance in question. Undoubtedly, the
Union's objective in filing this grievance was to secure more
effective enforcement of this safety measure. Displeased
that the grievance was directed against him, Wade
threatened Morgan "to get even with him the first chance
he got." i i
Not surprisingly, Wade's threat caused the Union to file
the second unresolved grievance on December 9. In it the
Union protested that the plant manager "threatened to get
even with" a union steward who had turned in a safety
grievance against the plant manager who "was guilty of
endangering the lives of the people by walking around with
a knife in his hand." It was urged that such threats to
stewards and dangerous practices must be stopped.
The third grievance in question was filed by the Union on
January 12 and involved a reduction in pay suffered by a
steward, Henry Brooks, when he was recalled to his former
6 Two additional grievances were filed in the interim-one on
December 21 and the other on December 29
r Unless otherwise indicated , all subsequent dates refer to 1971
8 No claim is made that such threats for filing grievances violated the
Act Cf Gateway Transportation Company, 190 NLRB No 26
9 By this time the eleventh grievance here involved had been submitted
to the Respondent
is in step I of the grievance procedure the employee's immediate
supervisor was required to give his answer within 7 days after the grievance
was submitted Step iI specifically required a written answer from the plant
superintendent in 5 days, while step III imposed no time limitation for the
plant manager to respond
u According to the undisputed testimony of Union President Morgan,
the opportunity "to get even" presented itself the next day when his son
arrived 10 minutes late for work and was given a 3-day disciplinary layoff.
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS
job as "utility man" on the kill floor about a month after the
termination of a strike.12 This grievance brought at least
partial relief about 3 weeks later when the Respondent
restored Brooks' former wage rate without, however,
reimbursing him for the lost backpay. Admittedly, no
separate grievance was filed for backpay, although the
Union insists that reimbursement was implicit in the
grievance protesting the lower rate Brooks was receiving.
There is no evidence that the Respondent discussed or even
considered his entitlement to backpay.
2. Concluding findings with respect to processing
of grievances
It is well settled that "the duty to bargain unquestionably
extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and
applies to labor-management relations during the term of
an agreement ." 13 Plainly, this duty encompasses the
processing and adjustment of grievances arising under the
agreement or otherwise affecting terms and conditions of
employment. The Respondent does not challenge this
principle. Its only defense is that it had processed and
resolved all II grievances, including the 3 grievances
described above which the General Counsel and the Union
insist have never been acted upon. Specifically, the
Respondent argues that one of the three mentioned
grievances concerning the carrying of exposed knives had
previously been the subject of a grievance which had been
settled after discussions with the Union by the Respon-
dent's posting of a warning notice. However, the new
grievance contained serious charges that the safety
measures embodied in the notice were being ignored by
both management and employees. As no claim is even
made, much less was evidence adduced, that this grievance
was sham or frivolous, it can hardly be said that the Union
was precluded from filing the grievance in question in an
effort to secure effective safeguards against a continuing
dangerous situation in the plant. In these circumstances, I
find that the Respondent, in disregard of its bargaining
obligation, failed to consider and discuss this grievance
with the Union.
With respect to the related grievance protesting the plant
manager's threatened reprisal for the steward's filing the
exposed knife grievance, I find that the Respondent
compounded the breach of its bargaining obligation. The
Union, as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's
employees, had a real interest, acknowledged in the parties'
contract, and, indeed, the statutory duty to prosecute
legitimate grievances concerning the safety of employees
and the maintenance of other conditions of employment. A
threat such as that attributed to the plant manager
inevitably impedes and discourages the Union and the
employees from exercising their right to invoke the
grievance procedure and thus defeats the very purpose of
the Act to promote the orderly settlement of labor disputes.
Therefore, by refusing to process and discuss the plant
12 This strike is involved in another case which was tried before the
Trial Examiner (Cases 17-CA-4537 and 4595-2)
13 N.L R B v Acme Industrial Co, 385 U.S. 432, 436.
14 The particular grievance reads as follows-
Henry Brooks a steward was returned to work January 11-1971 after
being off a month he was reduced in pay he is the best qualified man
1119
manager's alleged misconduct, the Respondent also
violated its statutory obligation.
Turning to the third grievance regarding the reduced
wage rate paid to Steward Brooks, I find that here, too, the
Respondent failed to afford the Union the opportunity to
bargain over the matter of backpay, as it was duty bound to
do. While the Respondent did restore Brooks' former rate
as a result of the filing of this grievance, it undeniably did
not discuss with the Union his right to reimbursement. The
Respondent's apparent justification for not considering
backpay is the fact that no separate grievance was filed
requesting it. However, I find that implicit in the grievance
in question is a claim for reimbursement for the period
Brooks was deprived of his former wage rate.14 For this
reason, I find that the Respondent's failure to bargain with
the Union with respect to Brooks ' entitlement to backpay
amounted to a further breach of its bargaining obligation.
Of course, this does not mean that the Respondent must
grant the grievance. All the Act requires is honest, good-
faith negotiations with the Union to settle this matter.
Lastly, I find that the Respondent's adjustment of the
remaining eight grievances after the filing of the unfair
labor practice charges herein does not warrant the dismissal
of the applicable allegations of the amended complaint.
Certainly, the adjustment did not render the issue moot nor
remove the need for a Board order.15 Moreover, apart from
the contractual time requirement for the Company's
response to filed grievances, I find, on the basis of all the
facts and circumstances herein, that the Respondent did
not act on the grievances with the diligence the statute
requires. Section 8(d) defines the bargaining duty as
including "the mutual obligation of the employer and the
representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times
and confer in good faith with respect to . . . any question
arising" under an agreement. It is significant that no
plausible explanation has been offered by the Respondent
for its unreasonable delay in processing, answering, or
discussing these grievances. All things being considered, I
find that the Respondent's unwarranted delay in adjusting
the eight grievances also constituted a breach of its
bargaining obligation.
In view of the foregoing, I conclude that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In so ruling, I do
not pass judgment on the merits of the grievances. Clearly,
these are matters for the parties to settle and, if still
unresolved and are arbitrable, for the arbitrator to
determine.
B. The Denial of Requested Information
1. The facts
On or about December 10, 1970, the Respondent's
employees went out on strike.16 Subsequently all but 20
employees were rehired.17 On December 12, Union
President Morgan wrote the Respondent, expressing the
in the kill and should have been given Utility pay as before the strike
he is doing the work.
15 N L R B v. Mex,a Textile Mills, Inc, 339 U.S. 563, 567.
16 As indicated previously, this strike is involved in the issues in Cases
17-CA-4537 and 4595-2.
17 Mike Amoura, the Respondent's director of personnel and labor
(Continued)
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strikers' concern over the disciplinary action the Respon-
dent contemplated taking against them for striking and
requesting that he be advised of its intentions. As the
Respondent did not reply, Morgan sent another letter to the
Respondent on December 16. After alluding to the
unanswered inquiries concerning the discipline of strikers
contained in the earlier letter and subsequently made at a
meeting with the Company on December 14, Morgan
wrote:
In order to adequately administer the current contracts
as well as check on any employee grievances about the
matter of discipline , etc., I request that you send me a
current listing of employees by job classifications and
duties and current rate of pay. Please send this list to me
as soon as possible , since I need it to take care of my
responsibilities to the people in the Omaha plant.
[Emphasis supplied.]
Morgan testified that he needed this information to
ascertain the identity of the employees recalled to work
after the strike and those denied reinstatement ; whether the
recalled individuals were transferred or demoted to jobs
other than those held by them at the time of the strike ; their,
present classifications ; and whether they were receiving the
proper wage rates. He further indicated that this informa-
tion would enable him to evaluate employee complaints
and to determine whether to file grievances.
In response to the Union 's December 16 letter, Mike
Amoura , the Company' s director of personnel and labor
relations, advised the Union on December 23 that the
Respondent rejected the Union's request for information
regarding the discipline of strikers for the reason that the
employees had engaged in an illegal strike in violation of
the no-strike clause in the then current contract . The letter
further stated that
... Whatever disciplinary actions we are planning to
take in regard to these employees is our business and we
do not see anything we need to discuss with you about
this matter.
We also object to what we must regard as obvious
harrassment [sic) on your part in asking for a list of
employees that you do not need . You are well aware of
the people working in the Omaha plant and what they
are being paid for their work and we cannot view your
request on this matter as anything other than harrass-
ment [sic] . Therefore , your request is denied . [Emphasis
supplied.]
As of the time of the hearing , the Respondent still
adhered to its determination not to furnish the requested
information . Explaining the reason , Amoura testified that
the Company had given Morgan access to the plant and
that Morgan "could have obtained that information in
different ways , from his stewards , his contract [which] is
clear . . . [with respect to ] job classifications . . . [and]
relations , testified that the rehired individuals were taken back as new
employees
is NLR. B v. Acme Industrial Co, 385 US. 432, 435-436, The
Prudential Insurance Company of America v N L R B, 412 F 2d 77, 81
(C.A 2), The Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N L R B, 325 F 2d 746,
750 (C.A. 6), cert denied 376 U S 971
19 N L. R B v Acme, supra, 436
20 Fn 18, supra
21 See , for example , Robert J Weber and Richard K Weber d/ b/a Weber
rate[s] of pay. All he would have to do is just sit down with
those people and get it." In addition, Amoura testified, he
"was not going to sit down and do ... [Morgan's] work for
him."
2. Concluding findings with respect to the
requested information
It is now settled law that the duty to bargain in good faith
imposed on an employer by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
includes the obligation to provide the employees' represent-
ative with information relevant and necessary to the
intelligent performance of its function as bargaining
agent.18 Since "the duty to bargain," as the Supreme Court
has observed, "unquestionably extends beyond the period
of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management
relations during the term of an agreement," 19 the
employer's obligation to furnish information extends with
equal force to material needed by the Union for the
effective administration of an existing contract and the
processing of grievances thereunder, even to arbitration.20
Certainly, the production of relevant information with
respect to a grievance serves the additional worthwhile
purpose of enabling the bargaining representative to
evaluate prudently the merits of the asserted claim with the
view of deciding whether to pursue it further.
It is not, nor could it seriously be, argued that the
requested information in issue here is not relevant or
necessary for the Union's proper functioning as the
employees' bargaining representative.21 The Respondent,
nevertheless, seeks to justify its withholding of information
on the ground that the Union had access to the plant and
other sources to secure this information. Apparently, the
Respondent relies on the fact that the Union is permitted to
observe employees at work and to interview its members
and stewards. However, the availability of other sources of
information has been held not to relieve the employer of its
bargaining obligation of disclosure, particularly where, as
here, it was not shown that production of this data was
unduly burdensome.22 Equally without merit is the
Respondent's other contention that, in any event, it did not
understand the Union's request for information to
encompass "a list of employees by name." The Union's
December 16 request and the Respondent's December 23
letter refusing the information, quoted above, belie the lack
of understanding.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's refusal to
honor the Union's request for relevant and necessary
information amounted to be a refusal to bargain in good
faith with the employees' statutory representative in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Veneer & Plywood Company, 161 NLRB 1054, 1056; Curtis-Wright
Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152, 157, enfd. 347
F 2d 61 (C,A. 3); Boston-Herald Traveler Corporation, 110 NLRB 2097,
enfd. 223 F .2d 58 (C A. 1).
22 N L. R B v Northwestern Publishing Company, 343 F 2d 521, 525,
enfg. 144 NLRB 1069, 1071 and 146 NLRB 457; NLRB v. The Item
Company, 220 F 2d 956, 959 (C.A. 5), enfg. 108 NLRB 1634, cert. denied
350 U.S. 905
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS 1121
IV. THE REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, I
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from
engaging in the unfair labor practices found and in like and
related conduct and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent has breached its
statutory obligation by refusing to process and discuss with
the Union the three grievances previously filed by that
organization and to furnish the requested information, I
recommend that it be ordered to do so. The posting of an
appropriate notice is also recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production employees at the Respondent's
Omaha, Nebraska, plant, but excluding employees in the
fabrication division, office clerical employees, salesmen,
guards, truck drivers, helpers, shipping and receiving clerks,
professional personnel, engineers , employees of independ-
ent contractors, and all management personnel on salary or
hourly basis within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to process and discuss the adjustment of
grievances with the Union; by unreasonably delaying the
processing, consideration, and settlement of other griev-
ances ; and by refusing to furnish the Union with a current
listing of employees showing their job classifications,
duties, and current rates of pay, which information was
relevant and necessary for the effective administration of
the parties' contract and the prosecution of grievances
thereunder, the Respondent has failed to bargain collective-
ly with the Union and has thereby engaged, and is
engaging , in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following
recommended: 23
23 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and Recommended Order herein shall , as provided
in Section 102 .48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board
and become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
ORDER
The Respondent, American Beef Packers, Inc., Omaha,
Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to process and discuss the adjustment of
grievances filed pursuant to the terms of its collective-
bargaining contract with Arthur L. Morgan Union, the
exclusive representative of the Company's employees in the
unit described below, or to bargain diligently and with
unnecessary delay with the said Union with respect to the
adjustment and disposition of such grievances. The
bargaining unit consists of:
All production employees at the Respondent's Omaha,
Nebraska, plant, but excluding the employees in the
fabrication division, office clerical employees, salesmen,
guards, truck drivers, helpers, shipping and receiving
clerks, professional personnel, engineers, employees of
independent contractors, and all management person-
nel on salary or hourly basis within the meaning of the
Act.
(b) Withholding from the named Union a requested
listing of employees in the above-described unit showing
their job classifications, duties, and rates of pay and other
information relevant and necessary for the effective
administration of the parties' collective-bargaining agree-
ment and the prosecution of grievances thereunder, which
might be requested by that labor organization.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
bargaining rights through the named Union, which are
guaranteed in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon the Union's request, process and discuss the
adjustment of the grievances previously filed by the
Union's officials or stewards or employees in the above-
described unit and in good faith bargain diligently and with
unnecessary delay with the Union with respect to the
adjustment and disposition of such grievances.
(b) Furnish the Union with a listing of employees in the
above unit showing their job classifications, duties and
rates of pay, which it had requested in its letter of
December 16, 1970.
(c) Post at its plant in Omaha, Nebraska, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 24 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
24 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.25
25 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to process or discuss the
adjustment of grievances filed pursuant to the terms of
our collective-bargaining agreement with Arthur L.
Morgan Union, the exclusive representative of our
employees in the unit described below; nor will we
refuse to bargain diligently and with unnecessary delay
with the Union with respect to the adjustment and
disposition of such grievances. The bargaining unit
consists of:
All production employees at the Company's
Omaha, Nebraska, plant, but excluding the
employees in the fabrication division, office
clerical employees, salesmen , guards, truck driv-
ers, helpers, shipping and receiving clerks, profes-
sional personnel, engineers , employees of inde-
pendent contractors, and all management person-
nel on salary or hourly basis within the meaning
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT withhold from the named Union a
requested listing of employees in the above-described
unit showing their job classifications, duties, and rates
of pay and any other information relevant and
necessary for the Union's effective administration of its
bargaining contract with us or the prosecution of
grievances thereunder, which that organization might
request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their bargaining rights, through the above-named
Union, which the Act guarantees.
WE WILL, upon the Union's request, process and
discuss with it the adjustment of the grievances
previously filed by its officials or stewards or employees
in the bargaining unit described above and we will in
good faith bargain diligently and with unnecessary
delay with the Union with the view of adjusting and
disposing of those grievances.
WE WILL furnish the Union with a listing of
employees in the above unit showing their job
classifications, duties, and rates of pay, which it had
requested in its letter of December 16, 1970.
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 610
Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.