Cache Valley Dairy Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 280 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION , AND EDWIN GOSSNER and GENERAL
TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL # 976 AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 20-CA-674. March 4, 1953
Decision and Order
On November 28, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Association and
Respondent Gossner were a single employer. The Respondents except
to this finding on the ground that Gossner is an independent con-
tractor. We find it unnecessary to determine the exact relationship
between the Respondents. Both Respondents conceded that they
acted as each others' agents with respect to the matters involved
in this proceeding; consequently they are both employers within the
meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. Both are therefore responsible
for remedying the unfair labor practices found herein 2 We shall,
accordingly, order Respondent Association and Respondent Gossner,
and each of them, to remedy the unfair labor practices found.
2. As it is unnecessary to our decision, we do not adopt the Trial
Examiner's findings, conclusions, comments, or assumptions concern-
ing the continued existence of the contract executed by Respondent
Gossner and the Union.
3. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt without further
comment the Trial Examiner's other findings and conclusions, and
the Trial Examiner's recommendations.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
2 Cf. Cookeville Shirt Company, 79 NLRB 667, 671.
103 NLRB No. 42.
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 281
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent Cache Valley
Dairy Association, Smithfield, Utah, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, and the Respondent Edwin Gossner, an individual, Smith-
field, Utah, his agents, successors, and assigns, and each of them, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with General Teamsters Union,
Local #976, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, as the
exclusive representative of all employees of Respondents' cheese
factory, excluding office and supervisory employees.
(b) Granting unilateral wage increases in order to induce employees
to withdraw from labor organizations.
(c) Promising benefits to employees who resign from labor organi-
zations, refrain from union activities, and cease paying union dues.
(d) Circulating petitions for signatures in favor of an open shop
and requesting Respondents to cease deducting union dues.
(e) Threatening to discharge employees who engage in union
activities.
(f) Proposing the formation of a labor organization.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist General Teamsters Union,
Local #976, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with General Teamsters
Union, Local #976, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit w}th respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a written and signed agreement.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at their place of business at Smithfield, Utah, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A." a Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being signed by a representative
of the Association and also by Edwin Gossner, be posted by them
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for sixty
(60) consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Association and Gossner to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
8 This notice shall be modified by substituting the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The recommendations of a Trial Examiner " In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall he substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding stems from a charge duly filed by General Teamsters Union,
Local #976, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Union, against
Cache Valley Dairy Association, and against Edwin Gossner, an individual,
herein jointly called Respondent, pursuant to which the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint dated July 10, 1952, against
Respondent, alleging that it had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by
Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
thereon were duly served upon the parties.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that Respondent (1) on and after August 9,
1951, had refused and failed to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and (2) commencing
on November 10, 1951, had unlawfully granted unilateral wage increases ; prom-
ised benefits to employees ; encouraged and assisted employees to circulate peti-
tions requesting it to cease deducting union dues ; encouraged and assisted em-
ployees to circulate petitions advocating deletion of the union-shop provisions of
their contract and the decertification of the Union ; threatened to discharge
employees for engaging in union activity ; and had vilified, disparaged, and
expressed disapproval of the Union.
Cache Valley Dairy Association and Gossner filed separate answers. The
answer of the former denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and
alleged that it had no employees ; that Gossner, as an independent contractor,
was under contract with the Association to manufacture its products; that the
employees involved herein were the employees of Gossner ; and that Gossner
handled his labor force without any supervision from the Association. The
answer of Gossner denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and
alleged that he had always been willing to bargain with his employees ; that the
Union has sought to delay an election among his employees to determine whether
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 283
they desired the Union as their bargaining representative ; that he had granted
a wage increase on the belief that it had been approved by the Union ; that his
offer to cancel same was rejected by the Union ; and that said raise was given in
good faith.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 29 and 30, 1952, at Logan,
Utah, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett. All parties
were represented by counsel, who were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues. At the close of the hearing, the parties were afforded an opportunity
to present oral argument and to file briefs and/or proposed findings and conclu-
sions with the undersigned. The General Counsel presented oral argument and
a brief has been received from Respondent'
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Cache Valley Dairy Association is a Utah corporation which owns a plant at
Smithfield, Utah, where it is engaged in the manufacture of swiss cheese and
cheese byproducts; the corporation is actually a cooperative of approximately
1,600 dairy farmers in the area whose members include Edwin Gossner. The
Association annually manufactures cheese products valued at approximately
$3,500,000, of which $3,000,000 represents sales and shipments to points outside
the State of Utah. The undersigned accordingly finds that Cache Valley Dairy
Association is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Edwin Gossner and the Association claim that Gossner is an independent con-
tractor under contract with the Association ; this is presumably directed to the
fact that the employees involved herein are on Gossner's payroll. The record
discloses that Gossner, under a contract with the Association, is charged with
the responsibility of receiving and processing the milk into a saleable product,
namely swiss cheese ; this contract reserves to the Association the right to take
over these operations. In return, Gossner receives 15 percent of the value of
the gross sales ; however, he does much more than merely process cheese under
a contract. From this 15 percent fee, he pays the wages of all production em-
ployees in the plant ; this complement, including several clericals on his payroll,
varies from 50 to 80 in number, according to the season. It may also be noted
that none of these are agricultural laborers.
While the Association in its answer claimed that it had no employees, the
record shows that it actually employs an office manager and approximately six
clericals. Gossner's name appears on the letterhead of the Association as
production and sales manager and he actually is in charge of all sales. In fact,
he is absent from the plant at various times for approximately 1 month per
year on trips relating to merchandising of the cheese. The plant has but
one office used for clerical or administrative purposes and it is shared by em-
ployees of the Association with those clericals on Gossner's payroll.
As will appear, although the union representatives attempted to negotiate
with Gossner in behalf of the production employees on Gossner's payroll, offi-
cials of the Association participated actively in these negotiations, on various
1 As the transcript incorrectly reflects the actual testimony in several instances, it is
hereby ordered corrected as follows :
Page 68, line 21, "employees" to "employers "
Page 297, line 22, "direct bargaining" to "contract."
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
occasions announced that they would not approve the inclusion of certain pro-
visions in a contract between Gossner and the Union , and proposed the substi-
tution of others . Under the foregoing circumstances , the undersigned is of the
belief that the status of Gossner was more than that of an independent con-
tractor employed by the Association in a production capacity. While his re-
muneration was on a sales percentage basis, the fact looms that he, in effect, ran
the entire business of the Association from production through sales , and estab-
lished policy. With the exception of the office manager of the Association, one
Balls, it does not appear that the Association had a full -time employee who con-
cerned himself with production or sales on a policy level ; apparently its officials
and board of directors did not devote their full time thereto . It appears, thus,
that Gossner largely determined production and sales policy for the Association,
and Respondent conceded at the hearing that Gossner and the Association had
acted as each other's agent on various occasions. Noteworthy too, is the fact,
as set forth below, that in 1946 Gossner, as plant superintendent, and A. W.
Chambers, as secretary-treasurer, signed the first agreement with the predecessor
of the Union; later contracts were signed by Gossner as operator of the plant
for the Association.
The undersigned finds, on these facts, that Gossner was actually either a
high-level employee or an official of the Association in charge of production and
sales. And, under Section 2 (2) of the Act, it is apparent that Gossner was acting
as an agent of the Association, at least in the merchandising of the cheese. It
is therefore found that the employees involved herein, whether on Gossner's or
the Association's payroll, were actually employees of the Association, and that,
in any event ,* Gossner and the Association constitute a single employer under
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters Union, Local #976, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Refusal to bargain ; interference , restraint , and coercion
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all employees of the cheese factory, excluding office
and supervisory employees , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining . The Association in its answer denied the appropriateness
of the unit but presented no evidence with respect to this contention ; Gossner's
answer did not challenge the appropriateness of the unit . The undersigned
finds that the aforedescribed unit, which is the customary production and main-
tenance unit, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Majority representation in the appropriate unit
The parties stipulated that Respondent considered the Union to represent a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit from May 11 , 1951, up to ap-
proximately January 5 , 1952, when Gossner filed a management representation
petition in Case 20-RM-95. However , it was further stipulated that both before
and after January of 1952 the parties have met and attempted to negotiate and
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 285
that at no time has any question been raised as to the majority status of the
Union. Save for the petition of January 5, 1952, the record is silent as to any
challenge of the union majority by the Association or Gossner prior to the latter
part of June of 1952, which was after the period directly pertinent herein. And,
paradoxically, the record shows that Gossner, when he filed the petition in
January of 1952, apparently intended to file a petition directed to the rescission
of the union-security language in the contract between the Union and Respondent,
as described below.
The parties further stipulated that up to and including June of 1952, Gossner
deducted dues for each union member who had been in his employ for more than
30 days and that this group constituted a majority of those in the appropriate
unit. It was further agreed that since that date there had been no change one
way or the other in the dues-deduction picture, although since June Gossner has
been retaining the dues in his custody.
In view of the foregoing picture, the undersigned finds that at all times ma-
terial herein, the Union, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, was and now is
the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
3. Contractual history
The Union was first recognized as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees involved herein in a memorandum signed on January 17, 1946,
by a predecessor of the Union and the Association. The signers for the Asso-
ciation were Gossner as "Plant Superintendent" and A. W. Chambers as secretary-
treasurer. A formal agreement was executed on May 1, 1946, by the predecessor
of the Union and the Association with Gossner signing in behalf of the Association
as "Operator of plant for Cache Valley Dairy Association". Another agreement
was executed in 1947 and the contracting employer therein was again Gossner as
operator of the plant for the Association ; a later contract was executed by the
same parties in June of 1948.
In the interim, after proceedings in Case 20-UA-120, the Union had been
certified on April 14, 1948, by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region
as being eligible to enjoy union-security provisions in its collective-bargaining
agreements with Respondent. On September 1, 1949, a contract was executed by
the Union and Gossner as operator of the plant for the Association. Like its
predecessor contracts, it contained union-security provisions and required em-
ployees to join the Union after 30 days employment. Another substantially simi-
lar agreement with changes not material herein was entered into on October 11,
1950, effective until July 31, 1951, and from year to year thereafter.
This last agreement provided that as of July 31 of any year either party, on
60 days' notice prior to said July 31, could request the modification of specific
provisions. It further provided that in the event of such notice, or the modifica-
tion of any article of the agreement or the insertion of any additional provisions,
"only the related articles or parts of articles of the agreement shall be affected
and the unrelated articles and/or parts of articles shall continue in full force
and effect." On May 11, 1951, the Union wrote to Gossner at the Association
cheese plant and notified him, pursuant to the agreement, that it was requesting
the modification of certain unspecified provisions and an increase in wages. As
will hereinafter appear, the wage problem was the issue with which the Union
was primarily and almost solely concerned in ensuing discussions.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Sequence of events: 1951
After the sending of the May notice , Raymond Hansen , secretary -treasurer
of the Union , attempted to arrange a meeting with Gossner , but due to the
absence of the latter on business trips, the parties first met on August 9, 1951,
at Gossner 's office. Present were Gossner , 2 employees serving on a union com-
mittee, Business Representative Henry Shomshor of the Union, and Clarence
Lott, another representative of the Union . Lott presented a request for a 20-cent
per hour wage increase and for 2 other minor changes in working conditions.
The conversation promptly turned to the wage increase and, as was the case
at all future meetings , remained on this issue to the exclusion of the others.
Gossner stated that a raise was out of the question because of unsettled condi-
tions in the industry and proposed a profit -sharing plan under which the benefits,
if any, would vary according to the price of cheese each month. This was
immediately rejected by Lott who said that the prior experience of the Union
with this type of plan had been extremely unsatisfactory , inasmuch as it had
not worked out to the benefit of the employee . The parties did agree that if
any wage increase were agreed upon it would be made retroactive to August
1, 1951.
A second meeting was held on September 7, 1951, in Gossner's office. Present
were substantially the same group plus President Schenk, Secretary -Treasurer
Chambers , and Office Manager Lewis Balls of the Association , together with
a United States conciliator , one Williams Wages were again the topic of
discussion and Lott pointed out that under the 10 -percent formula of the Wage
Stabilization Board the employees of Respondent were entitled to a 10 -percent
wage increase as well as a cost-of-living adjustment of approximately 2 percent.
Gossner again proposed his profit-sharing plan , as he did throughout the meetings
that followed , and expounded 2 possible formulas as a method of computation;
his proposition did not meet with favor.
Gossner then offered a wage increase of 3 cents per hour together with a
partial profit -sharing plan. The profit -sharing plan was immediately rejected
and the union committee stated that it would present the 3-cent proposal to
their membership . The services of the conciliator were utilized but did not
result in an agreement and the meeting ended with the understanding that the
Association would give consideration to increasing the 15-percent fee paid to
Gossner under his contract . The 3-cent proposal was later rejected by the Union
at a meeting held in October.
Another meeting was held on October 11, 1951, and attended by Gossner,
officials of the Association , union representatives , and another United States
conciliator , Lyle Johnson. The Association officials, Schenk and Chambers,
reported that the Association was unwilling to increase its 15-percent payment
to Gossner . The latter renewed his prior offer of the 3-cent wage increase
coupled with the profit-sharing plan . Lott, speaking for the Union , then an-
nounced that the Union might have to resort to economic action. At a union
meeting held on or about October 25 this last offer by Gossner was rejected by
the membership.
On November 10, without any advance announcement to the Union or to the
employees involved , Gossner suddenly granted the employees of the cheese
plant a 3-cent per hour wage increase . And, on December 24, he made the
increase retroactive to July 1. This too was not brought to the attention of the
Union and came as a complete surprise to the employees.
While at first analysis this increase may appear to have been one granted
sfter bargaining reached an impasse, and possibly not one improperly motivated,
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 287
a closer inspection leads to a contrary conclusion. Thus, Gossner gave several
highly inconsistent reasons for the increase. In a letter sent to the Regional
Office on January 30, 1952, he stated that the 3-cent increase was put into effect
because the Union claimed that the employees needed assistance and could not
afford to wait for a profit-sharing plan . In his answer to the present complaint,
Gossner stated that he had granted the increase on the assumption that it had
been approved by the Union; that on hearing of the Union's objections he offered
to cancel the increase ; but that this was not done because the Union announced
that it did not desire a cancellation. Not only is there no evidence that the
Union indicated its approval of the raise but, in addition, Gossner gave still
another explanation for the increase in his testimony herein.
Thus he testified that during his absence from the plant in November on a
business trip the increase was granted to the men by his bookkeeper, Arny
Hansen, who misconstrued certain instructions. Gossner claimed that, prior
to departure on this trip, he instructed Hansen to give the milk producers who
supplied the plant with milk the benefit of a 3-cent per pound increase in fat
content. On Gossner's return from the trip, an employee commented to him
on the inadequacy of the wage increase and this was purportedly his first
knowledge of the increase and that Hansen had misapplied his instructions.
According to Gossner, having made the error, he decided prior to Christmas to
make the increase retroactive and accordingly, on December 24, it was made
retroactive on the theory that the men would appreciate it at that time. And,
although there had been an understanding with the Union that any increase
was to be retroactive to August 1, Gossner went back another month to July 1.
In the face of these varying explanations which the undersigned, to some
extent, finds implausible. there is the added factor of Gossner's conduct in
December after granting the November 10 increase. According to Gossner,
employee Owen Pickett, who was a member of the union negotiating committee,
had at one time told him, after a meeting, that he wished Gossner could explain
his profit-sharing plan to the employees as he had at the meeting. Although
the profit-sharing plan had been repeatedly rejected by the union representatives
at all meetings, Gossner, as found, granted the wage increase on November 10;
he thereafter posted an announcement on the plant bulletin board which informed
the employees that a meeting would be held at the plant on the evening of
December 3. Gossner did not invite any of the union representatives to attend.
Present at the meeting were the wives of the employees, plant foremen, and
Secretary-Treasurer Chambers of the Association.
Gossner was the chief spokesman at the meeting and announced that the men
had not properly understood his proposition on wages and that he had therefore
brought them to the plant in order to explain it. He proceeded to discuss the
3-cent increase which had been granted as well as the workings of his proposed
profit-sharing plan. In essence, under the latter, it appears that 25 percent
of the increase in cheese revenues if any, was to be devoted to wages.
Gossner invited comment from the audience and Blaine Jardine of the union
negotiating committee spoke up. He stated that he felt the men would be satis-
fied with an increase of 3 or 4 cents per hour above the existing wages. Gossner
replied that he was pleased that the men could make up their minds although
lie was not happy that they wanted higher wages. Significantly, neither on this
nor any other occasion did Gossner inform the employees that the 3-cent increase
on November 10 had been an error on his part. Chambers spoke to the group
on general farming matters as well as the business of the Association after which
Gossner announced that he, Chambers, and the foreman would then depart. He
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
urged the men to have a meeting to consider the profit-sharing plan. The Union
as such was not mentioned during this meeting.'
Accordingly, on or about December 13, a meeting of employees was held in the
plant. It was not clear whether this was a meeting of all employees or just
of the union supporters. The group initially voted to accept Gossner's proposal
but, after further discussion and on learning that the proposals also applied to
foremen and the office clericals, the decision was reversed and the profit-sharing
plan was again rejected at this same meeting.
As stated, Gossner, on December 24, made the increase retroactive to July 1,
1 month earlier than originally agreed upon. On December 26, Gossner met
with the union committee, Union Representative Shomshor, and Fullmer Latter,
secretary-treasurer of the Joint Council of Teamsters in the area. Latter pro-
tested that not only was the 3-cent increase inadequate but that it had been inap-
propriate to grant it without contacting or clearing with the union representa-
tives. Gossner replied that he had given the increase inasmuch as he felt that he
would have to grant one sooner or later and he therefore desired to avoid payment
of a large sum of money at one time. Gossner claimed that he could not afford a
further increase because of a prevailing poor cheese market. Latter asked him
to prove this point and after some discussion Gossner finally agreed to provide
Latter with figures in support of his position.'
5. 1952 negotiations
Correspondence relative to Respondent's financial statements was exchanged
between the parties between December and March of 1952; it was of an incon-
clusive nature and the matter was apparently allowed to drop. On April 24,
1952, the Union held a meeting at which, after taking note that the cheese market
had risen, it was concluded that Respondent was not sincere, was stalling, and
was unwilling to come to an agreement with the Union on wages. The member-
ship then voted to strike in support of their wage demands and set May 9 as a
deadline for the strike.
On April 28, Secretary-Treasurer Raymond Hansen of the Union sent a form
letter to approximately 13 directors of the Association wherein he pointed out that
a crisis had developed between Gossner and the Union and that the employees
had voted to strike in protest of Gossner's stand. He stated that the Union was
willing to arbitrate its differences, as it had been in the past, and proposed such
a meeting. A copy of this letter was mailed on the same day to Secretary-
Treasurer Chambers of the Association, together with a covering letter announc-
ing that the form letter had been mailed to the directors ; the letter further
stated that the Union would be happy to meet with the board at any convenient
time.
On April 30, a meeting was held by Shomshor and Hansen of the Union and
two union plant committeemen with Gossner. Gossner expressed considerable
anger over the fact that the Union had gone over his head to the board of direc-
tors. He stated that the Union would have to get anything further it wished
from the board of directors, that he had met with the board during the previous
week, and that it had been agreed that he, Gossner, should present his profit-
sharing plan to the Union in written form. The union representatives announced
that a strike deadline had been set for May 9 but that, in any event, they would
give Respondent ample notice to prepare for same. Gossner specifically re-
2 Findings as to this meeting are based upon the testimony of Jardine and Pickett with
which that of Gossner in most respects agrees.
8 Findings herein are based upon the testimony of Sbomshor and Latter. G ossner's
testimony, although vague, did not substantially dispute theirs.
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 289
jected the arbitration proposal, announcing that he would not have any college
professor advise him how to spend his money. There was testimony that Goss-
ner again offered a 3-cent raise which would terminate on the following July 1,
if the price of cheese fell by that date ; it is not clear whether this was the same
raise that had been granted in November or was another and no finding is made
with respect thereto.
On May 2, Hansen sent a form letter to the membership of the Association.
He pointed out that for 9 months the Union had been attempting to come to an
agreement with Gossner ; that wages at the plant were below those paid by the
dairy industry in the area ; and that Respondent's wages were out of line with
those in other fields in the area . The letter urged the farmers to sympathize with
their problems.
The strike was postponed on or about May 8 after Secretary-Treasurer Cham-
bers of the Association advised Shomshor that a letter was in the mail to him
and that it bore on the crisis. This letter was dated May 8, 1952, and was signed
by President John Schenk of the Association. It did not prove however to be one
of a conciliatory nature ; in fact, although the Union had postponed the strike
in anticipation of its receipt, Schenk proceeded to level various accusations at
the Union. The Union was accused of dictating rather than discussing and ne-
gotiating terms, a paradoxical accusation in view of Gossner's obduracy in in-
sisting upon a profit-sharing plan and his fiat refusal to stabilize wage costs in
the plant for a definite period. Schenk rejected the request of the Union to dis-
cuss the matter with the Association and announced the decision to sustain Goss-
ner in all positions he had taken with the Union. He attacked the legality of the
strike vote and disputed the claim that wages at the cheese plant were below
prevailing rates in the area. The letter ended with a statement that the officials
of the Association resented the bypassing of Gossner ; that Schenk would be
willing to meet with the Union if it would be of any assistance ; but that this
would take place only if Gossner were present.
On or about May 8, just before the scheduled strike, Union Committeeman
Jardine asked to see Gossner. Accompanied by Karl Srtaub, head cheesemaker
and a supervisory employee, Jardine met Gossner in front of the plant and the
three men entered Gossner's automobile. Jardine asked Gossner what he would
offer in order to avoid a strike and Gossner replied that he could not offer
anything more than the 3 cents previously offered. Gossner commented that it
appeared as though he had enemies in the plant and that he would have to
eliminate the enemies and surround himself with friends. At this point, Gossner
raised a topic which permeated future discussions with the Union. He said that
if this were just a matter between him and the men the crisis could be settled
in 2 hours ; that "he would have to have an open shop. He could not run his
business with a Union shop." Jardine asked how one ascertained whether they
could have an open or union shop and Gossner replied that at that very moment
a petition was being circulated in the plant for such an election 4
The strike was finally set for May 14. On May 13 Shomshor and Hansen for
the Union requested a meeting and met with Secretary-Treasurer Chambers
* The findings herein are based upon the testimony of Jardine , a forthright witness
whose testimony has been credited. Staub did not testify. According to Gossner,
Jardine said he wanted to avoid the strike and assured Gossner, as tears streamed down
his, Jardine's, cheeks, that he was extremely happy to be working for Gossner as were
all the men. Gossner raised the subject of the pending unfair labor practice charges
and commented that he would ascertain the identity of his friends and enemies when
they testified at the Board hearing. As is apparent , Gossner's testimony in some degree
corroborates that of Jardine. And, in view of his prior inconsistencies, Gossner's testi-
mony where differing with that of Jardine has not been accepted.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and President Schenk of the Association ; also present was Judge Harris.
Respondent 's counsel . Gossner was absent from the State at the time on a
business trip. The union representatives asked the association representatives
if they could make any offer in order to avoid the strike. The association
representatives replied that they would not offer anything inasmuch as the
Association could not afford it. That night the Union held a meeting and re-
affirmed its decision to strike on May 14. Shomshor , pursuant to his promise
to Chambers , telephoned him that evening and informed him that the strike
would start as scheduled . This was presumably in order to enable Chambers to
summon to the plant on the following day various farmers who belonged to the
Association for the purpose of keeping operations going.
The strike took place as scheduled on the morning of May 14. During the
morning President Schenk approached a group of strikers near the plant and
discussed the pending difficulty with the group which included Jardine. Schenk
stated that the association officials felt that they might be able to offer the
strikers a 5-cent wage increase , but that they desired to discuss it further
among themselves . Later that morning the strike committee consisting of
Jardine, Irwin Coleman , and one Merrill, asked Office Manager Balls of the
Association if the could meet with the executive committee of the Association.
Balls left and returned shortly, informing them that they might enter. Con-
siderable testimony was adduced as to whether Balls informed them that they
need not bring Union Representative Shomshor with them ; it is deemed un-
necessary to resolve this conflict or the further question as to whether Shomshor
was nearby at the moment.
The strike committee entered the plant and met with the executive committee
which included Judge Harris and Chambers. The association group again put
forth the same profit -sharing plan, but it was immediately rejected . They then
offered to pay the men a 5-cent wage increase on the express condition that the
men agree to an open shop . They referred to Gossner 's absence and stated that
they felt quite certain he would agree to the wage increase if it were coupled
with an open-shop proviso . The strike committee replied that the wage increase
might be agreeable but that the open-shop proposal would have to be referred to
the union membership for a vote , having in mind presumably the fact that the
current contract between the parties provided for a union shop and that dues
pursuant to same were currently being deducted by Gossner . Chambers assured
them that if they returned to work on the following day they would be paid for
May 14; other testimony indicates that he said a recommendation would be made
to Gossner that they be so paid . The men agreed to return to work on the
following day.'
According to the uncontroverted testimony of Coleman , Chambers spoke to him
immediately after the foregoing meeting and asked him to call a union meeting
and canvas the sentiment of the membership with respect to the association
proposals ; Coleman agreed to do this . There is no evidence that this last pro-
posal by the Association found favor among the union membership . The men
reported for work on May 15 as they had promised and Gossner returned several
days later from his trip . He apparently refused to approve payment to the men
of their wages from May 14, inasmuch as the men were never reimbursed for
the day despite the commitment of the association executives.
On or about May 20, Secretary -Treasurer Chambers visited Coleman at his
home, as the latter uncontrovertedly testified . He told Coleman that he was
certain the men would get the 5-cent increase but the Respondent had to
5 The findings herein are based upon the testimony of Jardine and Coleman which is
substantially supported by that of Chambers.
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 291
have an open shop and that "they just could not give us that 5-cent raise unless
we had an open shop". At about the same time, President Schenk spoke to Owen
Pickett of the union negotiating committee as the latter was at work. According
to Pickett's uncontroverted testimony Schenk informed him that the wage dispute
could not be settled unless the plant was operated under an open shop.
Late in May or early in June, Gossner had a conversation in his office with
Blaine Jardine of the union strike committee in the presence of Foreman Straub.
According to the uncontroverted and credited testimony of Jardine, Gossner
opened the talk by stating that he had not heard anything from the members of
the strike committee. He pointed out that any agreement between the strikers
and the board of directors of the Association was null and void inasmuch as he,
Gossner, did his own negotiating. After further discussion, Gossner stated "I
absolutely got to have an open shop to run my business . . . If you fellows will
quit paying union dues into the Union for awhile . . . they would get this straight-
ened out in a hurry." Gossner added that he could not tell them what to do,
but "you can hold your dues back and you will get this contract settled in a
hurry because if the Union hasn't got the money . . . coming into them, they will
get straightened up and . . . if you decide that you want to hold the union dues
out . . . you will have to authorize us to do so and if you want to you can come
down to the office and sign a slip and hold your Union dues back".
Jardine did not accept the invitation to rescind the authority to withhold his
union dues. However, shortly thereafter, Foreman Straub approached Jardine
during working hours He told Jardine, as the latter uncontrovertedly testi-
fied, that he did not expect Gossner to agree on a contract unless it provided
for an open shop. He then handed two petitions to Jardine.' Straub recom-
mended to Jardine that he not sign one of the petitions, this being a petition to
the Board requesting an election for an "open shop," but that he should sign
the other which requested Gossner to retain the union dues in a trust fund until
the contract was settled. As will appear, Gossner, took just such action on June
30
The opposition of Respondent and its supervisory staff to the Union took an-
other tack during the latter part of May. Foreman Danielson spoke to Owen
Pickett in the plant and stated, according to Pickett, "we ought to have a union
of our own there in the shop and keep our money there." At about the same
time Danielson spoke to employee Irwin Coleman about the Union. Daniel-
son stated that if the union "went out" the best thing for the employees was to
have a labor organization of their own in the plant to which the men could
turn in their dues ; that this was preferable to sending dues into the Union,
inasmuch as the funds could thereafter be used for the direct benefit of the em-
ployees in case of necessity.
The Union made another attempt to compose its difference with Respondent.
Business Representative Shomshor and two union committeemen met with Goss-
ner, Schenk, and Chambers in Gossner's office on June 25; also present was
United States Conciliator Lyle Johnson. Union Representative Hansen again
brought up the subject of a wage increase and Gossner proposed a 5-cent per
hour wage increase conditioned upon the Union agreeing to amend their con-
tract and insert therein an open-shop clause. Hansen replied that the union
shop provided by the contract had never been an issue in their prior discussions
and that he saw no reason for it to be raised at that late date. Schenk intervened
and stated that "there would be no contract with any Union at any time with-
out an open shop clause in the contract. That they would not permit such a con-
It will be recalled that Gossner some weeks earlier in speaking to Jardine had
informed him that petitions were being circulated in the plant.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tract to be signed again." The meeting apparently ended on this unhappy
note.
Apparently realizing at the June 25 meeting that the Union and Respondent
were still bound by a contract containing union-security provisions, Gossner
on June 27 mailed to the Union and to the Regional Office of the Board, a state-
ment which announced that Gossner contended (1) that there was no contract
in existence between him and the Union because of the Union's request to modify
the contract, the breakdown of negotiations, and the strike, all of which served
to breach the contract; (2) that in any event he was giving notice of intent
to terminate the contract; and (3) that he stood ready to bargain with the
Union for a new contract if it represented a majority of the employees, but
that if the pending unfair labor practice charges were withdrawn the atmosphere
would be cleared and the possibility of arriving at an agreement would be more
likely.
As is apparent, this was the first time that Respondent contended that no
contract was in existence between it and the Union. The contract specifically
provided that the original request by the Union to modify wage provisions would
not affect the remainder of the agreement. Moreover, this June 27 communica-
tion was incapable of terminating the contract between the parties inasmuch
as the contract by its terms required a 60-day notice prior to its annual renewal
date of July 31. Hence, the notice mailed on June 27 was not effective, despite
the self-serving statement in its body that it was being given 60 days prior to
July 31.7
Testimony was developed concerning an impromptu conversation held on June
27 in the plant, during the course of which, according to employee Owen Pickett,
Gossner stated to a group of employees that those who "agitated the strike or
testified against him would find their jobs insecure and that he would not have
the Board tell him what to do." Employee Priest testified to a substantially
similar statement but was uncertain of the date or occasion. On the other hand,
eight employees who were present, including Henry Haslam who was identified
by Pickett as being present, testified that they never heard such a statement.
Two of them did attribute to Gossner a comment that some of the men might have
to testify against him. Under the circumstances, the undersigned makes no
adverse finding based upon this incident.
On June 30, Business Representative Shomshor went to the plant to inquire
concerning union dues which had not been remitted by Respondent. Gossner
then informed him that he no longer recognized the Union, no longer had a con-
tract with the Union, that there was no longer any need for a Union, that he
was refusing to remit the checked-off dues to the Union, and that he would hold
them in trust until after the present proceedings were concluded. He refused
to permit Shomshor to enter the plant and speak to the help. There were no
further meetings between the Union and Respondent.
The last item in the factual picture took place sometime after the strike,
during the summer. Foreman Straub, during working hours, told Union Com-
mitteeman Blaine Jardine, according to the uncontroverted testimony of the
7 Although the contract between the parties contained a no-strike clause, its application
was expressly conditioned upon compliance by the parties with other provisions of the
contract calling for a particularized grievance procedure and, in the event of no settlement
during such procedure, referral of the matter to arbitration It will be recalled that
on April 30 Gossner flatly refused to participate in any arbitration procedure . It follows
therefore that the conditions of the clause were not met and that the clause was not
applicable . In any event , Gossner was probably guilty of a prior breach by refusing to
submit to arbitration procedure ; this would appear to estop him from pleading a later
breach by the Union.
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 293
latter, that there had been 2 or 3 men in the plant who had been "agitating this
thing" all the time and that "he would probably have to get rid of them". The
undersigned finds that Straub was referring to the union activity.
6. Conclusions
Respondent and the Union had been under contractual relations since 1946
and their most recent contract dated October 11, 1950, was in effect during 1951.
The Union duly opened up the wage clause for discussion in May of 1951 pur-
suant to the language of the contract permitting this narrow opening. The
contract specifically provided that the remainder of the agreement would con-
tinue in effect and, accordingly, the contract renewed itself on July 31, 1951, for
the following year expiring July 31, 1952. And for that matter the contract
renewed itself again on July 31, 1952, inasmuch as no timely notice was served
to terminate or substantially modify this year to year contract. See N. L. R. B.
v. International Association of Heat and Frost Workers, 199 F. 2d 321 (C. A. 9).
That the Union was the majority representative throughout this period has in
effect been conceded and the record demonstrates that during 1951 and 1952 a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit continued to have their dues
checked off pursuant to the union-security provisions of the contract. This was
true at least until June 30 of 1952.
On its overall aspects, the record herein reflects a labor organization which was
relatively mild and patient in its requests, but which encountered considerable
resentment and resistance on the part of Gossner. While his original objection
to the Union was centered on the fact that it was unwilling to yield to his in-
sistence on installing a profit-sharing plan in lieu of a direct wage increase, his
conduct later took a turn in the direction of entirely eliminating the influence
of this Union among Respondent's employees.
Thus, after a number-of inconclusive meetings, Gossner suddenly in November
of 1951 granted the employees a wage increase. His varying and highly incon-
sistent explanations concerning the circumstances of the increase, including the
explanation that it had been entirely an error, have been heretofore described.
He then called a meeting for the employees and their families at the plant on the
evening of December 3, without notifying the union representatives of the meet-
ing. Gossner proceeded to inform the employees that they had not properly
understood his wage proposition. Then, after referring to the wage increase he
had recently granted, he outlined to the employees the aspects of the profit-
sharing plan which had so consistently and positively been rejected by the Union
to which he made no reference during the meeting. He also urged the employees
to consider his proposal and in fact to hold a meeting for that purpose.
This to the undersigned is indicative not of an attempt to bargain with the
Union but rather of an appeal to the employees to accept his proposals and to
overrule their collective-bargaining representative. It is manifest and the under-
signed finds that this was an attempt to undermine the authorized collective-
bargaining representative. The conclusion is therefore warranted that the grant-
ing of the November increase, followed by this meeting in December and the
appeals voiced therein, constituted a rejection of the collective-bargaining prin-
ciple. For once a collective-bargaining representative has been designated and
represents a majority of the employees, either party, union or employer, wishing
to change the terms or conditions of employment must seek out the other for
bargaining concerning the proposed changes. This would apply in a situation
where a labor organization had not first requested bargaining on a matter and
therefore it is all the more applicable here. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v.
N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678; N. L. R. B. v. Andrew Jergens and Co., 133 F. 2d 676
257965-54-yol. 103-20
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(C. A. 9) cert. denied 338 U. S. 827; and N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward
and Co., 133 F. 2d 676 (C. A. 9).
Moreover, additional light is shed upon Respondent's true motivation herein
when attention is paid to its conduct during the negotiations when they resumed
in 1952. Thus, after much delay, the Union voted on April 24 to strike on May 9
in support of its wage demands. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avert the
strike, it appealed to the officials of the Association to make this resort to eco-
nomic warfare unnecessary and offered to arbitrate any differences existing
between them. Gossner, however, on April 30 demonstrated his anger that the
Union had gone over his head and flatly rejected the arbitration proposals. The
Union postponed its strike from May 9 to May 14, after being advised that a com-
munication was on its way to them from the Association. However, instead of
presenting a constructive proposal which might tend to settle the dispute, the
letter proceeded to indict the Union for having an unyielding attitude in the
matter. As noted, this was ironical in view of Gossner's conspicuous obduracy
in insisting upon a profit-sharing plan.
At this point, Gossner and the Association apparently decided upon a frontal
attack on the Union as such. Gossner on May 8 informed Union Committeeman
Jardine, an employee, that he, Gossner, had to have an open shop in the plant
and that if he had one all difficulties could be settled in a matter of hours.
He significantly pointed out to Jardine that a petition directed to such a result
was then being circulated in the plant. And not long thereafter Foreman
Straub did not attempt to procure Jardine's signature to a petition urging Re-
spondent to stop forwarding union dues to the Union.
Again, on the evening before the strike, the Association flatly refused to
grant a wage increase and the strike took place on May 14 as scheduled. During
a meeting that morning, the association representatives, after again attempting
to sell the Union on the profit-sharing plan, offered a. 5-cent per hour wage
increase only if the employees would accept an open shop in lieu of the union
shop provided in their current contract. The men were also given assurances
that they would be paid for May 14, if they abandoned the strike and returned
to work on the following day. The employees abandoned the strike and returned
to work on the following day as requested, but Respondent reneged on the
promise to pay them the day's wages. On May 20, Secretary-Treasurer Cham-
bers of the Association visited Strike Committeeman Coleman and again offered
the 5-cent raise if the employees would accept an open shop. It is most sig-
nificant that these open-shop proposals were not made to the union business
representative but rather to the employees of Respondent who were serving
on the strike and negotiating committees. President Schenk of the Association
also informed employee Pickett of the union negotiating committee that the
wage dispute could not be settled unless the plant was operated under an open
shop.
Late in May or early in June, Gossner again attempted to convince employee
Jardine of the union strike committee to accept the open shop. Gossner insisted
that he could not operate the plant without an open shop. He went further
and urged Jardine that he and the other employees should hold back their
union dues; Gossner pointed out that all the employees had to do was sign
a slip of paper in the plant office authorizing Gossner to do this. Another
tack in the same general direction was taken by Foreman Danielson who, on
two occasions in late May, urged employees to form a union of their own
in the plant.
On June 25, the Union again attempted to compose its differences with
Respondent, this time with Business Representative Shomshor present. Goss-
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 295
ner again proposed the 5-cent per hour wage increase conditioned upon the
Union agreeing to amend its contract by inserting therein an open-shop clause.
Union Representative Hansen correctly pointed out that the union shop had
not been in issue in any prior discussions which had in essence been confined
to the wage problem and that there was no legitimate basis for raising it at
that late date. President Schenk of the Association intervened and flatly
announced that there would never be any contract with any labor organization
without an open-shop clause. As set forth above, Gossner's attempt on June
27 to terminate the contract was untimely and therefore ineffective, inasmuch
as he did not comply with the express provisions of the contract for dealing
with this issue. Thereafter, on June 30, Gossner flatly refused to forward
any further dues to the Union, despite the fact that there was no evidence
presented of any rescission of the dues-deduction authorizations by the em-
ployees. Presumably these funds are still collecting in Gossner's or the Asso-
ciation's hands.
Finally, during the summer, Foreman Straub threatened to discharge 2 or 3
unnamed employees in the plant who had been "agitating" the union activity.
The record does not disclose what action, if any, has been taken pursuant to
this threat.
The undersigned is of the belief that the negotiations in 1952 again strongly
show Respondent's opposition to the collective-bargaining principle. In 1951,
Respondent did not oppose a wage increase just so long as it included a profit-
sharing plan, which might or might not pay a wage increase. In 1952, Respond-
ent had no opposition to a wage increase just so long as the employees agreed
to insert an open shop in place of the union shop in their current contract. And
the record warrants the finding that what Respondent was actually interested in
was much more basic, namely, an open shop coupled with the elimination of
the Union as the bargaining representative of employees. This interpretation
logically follows from Gossner's attempts to get employees to rescind the previ-
ously granted authority to deduct union dues; his statements show that he was
desirous of eliminating this financial support of the Union and thereby eliminat-
ing the Union itself from the plant. And at the same time, one foreman urged
an employee to sign a petition urging Gossner not to forward dues to the Union
and another foreman sought to persuade employees to form a union of their
own in the plant.
As is apparent, the Union was most patient in its dealings with Gossner and
the Association ; in the belief of the undersigned, Gossner exploited this patience
by attempting to undermine the bargaining representative and procure its elimi-
nation from the plant. While it is true that the union shop is a permissive
bargainable subject and that an employer is not required to agree to one, the
picture here is of a different nature. Respondent and the Union had been under
a union shop for some time and in all their negotiations there had been no issue
raised with respect to same prior to May 1952. During all of these discussions,
a valid contract had been in effect and had renewed itself. Finally, after
unsuccessfully attempting to undercut the position of the Union in November and
December 1952, Gossner in 1952 flatly rejected all attempts to arbitrate their
differences and offered a wage increase only if the employees would accept an
open shop. This he coupled with an attempt to eliminate the Union, as such,
from the plant.
In view of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Respondent from August
9, 1951, on has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as
the representative of its employees. It is furthur found that Respondent has
granted a unilateral wage increase calculated and intended to encourage em-
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees to withdraw from the Union ; has promised benefits if the employees
would resign from the Union, refrain from union activities, and cease paying
union dues ; has circulated petitions for signature in favor of an open shop, and
requesting Respondent to cease deducting union dues; has threatened to dis-
charge employees engaging in union activities ; and has proposed the formation
of an independent labor organization in place of the Union. By all of the
foregoing Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union and
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its business operations 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 com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In the view of the undersigned, the unfair labor practices found above disclose
on the part of Respondent a fundamental antipathy to the objectives of the Act
and justify an inference that the commission of other unfair labor practices may
be anticipated in the future. The undersigned will therefore recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
the Act.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Teamsters Union, Local #976, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees of Respondent's cheese factory, excluding office and super-
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The Union was on August 9, 1951, and at all times thereafter has been and
now is, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a)
of the Act.
4. By refusing on August 9, 1951, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
8 It is assumed that, in resuming negotiations with the Union and returning to the
status existing prior to its commission of unfair labor practices , Respondent will adhere
to the various provisions of its agreement with the Union.
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION 297
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with GENERAL TEAMSTERS
UNION, LOCAL #976, affiliated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, as the
exclusive representative of all employees at our cheese factory, excluding
office and supervisory employees, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a written and signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT grant unilateral wage increases in order to induce employees
to withdraw from labor organizations.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees who resign from labor or-
ganizations, refrain from union activities, and cease paying union dues.
WE WILL NOT circulate petitions for signatures in favor of an open shop
and requesting us to cease deducting union dues.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees who engage in union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT propose the formation of labor organizations.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL #976,
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or of any other labor organization.
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY ASSOCIATION,
Employer.
Dated ------------------------ By ---------------------------------------
By ---------------------------------------
Edwin Gossner , Employer.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.