Farmco Package Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 601 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of FARMCO PACKAGE CORPORATION and UNITED VENEER
BOX AND BARREL WORKERS UNION, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. C-.h.39 and R-450.-Decided April 14, 1938
Crate and Barrel Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Rcstc'aint, or
Coercion: refusal to bargain collectively-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bar-
gaining: production employees , exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees
and salesmen ; no controversy as to-Representatives : proof of choice : mem-
bership applications in union-Employce Status: strikers-Collective Bargaining:
refusal to negotiate with representative of majority of employees.
Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board.
Mr. E. A. Gray, of Norfolk, Va. and Mann d Tyler, by Mr. James
Mann and Mr. S. Heth Tyler, of Norfolk, Va., for the respondent.
Mr. Ray Thomason, of Norfolk, Va., for the Union.
Mr. Arnold R. Cutler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the United Veneer Box and Barrel
Workers Union, Local No. 324,1 herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Bennet F.
Schauffler, Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Mary-
land), issued its complaint, dated November 8, 1937, against Farmco
Package Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had committed unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and accompany-
ing notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that prior to July 15, 1937, and at all times thereafter
the Union had been designated as the exclusive representative of
the respondent's production employees at the Norfolk plant and that
1 It appears from the record that the correct name of the Union is United Veneer Box
and Barrel Workers Union , Local No. 324, although incorrectly designated in the
pleadings.
601
602 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on that date and subsequent thereto the respondent had refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of such employees; and that the respondent by such acts and other
acts had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 16, 1937, the respondent filed an answer in which
it admitted the allegations of the complaint concerning the nature
and scope of the business, but denied that it was engaged in inter-
state commerce, denied the commission of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and stated that although it did not know
whether or not a majority of the production employees had desig-
nated the Union as their sole representative for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining prior to July 15, 1937, it had not questioned the
designation of said Union as such representative and had not refused
to bargain with it.
On September 22, 1937, the Union filed a petition with the Regional
Director alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
.cerning the representation of production employees of the respond-
tent at its Norfolk plant and requesting an investigation and cer-
tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On October 12, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Sec-
tion 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice. Notice of the hearing on the petition was
duly served upon the parties. On October 18, 1937, the Board, act-
ing pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of the said Rules
and Regulations, ordered that the two cases be consolidated.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the complaint and petition was
held in Norfolk, Virginia, on November 18 and 19, 1937, before James
Gibson Ewell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel. The
Union was represented by a field representative for the Committee
for Industrial Organization. All parties participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
all parties. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved
that the pleadings be conformed to the proof. Counsel for the re-
spondent made a similar motion with respect to its defense. Both
motions were granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed these ruling and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 603
On December 4, 1937, counsel for the respondent filed a brief,
which the Board has considered. On February 11, 1938, the Trial
Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, finding that the respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. The respondent did not file any exceptions to the Intermediate
Report.
Upon the entire record in both cases, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 2
The respondent, Farmco Package Corporation, a Virginia corpora-
tion, has its office and principal place of business at Norfolk, Vir-
ginia. It is engaged in the manufacture of crates, barrels, slat
barrels and cooperage stock, for use in the packing of fruits and vege-
tables. It operates four plants, located respectively at Norfolk,
Virginia, hereinafter called the Norfolk Plant, Suffolk, Virginia,
Trotville, North Carolina, and Maysville, North Carolina.3 This case
is concerned only with the Norfolk Plant. The sales of the respond-
ent at its Norfolk Plant for the year ending August 31, 1936, amounted
to $296,000.
Approximately 75 per cent of the raw materials used by the re-
spondent at its Norfolk Plant come from States other than the State
of Virginia. Approximately 25 per cent of the finished products of
the respondent's Norfolk Plant are shipped to points outside of the
State of Virginia.
As of July 14, 1937, the respondent employed 317 production em-
ployees at its Norfolk Plant.4
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union , Local No. 324,
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , is a labor
organization admitting to its membership all production employees
of the respondent at the Norfo lk Plant, exclusive of clerical and
supervisory employees and salesmen.
2 The information as to the respondent 's business has been obtained from a stipula-
tion agreed upon between counsel for the respondent and for the Board which was read
into the record
3 The respondent is a subsidiary of and is wholly owned by the Farmers Manufactur-
ing Company, from which the four plants are leased by the respondent. At the time of
the hearing both the respondent and Farmers Manufacturing Company were in the process
of reorganization under Section 77B of the Bankiuptcy Act, 11 U S C. A. See. 207.
4 The above number of employees does not include 13 names which have been stricken
from the respondent's pay-roll list of July 14, 1937, because they aie clerical or super-
visory employees. There is no indication that salesmen were included in this list.
604 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The background of the unfair labor practices
Early in June 1937, Union organizers started to organize the pro-
duction employees of the respondent at the Norfolk Plant and the
Union was formed. At a regular meeting of the Union, held on
July 14, 1937, a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the
Union and the respondent was submitted to the members, who ap-
proved the agreement, for submission to the respondent. Apparently
on the same day three members of the Union bargaining committee,
hereinafter called the Committee, who were employees at the Norfolk
Plant, communicated with Robert F. Fowler, the superintendent of
the Norfolk Plant, who arranged a conference with the Committee
for July 15, 1937. On that date Fowler met with the five members
of the Committee, of which Clarence Brown, the financial secretary
of the Union, was a member. At the meeting Fowler read the con-
tract and the paragraphs which were not clear to him were explained
by one of the members of the Committee. Brown testified that
Fowler, after reading the contract, stated that he did not have any
authority to sign any contract, saying, "There is not a damn thing
I can do."
Fowler denied making any statements that he lacked authority to
act. He testified that after he had arranged the conference of July
15, but before it was held, he had talked to J. E. Romm, the presi-
dent of the respondent, and had received authority to act in the
matter, subject to the limitation that there could neither be an in-
crease in wages nor a decrease in hours, in view of the precarious
financial condition of the respondent. Romm testified to the same
effect. Fowler claimed that after reading the contract, he explained
the financial position of the respondent to the Committee, and told
them that there were "a number of things" in the contract "that were
objectionable, that the wages and hours were something that this
company could not do anything about." Fowler denied making the
statement attributed to him by Brown and contended that he said,
"we couldn't do a damn thing about any contract involving an in-
crease in wages and changes in the hours that we were operating
at that time."
The Committee left the contract with Fowler, and at the same time
tried to arrange a meeting with the officers of the respondent. Fow-
ler said that there was no point in having such a meeting as he-had
been authorized to act in the matter, but as the Committee insisted,
he told them he would let them know in 5 or 6 days. Fowler testi-
fied that when he "approached the officers of the company their
reply to me was practically the same as it was originally, that they
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 605
had appointed me as the representative of the company to deal with
these men." About July 20, 1937, three members of the Committee
saw Fowler again to inquire whether or not the meeting with the
officers had been arranged, but they were told they could not have
such a meeting.
On August 16, 1937, Brown again saw Fowler at his office in an
endeavor to arrange a meeting between the Committee and the
management for Thursday of that week. While Brown was in
Fowler's office, the employees decided to and did go out on strike at
about 1 o'clock that afternoon. It is clear from the record that the
reason the employees struck was because of the dissatisfaction re-
sulting from the failure of the respondent to reach any agreement
with the Union. At no time during any of the conferences had the
respondent made any counterproposals.
Immediately after the men went out on strike, Brown telephoned
Ray Thomason, a field representative for the Committee for Industrial
Organization. Between 2 and 4 hours after the strike began Thom-
ason, together with Brown and another member of the Committee,
appeared at the scene of the strike, where they met Fowler. Again
the contract was discussed, but Thomason testified Fowler said that
he was just a plant superintendent and had no authority whatsoever
to sign a contract, and that the man to see would be the president of
the respondent. Thomason testified he suggested to Fowler that he
"draw up a contract both parties can see fit to sign," but that Fowler
said he didn't have "any authority to sign any contract." Fowler
denied making the statement that he had no authority to act. He
testified that "practically the only thing that was discussed at that
time was wages and hours." Fowler further testified that he again
went into some detail with Thomason as to why the respondent could
not pay any more wages, and said, "I did not have the authority to
sign any contract involving an increase in wages because I had been
told distinctly that we could not and would not pay any higher
wages." Although Thomason suggested that both parties get to-
gether to draw up some contract, it does not appear that Fowler made
any effort to do so. Rather, it does appear that Fowler, in view of
the fact that the contract was one dealing in part with wages and
hours and to that extent beyond his authority, considered the entire
contract beyond his authority. Accordingly, Fowler refused to con-
sider this contract or any contract, and referred Thomason to the
president of the respondent.
After the strike began, the respondent closed its Trotville Plant and
brought the employees from that plant to the Norfolk Plant to com-
plete certain work. The Norfolk Plant thus continued to operate for
a period of 2 or 3 weeks and then closed down.
606 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
At the hearing the Union contended that all of the production em-
ployees of the respondent at the Norfolk Plant, exclusive of clerical
and supervisory employees and salesmen, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining. The evidence adduced
at the hearing indicated that the production employees are not highly
skilled, receive about the same wages and work about the same hours.
The respondent did not contend that any other unit is the proper
one.
We find that the production employees of the respondent at the
Norfolk Plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees and
salesmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and that such unit will insure
to said employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization
and collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of
the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The respondent's pay roll at the Norfolk Plant as of July 14, 1937,
showed a total of 317 production employees, exclusive of clerical
and supervisory employees. At the hearing, to prove its majority,
the Union presented in evidence 299 application cards.5 Each of
the cards bears a date indicating the date of application for member-
ship. Of these cards the Union submitted separately 164 that were
signed on or before July 17, 1937.6 These 164 cards were checked by
counsel for the Board and for the respondent against the pay-roll
list of July 14, 1937, and it was found that only 139 names cor-
responded to the pay-roll list whereas the names of 25 persons whose
signatures appeared on the cards did not appear on the list. There-
after, it appeared from the record, counsel for the respondent and
the representative of the Union checked all the cards against the
July 14 pay roll? and found that, as of August 16, 1937, the Union
represented a majority of the production employees, a total of 167
names. Counsel for the respondent stated that it was willing to
accept these names on the cards as the signatures of such men. In
addition, Clarence Brown, financial secretary of the Union, identified
s At the hearing the Union said it had 20 more cards not then available.
e Board Exhibit No. S. The remaining cards were submitted as Board Exhibit No. 9 and
one card was submitted as Board Exhibit No. 11.
Y As all parties at the hearing were agreeable to the use of the pay roll of July 14,
1937, and as this was the only pay roll introduced into evidence , it has also been used
by the Board.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 607
the signatures on the cards which had been signed in his presence .8
The respondent made no objection to, nor did it request the identifica-
tion of, the signatures on any of the remaining cards. The Board
has made an independent check of the cards, based on the dates
appearing thereon, and has found that the Union did not secure a
majority of the employees until August 17, 1937, as of which date
the names on 169 application cards checked with the pay roll of
July 14.9
Counsel for the respondent objected to the fact that some of the
cards did not have the name of the Union stamped on them, but only
the words "stamp name Hof union here," and then in larger type
below this the words "Affiliated with C. I. 0." The form of card
was that in regular use by the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion. Although the name of the Union was not stamped on some
of the cards, it is clear from the evidence that those signing the
cards knew that they were joining the Union.
It is here pointed out that the status of the employees was in no
wise affected by the strike. It is clear that the controversy between
the Union and the respondent resulting in the strike was a labor
dispute as defined by Section 2 (9) of the Act. It is evident also
that the strike, as long as it continued, was a current labor dispute.
The work of the strikers ceased as a consequence of, or in connection
with, a current labor dispute, and they did not obtain regular and
substantially equivalent employment elsewhere as is evidenced by
the fact that they ultimately returned to work for the respondent
upon the settlement of the strike.
We find that on August 17, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the duly designated representative of the majority of the
production employees at the Norfolk Plant, exclusive of clerical and
supervisory employees and salesmen, in an appropriate unit, and,
pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
6 Clarence Brown testified he secured 160 to 165 applications , all of which were signed
in his presence.
e Table as to cards submitted
Total num- Total num-
Total ber of cards her of cards
As of- number to check that did not
of cards with pay check with
roll pay roll
June 30,1937---------------------------------------------------- 101 85 16
July 14 , 1937 --------------------------------------------------- 148 125 23
17,1937---------------------------------------------------- 161 132 29
Aug 16,1937--------------------------------------------------- 200 150 50
17,1937---------------------------------------------------- 237 169 68
Sept 30,1937----- --------------------------------------------- 299 191 103
608 1 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The refusal to bargain
On August 17, 1937, when the Union became the duly designated
representative of a majority of the production employees at the
Norfolk Plant, and thereafter, the respondent had a duty to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of such
employees. Thereafter, the first attempt by the Union to bargain
was on August 20, 1937, when Thomason communicated with J. E.
Romm by telephone. Thomason asked Romm what could be done
about the contract, and suggested that if he couldn't sign the par-
ticular contract "then the proper thing to do was to get together and
draw up a contract that both parties could sign," saying further that
he should at least make a counterproposal to the proposed contract.
Thomason testified that Romm refused, saying, "I will not do that."
As to this first telephone conversation, Romm did not recall just what
Thomason's approach was at the time, but he was quite sure that
he stated that the matter of collective bargaining was in the hands
of Fowler, and that the respondent was "not in position to meet the
terms of the contract proposed."
On or about September 1, 1937, the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region had a conference with Romm at a hotel in Norfolk. One of
the members of the Committee and Thomason were also present.
At this conference the contract was again discussed, but Romm re-
fused to make any counterproposals or consider any modifications.
Thomason suggested "we were open yet for a conference to go into
negotiations and draw up a contract that both parties would see fit
to,sign." Romm testified that at this conference in the hotel he again
pointed out that Fowler had been authorized by the respondent to
bargain with the Union, but that the respondent had not been in a
position to meet the wishes of the Committee. Romm testified that
at the conference the Regional Director asked if the respondent had
made any counterproposals "and I told him that to the best of my
knowledge there had been no counterproposals, that, in my opinion,
the contract presented was the question of wages and that the wages
asked for were preposterous and that they could not be met." 10 In
fact the proposed contract consisted of 21 provisions, only four of
which dealt with wages directly, or indirectly," and only one, with
hours.12
Thereafter, sometime during September 1937, Thomason again
communicated with Romm by telephone in an endeavor to arrange
another conference with him. Thomason testified that on this
occasion Romm said, "No, on account of my plant being down you
made it impossible for us to get together on anything," which state-
10 Italics supplied.
11 Sections 11, 14, 19, and 20 of Board Exhibit No. 6.
12 Section 12 of Board Exhibit No. 6.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 609
ment Romm did not deny. Romm recalled very little of this tele-
phone conversation, although he was sure that there was a second
telephone conversation. Romm remembered that on this occasion
Thomason did ask something about whether the books of the re-
spondent could be opened to show whether the respondent was los-
ing money, to which Romm replied he would be perfectly willing to
do so with anyone that had a "right to see them, but that all informa-
tion as to the company could be had by reports from Dun & Brad-
street." In reply to a question by counsel for the respondent whether
Romm was of the opinion that he could not negotiate with the men
because they were on strike, Romm said, "No; I was not of that
opinion. Frankly, my position was a little dubious as to what we
might do. At any rate, the approach would have to come from
them."
About September 28, 1937, the Union and the respondent agreed
to have the employees go back to work pending the decision on the
charges filed with the Board. The respondent then signed an
agreement that there would be no discrimination by it against any
worker because of union activities and that no worker would be
discharged for union activities in the future.13 Thereafter, the
strikers returned to work.
After the Union had been designated as the representative by a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit on August 17,
1937, the respondent summarily rebuffed the Union's initial attempt,
on August 20 during the progress of the strike,,to resume bargaining
negotiations. In the telephone conversation on that date Romm
met the Union's suggestion that the respondent submit a counter-
proposal to the Union's proposed contract with a flat refusal. -He
sought to refer the entire matter of collective bargaining back to
Fowler, a subordinate official with admittedly limited authority, de-
spite the pendency of the strike and the failure of the Union's
prior efforts to deal with Fowler, which had caused the strike. At the
meeting held about September 1, Romm pursued the same course.
In this conference Romm sought to justify his refusal to bargain
with the Union by claiming that the proposed contract presented
only "preposterous" demands for wage and hour adjustments. This,
as we have indicated, was directly contrary to the fact, since the
proposed contract actually contained 16 other provisions. It is clear
from Romm's statement that because the proposed contract did con-
tain provisions for increased wages and decreased hours, the re-
spondent refused to consider the contract or collective bargaining
negotiations at all.
In its brief, counsel for the respondent in substance contended (1)
that a bargaining agency or committee had not been legally elected
"Board Exhibit 62
610 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or appointed by a majority of the workers in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit so as to entitle such agency or committee to represent
all of the employees in such unit, and (2) that the respondent had
not refused to bargain collectively with an agency or committee
representing a majority of its employees in such unit. We do not
find any merit in either of these contentions. It is clear from the
evidence that after August 17 the Union was in fact the designated
representative of the majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit and that throughout the negotiations both the Com-
mittee and Thomason acted and were accepted by the respondent
as proper agents of the Union. Furthermore, in its verified answer
the respondent specifically stated that it had not questioned the desig-
nation of the Union as the representative of the employees. From
our previous discussion it is apparent that after August" 17 the re-
spondent declined to enter into any genuine collective bargaining
negotiations with the Union although this refusal had the necessary
and actual effect of prolonging •a costly strike. It is true that the
strike was ultimately settled about September 28. However, it is
obvious that the agreement, by which the strikers were to return to
work without discrimination, did not represent the result of collec-
tive bargaining as contemplated by the Act. Our conclusion con-
cerning the strike settlement agreement is amply supported by the
evidence which establishes that the agreement represented merely a
truce arrangement under which the strikers were to return to work,
pending a decision on the charges before the Board.
We find that on August 20, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative
of its employees at the Norfolk Plant in an appropriate unit in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other con-
ditions of employment and thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under
Section 7 of the Act.
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 its operations described in Section I
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead and have
led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
THE PETITION
In view of the Board's findings in Section III B above, as to the
appropriate bargaining unit and the designation of the Union by a
majority of the respondent's employees at the Norfolk Plant in the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 611
appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, it is not necessary to consider the petition of the
Union for certification of representatives. Consequently the petition
for certification will be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union, Local No. 324,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.,
2. The strike at the Norfolk Plant starting on August 16, 1937,
was a labor dispute which was current and continued so during the,
duration of such strike, and the strikers at such plant were and
continued to be employees of the respondent within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) and (9) of the Act.
3. The production employees of the respondent at the Norfolk
Plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees and salesmen,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union, Local No. 324,
was on August 17, 1937, and at, all times thereafter, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the. meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
5. The respondent on August 20, 1937, and thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees at the
Norfolk Plant, and thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees at the Norfolk Plant in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Farmco Package Corporation, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Veneer Box and
Barrel Workers Union, Local No. 324, as the exclusive representa-
612 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive of its production employees at the Norfolk Plant, exclusive of
clerical and supervisory employees and salesmen;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees at the Norfolk Plant in the 'exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Veneer Box
and Barrel Workers Union, Local No. 324, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its production employees at the Norfolk Plant, ex-
clusive of clerical and supervisory employees and salesmen, in re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment;
(b) Post immediately notices in conspicuous places throughout the
Norfolk Plant, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
the manner aforesaid, and maintain said notices for a period of at
least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
The petition for certification of representatives, filed by the United
Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union, Local No. 324, is hereby
dismissed.