Jaydon, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1985

273 N.L.R.B. 1594 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jaydon, Inc. and International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 2137.
Case 33-CA-6346
23 January 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 4 April 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney Jr. issued the attached decision.
The Charging Party filed exceptions and a support-
ing brief, and the Respondent filed cross-excep-
tions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative
law judge is adopted and the complaint is dis-
missed.
I We agree with the judge that dismissal of the complaint is warranted
under the standards set forth in Milwaukee Spring Division, 268 NLRB
601 (1984) Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider the Respond-
ent's alternative contentions or the judge's discussion and findings regard-
ing alleged waiver and acquiescence and whether the parties' collective-
bargaining agreement affirmatively permitted the changes at issue Fur-
ther, because there is no contention that the Respondent violated the Act
by falling to notify and bargain in good faith with the Union regarding
the proposed decision to relocate, we find It unnecessary to consider the
Respondent's motivation for the decision or whether it was a mandatory
subject of bargaining
In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the judge's discussion
and findings at sec II,A of his decision regarding the General Counsel's
authority to seek dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint and the role of
the Charging Party in the circumstances of this case
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALTER H. MALONEY JR., Administrative Law Judge.
This case came on for hearing before me at Davenport,
Iowa, upon an unfair labor practice complaint' issued by
the Regional Director for Region 33 of the National
Labor Relations Board, which alleges that the Respond-
ent, Jaydon, Inc., 2 violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
' The principal docket entries in this case are as follows
Charge filed herein by International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its
Local 2137 (the Union or UAW) against the Respondent on February 9,
1983, complaint issued by the Regional Director against the Respondent
on September 15, 1983, the Respondent's answer filed on September 22,
1983, hearing held in Davenport, Iowa, on November 29 and 30, 1983
2 The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an Illinois corporation
which maintains its principal place of business in Rock Island, Illinois,
where it is engaged in the wholesale distribution of nonfood grocery
items to retail merchants Dunng the preceding calendar year, the Re-
spondent sold and shipped from its Rock Island, Illinois facility directly
the Act. More particularly, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent unlawfully transferred bargaining unit work
from its organized plant in Rock Island, Illinois, to a new
plant in Atlantic, Iowa, during the term of an existing
collective-bargaining agreement, contrary to the terms of
that agreement and without the prior consent of the
Union. It asserts that the Respondent did so, in whole or
in part, to avoid paying wage rates and benefits estab-
lished by contract and in retaliation against the Union for
refusing to make or accept midterm contract modifica-
tions. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of
the relocation of work beginning about October 16, 1982,
approximately 67 bargaining unit employees 3 were per-
manently laid off in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act by telling employees who were to be laid off that
they could obtain employment at the Respondent's new
facility only by abandoning their rights under the exist-
ing collective-bargaining agreement, thereby bringing
pressure on them to accept certain midterm contract
modifications which the Respondent was seeking. Both
the General Counsel and the Respondent, in posttnal
motions to dismiss, 4 urge that the complaint be dismissed
in light of the Board's recent decision in Milwaukee
Spring Division, 268 NLRB 601 (1984), which was issued
while the case was pending before me awaiting briefs.
The Respondent also contends that the Union waived its
right to object to a relocation of work to Atlantic, Iowa,
and further argues that the complaint is barred by limita-
tions. On these contentions, the issues herein were
joined.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
For a number of years, Jaydon, Inc. has operated a
warehouse and distribution center at Rock Island, Illi-
nois. It began operations in other premises in 1946 as a
wholesale supplier of candy, fountain products, and
punchboards but later grew into a large service merchan-
diser for nonfood items. It purchases these items in bulk
from manufacturers, breaks them down into smaller
orders, and sells and delivers the individualized orders to
retail merchants, accompanying the sale with service, re-
tailing advice, and advertising promotions. It now proc-
esses about 7000 different nonfood items normally found
in grocery and drug stores. Its business exceeds $70 mil-
lion in annual sales. The Respondent's president and
chief executive officer Jay Gellerman estimated that
Jaydon, Inc now ranks sixth or seventh nationally
among service merchandisers.
to points and places located outside the State of Illinois goods valued in
excess of $50,000 Accordingly, the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act The
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act
3 The names of these employees are not set forth in the body of the
complaint but their identities are fully disclosed in stipulated exhibits and
other documents admitted into evidence
4 The Charging Party vigorously opposes both motions and insists that
the complaint be disposed of by a full decision and in accordance with
the General Counsel's original theory of the case
5 Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected
273 NLRB No. 199
JAYDON, INC 1595
The Respondent employs driver-salesmen and presum-
ably other sales representatives in the 14-state area in
which it operates. The dispute in this case involves the
Respondent's operations in Iowa, where its major cus-
tomer is Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. (Hy-Vee). Hy-Vee is
a large retail chain which provides Jaydon, Inc with
more that $20 million of the Respondent's total gross
sales and accounts for about 85 percent of its Iowa busi-
ness.
The pattern followed by the Respondent in servicing
Hy-Vee is that Jaydon driver-salesmen, who are located
throughout Iowa, visit Hy-Vee's many retail outlets and
solicit orders directly from store managers. These orders
are phoned into the Respondent's headquarters in Rock
Island and are then prepared in individual shipments des-
tined for each particular store. This is done by a pick
line manned by employees who pick the particular items
ordered and, in the quantity ordered, assemble the order,
and then cause it to be shipped to drop points through-
out Iowa. Drop points are unmanned storage locations
from which driver-salesmen pick up the orders and then
transport them to the particular store which originally
placed the order The gravamen of the dispute in this
case is that Iowa orders which were formerly picked and
Iowa shipments which were formerly made from the
Rock Island warehouse are now being handled from the
Respondent's new satellite warehouse, located some 230
miles west of Rock Island in Atlantic, Iowa. As a result
of this transfer a bargaining unit in Rock Island formerly
consisting of about 230 employees was reduced first to
160 employees and now has only about 95 employees.
The latter decline also resulted, in part, from the opening
of a second satellite warehouse in Elkhart, Indiana. The
facts and circumstances of the relocation to Elkhart are
not directly at issue here but, in the original estimation of
the General Counsel and the Changing Party, they pro-
vide an illuminating insight into what prompted the Re-
spondent's pilot program in Iowa.
In the fall of 1979, the Union herein filed a representa-
tion petition, seeking a unit of the Respondent's produc-
tion and maintenance employees at its Rock Island facili-
ty. 6 A so-called stip election agreement was concluded
defining the appropriate bargaining unit as "all full-time
and regular part-time maintenance and warehouse em-
ployees and truck drivers employed by the Employer at
its Rock Island, Illinois facility" with the usual excep-
tions. The Union won the election, which was conducted
on December 5, 1979, and was certified soon thereafter.
Collective bargaining between the parties resulted in a
contract, effective April 1980 through Febuary 28, 1983
(It was later extended until March 9, 1983.) The contract
contained a provision describing the bargaining unit in
almost the identical language which was used in the elec-
tion agreement.
In early 1982, the Respondent was approached by
Ronald Pearson, executive vice president of Hy-Vee, and
was asked whether it could take some measures which
8 At this time, the Respondent had no other facilities It controls a
wholly owned subsidiary in Springfield, Missouri, some 450 miles away,
but this subsidiary did not figure in any w ay in the election or the pree-
lection campaign
would result in lowering the cost of items purchased.
Pearson made no specific demands on the Respondent
but suggested, among other things, that perhaps the Re-
spondent and Hy-Vee could jointly operate a wholesal-
ing operation in a warehouse at Chariton, Iowa, which
Hy-Vee was planning to vacate. Another suggestion was
that the cost of items sold to Hy-Vee could be reduced if
Jaydon would also reduce the services extended to the
130 Hy-Vee grocery stores and its 18 Drug Town drug
stores. Extensive driver-salesmen service, such as rack
jobbing, had already been discontinued in 28 of these
stores at the request of the store managers and ultimately
46 more stores reduced these services, a move which re-
sulted in the layoff of about 20 Jaydon driver-salesmen.7
At a meeting between Jaydon and Hy-Vee management
on April 12, the Respondent informed Hy-Vee that it
was thinking about establishing a satellite building at At-
lantic, Iowa. The Respondent told Hy-Vee that it had a
50,200 square foot building lined up and was of the opin-
ion that it could operate a warehouse there for about
one-half of the labor cost it was then paying in Rock
Island. 8 I credit Pearson's statement that Hy-Vee never
demanded that Jaydon establish a warehouse in Iowa.6
Throughout the period running from April until August
3, negotiations continued between Brady and Portes over
the particulars of the lease of the Atlantic warehouse. On
that date a lease was signed by the landlord and, on
August 6, it was approved by Jaydon.
On July 13, 1982, Gellerman met with Hy-Vee man-
agement and informed them that a decision to open a
warehouse in Atlantic had been made On the following
day, he met with union representatives but his statement
to them on this subject was far more equivocal. The oc-
casion for the second discussion was a routine third-step
grievance meeting which took place at the plant between
Gellerman, Operations Director Dennis Calvert, Person-
nel Director Kendall Kelly, UAW International Repre-
sentative James Maddox, and various stewards and Local
2137 officials who normally attended third-step meetings.
After the parties had completed a discussion of the griev-
ances, Gellerman handed Maddox a letter which read
We have been notified by our largest customer
that unless we are more competitive in our pricing
and make major changes in our programs, they will
be forced to buy their non-food merchandise direct
from the manufacturers. They have officially noti-
7 Driver-salesmen are not a part of the bargaining unit in this case and
have never been represented by a labor organization
8 The building in question is known as the Ebcor Building and was
owned by the Kewanee Boiler Corporation In a letter dated April 14,
1982, Kewanee Attorney Charles A Brady forwarded to Herbert Portes,
one of the Respondent's attorneys, the draft of a lease of these premises,
together with an option to buy and an abstract of title opinion Brady
recited in his letter that he was taking this action at the request of Geller-
man
9 Gellerman's testimony on this point was evasive and misleading At
first he stated that he was forced to offer "this program" at the insistence
of Hy-Vee Later, on cross-examination, he conceded that all that Hy-
Vee was interested in was saving money and that the idea of opening a
warehouse in Iowa came from Jaydon Throughout his testimony, Geller-
man generally was evasive, argumentative, and internally contradictory I
place little reliance on the testimony he gave, especially when it conflicts
with other evidence in the record
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fled us that in order to remain as their supplier we
must fill orders at a location close to their ware-
house in Iowa where the goods can be picked up by
their trucks on a backhaul basis and delivered to
their stores along with groceries they already deliv-
er. They also intend to take over all in-store service
and pricing of non-food merchandise.
This particular chain, as well as other independ-
ent customers, contends, and they are right, that if
we limit our services we can sell merchandise to
them at a much lower price
These customers state that if we cannot make the
changes immediately, they will establish their own
warehouse and eliminate Jaydon as their non-food
supplier. To permit this to happen would be a seri-
ous blow to Jaydon and all of its employees. We are
contemplating compliance with this request. We
will have to make a substantial investment in a new
warehouse and scale down our Rock Island oper-
ation. We could maintain our position and try to re-
place this lost business.
The changes will result in the elimination of the
night shift and approximately 15 to 20 other em-
ployees in the bargaining unit.
If you desire to discuss this matter, please notify
me as soon as possible. I am delivering a copy of
this letter to the president of the local unit.
Maddox and the other union representatives were
stunned by this letter and asked to have a brief caucus.
When they returned, one of them asked Gellerman who
the principal customer was that he referred to in the
letter. Gellerman declined to mention a name but simply
stated that everyone knew who it was. Gellerman was
asked whether the decision to relocate a portion of the
Rock Island operation was final and he replied that the
decision was not final and that he would be willing to
talk about it. He was also asked where the new ware-
house would be. He replied that he did not know, saying
they were still looking for a place and had not executed
a lease, but it would be somewhere in the middle west."
I credit Maddox's testimony that he reminded Gellerman
of his obligation under the contract to keep working in
Rock Island. Maddox began to ask what it would take to
keep the Respondent in Rock Island. Gellerman replied
that relocating was not something the Company wanted
to do but was something its customer was demanding
that it do. The parties agreed to meet again on August 3
to discuss the matter further.
Shortly thereafter, the Union sent out a notice to its
members, stating that the Respondent was planning to
move a part of its operations to another State, perhaps in
the early fall. It stated in the notice that the question
would be discussed further at an upcoming union meet-
ing on July 18.
On July 15, Maddox replied to Gellerman's letter of
the previous day, stating that the Union would be pre-
pared to discuss "this matter" with the Respondent at
10 Personnel Director Kendall Kelly testified that he had learned from
Operations Director Dennis Calver prior to the July 14 meeting that the
relocation was definite
the meeting already planned for August 3. Maddox
stated further, "When you have more detailed informa-
tion, if you would send it to me, the Union would be in a
better position to discuss the details, and offer any sug-
gestions we might have."
On July 19, a newspaper article appeared in The
Argus, a daily newspaper circulated in the Rock Island
area, which stated:
Jaydon, Inc., in Rock Island, is considering
moving a portion of its operations to Iowa, a move
that could cost the city up to 50 jobs.
Jaydon vice president Jay Gellerman said the
company notified employees of the possible move
last week. "Nothing is a sure thing. We are just
trying to give them advance warning on the thing,"
Gellerman said.
Gellerman said the move was being considered
because of "Changing business conditions" and a
desire to move operations closer to Jaydon custom-
ers in other areas. He said he did not know where
in Iowa the company might locate.
The plans will probably be discussed at an
August 3 meeting between Gellerman and United
Auto Workers Local 2137, which represents Jaydon
workers.
The 50 jobs which could be affected include the
entire night shift of 35 workers, and 15 to 20 others,
according to Gellerman.
Jaydon is a distributing company that delivers
non-food items such as health and beauty aids and
housewares to supermarkets, grocery stores, and
convenience stores. Jaydon currently employs about
220 people at the Rock Island facility.
While Gellerman was in the process of telling the
Union and the press that he did not know where the new
facility might be located, his attorney was putting the
finishing touches on the lease of the Ebcor Building in
Atlantic. By letter of July 21, Portes informed the land-
lord's attorney of his agreement or disagreement with
certain minor items contained in the second draft of a
proposed lease. Portes' letter to the landlord, dated July
21, recited that some of Jaydon's employees had visited
the premises and were concerned that the burglar alarm
system be repaired, that certain leaks in the northeast
corner of the building be repaired, and that the parking
lot be regraveled. By letter of July 29, the landlord
agreed to make certain requested repairs and signaled its
agreement to most of Portes' other comments. In a fur-
ther letter, of July 30, Portes told the landlord that he
would be in Rock Island on August 3 and 4 and indicat-
ed that, if the landlord could get the revised lease to
Rock Island prior to that time, Portes could review it
and get it signed during his visit. The lease in final form
was signed on August 3 by the landlord and on August 6
by Jaydon.
On July 26, 1982, Gellerman wrote another letter to
Maddox. Addressing him as "Dear Jim," Gellerman pur-
ported to recapitulate the July 14 meeting by saying that
he had informed the union representatives on that date
that "in order to retain our largest customer it would be
JAYDON, INC. 1597
necessary to change our method of operation and such a
change could involve a reduction in personnel in jobs
both outside and within the bargaining unit represented
by your union." The letter went on to state:
As you can well understand, it is most difficult to
predict the exact number of employees that will be
involved. Our best estimate at this time is as fol-
lows.
1. Approximately 20 salesmen-drivers delivering
merchandise to these stores will be i erminated and
there will be additional terminations as a result of
the consolidation and restructure of our field oper-
ations.
2. Approximately 8 to 10 sales supervisors will be
eliminated and those remaining will be required to
undertake substantially increased duties.
3. All deliveries of health and beauty aids from
Rock Island to the drop points serving these stores
will be eliminated. Our best estimate at this time is
that this will require:
(a) The termination of the night shift operation
in the Rock Island warehouse involving approxi-
mately 55 employees,
(b) An estimated 3 to 5 truck drivers who, in
the past, have delivered merchandise to the drop
points serving these stores; and
(c) An estimated 5 to 10 employees on the day
shift in the Rock Island warehouse.
You must understand that except with respect to
the night shift in the Rock Island warehouse, the
exact number of employees in the bargaining unit
that will be affected cannot now be stated with cer-
tainty.
As I indicated at the meeting we will negotiate
with you in connection with the affect [sic] of this
change of our operations on the bargaining unit in-
cluding.
(a) Your right to represent the employees at
the new warehouse
(b) The transfer rights of employees at the
Rock Island plant whose employment is terminat-
ed
If you have any specific proposals to present, I
would appreciate it if you would send me a copy
prior to our scheduled meeting on August 3.
Despite the fact that negotiations for the lease of the At-
lantic warehouse were in their final stages, the identity
or location of the warehouse had yet to be disclosed to
the Union.
At the August 3 meeting, Gellerman used a black-
board to illustrate certain points he wished to get across
to the union representatives. He said that the Company's
largest customer was demanding that it move and that it
would move if it could not change the customer's mind
He told the assembled group that Jaydon's competitors
had been using satellite warehouses for years, that Jay-
don's competitors were beginning to squeeze it, and that
they felt that they could pick up new business if they
had a warehouse elsewhere. There is a conflict in the tes-
timony as to whether Gellerman disclosed the situs of
the new warehouse at this meeting. Some say he men-
tioned Atlantic, others say that he was still talking about
the possibility of opening a warehouse in Chariton, Iowa,
the headquarters of Hy-Vee. There is also disagreement
as to whether Gellerman stated at this meeting that the
move was definite or still tentative. The Union expressed
the desire to represent any employees hired at the new
warehouse and to extend the contract to cover them. It
also made inquiry as to what benefits would be paid to
laid-off employees as part of their termination benefits.
At this meeting, a discussion arose about whether con-
cessions in the current contract could induce the Re-
spondent to stay at Rock Island. Gellerman replied that
the Company was not talking about concessions. It was
telling the Union what was going to happen."
On August 11, Maddox wrote to Gellerman as fol-
lows:
This letter is a follow up of our meeting with you
on 3 August 1982 and to list for you items which
we should discuss at our meeting on August 25th.
As to our conversation at the August 3rd meet-
ing, the Union is willing to sit down and discuss
and work out a reasonable solution, if possible, to
prevent such a reduction in the work force at the
Rock Island location, and if the decision has been
anchored in cement to relocate part of your oper-
ation in another state, we feel you have an obliga-
tion to the employees affected to work out an or-
derly transfer of the work and personnel.
Jay, as you stated in your letter dated 26 July
1982, you were willing to negotiate our right to
represent the employees at a possible new location
and we should work out the necessary details to ac-
complish that, which would expedite things and the
affected bargaining unit employees should be given
preference. We also need to work out details to
cover affected employee on insurance coverage.
I would hope we could work out a reasonable so-
lution during these troubled times without going
into more detailed information that our actuary
would require, e.g. financial status, the need for
such move based on cost saving, breakdown of
labor cost and supervisory and other non labor
wages and benefits.
On August 16, 1982, Gellerman replied:
On the basis of our discussion at the August 3rd
meeting, Jaydon signed a lease for a warehouse in
Atlantic, Iowa and made and is continuing to make
commitments with respect to relocating part of its
operations in order to be able to serve its customers.
" Some witnesses place this remark at the first meeting in July, but I
believe the preponderance of credible evidence establishes that it was
made at the August 3 meeting However, the tenor of the ensuing corre-
spondence between Maddox and Gellerman on August 11 and 16 sup-
ports the view, and I find, that Gellerman did not disclose the location of
the new operation to the Union until August 16
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In line with your letter of August 11, I wholeheart-
edly agree that Jaydon has an obligation to the em-
ployees affected by the partial change in the manner
and method of our operations to negotiate with
your Union in a good faith effort to work out the
problems raised by that change in our operations
To repeat our statement at the August 3rd meet-
ing, we will be prepared on August 25th to discuss
any and all matters relating to the effects of the
change in our operations, including those items
listed in your last letter and those previously raised
in the August 3rd meeting. In order to facilitate our
discussion at the next meeting, I can give you an
idea of Jaydon's position with respect to a number
of these issues.
First, regarding recognition of your union as the
representative of the employees at the new location,
it is our belief that we may not do so at this time
without violating the law. We have not in the past,
and we will not in the future interfere with the
right of our employees freely to determine who, if
anyone, will represent them in respect to the terms
and conditions of their employment. It seems obvi-
ous to me that we would interfere with those rights
by now recognizing the UAW or any other union
for the new bargaining unit without an election.
That is particularly true since a full complement of
workers has not yet been hired for the new ware-
house
Second, employees at the Rock Island Plant who
are to be laid off will have the choice of
1. remaining on the seniority list with right to
recall and other rights and obligations as provided
in our Agreement, or
2 terminating their employment with Jaydon at
the Rock Island Plant which will result in their per-
manent removal from the Rock Island seniority list.
Such termination will constitute a release of all of
their rights under our Agreement except those
agreed upon for such terminated employees
3. All employees who do not elect termination in
writing will be deemed to have been laid off with
continuing seniority and other rights and obligations
under our Agreement.
Third, we will offer all terminated employees
jobs at the new warehouse if application is made for
those jobs within a time to be agreed upon. We plan
on starting operations at the new warehouse at the
end of September or early in October The new
warehouse will not be automated so some training
will be necessary for these terminated employees
Therefore, the employees who apply for jobs at the
new warehouse must be prepared to report for
work prior to that time. We can discuss and fix that
date. The jobs will be at the rates stated in our last
meeting.
Fourth, other provisions for terminated employ-
ees will be as follows.
1. They will receive prorated
a. vacation pay
b personal leave time.
2 They will continue to be covered under the in-
surance plan provided in our agreement for a period
of 30 days after the end of the month in which their
termination occurs.
3 They can apply for their benefits under the
Profit Sharing Plan
Fifth, the same provisions will apply to Rock
Island employees who are laid off during the bal-
ance of the transitional period.
On August 25, the parties met again at the Sheraton
Hotel in Rock Island. At this meeting, the Union
brought up the problem of whether laid-off Rock Island
employees would be allowed to transfer to the new
warehouse and under what conditions. It also inquired as
to what would become of certain fringe benefits accruing
under the contract to laid-off employees, namely, ex-
cused leave and vacation benefits. Prior to that time, the
Union had received a list of the names and classification
of 64 Rock Island employees who would be laid off. '2
The Union asked the Respondent to post this list the fol-
lowing day and to give anyone desiring to bump a junior
employee an opportunity to do so
Company Attorney Portes informed the union repre-
sentatives that employees who were slated for layoff
would be given a letter in which they would be given
the opportunity either to accept a layoff and retain their
right of recall or terminate their employment Those
who elected to resign would receive unused vacation
pay and leave time and be continued under the health in-
surance program until November 30, 1982. Any employ-
ee wishing to transfer to Atlantic would first have to
resign in order to be considered for a job. Only those
employees who elected to resign and not to apply for a
job at Atlantic would receive a distribution of their
vested interest in the Jaydon profit trust. Presumably any
employee who elected to remain subject to recall on the
seniority list would receive nothing Maddox asked
Portes for recognition of the Union at the Atlantic plant.
Portes declined, telling Maddox that the Company
would not recognize the Union at this facility unless it
first won a Board election.
After recessing for lunch, Maddox proposed, among
other things, that Rock Island employees who were
being laid off and who signified an interest in relocating
should be put on a preferential hiring list at Atlantic. He
also proposed that transferred employees would not have
contractual recall rights at Rock Island but would retain
their dates of hire in establishing their seniority at Atlan-
tic, and that laid-off employees would be paid accrued
personal leave time, vacation time, and a Christmas
bonus, as well as a continuation of health insurance for a
period of 30 days following the end of the month in
which they were laid off. The Union asked for certain
information concerning supervisory employees to be
transferred and for an outline of the work which would
be affected by the transfer. It asked for a moving allow-
12 The list included 5 general warehouse employees, 50 employees in
the catch-all classification of order picker, stocker, return load checker,
and console operator, 2 maintenance employees, 7 truckdrivers, and I
employee classified as a fixture employee
JAYDON, INC 1599
ance to be paid to any employee who wished to be relo-
cated. Again Maddox asked for recognition as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the production, mainte-
nance, and truckdnver employees employed at the At-
lantic warehouse.
The Respondent agreed that Rock Island employees
who wanted to transfer would be put on a preferential
hiring list and that those who transferred would not have
recall rights at Rock Island. However, it would not
agree flatly to transfer anyone who resigned and asked
for a transfer. It was noncommittal about letting trans-
ferred employees carry with them their original dates of
hire for seniority purposes. It refused to provide the
Union with an up-to-date list of affected work, reiterated
its refusal to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent
at Atlantic, and refused the request for a moving allow-
ance for transferred employees. It agreed to give all laid-
off employees prorated vacation pay but was not sure
about whether they would receive a Christmas bonus
(Later the latter request was denied.) Gellerman in-
formed Maddox that five super visors would be affected
by the transfer, but that four would return to the Rock
Island bargaining unit.
The Respondent also informed the Union as to the
wage scale at Atlantic Puller/stockers would receive the
minimum wage of $3.35 an hour, forklift drivers would
receive about $4 an hour, and truckdnvers would get
$5.50 an hour. These amounts were about 40 percent of
what employees were receiving at Rock Island under the
contract for comparable work '3
On the following day, Kelly sent a letter to each em-
ployee slated for layoff and told him or her of the op-
tions which were open. The letter also informed employ-
ees of the Atlantic wage scale. The letter was accompa-
nied by forms to be signed by any employee who elected
to forfeit rights under the union agreement and to re-
quest a transfer to Atlantic Not surprisingly, no employ-
ee in the Rock Island unit signified any interest in taking
a 60-percent wage cut and relocating to a strange city
without the assistance of a moving allowance.
" The union contract provided for 16 different classifications of em-
ployees and for in-grade raises after 3, 6, and 9 months of service It also
provided for increases in the hourly rates for all employees as of Septem-
ber 1, 1982 These Increases were in fact granted as required by the
agreement A comparison between some of the September 1982 hourly
wage rates for employees with 9 or more months of service and the new
rates in Atlantic is as follows
Rock Island
General warehouse $1081
Order picker, stocker,
loader checker 9 54
Receiving clerk 10 81
Truckdrtver

12 88
Atlantic
Order filler, etc $3 35
Forklift operator,
receiving/shipping 400
Truckdriver 5 50
On August 27, Portes forwarded to Maddox a lengthy
letter containing a draft of a proposed agreement relating
to the transfer of work from Rock Island to Alantic The
proposal incorporated most of the transfer procedures
and requirements outlined by Portes and Gellerman on
August 25 and, in effect, signaled the Union's consent to
the move The proposal was never signed by the Union.
On September 1, the Respondent granted pay increases
to the Rock Island unit employees in accordance with
the terms of the existing contract. On October 4, the em-
ployees designated for layoff were in fact laid off, al-
though one was subsequently recalled. In February 1983
four additional employees were laid off as a result of the
transfer
The Rock Island facility is largely automated while
the Atlantic facility is not. About six pieces of machinery
at the Rock Island plant were dismantled and trucked to
Atlantic, where they were installed. No new equipment
was purchased to start up the Atlantic operation, al-
though some new equipment was leased. The estimated
cost of the relocation of machinery was $10,000. The At-
lantic warehouse began to operate on October 4 with
new inventory shipped directly to Atlantic from manu-
facturers. No inventory was transferred from Rock
Island to Atlantic. Originally the Respondent estimated
that it would hire about 50-55 employees at Atlantic. In
the year which has elapsed since the opening of the
warehouse, about 70 have been hired, some of whom are
part-time employees. Six truckdrivers were hired to re-
place the six drivers who were laid off at Rock Island,
and warehouse delivery routes were revised with Atlan-
tic as their hub rather than Rock Island. The administra-
tive control and support for the Atlantic warehouse re-
mains in Rock Island Orders to be filled at that facility
are transmitted from Rock Island pursuant to orders
which are phoned in by driver salesmen who are on the
road
In December 1982, the Union and the Respondent
began negotiations for a new contract at Rock Island. As
of December 1983, no contract had been concluded
Both sides insisted on substantial changes in language
growing out of their experience with the Atlantic move
In the early spring of 1983, the Respondent notified the
Union that it was seriously considering the establishment
of a second satellite warehouse at Elkhart, Indiana, and it
made no bones about the fact that the motivating factor
in this proposed move was a savings in labor costs. In
the spring of 1983, this warehouse was established to
service accounts in the Indiana-eastern Illinois area. Just
before the contract expired on February 28, the parties
agreed to an extension until March 9. When the exten-
sion expired, the Union struck. The strike was short
lived. When unit employees returned to work, it was at
substantially reduced wage rates which were unilaterally
imposed Later, in the fall of 1983, when the bargaining
unit had been further reduced from the original 230 em-
ployees to about 95, the Respondent further cut wages
unilaterally to a point where its rates in Rock Island
were roughly comparable to what it was paying in At-
lantic.
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The Present Posture of the Case
The events in this case occurred and the complaint in
this case was issued at a time when the Board adhered to
the doctrine announced in Milwaukee Spring Division, 265
NLRB 206 (1982) (Milwaukee Spring 1), and earlier cases.
According to this view of the law, a relocation of unit
work during a contract term, without the permission of
the collective-bargaining representative, was a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. After the hearing in
this case was closed but before briefs were filed, the
Board reversed Milwaukee Spring I at 268 NLRB 601
(1984) (Milwaukee Spring I1). As discussed in more detail
infra, Milwaukee Spring II holds that such relocations are
not violations of the Act in the absence of contract lan-
guage expressly forbidding such moves. In light of Mil-
waukee Spring II, both the Respondent and the General
Counsel moved to dismiss the complaint over the strenu-
ous objection of the Charging Party As a result of the
change of law, this case is now in the peculiar procedur-
al posture in which the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent find themselves on the same side, while the
Charging Party is left to carry on the complaint as it was
originally issued.
The duty of the Board and its administrative law judge
in the face of this procedural anomaly is governed by the
Third Circuit decision in Leeds & Northrup Co. v. NLRB,
357 F.2d 527 (3d Cir. 1966), and similar cases Leeds &
Northrup recognizes the fact that the General Counsel
has plenary power to dismiss an unfair labor practice
charge and that, once a charge is dismissed, no power on
earth can force him to issue a complaint. However, after
a complaint issues, other rules come into play.
Clearly, once a complaint issues the statutory
scheme contemplates Board action. Anything less,
such as informal actions of its agents in dismissing
such complaint over the objection of the charging
party, is arbitrary and capricious. . .
. . . Once a complaint has issued, the charging
party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon its
objections to the proposed settlement agreement, be
it formal or informal. [Id at 533-534.]
If the settlement of issues raised in a complaint is entitled
to full dress treatment, so much more so is an effort to
dismiss or withdraw the complaint in its entirety.
Under the prosecutory phase of Section 3(d) of the
Act, the delegation of discretion to issue or not
issue a complaint of unfair labor practice is not im-
proper. But once issued, an adjudicatory phase of
the administrative process arises necessitating appro-
priate avenues of review, both administrative and
judicial. The Board, by its own regulations, de-
signed to implement the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act, cannot thwart review of its actions, or
those of its authorized agents. [Id. at 5364
The Board's own Rules and Regulations do not thwart
review of its actions or those of its authorized agents.
They make it clear that such actions may not be taken in
summary fashion. The Board has also made it clear in its
decisional process that summary dismissals of complaints
over the objection of the General Counsel or charging
party are contrary to its Rules. See Plumbers Local 195
(Stone & Webster), 237 NLRB 931 (1978). In light of its
objections to a dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint,
the Charging Party has now become the de facto pros-
ecutor of the complaint, so a regular decision must be
prepared and issued by me pursuant to Section 102.45 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations," just as if no mo-
tions had been filed. However, it must perforce be gov-
erned by the Board's revised doctrine in Milwaukee
Spring IL
B. Waiver and Limitations
Both the Charging Party and the Respondent have
submitted extensive briefs covering a number of issues
which were raised at the hearing in this case Two of
these concern whether the Charging Party waived its
statutory rights by failing to object to the relocation of
the work from Rock Island to Atlantic and whether the
complaint in this case is barred by Section 10(b) of the
Act. Both of these contentions imply, for their major
predicate, that the contract in effect in the summer and
fall of 1982 forbade the transfer of unit work during the
contract term and so must be resolved in that light.
The essence of the violation alleged in the complaint is
that the relocation of unit work violated Section 8(d) of
the Act. This section, in discussing the duty to bargain,
provides inter alia that:
. . the duties so imposed shall not be construed as
requiring either party to discuss or agree to any
modification of the terms and conditions contained
in a contract for a fixed period, if such modification
is to become effective before such terms and condi-
tions can be reopened under the provisions of the
contract.
Its terms place the parties in a considerably different pos-
ture than if there was open season for bargaining in
August and September 1982 and the question of reloca-
tion was then bargainable. The Respondent argues that,
by its failure to object to the relocation when the subject
was first brought to its attention, the Union waived any
right to object at a later date and therefore the General
Counsel was precluded by waiver or laches from pros-
ecuting a complaint on the Union's behalf If the rela-
14 Sec 102 45(a) of the Board's Rules provides
After hearing for the purpose of taking evidence upon a complaint,
the administrative law Judge shall prepare a decision Such decision
shall contain findings of fact, conclusions, and the reasons or basis
therefor, upon all material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented
on the record, and shall contain recommendation as to what disposi-
tion of the case should be made, which may Include, if it be found
that the respondent has engaged in or is engaging In the alleged
unfair labor practices, a recommendation for such affirmative action
by the respondent as will effectuate the policies of the Act The ad-
ministrative law Judge shall file the original of his decision with the
Board and cause a copy thereof to be served on each of the parties
Upon the filing of the decision, the Board shall enter an order trans-
ferring the case to the Board and shall serve copies of the order, set-
ting forth the date of such transfer, on all the parties
JAYDON, INC 1601
tionship of the parties at that time was not controlled by
their contract, this argument might have some vitality.
However, the thrust of Section 8(d) is that, during a con-
tract term, a party to the contract has no obligation even
to respond to overtures for modification. A contracting
party is well within its rights simply to stand pat and
rely on the provisions of the contract to protect its posi-
tion.
As a general proposition, the waiver of a right will not
be found in the absence of clear and unambiguous evi-
dence to that effect. This venerable doctrine was recent-
ly reiterated by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U S 693 (1983) There are
many other and earlier Board cases to the same effect In
Park-Ohio Industries, 257 NLRB 413 (1981), the Board
held that bargaining over severance pay does not consti-
tute a waiver by a union of its right to be consulted in
advance about a corporate decision to relocate unit
work. In National Car Rental System, 252 NLRB 159
(1980), the Board held that ii would not imply the
waiver of the right to bargain over the effects of work
transfer from the failure of a union to request bargaining
after the union had learned that the transfer was a fait
accompli See also Armour Oil Co., 253 NLRB 1104
(1980.' 5 However, all of these cases start with the initial
premise that the right assertedly waived was ripe for bar-
gaining at the time that silence presumably gave consent
In this case, the law at the time of the events in ques-
tion made it quite clear that the question of relocation of
unit work during the contract term was foreclosed from
bargaining, and thus from modification, because it had
been preempted by a term of the contract there and then
in effect It is certainly possible to waive the provision of
a written contract but such a waiver should be attended
by at least the same formality as the execution of the
contract itself Portes presented Maddox with such a
written document on August 27 and Maddox refused to
sign it He should not be deemed to have waived a con-
tract provision, if indeed there was one, by bargaining
over the effects of the proposed move since he was pre-
sented with a fait accompli, nam ely, information that the
move was going to take place and would occur before
the contract expired, regardless of what Maddox did or
thought about it. Accordingly, I would dismiss any argu-
ment that in fact Maddox waiv ed the Union's contract
right by any act or omissions which occurred prior to
the work relocation on October 4, if indeed the Union
had any such right 16
Another argument pressed by the Respondent is the
contention that the complaint herein is barred by limita-
tions because the charge was not filed by the Union until
" The cases normally speak in terms of waiver The doctrine of laches
mentioned by the Respondent in its brier does not apply to Board pro-
ceedings because the General Counsel does not prosecute a case on
behalf of the charging party but on behalf of the general public South-
eastern Envelope Cu, 246 NLRB 423 (1979), Merrell M Williams, 265
NLRB 506 (1982)
16 One of the Respondent's several waiver arguments is that Maddox
failed to write the Company a letter objecting to the work relocation, as
suggested by the UAW's handbook on plant closings If Sec 8(d) means
anything, it means that Maddox had no obligation even to speak to the
Respondent on this subject prior to the expiration of the contract, at least
as to relocations scheduled to take place before the expiration date
Febuary 9, 1983, and was not served on the Respondent
until February 11. In its view, any violations of the Act
on its part occurred before August 11, a date 6 months
prior to the service of the charge, because it had notified
the Union prior to that date that it was going to move
part of the Rock Island work to Atlantic. The factual
premise for this argument is highly questionable but it is
also irrelevant to the 8(d) violation alleged in the com-
plaint. The violation in this case occurred, if it occurred
at al1, 17 when the Respondent modified the terms of an
existing collective-bargaining agreement during the con-
tract term, and this did not occur, if it occurred at all,
until about October 4 when unit work was in fact trans-
ferred from Rock Island to Atlantic and 63 employees at
Rock Island lost their jobs. This date fell well within the
10(b) period.
C. Respondent's Motive for Relocating Unit Work to
Atlantic
Respondent went to great lengths, both at the hearing
and in its brief, to demonstrate that the purpose for relo-
cating unit work from Rock Island to Atlantic was not
to escape Rock Island contract rates, which were more
than twice what it is paying in Atlantic, but merely to
serve its major Iowa customer, Hy-Vee, who was press-
ing it for price concessions Thus, the Respondent
argues, the relocation did not even violate Milwaukee
Spring I or the Board doctrine affirmed in Los Angleles
Marine Hardware Co., 235 NLRB 720 (1978), enfd. 602
F.2d 1302 (9th Cir. 1979). According to the Respondent,
it was threatened with the loss of a customer who pro-
vided two-sevenths of its gross revenue and most of its
regular cash flow, so it had to establish a warehouse in
western Iowa from which it could reduce its transporta-
tion costs and service its needs In the stated view of the
Respondent, its very future depended on relocating unit
work to the Atlantic warehouse. Labor savings were at
best a questionable and ancillary consideration and
played no significant role in the decision to transfer
work The argument is gross hyperbole and depends for
its factual basis on the testimony of a witness whose
credibility was poor 18
For 20 years, Jaydon has been the wholesale supplier
of nonfood items for 148 Hy-Vee grocery and drug
stores. All that Hy-Vee was asking Jaydon for in the
" The complaint does not allege, nor are we confronted in this case,
with the alternative argument that, even though Milwaukee Spring II per-
mits the Respondent to do what it did under the terms of its collective-
bargaining agreement, the Respondent still violated Sec 8(a)(5) by its
failure to notify and bargain in good faith with the Union concerning an
Issue not precluded by contract from ongoing negotiations, namely, work
relocation
18 Gellerman testified at the hearing that, as of his July 13 meeting
with Hy-Vee, the decision to relocate to Atlantic was final Others in the
company hierarchy testified that they had learned of the decision even
earlier On July 14, in his meeting with the Union, Gellerman told the
union representatives that the decision was still tentative and that he did
not know exactly where the Company might move, if It were to move
Five days later, Gellerman informed the Rock Island Argus newspaper
that the decision was still uncertain, as was the site of the new ware-
house At the hearing, Gellerman justified lying to the press on the basis
that the question of the relocation of work was none of its business
Doubtless he had similar rationalizations for other untruthful statements
made to the Union and to the Board
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spring of 1982 were price concessions of an unspecified
amount which could be met in a variety of ways, includ-
ing a reduction in the type of service rendered to the
various Hy-Vee locations and a suggested joint venture
in the operation of a warehouse at Chariton, Iowa. At no
time did Hy-Vee request or insist that Jaydon open a
warehouse in Iowa, nor did Hy-Vee ever threaten to dis-
continue doing business with Jaydon. Opening the Atlan-
tic warehouse was Jaydon's idea. The Respondent
broached this suggestion to Hy-Vee early in its negotia-
tions with the latter and told Hy-Vee that it had found a
warehouse in Atlantic which it could operate for one-
half the labor cost it was bearing in Rock Island.
In fact, the major cost-savings experienced by Jaydon
in the first year of the operation of the Atlantic ware-
house was the labor cost savings achieved by paying its
newly hired Atlantic employees about 40 percent of the
contract rate it was paying in Rock Island. Had Jaydon
applied to the Atlantic warehouse the contract rates in
effect at Rock Island, the relocation would have cost
more in total expenditures than it would have cost the
Respondent to continue to service Hy-Vee from Rock
Island.
One other facet of this whole operation must be con-
sidered in order to place the Atlantic relocation in
proper focus. The transfer of about one-third of the
Rock Island warehouse work to another warehouse lo-
cated in the western portion of Jaydon's marketing area
did not take place in isolation from other changes in the
Respondent's operation which took place within a year
from the date the Atlantic warehouse was opened. Short-
ly after the Atlantic warehouse opened, Jaydon opened
another warehouse at the eastern end of its marketing
area at Elkhart, Indiana There is no dispute in the
record that a prime consideration for opening the Elk-
hart warehouse was to escape the wage rates paid at
Rock Island. Contemporaneously with the establishment
of the Elkart warehouse, the contract at Rock Island ex-
pired and the Company began reducing the wage rates at
the decimated Rock Island unit by increments At first, it
offered returning strikers at Rock Island 10 percent less
than what they were receiving when they walked out. In
the summer, as fruitless negotiations continued with a
much weakened bargaining representative, wages were
further reduced unilaterally in the Rock Island unit. By
the fall of 1983, the 95-member unit which was left at
Rock Island was offered and was paid a rate which
brought it into line with Atlantic and Elkhart rates, and
which provided it with about 40 percent of the income
which a 230-member unit was earning a year before.
While this rapid deterioration in wage rates and union
bargaining strength at Rock Island following relocation
of work to Atlantic and Elkhart might not be sufficient
to suggest a runaway shop 8(a)(3) violation, these events,
following hard on the establishment of the two satellite
warehouses, make it crystal clear that the opening of the
Atlantic facility, at issue in this case, was merely step 1
in a three-step process aimed at escaping the contract
wage rates which were in effect at Rock Island from
1980 until the spring of 1983. As such, the facts of this
case bring it squarely within the factual bases underlying
Milwaukee Spring I and H and Los Angeles Marine.
D. The Effect of Milwaukee Spring II
The Charging Party argues in its brief that Milwaukee
Spring II is an incorrect statement of the law and that
the rule contained therein should not be applied retroac-
tively. Unfortunately for the Charging Party, the rule es-
tablished by Milwaukee Spring II and announced by the
Board on January 23, 1984, is current Board law and was
applied by the Board retroactively in that case. Accord-
ingly, the Charging Party's argument in this regard is
simply misdirected. In light of the decision announced in
Milwaukee Spring II, I have no alternative but to dismiss
so much of the complaint that alleges that the Respond-
ent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
E. Conditioning Relocation upon Repudiation of
Contract Rights
One final aspect of the complaint must be addressed
apart from the Milwaukee Spring issue. The complaint al-
leges that, on August 26, 1983, the Respondent notified
bargaining unit employees that they would be allowed to
transfer from Rock Island to Atlantic but only on aban-
doning and repudiating the contractual rights which they
enjoyed at Rock Island In the complaint, the General
Counsel alleged that this is a violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, although his later motion to dismiss includes
this incidental element in the complaint as well.
The letter in question was actually sent by the Re-
spondent's personnel director and stated as follows:
We are sorry to notify you that you will be laid
off at the end of the Sunday, October 3, 1982, shift.
We hope you understand that this was caused by a
change in the Company's method of operations that
was necessary in order to be able to serve its cus-
tomers.
You and the other employees being laid off as of
October 3, 1982, will have the choice of.
1. remaining on the seniority list for the Rock
Island facility with the right to recall and all other
rights and subject to all obligations of employees in
the bargaining unit covered by our Collective Bar-
gaining Agreement (Union Agreement) dated April
1, 1980 with the International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, and its affiliated Local
Union Number 2137 ("Union"), or
2. electing to forfeit all of your rights of every
kind, nature, and description in, to and under the
Union Agreement including your removal from the
seniority list for Rock Island employees and your
right to recall under the Union Agreement.
ONLY employees who elect to forfeit their
rights under the Union Agreement as hereinafter
provided will
1. receive the following, all of which will be pro-
rated through October 3, 1982.
a. Unpaid vacation pay
b Unused personal leave time.
JAYDON, INC. 1603
2. be continued under the insurance program pro-
vided under the Union Agreement for the period
ending November 30, 1982, provided that you con-
tinue to pay the pOrtion of the insurance cost re-
quired to be paid by you under the Union Agree-
ment, and
3. have the right to transfer to a job at the new
Jaydon facility in Atlantic, Iowa, at the time and in
the manner hereinafter provided.
IF YOU DO NOT ELECT TO FORFEIT
YOUR RIGHTS IN WRITING, YOU WILL
AUTOMATICALLY BE DEEMED TO HAVE
BEEN LAID OFF AND YOU WILL CONTIN-
UE ON THE ROCK ISLAND FACILITY SE-
NIORITY LIST WITH RIGHT OF RECALL
UNDER THE UNION AGREEMENT.
If you elect to forfeit your rights as an employee
at the Jaydon facility AND you do not exercise
your right to transfer to a job at the new Jaydon
facility at Atlantic, Iowa, then you can apply for
your vested interest in the Jaydon of Illinois Em-
ployees' Profit Sharing Trust.
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of the follow-
ing:
1. Election to FORFEIT Rights under Union
Agreement.
2. Request for Transfer to Job at Jaydon Facility
at Atlantic, Iowa.
3. Instructions.
If you want to elect to forfeit your rights under
the Union Agreement and if you want to request a
transfer to a job in Atlantic, Iowa, PLEASE
READ THE INSTRUCTIONS, fill out the re-
quired forms, sign and date them and turn them into
the Personnel Office on or before the time indicat-
ed.
The letter in question was sent on the day after these
matters were discussed at the negotiating session which
took place at the Rock Island Sheraton. The complaint
does not allege that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by dealing directly with bargaining
unit .employees or that it unlawfully implemented a
change in wages, hours, and conditions of employment
before bargaining to impasse. The allegation in question
simply states that the contents of the letter contain a con-
dition which violates the Section 7 rights of employees.
No pertinent authority was presented to substantiate this
contention and I am unable to find any. I know of no
legal proposition that states that employees have a statu-
tory right to follow bargaining unit work that is being
relocated to another bargaining unit. All that the Re-
spondent did in this letter was to implement the matters
discussed and agreed to, albeit in part, at the negotiating
session the preceding day. The fact that employees who
were about to be laid off were presented with unhappy
choices does not mean that they were presented with
choices that were illegally imposed. Accordingly, I will
recommend that paragraph 6 of the complaint be dis-
missed.
On the above findings of fact and on the entire record
herein considered as a whole, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Jaydon, Inc. is now, and at all times
material herein has been, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of American
(UAW) and its Local 2137 are, respectively, labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not commit the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint herein.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed19
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.