Meat Cuters & Butcher Workmen, Loc. 158

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 58 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, Local 158, AFL-CIO (Eastpoint
Seafood Company, a division of Queen Fisheries,
Inc. and Wiegardt Brothers and Wiegardt & Sons,
Inc.) and R.N. Shipley . Case 19-CB-1752
January 3, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On February 8, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Maurice Alexandre issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting
brief s.1
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order only to the
extent consistent herewith.2
1. The Administrative Law Judge finds that it is
unnecessary to reach the merits in this proceeding in
view of Respondent's "failure to defend itself against
the allegations of the complaint." Accordingly, the
Administrative Law Judge enters a judgment by
default against Respondent. The General Counsel,
although the beneficiary of this judgment by default,
has, along with the Respondent, filed exceptions to
the entering of such a judgment. We find merit in
these exceptions.
Briefly stated the facts as to the default judgment
are as follows: The complaint alleges that Respon-
dent (Local 158, Meat Cutters) is the certified
bargaining representative of two bargaining units
having each been certified on March 31, 1971. It
alleges as to one of these units that Respondent and
the Employer (Wiegardt) reached agreement on the
terms of a contract but that Respondent has refused
to sign a written agreement embodying those terms.
As to the other unit it alleges that Respondent has
since April 30, 1971, refused to bargain with the
Employer (Eastpoint Seafood). Finally, it alleges that
by this conduct Respondent has violated Section
1 The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) has filed a brief amicus curiae which we have
considered. The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL--CIO, has fried a motion to intervene We hereby deny
that motion as failing to state a sufficient basis for granting such
intervention.
2 Respondent and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(3). Respondent's secretary, Wil-
ma Pundars, filed an answer on behalf of Respon-
dent in which Respondent admitted virtually every
paragraph of the complaint including the paragraphs
alleging Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(3). However, included in the answer is the
statement that the allegations related to Respon-
dent's refusal to bargain and to sign a written
agreement were true because Respondent was
"barred by reason of Article XX." Although "Article
XX" was not further identified in the answer, it is
clear from the record that the reference is to the
article of the national AFL-CIO constitution which
is entitled "Settlement of Internal Disputes" and
which includes the no-raid provision. Subsequently,
on January 19, 1972, the day before the hearing was
originally scheduled to begin, the Board's Regional
Office received a letter signed by Wilma Pundars and
by International Representative C. B. Abbott stating
Local 158 no longer wished to represent the
employees in the units involved in this proceeding.
The hearing was rescheduled and held on November
9, 1972. Respondent did not enter an appearance
although both Pundars and Abbott appeared as
witnesses.
The Administrative Law Judge on December 12,
1972, issued an order directing Respondent to show
cause why judgment by default should not be
entered. However, although that order was served on
the other parties, it was not served on Respondent.
With the case in this posture the Administrative
Law Judge granted the default judgment. The Board
has in the past been reluctant to enter default
judgment where, even though not utilizing the formal
pleading procedures, a respondent has answered
crucial allegations of the complaint. Here Respon-
dent stated in its initial answer that it was "barred by
reason of Article XX." It further filed with the
Regional Director, prior to the date the hearing was
originally scheduled to begin, a disclaimer of
representation of the units involved in the complaint.
In our view the answer, along with the disclaimer of
representation which we treat as an amended answer,
is sufficient to raise an issue requiring disposition on
the merits.3
2. In our opinion Respondent violated Section
8(b)(3) by admittedly refusing to sign the collective-
bargaining agreement reached with Wiegardt- on
April 27, 1971. We further find that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(3) by admittedly refusing to
Workmen have requested oral argument . The AFL-CIO has indicated that
it supports this request . This request is hereby denied as the record, the
exceptions , and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties.
3 Inasmuch as Respondent , apparently through inadvertence , was not
served with the Notice To Show Cause we cannot draw any inference from
its failure to respond.
208 NLRB No. 2
MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN , LOC. 158
bargain with Eastpoint Seafood after April 30, 1971.
Respondent made no move to disclaim representa-
tion until January 19, 1972, when it stated it no
longer wished to represent the employees in the units
involved in this proceeding. Prior to January 19,
1972, Respondent was clearly under an obligation to
bargain with Wiegardt and Eastpoint Seafood
with respect to the units it represented and to sign the
collective-bargaining agreement which it reached
with Wiegardt. The fact that it did not do so for
internal union reasons is not a defense. In failing to
bargain at a time when it had not disclaimed interest
in representing the employees, Respondent acted
unlawfully in violation of Section 8(b)(3) and
8(b)(I)(A).
REMEDY
In our opinion Respondent validly disclaimed
representation of the units involved herein on
January 19, 1972. There is no evidence to indicate
that the disclaimer was a mere tactical maneuver to
avoid the effects of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Wiegardt, or to avoid bargaining with
Eastpoint Seafood, or was otherwise not made in
good faith. To the contrary, it appears that the
disclaimer was intended as a formal announcement
that Respondent, in compliance with the "no-raid"
provisions of the AFL-CIO constitution, was no
longer interested in or willing to represent the
employees involved herein, and was renouncing its
claim to act as their representative. In these circum-
stances, we find Respondent's disclaimer was effec-
tive as of the date made. Inasmuch as Respondent no
longer represents the employees in these units, we do
not believe it is wise to require Respondent to now
reundertake the duties of a collective-bargaining
representative for the employees involved herein.
Moreover, Employer Wiegardt followed the contract
negotiated as to the Wiegardt employees, and that
contract has now expired. For these reasons we will
not order Respondent to bargain or to sign the
negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. More-
over, in view of the fact that Respondent's violation of
Section 8(b)(3) occurred as a result of its decision to
come into compliance with the "no-raid" provisions
of the AFL-CIO constitution, as Respondent has
clearly decided to conform its organizing activities to
those provisions and has disclaimed all representa-
tive rights and interests as to the employees involved
herein, and has shown no proclivity for this sort of
conduct, we see no useful purpose in entering a
cease-and-desist order which would, in practical
effect, be operative infuturo only. We shall, however,
rescind Respondent's certification as the collective-
bargaining representative of the two units involved
herein.
ORDER
59
The certifications of March 31, 1971, in Cases
19-RM-882 and 19-RM-884 are hereby rescinded.
DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was tried before me in Long Beach, Washington, on
November 9, 1972, upon a complaint alleging that
Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respon-
dent's answer admits the alleged violations.
Upon the pleadings, the record herein, and the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and by the Intervenors (see
infra ), I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I
Background
Respondent Local 158 is a labor organization represent-
ing employees in the shellfish industry in the State of
Washington. Its parent body is Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, hereaf-
ter called the International, which is affiliated with the
AFL-CIO.
In 1971, the employees of Eastpoint and of Wiegardt
were represented by Shoalwater Bay Oyster Workers
Union, Local No. 14, which was affiliated with the
Seafarers International Union of North America, herein
called SIU. SIU is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. In that
year, employees of Eastpoint and Wiegardt communicated
with Respondent concerning the possibility of being
represented by the latter. Respondent told them that it
could not represent them unless they were disaffiliated
from SIU. Local 14 then took steps to disaffiliate from
SIU, it became an independent union, its members then
filed membership applications with Respondent, and the
latter sought recognition by Wiegardt and Eastpoint, each
of which thereupon filed petitions for elections. In
connection with his processing of the petitions, Field
Examiner Penrose, employed by the Board's Regional
Office, asked one Troy, an agent of SIU, whether SIU
wished to intervene in the proceeding. Troy replied that he
would have to talk to his superiors. Two days later, Troy
informed Penrose that SIU did not wish to intervene.
However, Respondent intervened, and on March 15, 1971,
SIU filed internal union charges with AFL-CIO President
Meany, charging that the International had filed represent-
ation petitions with the Board notwithstanding the fact
e No issue of commerce is presented. The complaint alleged and the
answer admits facts which, I find, establish that Eastpoint Seafood
Company, a division of Queen Fisheries, Inc., and Wiegardt Brothers and
Wiegardt & Sons , Inc., are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. I further find that Respondent is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that SIU had an established bargaining relationship
covering the employees of the said two employers.2
Elections were held at Eastpoint and at Wiegardt, with
both Respondent and Local 14 on the ballots. The tally of
ballots issued in each proceeding on March 23, 1971, shows
that Respondent won the elections. On March 31, 1971,
Respondent was certified as the majority representative of
the employees of Eastpoint and of the employees of
Wiegardt.
Respondent began negotiations with Wiegardt on April
22, 1971, they reached agreement on or about April 27, and
the agreement was ratified by the employees. Respondent
also met with Eastpoint on April 30, 1971. The Internation-
al then informed Respondent that SIU had filed internal
charges with the AFL-CIO. A hearing on the SIU charges
was held before an arbitrator on May 11, 1971. On the
following day, he issued his decision holding that the
International had violated section XX, i.e., the no-raiding
provision, of the AFL-CIO constitution. By letter dated
May 20, 1971, and addressed to the International,
AFL-CIO, President Meany requested advice as to what
steps the International intended to take to comply with the
arbitrator's determination. The International then instruct-
ed Respondent to "keep hands off' the employees of
Wiegardt and Eastpoint, and Respondent did not thereaf-
ter sign a contract with Wiegardt or meet again with
Eastpoint.
On September 28, 1971, an unfair labor practice charge
was filed against Respondent by one R. N. Shipley. On
November 8, 1971, a complaint was issued alleging that
Respondent was the certified bargaining representative of
appropriate units of the employees of Wiegardt and
Eastpoint, and that Respondent had violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign a
written contract embodying the terms and provisions of a
collective-bargaining agreement reached with Wiegardt,
and by refusing to meet and negotiate an agreement with
Eastpoint. In its answer, Respondent admitted all the
allegations of the complaint, but added the cryptic
statement that it was "barred by reason of Art. XX."3
On November 5, 1971, representatives of the Internation-
al and of Respondent wrote a joint letter to President
Meany which explained thee; position, and then stated:
... we cannot represent the employees of either
Wiegart [sic] Bros. or [Eastpoint] without being in
violation of Article XX of the AFL-CIO Constitution.
The Federal law says that we must represent the
employees that we are certified to represent.
It has become quite a problem. Would you please
advise us immediately, the course we should take... .
On January 11, 1972, Respondent sent the following letter
to President Meany:
Having had no reply from your office in regards to
our letter of November 5, 1971 regarding the former
members of the Seafarers Local # 14 at Nahcotta,
Washington, and as we are having a hearing before the
National Labor Relations Board on January 20, 1972,
we would like a reply as to whether to comply with the
Federal Law, which in essence states that members
should have representation of their choice or whether
we should abide by Article XX of the National
AFL-CIO Constitution.
We would appreciate some reply or clarification in
this office prior to January 20, 1972.
The record does not disclose any reply from Meany.
On January 17, 1972, the International sent the following
telegram to Respondent:
Local 158 is directed to comply fully with Article
Decision in Case No. 71-40 [arbitrator's decision]
either do not appear at any NLRB hearing or make it
clear that we disclaim any interest in representing these
employees.
International Vice President Mentrin telephoned Interna-
tional Representative Abbott, read the telegram to him, and
stated that Respondent should not appear at the hearing
scheduled upon the complaint herein. On January 18, 1972,
the Board's Regional Office mdefinitely postponed the
hearing scheduled for January 20. On January 19, 1972, the
International and Respondent sent a point letter to the
Board's Regional Office containing the following disclaim-
er:
Regarding certification case No.'s I9-RM-884,
Wiegardt Brothers & Wiegardt & Sons, Inc.;
19-RM-882, E. H. Bendiksen Co. and East Point
Seafood Co.; and 19-RM-900, Coast Oyster Company,
Local No. 158 no longer wish to represent the people in
the above certified cases.
Thereafter, the complaint was rescheduled for hearing on
November 9, 1972. When the matter came on for hearing
before me on that date, Respondent failed to appear,
although Wilma D. Pundars, Respondent's financial
secretary was present, was called as a witness by the
General Counsel, and gave testimony.4 Pundars testified
that the arbitrator's decision was the only reason Respon-
dent filed the disclaimer, and that Respondent would have
continued to represent the employees of Wiegardt and
Eastpoint but for that decision.
Immediately following the close of the hearing on
November 9, 1972, I received from SIU a telegraphic
message which I construed as a motion to intervene solely
for the purpose of filing a brief. On the same day, the
AFL-CIO filed a telegraphic motion to intervene sand to
hold open the record for the possible presentation of
evidence. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed his
responses to such motions. By telegraphic order on
November 29, 1972, I permitted SIU and the AFL-CIO to
2 The charging letter did not refer to the Respondent and charged only by the no-raiding provision of the AFL-CIO constitution
"Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers Union " 4 C. B Abbott and Charles J Mentrin, respectively a representative and
3 Presumably, the statement meant that it was prohibited from signing a a vice president of the International, were also called as witnesses by the
contract with Wiegardt, and from continuing negotiations with Eastpoint, General Counsel, and gave testimony
MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN, LOC. 158
intervene solely for the purpose of filing briefs, but denied
the motion to reopen the record. On November 30, 1972,
the International filed motions to intervene and to reopen
the record. By telegraphic order issued on December 12,
1972, I permitted the International to intervene solely for
the purpose of filing a brief, but denied the motion to
reopen the record.5 On the same day, I issued an order
directing the Respondent to show cause why judgment by
default should not be entered. Respondent did not respond
to the said order. Thereafter, as noted above, the General
Counsel, the International, and the AFL-CIO each filed
briefs .6 In addition, the International filed a motion for\
reconsideration of the order refusing to reopen the record
and permitting only limited intervention. In its brief, the
International asserts that it "is the real party in interest" in
this proceeding, and that its response herein should be
received as the response to the Order to Show Cause.
Analysis
Were I to address myself to the merits of the controversy,
I would be disposed to find that Respondent's refusal to
sign a contract with Wiegardt and to continue negotiations
with Eastpoint is unlawful and is not excused by its
disclaimer, which was not voluntary. Cf. Sheet Metal
Workers Union, Local No. 65, AFL-CIO (Inland Steel
Products Company), 120 NLRB 1678; Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 11 (Corrugated
Asbestos Contractors, Inc.), 192 NLRB 32; Nickel Plating,
Division of Great Lakes Industries, Inc., 124 NLRB 353.7
It is, however, unnecessary to reach the merits in view of
Respondent's failure to defend itself against the allegations
of the complaint. The entire tenor of Respondent's conduct
in this proceeding indicates that it does not desire to
present a defense. Its answer admitted the commission of
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, it failed
to appear at the hearing, and it failed to respond to the
Order to Show Cause. Had Respondent evidenced a desire
to.contest the complaint, a more liberal procedural attitude
might be called for, and the disclaimer filed with the
Regional Office might be accepted as tantamount to an
amendment to the answers The record shows, however,
that Respondent had no desire to file the disclaimer. I
accordingly find that when it filed the disclaimer in
accordance with instructions from its parent, it did not
intend that the disclaimer should be regarded as an
amendment to its answer. The net effect of what has
transpired is that Respondent admitted the commission of
the unfair labor practices alleged and thereafter failed to
take further part in this proceeding. It is true that the
International instructed Respondent not to appear at the
hearing on the complaint. That fact, however, does not
affect the foregoing conclusion since there is nothing to
show that absent such instructions Respondent would have
5 On December 15, 1972, a clerical error in the said order was corrected
6 Attached to the briefs of the Intervenors were appendices containing
matter which was not a part of the record
4 Essentially, the Intervenors' position is (1) that a union is not required
by law to serve as a collective-bargaining representative and, therefore, that
its refusal to serve in that capacity cannot constitute an unfair labor
practice; (2) that as in the case of Board doctrines such as its contract bar
rules and its policy of deferral to contractual arbitration provisions, policy
considerations favor effectuation of no-raiding agreements, and (3) that the
61
participated in this proceeding and presented a defense. I
find that in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate
to enter judgment by default against Respondent.
The International contends that since Respondent has
filed an answer, a default judgment may not be entered;
that although a motion for summary judgment might be
appropriate, such a motion would require a decision on the
merits of the question whether the disclaimer is a defense
to the allegations of the complaint. I disagree. Implicit in
this argument is the assumption that Respondent has
raised the disclaimer as a defense. But, as found above,
Respondent has not done so. On the contrary, it has
admitted the alleged violations, and has failed to defend
itself. Accordingly, entry of a judgment by default appears
to be proper. Cf. Klapproth v. United States, 183 F.2d 474
(C.A. 3), cert. denied 340 U.S. 896; Klapproth v. United
States, 166 F.2d (C.A. 3), reversed on other grounds 355
U.S. 601, motion to modify judgment granted 336 U.S. 942,
motion for clarification of amended judgment denied 336
U.S. 949. Possibly, the term "summary judgment" is a
misnomer, and the preferable designation for the disposi-
tion of this case is default judgment. Cf. Radiadores
Paragon de Puerto Rico, Inc., 198 NLRB No. 76. However,
whichever nomenclature is used, the result is the same,
since the allegations of the complaint are admittedly true,
and establish on their face that Respondent violated
Sections 8(b)(1)(a) and (3) of the Act.
Although the International unquestionably is interested
in the disposition of this matter, I do not agree that it is the
real party in interest, or that it should be permitted to
intervene as a party litigant. Section 102.8 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations defines the term "party" to mean:
... the regional director in whose region the pro-
ceeding is pending and any person named or admitted
as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right
to be admitted as a party, in any Board proceeding,
including, without limitation, any person filing a charge
or petition under the act, any person named as
respondent, as employer, or as party to a contract in
any proceeding under the act, and any labor organiza-
tion alleged to be dominated, assisted, or supported in
violation of section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(2) of the act; but
nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Board
or its designated agent from limiting any party to
participate in the proceedings to the extent of his
interest only.
Clearly, the International is not an indispensable or
necessary party to this proceeding, since an appropriate
order remedying the violations alleged can be issued
against Respondent without joining the International. Nor
is there a sufficient showing that the issuance of such an
order will unlawfully prejudice the International and,
Board's rationale respecting such agreements in representation proceedings
is unsound and has been rejected by the courts
It is noted that the Intervenors' briefs make no claim that SIU requested
the Regional Office to withhold action on the petitions for elections
pursuant to sec 11050 of the Board's Field Manual, in order to permit
arbitration of SIU's charges against the International
8 In his brief, the General Counsel suggests that the disclaimer may
arguably be treated as an amended answer , but agrees that if it is not so
treated judgment by default is appropriate
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore, that it is entitled to the opportunity to defend
itself. The latter asserts that it would be subject to penalties
under the AFL-CIO constitution if 4 remedial order were
issued against Respondent. This argument assumes that the
International will in fact be penalized, and is thus purely
speculative. But even if it were assumed that the Interna-
tional will be penalized, whatever injury might occur would
not constitute the type of direct prejudice flowing from a
Board order which would require that the International be
permitted to intervene as a party in interest. Cf. Progressive
Cafeterias, Inc., 176 NLRB 83, 85-86; Bakery Wagon
Drivers & Salesmen Local No. 432 (Lucky Stores, Inc.), 171
NLRB 991, fn. 15; McCall Corporation, 172 NLRB 540, fn.
4.
For the above reasons, I decline to treat the Internation-
al's response to the Order to Show Cause as the response to
that order. In addition, the International's motion for
reconsideration is denied, and I adhere to my order
refusing to reopen the record and permitting the Interna-
tional to intervene only for purposes of filing briefs.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material, Respondent was the certified
bargaining representative of the following appropriate unit
of Eastpoint's employees:
All employees of the employer at its Nahcotta,
Washington operation, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
2. At all times material, Respondent was the certified
bargaining representative of the following appropriate unit
of Wiegardt's employees:
All employees of the employer, excluding office clerical
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
3. On or about April 27, 1971, Respondent and
Wiegardt reached agreement on the terms and provisions
of a contract covering Wiegardt's unit employees, but
Respondent has refused to sign a written contract
embodying such terms and provisions.
4. Since on or about April 30, 1971, Respondent has
refused to meet, confer, and bargain collectively with
Eastpoint with respect to wages and other terms and
conditions of employment of Eastpoint's unit employees.
5. By the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(3) of the Act.
6. The said unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in See'
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it
is necessary, and recommend, that Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found,
and to take certain affirmative action.
Affirmatively, I recommend that Respondent be ordered
to sign and honor a written contract embodying the terms
and provisions of the agreement reached with Wiegardt on
or about April 27, 1971; to bargain in good faith with
Eastpoint regarding the wages and other terms and
condition of employment of Eastpoint's unit employees;
and, if agreement is reached with Eastpoint, to sign and
honor a written contract embodying such agreement.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of laws,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10 of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, Local 158, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to sign a written contract embodying the
terms and provisions of the agreement reached with
Wiegardt Brothers and Wiegardt & Sons, Inc., on or about
April 27, 1971, respecting the wages and other terms and
conditions of employment of Wiegardt's employees in the
unit found appropriate herein.
(b) Refusing to meet, confer, and bargain collectively
with Eastpoint Seafood Company, a division of Queen
Fisheries, Inc., regarding the wages and other terms and
conditions of employment of Eastpoint's employees in the
unit found appropriate herein.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
the employees of Wiegardt or Eastpoint in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Forthwith sign and honor a written contract
embodying the terms and provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement which Respondent reached with
Wiegardt on or about April 27, 1971, respecting the wages
and other terms and conditions of Wiegardt's unit
employees.
(b) Upon request, meet, confer, and bargain collectively
with Eastpoint regarding the wages and other terms and
conditions of employment of Eastpoint's unit employees,
and if agreement is reached, sign and honor a written
contract embodying the terms and provisions of such
agreement.
(c) Post at its business office and meeting place or places
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." io
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
to In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to the recommended Order of an Administrative
Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to sign a written contract
embodying the terms and provisions of the agreement
which we reached with Wiegardt Brothers and Wie-
gardt & Sons, Inc., respecting the wages and other
terms and conditions of employment of Wiegardt's
employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet, confer, and bargain
collectively with Eastpoint Seafood Company, a divi-
WORKMEN, LOC. 158 63
sion of Queen Fisheries, Inc., respecting the wages and
other terms and conditions of Eastpoint's employees.
WE WILL sign and honor a written contract embody-
ing the terms and provisions of any agreement reached
with Wiegardt.
WE WILL, upon request, meet, confer, and bargain
collectively with Eastpoint and, if agreement is
reached, sign and honor a written contract embodying
the terms and provisions of such agreement.
Dated By
AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 158,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, Republic Building, 10th
Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle , Washington 98101,
Telephone 206-442-5692.