Cumberland Farms Dairy Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1445 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS , INC. 1445
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
WE WILL take reasonable and businesslike steps to resume manufacturing
operations on a scale equivalent to those conducted prior to June 16, 1961.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to their former or equivalent jobs to the follow-
ing employees and make them whole for any loss of pay from March 16, 1962,
to the date of our offer of reinstatement less intermediate earnings:
Santos Gomez Crespo Isidoro Perez
Pablo Irizarry Rivera Isidoro Gomez Perez
Emilio Nieves Evaristo Solano
Celestino Perez Juan Solano
WE WILL bargain upon request with Local 810 with respect to the unit of all
production and maintenance employees at our Wilson Avenue plant, excluding
office clericals, professional employees , watchmen , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WROUGHT ORIGINALS, INC.
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 745 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone Number, Plaza 1-5500, if they have
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Cumberland Farms Dairy Products, Inc. and Milk Drivers,
Salesmen and Inside Dairy Workers , Local 536, a/w Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Case No. 1-CA-3820. Novem-
ber 30, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 28, 1962, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommended that these allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
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 Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
139 NLRB No. 121.
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, the excetpions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order I of the Trial Examiner,
with the following modification : '
Paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order, last sentence, is
amended to read, "in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled `The Remedy,' as modified by the Decision
and Order herein."
'In finding that Respondent had knowledge of Mulock's union activities, we do not
adopt the Trial Examiner's reliance on the fact that on the day prior to Mulock's dis-
charge, he unsuccessfully solicited Management Trainee Truesdale to join the Union
However, the record otherwise establishes, and we find, that the Respondent had knowledge
of Mulock's union activity.
2 Member Leedom , for the reasons stated in his dissent in Isis Plumbing & Heating Go,
138 NLRB 716, would not grant interest on the backpay obligation
8 As the Trial Examiner found that, even absent unfair labor practices, the Respondent
may have been required to lay off one of its drivers for nondiscriminatory reasons, this
possibility shall be taken into consideration in determining the amounts of backpay due
to the drivers employed by the Respondent under the terms of the Order herein Edward
H. McLaughlin, McLaughlin Industrial Distributors, Inc, et al, 135 NLRB 586; Leo
Rosenblum, d/b/a Crown Handbag of California, and d/b/a Soft Touch Shoe Cc , 137
NLRB 1162.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on June 5 and 12, 1962, by Milk Drivers, Salesmen and Inside
Dairy Workers, Local 536, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued his complaint, dated July 18, 1962,
against Cumberland Farms Dairy Products, Inc., herein called the Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing,
alleges in substance that: (1) Respondent discharged employee Anthony T. Mulock
on or about June 2, 1962, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, all because of
his union membership and activities, (2) on or about June 4, 1962, Respondent's
employees went out on a strike which was caused and prolonged by Respondent's
unfair labor practices; (3) on or about June 19 and 28, 1962, Respondent refused
to reinstate the strikers upon their request for reinstatement, because of their union
activity and participation in the strike; (4) named officers and agents of Respondent
engaged in specific acts of interference, restraint, and coercion; and (5) by the fore-
going conduct Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act. as amended, herein called the Act.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Hartford, Connecticut, on August 8 and 9, 1962. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , to introduce rele-
vant evidence, to argue orally, and to file briefs.
Unon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Cumberland Farms Dairy Products, Inc., is a Connecticut cor-
poration with its principal office and place of business located in Hartford, Con-
necticut, where it is engaged in the processing, sale, and distribution of dairy products.
Respondent annually receives at its Hartford plant goods and materials, valued in
CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS, INC. 1447
excess of $50,000, directly from points located in States other than the State of
Connecticut.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
if. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Milk Drivers, Salesmen
and Inside Dairy Workers, Local 536, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
Respondent is engaged in the processing, sale, and distribution of dairy products
at its Hartford, Connecticut, plant where it employed approximately 12 production
and maintenance employees, including about 4 or 5 drivers. At all times material
herein, there were admittedly only two supervisors within the meaning of the Act
employed at this plant. These were Carroll Keating, the plant manager, and Ray-
mond Robinson, a driver supervisor.
About May 24, 1962, Anthony Mulock, one of the drivers, took the initiative in
taking steps to get the production and maintenance employees organized, and by
May 31 had obtained signed union authorization cards from 11 of them. On Friday,
June 1, Mulock was laid off by Plant Manager Keating. All but one of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees went out on strike the following Monday, June 4,
when Keating refused to reinstate Mulock. The strike was still in progress at the
time of the hearing in the instant case.
The principal issues in this proceeding are (1) whether the layoff of Mulock was
discriminatorily motivated in violation of the Act, (2) whether the strike was caused
and/or prolonged by Respondent's unfair labor practices, (3) whether Respondent
discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the strikers,
and (4) whether supervisors and agents of Respondent engaged in acts of inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion violative of the Act.
B. Sequence of events'
1. Preliminary incidents
On one occasion several months before the commencement of self-organization
among Respondent's employees, Supervisor Robinson was riding with employee
Kenneth Risley on the latter's route. During the trip, Risley asked Robinson what
the Company's feeling was toward union organization. Robinson replied that the
Company was against an "outside" organization but would have no objection to an
"organization within the Company " After hearing Robinson's reply, Risley made
no further comment about organizing.
About a week or 10 days before the June 4 strike, Supervisor Robinson was riding
with employee Francis Baker on the latter's route. During a discussion on the trip,
Robinson asked Baker if he was in a union at the last place where he had worked.
Baker replied in the negative.2
'Unless otherwise indicated , the factual findings in this section are based on evidence
and credited testimony which is either undenied or admitted
2 The findings in the preceding paragraphs are based on the credited testimony of Risley
and Baker . Robinson denied having made the statement attributed to him by Risley. He
admitted having asked Baker if there was a union at the plant where Baker was last
employed He further testified that Baker replied that the drivers were union but that
he was not in the union because he worked inside the plant Risley and Baker impressed
me as credible witnesses by the manner in which they testified I was not similarly im-
pressed by Robinson's demeanor. It Is true that Risley placed the Incident as having
occurred in January, whereas Robinson testified that he was not employed until March.
However, considering the fact that it was August when the instant hearing was held,
I do not regard the inaccuracy of the date as impugning the reliability of Risley's testi-
mony Upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , and considering Robinson's
admission with respect to Baker and h is further admission that on a later occasion he
asked employee Atwater to let him know if Atwater heard anything definite about the
Union "moving in" (footnote 3, infra ), I do not credit Robinson 's denials nor his testi-
mony to the extent that it conflicts with that of Risley and Baker set forth in the text
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Commencement of employee self-organization and Mulock's role therein-
May 24 through 27
Mulock was employed as an alternate or relief driver early in May 1962. In this
capacity, it was necessary for him to learn the routes of all the drivers. While riding
with the drivers for this purpose, some of them discussed with Mulock the fact that
they were working very long hours for the same pay. It was in this connection that
the subject of organizing a union came up. Mulock had previously been a member
of a different Teamsters local from which he had received a withdrawal card. On
Thursday, May 24, he went to the union office of his former local to find out what
local had jurisdiction over the milk plants and drivers. The business agent thereupon
made an appointment for Mulock to see Dauphinais, the business representative of
the Charging Union.
About 3:30 that same afternoon, Mulock went to Dauphinais' office, where they
had a long talk about the employees' grievance concerning their long hours and
pay, and the steps necessary for the employees to organize. Dauphinais explained
that Mulock would have to obtain signed union authorization cards from a majority
of the employees before the Union could represent them. When Mulock still indi-
cated his interest in union organization, Dauphinais gave him some 12 to 15 union
authorization cards and some literature about the pension plan and contracts which
the Union had with other milk dealers, and advised Mulock to inform him as soon
as he had over 50 percent of the employees signed up.
The next day, Friday, May 25, when Mulock reported for work about noon, he
met employee Risley, one of the drivers, and asked Risley if he would sign a union
authorization card. Risley signed the card and returned it to Mulock. They then
discussed how to go about getting the remaining employees to sign, in view of the
fact that the drivers came in at different times. It was decided that Risley would take
a few cards and return them to Mulock after they were signed, while Mulock would
try to sign up all the remaining employees. Mulock did not solicit anyone else that
day. During the next 2 days, Mulock solicited and obtained signed authorization
cards from a few more employees.
3. Robinson's inquiries of employee Atwater-May 28
On Monday, May 28, Supervisor Robinson was riding with employee George
Atwater on the latter's run, and informed Atwater that he had recommended him for a
raise to Manager Keating and that the home office in Rhode Island had authorized a
$5-a-trip raise for him. After they returned to the plant and Atwater had backed
the truck into the garage, Robinson engaged in the following conversation with At-
water. Robinson opened the conversation by telling Atwater that "I've known you
longer than any of the other fellows," that "I worked with you longer," that "I think
I know you better." He then stated that "I heard a rumor that the Union is trying
to move in," and asked Atwater if he had heard anything about it. Atwater replied
that when he had first started to work there, he had heard that the "fellows that got
fired had tried to get the Union in here" and that was all that he had heard Robinson
then appealed to Atwater to let Robinson or Keating know if Atwater heard "any-
thing definite about the Union trying to get in, . . . because we'd like to keep them
out." Atwater agreed to let him know if he heard anything definite.3
4. Mulock receives raise and continues to organize-May 28 through 31
When Mulock reported for work on Monday, May 28, Plant Manager Keating
called him into the office where he told him that Risley, Atwater, and Mulock were
getting a $5-a-trip raise, "but to keep it quiet." Meanwhile, Mulock continued to solicit
employee signatures to union authorization cards. When he solicited Dawson Parker,
who worked inside the plant, Parker stated that he would first like to examine some
literature. Mulock thereupon gave Parker some literature, which the latter locked in
the glove compartment of his car. A few days later, Parker signed a card and
3 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of George Atwater,
who impressed me as a candid and forthright witness Robinson admitted that he liked
Atwater "a little better than the others" and that he "got pretty friendly" with him
He also admitted that he felt he "could talk" to the men and that they "could talk to
him." He further admitted telling Atwater that he knew him better than the others and
asking him to let him (Robinson) know if he (Atwater) heard anything definite about
the Union moving in. He further testified that nothing else was said In view of Robin-
son's admissions, I do not credit his testimony to the extent that it may conflict with
that of Atwater
CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS, INC. 1449
then sent the plant employees out, one at a time, to Mulock's car parked near the
building. Each plant employee signed a card at that time, returned it to Mulock, and
went back into the plant to work. By Wednesday or Thursday, May 30 or 31, Mulock
had in his possession signed authorization cards from 11 of the 12 production and
maintenance employees. Only two of these had been obtained by Risley.
On Thursday morning, May 31, Mulock approached Paul Truesdale, one of the
new men employed as a management trainee ,4 and asked how Truesdale felt about
unions. Truesdale just shrugged his shoulders. Mulock then stated that he was
signing men up for "Local 536, the Milk Haulers and Handlers" and wanted to know
if Truesdale would "go along with us." Truesdale replied in the negative, and did not
sign a card.
During that day, Thursday, May 31, Mulock telephoned Dauphinais and advised
that he had all but one of the employees signed up. Dauphinais stated that he would
be out of town the next day but that Mulock should get the cards to him over the
weekend.
5. Mulock is laid off on June 1
In accordance with his normal procedure, Mulock called Plant Manager Keating
about 10:30 on Friday morning, June 1 , to find out when the load would be ready.
Keating would not tell him , stating that he wanted to talk to Mulock. When
Mulock arrived, Keating called him into his office and closed the doors. Keat-
ing then said, "Tony, I'm going to have to let you go." Mulock asked, "How come?"
Keating replied that they were going to cut back and were not going to open any
new stores for a while. Mulock then wanted to know why he had been selected in
view of the fact that Francis Baker, another driver, had started to work a few
weeks later than Mulock. Keating stated that he thought Baker was better qualified
for that type of work. In response to Mulock's query as to when the layoff would
be effective, Keating said, "Immediately." Keating gave Mulock a blue termination
slip which had the words "lack of work" checked off as the reason for the layoff.
Mulock was not permitted to finish out the workweek, which ended on Saturday, nor
to make his run on that Friday.
6. The union meeting on June 4
On Sunday morning, June 3, Mulock telephoned Dauphinais and informed him that
he had been laid off. Dauphinais told Mulock to contact the other drivers and have
them attend a meeting in Dauphinais' office the following morning.
Mulock and the four remaining drivers attended the union meeting on Monday
morning, June 4. Among the subjects discussed at the meeting was Mulock's layoff.
The drivers indicated that they did not believe that lack of work was the real reason
for Mulock's layoff, and were of the opinion that he was really laid off for union
activities. They believed that management was aware of their organizational efforts
and expressed their fear that the same thing could happen to each one of them, one
at a time. They unanimously decided to go out on strike unless Mulock were rein-
stated, if that would be agreeable to the employees working inside the plant
Dauphinais thereupon instructed two of the drivers, Atwater and Dieter, to con-
tact the plant employees, to inform them about what had occurred, to find out how
they felt about it, and to advise them that Dauphinais would be available to meet
with them later that day.
During the meeting, Mulock had turned over to Dauphinais the 11 signed union
authorization cards.
7. The strike commencing June 4
Atwater returned to the plant about 1:30 p.m. and informed the plant employees
of what had occurred at the meeting that morning. Dawson Parker stated that he
did not see why they had to wait for another meeting and that they were fed up with
existing conditions. Atwater telephoned Dauphinais and relayed Parker's message.
Parker also talked to Dauphinais and told him that no meeting was necessary and
that they were ready "to walk off the job now." However, Dauphinais urged them
not to do anything until he had a chance to come down and talk to the plant
manager.
Dauphinais arrived at the plant within a short time, introduced himself to Plant
Manager Keating, stated that the Union represented a majority of the employees,
and requested that Mulock be restored to his job and the Union recognized, otherwise
* Truesdale was paid on a weekly salary basis. The parties stipulated that he was hired
with the understanding that if he "worked out," he would be made a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the men threatened to strike. Keating replied that he would have to call the home
office in Rhode Island because he did not have authority to make a decision on
these matters. Keating telephoned his supervisor in Woonsocket, and then told
Dauphinais that the Company would not go along with his request. Dauphinais
replied that he had no alternative but to allow the employees to leave their jobs if
they so desired.
Dauphinais then had the employees informed of the Company's position, and all
but Truesdale left the plant about 2 p.m. Others who were not present at the
time joined the strike when they arrived at the plant. Pickets were set up and the
strike was still in progress when the instant case was heard in August. Meanwhile,
the plant continued to operate with other personnel.
8. Robinson's conversation with Corriveau
Richard Corriveau was employed by Connecticut Food Stores, Inc., as the
manager of its Waterbury, Connecticut, store Connecticut Food Stores, Inc.,
purchased dairy products from Respondent. Milk deliveries were usually made by
one of Respondent's drivers to Corriveau's store between 1:30 and 2 p.m.
On June 4, the day of the strike, Corriveau did not get his milk delivery until
about 5:30 or 6 p.m., and the delivery was made by Robinson himself. Corriveau
asked Robinson why the delivery was so late, as he had already run out of one-half
gallons of milk. Robinson replied that there was a walkout at the plant and that they
were having labor trouble. In response to Corriveau's question as to what the trouble
was, Robinson stated that "someone had instigated the Union at the plant, and that
when they found out who he was they let him go and laid him off for lack of work,"
and that he went to the Labor Board and to the Union to make trouble. Robinson
added that "it only takes one to start it and to get the ball rolling and then they
all follow suit." Corriveau then asked who the man was who started the trouble.
Robinson replied that it was "Tony, the tall blonde fellow." 5
9. Incidents during the strike
On the second or third day of the strike, Robinson approached Risley in
front of the plant and, in the presence of several pickets, said to Risley, "I'm surprised
to see you amongst these fellows " Risley replied that he "was just like the rest of
the fellows" and that he could not see "why he was any different " Robinson then
stated that he and the Company "realized that organization was coming because they
were getting so big, but they were going to try and organize amongst ourselves with
no outside affiliation." Robinson added that the men had "acted too fast" and
"should have given the company time to get the thing straightened out." 6
Pursuant to arrangements made by the Board' s Regional Office, Dauphinais met
with representatives of Respondent on June 19, at which time the parties entered into
a stipulation for a consent election After the agreement was executed, Dauphinais
went over and introduced himself to James Haseotes, Respondent' s general manager.
Dauphinais then offered to "recommend" or "request" that the men return to their
jobs, that they would then withdraw the pickets and proceed to an orderly election.
When Respondent's attorney, Reid, walked over, Dauphinais repeated his offer.
Reid replied, "Well, we'll take it under advisement; we'll let you know later in the day
what our decision is." About 2 p.m. that same day, James Haseotes telephoned
B Robinson admitted making a delivery to Corriveau's store on the day of the strike and
that he arrived there in the "late afternoon, toward night" He testified that Corriveau
asked him why he was late and that he replied that everyone had walked out He denied
having made the remaining statements attributed to him by Corriveau I have already
found Robinson not to be a credible witness in other respects Respondent contends that
Corriveau should not be credited because he was subsequently discharged by Connecticut
Food Stores, Inc , for alleged inventory shortages However, it was Respondent's position
at the hearing that there was no connection between Connecticut Food Stores, Inc , and
Respondent . Moreover , the testimony is undisputed that, only a week before the instant
hearing , Corriveau was offered a reccommendation if he should need it for another job.
In any event, unlike Robinson , Corriveau impressed me as a candid and forthright witness
whose testimony is entitled to full credence Upon consideration of all the foregoing,
including the demeanor of the witnesses , I do not credit Robinson ' s denials and find that,
in substance, Robinson made the statements to which Corriveau testified, as set forth in
the text.
O The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Risley. For
reasons previously stated , I do not credit Robinson's denials.
CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS , INC. 1451
Dauphinais and told him that "we've considered your offer and, on advice of counsel,
we don't think we'll accept it, it might create complications."
The election was held on the morning of June 28. Immediately after the balloting,
Dauphmais was in Respondent's office where he spoke to Respondent's Assistant
General Manager James Haseotes, in the presence of Respondent's local attorney.
Dauphinais stated that "our offer still stands to reinstate the people and withdraw
our picket line." Neither Haseotes nor Respondent's attorney made any reply.
During the course of the strike, Robinson was "kidding" and "joshing" with the
strikers on the picket line about coming back to work. He told Risley that he could
come back to work whenever he wanted to. Risley replied that "when we all come
back to work, my job will be there." On other occasions some of the strikers would
walk in and tell Robinson or General Manager Keating that they were ready to go
to work. Robinson or Keating would give them a big smile and walk away. About
a month before the instant hearing, Baker and Atwater told Robinson that they were
ready to go back to work. Robinson replied that they should go back to work and
that they should come in whenever they were ready. In response to Atwater's question
as to whether they would be fired within a few days if they returned, Robinson replied,
"Definitely, no." Baker then asked whom they should see, if they wanted to go
back to work. Robinson stated that he would be inside waiting for them with an
extended hand. A few days later, Baker told Robinson that he wanted to go back
to work. Robinson replied that he would have to see Keating before Robinson could
authorize it. About an hour later, Robinson came out and told Baker that James
Haseotes, Respondent's general manager, would be down the following day and
that it would have to be Haseotes' decision. Baker never heard anything more about
it from any of Respondent's representatives.
C. The discriminatory layoff of Mulock
The Respondent admittedly used Norman Pelletier mostly as a mechanic and only
occasionally as a relief driver. In March 1962, prior to Mulock's employment,
Respondent opened up five new stores and, for that reason, found it necessary to use
Pelletier more for relief driving than for mechanical work. Because of a desire to
have Pelletier devote most of his time to mechanical and maintenance duties, Plant
Manager Keating admittedly hired Mulock about the first of May "more or less
to replace Pelletier" as a relief driver . After Mulock 's employment , Pelletier worked
only 1 day a week on a relief run and the remaining time as a mechanic.
As a relief driver or "jumper," as the term is known in the trade, Mulock worked
the same as a regular driver ; he had to know the routes of all the drivers and made
the normal deliveries of each driver on his respective day off. He started at $22
a trip or $110 a week , and on May 29 was given a merit increase of $5 a trip, the
highest rate paid to any of the drivers.
In May, Respondent was also planning to open another group of new stores in the
near future . Believing that an additional driver would be needed to service the new
stores, Keating admittedly hired Baker on May 16 for the specific purpose of
breaking him into take care of the new stores to be opened . Keating told Baker that
he was being hired for that specific purpose, and that he would be paid $18 a day as
a helper and $22 a day as a driver. When Mulock was laid off on June 1, Baker
was still receiving $ 18 a day.
During the last week in May, Respondent abandoned the idea of opening more
new stores at that time . Although this resulted in the elimination of Baker's job,
it was Mulock , and not Baker, who was laid off . On June 1, when Mulock was
laid off, Keating told Baker that he would take Mulock's place as the relief driver
or "jumper" and be raised from $18 to $27 a trip.
Respondent contends that ( 1) there was an economic need for laying off a driver,
and (2 ) Mulock was selected because all the others were better qualified . The General
Counsel contends that (1 ) there was sufficient work available for all the drivers even
if no new stores were opened , and (2 ) in any event the selection of Mulock for layoff,
rather than another driver , was discriminatorily motivated in violation of the Act.
1. Respondent's defenses
Plant Manager Keating testified as follows with respect to the layoff. On Tuesday,
May 29, he received instructions from the main office in Woonsocket, Rhode Island,
that Respondent had given up the idea of opening new stores at that time, that as
a result the plant had an extra driver who was not needed, and that he therefore
should "let a driver go." The main office did not, however, designate by name
which driver should be laid off. On Wednesday and Thursday, May 30 and 31,
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he and Robinson met for about a half an hour and discussed all the drivers, except
Risley who had been employed the longest. No one was eliminated in their discussion
on Wednesday. The decision that Mulock should be the one to be laid off was
reached at their meeting on Thursday while Mulock was out on his run. Keating
admitted that he himself had no personal knowledge of the ability and work perform-
ance of the drivers, that Robinson, as the supervisor of the drivers, is in direct
contact with them and therefore in the best position to be familiar with their work
and ability, and that his decision was based entirely on what Robinson reported to him.
Keating testified that Robinson had reported that he had had problems with Mulock
with some of the store managers and felt that the other drivers were better able to
drive tractor-trailers. When pressed to explain what he meant by the latter statement,
Keating testified that he meant "more careful with the equipment." However, on
further cross-examination, Keating admitted that Mulock had never broken any equip-
ment and had never been in an accident. All he could point to in this regard was
that he had "heard from Robinson's report" that Mulock "drove a little fast."
Robinson himself gave no testimony in this connection.
Keating further testified that they felt the other drivers, including Baker, had more
"ability and potential." When cross-examined concerning the limits within which
he judged ability, he testified that "as drivers being able to get along with store
managers, honesty, and all the way through." Yet, on further cross-examination,
he admitted that he had never had any indication that Mulock was a dishonest em-
ployee. The only thing he could point to with regard to getting along with store
managers was a single incident about 10 or 12 days before Mulock's layoff when Mu-
lock decided not to pick up some returns which were left by a store manager for
credit.? Keating testified that this was a "serious charge against him" and that
Robinson relied very heavily on this incident in recommending Mulock's selection for
layoff. Yet, it is undisputed that the drivers had been instructed not to pick up
merchandise for credit unless it had been tagged by the store manager, and that the
merchandise involved in this incident had not been tagged. Although, upon his re-
turn from the route, Mulock had explained the entire incident to Keating, includ-
ing the fact that the merchandise had not been tagged, neither Keating nor Robinson
ever mentioned the matter to Mulock.8 Contrary to Keating's testimony, Robinson
did not attach any serious significance to the incident Thus, Robinson did not men-
tion it at all in his testimony. He further testified that he never reports a criticism
to a driver unless it is something serious, and did not deny Mulock's testimony that the
incident was never mentioned to him Morevore, the testimony is undisputed that
Robinson ignored a similar incident by another driver.9 Furthermore, it was after
this incident that Robinson and Keating recommended Mulock for a merit raise.
And finally, undenied in the record is the credited testimony of Mulock that just prior
to his layoff Keating and Robinson were patting him on the back and telling him what
a "wonderful job" he was doing.
It seems significant to me that, although Robinson admittedly was the only manage-
ment representative who had any personal and first-hand knowledge of the work
performance and ability of the drivers and was the one who recommended that Mu-
lock be the one to be laid off, counsel for Respondent did not adduce any testimony
from Robinson as to the reason for his selection of Mulock. On cross-examination,
Robinson admitted that "it takes about a month to get adjusted to the job." Yet, while
Mulock had been employed about a month, Robinson admitted that he knew that
Baker was hired 2 or 3 weeks after Mulock. He also admitted that he was satisfied
with Mulock's work and had recommended him for the merit increase. Robinson
further testified on cross-examination that the basis for his selection of Mulock
for layoff, was that "the others were better." Upon being asked to explain in what way
1 On this occasion, a store manager had left three cases of cream with a note that they
were sour or spoiled. The merchandise was not tagged as required by Respondent in the
case of returns to be accepted for credit. Mulock tasted the cream and found it to be
sweet, with no sour smell. He thereupon concluded that it was regular sweet cream which
the store manager wanted to pass off and get rid of because he had overordered Mulock
therefore left the manager a note to the effect that there was nothing wrong with the
cream, and cut off the manager's order for that day.
8 Keating merely testified that he "believed" he talked to Mulock about it but could not
say so "for sure."
9 This occurred in May when George Atwater Informed Robinson of his refusal to accept
for credit 21/2 cases of returns from a store manager because the merchandise was not
tagged At that time Robinson merely told Atwater to tell the manager, if the latter
had any complaints, that Robinson would straighten it out with him
CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS, IN C. 1453
the others were better, Robinson testified, "Oh, quite a few ways " When the Gen-
eral Counsel pressed for a more specific explanation, counsel for Respondent objected
on the grounds that that was beyond the scope of the direct examination and I sus-
tained the objection.
The precipitate manner in which Mulock was laid off and replaced by Baker is also
significant in determining whether Respondent was truly motivated by its asserted
reasons for selecting Mulock. Although the workweek ended on a Saturday, Mulock
was summarily laid off on Friday morning, without even being permitted to make his
run that day. He was immediately replaced by Baker who, by his own admission,
had not yet learned all the routes. At the same time, Keating admittedly took it
on his own authority to raise Baker from $18 to $27 a trip, the largest single raise ever
given to a driver, without seeking or obtaining the required prior approval from the
main office.
2. Concluding findings
Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I cannot
accept the reasons advanced by Respondent as being the true motivating cause for
selecting Mulock as the driver to be laid off, even conceding the economic necessity
for laying off one driver.
Mulock had been hired as a relief driver to replace Pelletier who was needed to
perform mechanical and maintenance duties. During his month of service he proved
himself to be a satisfactory worker, was praised by Robinson and Keating for doing
a "wonderful job," and was given a merit increase to the top rate paid to a driver
on the Monday of the very week in which he was laid off, all as previously found.
After discussing union organization with his fellow drivers to help them get their
grievances adjusted, Mulock took the initiative on Thursday, May 24, to ascertain
the necessary steps for Respondent's employees to organize. During the following
week, he became the chief proponent of the Union, actively solicited employees
everyday, and was instrumental in getting all production and maintenance employees,
except Management Trainee Truesdale, to sign union authorization cards.
Respondent was opposed to having its employees affiliate with an "outside" labor
organization. If the employees were going to organize, and there was some realiza-
tion that organization was imminent, it was Respondent's desire to try to channel it
into an "organization amongst ourselves with no outside affiliation." This is apparent,
as previously found, from Robinson's statement to employee Risley several months
before the commencement of self-organization, from Robinson's confidential appeal
to Atwater on Monday, May 28, after hearing rumors about organizing on behalf
of the Union, to let Robinson or Keating know if he heard anything "definite" about
the Union trying to get in "because we'd like to keep them out," and from Robinson's
statement to Risley during the first few days of the strike.
Robinson and Keating denied having knowledge of Mulock's union activities at
the time of his layoff or even that the employees were attempting to organize. I can-
not credit these denials. The fact that Robinson had heard rumors about the Union
trying to get in, as soon as Mulock began his organizational activities, the fact that
Robinson immediately thereafter made efforts to find out something "definite" about
the Union trying to get in , the fact that within the period of 1 week Mulock solicited
employee signatures everyday and during that time obtained signed authorization
cards from all employees except Management Trainee Truesdale, the fact that this
was a small plant with only 12 production and maintenance employees, the fact that
it was before leaving on his run on Thursday, May 31, that Mulock unsuccessfully
solicited Management Trainee Truesdale, and the fact that Keating admitted that the
decision to select Mulock for layoff was not made by him and Robinson until after
Mulock had left on his run that same Thursday-all these are among the factors
which convince me that Robinson and Keating had become aware of, or at the very
least suspected, Mulock's role and organizational activities on behalf of this outside
Union. However, any doubt in this respect is completely dispelled by Robinson's
explanation to Store Manager Corriveau, when Robinson was making a late delivery
on the first day of the strike, that they were having "labor trouble" because Mulock
"had instigated the Union" at the plant and was laid off for lack of work "when they
found out" about it.io
The instructions from the main office to lay off one driver because Respondent had
decided not to open any more new stores at that time, presented Robinson and Keating
10 As the selection of the driver to be laid off was left to the discretion of Keating and
Robinson , it is immaterial that such knowledge was not communicated to General
Manager Haseotes or to any other superior.
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with a unique opportunity to try to keep the "outside" Union out by ridding the plant
of the Union's instigator and chief proponent . Robinson admitted that he knew, from
his conversation with Baker about a week earlier , that Baker did not belong to a union
at his last place of employment . So, despite the fact that the abandonment of the
plan to open new stores eliminated the specific job for which Baker had been hired
only 2 weeks earlier, Keating and Robinson decided on Thursday afternoon, while
Mulock was out on his run , to retain Baker and to lay off Mulock instead . The next
morning, Mulock was summarily laid off without being permitted to finish out the
workweek , and was immediately replaced by Baker even though Baker had not yet
learned all the routes which, as a relief driver, he would have to service. At the
same time, Keating also gave Baker a $9 a day raise , the largest single raise ever
given to a driver, without ever having sought or obtained the admitted required prior
authorization from the main office.
When all the foregoing is considered in the light of the failure of Respondent's
explanation for Mulock 's seleciton to stand up under scrutiny ," I am convinced
and find that Keating and Robinson were truly motivated by antiunion considerations
in selecting Mulock as the driver to be laid off. That this was in fact the case is
demonstrated by the aforestated admission of Robinson to Store Manager Corriveau
on the first day of the strike . As the selection of Mulock was dicriminatorily moti-
vated, I find that by laying Mulock off on June 1, 1962 , and thereafter refusing to
reinstate him, Respondent discriminated with respect to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
D. Discrimination with respect to the strikers
1 The nature of the strike
At the union meeting held on Monday morning, June 4, and attended by
the remaining drivers , the employees expressed the view that Mulock had been laid
off because of his union activities and were of the belief that the same thing could
happen to them unless something were done about it. They unanimously agreed to
go out on strike unless Mulock was reinstated , if that would be agreeable to the
inside plant employees . Upon being informed that afternoon of what had occurred
at the morning meeting, the inside employees were ready to walk off the job at once.
However, as previously found, Union Representative Dauphinais first gave Plant
Manager Keating an opportunity to prevent a strike by reinstating Mulock. When
Keating later that day informed Dauphinais that the Company would not comply
with his request , this information was immediately relayed to the employees. All
but Management Trainee Truesdale then went out on strike that afternoon and a
picket line was set up . Other employees who did not happen to be present at the
time joined the strike when they arrived at the plant.
Upon the foregoing undisputed facts , I find that the strike was caused and pro-
longed by Respondent 's conduct in laying off and refusing to reinstate Mulock.
Counsel for Respondent makes no contrary contention in his brief. As I have pre-
viously found that the layoff and refusal to reinstate Mulock was an unfair labor
practice , it follows, and I find, that the strike commencing June 4 was an unfair
labor practice strike.
2. The refusal to reinstate the strikers
On June 19 , after the parties had entered into a consent-election agreement,
Dauphinais spoke to James Haseotes and Reid, Respondent 's general manager and
attorney, respectively . Dauphinais offered to "recommend " or "request" that the
men return to work and that they would then withdraw the pickets and proceed to
an orderly election. Attorney Reid stated that they would take the matter under
advisement. Later that afternoon, Haseotes advised Dauphinais by telephone that
they had considered his offer and , on advice of counsel , decided not to accept it
because "it might create complications ." On June 28 , after the election had been
held, Dauphinais told Assistant General Manager George Haseotes and Respondent's
local attorney that "our offer still stands to reinstate the people and withdraw our
picket line ." The offer was not accepted.
Respondent contends in his brief that Dauphinais ' conversation on June 19 did
not constitute a request for reinstatement of the strikers but was nothing more than
"a recommendation or request that Dauphinais would make to the men." While
11 See, e g, AT L R 13 v Bird Ifachme Compami , 161 F 2d 589, 592 (C A it.
CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS, INC. 1455
it is true that such a meaning may be derived from the literal words used , I am con-
vinced and find from all the surrounding circumstances that Dauphinais intended by
those words to convey the meaning that , as the representative of the strikers, he
was applying for unconditional reinstatement on their behalf , and that Respondent
so understood his offer at that time . Moreover, any doubt as to the nature of
Dauphmais ' offer was definitely removed on June 28 when Dauphinais repeated his
prior offer and described it as an "offer to reinstate " the strikers . In any event,
Respondent made it clear to Dauphmais that it would not reinstate the strikers.
"Under these circumstances it was not necessary-indeed , it would have been
futile"-for the strikers to have requested reinstatement "and the law does not require
the doing of a futile act." Valley Die Cast Corp ., 130 NLRB 50'8, 517, enfd. 303 F.
2d 64 (CA. 6)
It is well settled 12 that an employer is obligated to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers upon their unconditional request, discharging , if necessary , any replacements
in order to provide work for the strikers , and that the refusal to reinstate such
strikers constitutes discrimination against them in violation of the Act. Accordingly,
I find that by refusing to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers under the circum-
stances hereinabove found, Respondent has discriminated with respect to their hire
and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
E. Interference, restraint, and coercion
I find that Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their self-organizational rights and thereby independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of Supervisor Robinson (1) in asking
employee Baker, about a week before the strike, if he belonged to a union at his
last place of employment, and (2) in asking employee Atwater on May 28 if he
had heard anything about the Union trying to get in and then appealing to Atwater
to let him know if he heard anything "definite" about it "because we'd like to keep
them out." Counsel for Respondent contends in his brief that such conduct is not
violative of the Act because it did not in fact coerce the employees "into avoiding
a pro-union stand" as demonstrated by the fact that "they all went on strike when
Mulock was laid off." However, the test as to whether such conduct is unlawful
is not whether it was successful in coercing the employees but, rather, whether it
reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.13 Considered in the context and
circumstances under which Robinson engaged in the above-stated conduct, and in
the light of Respondent's other unfair labor practices, this test was fully met in this
case
Paragraph 11 of the complaint, as amended at the hearing, also alleges that Re-
spondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in still further respects.
I find that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof with respect
to these additional allegations and will accordingly recommend their dismissal.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
its conduct in laying off Anthony Mulock on June 1, 1962, and thereafter refusing
to reinstate him; that the strike which began on June 4, 1962, was caused and pro-
longed by Respondent's layoff of and refusal to reinstate Mulock and hence was an
unfair labor practice strike; and that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1)
12 See, e g., Winchester Electronics, Incorporated, Pnne Moulding. Inc, 128 NLRB
1292, 1.322, enfd 295 F 2d 288 (CA 2) , Walsh-Lvinpt a Wholesale I),no (`om,)anii,
129 NLRB 294, 310
11 See, e g., Murray Envelope Corporation of Mississippi, 130 NLRB 1574, 1575-1570
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Act by refusing to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers on and after
June 19, 1962. I therefore recommend that Respondent offer to Anthony Mulock
and to all the strikers named in the complaint immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary in order to provide places for
the returning strikers, all persons hired after the commencement of the strike on
June 4, 1962, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them a sum
of money equal to that which each normally would have earned as wages, from
June 1, 1962, the date of Mulock's layoff in his case, and from June 19, 1962, the
date of Respondent's refusal to reinstate the strikers in the case of the strikers, to
the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during
such period, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner es-
tablished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and
with interest thereon. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As previously noted, it has been Respondent's position that there was not enough
work available for five drivers. Keating testified that there were only four drivers
employed as of the time of the instant hearing. It is therefore possible that one
driver might have been laid off for nondiscriminatory reasons. Under these circum-
stances, 1 recommend that if there is not sufficient work available for all five drivers
after discharging all replacements, then the available positions shall be distributed
among them without discrimination in accordance with the system of seniority or
other nondiscriminatory practices heretofore applied by Respondent in the conduct
of its business. Respondent shall then place whichever driver, if any, for whom no
employment is available after such distribution on a preferential hiring list, with
priority in accordance with such system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory
practices heretofore applied, and thereafter offer him reinstatement as such employ-
ment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. In the
case of the driver for whom no work is available, backpay shall terminate on the
date of placement on the preferential hiring list.14
In view of the nature of Respondent's violations, and because discrimination with
respect to hire and tenure of employment, such as in the instant case, "goes to the
very heart of the Act," 15 I am convinced and find that there exists the danger of the
commission of similar and other unfair labor practices. Accordingly, I find it neces-
sary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act to recommend that Respondent
cease and desist from infringing "in any other manner" upon the rights guaranteed
to its employees by Section 7 of the Act, in addition to those rights found to have
been violated herein.16
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Milk Drivers, Salesmen and Inside Dairy Workers, Local 536, a/w Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of An-
thony Mulock, thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3 The strike, which commenced on June 4, 1962, was caused and prolonged by
Respondent's unfair labor practices mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and hence
was an unfair labor practice strike.
4. By refusing to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers on and after June 19,
1962, the Respondent has discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of em-
ployment, thereby discouraging membership in the aforestated labor organization,
and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
5. By the conduct mentioned in paragraphs Nos. 2 and 4, supra, and by the con-
duct of Supervisor Robinson detailed in section III, E, supra, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
14Walsh-Lumpkin Wholesale Drug Company , 129 NLRB 294 , 296-297
1s N L.R B v Entwistle Mfg Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4).
16 See, e g, Caroline M. Layton White, d/b/a Layton Oil Company, 128 NLRB 252, 261.
CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY PRODUCTS , INC. 1457
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in any other respects alleged in paragraph 11 of the
amended complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent, Cumberland Farms
Dairy Products, Inc., Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Milk Drivers, Salesmen
and Inside Dairy Workers, Local 536, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organiza-
tion, by discriminatorily laying off or discharging its employees, by refusing rein-
statement to unfair labor practice strikers upon their unconditional request, or by
discriminating against its employees in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning the Union and their membership, in a
manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Asking employees to report about union organizational activities because
Respondent would like to keep the union out or for any other reason.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-
named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
engaging in any such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in,a labor organization as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor -Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Anthony Mulock and to all strikers named in the complaint immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary in
in order to provide places for the returning strikers, all persons hired after the com-
mencement of the strike on June 4, 1962, and make them whole for any loss of pay
each may have suffered because of the discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination or copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Hartford, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A." 17 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.18
17 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
1s In the event that this Recommended Order is 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."
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further recommended that paragraph 11 of the amended complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in
additional respects.
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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Milk
Drivers, Salesmen and Inside Dairy Workers, Local 536, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging or laying off
our employees, by refusing reinstatement to unfair labor practice strikers upon
their unconditional request, or by discriminating against employees in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or condi-
tions of their employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employees concerning the Union and their
membership, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT ask any employee to report about union organizational activities
because we would like to keep the union out or for any other reasons.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, 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 other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Anthony T. Mulock and to the following named strikers im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them:
Kenneth J. Risley Ronald H. Munn
William Dieter Irving Frazier
Norman Pelletier Francis Baker
Dawson H. Parker George A. Atwater
Oliver Fissette Arthur A. Parker
Harold R. Parker
All our employees are free to become, or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent above
stated.
CUMBERLAND FARMS DIARY PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24
School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone Number, Lafayette 3-8100, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.