Kilpatrick's Bakeries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 22, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 287 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES , INC. 287 Kilpatrick's Bakeries, Inc. and Freight Checkers , Clerical Em- ployees & Helpers Union , Local 856, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Em- ployees International Union , AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract Kilpatrick's Bakeries, Inc. and Freight Checkers, Clerical Em- ployees & Helpers Union , Local 856, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer- ica and Office and Technical Employees Local No. 29 and Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, both affiliated with Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Parties to the Contract Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc. and Freight Checkers , Clerical Employees & Helpers Union , Local 856, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract Larraburu Bros ., Inc. and Freight Checkers, Clerical Employees. & Helpers Union, Local 856, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Em- ployees International Union , AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 00-CA-3196, 20-CA-3340 1, 20-CA-3197, and 20-CA- 3340-2. October 22, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On July 23, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent Kil- patrick had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3 filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief ; 1 the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief ; and Local 29 submitted a letter in lieu of a brief in answer to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions. 1 Respondents Kilpatrick and Langendorf have advised that they subscribe to these exceptions and the brief. 155 NLRB No. 36. 288 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 proceeding 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, cross-exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE The questions presented are whether Respondent Bakeries (Langendorf, Larra- burn, and Kilpatrick's San Francisco plant) unlawfully assisted organizational efforts by Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3 and whether Office and Tech- nical Employees Local No. 29 was unlawfully assisted by the Oakland plant of Respondent Kilpatrick 's Bakeries, Inc.' Upon consideration of the entire record, the brief submitted by the General Coun- sel, and observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The Respondent Bakeries are engaged in the manufacture of various bakery prod- ucts. Respondents Kilpatrick 's and Langendorf are corporations engaged in the business of production and wholesale distribution of bakery products in various Cali- fornia cities , including San Francisco , California . In the course and conduct of their business operations during the past year, Respondents Kilpatrick's and Langen- dorf each purchased and received goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000, which were received directly from outside the State of California. During the past year, Respondents Kilpatrick 's and Langendorf each furnished goods and supplies valued in excess of $ 50,000 to United States military installations. At all times material herein , Respondent Larraburu has been a California corpo- ration engaged in the production and wholesale distribution of bakery and related products at San Francisco, California , and various other California cities. In the conduct of its business operations during the past year, Respondent Larraburu pur- chased and received goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were received directly from outside the State of California. Each Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 3, and Office and Technical Employees Local No. 29, Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 29, at all times material herein have been labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 1 The consolidated complaint herein was issued on October 30 , 1964, on charges filed by Freight Checkers , Clerical Employees & Helpers Union , Local 856 , International Broth- erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America. In Cases Nos 20-CA-3196 and 20-CA-3197, the charges were filed on July 23, 1964. In Case No 20-CA-3340 , an initial charge was filed on November 3 , 1964 , and a first amended charge was filed on January 2, 1965. Second amended charges were filed on January 14 , 1965. One, designated Case No 20-CA-3340-1, named as Respondent Kil- patrick's Bakeries , Inc. The other, designated as Case No. 20-CA-3340-2, named as Respondent Larraburu Bros., Inc. KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, INC. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 289 A. Background Local 3 has territorial jurisdiction in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, consisting generally of the area on the western side of San Francisco Bay. Local 29 has jurisdiction of office clerical employees in Oakland located in the San Francisco East Bay area. It was the practice that when either of the locals obtained recognition after sepa- rate organizational efforts, it would then bring the employees from the newly orga- nized plant under a master agreement already in effect between certain bakeries and to which Locals 29 and 3 were signatories. These locals, aside from both subscrib- ing to the bulk of the provisions of the master agreement, operate as completely separate entities. For example, employees in Oakland, by virtue of the union- security provisions, would be required to join Local 29 and the employees of Respondent Kilpatrick's in San Francisco would be required to join Local 3. The events considered herein were precipitated by an organizational campaign for the office and clerical employees of Respondents by Teamsters Local 856. As will be detailed more specifically, each Respondent actively assisted Local 3 in connec- tion with the organization of the respective clerical force for each Respondent. In approximately May 1964, when Teamsters Local 856 was conducting an orga- nizational campaign to represent the bakery clerical employees of Respondents, Phyllis Mitchell, secretary-treasurer and business manager of Local 3, requested and received permission to contact the clerical employees at Langendorf's McAllister Street plant and Kilpatrick's Folsom Street plant, located in San Francisco. Respond- ents had learned of the organizational campaign by Teamsters Local 856, and read- ily granted permission for such visits. With respect to Respondent Larraburu, its general manager, Harold Paul, having learned that Teamsters Local 856 intended to engage in picketing to organize bakery office clerical employees, invited Local 3's business representative to "come out to discuss the matter of putting my office girls into our union...." B. Events at Larraburu Harold Paul, Respondent Larraburu's general manager, invited Phyllis Mitchell, the business manager of Local 3, to come to the premises on July 3, 1964. Paul's invitation was precipitated by information that he received that Larraburu was going to be picketed next.2 When Mitchell arrived, she asked if she could speak to the girls and Paul took her into a room where the employees were assembled. Mitchell then spoke to them during working hours about joining Local 3. Later in the same day, Paul was shown either two or three union authorization cards by Mitchell. They were not left in his possession and during the course of his testimony it became clear that he did not recall whether there were two or three cards exhibited to him. In any event, the record discloses that on July 3, 1964, the bargaining unit included five employees; namely, Diane Latta, Mabel Suziki, Rose Marie Davis, Eleanor Schievellbein, and Joann Brady. The authorization cards that were produced at the hearing show that Mabel Suziki and Joann Brady signed the cards on July 3 and Rose Marie Davis signed the card after July 14. The record facts thus disclose that Local 3 did not represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit as of July 3, 1964, when Respondent Larraburu recognized Local 3. Thus, it is appar- ent that in addition to the assistance rendered Local 3 in recruiting members, Respondent Larraburu also executed an agreement with Local 3 at a time when Local 3 did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit. C. Events at Langendorf The events under consideration occurred at Langendorf's McAllister Street plant in San Francisco. In the latter part of June 1964, a Mr Cinti, the office manager at Respondent Langendorf's McAllister Street plant, called about 15 of the clerical employees into the main office during working hours. Cinti advised the group that Phyllis Mitchell, the union business representative, was present to discuss joining Local 3. Cinti told the group that they had to join Local 3 or another union and, according to the witness, Burke, that "they had decided that Local 3 was the best for us, because they represented other divisions of Langendorf Baking Company." 2Although not specifically stated, it is clear that the picketing referred to involved the Teamsters Local 856. 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Plant Manager Holloway was present during the part of the time when Mitchell was explaining the advantages of belonging to Local 3. Cinti, while telling the employees that Local 3 was the best union for them, also indicated that the employees' health program would be assumed by Local 3. He also indicated there could or might be picketing by the Teamsters unless the employ- ees joined Local 3. No opportunity was afforded the employees by Respondent Langendorf to hear from the Teamsters at its plant. Local 3 was recognized by Respondent Langendorf after Local 3 obtained authorization cards from a majority of the office employees. D. Events at Kilpatrick's There are two plants of Kilpatrick's involved. One is located in Oakland, Cali- fornia, within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 29 and the other is located on Folsom Street in San Francisco, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 3. On or about June 27, 1964, Local 3 Business Representative Mitchell went to Respondent Kilpatrick's San Francisco plant. Employees were summoned from their work by supervisors into the office of Respondent Kilpatrick's president, Hazel- rig. Hazelrig told the employees that he "-had been to a meeting that afternoon of all the bakeries-and they informed him that the Teamsters had contacted them and told them that they were going to picket the bakeries unless the bakeries joined the union." He also told the employees that unless the employees joined Local 3 by the following day the Teamsters would commence picketing. No mention was made of having a Teamsters representative address the employees and the record does not disclose that the employees had any opportunity to hear about the merits of joining the Teamsters' organization. After discussion about the merits of joining Local 3, Hazelrig told the employees that he would introduce them to the repre- sentative of Local 3, which he proceeded to do. He brought the employees into a room to meet with the Local 3 representative. During a portion of the talk, Super- visors Pittman and Campbell were also present. Supervisor Campbell asked employee O'Connor if he had signed the card and O'Connor was also asked by President Hazelrig whether he had signed and, at that point, he signed the card after Hazelrig told him that the employees had to join one or the other union; i.e., the Teamsters or Local 3. On the same day, Respondent Kilpatrick's (San Francisco plant) executed the following agreement: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, INCORPORATED, for its plants at 2030 Fol- som Street, San Francisco, California, and 1312 East 8th Street, Oakland, Cali- fornia, hereby adopts and agrees to be bound by that certain collective bargain- ing agreement by and between Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc, Homestead Division, Lady Ann Division and Berkeley Cake Division; and Continental Baking Company Berkeley Plant and the OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. #3, AFL-CIO, and OFFICE & TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL NO. 29, AFL-CIO, which is effective from August 1, 1962 to August 1, 1964 It is understood the definition of the unit shall be the same as that applicable to the other plant facilities party to said agreement and that the same exclusions for supervisory personnel and confidential secretaries will apply. FOR THE COMPANY FOR THE UNION KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL INCORPORATED EMPLOYEES LOCAL NO. 3, (S) Robert J. Campbell, Jr. AFL-CIO DATE: 6-27-64 (S) Phyllis Mitchell Business Manager OFFICE & TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL NO. 29, AFL-CIO (S) William Esmarch DATE: 6/27/64 On June 27, 1964, the following was executed between Local 29 and Kilpatrick's plant in Oakland: June 27, 1964. Kilpatrick's Bakery Inc., for its plant at 1312 East 8th Street, Oakland, Cali- fornia here by [sic] adopts and agrees to be bound by that certain collective bargain agreement by and between Continental Baking Company, Berkeley KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, INC. 291 sion, and Locals 3 and 29, office and professional employees union , AFL-CIO,- which is effective from August 1, 1962 to August 1, 1964. The same bargaining unit shall be applicable as under the foregoing agree- ment and the same exclusion shall apply with respect to supervisory personnel- and confidential employees. OFFICE PROFESSION KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION (S) Julian T. Jones Local #3, AFL-CIO JULIAN T. JONES By**** I Vice President OFFICE AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION Local #29, AFL-CIO By (S) Joseph Chedham Leah Newberry, secretary-treasurer of Local 29. had, prior to June 27, 1963, vis- ited the office of Kilpatrick's East Bay plant and received authorization designations from a majority of employees . The organizational efforts on the part of Secretary- Treasurer Newberry and Business Manager Chedham on behalf of Local 29 were carried on without any knowledge of, or coordinated with, the officials of Local 3. It is the General Counsel's position, however, that the unlawful assistance rendered- to Local 3 by Kilpatrick's officials in San Francisco infused with illegality the exe- cution of a contract between Kilpatrick's in Oakland and Local 29. The factors affecting this question will be considered after general comments relating to the three Respondent bakeries in the San Francisco area. CONCLUDING FINDINGS As indicated above, the unlawful assistance rendered Local 3 by Larraburu in the San Francisco area, included the execution of a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 3 when it was not a majority representative This is violative of Section 8 (a)(1) and (2) of the Act. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO (Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.) v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731. Larraburu, in common with Respondent Langendorf and Kilpatrick's (San Fran- cisco office ), engaged in a course of conduct that deprived the employees of a free choice in selecting their bargaining representative . Approval of Local 3 by all three Respondents was communicated to the employees. By implication, at least, the rival labor organization was disparaged. Local 3's representatives were accorded special' treatment by Respondents when the union officials were present to obtain authoriza- tion cards which was not afforded to the rival union The atmosphere attending their visits reflected a sense of urgency on the part of Respondents Kilpatrick's and Langendorf in connection with recognizing Local 3. Thus, although the employees of Respondent Langendorf and Respondent Kil- patrick's (San Francisco plant), in each case by a majority , designated Local 3 as the bargaining representative of the clerical employees, such majority was obtained' as a result of unlawful assistance given by Respondents Langendorf and Kilpatrick's. (San Francisco plant) to Local 3, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. As previously indicated, Respondent Larraburu violated these sections of the Act by giving unlawful assistance in recruiting and by signing an agreement when Local 3 did not represent a majority of the employees. E. Kilpatrick 's Oakland plant and question of unlawful assistance The General Counsel 's theory, imputing unlawful assistance to Local 29 by Respondent Kilpatrick 's, rests primarily on the letter of understanding of June 27, 1964, set forth above, including Kilpatrick's and Local 3. It is noted this document recites that it was executed on behalf of the San Fran- cisco and East Bay plants and lists Local 3 and Local 29 under the heading "For the Union" and contained the signature of William Esmarch, a signatory on behalf of Local 29. This letter on its face would suggest that the employees of the San Francisco and Oakland plants of Respondent Kilpatrick 's were the same bargaining unit or the same segment of a larger unit. However, on the state of this record , the letter of understanding of June 27, 1964, does not constitute probative evidence in support of the position of the General Counsel . William Esmarch , an official of Local 3 , was not authorized to, sign they 212-809-06-vol. 155-20 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD document on behalf of Local 29. Indeed, no official of Local 29 was aware of the existence of this document until several months later. The letter of understanding of June 27, 1964,3 executed by Joseph Chedham on behalf of Local 29, recited that only Kilpatrick's Oakland plant was affected. The letter of understanding executed by officials of Local 29 with Kilpatrick's Oakland plant is the only operative and valid agreement affecting Local 29. Both the letters of understanding refer to an existing agreement to which both Local 3 and Local 29 are parties. However, the provisions of that agreement with respect to the health and welfare provision and union security are separate and dif- ferent provisions. That is to say Locals 3 and 29 have portions of the master agree- ment applicable only to each organization. In other respects, the agreement has common provisions applicable to both Local 3 and Local 29. Both locals have representatives present for the majority of the negotiating sessions leading to the execution of the master agreement, although if the subject for negotiating affects only one local, representatives of the others are absent on same occasions. In order to sustain the theory of unlawful assistance to Local 29 by Kilpatrick's in Oakland, the General Counsel argues that the circumstances spell out in accre- tion of the Oakland's uncoerced and unassisted unit to the unlawfully assisted Kil- patrick's San Francisco unit. Although the number of employees involved cannot be definitely ascertained from the record, it seems probable that Kilpatrick's San Francisco unit had five or six employees and the Kilpatrick's Oakland unit about three or four. The slightly greater number in the San Francisco plant is scarcely a reason to find an accretion here. This is so because the employees were organized separately by the respective unions, and each union was a completely separate entity, and there were contractual provisions peculiar to each in the master agreement. Apparently, it is the view of the General Counsel that, due to the fact the master agreement is subscribed to by Locals 3 and 29 and both are collectively referred to as the "Union" in the master agreement, there results a single unit comprised of all the employees of the signatory employer. Carried to its logical conclusion, the unlawful assistance rendered at Kilpatrick's San Francisco plant would then taint all the employees in the bargaining units of signatories to the master agreement, as well as the employees of Kilpatrick's Oakland plant. The General Counsel does not argue for such a result. However, no reason is suggested as to why if unlawful assistance given to Local 3 would affect Kilpatrick's Oakland plant, the other signa- tories to the master agreement would not also be similarily affected if they com- prised a single bargaining unit as claimed by the General Counsel. It seems more reasonable to conclude that the bargaining units were composed of the employees within the territorial jurisdiction of the respective locals, particularly as each local has contractual provisions in the master agreement affecting only it. Taking this view of the matter, the events involving Local 3 and Kilpatrick's San Francisco plant did not affect the lawful agreement executed between Local 29 and Kilpatrick's in Oakland. Therefore, in conclusion, it is found that the General Counsel has not established that the unlawful assistance given by Local 3 in San Francisco constitutes unlawful assistance to Local 29 at Kilpatrick's Oakland plant. The General Counsel has established unlawful assistance to Local 3 in connection with organizational efforts at Respondents Larraburu's, Langendorf's, and Kilpatrick's (San Franciso) plants. W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondents 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 obstructing com-, merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, it will be recommended they cease and desist therefrom, and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that Respondents Kilpatrick's (San Francisco plant), Langendorf, and Larraburu withhold recognition unless and until such time as Local 3 is certified within the terms of the Act. It will be further recommended that Respondents Kilpatrick's (San Francisco plant ), Langendorf, and Larraburu reim- 3It appears that the fact both letters of understanding were executed on June 27, 1964, was a coincidence. KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, INC. 293 burse each of its present and former employees for all dues and other moneys they have been required to pay, if any, to Local 3 by Respondents' enforcement of a union-security provision with Local 3. This remedy of reimbursement is recom- mended because all three Respondents were in part responsible for a situation in which their employees were forced into becoming union members and covered under the Union 's security provision of the master agreement . Salmirs Oil Company, 139 NLRB 25; Downtown Bakery Corp., successor to Smayda's Home Bakery, Inc., 139 NLRB 1352. It will be further recommended that any amounts due under the terms of this Recommended Order shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of payment by the employees affected. Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1147. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents are employers within the meaning of the Act. 2. Locals 3 and 29 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by unlawfully assisting Local 3. 4. Respondent Kilpatrick's has not unlawfully assisted Local 29. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is recommended that the Respondents , Kilpatrick 's (San Francisco plant ), Langendorf, and Larraburu , their officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing Local 3 as the representative of their employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or any other terms or conditions of employment or giving said organization any other assistance or support unless and until Local 3 shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of its employees; provided that nothing herein shall be construed to require Respondents to vary any substan- tive provision of any agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any right they may have thereunder. (b) Giving effect to any collective -bargaining agreement with Local 3, or to any amplification , extension , renewal, or supplement thereto, except as provided in sub- section (a). (c) In any like or related manner violating the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 3 as the collective- bargaining representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent Companies concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other terms or conditions of employment unless and until the Board shall certify Local 3 as such representative. (b) Reimburse each of their present or former employees for all dues and other moneys they have been required to pay Local 3 by reason of Respondents ' enforce- ment of a union -security agreement with Local 3 together with interest on such moneys at 6 percent per annum, from the day of payment by the employees affected. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the deter- mination of the amount of moneys if any due to former or present employees under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Respondents Larraburu, Langendorf, and Kilpatrick's (San Francisco plant) shall post at their plants copies of Appendixes A, B, and C, respectively .4 Copies '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 be 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". 294 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents or their authorized agents, be posted in their respective plants immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 to, insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Each Respondent shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20, within 20' days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 5In 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX A 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 recognize or deal with Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, unless and until such organization is certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL reimburse former or present employees for any amount of money they may have been required to pay Local 3 by reason of the enforcement of a union-security contract with interest at 6 percent per annum, from the date of payment by the employees affected. LARRABURU BROS., 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 pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, Telephone No. 556-3197. APPENDIX B 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 recognize or deal with Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, unless and until such organization is certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL reimburse former or present employees for any amount of money they may have been required to pay Local 3 by reason of the enforcement of a union-security contract with Local 3, with interest at 6 percent per annum, from the date of payment by the employees affected. LANGENDORF UNITED BAKERIES, 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, Telephone No. 556-3197. GRAND CENTRAL LIQUORS, ETC. 295 APPENDIX C 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 recognize or deal with Office and Professional Employees Local No. 3, Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, unless and until such organization is certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL reimburse former or present employees for any amount of money they may have been required to pay Local 3 by reason of the enforcement of a union-security contract with Local 3, with interest at 6 percent per annum, from the date of payment by the employees affected. KILPATRICK'S BAKERIES, 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047 , Telephone No. 556-3197. David Gold and Harvey Tesler d/b/a Grand Central Liquors; Anco Central Corporation; Harry Pascal d/b/a Harry Pascal Food Co.; Ben Weinman d/b/a Central Bulk Foods ; Isao Hongo and John Yamada d/b/a Isao Hongo -John Yamada Produce; Robert B . Sloane d/b/a Robert B. Sloane Produce; J. Louis 'Cohen and Milton S. Cohen d/b/a L & M Bakery ; Rafael Penilla and Olga Penilla d/b/a Roast -To-Go , Petitioners and Retail Clerks Union , Local 770, affiliated with the Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO.' Cases Nos. 21-RM 1163 .through 21-RM-1170. October 22,1965 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Orville S. Johnson .2 The Hearing Offi- cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 Briefs have been filed by the Employer-Peti- tioners and the Union. I The names of the Union and all the Employer-Petitioners except Anco Central Corpo- ration appear as amended at the hearing. 'After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended , the Regional Director issued an order transferring these cases to the Board for decision. 3 At the hearing, the Hearing Officer , over the objection of the Union , revoked certain subpenas requested by the Union in its attempt to present evidence in support of its con- 155 NLRB No. 33.