Bonnie Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1625 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC. 1625
Bonnie Enterprises , Inc. and Retail Clerks Local 233, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-
2452. February 10, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 29, 1963, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 attached Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
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 Decision,
the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner as modified herein.
THE REMEDY
Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner's recommendation
that Respondent be required, inter alia, to cease and desist from "inter-
rogating employees concerning their union membership, activities and
sympathies . . ." and "promising a wage increase or other benefits to
discourage union membership or activities." We find merit in this
exception. Although the record shows that Respondent's store man-
agers discussed union activities with employees and threatened them
with loss of employment, and benefits because of these activities, it
contains no evidence either that Respondent interrogated employees
concerning their union sympathies or activities, or promised them
wage increases or other benefits to influence such activities. Accord-
ingly, we shall modify the Trial Examiner's proposed order by delet-
ing the references to interrogation and promises of benefits.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the modifications noted below :
1. Substitute for the first paragraph therein the following :
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
145 NLRB No. 154.
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
2. Delete paragraph 1(a) and substitute the following :
Threatening employees with loss of employment, monetary and
other benefits, and with less advantageous working conditions if
they select the Union to represent them for collective-bargaining
purposes.
3. Delete the first and second indented paragraphs from the notice
and substitute the following :
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment,
monetary and other benefits, and with less advantageous working
conditions if they select the Union to represent them for collective-
bargaining purposes.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq ., herein called the Act.
Retail Clerks Local 233, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, herein
sometimes called Local 233 or the Union, filed a charge on May 15, 1963, and in
amended charge on April 17, against Bonnie Enterprises , Inc., hereinafter some-
times called the Company, the amended charge asserting violations of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing under date of June 20, 1963, setting forth
certain alleged violations of Section 8 ( a)( I) of the Act. The Respondent Company,
on June 27, 1963, filed answer to the complaint , effectively denying the asserted
violations.
Pursuant to notice , this case came on to be heard before Trial Examiner Arthur E.
Reyman at Norfork, Virginia, on September 4, 1963. At the hearing each party
was represented by counsel and was afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses , present pertinent evidence , make oral argument, and
to file briefs or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both . Briefs have
been filed on behalf of the Respondent and the Charging Party and an informal
memorandum mailed to the Trial Examiner on behalf of the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent, Bonnie Interprises , Inc., is, and at all times material herein has
been , a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia, operating its places of business at various places in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, where it is engaged in the operation of retail food
stores. During a representative period immediately preceding the issuance of the
complaint herein , the Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 at its places of
business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, directly from plants located outside the
Commonwealth of Virginia. During the same period of time, the gross sales of the
Respondent were in excess of $500,000.
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been , engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Local 233 , Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1627
Preliminary Statement
On April 1, 1963, the Union filed a petition with the Regional Director pursuant
to Section 9(c) of the Act, and thereafter on April 18 the Company and the Union
entered into a stipulation approved by the Regional Director for certification de-
pending upon the results of a consent election to be held under the auspices of the
Regional Director, the date for the election being set for May 23, 1963. As noted
above, on May 15 1 the Union filed a charge against the Company, which is engaged
in the operation of a chain of some 16 retail supermarkets in and around the Virginia
Tidewater area, employing some 215 persons. Upon the filing of the charge above
mentioned, and pending investigation of those charges, the date of the election was
indefinitely postponed. The complaint herein in substance alleges that on or about
May 14 certain supervisors engaged by the Respondent Company threatened em-
ployees with economic reprisals, to discharge employees if they selected a union
as their collective-bargaining representative, and promised economic benefits to
employees should they refrain from selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
The issue here concerns whether or not the charges in the complaint are supported
by substantial evidence on the record as a whole which would support a finding that
the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in activities of a
nature requiring the issuance of a cease-and-desist order.
The complaint, together with a bill of particulars furnished upon demand of the
Respondent, alleges that on or about May 14, 15, and 16, W. F. M. Faber, J. A.
Gilbert, John R. Bunn, Eugene Hedge, Carlton L. Gissom, A. A. Tarkington, L. R.
Williams, one Mr. Farrell, and one Mr. Tell, supervisors of the Respondent, threat-
ened employees with economic reprisals, threatened to discharge employees if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, and promised eco-
nomic benefits to employees to restrain them from selecting the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. It is conceded by the Respondent that the
above-named individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Also, the complaint alleges, and this allegation is conceded by the Respondent,
that on a date sometime prior to May 23, a letter was sent to each employee of the
Respondent regarding the Union and the Company's and their interest therein.
The only evidence presented at the hearing was by the General Counsel in support
of the complaint. Three witnesses testified, and in addition a letter or notice was
admitted under stipulation that the Company had mailed it or a copy thereof to each
employee. The Respondent presented no testimony on its own behalf, and at the
conclusion of the General Counsel's case it moved to dismiss the complaint.
The Testimony
Miss Barbara Beasley, Mrs. Ann Beasley (not related to Barbara Beasley), and
Joe W. Elliott, were the three witnesses who testified at the hearing. Each testified
concerning events which took place at a breakfast meeting held on May 14, at a
private restaurant in the city of Norfolk, under the auspices of the Company, and
each testified with reference to certain statements made to them individually by
certain supervisors employed in store No. 59.2
The pertinent facts, uncontradicted on the record, disclose that the General Coun-
sel has made out a prima facie case and that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss
the complaint should be denied.
The Testimony of Barbara Beasley
On the afternoon of May 13, Miss Beasley was told by her store manager that
there would be a meeting at a restaurant, at breakfast time in the morning, at about
6:30 or 7:45 o'clock. (The store was scheduled to open at 8:30 a.m,.)
At this breakfast meeting, according to the testimony of Barbara Beasley, the
principal speaker was Bunn, who, she said, made it clear he was opposed to the
union organization of employees in the stores and then discussed some of the par-
ticular harmful results to employees which could result, if they decided to elect the
Union to represent them as bargaining agent. She said that Bunn stated that if the
Union got in "it would be harder here than it has been, I mean they wouldn't be as
I Unless otherwise specifically noted, all dates hereinafter mentioned are for the year 1963.
2 This meeting was attended by a number of employees of stores No. 59, No. 68, and
No. 139
1628 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lenient as they were with us, I mean about smoking on the floor, they'd take all the
privileges"; and that Bunn further specified "that the employees would not smoke
on the floor anymore, or eat or drink anything, that we would have a rest period
or break, we would go back and smoke on the break, and at no other time." Further,
according to Barbara Beasley, Bunn at this meeting said of the Union,
That when they came in, we wouldn't leave the registers for anything unless
we were on our lunch time, or maybe a break.
.Miss Beasley testified, in response to a question as to whether or not she was
invited to this breakfast meeting or not, or whether it was an older, said:
The impression I got was, like I said, Be-Lo [a trade name for Bonnie
Enterprises.] They were nice people to work for, and I knew what it was for,
and I knew I should go; no, it wasn't no threat, it didn't appear to me that I
had to go.
On the other hand, Mrs. Ann Beasley indicated that her attendance at the meeting
was other than voluntary; that Store Manager Gilbert told her "you'd better be
there or else."
Again referring to the testimony of Barbara Beasley, she said that her store
manager and assistant manager in personal conversation said that the Union "would
bring us more harm than good." She said the manager frequently chided her and
"fussed" with her about the Union, and told other employees that they would lose
their jobs-"he just said that if we got the Union in we wouldn't have a job there
any longer."
In substance, the remarks of Bunn at this breakfast meeting consisted of nothing
other than the old familiar pattern of management addressing employees and warn-
ing them about the dangers of joining the Union as opposed to their then present
advantages as nonunion employees, the argument that "we are one happy family"
and "do not need the union" and setting forth monetary and other benefits granted
by the employer which might be lost if they relinquished their rights as individuals
to collective bargaining through a representative of their own choice 3
The testimony of Joe Elliott showed that he worked at store No. 102 and attended
another breakfast meeting, on May 15, at which a company spokesman stated that
while the Company could not exactly fire an employee for union membership, they
could "take the example of Colonial Stores" and make things so difficult for the
employee personally in terms of demands upon their time and loss of hours that the
employee would quit.
Elliott was under the supervision of Tarkington and received notice of the break-
fast meeting to be held at another restaurant, in Norfolk, where he said Supervisor
Faber did most of the talking, that Store Manager Tarkington spoke for a time
and one of the owners of the Company was present, apparently Grissom. Elliott
testified:
I believe it was Mr. Tarkington, I could be wrong, he said, he held up a news-
paper article to us, and said that there was a man that was employed for a
company for quite a number of years, I believe around thirty, I couldn't be
sure of that; and he fell behind on his union dues one payment, and the union
had him fired. They stated that the Company did not want this man fired,
but the uinon, because he did not pay his dues, had him fired. They, also said,
they use an example of Colonial Stores, they said, we were discussing the
cutting of hours, and the possible firing of a person because of union member-
ship, they said that the Company would have to cut corners anyway they can,
3 The Respondent at the hearing brought out that Ann Beasley had signed a pretrial
statement in the presence of a union representative, Dority, who it is said assisted her in
its phrasing and preparation and compared the written statement of Ann Beasley with that
of Barbara Beasley The Respondent would have me conclude that there were conflicting
statements made, inconsistent with the testimony of the witness, or either of them. I ob-
served the witnesses, I am well aware of circumstances under which pretrial statements
are made, and from my observation of the witnesses and upon hearing their testimony, I
am not impressed by the attempt of the Respondent to impeach either of these two `sit-
nesses on the basis of written pretrial statements, made during the investigation of the
case , by a representative of the Regional Director, and consider their direct testimony
and their testimony on cross-examination as not at all inconsistent with certain statements
made by each of them in writing before this hearing. The fact that a union representative,
in the course of his duties , assisted the investigator from the Regional Office in the prepara-
tion of the case , does not impress me in the least as tending toward shading of any fact,
particularly , as I have said , I have seen , heard, and observed the witnesses.
BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC. 1629
because of additional costs after the union came in. They also said that they
couldn't actually fire anybody, but then they gave this example of Colonial
Stores, where a union was working for the store, and they had her transferred
to another store where she had to cross a tunnel and come back, and they just
gave her a couple of days to work, and the cost of going back and forth to
work, the distance was so great that the salary that she made didn't warrant her
staying there, she couldn't make enough, so she quit.
Counsel for the Respondent cites cases to show that "isolated and sporadic
expressions of this nature by supervisors, do not constitute substantial evidence of
interference or coercion" relying on N.L.R.B. v. Hart Cotton Mills, 190 F. 2d 964
(C.A. 4), and others, particularly mentioning N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant Company,
208 F. 2d 710 (C.A. 4). I hope it is not expected of me to believe that the two
meetings at separate restaurants on the eve of a National Labor Relations Board
union representation election were isolated and sporadic. The proof is to the
contrary.
In substance, at these breakfasts and by the letter to the employees, mentioned
below, the employees were warned that: the Company would or might revoke the
privilege of smoking at work stations, the privilege of eating at work stations, the
privilege of leaving cash registers for temporary personal purpose, or leaving the
store for personal appointments; bagboys would be dismissed or made to meet a
quota in packing; hours of employment would be reduced for the part- time em-
ployees; hours would be reduced for the full-time employees, with their work
schedules being made more inconvenient; insurance for employees would be dropped;
vacations or vacation pay might be eliminated; there might be a reduction in force,
and serious harm would therefore result to each and every employee who was repre-
sented by a union.
I quite realize that the recollection of a witness of what was said at an open meet-
ing could not be precise and usually is not precise. However, the pattern here of
testimony of the witnesses who were called by the General Counsel falls in line
in essential detail, and I find that their testimony in substance more or less correctly
states the remarks made by the supervisors at the various times mentioned above.
I cannot understand the failure of the Respondent to rebut this testimony and at
the same time say that the General Counsel has not made out a prima facie case.
The Letter or Notice to the Employees
As noted above, a letter was sent to the employees on the eve of the election
which in effect set forth the position of the Company in regard to the advantages
or disadvantages which might accrue to each of its employees whether they joined
the Union or not. < Although the record is not completely clear, there seemed
to he two notices to gall employees or either one notice with an addendum. How-
ever that may be, they are quoted here in full:
To All Employees:
As you know, a vote or election will soon be held here on the question
as to whether you do or do not want the Union to come into this Company.
The election has been set for May 23rd, 1963
Now the question to be decided in this coming election is important-im-
portant to you and to those who are dependent on you-important to your
future and the future of your family. That is the reason we are writing you
this letter in order that you may have before you the facts on both sides as you
make up your mind about this matter.
The Union will undoubtedly make some critical remarks about our writing
to you on this subject. They would prefer that you not hear or read anything
except what comes from them. Our feeling, on the other hand, is that you
should not decide a matter as important as this without considering all the
facts from every standpoint.
Now we hope you will understand in the first place that we do not expect
you, and we do not ask you, to do any favor for the Company on this matter.
You should decide whether to vote for this Union, or against it, purely on the
basis of whether or not it will be to your own best interests. If this Union were
to come in here, would it benefit you or harm you? Would it be good for you or
bad for you? These are the questions for you to decide.
For a good while now the Union organizers have been around from time to
time, talking with many of you , visiting some of you at your homes, etc.
Why are these organizers after you? Your common sense tells you the answer.
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
What they are after is-MONEY-YOUR MONEY. They are here for what
they hope to get from you in the form of Union dues.
It is of course for you to decide whether you want to let them have some
of your money . But make no mistakes-it is your money that this Union
is after!
Wherever a Union is voted in, one of the first things it usually demands is a
"check-off." This, as you probably know, is an arrangement by which the
Union takes a slice out of every member's paycheck before he ever gets it or
even sees it. You should be considering whether you would like that or not.
What they ask is that you vote for them and then start paying them-up to
$17,500.00 per year for all of our employees. (Quite a sum isn't it!!!)
As matters now stand you have a steady job at good wages and a good place
here to work. We all hope to make things even better. Do you see any reason
to bring this outside Union in here, pay your money to it and at the same lime
run the risk of tearing apart everything that you now have?
So that there would be no doubt as to the Company's position, a few clays
ago we mailed you a copy of a notice which we believe, clearly states the
Company's position.
Sincerely yours,
BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC.
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Since the union has been putting on a campaign to get in here, some of you
have been asking questions in regard to the following matters. We have decided
to state the Company's position on these subjects as clearly as we can for every-
body alike:
(1) This matter is, of course, one of concern to the Company. It is,
however, also a matter of serious concern to you and our sincere belief is
that if this Union were to come into this Plant, it would not work to your
benefit but to your serious harm.
(2) It is our positive intention to oppose this Union and by every proper
means to prevent it from getting in here.
(3) We would like to make it clear that it is not necessary, and it is not
ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong to any Union in order
to work for this Company.
(4) Those who might join or belong to this Union are not going to get
any advantages or any preferred treatment of any sort over those who do
not join or belong to any Union.
(5) If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts you under
any sort of pressure to join the Union, you should let the Company know,
and we will undertake to see that this is stopped.
(6) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities
on the job. Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work
or interferes with the work of others will be subject to discharge.
Anybody who tells you anything contrary to any of the foregoing is not telling
you the truth.
In whole context, it seems to me that the letters or notices above quoted do not
in themselves constitute a contravention of the privilege allowed by Section 8(c)
of the Act. However, in whole content of the case, and in the lack of a defense, ex-
cept on the application of the law, I would find that, standing alone, the notices or
notice above quoted would not be in violation of the Act. The General Counsel,
however, relies upon the "serious harm" portion of the notice as establishing an
intent on the part of the Respondent Company to evade the proper obligations set
up under Section 7 of the Act. As pointed out, the notice was posted and circulated
in an atmosphere which would lead employees to anticipate economic reprisals cre-
ated by the other conduct of the employer here, which is to say that employees had
full notice that "serious harm" might result if the Union were successful in its effort
to organize the employees of the several stores of the Respondent.4
The essential law governing situations such as this has long since been decided and
is too plain for anything other than statement.
' Counsel on either side have cited to me certain cases in support of each position which
I have carefully considered. They have, in their respective briefs filed on behalf of each
party, cited numerous cases to support each of their respective positions Each case, and
others found on my own behalf, have been read and carefully considered
BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC. 1631
I therefore find, on the basis of the uncontradicted testimony herein, that the
Respondent, as charged in the complaint, has contravened the provisions of Section 7
and Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
The motion of the Respondent Company to dismiss the complaint is hereby
denied.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Company set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with Respondent's operations as described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from interrogating
its employees about their union activities, with the requirement of attending
meetings initiated by the Respondent Company in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; from interrogating
employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies; threaten-
ing employees with loss of employment if they joined the Union; threatening the
employees with loss of benefits or shortened hours of work with less pay if they
joined the Union; and promising a wage increase or any other benefits to discourage
union membership or activities; and discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Local
233, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganizations of its employees by in any manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Retail Clerks Local No. 233, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities,
and sympathies, threatening employees with loss of pay or employment if they joined
the Union, threatening decreases in other benefits, and by otherwise interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record, the Trial Examiner recommends that Bonnie Enterprises, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, and
sympathies; threatening employees with loss of employment if they join the Union;
threatening employees with loss of benefits in the way of loss of working hours and
loss of other benefits if they join the Union; promising a wage increase or other
statement intended to discourage union membership or activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above-named labor organization (Retail Clerks Local 233, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO) or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at its offices and at its stores in Norfolk , Virginia , copies of the attached.
notice marked "Appendix ." 5 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Respondent further shall notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of the service of this Trial Examiner's
Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.6
5 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
6 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Clerks Local 233, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization
by interrogating , laying off, reducing the benefits of, or in any other manner
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership,
activities , and sympathies , in a manner violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act;
or threaten them with loss of employment if they join the Union ; or promise
wage or other benefits to discourage union membership.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organ-
izations , to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organizaiton, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 707
North Calvert Street , Baltimore , Maryland , Telephone No. 752-8460 , Extension
2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
The Smead Manufacturing Company and Local 6-717, Oil, Chemi-
cal and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, affili-
ated with Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-1557. February 10, .1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
145 NLRB No. 150.