Flowers Baking Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 1429 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1429
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609
Railway Exchange Building, 17th & Champa Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone
297-3551.
Flowers Baking Company , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL -CIO. Case 10-
CA-6355. December 11 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 1, 1966, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his
Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions , and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, ' conclusions , and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
'In adopting the Trial Examiners finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act by unilaterally increasing the wages of employees represented by the Union on
May 26, 1965 , we make no finding with respect to a collective-bargaining agent's obligation
in other circumstances to respond to a proposal to grant a wage increase
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on November 3, 1965, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workers of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
April 1, 1966, amended on April 21, 1966, alleging that Flowers Baking Company,
Inc. (herein called Respondent or Company), engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In substance, the
complaint alleges that after the Union was certified as the representative of one
unit of its employees, the Respondent unilaterally, without bargaining with the
Union, and before impasse, granted wage increases and other benefits to the
employees in the certified unit, and engaged in surface, bad-faith bargaining with
the Union. The Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of unfair
labor practices.
A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held in Thomasville, Georgia,
on May 24, 1966, before Trial Examiner Samuel Ross.
161 NLRB No. 130.
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case,' and from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and after due consideration of the brief filed on behalf of
the Respondent, I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
The Respondent is a Georgia corporation whose principal office and place of
business is located in Thomasville, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture. sal, and distribution of bakery products 2 During the past 12 months, a
representative period, the Respondent admittedly sold and shipped products valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Georgia.
Upon the foregoing, it is found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce and
in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On March 5, 1965, the Union was certified by the Board 3 as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the following unit of Respondent's employees:
All production and maintenance employees, including shipping department
employees at the Respondent's Thomasville, Georgia, operation, but excluding all
office clerical employees, quality-control employees, relay drivers, driver-salesmen,
garage employees, engineers , buyers, retail store employees, watchmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The employees who were specifically excluded from the unit are not represented
for collective-bargaining purposes by any labor organization. Apparently, this is
also true with respect to the employees in Respondent's other plants.
The Respondent's fiscal year ends in October. It has been the practice of the
Respondent to review the wage rates of its employees after the end of each fiscal
year "Based on the kind of year the Company has had and on the prevailing wage
structure in [the area]," the Respondent's executive committee then elects to grant
or not grant a wage increase to its employees. When granted, these increases gen-
erally are made effective in January or February of the year following the end of
the fiscal year. In this manner, successive increases of 4 cents per hour were
received by Wilma Jean Elzy, an employee in the certified unit, in February 1962
and 1963, and in January 1964.4 Apparently, like increases were given by the
Respondent to its other employees at the same time.
In January 1965, following a wage review by the Respondent's executive com-
mittee, the Company gave all of its employees, except those in the unit subsequently
represented by the Union, a wage increase of from 4 cents to 12 cents an hour
depending on their job classification, an additional paid holiday, and increased
vacation benefits. According to the Respondent's Assistant Manager Amos McMul-
lian, these increases and additional benefits were not simultaneously given to the
employees in the unit which was later certified, because the Union was then in the
process of organizing these employees, and the Respondent "could not [do so]
without meeting with their representatives and bargaining with them." 5
'The transcript of the hearing in this case contains a large number of obvious errors
which are hereby corrected.
'The Respondent also has plants located at Jacksonville and Panama City, Florida,
and at Opelika, Alabama, but only the Thomasville plant is involved in the instant
proceeding.
3 Case 10-RC-6196.
' See Respondent's Exhibit 5, the personnel record of Wilma Jean Eizy, which by stipula-
tion of the parties, was received In evidence after the close of the hearing.
5 There is no charge, nor any allegation in the complaint , that the Respondent, by with-
holding this wage increase and additional benefits from the employees in the unit, dis-
criminated against them within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1431
B. The refusal to bargain
1. Prenegotiation correspondence
On March 9, 1965,6 the Respondent, by letter to the Union addressed to its
office in Atlanta, Georgia, stated that six of its employees were entitled to certain
wage increases, and that unless the Union indicated "to the contrary, in writing,
no later than Friday, March 12," Respondent would assume that the Union was
agreeable to the "proposed changes." On March 10, the Union, by letter, agreed
to the proposed wage increase for the six employees.
On April 6, Respondent's then counsel, Daniel R. Coffman, Jr., wrote to the
Union in substance proposing to put into immediate effect for the employees in the
unit, the wage increases and additional holiday and vacation benefits which
Respondent previously had given in January to its "non-bargaining unit employees."
The letter offered to incorporate "these new benefits" into the collective-bargaining
agreement when it was completed but stated that Respondent "would be opposed
to any retroactive provisions." The letter requested the Union's "earliest advices
on this matter." The Union did not respond.
2. The bargaining negotiations on May 7
The first meeting of Respondent and union representatives to negotiate a
collective-bargaining agreement was held on May 7 and lasted about 2 hours. The
parties first discussed a few specific grievances. Union Vice President Roy Scheurich
asked some questions regarding the Respondent's profit-sharing plan and group
insurance contracts which he did not understand? The Union asked Respondent to
pay for the time spent by the employee members of the negotiating committee at
bargaining sessions , but the Respondent refused, saying that these employees were
"on the Union's time not the Company' s time." The Union requested that the
Respondent agree to a checkoff of union dues and initiation fees. A form of
checkoff authorization, which Union Vice President Scheurich said was legal in
the State of Georgia, was read to the Respondent's representatives, and the latter,
after caucussing for 20 minutes, refused to agree to a checkoff, stating, "the
principle of deducting the Union's dues and initiation fee for and on behalf of the
Union does not appeal to us." Scheurich then asked the Respondent's representa-
tives to reconsider this provision because the Union needed it. Respondent's Counsel
Coffman asked Scheurich whether the Union had a written proposal to submit for
the Company's consideration, or whether he intended to make verbal proposals on
a piecemeal basis. Scheurich replied that he intended to proceed in the latter man-
ner, and Coffman indicated his preference for a written proposal from the Union
which the Respondent could study. Coffman stated that the Respondent' s current
views were that it would want a management rights clause and possibly a subcon-
tracting clause. Scheurich replied that he would not have any subcontracting clause
in any contract while he was International vice president of the Union. Respondent
invited the Union's representatives to tour the plant and familiarize themselves
with the operations of the bakery in order to save time during the negotiations.
The Union accepted the invitation. The parties agreed to meet again in Thomasville
for further negotiations on May 21 8
According to Respondent's Assistant Manager Amos McMullian, as the parties
were preparing to leave the meeting, Manager Fleetwood asked Scheurich whether
he had received the Respondent's letter of April 6, which, as noted above, offered
immediate wage increases and additional holiday and vacation benefits to the
employees in the unit represented by the Union. McMullian testified that Scheurich
replied that he had received the letter, that Fleetwood then asked whether
Scheurich was agreeable to the proposal, and that the latter replied that he would
6 All dates hereinafter refer to 1965 unless otherwise noted.
7 Copies of the plan and insurance contracts had been sent to the Union at its request
before this meeting.
B The foregoing findings regarding what transpired at the May 7 meeting are based on
a composite of the notes of the meeting dictated on May 7 by Respondent's Counsel Coffman,
on the credited testimony of Union Vice President Scheurich and employee Wilma Jean
Elzy, and on the testimony of Respondent's Assistant Manager Amos McMullian to the
extent credited.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discuss it later. Contrary to McMulhan's testimony, all of the witnesses for the
General Counsel who attended the May 7 meeting 9 specifically denied that any
reference was made thereat to the Respondent's April 6 letter, or to increased
wages, holidays, or vacation benefits for the unit employees. Furthermore, the notes
of this meeting, dictated by Respondent's Counsel Coffman, contain no reference
to any such inquiry by Fleetwood or response by Scheurich, and in an affidavit to
the Board, McMullian stated, "I have read the minutes of the first bargaining ses-
sion prepared by Attorney Coffman and swear that they report what happened at
the first bargaining session." In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of
any corroboration by either Fleetwood, Coffman, or any other witness, McMullian's
testimony regarding Fleetwood's inquiry about the Company's proposed wage and
other benefits increase to the unit employees, and Scheurich's alleged response
thereto is not believed and is not credited.
3. The bargaining negotiations on May 21
The second negotiation session occurred on May 21 as previously scheduled and
lasted 30 to 35 minutes. Respondent's Counsel Coffman asked Scheurich whether
he had any written proposal to submit for the Company's consideration. Scheurich
replied that in view of his prior experience in negotiations with Coffman, which
"always fell apart on the management clause and the grievance procedures and the
checkoff," and since Coffman "never agrees with the language" which Scheurich
proposes, he preferred that Coffman prepare a management rights clause. Coffman
agreed to do so during the luncheon recess and submit it when they reconvened
that afternoon After lunch, Coffman advised Scheurich that he had been unable
to draft a proposed management clause, but that he would send one to Scheurich
by mail after the meeting. At some time during the meeting, Coffman asked
Scheurich whether he had looked over the Company's wage proposal contained in
his letter of April 6.10 Scheurich replied in the affirmative, and stated that he had
been too busy to have a meeting with the employees, but would take it up with
them before the next bargaining session and would be ready to discuss it then."
No additional discussion of wages or other increased benefits for the unit employ-
ees occurred at this meeting. Admittedly, the Respondent neither protested the
Union's failure to dismiss the Respondent's April 6 wage proposal at this meeting,
nor did it advise the Union that it would institute the proposed changes without
discussion or agreement by the Union. The meeting concluded with an agreement
by the parties to meet again on June 23 and 24.
4. The Respondent's unilateral wage increase on May 26
On May 26, without notice to the Union, the Respondent granted the employees
in the certified unit, the increased wages, holiday, and vacation benefits which it
had proposed in Coffman's letter of April 6, and made these increases effective
retroactively to April 7. In addition, the Respondent attached the following letter to
the employees' increased paychecks:
To: All Employees
From: W. H. Flowers
May 26, 1965
1. On April 6, 1965, your Company wrote to the Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters and Butcher Workmen of North America, your bargaining representative,
and asked permission to immediately put in a wage increase, paid holiday ben-
efits, and additional vacation benefits for the employees in the Bargaining Unit.
All of these increases and benefits had been given to all of the employees in
Thomasville not in the Bargaining Unit and all employees in Jacksonville and
Opelika per custom of annual review and adjustment of wage and working
conditions.
s Union Vice President Scheurich International Representative Edward (raham, and
employee Wilma Jean Elzy
11 There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether this inquiry and the discussion which
followed occurred during the meeting or when the parties were about to adjourn Since the
resolution of this conflict is immaterial to the issues, it lull not he resolved
n The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Union Vice President Scheurich.
According to Assistant Manager McMullian, Scheurich replied that "he didn't want to
agree on wages until the whole contract had been agreed upon "
FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1433
2. The Union refused permission for us to do,this and stated that we would
discuss it at the bargaining table. The Management of your Company met with
the officials of the Union on Friday, May 7, which was the date agreed upon
for a meeting, to bargain with them in good faith on a contract for the employ-
ees. The Union officials at this bargaining session declined to discuss the
proposed annual wage increase and asked only that Management agree to
deduct and collect your initiation fees and Union dues. This is called a "check-
off." Management refused to agree to this and the Union officials then called
the meeting to an end and set Friday, May 21, to meet for another bargaining
session.
3. The Management of your Company met with the Union officials and
bargaining committee at the requested date and time. The Union did not and
never has presented the company with a written proposal for a contract. Again
Management asked that the proposed wage increase and the other benefits be
discussed, but the Union officials again refused to do so. The union asked
again if Management had changed its mind about collecting the initiation fees
and dues and Management said it had- not. The Union then asked Management
to submit to them a Management Rights Clause. Management's attorney said
the company would prepare this and mail it to the Union. The Union then
asked when we were willing to meet again and stated it could not meet until
after June 10. The meeting was set for June 23 and 24-over one month away
4. Management sincerely feels that the Union is not bargaining in good
faith by refusing to discuss wages and by other conduct. Therefore, the Com-
pany had decided that regardless of the Union's position, to put in wage
increase and other benefits offered April 6, and to put them in immediately.
These benefits are customary and would have been given with or without a
union. Management has also decided-to make this effective at the time it was
first offered to the Union. Therefore in the attached pay check you will receive
your pay at the new rate as well as back pay beginning workweek April 7
up-to-date that you would have gotten had the Union accepted Management's
offer to give you the raise.
As a result of this action by Management the Union may do one of three
things:
A. Do nothing and continue to meet with Management at the bargain-
ing table.
B. Try to call a strike and try to force Management to cut your wages.
C. Go to the Labor Board or a Federal Court and seek to force Man-
agement to cut your wages.
Should the Union seek the help of the Labor Board, Management's legal
staff will fight it every inch of the way, because we feel the Union has not
been dealing with the Company in good faith. If we are forced to cut your
pay, we will hold each week in your name the amount we are forced to cut.
5. I am sure you probably are wondering where the end of this will be and
I feel you are entitled to know. It will end in one of the three following ways:
A. Management and the Union will reach agreement on a contract
and a contract will be signed by Management and the Union.
B. If Management and the Union cannot agree, the law gives the Union
nine months to continue to represent the members of the unit.
C.. In the event an equitable and fair understanding has not been reached
between Management and the Union by next March, you have the right by
petition or by going to the Labor Board for a secret ballot to make the
decision as to whether or not you want the Union to continue represent-
ing you.
6. A majority of employees voted for the Union on February 25, and
because of this the company intended to sit down and honestly try to work
out a contract that we could all live with. However, the Union, in our opinion,
has been stalling and delaying and has not bargained in good faith with the
Company. The Union is your representative but it is required by law to deal
with us in good faith and to represent you adequately. We think the Union
has failed on both scores.
(S) W. H. Flowers
W. H. FLOWERS
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The Respondent 's charge of refusal to bargain against the Union
In addition to writing and delivering the above letter to its unit employees, on
May 28 the Respondent filed a charge with the Board 's Regional Office alleging
that since May 7 the Union had refused to bargain with Respondent and that
thereby the Union had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.12
However, on July 22, the Regional Director of the Board notified the Respondent
that after investigation there was insufficient evidence of violation, and that he
was refusing to issue a complaint. Thereafter, although advised of its right to obtain
a review by the General Counsel of the Director's refusal to issue a complaint, the
Respondent did not request such review and the charge was dismissed on August 4
for insufficient evidence.
6. The bargaining negotiations in 1965 after the Respondent 's unilateral
wage increase to the employees in the unit
After the May 26 increase to the unit employees of wages, holidays , and vaca-
tion benefits, the parties held seven negotiation sessions, on June 24 , July 22, Sep-
tember 22, October 20, November 22, January 6, 1966, and January 31, 1966, with-
out reaching agreement. At all these sessions , Respondent 's chief negotiator was
its current Attorney O. R. T. Bowden.
At the June 24 meeting Union Vice President Scheurich first asserted that the
Respondent's Section 8(b)(3) charge then still pending was without foundation, and
then accused the Company with having violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
unilaterally changing wage rates without negotiation with the Union The parties
then discussed the Respondent 's proposed managements rights clause which had
been sent to the Union before the meeting, and which , inter alia, provided that the
Respondent could subcontract "its manufacturing , warehousing or delivery." The
Union strenuously objected to the subcontracting provision , but no agreement was
reached regarding its elimination.
At the July 22 negotiating meeting, the Union submitted a proposed agreement
in writing which the parties discussed.13 Basically, the Union proposed a collective-
bargaining agreement for a term of 3 years, with wage increases of 10 cents per
hour each year. The Respondent's representatives took the position that "they
could not obligate themselves for more than one year," and that since the unit
employees had just received an increase in their wage rates, no further increase
in wage was warranted. -
The September 22 meeting which lasted only a half hour was devoted princi-
pally to the discussion of grievances. At this meeting the Respondent submitted its
written counterproposal to the Union, and the parties agreed to defer further nego-
tiations until the Union could compare the Company's proposed contract with its own.
At the next meeting on October 20, the parties discussed the Respondent's and
the Union's proposed contracts, article-by-article. The only agreement finally
reached on any of the provisions related to vacations, in respect to which the
Company had proposed a maximum of 2 weeks. However , when attention was
called to the Respondent's current policy of providing a 3 weeks' vacation to
employees with 12 years of service,14 the Company agreed to change the vacation
clause to so provide.
The next negotiation session was held on November 22. The parties discussed
grievances and arbitration, management rights, and subcontracting clauses, without
reaching final agreement on any of them . In respect to the duration of the con-
tract, the Respondent refused the Union's request for a 3-year term. The Union
agreed to accept a 1-year contract but modified its wage demand to request an
11 Case 10-CB-1541.
is Neither the Union's proposed contract, nor the Respondent's later written proposal,
was offered in evidence. The only record evidence regarding the contents of these docu-
ments , and of what happened at the negotiation sessions on and after June 24, are the
Union's minutes of the negotiations sessions , which , inter alia, contain references to the
discussions of the various clauses in the two proposals Since these minutes were avail-
able to the Respondent before the presentation of its defense herein , and Respondent offered
no testimony which controverted the minutes in any respect , no reason exists for not
regarding these minutes as reliable evidence of what transpired at the negotiation sessions.
14 This was one of the benefits which the Respondent unilaterally had given to the unit
employees on May 26.
FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1435
increase of 15 cents per hour applicable to all job classifications . The Respondent
took the position on all cost items that it would give nothing more than what the
unit employees already were receiving . Union Vice President Scheurich asked that
the Company reconsider its wage proposal during the luncheon recess . After lunch,
Company Counsel Bowden reiterated that on cost items, the Respondent's ciurent
rates were all it was willing to pay. In respect to wages, Bowden said the unit
employees had received a fairly substantial increase less then 6 months ago, and
that this was all the Respondent "had in mind at this particular time anyway."
Scheurich recriminated that the raise had been given "without the Union's approval,"
and that negotiations had reached a point where he believed "a contract could be
written if some of these money items could be straightened out." Bowden replied
that the Respondent's proposal was fair and in line with what was "being done in
the area," and that the Respondent "had no further proposal." Scheurich asked "if
that was final." Bowden replied that it seemed to be, but if the Union would take
1 cent or 2 cents more , the Respondent "would take another look , but the present
status was [such] that there was no reason to change their position." Scheurich
then asked Bowden if he wanted to set another meeting. Bowden agreed and the
parties arranged to meet again on January 6, 1966.
7. The Respondent's wage increase to its unrepresented employees
on January 1, 1966
In "the latter part of November, or December," 15 in accordance with its annual
policy of wage review, the Respondent's Executive Committee decided to grant
a wage increase of 8 cents an hour to all its "hourly employees," and an additional
10 cents per hour (or a total increase of 18 cents per hour), to all the "production
workers " These increases were announced by Respondent to its employees by a
notice placed on its bulletin board in early January 1966 (before the negotiation
meeting scheduled for January 6, 1966), and were made effective for the nonbar-
gaining unit employees on January 1, 1966 The announcement stated as follows:
Flowers Baking Company is proud to announce an 8 cents per hour wage
increase for all hourly employees, except those who are represented by a bar-
gaining unit
In addition to the above, the job classification of Production Worker has
been raised 10 cents per hour, except for those employees represented by a
bargaining unit.
The above wage increases are effective immediately.
This action follows the policy of Flowers Baking Company to review wages
and classifications at the end of each year; we are happy that once again we
can give these increases . Your continued efficient and cooperative work can
help make future increases possible.
Prior to the posting of this announcement , the Union had received no indication
of Respondent's amenability to a wage increase for the unit employees except pos-
sibly 1 cent or 2 cents more than they were then receiving.
8. The final negotiation meetings between Respondent and the Union
After the Respondent announced the wage increase for all its hourly paid employ-
ees except those in the bargaining unit represented by the Union, the parties met
for negotiations on January 6, 1966. At the outset of the negotiations. in an obvious
reference to the recent wage increase granted to the nonunit employees, Scheu-
rich asked Company Counsel Bowden whether the Respondent had changed its
mind regarding a wage increase for the unit employees. Bowden replied that the
Respondent was prepared'to offer the same wage increase to the employees in the
bargaining unit represented by the Union. Scheurich asked what the Company was
offering. Bowden replied, "8 cents per hour across-the-board on all rates." Scheurich
inquired, "all rates and classifications?" Bowden responded that there would be an
"additional" 10 cents per hour "wage adjustment on classifications in production."
Scheurich asked if the entire bargaining unit was not in production. Bowden replied,
"Only about 60%." Scheurich asked which classifications were in production.
Assistant Manager McMullran replied that all of the classifications referred to in the
Respondent's letter of April 6, 1965, were production, and he explained that "under
15 These quotes are from the testimony of Respondent's Assistant Manager Amos
McMullian.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the old set up,"'employees in production and janitors were all classified as "work-
ers," but that now employees in the Sanitation Department were classified as jani-
tors and would not be regarded as production workers. Scheurich asked whether
the offered increase, -if accepted by the Union, would, be, made retroactive to Jan-
uary 1, 1966, the effective date of increase for the nonunit employees. Bowden
replied that the increase would be made effective as of the time it was accepted by
the Union and would not be retroactive. Scheurich asked Bowden why he was
doing this. Bowden replied that he had not had a chance to discuss wage increases
before this because "there had not been a [bargaining] meeting" Scheurich replied
that he did not believe Respondent was bargaining in good faith Scheurich then
asked for, and was promised, a list of the employees in the various job classifica-
tions by Friday (January 7), told Bowden that the Union would bold a meeting
of the employees in the unit that weekend to consider the Respondent's wage offer,
and the parties agreed that if accepted by the Union, the wage increase would be
made effective on Monday, January 10, 1966. The meeting then adjourned. There-
after, the bargaining unit employees apparently voted to accept the Respondent's
offer, and the wage increase was put into effect as agreed upon.16
The final negotiating meeting of the parties took place on January 31, 1966.-At
this meeting, agreement was reached on some provisions of a contract, but on
others no conclusions were reached. As the meeting was about to conclude, the
parties agreed to meet again the week of February 15, 1966, after the Company
set down its "policy" regarding funeral leave and other matters in writing, and it
was arranged that Company Counsel Bowden, after checking his "agenda" would
notify Scheurich by mail regarding the meeting date. The record does not disclose
whether or not Bowden thereafter notified Scheurich regarding his availability for
negotiations on any specific date. However, Scheurich admitted that there has been
no request by the Union for a negotiation meeting since January 31, 1966.
C. Concluding findings
1. In respect to the unilateral wage increase of May 26.
It is by now well settled that an employer violates his duty to bargain in good
faith within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when he unilaterally puts
into effect wage increases or otherwise unilaterally changes terms and conditions of
employment of employees, either without discussion with the latter's representative,
or before an impasse is reached.17 The Respondent does not dispute that the May 26
increase in wages , holidays and vacation bnefits to the employees represented by
Union was granted without reaching an agreement with the Union, and before an
impasse was reached. The Respondent also concedes "that under normal conditions
it would be inappropriate under Section 8(a)(5) for the Company'to grant such
an increase without first coming to an agreement with the bargaining agent." is
Nevertheless, the Respondent contends that its unilateral action was justified by
"the need that action be taken to restore employee harmony , and due to the fact
that the Union had taken absolutely no action after having been apprised of the
situation for over two and a half months." 19 These contentions will be considered
seriatim.
In respect to the alleged "need that action be taken to restore employee har-
mony," the only record evidence regarding any lack thereof consists of the uncor-
roborated and conclusionary testimony of Assistant Manager McMullian to the
effect that certain unnamed employees, who knew about the increase received by
the nonunit employees , "were very upset because they have not received their in-
crease," and inquired whether "they were being penalized because they were mem-
bers of the bargaining unit." McMullian further testified that the morale of the
unit was very low and that it affected the efficiency • of the plant. Just how plant
efficiency was affected was not in any way explicated. Neither was what McMullian
meant by the low morale of the unit, or the manner in which it was manifested.
16 See Respondent's Exhibit 5 , the personnel record of Wilma Jean E1zy,. a member of
the Union's negotiation committee, which discloses that on January 10, 1966, her wage rate,
was increased 18 cents per hour from $1.46 to $1.64.
17 N.L.R.B. v. Benno Katz, etc., d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736 ;
McLean, Kenneth B ., d/b/a Ken's Building Supplies , 142 NLRB 235, enfd. 333 F.2d 84
(C.A. 6) ; R.C. Can Company, 144 NLRB 210, enfd. as modified 340 F.2d 433 (C.A. 5).
1B Respondent's brief, p. 6. '
19 Id.
FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1437
Under the circumstances , McMullian's uncorroborated conclusions in this regard
are not worthy of any probative value. Significantly, the Respondent offered no
evidence either oral or documentary, that any employee in the unit quit because of
the wage disparity between unit and nonunit employees, nor any that Respondent
needed, but was unable to hire, employees to work in the unit at the prevailing
rates. Moreover, even assuming that a low morale situation existed, the Respondent
easily could have restored it by notifying the employees of its offer to the Union
to increase their wages, and by offering to make the increases retroactive (as indeed,
it later did) to the date when they were first offered to the Union. In view of all
the foregoing, it has not been established that any pressing need existed for insti-
tuting the wage increase which justified the Respondent's unilateral action without
bargaining with the Union. In this regard, what the Supreme Court said in N.L R.B.
v. Katz, supra, 747, is appropriate here:
Unilateral action by an employer without prior discussion with the union does
amount to a refusal to negotiate about the affected conditions of employment
under negotiation , and must, of necessity obstruct bargaining, contrary to the
congressional policy. It will often disclose an unwillingness to agree with the
union. It will rarely be justified by any reason of substance . . . While we do
not foreclose the possibility that there might be circumstances which the
Board could or should accept as excusing or justifying unilateral action, no
such case is presented here.
As noted above, the Respondent further contends that its unilateral action was
justified because "the Union had taken absolutely no action after having been
apprised of the situation for over two and a half months." Contrary to this con-
tention , the record shows that the Union was never "apprised" that any urgency
existed in respect to the Respondent's proposal to increase wages and other
benefits . The Respondent's letter which set forth the offer, although stating that
the Company wanted to put these "improvements" into effect "immediately," and
that the reason therefor was its desire not to "penalize" the bargaining unit employ-
ees, did not disclose any pressing need on the part of the Respondent to institute
the increase. At the two bargaining sessions which followed the Respondent' s letter
before the increases were unilaterally made effective (May 7 and 21), the Union
admittedly was neither advised of any urgency for its prompt acceptance of
Respondent's offer, nor told that if not accepted, the Respondent intended to act
unilaterally . Moreover, the Respondent at these two meetings admittedly did not
protest the failure of the Union to discuss the proposed wage increases . In any event
the short answer to this contention is that the Union's failure promptly to accept
the Respondent's proposal to increase wages, holiday and vacation benefits for the
unit employees , did not justify the Respondent to act unilaterally. In this regard,
the Board said in Ken's Building Supplies, supra, 237:
Nor did the lapse of some 3 months without an answer to the [company's]
offer . . . justify an assumption that the Union had abdicated its responsibil-
ities as the exclusive agent and that from then on the Respondent was free
to deal directly with its employees regarding this matter. The certification had
still some 8 months to run and the delay in communicating with the Respond-
ent with respect to this matter did not preclude the Union from doing so at
some further time within the certification year.
Accordingly, it is found that by unilaterally granting its unit employees wage
increases and other benefits on May 26 without bargaining with the Union in respect
thereto and before impasse , the Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good
faith within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,20 and thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
2. The Respondent 's overall failure to bargain in good faith
The complaint (110) also alleges, and the General Counsel contends, that the
totality of the Respondent's conduct after the certification of the Union and during
the negotiations constituted mere "surface bargaining" by the Respondent without
any real intention to reach agreement with the Union, and that thereby the
Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith as required by Section
8(a)(5) and (d) of the Act.
20 See cases cited in footnote 17, sepia
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The principles governing the determination of whether an employer has bar-
gained in good faith are well established. While an employer is not required to
make concessions to reach an accord, he is required to approach the negotiations
with an open mind and a sincere desire to make reasonable efforts to arrive at a
collective-bargaining agreement.21 The ultimate issue as to whether Respondent con-
ducted its bargaining negotiations in good faith, as required by Section 8(a) (5) and
(d) of the Act, involves a finding of motive or subjective state of mind which can
only be determined from the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, of the total-
ity of its conduct both at and away from the negotiations 22 This principle was
fully enunciated by the Board in M. System, Inc.23 as follows:
Good faith, or the want of it, is concerned essentially with a state of mind.
There is no short cut to a determination of whether an employer has bargained
with the requisite good faith the statute demands. That determination must be
based upon reasonable inference drawn from the totality of conduct evidencing
the state of mind with which the employer entered into and participated in
the bargaining process. The employer's state of mind is to be gleaned not only
from his conduct at the bargaining table, but also from his conduct away from
it-for example, conduct reflecting a rejection of the principle of collective
bargaining or an underlying purpose to bypass or undermine the union manifests
the absence of a genuine desire to compose differences and to reach agreement
in the manner the Act commands. All aspects of the Respondent's bargaining
and related conduct must be considered in unity, not as separate fragments
each to be assessed in isolation.
In the light of these principles and upon consideration of the record as a whole,
I am convinced and find that the Respondent's conduct, in its totality, evidences a
state of mind lacking in the good-faith requirements of the Act, and discloses a
purpose of undermining the Union's representative status. This conclusion is based
on the following record evidence:
(a) Pursuant to its annual wage review policy, in the latter part of 1964, the
Respondent determined that its employees were entitled to a wage increase of
from 4 cents to 12 cents an hour based on job classification, and gave this increase
to its nonunit employees in January 1965. The unit employees were not given the
increase at that time, allegedly because the Respondent "could not" do so during
the pendency of the Union's certification proceeding. After the Union's certification,
when the Respondent wrote the Union offering to put these same increases into
effect for the unit employees before negotiation, the offer expressly refused to make
the proposed increase retroactive. However, when the Respondent unilaterally
gave this wage increase to the unit employees on May 26, it made the increase
retroactive to April 6, the date of its offer to the Union. Thus, the increase uni-
laterally given to the unit employees was greater than that offered to the Union,24
but less than what it gave its nonunit employees, since the latter had been receiv-
ing the higher rates since January. No reason was offered or appears for the dis-
parate treatment which the Respondent accorded to its unit employees in respect
to this wage increase. The disparity obviously tended to undermine the representa-
tive status of the Union, and clearly was so intended. Moreover the Respondent's
unilateral action clearly thwarted the Union's efforts to gain any wage increase for
the unit employees through negotiation.25
(b) As found above, the Respondent had a policy of annually reviewing the
wages of its employees and granting them wage increases when business and area
conditions warranted. However, no such policy existed, at least none was shown
to exist, in respect to increasing, either the number of paid holidays, or the amount
of paid vacation time. These were mandatory subjects of bargaining regarding
21 N.L.R B. v. Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO (Prudential Insurance
Company), 361 U S. 477, 485. See N.L.R B. v. Reed & Prince, 205 F.2d 131, 134-135 (C.A.
1), cert. denied 346 U S. 887, where the court said that an employer is "obliged to made
some reasonable effort in some direction to compose his differences with the Union if Sec-
tion 8(a) (5) Is to read as imposing any substantial obligation at all."
23 N L R B v Reed & Prince, supra, 139-140.
21 129 NLRB 527 at 547.
24 N.L.R B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U.S. 217.
25 After the wage increase, the Respondent rejected all the Union's requests for further
increases on the ground that the unit employees had already received a substantial increase
on May 26.
FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1439
which the Respondent was required to bargain with the Union. The institution of
these additional holiday and vacation benefits unilaterally at the very outset of the
negotiations was not required by any business need of the Respondent. By thus
unilaterally granting these benefits to its employees, the Respondent frustrated the
Union from achieving such through negotiations 26
(c) That all of the foregoing was intended by Respondent to impress upon its
unit employees their lack of need for union representation, and to undermine the
Union's representative status, is clearly disclosed by the Respondent's May 26 letter
to the unit employees which accompanied the wage increase checks. In that letter,
the Respondent, in a distorted account of the two negotiation sessions which had
preceded this wage increase, in effect charged the Union with disinterest in the
welfare of the unit employees, and with concern solely for securing a checkoff of
union dues and initiation fees. The letter pointedly and significantly called atten-
tion to the fact that the wage increase then being given would have been received
by the employees "with or without a union." The letter suggested, without any
basis or foundation whatsoever, that the Union might call a strike or institute
court or Board proceedings "to force management to cut wages." It assured unit
employees that the Respondent would fight to protect them against any action by
the Union to cut their pay, and that if the Respondent was unsuccessful and
"forced to cut your pay, we will hold each week in your name the amount we are
forced to cut." Finally, it suggested, and thus in effect invited the employees to file
a decertification petition after the certification year expired in 9 months, if no
agreement was reached. By sending such a letter to the unit employees disparaging
and undermining their representative, the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act27 Moreover, the letter
on its face, and the unilateral wage and other benefits increase which accompanied
it, clearly disclose a lack of good-faith bargaining by the Respondent at the early
stages of its negotiations with the Union.
(d) Throughout the negotiations, the Respondent adamantly refused to agree to
a voluntary checkoff of union dues and initiation fees, not because it was burden-
some or inconvenient to do so, but on the sole ground that "the principle of deduct-
ing the Union's dues and initiation fee for and on behalf of the Union does not
appeal to us"; 28
(e) Finally, the manner in which the Respondent finally offered a wage increase
to its unit employees in January 1966, and the disparate nature of that offer as
compared with the treatment accorded by Respondent to its nonunit employees,
further disclose the Respondent's lack of good-faith bargaining with the Union.
In this regard the record shows that after the Respondent's unilateral wage increase
to the unit employees on May 26, the Union on July 22 asked for additional
10-cent-per-hour increases for each year of its proposed 3-year contract. The
Respondent, however proposed a 1-year contract with no increase in wages. At
the November 22 negotiation meeting between the parties, the Union acceded to
the Respondent's insistence on a contract term of only 1 year, and asked for a
15-cent-per-hour increase during such term. However, the Respondent refused to
offer anything more than it was then paying, asserting inter alia, that the unit
employees had recently received a substantial raise, a reference to the unilateral
wage increase of May 26. On further pressing by the Union, the Respondent indi-
cated that if 1 cent or 2 cents more per hour would be acceptable to the Union,
it "would take another look." However, at the very time that Respondent was
refusing to agree to any further wage increase for the unit employees, its executive
committee was then making or was about to make its annual wage review of
employees' wage rates with a view to granting further increases if warranted by the
Respondent's business during the fiscal year which ended in October. Such a review
annually had been made by Respondent each year for many years, and at least in
the last 4 years, had resulted in wage increases being given to all Respondent's
26 The Union's requests during the negotiations to further increase the number of paid
holidays and the amount of paid vacation time were rejected by the Respondent because
the employees recently had been granted the additional benefits unilaterally on May 26.
w American Paper & Supply Company, Container Division, 159 NLRB 1243. See Mc-
Cormick Longmeadow Stone Co, Inc, 158 NLRB 1237
28H K Porter, Inc, 153 NLRB 1370, enfd. sub nom United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 363 F.2d 272 (C.A.D.C.) ; Roanoke Iron & Bridge Works, Inc., 160
NLRB 175.
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees. Such an annual review admittedly was made in November or December
1965. The Respondent did not apprise the Union on November 22 that its exec-
utive committee was then making or would shortly make its annual wage review,
nor did it suggest or tell the Union that, based on the results of such review, it
might possibly be in a position to make a better offer. Moreover, when the exec-
utive committee concluded its review "in November or December" and decided to
raise the wages of its hourly employees 8 cents per hour for nonproduction employ-
ees, and, 18 cents per hour for production employees, it did not communicate that
fact to the Union. Instead it announced the wage increase for all its employees,
except those in the bargaining unit, by posting a notice to that effect on its bulletin
board early in January 1966. Then when the parties met thereafter for further
negotiations on January 6, 1966, the Respondent for the first time, offered the same
increase to the unit employees, but refused to make the offer retroactive to Jan-
uary 1, 1966, the date when it was given to the nonunit employees, and offered
only to make it effective as of the date when it was accepted by the Union. In the
light of the impossible position in which it had been placed by Respondent, the
Union had little alternative but to hastily convene a meeting of the unit employees
to vote on the acceptance of the Respondent's offer. That was done that week and
the pay raise for the unit employees was made effective on January 10, 1966.
Based on all the foregoing, including- (1) the Respondent's offer to increase
the wages of the unit employees before bargaining commenced; (2) the disparate
nature of the Respondent's offer which refused to make the wage increase for the
unit employees retroactive to the date when nonunit employees received the same
increase; H (3) the bypassing of the Union by unilaterally giving the wage raise
to the unit employees without negotiation concerning it with the Union; (4) the
retroactive nature of the increase given the unit employees as a result of which
they received more than what the Respondent offered them through the Union; (5)
the letter to the unit employees which accompanied the unilateral pay increase and
which sought to discredit and disparage the Union and undermine its representative
status; (6) the refusal of the Respondent without any grounds to agree to a vol-
untary checkoff of union dues and initiation fees; (7) the refusal of Respondent,
at a time when it was engaged or about to engage in its regular annual review of
wages, to consider any further wage increase for the unit employees, and its failure
to advise the Union at that time that a further increase might be offered at a later
bargaining session depending on the outcome of its wage review; (8) the failure
of Respondent to advise the Union regarding its decision to offer an increase in
wages for its unit employees before publicly announcing and granting the wage
increase to the nonunit employees; and (9) the Respondent's refusal to make its
offer to the unit employees of the same wage increase which it gave its nonunit
employees retroactive to the date when the latter received their raise, and the
absence of any valid reason for this disparate treatment of the nonunit employees;
I am convinced and find that the Respondent engaged in the negotiations with the
Union, not with a good-faith intent to arrive at a collective-bargaining agreement,
but with a view to undermining its representative status. Accordingly, it is found
that the Respondent thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 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 the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
PD Since the Respondent's nonunit employees included those in other like plants of Re-
spondent, it'is quite apparent that many of them did the same type of work as the em-
ployees in the unit.
FLOWERS BAKING CO. 1441
appropriate unit , I will recommend that upon request , the Respondent bargain col-
lectively with the Union concerning rates of pay, wages , hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, that it embody
such understanding in a signed agreement . In addition , and to remedy the Respond-
ent's unlawful and disparate treatment of the employees in the appropriate unit
in respect to its refusal to make the January 1966 wage increase to the employees
in the unit retroactive to the date when Respondent gave the same increase to its
nonunit employees , I will further recommend that the Respondent make whole the
employees in the unit for the amount of pay they lost from January 1, 1966, when
the wage increases were made effective for the nonunit employees, until January 10,
1966, when the increases were made effective for the unit employees,30 with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum. It will also be recommended that the Respond-
ent be ordered to preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board all pay-
roll and other records necessary to determine the amount of lost pay due to these
employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Flowers Baking Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The following constitutes a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees including shipping department
employees , at the Respondent's Thomasville, Georgia, operation, but excluding
all office clerical employees, quality control employees, relay drivers, driver
salesmen, garage employees, engineers, buyers, retail store employees, work-
men, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. At all time since March 5, 1965, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, has been the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions
of employment.
5. By unilaterally granting wage increases, an additional paid holiday, and
increased vacation benefits to the employees in the unit on May 26, 1965, without
negotiation with or agreement by their exclusive bargaining representative, by dis-
paraging and attempting to undermine the status of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the unit, and by the totality of its conduct, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union, and has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that the Respondent Flowers
Baking Company, Inc., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
a. Unilaterally instituting changes in wages, rates of pay , or other terms and
conditions of employment of its employees in the above -described appropriate unit
without first consulting and bargaining with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butchers Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
° McCormiok Longmeadow Stone Co. Inc ., 158 NLRB 1237; Montgom ery Ward and Co,
Incorporated, 154 NLRB 1197.
264-188-67-,vol. 161--92
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Announcing wage or other benefit increases, threatening to withhold such
increases, or disparately treating its employees with respect to such increases, for
the purpose of influencing employees with respect to union activity, affiliation,
assistance , or designation.
(c) In any other manner refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment with the said
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above described unit.
(d) In any like or related manner , interfering with , restraining , or coercing
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from engaging in such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the above-described unit concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Make its employees in the above-described unit whole for any loss of pay
suffered between January 1 and 10, 1966, as a result of the disparate and unlawful
withholding until the latter date of the wage increases then instituted, in the manner
described in section of this Decision, entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other
records as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Post at its plant in Thomasville, Georgia, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 31 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Region 10, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to com-
ply herewith 32
91 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
321n the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT unilaterally institute changes in wages, hours or other terms
and conditions of employment of the employees in the bargaining unit
described below, without first consulting and bargaining with Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT announce, or threaten to withhold, wage or other benefit
increases , or disparately treat our employees with respect to such increases,
for the purpose of influencing our employees with respect to union activity,
affiliation , assistance , or designation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner fail or refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wage, hours of employment and other conditions of
LUNARDI-CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CO. 1443
employment with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related 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 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, 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, and to refrain from any or all such activity.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, concerning
rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody it in a signed agree-
ment . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees , including shipping depart-
ment employees , at our Thomasville , Georgia, operation, but excluding
all office clerical employees, quality control employees, relay drivers,
driver-salesmen, garage employees , engineers, buyers , retail store employ-
ees, watchmen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL make our employees in the above-described unit whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of our withholding their pay increase from
January 1 to 10, 1966.
FLOWERS BARING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building 50 Seventh Street, NE . Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone
526-5741.
Lunardi-Central Distributing Co., Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 355 and Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, Local 1034, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Case
5-CA-3372. December 2,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs.
161 NLRB No. 126.