Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 21, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1656 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corporation , Wheeler-Van Label Company, its Subsidiary and Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-6248 August 21, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On June 5, 1968, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Stecher-Traung- Schmitt Corporation, Wheeler-Van Label Com- pany, its Subsidiary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE E. DIXON , Trial Examiner : This proceed- ing, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on January 17, 1968, pursuant to due notice. A complaint, issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan) as the representa- tive of the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board) on December 8, 1967, and based on charges filed by Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or the Charging Party), on September 6, 1967, alleged that Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corporation, Wheeler-Van Label Company, its Subsidiary, the Respondent herein , had engaged in and was engag- ing in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in an ap- propriate unit. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS At all times material herein Respondent has been a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan main- taining an office and place of business in the city of Grand Rapids , Michigan ,' where it has been at all times material engaged in the commercial printing business . During the calendar year 1966 which is a representative period, Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufac- tured, sold, and distributed at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installation products valued in excess of $100,000 of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from the said installation directly to points located outside the State of Michigan. During the same period of time it pur- chased and caused to be transported and delivered at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installation, paper and other goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 of which $50,000 worth were transported and delivered to its installation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. At all times material Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39, In- ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, at all times material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Herein called the Grand Rapids installation and the onl) one imohed in this proceeding 172 NLRB No. 186 STECHER-TRAUNG-SCHMITT CORP. 1657 Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges and the answer admits that: Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion issued January 27, 1967, by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the Board in Cases Nos. 7-RC-7785 and 7-RC-7787, an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 1, 1967, among the following two vot- ing groups of Respondent's employees at Respondent's Grand Rapids, Michigan, instal- lation: Voting Group (1): All journeymen press- men, apprentice pressmen, assistants, and helpers employed in the Employer's press- room and rotogravure department em- ployees, production scheduling employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. Voting Group (2): All production and maintenance employees, including quality control employees, and the shipping em- ployees, but excluding office clerical em- ployees, production control employees, art department employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act, and em- ployees in Group 1 above. The labor organizations involved in the aforesaid election were : Grand Rapids Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union, Local No. 13, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Interna- tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Local Union No. 216, International Brotherhood of Bookbind- ers, AFL-CIO. * Subsequent to the election referred to in paragraph 8 above, on March 13, 1967, the Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the Board issued a "Supplemental Decision on Ob- jections and Certification of Representative and Certification of Results of Election," wherein the Employer's (Respondent herein) Objections to the election were overruled; the Grand Rapids Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local No 13, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, was certified as ex- clusive representative of the employees in Vot- ing Group (1), and it was certified that no labor organization was selected as bargaining representative of employees in Voting Group (2). * * The composition (or Composing area) em- ployees employed by the Respondent at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installation, were in- cluded among the employees in the larger production and maintenance unit described as Voting Group (2) in subparagraph 8(a) above The complaint also alleges that- All composition employees employed by the Respondent at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, in- stallation, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees, is a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. This allegation is denied by Respondent and con- stitutes a key issue in the case There are five composition or composing area employees which make up the total complement of the disputed unit. By June 8, 1967, all five had signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them as their collective-bargaining agent On Au- gust 4, the Union by letter notified the Company that it represented the majority of its composing room employees and requested recognition. On Au- gust 9, the Company replied by letter declining to recognize the Union and stating that The best and most reliable method of knowing how a majority of the men in the Composing Room feel about union representation is a Board-Conducted secret ballot election This group of employees participated in such an election in March 1967 and it is our un- derstanding that a year from that date should go by before another is scheduled. The Union answered this with another letter dated August 17, repeating its request for recognition and offering to prove its representative status by an im- partial card check. The Company rejected this request by letter dated August 29 as follows: You will recall that in my letter of August 9th to Mr. Gutowski I explained the Company's position on the matter of recognition and negotiation of a contract. It is our wish to comply with the requirements of the National Labor Relation's [sic] Act and accordingly we must decline the suggestions set forth in your letter of August 17th. On September 6, the Union filed refusal-to-bargain charges against the Company. Shortly after the cards had been signed and prior to any of the foregoing correspondence, Respon- ,dent's foreman, Valentine, was informed by one of the employees, Paul Cobb, that all five of the com- posing room employees had signed authorization cards. Another of the compositors, Richard Van Ess, also told Valentine a couple of weeks after they had signed the authorization cards that "all the boys joined the union on the cards." Similarly, compositor Leonard Sweeris not only told Valen- 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 33 1658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tine that he had signed a card but also told two other supervisors and indicated to at least one of them (Walter Pedley, foreman of the cutting de- partment) that others had also signed After the above correspondence exchange, in order to make sure that the Company knew that the employees wanted the Union to represent them they sought a meeting with Respondent's then pre- sident, Joe Martin, but settled for a meeting on September 29, with Plant Superintendent Bernard Kochanowski. Four of the five employees attended this meeting where they informed Kochanowski that, speaking for themselves and their absent col- league, they wanted the Company to know that it was their desire to have the Union represent them as their collective-bargaining agent. Kochanowski said, "Okay Fine. I'll let it be known to the proper authorities." On the basis of the foregoing evidence (plus testimony as to the duties of the composing room employees in the instant hearing and the transcript taken at the hearing in Cases 7-RC-7785 and 7-RC-7787) the General Counsel contends that Respondent lacked the good-faith doubt about the Union's representative status necessary to excuse its failure to bargain with the Union and thus has violated Section (8)(a)(I) and (5) of the Act. Respondent's defenses are that (a) the unit is not an appropriate unit and (b) even if it were to be so considered, absent an affirmative showing by the General Counsel of bad faith on the part of Respondent in insisting on an election, Respondent cannot be said to have violated the Act. The Unit The composing department (or plate department as it also has been referred to) comprises about 500 or 600 square feet on the second floor of one of the two buildings at Respondent's Grand Rapids instal- lation. The press department is also located on the same floor and practicably surrounds the compos- ing department with no walls or partitions separat- ing the two departments. The bulk of the work in the department (performed by a classification known as compositor stoneman) consists of making up forms for the presses by assembling printing plates2 on a patent base "which is locked up with patent base hooks" by key. In the course of this work the compositors use a variety of tools and equipment used by no other department in the plant .' The only department that the composing de- partment has any close contact with is the press de- partment. This contact for the most part involves lining up a printed sample impression taken by the pressmen before the job is run to see that everything is in order and pointing out to the press- men specific things to watch for in running any given job The work of the department is supervised by a separate foreman. Skills adequate for performance in the bindery, coating, and press departments are not adequate for performance of the work in the composing department. Thus, although there is a job-bidding procedure in effect in the plant, no one from other departments ever works as a composi- tor-stoneman on a temporary basis and no one ever transfers from other departments to the composing department in that classification on a full-time basis-all such accretions to that department dur- ing the last several years having been acquired from the outside.' All of the compositor stonemen in- cumbents had experience in composition work prior to working for Respondent and by their esti- mates it would take anywhere from "over a year" to 5 years for any of the other employees to acquire the skills necessary to satisfactorily perform the work in the composing department. From the undenied and credited testimony of Frank Cremonesi, administrator of the Charging Union's International Training Center in Colorado Springs' who has had experience in this field for over 30 years, the work performed by Respondent's composing department involves "typical composing room skills" employed in the printing of newspapers; ". . . basically, the skills are the same. The practices may be different but the basic skills, the basic operations are the same " It also appears from Cremonesi's testimony that the Union has approximately 2,000 collective-bar- gaining contracts with printing establishments throughout the United States and Canada and that the bulk of them pertain solely to composing room employees. The Union, it appears, also accepts into membership people who have not gone through formal apprenticeship training as such upon demon- stration that they have had experience equivalent to the Union's apprenticeship requirements and can pass a union examination showing that they have acquired skills necessary for a journeyman's standing. The General Counsel cites several cases to show that units composed solely of composing room em- ployees are proper' and maintains that such is the 2 These plates are not made by Respondent but are obtained from out- side sources in accordance with Respondent's or its customers ' specifica- tions ' So used are (I) cyclinder routers for routing curved plates , (2) hand routers used for flat plates, (3) hand shoots for shooting ( i e ) planing plates down , ( 4) large saw for cutting plates, ( 5) line gauges for measure- ment , ( 6) tooth press , ( 7) a large and small stone for makeup work, and (8) a lineup table for lining up all sheets This table can actually be called a machine with vertical and horizontal sliding bars and ink roller for marking purposes with lights underneath that illuminate the cork through the table's translucent top ' In the 12 years of incumbent Thomas J Impens' tenure with Respon- dent four compositor stonemen were hired -all from the outside 3 " the training center has been set up by the International Typo- graphical Union to teach new methods that are coming into the printing in- dustry, to teach the operation of the machines and new techniques, and preparation of type for printing - " Worzella Puhhcluug Comparic, 121 NLRB 78, The Meredith Puhhslung Conipan%, 140 NLRB 509, Leslie F Clarke & Co , /tit , 147 NLRB 1240, Frie & Smith, Ltd, 151 NLRB 49 SECHER-TRAUNG-SCHIMTT CORP. 1659 situation here Respondent contends that neither on ,a departmental approach nor a craft approach can it be said that the composing department con- stitutes an appropriate unit. As for the departmental approach, Respondent cites the fact that all the employees in both the composing department and other departments are hourly paid, report for work and leave at the same time, and have a common lunch period and that all of the department supervisors report to the plant superintendent "through who [sic] coordination is achieved" as reflecting the "highly interdependent functioning among the departments" and maintains that "violence would be done to this productive in- tegrity if any unit other than a plant-wide produc- tion and maintenance unit were found ap- propriate. " I see nothing in this record that would establish such "highly interdependent functioning among the departments" that would preclude the finding of a separate appropriate unit for the composing depart- ment. About all that can be said in this respect is that, as observed by the General Counsel, the com- posing room employees "are about as isolated from the other employees as could be expected in any plant. They do their work in their own area, and have very minor. . contact with other employees. They have their own training and skills...." As for the craft approach, Respondent maintains that because there is only a minor amount of typesetting done in the department (and this by only one of the compositors) "the very essence of a traditional composing room is absence." While it may be true that the composing skills here are not identical to the skills originally forming the basis for composing room units, I believe that the facts here are such as to support the conclusion that a separate unit for the composing department con- stitutes an appropriate unit. As stated by the Board in Frye & Smith, Ltd., supra, 52, which also in- volved methods different from traditional compos- ing room methods, .. the employees involved herein are a distinctive group of employees with a sufficient community of interests and skills to constitute an appropriate unit. We are mindful of the fact that technological changes in composition methods have to some extent modified the skills required of composition employees, but we are satisfied that these employees exercise sufficient skills in common with those em- ployed in traditional "hot metal" composing rooms to be entitled, like the latter, to separate representation.' Accordingly, I find that the bargaining unit as al- leged in the complaint constitutes an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Respondent's Motive As indicated, Respondent's alternative defense is that, even if it be determined that the unit is ap- propriate, its failure to recognize the Union and its insistence upon an election does not amount to a violation of the Act. In oral argument at the hearing the General Counsel relied largely on Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB 709,710. In its brief, Respondent relies chiefly on Aaron Brothers Company of California, 158 NLRB 1077. Both cases involve a refusal to recognize a union's demand for recognition on the basis of a card majority and the insistence on an election for the purpose of determining the em- ployees' desires in a context free of any indepen- dent violations of the Act. In Snow, when the union's demand for recognition was made the com- pany refused to recognize on the grounds that it doubted the union 's majority. Later the same day, the company agreed to a card check which established the majority status of the union. Although not questioning the accuracy or propriety of the card check the company nevertheless still refused to recognize the union maintaining that it did not consider the card check binding on it. On essentially those facts the Board held that the com- pany had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act stat- ing: The Board has held that the right of an em- ployer to insist upon a Board-directed election is not absolute. Where, as here, the Employer entertains no reasonable doubt either with respect to the appropriateness of the proposed unit or the Union's representative status, and seeks a Board-directed election without a valid ground therefor, he has failed to fulfill the bar- gaining requirements under the Act. [Foot- notes omitted.] In Aaron Brothers the union, with a card majori- ty, demanded recognition by letter and filed an RC petition about the same time. Receiving no reply to its demand it then filed refusal-to-bargain charges and withdrew the RC petition. Thereafter, it orally sought recognition as majority representative of the employees. The company, denying that the union represented a majority, urged the union to. reinstate the RC petition and have the majority status deter- mined by a secret ballot. The Trial Examiner found "good faith" on the part of the company missing here because it offered no evidence "warranting a conclusion that the Union's claim (of majority) was inaccurate or unsupportable." The Board reversed the Trial Examiner stating (158 NLRB at 1078): While an employer's right to a Board elec- ' One of the factors that the Board gave weight to in reaching the above result was the fact that the company, as here, had to recruit its composing room employees from experienced people outside of its own organization 1660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion is not absolute, it has long been established Board policy that an employer may refuse to bargain and insist upon such an elec- tion as proof of a union's majority unless its refusal and insistence were not made with a good-faith doubt of the union's majority. An election by secret ballot is normally a more satisfactory means of determing employees' wishes, although authorization cards signed by a majority may also evidence their desires Ab- sent an affirmative showing of bad faith, an employer, presented with a majority card showing and a bargaining request, will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation under the law simply because he refuses to rely upon cards, rather than an election, as the method for determining the union's majority. [Footnotes omitted.] The Board further stated that bad faith can be in- ferred from conduct which does not constitute an unfair labor practice but which nevertheless shows a "rejection of the collective bargaining concept" and cited the employer's repudiation of the card check in Snow as such an example. In a separate concurring opinion, Board Member Jenkins ob- served that bad faith on the part of an employer in this connection can be established by, inter a/ia, the "independent knowledge of the employer that the Union has a majority." Respondent contends that the General Counsel's reliance on Snow is misplaced because there the employer "admitted the appropriateness of the unit and having verified the authorization cards, could not be heard to claim a good faith doubt" while here "the employer strongly contests the ap- propriateness of the unit and further neither in- spected the authorization cards nor agreed to so in- spect." The flaw in Respondent's position vis-a-vis its good faith is that no where in the record is there any question raised about the appropriateness of the unit until the filing of its answer to the com- plaint on December 20, 1967. In any event it is well settled that refusal to recognize a union on the basis of a good-faith but erroneous belief about the ap- propriateness of the unit is no defense to a refusal- to-bargain charge. Independent Inc., d/bla The Daily Advertiser, 165 NLRB 405; The Sinclair Company, 164 NLRB 261. Moreover, that Respondent did not participate in a card check here avails it nothing in view of the fact that Respondent was put on notice by the employees themselves on at least two occa- sions (once shortly after they signed the authoriza- tion cards and again on September 29) that they all had selected and desired the Union to represent them as their collective-bargaining agent . Clearly, this evidence shows the "independent knowledge of the employer" that the Union had a majority and amounts to the "affirmative showing of bad faith" on the part of the Respondent that the Aaron Brothers case requires the General Counsel to establish an order to prove his allegation of refusal to bargain. In this connection, there is no question (as shown by the filing of the changes) that the Union's request for recognition was a continuing one. One other aspect of Respondent's position remains to be disposed of. That has to do with the effect, if any, of the Board election here within 12 months of the Union's demand for recognition. It is now well established that Section 9(c)(3) of the Act" does not "provide a 1-year period of repose from the bargaining demand of unions." Rocky Mountain Phosphates, Inc., 138 NLRB 292; Con- ren, Inc., d/b/a Great Scot Super Market, 156 NLRB 592, enfd. 368 F.2d 173 (C.A. 7); and General Tire and Rubber Company dlbla Astoria General Tire Co., 170 NLRB 591. Any thought that Respondent might have had that it was not obligated to recognize the Union because of the prior election is no defense here either. See General Tire and Rubber Company, etc., supra. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship 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 prohibited by Section 8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take the usual affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record herein, I make the fol- lowing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corporation, Wheeler-Van Label Company, its Subsidiary, is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ' Sec 9(c)(3) in pertinent part provides No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or subdivision within which, in the preceding 12- month period a valid election shall have been held SECHER-TRAUNG-SCHMITT CORP. 3. All composition employees employed by the Respondent at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installa- tion, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees, is a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the above Union as the representatives of the em- ployees in the above bargaining unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Stecher- Traung-Schmitt Corporation, Wheeler-Van Label Company, its Subsidiary, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Charging Party as to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment covering employees in the unit herein found to be ap- propriate. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act- (a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Charging Party as the representative of its em- ployees in the appropriate unit in good faith and in sincere effort to reach agreement and embody in a written and signed memorandum any understanding reached. (b) Post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installa- tion, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's representa- tive, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. "' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless, within the aforesaid 20-day period the Respondent notify the Regional Director in writing that it will comply 1661 with the Order recommended herein , the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the action recommended. " 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 cords "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " "' In the went that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in w ntmg , w ithm 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL upon request, bargain with the above-named Union, as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an un- derstanding is reached, embody such an un- derstanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is all of our composition employees employed in our Grand Rapids, Michigan, installation, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. STECHER -TRAUNG- SCHMITT CORPORATION, WHEELER -VAN LABEL COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be 1662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. communicate directly with the Board's Regional If employees have any question concerning this Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, notice or compliance with its provisions, they may Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 374-5181.