Dairy Employees' Local 754

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 483 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

DAIRY EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 754 483
Dairy Employees' Union, Local 754, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc. Cases 13-CC-786 and
13-CE-45
May 2, 1974
conduct violative of Section 8(bX4XiiXA) and (B) and 8(e)
of the Act.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by all parties and
have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of witnesses , I hereby make the following:
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On December 10, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief
answering the Respondent's exceptions, and the
Charging Party filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Dairy Employees'
Union, Local 754, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Chicago, Illinois , its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B . STONE, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due
notice on September 18 through 22, 1973, at Chicago,
Illinois.
The charge in Case 13-CC-786 was filed on May 16,
1973. The charge in Case 13-CE-45 was filed on May 16,
1973. The Order Consolidating Cases and the Consolidated
Complaint in this matter were issued on August 6, 1973.
The issues concern whether Respondent has engaged in
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and
admissions therein, and upon statements narrowing the
issues at the hearing.
Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., herein sometimes called
Glenora, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue
of, the laws of the State of Illinois.
At all times material herein, Glenora has maintained its
office and place of business in Skokie, Illinois, where it is
now and has been at all times material herein engaged in
the wholesale and retail sale and distribution of milk and
related products.
During the course of the last fiscal or calendar year, a
representative period, Glenora, in the course and conduct
of the business operations described above, had a gross
volume of business in excess of $500,000 and purchased
and received orange juice valued in excess of $50,000
directly from enterprises located in States of the United
States other than the State of Illinois.
Ludwig Milk Company (herein sometimes called Lud-
wig), is, and has been at all times material herein, a
corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of
the laws of the State of Illinois.
At all times material herein, Ludwig has maintained its
office and place of business in Elgin, Illinois, where it is
now and has been at all times material herein engaged in
the processing and sale of milk and other dairy products.
During the course of the last fiscal or calendar year, a
representative period, Ludwig, in the course and conduct
of the business enterprise described above, had a gross
volume of business in excess of $500,000 and received
goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from enterprises located in States of the United States
other than the State of Illinois.
Glenora and Ludwig are and have been, at all times
material herein, employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
As conceded by Respondent and based upon the
foregoing, it is concluded and found that Glenora and
Ludwig are and have been, at all times material herein,
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, that each meets the
Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction herein,
and that in connection with the activities set forth in
section III of this decision it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
210 NLRB No. 60
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED' collective-bargaining contract which Glenora Farms Dair-
y, Inc., had with Respondent .4
In substance, Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., pur-
chased certain assets (excluding processing equipment), use
of the name of Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., and purchased
distribution routes. What had been known as Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., changed its name and continued at the
same place to sell its other assets and to liquidate.
Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., employed certain truck-
drivers from old Glenora, did not employ any processing
employees from old Glenora, ultimately employed one
clerical from old Glenora, and assimilated the distribution
routes into its enterprise.
There is some contention that Glenora Farms Dairy,
Inc., is a successor to old Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc. The
sum of the facts as set forth reveals that Glenora Farms
Dairy, Inc. (formerly Distributors Dairy Services , Inc.), is
not an alter ego of old Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., did not
assume collective-bargaining contracts of old Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., and was not the same employing
enterprise as old Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc. It is clear, and
I conclude and find that Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.
(formerly Distributors Dairy Services , Inc.), does not have
bargaining obligations with Respondent arising out of the
fact that it purchased certain assets and name usage.5
Distributors Dairy Service, Inc., had initially entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respon-
dent in 1968. In 1969 and 1971, Distributors Dairy
Services, Inc., and Respondent had also entered into new
collective-bargaining agreements . Said 1971 collective-bar-
gaining agreement between Respondent and Distributors
Dairy Services, Inc., is identical to or substantially similar
to a 1971 collective-bargaining agreement between the
Respondent and (old) Glenora Farms Dairy , Inc. When
Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., changed its name to
Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., the applicable collective-
bargaining agreement covering its employees and between
it and Respondent was the agreement entered into between
Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., and Respondent .6
The new "Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.," later similarly
purchased name usage and certain assets from Creamcrest
(in June 1972) and Bornhoff (in October 1972). The facts
as to such purchases and resultant acquisition of distrib-
ution routes, and assimilation of such routes into Glenora
Farms are similar to those with respect to Distributors
Dairy Services, Inc. 's acquisition and assimilation of
"Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.'s" routes , excepting for
assumption of name usage. The new "Glenora Farms
Dairy, Inc." did not become a successor to collective-
bargaining obligations of such companies . As a result of
the acquisition of such assets and routes, Glenora Farms
to pay accrued vacation pay to routemen and other employees who became
its employees Read as a whole , the contract of sale and purchase does not
reveal an intent for the purchaser to assume the obligation of the seller's
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent.
5 See Witham Buick, Inc., 139 NLRB 1209. Alabama Precast Products Co.,
Inc., 163 NLRB 993.
8 The collective-bargaining agreements between Respondent and Glen-
ora Farms Dairy, Inc., Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., and many other
companies referred to in the litigation of this case, except one, were virtually
all identical or substantially similar and covered distribution and processing
employees.
Dairy Employees' Union, Local 754, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, the Respondent, is and has been
at all times material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Issues
Agency Status2
At all times material herein, the following named persons
have occupied the positions set opposite their respective
names and have acted on behalf of Respondent as its
agents within the meaning of Section 2(13), 8(b), and 8(e)
of the Act: August Burnier-secretary-treasurer; Mathias
P. Glaser-vice president; Edward T. Paulsen-president.
B. Glenora Farms Dairy, Ine.3
The Collective-bargaining Agreement Involved
In 1973, Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., was engaged in the
purchase, sale, and distribution of dairy products to
wholesale and retail customers in the Chicago, Illinois,
area . At such time and prior thereto, when known as
Distributors Dairy Services, Inc. (1968-September 1971),
or as a proprietorship named "Dairy Services Distributors"
(1967-1968), Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., had not engaged
in employing employees in processing work.
During the time of existence of Glenora Farms Dairy,
Inc., or its predecessors, certain dairy distribution routes
had been purchased from other companies. Glenora Farms
Dairy, Inc., never engaged in the processing of milk for
such routes but either continued for a while purchasing the
milk from the one who had previously processed such milk
or commenced purchasing such processed milk from
Sidney Wanzer & Sons, Inc., herein called Wanzer.
Ultimately Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., as of early 1973,
purchased all such processed milk from Wanzer.
As has been indicated, Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., was
formerly known as Distributors Dairy Services, Inc. In
September 1971, Distributors Dairy Services, Inc. pur-
chased certain assets from Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.
Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., also purchased the right
to use the name "Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc." Distributors
Dairy Services, Inc. did not purchase the corporate entity
of Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., or its processing equipment.
Nor did Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., assume the
r The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein.
2 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein.
3 The basic facts are not in dispute except as indicated later herein. The
essential disagreement goes to conclusions to be gathered from such facts
The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the
testimony of all witnesses , of stipulations , and of exhibits.
4 Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., agreed to pay union pension and
other union contributions for Margaret Adonolphi, Glenora's secretary,
after she became an employee of Distributors Dairy Services, Inc.
Adonolphi was to be a consultant , and the terms for such services were part
of the "quid pro quo" for the contract of sell and purchase The agreement
thereto was limited in nature . Distributors Dairy Services, Inc., also agreed
DAIRY EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 754 485
Dairy, Inc., merely added to its distribution business, did
not engage in processing of milk, and did not employ
processing employees.
C. The Collective-bargaining Unit
As the facts previously set forth reveal, Distributors
Dairy Services, Inc. (now known as Glenora Farms Dairy,
Inc.), entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent in 1968 , and again executed collective-bar-
gaining agreements with Respondent in 1969 and 1971. As
the facts previously set forth, the above-referred to 1971
collective-bargaining agreement between Distributors
Dairy Services, Inc., and Respondent (and not a 1971
collective-bargaining agreement between "old" Glenora
Dairy Farms, Inc., and Respondent) is the collective-
bargaining agreement governing the relationship between
Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc. (in 1973), and Respondent.
Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc. (formerly Distributors Dairy
Services, Inc.), did not agree in 1968, 1969, in 1971, or at
any later date to authorize any association or other person
to bargain collectively on its behalf, nor did Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., agree with Respondent at any date that
it would be bound by bargaining by any person other than
itself. The collective -bargaining agreements of 1968, 1969,
and 1971 executed by Distributors Dairy Services, Inc.,
and Respondent reveal on their face that the collective-
bargaining unit involved is a unit of the Employer's
employees. The Employer in said agreements is shown to
be Distributor's Dairy Service, Inc. The facts reveal that as
a result of name change such employer in 1973 was
Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.7
Even assuming that the Respondent could otherwise
establish that it has collective-bargaining agreements
concerning a multiemployer bargaining unit as to other
employers, the facts would preponderate for a finding that
Distributors Dairy Services , Inc., in 1968 , 1969, 1971, or
later did not agree to become a part of such multiemployer
bargaining unit.
Much testimony and many exhibits were presented into
evidence relating to a contention that Respondent Union
represents all employees covered by contracts entitled
"Fluid Milk Contract" in one multiemployer employee
bargaining unit . It suffices to say that such evidence as a
whole does not reveal the establishment of a multiemployer
employee bargaining unit of employees.
Multiemployer bargaining, multiemployer employee
bargaining units of employees, and essentially standard
type contract presentations often look alike and appear
similar . Thus, employers may authorize multiemployer
bargaining but for individual bargaining units of each
employer. Employers may agree with each other and with a
union that their employees jointly constitute a multiem-
ployer employee bargaining unit . And unions may develop
a standard type contract and be successful in having many
employers to execute such contracts.
There are many distributors and processors of dairy
products in the Chicago area. The Union has collective-
bargaining agreements with many of such distributors and
processors of dairy products. Whether the Union has
collective-bargaining agreements with all such distributors
and processors is not established. Whether other unions
represent some distributors and processors is not revealed.
The facts in this case concerned those distributors and
processors who had contracts with the Union. All of the
companies except one which had collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union in this case were signators to
contracts entitled "Fluid Milk Contract." The "Fluid Milk
Contracts" are essentially identical or substantially similar.
Much testimony and many exhibits were introduced into
the record concerning "fluid milk" contracts and the
bargaining thereto. The facts as a whole reveal that an
association called The Associated Milk Dealers, Inc.,
represented prior to 1966, and between 1966 and 1971, its
employer-members in negotiations with the Union. The
credited testimony of Burnier for the Union and Hanley
for said association was to the effect that the Union had to
secure the signatures of the individual employers to
contract. The facts reveal that prior to 1966, in 1966, and in
1969, the Union and the AMD met and discussed terms of
a contract, agreed to such terms, and the individual
members of the AMD executed individual but substantial-
ly identical contracts with the Union. For contract
negotiations in 1971, the Union refused to meet with the
AMD but selected a certain member of AMD , negotiated a
contract with said member, permitting others to be present,
and sent such contracts to AMD members for signatures
but indicating a willingness to bargain if so desired. The
Union had no problem in getting the AMD members to
execute in effect separate but identical contracts.
In addition to the foregoing, the facts reveal a bulletin
dated January 23, 1970, from Hanley, attorney for AMD,
to members of AMD indicating that a labor committee for
AMD had made agreements concerning the 1969 contract
relative to employees' having their birthdays as a day off
from work. Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude
and find that the AMD was authorized by its members to
negotiate final and binding contract agreements up and
until 1971.
Prior to 1966, the AMD had permitted nonmembers of
AMD to sit in on its bargaining sessions with the Union .8
After reaching agreement with the AMD as to contract
terms , securing individual AMD members ' signatures to
identical but separate contracts, the Union submitted
identical but separate contracts to nonmembers and told
them that here was the contract, sign it. The Union had no
difficulty in getting AMD and non-AMD members to
execute such contracts.
In 1966, one of the members of AMD, Sidney Wanzer &
Sons ,9 resigned. In 1966 , the AMD refused to let Wanzer
and other nonmembers participate in its bargaining
sessions with the Union.
In 1966, the Union first negotiated a contract with
Wanzer. Later the Union met with the AMD and
negotiated a contract, identical to the Wanzer contract
7 The applicable collective -bargaining agreement for the issues herein is classifications covered under such contract with the various Employers and
the one referred to as the 1971 agreement and is in effect until 1974. discussed and agreed upon the Union 's bargaining positions.
• Prior to the negotiations with Employers concerning the "Fluid Milk 9 Herein sometimes called Wanzer.
Contract," the Union had a meeting for all employees working in
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
except for the addition of arbitration language . The Union
then secured signatures to separate but identical contracts
from the AMD employer members . The Union then sent
separate but identical contracts to all nonmembers of the
AMD for signature . The Union apparently had no
difficulty in securing signatures to such contracts from any
such employers.
In 1967 the Union negotiated with the AMD and
reached agreements on contract terms . Thereafter the
Union secured the signatures of employer -members of the
AMD to separate but identical contracts . In 1967 , certain
nonmembers of the AMD had joined an organization
called the Chicago Area Dairymen 's Association. The
Union refused to recognize this Association in bargaining.
Instead, the Union, utilizing the basic contract negotiated
with AMD, met with certain of the employers (with whom
there were specific problems ) who were nonmembers of
AMD and negotiated contracts . The negotiated separate
contracts were substantially similar but contained differ-
ences designed to solve the specific problems . As to other
employers who were nonmembers of the AMD , the Union
submitted separate contracts identical in language to the
AMD contracts.10
In 1969, the Union negotiated a "fluid milk" contract
with the AMD . As in the past it successfully secured
signatures from individual employers , members of AMD,
to said contract . The Union submitted similar and
identical individual contracts to certain employers, who
were not members of AMD and with whom it anticipated
no problems , for signatures . The Union encountered no
difficulty in obtaining such signatures . As to certain other
employers, who were not members of AMD and with
whom there existed problems , the Union met and negotiat-
ed addendums to be attached to a contract identical to the
AMD contract , and secured agreement from such employ-
ers thereof.
In 1971 , the Union refused to negotiate with the AMD.
Instead the Union selected one company (Dean Foods
Company), a member of AMD, and negotiated and signed
a contract . The Union permitted others to be present with
the officials of such company while negotiations were
going on . Individual contracts identical to the Dean Foods
Company contract were submitted to AMD members and
non-AMD members with whom there were no problems.
Individual contracts were submitted to employers with
whom the Union had problems and addendums were
negotiated for attachment thereto . The Union had no
difficulty in obtaining signatures from Employers to such
contracts.
Burnier of the Union testified to the effect that the
employees of the one employer not signatory to the "Fluid
Milk" contract were not in the alleged "Fluid Milk" unit
because the terms and conditions of the contract as signed
were different from those in the "Fluid Milk" contracts.
The sum of the facts and the foregoing reveal in effect
that basically separate but identical contracts have been in
effect since before 1966 with employers who were members
of the AMD and with employers who were not members of
AMD. The original basic type contract has been changed
10 This contract form was utilized with respect to approximately 95
percent of the employers who were nonmembers of the AMD.
from time to time but remains basically similar to what it
was. Each succeeding type contract has remained basically
similar, whether applicable to AMD members, non-AMD
members, or individual employers. AMD was authorized
to represent its members in multiemployer bargaining from
before 1966 to 1971. Since 1971, AMD has not been
recognized as a multiemployer bargaining agent. As to
some of the employers who were nonmembers of the
AMD, the facts are not sufficient to reveal whether their
actions constituted authorization or ratification of a
multiemployer bargaining agent at such times. As to other
employers, who were not members of AMD and did not
attend bargaining sessions, the facts do not reveal
authorization or ratification of such bargaining authori-
ty. [ [
The facts simply reveal that the Union decides upon its
positions, negotiates one contract, and uses this contract as
its basic and firm proposal as a separate contract to all
other employers.
All of the separate contracts referred to above contain
language to the effect that the collective-bargaining unit
consists of the employees of the signatory employer. Such
contracts, including the 1971 contract between Distributors
Dairy Services, Inc., and the Union provide also in effect,
in connection with agreements made a part thereof, that
employees of the employer have certain rights and benefits
concerning unemployment. Such employees have the right
to apply seniority on an "industry" basis under certain
conditions. In effect, an employee of one employer, under
certain conditions, can exercise seniority rights (as to
bumping) over an employee of another employer who has
signed one of the "fluid milk" contracts.
Despite the identical or substantial similarity between
the many "fluid milk" contracts executed during different
years (1966-71) by various employers and the Union, there
is no evidence to reveal that at any time such employers
agreed with each other, with an association or other
person, or with the Union that the employee bargaining
unit was a multiemployer employee bargaining unit.
Considering all of the foregoing, I find it clear and
conclude and find that there is not a multiemployer
employee bargaining unit of employees consisting of all of
the employees, specifically described in the individual
contracts, of employers signatory to the "fluid milk"
contracts with the Union. The benefits and rights contrac-
tually agreed to by the Employer and the Union which are
accorded on an industry basis, and which are broader than
normally accorded employees of an individual employer,
constitute evidence of a broad community of interest. It is
a factor for consideration as to whether a consensually
agreed to multiemployer bargaining unit is appropriate. In
the absence of the individual employer having agreed to a
multiemployer employee bargaining unit, however, such
factor is not sufficient to establish a multiemployer
employee bargaining unit.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that the "collective-
bargaining unit" of the individual employer, Glenora
11 Distnbutors Dairy Services, Inc., and Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., did
not participate in such sessions.
DAIRY EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 754
Farms Dairy, Inc., is the collective-bargaimng unit for
purposes of Section 8(e) of the Act in this case.12
D. The Ludwig Milk Company
In early 1973, Glenora engaged in negotiation with
Ludwig both as to contemplated purchase of processed
milk and as to complete purchase of Ludwig. Later, in
April 1973, Ness for Glenora was in communication with
the Respondent Union about such plans. The Union's
conduct, which occurred in April 1973 and thereafter as
regards such plans, the purchase of Ludwig by Glenora,
the contemplated cessation of purchase of processed milk
from Wanzer and purchase of processed milk from
Ludwig, is in issue in this proceeding. The question of
whether Ludwig is "a person," other than Glenora, for the
purpose of Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) and 8(e) of the
Act is related to such issues.
Glenora purchased Ludwig on April 23, 1973. Because of
fear of strike action by the Union, Glenora did not
commence the purchase of milk from Ludwig until August
1973. At such time Ness had been advised by his attorneys
that he no longer needed to fear such strike action.13
With respect to the issue of whether Ludwig is "a
person," other than Glenora, for the purpose of Sections
8(bX4XiiXA) and (B) and 8(e) of the Act, the following
may be summarized.
Fred Ness and his wife, after April 23, 1973, owned 100
percent of the shares of Glenora. Glenora, in turn, owned
100 percent of the shares of Ludwig. Fred Ness, his wife,
and his wife's mother were directors of Glenora. Fred Ness
and his wife were directors of Ludwig. Certain officers and
officials of Glenora were as follows: Fred Ness-president;
his wife-secretary-treasurer; Bernard White, Robert Braun,
and Frank Pollich-vice presidents; Robert Braun-general
manager; and Frank Pollich-assistant general manager,
and a supervisor named Heflin. Certain officers and
officials of Ludwig were as follows: Fred Ness-president;
Ernest Ludwig-general manager; Bernard White-assistant
general manager ; and supervisors Larry Mann and Robert
Broeker.14
Glenora and Ludwig maintain separate bank accounts in
different towns, separate payroll records prepared by their
own respective employees, separate accounts receivable
and payable kept at their own locations, have separate
auditors, keep separate insurance, own separate property,
have separate telephone listings, and intend to file separate
income tax returns.
The main offices and plants of Glenora and Ludwig are
separately located. Ludwig's main office and plant is
located 30 miles away from Glenora's, and Ludwig's
second operation at "Polo" is located around 105 miles
from Glenora's. The facts reveal, however, that the
operations of Glenora and Ludwig meet at the point or
12 The Respondent contends in effect that for "work preservation"
purposes under Section 8(e) of the Act there can be a broader unit. I am
persuaded that Congressional intention and Board and court decisional law
reveal that the purpose of Congress was to keep labor disputes narrow and
that the collective-bargammg unit for "work preservation" purposes is the
collective-bargaining unit of the employees of the Employer.
13 It is clear that such advice was based upon a consideration that
487
points where Glenora receives the "processed milk" from
Ludwig.
Glenora purchases 95 percent of the processed milk that
it distributes from Ludwig . Ludwig sells 20 percent of its
products to Glenora.
Checks are prepared by the employees of each company
for their respective companies and are signed , personally or
by machine , by Fred Ness. It is clear that when Ness
signed checks for Ludwig , he signed in a capacity as
president of Ludwig. It is also clear that when Ness signed
checks for Glenora , he signed as president of Glenora.
Fred Ness and Ernest Ludwig credibly testified to the
effect that Glenora and Ludwig were separately operated;
that Ludwig, former president of Ludwig, had a blank
check for such operation ; that Ludwig officials and
supervisors and employees were not involved in the
operation of Glenora ; that Ludwig's expenditures were
approved by Ludwig; and that Ludwig controlled its own
day by day operation , hiring and firing, promotions, setting
of work conditions , prices, labor negotiations , wages and
working conditions , and handling of grievances.
In making such credibility determinations, I have
considered the testimony concerning approval of expendi-
tures , Assistant General Manager White's status and
manner of pay, brief and sporadic work for Ludwig
performed by Pollich, Ness's presence at Ludwig 's contrac-
tual negotiations , the discharge of Ackerman by Ness, and
the question of integration of the two companies. On one
occasion Ness , president of Glenora and Ludwig, dis-
charged an employee named Ackerman . General Manager
Ludwig, of Ludwig, had already decided to discharge
Ackerman. Ness was present on the day that Ackerman
was to be discharged ; and since Ludwig and White had to
leave to go elsewhere and to minimize hard feelings
between Ludwig and Ackerman, Ness decided to be the
one who would discharge Ackerman . Since Ness was
president of Ludwig, since Ernest Ludwig had decided
upon such discharge , I am persuaded that Ness's actions
were as president of Ludwig, were ministerial in nature,
and do not reveal the imposition of active control by
Glenora over Ludwig.
Bernard White, a vice president of Glenora , was made
assistant general manager of Ludwig after Glenora
purchased Ludwig. In September of 1973 , after Glenora
purchased another company (Modern Dairy), White was
made general manager of Modern . While at Ludwig,
White's salary and certain payments to the Union were
paid by Glenora . The overall evidence reveals that Ness
was not experienced in the operation of a processing
company, and that Ernest Ludwig was expected to stay
only several years . Ness testified in explanation of
Glenora's payment of White 's salary that such was done
for tax purposes and to help White maintain certain union
benefits . Considering the foregoing in context with the
evidence that Glenora reposed authority in Ernest Ludwig
communication between Glenora and the union attorneys had revealed that
strike action would not be undertaken , at least, pending the outcome of
litigation
14 Although the record indicates that there were other officers and
supervisors of both Glenora and Ludwig , there is no contention of
overlapping duties or responsibilities by such persons.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to manage Ludwig, no evidence that White exercised
countermanding authority, I am persuaded that Ness's
explanation is credible and so credit his testimony.
Around the time that Glenora was ceasing to purchase
processed milk (in glass bottles) from Wanzer and was
commencing the purchase of processed milk (in glass
bottles) from Ludwig, Pollich, a vice president and
supervisor of Glenora, utilized one of Ludwig's offices
while handling such transition. The explanation, testimony,
and stipulation was to the effect that such location was
more convenient for him because of the changing of routes,
and that he had received no orders from Glenora or
Ludwig thereto. On such occasion, Pollich, in addition to
his duties for Glenora, received payments from Ludwig's
drivers, received calls for Ludwig, reported such calls for
Ludwig, and made deposits for Ludwig. Considering the
limited and sporadic nature of Pollich's actions, the
absence of evidence that Pollich asserted any policy
influence or control at such times, I conclude and find that
such conduct was ministerial in nature and does not reveal
the exertion of control by Glenora over the affairs of
Ludwig.
After Glenora purchased Ludwig, Fred Ness sat in on
half of a series of negotiating meetings between Ludwig
and Local 330 of the Teamsters. As to such negotiations,
the facts reveal that Ludwig was a part of a multiemployer
bargaining group, that a Mr. Sorensen was spokesman,
that Ness acted only as an observer, that Ernest Ludwig
acted as spokesman for Ludwig, and that Ernest Ludwig
was the one to execute any contract agreed upon.
Ness, as indicated, wears three hats, part owner of
Glenora, president of Glenora, and president of Ludwig.
Considering all of the foregoing, I am persuaded that the
facts reveal no more than potential control by Glenora.
Had Ness wanted to exercise actual control as president of
Ludwig or as president of Glenora, I am persuaded that he
would have done so and would have actually asserted
himself in such bargaining sessions. Considering the facts
from an overall basis, I am persuaded that Ness, as
president of Ludwig, was familiarizing himself with details
and aspects of the Ludwig operation and business
responsibilities. I am persuaded that the evidence does not
reveal actual control of bargaining by Ness.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
the Ludwig Milk Company, for the purposes of (Sections
8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) and 8(e), is a person other than
Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.15
E. The Events of April 197316
On April 2, 1973, President Ness, of Glenora, met with
officials Burnier, Paulsen, and Glaser (all of the Respon-
dent Union) at the Union's offices. On such occasion Ness
told said officials that Glenora was planning to purchase
is See Los Angeles Newspaper Gutl4 Local 69 (San Francisco Examiner,
Division of the Hearst Corp.), 185 NLRB 303
16 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the
testimony of Ness, Burmer, Paulsen , and Glaser.
lr Glenora did not process milk nor employ employees who worked on
the processing of milk or dairy products.
18 I credit Burner's testimony to the effect that he was seeking a way to
restrain Glenora in such action but at the time did not know how to do so.
19 Considering all of the facts, I do not credit Burmer's, Paulsen's or
its milk from Ludwig. Ness also related that Glenora was
planning to purchase Ludwig.
It is clear that Ness and the union officials knew that the
effect of such actions would be that Glenora would cease
the purchase of a substantial quantity of processed milk
from Wanzer, and that such processing of milk by Wanzer
was performed by employees covered by the Union's
contract with Wanzer. It is also clear that union officials
had made it clear to Ness in late 1971 that its interest was
to the effect that the processing of milk purchased or
processed by Glenora 17 be done by employees of employ-
ers covered by its contracts.
What occurred at the April 2, 1973, meeting may be
summarized as follows. Ness discussed Glenora's prob-
lems, the need to get milk from Ludwig , and made some
compromise type proposals. Paulsen and Glaser indicated
dissatisfaction with Ness' proposed actions because "work"
performed by employees of employers under contract with
the Union would no longer be performed by employees of
employers under contract with the Union . Burnier,
apparently thinking the discussion was getting out of hand,
stepped out of the room, had Ness called to a telephone,
and suggested to Ness that he and Ness meet at a later
date.
Later, Ness and Burnier met on April 5, 1973, and
pursued a discussion of Glenora's proposed actions.
Burnier, for the Union, indicated to Ness that he could see
no problems with respect to Glenora's purchase of milk
from Ludwig, and Glenora's purchase of Ludwig.18
Around April 20, 1973, Burnier decided that he had a
plausible basis to restrain Glenora from obtaining proc-
essed milk from employers other than employers under
contract with the Union. Thus, Burnier decided that an
argument could be made that Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc.,
was a successor of old Glenora, that old "Glenora's" 1971
contract was applicable to Glenora's Farm Dairy, Inc.'s
relationship with the Union, and that an argument as to a
"multiemployer employee collective-bargaining unit"
could be made.19
On April 20, 1973, Burnier left a message at the Union's
office for Paulsen to call Ness, of Glenora , and tell him
that he would have problems if he took the "bargaining
unit work" and gave it to the employees in the Ludwig unit
(represented by Teamsters Local 330). Burnier left word
for Paulsen to tell Ness that if he had to blame anyone, to
blame him (Burnier), that "Augie " (Burnier) had forgot
something, had not been thinking as fast as he should have.
Paulsen received the above message and contacted
Ness's office. Ness was not there, but Paulsen ascertained
where Ness was. Paulsen telephoned Ness at Ness' lawyer's
office. Paulsen then related to Ness that Burnier had asked
him to convey a message to him, that Glenora should not
go ahead with the "Ludwig" deal, that Burnier said to
Glaser's testimony relating to their belief of a "multiemployer employee
collective -bargaining unit" covering the employees of Glenora. I am
persuaded that such testimony constitutes a rationalization of desired
position. If such a unit had existed prior to April 1973, it is clear that the
union officials would have known of such and would have pursued their
objectives accordingly . Burnier would not have had his problem of seeking a
"solution" and deciding that he had a "solution" by virtue of "successor-
ship" and "multiemployer employee bargaining unit" if one in fact had
existed all the time
DAIRY EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 754 489
blame him (Burner), that Bummer had forgotten some-
thing . Ness told Paulsen that it was a little too late, that he
had already gone ahead. Paulsen told Ness in effect that if
he did, there would be problems.20
President Ness, of Glenora, and Respondent officials,
Burner, Paulsen , and Glaser, met again at the union
offices on April 24, 1973. Despite some differences in the
testimonial versions of the witnesses (Ness, Burner,
Paulsen , and Glaser), I find it clear that the union officials
revealed their opposition to his commencement of pur-
chase of milk from Ludwig, processed by Ludwig's
employees, and the cessation of the purchase of milk
processed by employees of employers under contract with
the Union. I further find it clear that Burruer and the other
union officials made it clear that if Glenora took its
planned action of buying milk from Ludwig and not from
an employer who was signatory to one of union's "Fluid
Milk" contracts, the Union had a right to strike if such was
done before the "dispute" had been arbitrated.
After the above meeting Ness, for Glenora, sent the
following telegram to the Respondent:
GENTLEMEN, BECAUSE OF THE EQUISITION OF LUDWIG
MILK COMPANY WE INTEND TO DISCONTINUE THE
PURCHASE OF OUR SUPPLY OF DAIRY PRODUCTS FROM
SIDNEY WANZER AND SONS INC AFTER THE EXPIRATION
OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE GLENORA
FARMS DAIRY INC FRED J NESS PRESIDENT
The Respondent, by Burner, on April 27, 1973,
transmitted the following letter to Glenora.21
Gentlemen:
We have your telegram dated April 24, 1973 in
which you state it is your intention to discontinue the
purchase of your supply of dairy products from Sidney
Wanzer and Sons, Inc. effective on or about May 24,
1973.
The name of the company from whom you buy your
dairy products is not our concern.
Our concern springs from the fact that the work of
processing these dairy products has been assigned to,
and is presently being performed by, members of the
bargaining unit whom we represent and, pursuant to
the provisions of Article XXIII of the contract in effect
between your company and this Union, this work may
not be transferred or assigned to persons, other than
members of this bargaining unit, except upon written
agreement between Glenora Farms, Inc. and Dairy
Employes' Union, Local 754.
We would like to meet with representatives of your
Company to see if this grievance may be resolved.
If we are unable to resolve the grievance, it becomes
20 I credit Ness to the effect that Paulsen indicated that there would be
"trouble ." Ness's testimony does not appear reliable , however, to establish
that the word "trouble" was used Rather , considering Burnier's testimony
relating to the message he left Paulsen, and the logical consistency of events,
I am persuaded that Paulsen conveyed the effect of such message as
"problems."
21 The Respondent 's position was reiterated by a letter by its attorneys,
in similar effect on May 22, 1973, to the American Arbitration Association,
copy to Ness
22 Respondent's counsel indicated on the record that he was not making
an argument that the issues in this case were moot by the fact that the
Union by such action was not invoking its "status quo" rights under the
contract to engage in a strike . Respondent's counsel further stated , however,
subject to the arbitration provisions of the contract,
and we need to remind you of the Union 's right to
strike to maintain the status quo pending the outcome
of the arbitration.
We will await word from you as to a time and place
for a meeting to discuss this very pressing matter.
Yours very truly,
August Burner , Secretary-Treasurer
DAIRY EMPLOYES' UNION, Local 754
After the April 1973 purchase of Ludwig by Glenora,
Ludwig continued to operate as a separate corporation.
Glenora did not commence purchasing processed milk
from Ludwig but continued until August 1973 to purchase
its processed milk in glass bottles from Wanzer . The reason
that Glenora did not cease purchasing milk in glass bottles
from Wanzer and did not commence purchasing such milk
(in glass bottles) from Ludwig is clearly established by the
credited testimony of Ness, president of Glenora. Thus,
Ness credibly testified that he did not make such change
because of fear that the Union would strike Glenora.
In the meantime Glenora filed the unfair labor charges
that are involved in this case with the National Labor
Relations Board . Later the NLRB regional office advised
the Union that it would seek a court injunction ( 10(1))
prohibiting the conduct complained of in this case. The
Union, by its attorney, advised Glenora's attorneys that
Glenora could "transfer" the work to Ludwig. The main
factor in the decision of the Union to so advise Glenora
that it could transfer such work was the factor of expense
of 10(1) litigation . Glenora's attorneys advised Ness of
Glenora that he need not fear strike action . Thereupon
Glenora ceased purchasing its processed milk (in glass
bottles) from Wanzer and commenced on August 4, 1973,
to purchase its milk (in glass bottles) from Ludwig.22
F. Conclusions
8(bx4Xii)(A) and (B)
Considering all of the foregoing , I conclude and find that
the Respondent, by Paulsen's threat of problems on April
20, 1973, by Burnier's threat of potential strike action on
April 24, and by Burner's letter of April 27, 1973, in
similar vein, engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4Xii)(A) and (B) of the Act. Thus, Respondent
threatened Glenora, a person engaged in commerce or an
industry affecting commerce , with the object of requiring
Glenora to agree to cease from dealing in the products of
Ludwig or any employer not signatory to a "Fluid Milk"
contract with the Union. Such conduct is violative of
Section 8(bx4)(ii)(A) of the Act. Similarly, Respondent
that he was not waiving such argument. It is clear that the Union did not
relinquish its contentions that it was entitled to the work under the contract,
had a right to arbitration and a right to strike under the "status quo"
provisions of the contract . Under the circumstances the Union 's action in so
advising Glenora that it could "transfer" work to Ludwig is equivalent to
the abidance with a court injunction pending litigation. The record as a
whole reveals that the Union in no way has abandoned its contentions of
legitimacy of its conduct involved or of its alleged contractual right. Once
litigation is over, unless remedial orders were provided, the Union would be
free to resume such conduct . Accordingly , it is clear that the Union's
conduct in advising Glenora 's attorneys that Glenora could "transfer" work
to Ludwig does not make the issues in this proceeding moot.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA6')R RELATIONS BOARD
threatened Glenora with an object of forcing or requiring
Glenora to cease dealing with Ludwig or any other
employer not signatory to a "Fluid Milk" contract with the
Union. Such conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the Act.
The General Counsel (and the Charging Party) presented
evidence directed to proving, and argued in effect, that the
Respondent had no dispute with Glenora as to work
performed by employees of Glenora, that the Respondent
did not represent employees of Ludwig, that Glenora and
Ludwig were separate "persons," and that Respondent in
real effect was attempting to have a collective-bargaining
agreement with Glenora, (covering a single employer
bargaining unit, and containing lawful "work preserva-
tion" clauses and arbitration, "status quo" and "strike"
clauses) interpreted in a broader and unlawful manner.
Thus, Respondent's contention that such contractual
relationship was on a "multiemployer employee bargaining
unit" basis made illegal what would otherwise be legal. The
factual findings in this case support the General Counsel's
and Charging Party's contentions.
The Respondent contends in effect that Glenora and
Ludwig are in effect one employer or person, that it's
contract with Glenora covers employees in a "multi-
employer employee bargaining unit," that its dispute with
Glenora is primary in nature, and that its actions were
lawful because within its contract rights. The factual
findings in this case do not support such contentions.
The Respondent's claimed defense, that its conduct was
primary in nature, essentially has been disposed of in the
factual resolution revealing that Glenora and Ludwig were
separate persons within the meaning of Section
8(a)(4XnXA) and (B) and Section 8(e). Further, Respon-
dent's dispute as to who should process milk purchased by
Glenora was secondary in nature both as to Glenora and
Ludwig in that Respondent did not represent processing
employees of either Glenora or Ludwig.23 Academically,
since Respondent claimed the right to do the processing
work on milk purchased by Glenora, and since the dispute
arose from Glenora's decision to purchase processed milk
from Ludwig, Respondent's dispute may be said to have
been with Ludwig, even though secondary in nature.
The Respondent's claimed defense that it had contractu-
al rights to such work based upon a "multi-employer
employee bargaining unit" contractual relationship with
Glenora has been disposed of by factual findings to the
opposite effect.24 Thus, the facts reveal that the Glenora -
Respondent contract (1971) covers a single-employer
collective-bargaining unit. Similarly, the Respondent's
claimed defense of 'work preservation" is disposed of by
the findings that the collective-bargaining agreement
involved25 is that between Respondent and Glenora.
The Respondent's claimed defense that its threat of
23 Although the contract between Respondent and Glenora refers to
"processing" employees , it is a form type contract, and Glenora has never
employed processing employees.
24 See Local Union No. 282, international Brotherhood of Teamsters (D
Fortunato Inc), 197 NLRB 673, and National Woodwork Manufacturers
Association v N L R B., 386 U.S. 612 (1967)
25 The Respondent's contract with Glenora contains "work preserva-
tion" and arbitration clauses As applied or interpreted with respect to a
"single employer employee bargaining unit ," such clauses are lawful on
their face. If such contract covered employees in a "multi-employer
strike action was protected by its contract with Glenora is
similarly disposed of by the findings that such agreement is
not that pertaining to a "multiemployer employee collec-
tive-bargaining unit." The Respondent 's contract gave it
such rights only with respect to "work" in the single
employer unit.
In sum , as indicated , the facts reveal that Respondent, as
alleged, has engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. I so conclude and find.
G. The Alleged 8(e)(Conduct)
The General Counsel contends in effect that the
Respondent and Glenora entered into an agreement
violative of Section 8(e) of the Act and that Glenora
"acquiesced" the Union's threats concerning what would
occur if Glenora purchased milk from Ludwig or other
employers not signatory to the "Fluid Milk" contracts with
the Union. In my opinion, the evidence does not reveal
that Glenora agreed with the Respondent in such regard.
The facts reveal that Glenora succumbed to the
Respondent's threats and did not commence purchasing
milk from Ludwig until after the threats were removed as a
result of pending court litigation. Glenora, however, by
filing unfair labor charges in this case, revealed that it was
not agreeing with the Respondent as to an 8(e) arrange-
ment.
Although acquiescence may constitute evidence from
which one can infer an implied agreement , such is not
always the case . Considering all of the facts, I conclude
and find that the Respondent and Glenora have not
entered into an 8(e) arrangement.
H. The "Collyer" Defense26
The Respondent contends that the instant proceeding
should be deferred to arbitration . Considering the issues
and the facts in this case , I reject such contention.
The overall facts reveal that the Respondent does not
have a contract with Glenora , the terms thereof which
would warrant arbitration of the instant issues .27 Further,
assuming that this proceeding had been deferred and said
arbitration had resulted in a decision favorable to the
Respondent's position, under the facts of this case the
Board would not consider itself bound by such arbitration
and would proceed to a disposition of the proceeding on
the merits thereof . Further, assuming that this proceeding
had been deferred and said arbitration had resulted in a
decision adverse to Respondent 's contentions , it is clear
that the Board would proceed to the merits of this case. I
am also convinced that the time factors and costs, and the
stage of litigation of this proceeding all require a rejection
employee bargaining unit," such clauses would also be lawful on their face.
The gravamen of the illegality of Respondent's conduct is that it has
attempted to construe that its contract covers a multiemployer employee
bargaining unit and to thereby reach employers or employees outside of its
contractual unit.
28 Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837.
27 Had the Respondent established that Glenora 's employees were part
of a multiemployer employee bargaining unit and that the contract involved
covered such unit, different conclusions might be warranted.
DAIRY EMPLOYEES ' LOCAL 754
of Respondent's contention that the matter should be
deferred to arbitration.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Employer's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Glenora Farms Dairy, Inc., and Ludwig Milk
Company are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Dairy Employees' Union, Local 754, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is, and has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening, restraining, and coercing persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
with an object of forcing or requiring employers to enter
into an agreement prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act,
the Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) of the Act.
4. By threatening, restraining, and coercing employers
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
with an object of forcing or requiring persons to cease
using, selling, handling, or otherwise dealing in the
products of any other producer, processor, or manufactur-
er and to cease doing business with other persons, the
Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER28
Respondent, Dairy Employees' Union, Local 754,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening, restraining, and coercing Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an
491
object of forcing or requiring such persons to enter into an
agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act.
(1^) Threatening, restraining, and coerciitp Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an
object of forcing or requiring persons to cease -sing,
selling, handling, or otherwise dealing in the products of
any other producer, processor, or manufacturer and to
cease doing business with other persons.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondent's offices and meeting halls, and
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."29 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic-
uous places, including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., and others for information, and, if they
are willing, for posting by them in all locations where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
It is further ordered that the allegations of unlawful
conduct not specifically found to be violative herein be
dismissed.
28 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
29 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, and coerce Glenora
Farms Dairy, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with
an object of forcing or requiring such persons to enter
into an agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e)
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, and coerce Glenora
Frams Dairy Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an object of forcing or requiring persons to cease using,
selling, handling or otherwise dealing in the products of
any other producer , processor , or manufacturer and to
cease doing business with other persons.
DAIRY EMPLOYEES ' UNION,
LocAL 754, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, Room 881, 219 S.
Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
312-353-7572.