Flav-O-Rich, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Flav-O-Rich, Inc. and Chauffeurs , Teamsters and from the recommended Order.
Helpers Local Union No. 175, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
9-CA-8146
August 19, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On April 24, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der as modified herein.
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent
unilaterally changed the terms of employment provid-
ed for in an existing collective-bargaining agreement
between the Union and Respondent's predecessor.
The Administrative Law Judge found that the record
indicates that Respondent asked the old employees to
stay on with no changes in their pay or other benefits.
Despite this finding, as part of his "Remedy" section,
the Administrative Law Judge stated:
It may nevertheless be that changes in conditions
were made, and that they may have been adverse
to the interests of the employees. The remedial
order will therefore provide that the question be
looked into at the compliance stage, and in the
event the Respondent did in fact reduce any of
the economic benefits of the employees, it now
reimburse them and restore the status quo ante.
This is not a matter of ordering the Respondent
to abide by the contract which its predecessor
had with the Union, but rather to undo the effect,
if any, of unilateral changed [sic] in conditions of
employment it made when it was under a statuto-
ry duty to bargain with the Union.'
In our view, the effect of this provision is to provide
a remedy for a violation which was alleged but not
proved. Accordingly, we shall delete this provision
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Flav-O-
Rich, Inc., Bluefield, West Virginia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified
below:
Delete paragraph 2(b) of the recommended Order
of the Administrative Law Judge and reletter the fol-
lowing paragraphs accordingly.
1 Administrative Law Judge's Decision at sec IV
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge- A hearing
in this proceeding was held on March 7, 1974, at Bluefield,
West Virginia, on complaint of the General Counsel against
Flav-O-Rich, Inc., herein called the Respondent. The
charge was filed on November 16, 1973, by Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 175, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
Teamsters 175, or the Union. The complaint issued on Janu-
ary 24, 1974. The issue of the case is whether the Respon-
dent, in refusing to bargain upon request with Teamsters
Local 175, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the statute. Briefs were
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Flav-O-Rich, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in the
processing and distribution of dairy products throughout
several States, including West Virginia, and during the past
12 months, a representative period, in the course of its busi-
ness it derived income in excess of $50,000 from the sale of
dairy products to customers outside the State of West Vir-
ginia. I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local
Union No. 175, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning
212 NLRB No. 144
FLAV-O-RICH , INC. 931
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Flav-O-Rich has for sometime operated in many States,
and still does. Its business consists entirely of processing
and distributing milk and related dairy products. It purchas-
es milk in great quantities from members of Dairyman's
Inc., a very large cooperative, brings it into its processing
plants, trucks the then processed milk, cheese, etc., to a
much larger number of distribution points-these are re-
frigeration units and delivery truck loading places-and
from there sells it to various wholesale customers, its route
salesmen operating regular rounds out of the distribution
locations. The Leatherwood Company, a smaller enterprise,
for a number of years has engaged in exactly the same kind
of business-processing and distributing milk and dairy
products. It had only one processing plant, in Bluefield,
West Virginia, and seven distribution points, one adjacent
to the processing plant and the other six in different towns
in Virginia and Tennessee. Leatherwood bought 95 percent
of its milk from members of Dairyman's Inc., as does Flav-
O-Rich, and the remaining 5 percent it produced itself on
a farm which it owned and operated in its own name. At the
end of October 1973, Leatherwood sold its entire processing
and distribution business to Flav-O-Rich, and on Novem-
ber 1 the second company took over.
Teamsters Local 175, the Charging Party here, was the
collective-bargaining agent for most of Leatherwood's em-
ployees; it was certified by the Board on May 28, 1971, and
its last contract with Leatherwood by its terms extended to
November 30, 1973, with provision for automatic annual
renewal thereafter absent written notice of a contrary inten-
tion by either party. The employee unit covered by the
contract included all of Leatherwood's nonsupervisory em-
ployees except (1) those who worked on its farm-apparent-
ly agricultural workers-and (2) the employees at only one
of its distribution points-the one in Williamson, West Vir-
ginia.' The Williamson employees were represented under
contract with another union-identified on the record only
as District 50, or the Steelworkers.
During October Teamsters Local 175, advised by Leath-
erwood of the planned sale, and desirous of discussing a
new contract to follow that due to expire at the end of
November, wrote to Flav-0-Rich, informing it of Local
175's representative status and asking that it bargain with
the Union. On October 29, 1973, Flav-O-Rich's lawyers
responded by saying that while their client contemplated
making the purchase it did not intend to and would not
i The bargaining unit as set out in the Board's certification, and as then
represented by Teamsters Local 175 vis-a-vis Leatherwood, is as follows.
All employees of the employer at its Bluefield, West Virginia, Beckley,
West Virginia, Kimball, West Virginia, Christiansburg, Virginia, Nar-
rows, Virginia, and Bristol, Tennessee, locations, including all produc-
tion and maintenance employees, trailer drivers, retail and wholesale
route drivers, route driver helpers, mechanics, cooling room and ship-
ping and receiving employees, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, all employees at the Williamson, West Virginia location, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
recognize Local 175 or bargain with it.
The complaint calls Flav-O-Rich the successor to Leath-
erwood within the meaning of the Board's decisional prece-
dents, and therefore alleges that the Respondent's refusal to
recognize Teamsters Local 175 constituted a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The defense is simply that the
Respondent is not a successor to Leatherwood and that
therefore none of the Board's past rulings apply to it.
Successorship
Like all cases of this kind the answer to whether a named
respondent is or is not a successor employer, and for that
reason obligated to bargain with the. established collective-
bargaining agent, is one of fact and is determined by the
pertinent objective factors. There is no substantial question
at all on this record as to what the underlying facts are.
(1) Flav-O-Rich bought Leatherwood' s business, lock,
stock, and barrel. There were seven locations altogether;
where Leatherwood owned the reality, Flav-O-Rich took
title ; where there was a lease on the property, the purchaser
assumed the lease-either a monthly one or an annual one.
It bought all the equipment-processing machinery in Blue-
field, cold storage facilities in the distribution depots, trucks
and trailers, and whatever else the seller was using in its
operations.
(2) Leatherwood was buying 95 percent of its raw milk
from members of Dairyman's Inc.; Flav-O-Rich started
right away and continued to buy all it from the same source.
(3) All of Leatherwood's customers forthwith became
Flav-O-Rich's customers.
(4) I find on the total record that every one of the 56
rank-and-file employees working for Leatherwood on Octo-
ber 31, 1973 (this number excludes the farm employees and
those at the Williamson distribution plant who were,repre-
sented by another union) were immediately hired by Flav-
O-Rich and started working for it on November 1. Charles
Walker, president of Leatherwood, worked as advisor to
Flav, O-Rich during the month of November 1973. Asked as
a witness whether it was exactly the same complement of
employees that moved immediately with the business, he
answered: "approximately all of them." Eric Morgan, vice
president of Dairyman's Inc., owner' of Flav-O-Rich, was
asked "were there any changes made in the composition of
the labor force," and said "There were very few changes
made." On or about October 25, officers of the Respondent
invited the bulk of these employees, perhaps 40, to a dinner
party with their wives to request all of them to continue their
work as before but with Flav-O-Rich. A separate meeting
with about 15 employees at Bristol was held for the same
purpose at about the same time. Morgan said "most, if not
all, to the best of my knowledge, signed up to work for
Flav-O-Rich." Morgan also agreed "the work force that was
employed at those locations are essentially the same," and
at a later point in his testimony he said: "The employees
that were hired by Flav-O-Rich were essentially those em-
ployed by Leatherwood." The parties stipulated that on
November 1, 1973, there were 56 nonsupervisory, employees
at work for Flav-O-Rich at these locations, and that the
same full complement of 56 was still there on November 23.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(5) The work duties of all these employees did not change
with the new company.' The processing plant employees
continued to work as before, the checkers and loaders in the
depots kept checking things and helping the route drivers as
a whole, the driver salesmen or route salesmen kept right on
making their rounds everyday, along the familiar estab-
lished routes, and selling to the same old customers. Indeed,
the new company made every effort not to rock the boat,
by continuing Leatherwood's name on the trucks and on the
containers for its products for quite some time. It did not
want to "upset" its wholesale customers or the housewives
who buy the milk and cream at retail. With time Flav-O-
Rich started to put its own name on the cartons and to edge
Leatherwood's name away, one day intending to remove it
altogether.
I find that the Respondent is the successor to the Leather-
wood Company's processing and distribution business and
as such was obligated to bargain with Teamsters Local 175
with respect to those employees who were represented by
that Union when the transfer of business took place. "The
critical question is . . whether Respondent continued es-
sentially the same operation, with substantially the same
employee unit whose duly certified bargaining representa-
tive was entitled to statutory recognition at the time Re-
spondent took over." Maintenance, Incorporated, 148 NLRB
1299 (1964). The facts of this case fit squarely into this test,
reaffirmed again and again in later Board decisions. Flav-
O-Rich not only hired "substantially" the old existing com-
plement of workers, but it continued all of them on its own
payroll. It changed not an iota of the old business, and in
fact took pains lest there even appear the least semblance
of change. The employees continued their regular work ex-
actly as they had always performed it. In fact, nothing
changed at all so far as their conditions of employment were
concerned. It is successor of "employment" that matters,
and not successor of employers. N.L.R.B. v. F G. McFar-
land and S. R HuUrnger d/b/a McFarland & Hullinger, 306
F.2d 219 (C.A. 10, 1962).
In the attempt to avoid this successorship finding the
Respondent relies upon the testimony of Morgan, its vice
president, who spoke of internal changes that were made in
his company's managerial hierachy in consequence of the
purchase of Leatherwood's business. Because Flav-O-Rich
had a number of large established processing plants, it soon
started to send milk to the newly acquired distribution
points from them, rather than from the old Leatherwood
processing plant in Bluefield, West Virginia. With this, high
management control over the new distribution points was
shifted away from Leatherwood's old central office-from
which, of course, there could no longer be any supervision
anyway-and placed under the jurisdiction of this or that
divisional manager of the larger company. And starting the
day after November 23, but no earlier, Flav-O-Rich discon-
tinued the processing operation at Bluefield altogether,
abolishing 12 jobs. The greater portion of the operation
2 "The objectives of national labor policy, reflected in established princi-
ples of federal law, require that the rightful prerogative of owners indepen-
dently to rearrange their businesses and even eliminate themselves as
employers be balanced by some protection to the employees from a sudden
change in the employment relationship " John Wiley and Sons v. David Liv-
ingston, 376 U.S 543 (1964)
there-the distribution function with the largest group of
route salesmen that Leatherwood had passed on to the pur-
chaser-remained as it was, the Respondent buying the
property which Leatherwood had leased and even adding to
it. The 12 plant employees were all offered other jobs, 2
accepted jobs inside Teamsters Local 175's old unit, 2 went
to other Flav-0-Rich installations and 8 left the Company.
The only other change that was made in the method of
operating Leatherwood's old business is that shortly before
the hearing in this case, 4 months after the takeover, the
Christiansburg distribution depot-where only three or
four employees worked-was closed, and its work, together
with these employees, was moved into the Narrows depot,
not far away.
Morgan detailed how Flav-O-Rich operates internally in
a number of other respects, presumably in support of a
defense contention that the bargaining unit which his Com-
pany bought no longer exists, or ceased being feasible for
bargaining purposes in consequence of the purchase. None
of the things he spoke about bears any relationship to the
work of the employees involved, and, most important, none
affects their conditions of employment either directly or
indirectly. Apparently Leatherwood's central office used to
be in Bluefield, and necessary supplies and equipment were
purchased from there, decisions as to pricing were made
there, the accounts of the business were maintained at that
location, and bills were paid out of that office. Morgan said
all this is now being decided and done at Flav-0-Rich's
central office in Columbus, Georgia, and some of it at its
divisional suboffices. He added: " . . . we are on our way
of putting it in all, complete centralized route accounting on
computers." 3 As to the lower echelon of supervision, the
immediate supervisors who had come with the Leatherwood
business and who remained at the same locations doing the
same work, Morgan said: "I would describe it as essentially
the same."
What counts in these cases is the work the employees do.
As to this Morgan's relevant testimony is this:
Q: Were there any changes in task assignment at the
various locations set up mentioned previously?
A. There may have been minor ones. It could have
been there were changes in route structure , but they
would be very minor in nature . We would say essential-
ly they were performing the same task.
Q: Drivers, salesmen?
A. And supervisors . They were performing essen-
tially the same tasks.
This language, coupled with the fact the Respondent im-
mediately hired the full complement of employees used by
its predecessor, places the case precisely within the phrase
3 A good summary of Morgan's total burden in his testimony appears in
his following statement as a witness
So the top management decisions that heretofore had been made here
at Bluefield under the ownership of the old Leatherwood organization
primarily by Mr Walker and in our instance is divided into three ex-
isting divisions , with the top management decision in each of these
divisions resting in the division manager of that position which he is, in
my opinion, very basic change in managements.
FLAV-O-RICH , INC. 933
"continuity of the employing industry" used in case after
case.
I conclude that by refusing to bargain with Teamsters
Local 175 on November 1, 1973, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.' There is a final clear contention
emerging from the totality of Morgan's testimony, and it is
that big business cannot be profitable, or sufficiently prof-
itable, if management must deal with unions. At some
points he seemed to be saying also that this Company is
too large to deal with any union on the basis of only a
portion of its operations. This would be an unpersuasive
argument if only because Morgan also said District 50, or
the "Steelworkers," represents employees at one of its pro-
cessing plants , plus the Williamson distribution point pur-
chased from Leatherwood. In any event, it is too late a day
in history to attempt to defeat a refusal-to-bargain com-
plaint under this statute on the ground that collective bar-
gaining trenches upon the proper interest of management
in making money.
Flav-O-Rich's plan to close down entirely the Bluefield
processing plant, with its 12 in-plant employees, came to the
attention of Local 175 on November 16. The Union there-
fore wrote to the Respondent and demanded it bargain with
the Union not only with respect to contract renewal, but
also with respect to any questions that were pertinent to the
planned discontinuance of the Bluefield processing plant. It
wanted to discuss questions of possible layoffs of the em-
ployees who might be affected. And again, by letter dated
November 19, the Respondent refused to extend any recog-
nition or to meet with the Union at all. This was another
clear violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and I so find.
The Respondent's statutory duty to recognize Local 175 was
clear, for indeed by that date nothing had changed at all,
and the full 56-man complement of old was still in its direct
employment.
IV THE REMEDY
The cardinal element in the remedial order now required
is that the Respondent cease refusing to recognize and to
bargain with the Union and that it now in good faith meet
4 N L R.B. v. The William J Burns International Detective Agency , 406 U.S
272 (1972); Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc v. N.L R.B, 419 F . 2d 1025, (C.A. 7,
1969)
In its brief the Respondent argues for dismissal of the complaint on two
additional grounds It simply states that the record proves that the employes
were initially hired on an economic basis totally different from the conditions
of employment they had enjoyed with Leatherwood . and that there was
reasonable grounds for the new Company to doubt the Union's majority
status on November 1. The first assertion is in no sense supported by the
evidence All Morgan , the new vice president, did on October 25, as he
testified, was "encouraged them to become employees of Flav-O-Rich."
"welcome to the family ," "we needed good people ." He said nothing about
changing their conditions of employment He did tell them the Respondent
had no intention of recognizing their Union It is now the position of the
Respondent that because the employees at that moment did not openly
protest this announced refusal , it follows the employees no longer wished to
be represented by the Union . Neither their silence then , nor the fact the
Respondent during November stopped the predecessor 's practice of checking
off their union dues , as the current contract called for, serves at all to negate
the presumption of continuing majority status of the Union as evidenced by
the existing contract.
and negotiate with it as the statute requires. No question
here as to when the duty to bargain arose, for clearly the
Respondent knew in advance, of the sale that the Union was
the established exclusive representative of the employees it
took over, and from the very beginning it intended to and
in fact did hire all of the employees of its predecessor.
N.L.R.B. v. Polytech, Inc., 469 F.2d 1226 (C.A. 8, 1972). It
was the clearest unfair labor practice on November 1. The
General Counsel, as part of the appropriate remedy, asks
that the employees be made whole for any economic hurt
they may have suffered in consequence of the Respondent
departing from the contract provisions in the Union's then
agreement with the predecessor. That matter was not ex-
plored at the hearing. Rather, the record indicates that Flav-
O-Rich asked the old employees to stay on with no changes
in their pay or other benefits. It may nevertheless be that
changes in conditions were made, and that they may have
been adverse to the interests of the employees. The remedial
order will therefore provide that the question be looked into
at the compliance stage, and in the event the Respondent
did in fact reduce any of the economic benefits of the em-
ployees, it now reimburse them and restore the status quo
ante. This is not a matter of ordering the Respondent to
abide by the contract which its predecessor had with the
Union, but rather to undo the effect, if any, of unilateral
changes in conditions of employment it made when it was
under a statutory duty to bargain with the Union. See The
Denham Company, 206 NLRB 659 (1973).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. By refusing to bargain with the Union on November
1, 1973, and thereafter, concerning wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment in the unit found ap-
propriate herein, and by refusing to bargain with the Union
on November 19,1973, and thereafter, concerning the effect
of the Respondent's decision to discontinue its processing
plant operation in Bluefield, West Virginia, the Respondent
has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. The unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining now is:
All employees of the Respondent at its Bluefield, West
Virginia, Beckley, West Virginia, Kimball, West Vir-
ginia, Narrows, Virginia, and Bristol, Tennessee, loca-
tions, including all production and maintenance
employees, trailer drivers, retail and wholesale route
drivers, route -driver helpers, mechanics, cooling room
and shipping and receiving employees, but excluding
all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices 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:
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER'
The Respondent, Flav-O-Rich, Inc., Bluefield, West Vir-
ginia , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers Local Union No. 175, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, on request, concerning all
terms and conditions of employment as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining agent of the employees in the unit here
found appropriate, and refusing to bargain with that Union
concerning the effect of the Respondent's decision to dis-
continue its processing plant in Bluefield, West Virginia.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit
here found appropriate concerning all terms and conditions
of employment, and with respect to the effect upon the
employees of the Respondent's decision to close its pro-
cessing plant in Bluefield, West Virginia, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody it in a signed agreement.
(b) In the event it should appear upon investigation here-
after that the Respondent made any unilateral changes in
the conditions of employment of the employees on Novem-
ber 1, 1973, or thereafter, make restitution to the employees
for any benefits which may have been lost by virtue of the
unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment
until such time as a new collective-bargaining agreement is
executed between it and the Union.
(c) Post at each of the five locations purchased from the
Leatherwood Company and still being operated by the Re-
spondent at the time of the hearing herein, 'copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director fo Region
9, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6 1n 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 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
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated the Federal law by refusing to bargain
with the statutory collective-bargaining representative of
our employees:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith, upon
request, with Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local
Union No. 175, affiliated with the International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining agent
of all our employees in the unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with that Union con-
cerning all terms and conditions of employment of all
the employees in that bargaining unit, and concerning
the effect upon the employees of our decision in No-
vember 1973 to discontinue our processing plant in
Bluefield, West Virginia. The bargaining unit is'
All our employees in our Bluefield, West Virginia,
Beckley, West Virginia, Kimball, West Virginia,
Narrows, Virginia, and Bristol, Tennessee, locations,
including all production and maintenance employ-
ees, trailer drivers, retail and wholesale route drivers,
route driver helpers, mechanics, cooling room and
shipping and receiving employees, but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
FLAV-O-RICH, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102,48 anyone.
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive daysfindings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed y
waived for all purposes from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
FLAV-O-RICH, INC. 935
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning ed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- 3003 , 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
513-684-3686.