Enid Cooperative Creamery Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 728 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION #886, A. F. L.
Cage No. 16-C-1126.-Decided August 531, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 10, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port 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 af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent
had not engaged in unfair labor practices in discharging or refusing
to reinstate Howard T. Turner, and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed as to him. Thereafter, counsel for the Board, and the re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial' Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. None of the parties requested oral argument before
the Board at Washington, D. C., and no argument was had.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial. Examiner 1
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Enid Cooperative Creamery
Association, Enid, Oklahoma, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
' In the Statement of the Case , the Trial Examiner inadvertently indicated that the hear-
ing herein was held on January 16 and 17 , 1944. The record shows, and w e find, that the
hearing was held on January 16 and 17, 1945.
63 N. L . R. B., No. 106.
728
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION 729
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union #886, A. F. L., or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Rescind immediately the rule prohibiting union activity on
plant property, insofar as it applies to the employees' non-working
time ;
(b) Post at its plant at Enid, Oklahoma, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas) in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Howard T. Turner.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
NLRB 576
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order 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 in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union #886 (AFL) or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All
our employees are free to become or remain members of this union,
or any other labor organization.
We hereby rescind the rule prohibiting union activity on plant
property, insofar as it applies to the employees' non-working time.
. ENID CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION,
By --------------------- ----------------------
Dated
(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.
-INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Lewis Moore, Esq., for the Board. °
A. J. Moore, Esq., of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the Union.
N. Scarritt, Esq., and E. S. Champlin, Esq., of Enid, Okla., for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed September 16, 1944, by International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union
#886, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint
dated January 2, 1945, against Enid Cooperative Creamery Association, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that from on or about June 8, 1944, the respondent: (1) interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaragteed in Section
7 of the Act by urging, persuading and warning its employees to refrain from
aiding, becoming or remaining members of the Union; by threatening its em-
ployees with discharge or other reprisal if they became members of the Union ;
by interrogating its employees regarding their union activities ; by making de-
rogatory remarks to its employees about the Union; and by posting a notice pro-
hibiting all union discussions or activities whatsoever on its premises under
penalty of dismissal; and that by such conduct the respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, (2) that
on or about September 13, the respondent discharged Howard T. Turner because
of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and has since failed
and refused to reinstate him, and that by such acts the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
On January 15, 1945, the respondent filed its answer denying that it had com-
mitted any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Copies of the complaint together with notices of hearing were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union.
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION 731
Pursuant to said notice, a hearing was held at Enid, Oklahoma, on January 16
and 17, 1944, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Union and the respondent were all re-
presented by council. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the hearing counsel for
all the parties argued orally on the record. The parties were given an opportunity
to file briefs with the undersigned. A brief has been received from counsel for
the respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
Enid Cooperative Creamery Association is a non-profit organization of the type
commonly referred to as a producers cooperative. The Association receives milk,
cream and eggs from its approximately 7,000 members which it processes for sale
and shipment. During the past 12 months the Company handled milk and cream
products, including butter, valued at approximately $2,370,000. Of this amount
approximately $370,0p0 worth of milk and cream products were sold and delivered
to customers in the State of Oklahoma. Six million one hundred forty-five
thousand pounds of butter valued at $2,000,000 were manufactured by the
Association, 90 percent of which was shipped from the Association' s plant at
Enid, Oklahoma, to points outside the State of Oklahoma?
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Local Union #886, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and admits to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union began to organize the respondent's employees sometime in 1943.
Upon a petition, filed by the Union in the Twenty-first Region, the Board, on
October 5, 1944, conducted an election among the respondent's employees for the
purpose of determining a bargaining agent.'
Francis R. Peterson testified that sometime in February 1944, at which time
he was an employee of the respondent, the respondent's plant superintendent,
Clifford Bilden, told him to leave his work and go to the office, where he was met
by Robert T. Goley, the respondent's manager who told him that he wanted to
talk to him about the Union. A conversation was then begun which lasted for
more than 3 hours, during the course of which Goley stated to Peterson that the
formation of a Union would create "disadvantages," and that the money paid out
as dues to the Union would not remain in the community. Earl J. Evans, the
respondent's president, later entered the room and joined in the conversation.
1 This finding is based upon a stipulation entered into by the parties.
2 The Board has taken jurisdiction of the respondent. 58 N L. R. B. 592.
1 The i esult of the election was 18 for the Union , 16 against.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Evans stated to Peterson that he (Evans) did not think that the employees should
join the Union and that the Union would prohibit the respondent from rehiring its
,employees who had entered the armed services. Evans added that he had checked
up on the union organizer and found him to be an "ambulance chaser." Peterson
was paid by the respondent for the time consumed by this interview.
Goley admitted that he spent 3 hours discussing the Union with Peterson.
Evans did not testify.' The undersigned credits Peterson's testimony as to the
interview above related and finds that Goley and Evans made the statements
attributed to them by Peterson as above set forth.
Clyde Ratcliffe, one of the respondent's employees, testified that sometime in
September 1944 he chanced to meet Goleyy on the street in Enid and Goley asked
him what he thought of the Union, saying that he would like to have Ratcliffe
know both sides of the issue; that if there were a union in the plant and an
employee failed to pay his dues the respondent would either be compelled to pay
the dues or discharge the employee, and that he (Goley) hated to see the respond-
ent's employees "put out money for something we would receive no benefit from."
Goley admitted discussing the Union with Ratcliffe but stated that he did not
remember discussing union dues. In view of Goley's partial admission and his
failure to directly deny Ratcliffe's version of Goley's statements on the subject
of union dues, the undersigned credits Ratcliffe's testimony and finds that Goley
made the statements attributed to him by Ratcliffe as above related.
Lester Lafayette Dickerson, one of the respondent's employees, testified that
on September 7 or 8, 1944, Goley and Evans called at his home between 7: 30 and
8: 30 p. in ; that they had never been at his home before and at this time they
asked him if he belonged to the Union ; told him they wanted to talk to him
about the Union ; wanted to explain both sides of it ; wanted to explain that the
Company did not need a union and that the respondent's employees did not have
to belong to a union to work for the respondent ; that the Union required payment
of a year's dues in advance, which they (Goley and Evans) did not think fair or
right; and that if the Union came into the plant, the respondent would be com-
pelled to cut its employees' wages as the respondent was now paying more than
union wages. On a later occasion Goley asked Dickerson if he had "decided about
the Union." Goley admitted making the visit and discussing the Union with Dick-
erson during the visit, and testified that the call was made in order "to correct
misunderstandings" regarding the Union. The undersigned credits Dickerson's
testimony and finds that Goley and Evans visited Dickerson and made the state-
ments attributed to them by Dickerson as above set forth.
William Edward Abram, one of the respondent's employees, testified that on
the evening of September 15, 1944, Goley and Evans called at his home, neither
of them having ever called there before, and asked him if lie belonged to the
Union and how he intended to vote in the forthcoming election to determine a
bargaining agent. Abram testified that during the interview Goley invited him to
come into his office and talk to him, because he (Goley) "would like for all of
us to know both sides of the deal."
Goley testified that he and Evans called on Abram to inform him not to report
for work the following day, and that during this visit he and Evans discussed the
"merits and demerits of the Union" with Abram. Abram impressed the under-
signed as an entirely trustworthy witness. The undersigned credits his testimony
and finds that Goley and Evans inquired into Abram's union membership and
asked him how he intended to vote in the forthcoming election for a bargaining
agent.
4 The iespondent's attorney stated on the record that Evans was unable to testify, as his
presence was required at the annual meeting of the respondent's members , which was being
held the day of the hearing.
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION 733
Albert Lee Boon, one of the respondent ' s employees , testified that on an undis-
closed date in August 1944, Goley entered into a conversation with him regarding
the Union , during the course of which Goley asked him what he thought of the
Union and then told Boon that the Union could not help the respondent's em-
ployees because the War Labor Board would not grant higher wages.
Rufus Victor Unruh , one of the respondent 's employees , testified that on an
undisclosed date in September 1944, Goley asked him if he belonged to the Union
and whether he thought the Union would do any good. Unruh testified that Goley
began this conversation with the statement "I have never talked to you about
the Union" and closed it with the remark "sometimes you know one of them has
to take the bull by the horns and lead him." Goley did not deny these conversa-
tions with Boon and Unruh and admitted discussing the Union with other em-
ployees who were not called to testify . Goley Fought to explain his conduct by
the statement that he was merely attempting to "correct misunderstandings" and
that on no occasion did he tell any of the employees that they could not join the
Union, but did tell those he interviewed that their joining or not joining the
Union was a matter for them to decide for themselves . The undersigned credits
the testimony of Boon and Unruh and finds that Goley made the statements
attributed to him.
On June 8, 1944 , the respondent posted a notice in its plant prohibiting "any
union discussions or activities whatsoever" on,its premises ' The record shows
that this was the first time a notice of this character had ever been posted by the
respondent or that a rule prohibiting union discussions or union activities by its
employees on its premises had been announced by the respondent.
The respondent sought to show that the posting of the notice above referred
to was occasioned by the fact that the union members did continually solicit
membership on the respondent 's time and on its premises , thereby causing great
confusion and interruption of production . The record does not disclose that
such a condition obtained in the respondent 's plant.'
The notice reads as follows :
JuNE 8, 1944.
EMPLOYEES SPECIAL NOTICE
In order to maintain peace 'end harmony among our employees , we are asking that
you refrain from any union discussions or activities whatsoever while on duty for the
Enid Co -Operative Creamery or on the premises of the Enid Co -Operative Creamery.
We understand this is the policy of the union and it is also a rule of this Association
and any violation of this rule by any employee will make such employee subject to
immediate dismissal.
We also want our employees to know that it is not necessary to belong to any union
to work for this Association , neither is it necessary to refuse to belong to a union to
work for this Association . This is a question for each employee to decide for himself
without pressure or prejudice from the union or the employer.
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION,
By RALPH T. GOLEY, Manager.
By EARL J. EVANS , President.
13 On the subject of confusion and interruption of work caused by employees ' union activi-
ties, Golcy testified that Turner solicited membership for the Union on the respondent's
time and caused disturbances by so doing However, Goley did not cite any specific instances
of such conduct . Goley testified that on various unspecified occasions he observed Turner
and various groups of employees together and surmised they were talking about the Union.
Goley named four employees who were solicited for union membership in the plant. Two of
these so named-Ferne Swinehart and Irene Squires, office employees , called by the respond-
ent, testified to a conversation with 'Curner outside the plant, during the mron hour , during
who h, however , they were not asked to join the Union.
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concluding findings on interference, restraint, and coercion
The record shows that the Union began to organize the respondent' s employees
sometime in 1943. Early in February 1944, Goley and Evans began to interrogate
the respondent's employees regarding their union affiliation and the record shows
that Goley and Evans continued to so interrogate the respondent's employees
until late in September 1944 The record does not disclose when the Union filed
its petition for certification, but it indicates that the Board issued its Decision
and Direction of Election upon the Union's petition on September 27, 1944 and
that the election was conducted on October 5, 1944.
Goley and Evans's statements to the respondent's employees follow a definite
pattern. Goley and Evans not only inquired into the employees' union affiliation
but in all cases pointed out what they considered to be the disadvantages of
organization ; they discussed union dues, stating that the dues would be paid
by the respondent's employees without any adequate return for their money; that
the respondent would be compelled to discharge those who did not pay dues to
the Union. In one instance, they stated that the Union required the payment of
a year's dues in advance ; that the Union would prevent the respondent from
reemploying service men ; that if the Union came into the plant the respondent
would be compelled to reduce wages as it was already paying more than the
Union's scale, and referred to the union organizer as an "ambulance chaser."
They not only sought to create the impression, but definitely informed those
employees whom they interviewed that the respondent did not desire its employees
to form a union.
On June 8, the respondent posted the notice above referred to. The notice is
too broad in that it prohibits "any union discussions or activities whatsoever"
not only "while on duty" but while "on the premises," under the penalty of
"immediate dismissal" for any infraction. The notice does not prohibit any
discussions or activity other than union activity and discussion. The Board has
held on numerous occasions, that employees are not to be denied the right to
discuss union matters on their emuployer's premises, on their own time. The under-
signed is convinced that the notice imposed an unreasonable restraint on the
employees-insofar as it prohibited their discussing union matters on their own
time while on the respondent's premises. This was the first notice of its kind
ever posted. The respondent's plant is small, and the supervision is in close
contact with the workers. The employees could not have but been aware of the
activities of Goley and Evans in interviewing certain of their fellow workers
regarding their union affiliations and the opinions regarding the Union expressed
by Goley and Evans must have become common knowledge among the employees.
In view of the entire course of conduct of Goley and Evans as shown by the
record, the notice is clearly part of a pattern of conduct designed to defeat the
respondent's employees in their efforts toward self-organization and the under-
signed is convinced from the entire record that both the interviews of the respond-
ent's employees by Goley and Evans and the notice as posted were designed and
intended to express the respondent's hostility toward the Union and to deter its
employees in their efforts toward self-organization.
The undersigned finds that the respondent by the above related statements and
conduct of Goley and Evans and the posting of the notice on June 8, 1944, as
above set forth, has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION 735
B. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Howard T. Turner
Howard T. Turner was first employed by the respondent in May 1939 and was
discharged September 14, 1944. He joined the Union sometime in December
1943, and later became the Union's shop steward and was 'very active in its
behalf.
On June 5, 1944, the respondent appointed Clyde Hatch to the position of
foreman. Hatch had joined the Union sometime in 1943, but withdrew in March
1944, when he quit his work to enter a hospital, not returning to work until June_
He did not rejoin the Union upon his return to work, although he was asked to,
do so by Turner.
A short time prior to Hatch's return to work, the respondent offered the position
of foreman to Turner, who refused to accept it. Turner testified that after he
refused to accept the foreman's position he suggested to Goley that Hatch not be
appointed to the position.
Goley testified that Turner told him that he (Turner) would take no orders
from Hatch. Bilden testified that Turner asked him that the respondent not
appoint Hatch foreman and at the same time stated that he (Turner) would
take no orders from Hatch and that the respondent's employees would quit their
positions if Hatch became foreman. Turner testified that he did not remember
whether or not he told Goley that he would take no orders from Hatch He did
not deny Bilden's testimony on this point.
In view of Turner's testimony that he told Goley not to appoint Hatch foreman,
his evasive answer regarding statements to Goley to the effect that he would take
no orders from Hatch and his failure to deny Bilden's testimony regarding his
statements, the undersigned credits the testimony of both Goley and Bilden as to
the statements made by Turner to them regarding the appointment of Hatch as
foreman and his (Turner's) contemplated insubordination in the event the ap-
pointment was made.
On June 7, 1944, Hatch passed Turner, while the latter was ht work and spoke
to him. Regarding what occurred at the time, Turner testified :
Well, I was washing the racks we have in the cooler and he was out there
standing around and he told me "that is the time ; wash them up good" and
stood there and laughed at me a little bit, and that made me a little bit sore.
Hatch testified that on June 7, Turner was engaged in cleaning certain butter
racks, that he (Hatch) passed him and remarked, "Are you scrubbing them up?"
and that Turner answered that "he would just as soon" Hatch not talk to him.
Hatch asked Turner, "What is the matter?" Turner then cursed Hatch. The
language to which Hatch testified as being used by Turner is much too foul to be
incorporated in this report.
Bilden testified that he heard the sound of the incident above referred to but
not the words used. Bilden testified that he entered the room as Hatch left and
heard Turner refer to Hatch, using an epithet which described Hatch's ancestry
in extremely uncomplimentary terms and adding "if [Hatch] ever talks to me
again I am going to break every bone in his body and I am going to do a good job.
on it, too."
Goley testified that he heard the same remark at the same time.
Turner was not called to rebut the testimony of either Hatch, Bilden or Goley
regarding the above related'incident. The undersigned credits the testimony of
Hatch, Bilden and Goley regarding the incident above related.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Following the above occurrence, Goley called Turner into the respondent's
office and handed him a prepared letter:` With reference to his conversation
with Goley at the time he was handed the letter Turner testified, "I told him I
was ready for my. discharge any time that he felt like giving it to me." Turner
further testified that after the occurrence of July 7, above related, he did not
speak to Hatch but took his orders from Bilden.
On August 30, 1944, Albert Thomas, one of the respondent's employees, was
discharged for refusing to obey orders of Foreman Hatch.
Hatch testified that on September 14, he arrived at the respondent's plant at
about 6:30 a. in. and that he then began to hook up certain piping; the only
other person present in the room with him being Turner whom he saw some 30
feet distant. While Hatch was at his work Thomas entered the plant and
attacked Hatch, knocking him down, then jumping on him and beating him
severely. Hatch testified that he saw Turner in the room just before the attack
and immediately thereafter.
By coincidence, the respondent's board of directors held a regular meeting
that same day. At this meeting they discussed Turner's insubordinate atti-
tude, and, after considering his entire course of conduct toward Hatch since
June 7, concluded that Turner was probably implicated in the attack made on
Hatch by Thomas and decided to discharge him. Hatch was discharged that
same day, September 14, 1944.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent discharged Turner
because of his attitude toward his foreman, Clyde Hatch, as evidenced by the
language used by Turner to Hatch; the threats Turner made against Hatch;
Turner's refusal to talk to Hatch after June 7 and Turner's general insubor-
dinate attitude toward Hatch ; and further because respondent's board of direc-
tors believed that Turner was implicated in the attack Thomas made on Hatch;
and that it did not discharge Turner because he joined or assisted the Union
or engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as alleged in the complaint.'
The undersigned will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the respondent discharged and refused or failed to rein-
state Howard T. Turner, for the reason that he joined or assisted the Union
or engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection.
I The letter reads as follows :
JUNE 8, 1944.
MR. HOWARD TURNER,
Enid, Oklahoma.
DEAR Sic : I understand both from over-hearing your conversation and from personal
observation and from reports of other employees, that on company time, you have
engaged in an altercation with .inorher employee on the subject of the union, and that
you made threats of bodily injury against such employee.
This violates the rules of this company against fighting or altercations on company
time , and also violates the rules of this company against soliciting union membership
or talking union business on company time or on company premises.
Any repetition of the violation of these rules, either by yourself or any other em-
ployee, will make you or any other violating employee subject to immediate discharge.
Yours very truly,
ENID CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSN,
IIALPFI T. GOLEY, Manager.
8 The respondent advanced as further reasons for the discharge of Turner the fact that
Turner's Rork had become unsatisfactory and that he solicited union membership, on the
respondent 's time and property . In view of the finding above, the undersigned feels it
unnecessary to discuss these reasons.
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
737
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the oerations 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 have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the pol-
icies of the Act.
Upon the basis of'the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
OONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union #886, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging and refusing and failing to reinstate
Howard T. Turner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respond-
ent, Enid Cooperative Creamery Association, its officers , agents, successors and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind immediately the rule it posted on June 8, 1944, insofar as the
rule prohibits its employees from engaging in union discussions or activities on
their own time while on the respondent's premises ;
(b) Post at its plant at Enid, Oklahoma, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Office of the Sixteenth Region shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and maintained by it for sixty (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 ; 0
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region on or before
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report
in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent
has complied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respond-
ent to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discharged and refused or failed to reinstate Howard T.
Turner within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of thee Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing
to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
Louis PLOST,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 10, 1945.
NLRB 576
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NoTIcu To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendation 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 in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union #886 (AFL), or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives c'
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpos,
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees
are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor
organization.
ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION 739
You are further advised that the rule promulgated and posted on June 8,
1944, is rescinded insofar as it prohibits discussion of union matters, or
the engaging in union activities by our employees , on their own time, while
on our premises.
ENID Co-OPERATIVE CItr.AMERY ASSOCIATION
By ---------------------- ------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated-------- ----------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
662514-46-vol. 63-48