Local 39, Milk, Ice Cream Drivers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1107 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

LOCAL 34, MILK, ICE CREAM DRIVERS, ETC. 1107
Local 39, Milk, Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Employees Union,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America- and its Agent Lawrence
Korn [Great Northern Juice Corp ., et al.] and David R.
Mesmer. Case No. 3-CC-?71. September 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 24, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch,and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
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 and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent Local
39, Milk, Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and'
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, including Respondent Law-
rence Korn, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The issues in this case are whether Respondents , the above Union and its agent,
Lawrence Korn, while engaged in a labor dispute with Mesmer and Sons Dairy, Inc.
(herein called Mesmer or Mesmer Dairy ) threatened certain distributors of dairy
and other products that the Union would cause their employees to cease handling
148 NLRB No. 115.
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
products which Great Northern Juice Corp. (herein called Great Northern), an affili-
ate of Mesmer, sold to said distributors, if said distributors did not stop buying such
products from Great Northern, and did actually direct and cause their employees to
cease handling such products, in order to force said distributors to cease doing busi-
ness with Great Northern and Mesmer, all in violation of Sections 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii)(B), and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the Act). The issues arise on a complaint
issued on February 28, 1964, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board through its Regional Director for Region 3,1 and the answer of Respond-
ents which admit jurisdiction but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
On due notice, a hearing on the issues was held before me in Buffalo, New York,
on April 9, 1964, in which all parties participated fully through counsel. All parties
waived oral argument at the close of testimony, but General Counsel and Respond-
ents have filed written briefs, which have been carefully considered by me in the
preparation of this Decision.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of witnesses on the
stand, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED -
Great Northern is a New York corporation engaged at Grand Island, New York,
in processing and wholesale distribution of orange juice. In this business it has an
annual direct inflow of materials valued in excess of $50,000 and an annual direct
outflow of products valued over $50,000. Mesmer is a New York corporation en-
gaged at Grand Island, New York, in'the processing and wholesale and retail dis-
tribution of milk and other products. In that business it has an annual direct inflow
of materials valued in excess of $50,000. Great Northern and Mesmer are and have
been at all material times herein affiliated businesses, constituting a single integrated
business enterprise, with Great Northern using plant facilities of Mesmer in its busi-
ness, and both corporations having common officers, ownership, directors, operators,
and labor policy.
Diffine's Quality Dairy (herein called Diffine's), is a division of Niagara County
Milk Producers Co-operative Corporation, a New York corporation which is engaged
at Niagara Falls,.New York, in the same type of business as Mesmer. In that busi-
ness Dif line's has an annual direct inflow of materials valued in excess of $50,000.
Wendt's Cream Top Dairy, Inc. (herein called Wendt's) is a New York corpora-
tion engaged at Niagara Falls, New York, in the same type of business as Mesmer.
In that business Wendt's has an annual direct inflow of materials valued in excess
of $50,000.
Arcade Farms Cooperative Incorporated (herein called Arcade) is a New York
corporation engaged at Blasdell, New York, in the same type of business as Mesmer.
In that business it has an annual direct inflow of materials valued in excess of $50,000.
In the course of its business, Great Northern sells orange juice to Diffine's, Wendt's,
and Arcade, among others.
I find that Great Northern, Mesmer, Diffine's, Wendt's, and Arcade each is and
has been at all material times herein, an employer and person engaged in commerce
and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (6), and
(7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is, and at all material times herein has been, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and at all such times Lawrence
Korn is, and has been, its business agent and an agent acting on its behalf within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In May-1963 the Union had a labor dispute with Mesmer, in course of which it
picketed the Mesmer plant in Grand Island, New York. That dispute was continuing
at the date of the hearing.
'The complaint was issued after investigation of charges filed January 28 and Febru-
ary 6, 1964, by David R. Mesmer.
LOCAL 39,-MILK, ICE CREAM DRIVERS, ETC. 1109
Sometime in January 1964 Arcade and Wendt's each made an arrangement with
Great Northern under which Great Northern would bottle orange juice for each dis-
tributor at the Mesmer plant, by transporting the distributor's bottles from its plant
to the Mesmer plant, filling and capping the bottles there, and then returning them
filled to the distributor, with Great Northern using its own employees for all trans-
portation and bottling? Under this arrangement, the delivery and sale of the juice
was to start in the week of January 27, but its promotion was started by the three
distributors on Friday, January 24, when drivers in each plant were informed of the
promotion and given "slingers" or circulars for distribution to customers starting that
day .3 Each distributor ordered an initial lot of 25 cases (300 quarts) which were to
be delivered to the plants starting January 27; however, juice for Diffine's was de-
livered to its plant cooler on Saturday, January 25, and loaded on its retail trucks for
distribution on Monday, the 27th.
For some years the Union has had contracts with each of the distributors covering
their drivers and other employees, which contracts provided, among other things, for
the usual union-shop steward in each plant. In January 1964 Richard S. Norton, a
driver-salesman of Wendt's, was the union shop steward in that plant. As a mem-
ber of the union strike committee in the Mesmer dispute, he had been active in direct-
ing picketing activities of the Union at the Mesmer stores and plants, and was fully
cognizant of that dispute. On January 23 Norton was told by a plant employee (also
a member of the Union) about the pending deal, and learned that under it Mesmer
trucks were already picking up Wendt's bottles and taking them to its plant where
Great Northern would bottle the juice and Mesmer's trucks would return them to
Wendt's. When Wendt's posted a sales notice on the 24th to its driver-salesmen,
advising them of the juice promotion, and put the " slingers" in their route boxes for
distribution that day, Norton concluded from his prior information and the slingers
that they related to the above arrangement involving Mesmer. He advised other
drivers that he did not know whether this promotion was "legal or not" until he
checked with the Union. As a result, the Wendt drivers did not distribute slingers
that day. Norton also told Sales Manager James W. Strasburg that the juice was a
product of Mesmer and that he did not know whether the drivers could distribute
the slingers and the juice until he talked to Business Agent Korn. Strasburg insisted
that the juice was a product of Great Northern, and Norton repeated that it was
a Mesmer product and that the men would not put out the slingers because of the
Mesmer connection. Strasburg told Norton that if there was any change in thinking
on it or reason why the men could not put out the slingers and juice, he should call
Strasburg Sunday night, otherwise he expected the slingers to go out to customers
Monday morning.
On Sunday, January 26, Business Agent Korn was advised by Norton about the
proposed distribution of slingers with the "premium offer," and that Norton had
told the drivers not to distribute the slingers on Friday, January 24. Norton asked
if the Union had given permission for the premium distribution. Korn said it had
not. The steward described the manner of filling Wendt's bottles at Mesmer and
their transportation between the two plants as described above. Korn told him
this seemed to be a serious violation of the Wendt contract, and said he would
contact Wendt about it Monday. He told the steward to tell the drivers not to
distribute the juice in the meantime until the violation had been straightened out.
When Korn contacted Richard Stephenson, controller and personnel manager of
Wendt, about the matter Monday morning, Stephenson confirmed that Wendt was
about to distribute Great Northern orange juice. Korn said "our men" would not
handle it. Stephenson protested, saying this distribution was not different from
the handling of Tropicana juice which Wendt was then selling. Korn argued that
it was different, saying that Tropicana juice was made and bottled in Florida, which
was outside the jurisdiction of the Union, hence that juice did not infringe on the
rights of the Union under its contracts in the area of its jurisdiction, but that the
Great Northern juice was a "nonunion" product, and the Union did not want non-
union men doing the work of Union members, and hence the drivers would not
handle it. He suggested to Stephenson that the juice should be processed and bot-
2 Diffine's made the same deal with Great Northern, except that Great Northern was to
supply its own but unmarked bottles
3 The "slingers" gave the details of the juice sale picturing the bottle of juice with the
distributor's name on the bottle, also making a "special introductory offer" under which
each customer buying a quart of the juice could send in the bottle cap to a concern
listed in the circular , and would receive from it a piece of silverware at a cut-rate price.
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tied in Wendt's plant, as this was work that should be done by Union members
under the contract. He also said the Union had spent $20,000 trying to put Mesmer
out of business and that by this deal the union distributors were "submarining" the
Union. He asked Stephenson if he knew of any other dealers who were handling
Great Northern juice, and the latter said Dairymen's League and Diffine's were
considering it. Korn asked Stephenson to agree that Wendt's would not handle
Great Northern juice until the dispute could be settled under the contract. Stephen-
son said he could not give that commitment without seeing Wendt, head of the
dairy. Korn replied that if he could not give the commitment at once, he would
have to tell the drivers not to handle the juice, and would invoke the contract
grievance procedure. In view of Korn's remarks, and the fact that Wendt drivers
had refused to distribute the "slingers" both on Friday and Monday, Stephenson, on
Monday, arranged to cancel the initial order of juice from Great Northern until
the dispute was settled. On the morning of the 28th, Korn again told Steward
Norton, at the plant in the presence of drivers, not to handle the Great Northern
juice until the contract violation was settled.
After his talk with Stephenson, Korn called the Dairymen's League, and learned
that organization was not handling Great Northern juice He then called Albert
C. Waite, general manager of Diffine's, and told him he had learned Wendt's bottles
were being picked up by Mesmer employees and filled by them with orange juice
for Wendt, and he had heard Diffine's was doing the same thing. Waite confirmed
that it had started distribution of the juice that morning, but was not sure whose
bottles were being used. Korn asked him if he was distributing the juice with
premium circulars, and Waite admitted it. Korn told him of the Union conten-
tion and its orders given to Wendt drivers, and said he would do the same at
Diffine's unless Waite agreed not to go ahead with the distribution until it was
straightened out. Waite said he would have to find out about the bottling, so he
checked with management and then called Korn back, telling him the juice was
being bottled by Great Northern in plain bottles, not those of Diffine's, and asked
if that made any difference in his orders to the drivers. Korn said it did not, as it
made no difference to him whether the juice was bottled by Mesmer or Great
Northern, that to him it meant the "same thing," that the Union had spent a lot
of time and money trying to organize Mesmer, and he thought Diffine's was hurt-
ing its chances to do that by dealing with Mesmer and Great Northern, and were
thus assisting "them" financially, and he "did not appreciate" Diffine's dealing with
them He made the same claim of contract violation as he had made to Stephenson,
and said that unless Waite could give him a commitment to drop both the distribu-
tion and premium deals until the matter was straightened out, the Union would
submit the matter to the contract grievance procedure, and invoke the "status quo"
clause, and would also tell the drivers not to handle the juice. Waite said this
put Diffine's "on the spot" because it had distributed the advertising circular, and
some customers would order the juice, and Waite wanted to figure out a way to
get "off the hook"; he suggested Diffine's might buy the juice in bulk, and bottle it
in its own plant using its own bottles; Korn asked where he would buy the juice,
and when Waite said the only source he knew was Great Northern, Korn said that
would be practically the same thing as buying it from Great Northern bottled, and
would not be satisfactory. He finally told Waite that, without a commitment not
to proceed with the distribution, he would tell the drivers not to handle the juice
while the Union was invoking the contract grievance procedure and the "status quo"
clause. After his talk, Diffine's canceled the order for juice from Great Northern
the same day, and explained to Great Northern that Korn's position and orders to
drivers had prompted the cancellation. However, Diffine's drivers apparently dis-
tributed some of the "clingers" as well as the juice itself on the 27th, but while more
juice was being loaded on Diffine's trucks early on the 28th, Korn appeared at
the plant and in the presence of the shop steward ordered the loader not to load
any more. When the loader asked about juice already on the trucks, Korn said
"tell them to sell what is on the truck, but do not give out any more," and "if the
boss says anything to you, tell him to call me up." 4 He gave drivers the same order.
Korn called Arcade the same morning, and asked Sales Manager William J.
Sadler if Arcade was going to handle juice bottled by Mesmer. Sadler said he had
discussed buying of juice from Great Northern. Korn said they were the same
concern, told him the orders he had given at Wendt and Diffine's, and that he
would not allow that juice to be handled by Arcade retail drivers, and would order
them through the shop steward not to handle it, if Arcade made the same deal with
4 Thereafter Diffine's made only a few, sporadic sales of the juice in the last days of
January, and once in February, when customers gave drivers s pecial orders for it.
LOCAL 39, MILK, ICE CREAM DRIVERS, ETC. 1111
Great Northern as at the other dairies. When Sadler asked why Korn was doing
this, Korn replied he would not do any favors for someone who "hit him in the
head." Korn also complained that if the orange juice was actually bottled outside
Arcade premises, this would violate their contract, and that if premiums were dis-
tributed with the juice without union approval, that also violated the contract.
Sadler told Korn he would cancel the juice order at once,-and did so that day.5
On February 3, 1964, the Union resorted to the grievance procedure in article
XVI of its contracts with the dairies, by conferring on that date with the chairman
and vice chairman of the Industry Committee set up by the contracts, and there-
after sending formal notice on February 5 to Wendt's and Diffine's of its intent
to submit the dispute to the Industry Committee, and requesting each to maintain
the "status quo" under section 90. On February 6, it notified the chairman of the
Dealer's Association of the existence of a dispute with Wendt's and Diffine's, and
requested appointment of a committee to hear it. A hearing was held before the
committee on March 5, in which the Union, Wendt's, and Diffine's participated.
The committee issued its decision on March 9, holding that (1) the two dairies
had not violated section 42(a) and (b) (Dock Pickup) of the contract by selling
Great Northern juice, and (2) they had not violated the contract by distribution of
the slingers without prior negotiation with the Union, because the route salesmen
were not engaged in taking orders for, handling, delivering, or collecting money for,
the premium item. As for the alleged violation of section 10 of the contract (being
a portion of the union-security clause), the committee suggested the case be sub-
mitted to arbitration. The Union thereafter submitted the matter to arbitration
which is still pending.
Contentions of Parties, and Final Conclusions
Relying solely on Korn's reference to "contract violations" in his talks with
officials of the three dairies, Respondent contends that his remarks and action on
January 27 and 28 were not more than legitimate notifications to these employers
of alleged violations of their contract involved in the Great Northern juice deal, and
that his attempts to invoke the "status quo" clauses of their contracts while the
claimed violations were being processed through the contract grievance procedure
were legitimate primary activity. Assuming for the moment that alleged contract
violations were a motivating reason for Korn's warnings that the drivers would not
handle the juice, and his actual enforcement of the "status quo" clause by his
orders to drivers to that effect, it is also clear from Norton's pointed remarks to
Strasburg on the 24th about Mesmer, and Korn's repeated references on the 27th
to the Mesmer dispute and his dislike of any dealings by the three dairies with
Mesmer, that the Union and Korn were equally concerned about the fact that these
dairies were dealing with Mesmer a nonunion employer, through its affiliate.
Great Northern, and were thereby giving financial aid to a concern with which the
Union was in a long and costly labor dispute, which aid the Union bitterly resented
and was determined to stop. Thus, since the determination to compel these em-
ployers to cease doing business with Mesmer was clearly one object, if not the sole
object, of Korn's actions, the Union was clearly acting to achieve an object pro-
hibited by Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. It is well settled that Section
8(b)(4) prohibits conduct for "an object" specified in the Act, even though such
object is not the sole object of the union conduct, and the Union may have other
lawful objects. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council,
et al., (Gould & Preisner) 341 U.S. 675, at 686; International Longshoremen's As-
sociation, etc. (Board of Harbor Commissioners), 137 NLRB 1178, 1184. Hence,
when Korn told employees of Wendt's and Diffine's not to handle or distribute the
Great Northern juice, for an object of causing their employers to cease doing busi-
ness with that concern (and through it, Mesmer), such orders were an inducement
of individuals employed by those employers to engage in a refusal to handle prod-
ucts of Mesmer, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) of the Act; and when Korn
told officials of the three dairies that he had given or would give such orders to their
drivers, with the same object in mind, such remarks were clearly threats and coercion
of those employers, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act.6
5 The above findings are based on credited and mutually corroborative testimony of
Stephenson , Strasburg , Waite, Frank Buzzelli , Sadler, and Tontoli, as corroborated in
part by admissions of Norton and Born Testimony of the latter two witnesses at vari-
ance with the findings is not credited
°Local 282 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (United States Trucking
Corporation ), 146 NLRB 956 ; Local 3, IBEW ( New York Telephone C"mpany), 140
NLRB 729, enfd . as modified 325 F. 2d 561 (C.A. 2).
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reverting, however, to Respondent's main contention, I find the following cir-
cumstances afford cogent support for the inference that Korn's claim of contract
violations was no more than a pretext, and his invocation of the contract grievance
procedure an afterthought, to give his illegal remarks and conduct the appearance
of legality:
(1) Norton's doubts about the "legality" of the deal with Great Northern arose
mainly from the fact that it involved Mesmer through its handling of the bottles; he
did not quote or argue contract terms, or rights of union members thereunder, or
mention the "premium" deal, when expressing his doubts to Strasburg.
(2) Although Korn says he told his steward the Great Northern juice transaction
involved "serious contract violations," 7 he admits, and I find it significant, that he
never told officials of the three dairies clearly and specifically what clauses of their
contracts were being violated, or the exact nature of those violations; rather, in
talking to Wendt's he stressed that the Great Northern juice was a "nonunion" prod-
uct which should be bottled by union men in Wendt's own plant, and coupled this
with the pointed remarks about his long and costly dispute with Mesmer; he did
not complain to Wendt about the "premium" portion of the distribution; in his talk
with Diffine's he again stressed the necessity of immediate discontinuance of deal-
ing in any way with Great Northern, even refusing to consider" an alternate plan
suggested by Diffine's under which it would only buy bulk juice from Great North-
ern, because it still involved dealings with that concern (and thus, Mesmer).
(3) The great haste with which Korn enforced the "status quo" by his orders to
the drivers of two dairies not to handle the nonunion Great Northern product
(which was in effect calling a strike), without giving an official of Wendt's a chance
to confer with his superior about the demand for maintaining the "status quo," al-
though Korn admitted that the Union had no complaints about the dairies' use of
similar nonunion products (Tropicana and King Sun juice which were bottled and
transported outside the State), even though, as Korn admitted, orange juice was an
approved product on which drivers could receive a negotiated commission, and the
contracts did not distinguish between purchase of products made or bottled within
or without the area of the Union's jurisdiction, or by one of these dairies or an-
other source, and the Union was not concerned about those details, so long as the
drivers got the negotiated scale of commissions on sales thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the employers 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
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair
labor practices and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Great Northern, Mesmer, Diffine's, Wendt's, and Arcade are employers and
persons engaged in commerce, and Respondent is a labor organization, within the
meaning of the Act.
2. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Diffine's, Wendt's, and Arcade with an
object of forcing or requiring such persons to cease doing business with Great North-
ern or its affiliate, Mesmer Dairy, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (ii) (B)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, or inducing and encouraging employees of Diffine's and Wendt's
to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to process, trans-
7 Their conversations on this subject , not in the presence of employers, were clearly
self-serving declarations entitled to little weight.
LOCAL 39, MILK, ICE CREAM DRIVERS, ETC . -1113
port, handle, or otherwise ` work on products of Great -Northern , with an object of
forcing and requiring Diffine's and Wendt's to cease doing business with Great North-
ern or its affiliate Mesmer Dairy, Respondent. has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce ' within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii ) (B) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. ,
-RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings,of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire
record in the case, I recommend that Local 39, Milk, Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy
Employees Union , International Brotherhood of Teamsters ,,Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, its officers , representatives , agents, including Respond-
ent Lawrence Korn , its successors , and,assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening , coercing, or restraining Diffine 's Quality Dairy, Wendt's Cream
Top Dairy , Inc., Arcade Farms Co -operative Incorporated , or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an object is to force
or require any of the said employers, or any other employer or person , to cease doing
business with Great Northern Juice Corporation or its affiliate , Mesmer_ and Sons
Dairy, Inc. -
(b) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Diffine's
Quality Dairy, Wendt's Cream Top Dairy, Inc., Arcade Farms Co-operative Incorpo-
rated , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to process,
transport , handle, or otherwise work on products where an object thereof is to force
or require any of the above employers , or any other employer oi • person, to cease
doing business with Great Northern . Juice Corporation or its affiliate Mesmer and
Sons Dairy, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent Union 's business offices, meeting
halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 3, shall , after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that such notices are not altered, de-
faced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
Region 3 for posting by each of the employers named in the preceding paragraphs
who are willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith .9
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
8In 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
NOTICE .TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 39, MILK, ICE CREAM DRIVERS AND DAIRY
EMPLOYEES UNION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ' CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AND 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 you that: ,
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain Diffine's Quality Dairy, Wendt's
Cream Top Dairy , Inc., Arcade Farms Co-operative Incorporated , or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an ob-
ject is to force or require any of said Employers, or any other employer or per-
son, to cease doing business with Great Northern Juice Corporation or its affili-
ate Mesmer and Sons Dairy, Inc.
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage individuals employed by any
of the above-named Employers , or any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce , to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of
their employment to process , transport , handle or otherwise work on products
or perform services , where an object is to force or require any of said Em-
ployers, or any other employer or person , to cease doing business with Great
Northern Juice Corporation or its affiliate Mesmer and Sons Dairy, Inc.
LOCAL 39 , MILK, ICE CREAM DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES
UNION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 120 Dela-
ware Avenue, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No.
TL 6-1782 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Dubo Manufacturing Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 8-CA-2700 and 8-CA-2820.
September 16, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
The consolidated complaint in the above-entitled proceeding alleged
that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to bargain with the Union as the representative of its em-
ployees; had violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by discharging and
refusing to reinstate 16 employees to their former or substantially
equivalent positions because they had engaged in concerted, protected
activities; and had violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by threatening
its employees with reprisals because they had engaged in concerted,
protected activities. On August 28, 1962, Trial Examiner Sidney
Sherman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in the unfair labor
practices as alleged and recommending certain remedial action.
On May 1, 1963, the Board issued a notice in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, notifying the parties herein that the Board would defer its
ruling in the case with regard to the Section 8(a) (3) allegations in
the complaint.' The notice further advised the parties that the Board
1 142 NLRB 431.
148 NLRB No. 95.