WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 2016

365 NLRB No. 7 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

365 NLRB No. 7
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Wells Enterprises, Inc. and Neal Thomas Krucken-
berg and United Dairy Workers of Le Mars
United Dairy Workers of Le Mars and Neal Thomas
Kruckenberg and Wells Enterprises, Inc. Cases
18–CA–150544 and 18–CB–153774
December 22, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND MCFERRAN
On June 20, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Eric M.
Fine issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed
exceptions and supporting briefs, the General Counsel
and Charging Party filed answering briefs, and Respond-
ent Wells Enterprises, Inc. filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions, to amend the remedy, and to
adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth
in full below.2
AMENDED REMEDY
We shall amend the judge’s remedy to delete the re-
quirements that Respondent Wells Enterprises cease

1 Respondent United Dairy Workers of Le Mars (Respondent Union)
has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s
established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s cred-
ibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant
evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prod-
ucts, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the find-
ings.
In adopting the judge’s findings that Respondent Wells Enterprises
violated Sec. 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by providing the Respondent
Union proceeds from vending machine and micro-market sales and that
the Respondent Union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting such fi-
nancial support, we do not rely on his citations to Mistletoe Express
Service, 295 NLRB 273 (1989), and Jackson Engineering Co., 265
NLRB 1688 (1982), as those cases involved unlawful conduct that is
fundamentally different from the conduct at issue here.
We deny the Charging Party’s motion to strike Respondent Wells
Enterprises’ affidavit with attached letters dismissing the unfair labor
practice charge in Case 18–CA–17549 and denying the appeal there-
from. We find, however, that any reliance by Respondent Wells Enter-
prises on the administrative dismissal of that unfair labor practice
charge is misplaced, as an administrative dismissal does not constitute
an adjudication on the merits. See, e.g., Pepsi-Cola Bottlers of Atlanta,
267 NLRB 1100, 1100 fn. 2 (1983).
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and substitute
new notices to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and
the remedy as amended.
recognition of the Respondent Union after the Respond-
ents’ current collective-bargaining agreement expires,
and that the Respondents cease giving effect to certain
provisions of their contract. We find that the cease-
recognition remedy is not warranted under the circum-
stances here. See generally Pacific Intermountain Ex-
press Co., 107 NLRB 837, 850 fn. 29 (1954) (noting that
cease-recognition remedy “is discretionary with the
Board” and “need not be applied where it would not ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act”). There is no showing
here, for example, that the Respondent Union’s ability to
represent employees was adversely affected by the em-
ployer’s unlawful assistance. See Lykes Bros. Inc. of
Georgia, 128 NLRB 606, 611 (1960) (declining to order
cease-recognition remedy).3 Nor did it call into question
the Respondent Union’s majority status. See Jeffrey Mfg.
Co., 208 NLRB 75, 75 (1974) (declining to order cease-
recognition remedy). We also find no basis for requiring
the Respondents to cease giving effect to contract provi-
sions that provide for union representatives to be com-
pensated for their time in meetings with unit employees,
as the violations herein solely concern the vending ma-
chine and micro-market commission arrangement and do
not concern the union representatives’ compensation. See
generally M. Eskin & Son, 135 NLRB 666, 671 (1962)
(declining to order the parties to cease giving effect to
contract provisions, where “all the unfair labor practices
for which this remedy was recommended occurred dur-
ing the term of the [parties’] collective-bargaining con-
tract, the execution and maintenance of which [were] not
under attack”), enfd. 312 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1963). Ac-
cordingly, we find in these circumstances that requiring
the Respondents to cease and desist from engaging in the
unlawful commission arrangement, and to post notices to
employees and members, will fully remedy the violations
found and thereby effectuate the purposes of the Act.

3 The Post Publishing Co., 136 NLRB 272 (1962), enf. denied 311
F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1962), cited in support by the judge, is distinguisha-
ble. In that case, the employer not only provided cafeteria and vending
proceeds to the incumbent labor organization, it also unlawfully offered
to pay the expenses of an attorney to represent the unit employees in
negotiations. Further, after the employer expressed support for the
incumbent union and its opposition to a rival union, employees who
previously signed authorization cards for the rival union submitted a
petition withdrawing their support for that union. In requiring the em-
ployer to cease recognition of the incumbent union, the Board found the
circumstances warranted the conclusion that the incumbent union could
not maintain its exclusive representative status without the employer’s
unlawful support and assistance. Id. at 273. Plainly, such circumstances
are not present in this case.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Wells Enterprises, Inc., Le Mars, Iowa, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Contributing financial support to the Union, United
Dairy Workers of Le Mars, by providing proceeds from
vending machine and micro-market sales at Wells Enter-
prises’ facility to the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Le Mars, Iowa facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix A.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since October 21, 2014.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 18 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, United Dairy Workers of Le Mars, Le Mars,
Iowa, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Accepting financial support from Wells Enterpris-
es, Inc. by receiving proceeds from vending machine and
micro-market sales at its facility.

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Le Mars, Iowa office copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix B.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees and members are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with employees and members
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver
to the Regional Director for Region 18 signed copies of
the notice in sufficient number for posting by Wells En-
terprises, Inc. at its Le Mars, Iowa facility, if it wishes, in
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 18 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 22, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 3
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT contribute financial support to the Un-
ion, United Dairy Workers of Le Mars, by providing
proceeds from vending machine and micro-market sales
at our facility to the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-150544 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT accept financial support from Wells En-
terprises, Inc. by receiving proceeds from vending ma-
chine and micro-market sales at its facility.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
UNITED DAIRY WORKERS OF LE MARS
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-150544 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.
Benjamin Mandelman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
M.H. Weinberg, Esq., of Omaha, Nebraska, for the Charging
Party.
Robert C. Castle, Esq., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Re-
spondent Employer.
Daniel Hartnett, Esq., of Sioux City, Iowa, for the Respondent
Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ERIC M. FINE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Sioux City, Iowa on February 23, 2016. The charge
against Wells Enterprises, Inc. (Wells or the Employer) was
filed by Neal Thomas Kruckenberg on April 21, 2015; and the
charge against United Dairy Workers of Le Mars (the Union or
the Employees Committee) was filed by Kruckenberg on June
8, 2015.1 The consolidated complaint, issued on December 8,
alleges that Wells at all material times and within the past 6
months has given assistance and support to the Union by for-
warding funds derived from the operation of vending machines
on Well’s property to the Union constituting the Union’s sole

1 All dates are 2015 unless otherwise specified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
source of funding and Wells by this conduct has been rendering
unlawful financial or other support to a labor organization in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, and that by the
Union’s receipt of those funds it has been restraining and coerc-
ing employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Wells, I make
the following:2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Wells Enterprises, Inc., a corporation with an office and
place of business in Le Mars, Iowa (Wells’ facility), has been
engaged in the manufacture and the nonretail sale of frozen
desserts. In conducting its operations during a representative
12 month period, Wells sold and shipped from Wells’ facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
state of Iowa. Respondents admit and I find that Wells is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Allen DeVos works as a warehouse tech for Wells and has
worked there for over 30 years. DeVos testified that: Wells
produces ice cream and ice cream related products. Wells op-
erates a multi-building complex, including two ice cream
plants, one called the north ice cream plant (NICP) and the
other the south ice cream plant (SICP). Wells’ complex also
includes warehouses, an engineer building, and a freezer sec-
tion connected to both the north and south plant. Wells em-
ploys about 1,565 employees who are represented by the Un-
ion, the name of which is United Dairy Workers of Le Mars.
DeVos testified the Union is also known as the Employees
Committee. DeVos has been an officer in the Union since
2009, and he has been the secretary and treasurer since April
2015. DeVos testified Kevin Christensen is the Union’s presi-
dent. In addition to Christensen and DeVos, there are three
other union officers.
Kruckenberg, the charging party, signed off on a Department
of Labor Form LM-1 on October 19, 2005 as the president of
the Employee’s Committee of Le Mars and Omaha. It stated it
was the initial Form LM-1 filed by the organization. The form
reported expected receipts were over $10,000. The form con-
tained under the heading “Additional Information” the state-
ment that:
Our funds for the Committee is derived from 8% return from

2 In making the findings, I have considered the witnesses’ demeanor,
the content of their testimony, and the inherent probabilities of the
record as a whole. In certain instances, I have credited some but not all
of what a witness said. See NLRB v. Universal Camera Corporation,
179 F. 2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2), reversed on other grounds 340 U.S. 474
(1951). All testimony and evidence has been considered. If certain
testimony or evidence is not mentioned it is because it is cumulative of
the credited evidence, not credited, or not essential to the findings here-
in.
the vending machines in our plants. This was established by
the Company in the 70’s to benefit the plants for flowers for
funerals, feeds for the employees, and to buy newspapers for
the break rooms. Over time it evolved to become the Com-
mittee’s money for said plants. We have filed taxes on these
accounts over the years.
DeVos identified the Union’s Department of Labor LM-3
forms for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31,
2014. He testified that during that time the Union did not have
any regular dues or fees. DeVos testified “The only revenue
we had was the commission on vending.” Kruckenberg signed
the Union’s Form LM-3 reports as the Union’s president for the
years 2006, 2007, and 2008. The Form LM-3 for 2006 shows
the name of the Union as the Employees Committee of LeMars
and Omaha, with what appears to be vending earnings and
earnings for the return of soda cans and plastic bottles totaling
$23,757. As per the LM-3 forms: for the year 2007, the Un-
ion’s receipts, other than interest and dividends, are listed at
$21,747; for 2008, the Union’s receipts other than interest and
dividends are listed as $23,109. For 2009, the Union’s other
receipts were listed as $20,757; for 2010, the Union’s name
was changed to the United Dairy Workers of LeMars, and it
appears the Union had receipts of about $8000; for 2011 the
reported other receipts were $15,430; for 2012, the reported
other receipts were $15,594; for 2013 the reported other re-
ceipts were $18,111; for 2014, the reported other receipts were
$17,395. A position statement filed by Wells with the Region
dated May 27 shows that for the first four months of 2015, the
Union on average was earning over $2400 a month in vending
and micro-market commissions, which would equal $28,800 on
an annual basis. In fact, a Union expense sheet for January 1
through October 21, 2015 shows the Union received $25,644 in
vending revenue from Chesterman the company that operates
the vending machines and micro-markets at Wells. In the May
27 position statement, it was stated that Chesterman forwarded
the Union’s commission checks directly to the Union’s presi-
dent Curt Lang. The way the checks were paid to the Union
reflects a recent change in the procedure because in a position
statement from Wells to the Region dated April 14, it was stat-
ed, “Chesterman forwards checks, on a monthly basis to the
Wells ice cream plants. The plants’ respective administrative
assistants forward those checks to the Committee’s (Union’s)
current president.”
DeVos testified the Union is funded by receiving an 8%
commission from the sale of vending of snacks and products,
not soda, from vending machines that represented employees
use at Wells’ facilities. However, DeVos testified there are
unrepresented employees who work in the manufacturing facili-
ties including secretaries, managers, and supervisors who also
use the vending machines from which the Union gets its com-
mission. DeVos testified there are vending machines in multi-
ple break rooms and they are also micro-markets at the Wells
facilities from which the Union also receives a commission for
sales. DeVos explained the micro-markets have vending ma-
chines as well as fresh food products which can be picked up
and self-scanned by the employees. DeVos testified the micro-
markets operate with the use of video surveillance to prevent
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 5
theft.
DeVos testified Chesterman Co. (Chesterman) is the ultimate
owner of the vending company. DeVos identified a series of
monthly “Commission Statements” mostly for the year 2014
that the Union received with their checks for vending from
Premium Food and Beverage, which DeVos testified is owned
by Chesterman. The document shows the commission was
eight percent; the checks listed were made out to Wells Dairy
SICP. While the checks were made out to Wells Dairy SICP,
the credit union deposit slips show the full amount was deposit-
ed in the Union’s account. The “Commission Statements”
show for the month of December 2013, the Union received
$1,199.87; and for the month January 2014, the Union received
$1,375.11. DeVos testified the checks were not endorsed when
they went into the Union’s credit union account. In May 2014,
in addition to the monthly vending commission the Union re-
ceived in the amount of $1,115.01; the Union received another
statement in the amount of $615.30 as a “Premium Markets
Commission,” which DeVos described as a site containing open
vending referred to as micro-markets. DeVos testified the Un-
ion also receives eight percent of the proceeds for the sales at
the micro-markets. DeVos identified three checks from Ches-
terman dated May 14, 2015 that the Union received. One is
made out to Wells Dairy SICP North Freezer in the amount of
$345.66; another is made out to Wells Dairy-SICP in the
amount of $641.16; and the third is made out to Wells Dairy
NICP Freezer in the amount of $103.39 totaling $1090.21.
DeVos testified that he did not know if the three checks repre-
sented the total payment the Union received for that month. On
the back of the exhibit containing the three checks is a N.W.
Iowa Credit Union receipt dated May 21, containing the Un-
ion’s name with a check deposit amount of $2,800.31 which is
listed as the transaction amount.
However, DeVos testified the Chesterman vending checks
are currently are sent directly to the Union’s post office box.
DeVos testified these checks are no longer made out to Wells
but are made out to United Dairy Workers of Le Mars, attention
Al DeVos. DeVos testified the checks began to be made out to
the Union after he became treasurer in June 2015. Prior to that,
the checks were made out to Wells, but the Union still deposit-
ed them in the Union’s account. DeVos testified he takes the
checks to the N.W. Iowa Credit Union and hands them to Bren-
da Gengler the account manager there, who deposits the checks
into the Union’s account. DeVos testified Gengler followed
this procedure even during the time the checks were made out
to Wells rather than the Union.
DeVos testified the Union does not have a checking account;
it only has a savings account. He testified he brings the Un-
ion’s bills to Gengler, who manages the Union’s credit union
account. The credit union then pays the bills and deducts the
amount from the Union’s savings account. The credit union
charges a bookkeeping fee for this service. The Union’s ex-
penses include newspapers which they leave in all the repre-
sented employees’ break rooms. There are also gift card ex-
penses listed in 2014 and 2015, which DeVos testified were
being investigated by the Department of Labor. He testified,
“We believe there was misuse of funds by a union representa-
tive. I do not know what the gift cards were for. It is under an
investigation by the Department of Labor.” DeVos testified the
individual who purchased the gift cards is no longer a union
officer. The record contains the Union’s expense sheets for the
years 2014 and 2015. DeVos testified Gengler prepares these
documents. The Union’s expense sheet for 2014, showed a
balance of $34,957.55 at the end of 2013, with deposits totaling
$17,395.44. For 2014, all of the deposits, save for $475, came
from Chesterman from vending machine sales. Thus, in 2014
there was $16,920 in vending income. For 2014, the Union
reported $17,742.18 in expenses. Included in the expenses
were $12,908 for gift cards and gift card fees; and $3587.68 in
newspapers for the bargaining unit. Thus, $16,495.68 were
spent on some type of gifts in the form of gift cards or newspa-
pers, leaving $415 of the vending income to be spent on non-
gift expenses. The Union’s 2015 expense sheet running
through October 21, 2015 showed a balance of $34,700.20 at
the end of 2014. It showed for 2015 running through October
21, $25,649.56 vending income from Chesterman. During that
period, the Union spent $5295 for gift cards, and gift card fees,
$2671.98 for newspapers, and $11,104.37 in what was labeled
as attorney fees or payments to a law firm. The expenditures
for these three items totaled $19071.31, or 74 percent of the
Union’s vending income. DeVos testified the legal fees related
to the NLRB and Department of Labor investigations. DeVos
testified the vending funds were received from the eight percent
revenue the Union receives from the vending machine sales.
He testified in 2014, the Union was also receiving a 5 percent
can redemption amount. DeVos testified that after he became
treasurer the Union stopped receiving funds for recycled cans.
DeVos testified the Union has no contractual relationship
with Chesterman or any of its subsidiaries. He testified he
thought Wells has such a relationship with Chesterman. DeVos
testified the Union does not negotiate any terms with Chester-
man, like price, equipment, or services to be provided. DeVos
testified the Union does not provide any services to Chester-
man. The record contains a written agreement between Wells
and Chesterman dated April 8, 2014. The contract was signed
for Wells by Debra McCannon, facilities manager. DeVos
testified he has never seen the agreement between Chesterman
and Wells. He testified that when they went to a micro-market
system Wells brought the agreement to the Union to discuss it.
However, DeVos testified he was not involved in a discussion
with Chesterman.
DeVos testified since he has become a union officer he has
not attended a union meeting where they discussed vending.
He testified the Union currently has a post office box, and the
vending receipts are sent by Chesterman directly to the post
office box. Prior to that the Union’s mailing address was the
address of the secretary or the treasurer. DeVos testified that
when he became the treasurer and secretary, the Union began
the use the post office box. DeVos testified the Union changed
that in order to be able to receive NLRB documents. DeVos
testified before the Union obtained the post office box the
vending checks were sent to an administrative person employed
by Wells. DeVos testified until he opened the post office box
the vending checks were handed to him by a Wells secretary, or
DeVos received them unopened through interoffice mail.
DeVos testified the Union’s name first appeared on the vending
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
checks “Right after I became treasurer. June 2015, or shortly
thereafter.” DeVos testified the Union did not change the
check procedure through a direct contact with Chesterman.
Rather, Wells had the procedure changed with Chesterman by
passing on the procedure the Union wanted which was to have
the checks sent to the Union’s post office box. DeVos testified
that he did have contacts with Chesterman about this. DeVos
testified a lot of the changes were the result of a Department of
Labor investigation, “But I have had direct contact with Ches-
terman.” DeVos testified he suggested the change in the proce-
dure to Wells and Wells forwarded it to Chesterman. He testi-
fied it was the Union’s suggestion and the Employer dealt with
Chesterman and arranged it.3
On the morning of November 24, Jeremy DeLaughter, the
director of HR for operations for Wells, sent DeVos and Chris-
tensen an email with the Subject: “EC letter regarding PO Box,
funding, etc.” In the email DeLaughter stated to DeVos, “As
discussed yesterday, could you provide me with a letter from
the EC Officers, either you as Secretary or Kevin as President
that covers the following information:
 The fact that you receive checks directly from Ches-
terman’s not Wells.
 The fact that checks are sent directly to the EC PO
Box and deposited by the EC.
 The fact that the EC no longer receives the proceeds
of can/bottle deposits.
 The fact that you don’t share the amounts of the
checks from Chesterman’s with Wells.
DeVos responded by email that afternoon stating he was work-
ing on it and asking, “Do you also want me to include that the
vending commission we receive is only for machines in repre-
sented work places?” To which DeLaughter replied that would
be helpful. Shortly thereafter on November 24, DeVos wrote to
DeLaughter, “Here is what I have. If you would like changes,
revisions or word smithing just tell me what you need.”
DeLaughter wrote back on November 24, “I made just a couple
of small corrections. I removed the phrase ‘very few represent-
ed employees’ and just left it as you don’t receive commission
from areas where there aren’t represented employees.” On the
morning of November 30, DeLaughter emailed DeVos that
DeLaughter had to make another correction. He stated, “Can

3 I did not find this aspect of DeVos testimony to be very convinc-
ing. The correspondence between Wells and Chesterman, as well as
between Wells and the Union suggests the change in having the checks
made out to the Union were a direct response to the current unfair labor
practice charge, and that Wells not the Union controlled the contract
with Chesterman and was the instigator of the change. In addition to
the referenced correspondence, there was no evidence of any corre-
spondence between the Union and Chesterman other than the Union’s
receipt of the checks. Moreover, Jesse Vondrak, Chesterman’s sales
representative testified all of his contacts were with Wells officials not
the Union. Thus, Vondrak did not confirm DeVos claims of direct
contact between Chesterman and the Union. Noting that that DeVos
gave little information as to who his purported contacts with Chester-
man were with and that he failed give dates or the name of the official,
and considering his demeanor as to this aspect of his testimony, I do not
find the record supports his claims here.
you re-sign this attached version and email it back to me?”
DeVos signed the memo, dated November 30, 2015 to
DeLaughter. The memo states it provides an outline of how the
vending commission from Chesterman to the Union works.
The memo states the Union receives a commission on all sales
from vending in areas that represented workers of the Union
use, and that the Union does not receive any commissions from
areas that do not have represented workers. It states that
“Monthly, Chesterman sends commission checks” to the Union,
which are made out to the Union as payee on the check, and are
mailed to the Union’s P.O. box. It states, “At no time, does
Wells Enterprises see or have any knowledge of the size or
amount of the checks.” DeVos testified he wrote the memo at
DeLaughter’s request, and there was no prior written procedure
he was aware of describing the process prior to DeVos Novem-
ber 30 memo. DeVos testified he thought the request for the
memo came from DeLaughter’s attorney.
DeVos testified the Union does not have an office, and when
the Union holds meetings it rents a room. He testified there are
monthly meetings with the Union’s 12 union reps who are akin
to stewards. These meetings take place in a rented hotel room,
or at the Le Mars public library. DeVos testified the Union has
bylaws, which by their terms were last amended in August
2015. DeVos testified the first set of bylaws was in effect 2005
when the Union became a union. DeVos testified there is no
procedure for becoming a union member. Rather, the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement (CBA) defines who the union repre-
sented employees are. DeVos testified that, as per the CBA,
once someone becomes a full time employee in the defined unit
they are considered a represented employee by the Union. He
testified the Union has no membership card, no initiation fees,
dues, or assessments. DeVos testified that during his 30 years
working for Wells there has never been dues, initiation fees or
assessments. DeVos testified there is no form that would au-
thorize the deduction of dues or the assignment of dues to the
Union, and that although the CBA allows for the negotiation of
a dues checkoff provision, the Union never sought one with
Wells. DeVos testified all 1,565 employees in the bargaining
unit are automatically members of the Union, and they are rep-
resented when they reach full time status.
DeVos testified there are certification papers for the Union
dated December 19, 2005. However, DeVos did not know how
the Union was certified, and he did not recall there being a vote
for the Union. While DeVos testified he is not paid for the
work he does for the Union by the Employer, as per the CBA in
effect at the time of the trial, the Union officers receive 1 hour
paid time from the Employer to meet after the monthly held
joint Union-Employer meeting. DeVos testified the pay is for a
meeting between the Union officers to discuss what was dis-
cussed with management at the prior meeting. The CBA also
provides the Employer will provide 5 paid hours a week to be
used at the discretion of the union president to conduct union
business. The CBA states that:
2. Both parties agree that the purpose of this paid time is for
the officers of the Employee Committee to meet with em-
ployees and start building relationships and trust between the
employees and the EC. Additionally, it is agreed that this
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 7
time should also be used to develop a regular communications
channel back to employees through postings, floor walks, and
regular employee meetings. This time is not to be used to re-
solve or work on grievance issues, nor prepare for negotia-
tions.
The CBA also provides that “The Company will provide the
EC with the opportunity to meet with full-time regular new
hires or rehires for purposes of explaining the roles and respon-
sibilities of the Employee Committee.” It states the Employer
“will provide paid time, not to exceed 30 minutes, for EC
members to conduct an orientation meeting.” DeVos testified
the Union carries out an orientation or educational function for
new hires at Wells. DeVos explained that when an employee
becomes full time, there is an orientation process during which
the Union has 45 minutes to talk about the Union with the em-
ployees. DeVos testified that for the 45 minute orientation the
union rep is not paid, but the employees are. DeVos testified
the union rep is usually off duty. He then testified he did not
know if it was during the employee’s regular work day. DeVos
testified, “If the employee was required to be there, I would
suspect they are paid. I do not know if they’re required to be
there.” DeVos testified he did not know if the employees are
paid stating, “They might be.”
DeVos testified the Union last negotiated a CBA with Wells
in 2013, and the process took about 4 months because the first
agreement was voted down. He testified the union officers,
during the 4 month period, were meeting with the Employer 5
days a week and usually 2 days per week they were working on
things amongst themselves pertaining to the negotiations.
DeVos testified the meetings were held offsite, but it was dur-
ing basic work hours. DeVos testified the Union officers were
paid for the time spent during the meetings. DeVos testified
when the parties achieved a tentative agreement, the Union held
meetings with all employees, which were open meetings
throughout the day. He testified the Union held from 8 to 10
meetings for 2 or 3 days, in which they answered questions
before going to a vote. He testified the meetings were held off
of Wells’ property in a room paid for by the Union. DeVos
testified the majority of employees voted to ratify the second
proposed contract. DeVos testified Wells is not involved in the
Union’s contract ratification process. DeVos testified that on
two or three occasions the employees have refused to ratify a
tentative agreement. Once since DeVos has been an officer and
the other times prior to that time.
DeVos testified Wells does not determine: who serves on the
Union’s negotiating committee; when the Union holds its meet-
ings; who the Union selects as attorneys or its accountant.
DeVos testified Wells does not provide the Union with com-
puters or other technical related equipment. He testified Wells
does not provide the Union with secretarial support, or office
space at Wells facilities. DeVos testified the Union does not
report to Wells how much revenue the Union receives from
Chesterman; and Wells does not inquire as to the amount from
the Union. DeVos testified Wells has not provided additional
funding to the Union beyond the revenue provided by Chester-
man. As set forth above, as per terms forth in the CBA, this
does not appear to be an accurate statement, as well as DeVos’
testimony that the Union officials were paid for attending nego-
tiation sessions.
The Union’s list of representatives for 2016 showed it has
five officers, a president, a senior vice president, two vice pres-
idents and a secretary/treasurer along with 13 union reps.
DeVos testified a union representative is the same as a union
steward. DeVos testified the union reps and officers are select-
ed by a vote by the employees. DeVos testified the union of-
ficers meet at least monthly, and more often if necessary.
DeVos testified the Union handles dozens of grievances a year
on an informal basis. He testified if the grievance involves
discipline, the Union is given time to explain the grievance
procedure with just the employee present, ask them if they
would like to file a grievance, and supply them with the forms.
DeVos testified other times, employees come directly to the
Union to discuss things, and the Union explains the grievance
procedure to them. He testified most times, an employee
comes to the Union and they take the matter right to manage-
ment and everything is solved to the employee’s satisfaction
before a grievance is actually filed. DeVos testified if the em-
ployee is not fully satisfied, they have the option of filing a
grievance. DeVos testified the CBA includes steps to follow
for formal grievances including arbitration. DeVos testified no
grievance has gone to arbitration. DeVos testified Wells has
never refused to resolve a dispute through the grievance and
arbitration procedure. DeVos testified Wells has resolved
grievances to the Unions satisfaction. DeVos gave a recent
example where an employee was going to be terminated. He
testified the Union filed a grievance, and the employee received
a 1-day suspension but was not terminated. DeVos testified
there was also a grievance where the employee was terminated,
the Union filed a grievance and got his job back. The employee
refused the terms. The Union went back to Wells a couple of
times, and the employee still refused the terms. The employee
then filed a charge against the Union with the NLRB. DeVos
testified soon after the Union filed its response the charge was
dropped.
Jeremy DeLaughter has been the director of HR for opera-
tions for Wells since November 2014. Prior to that time,
DeLaughter held two different HR positions at Wells.
DeLaughter has been involved in collective bargaining and in
the grievance procedure for Wells. DeLaughter testified the last
two CBA’s with the Union do not contain any provisions for
Chesterman providing vending machine proceeds to the Union.
The parties stipulated that Wells receives an eight percent
commission from Chesterman for vending purchases at Wells
corporate headquarters. This payment is separate from the
eight percent commission that is sent to the Union for areas in
which the bargaining unit employees work. DeLaughter testi-
fied Wells furnishes Chesterman and its vending subsidiaries
access to the Wells property, including space for their equip-
ment and vending, furnishes them electricity, lighting and heat.
DeLaughter testified he believes the Union’s only source of
revenue is the funding from Chesterman. He testified that
Wells, to his knowledge, has not received any authorization
from employees that they want the eight percent commission to
go to the Union. DeLaughter testified there is no claim by
Wells that the Union owns any of the property, or pays any rent
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
at the facility. DeLaughter testified to his knowledge, employ-
ees have never objected to the eight percent commission going
to the Union. DeLaughter testified Kruckenberg also did not
object. DeLaughter testified Debra McCannon is the facilities
manager for Wells.
DeLaughter testified that in his capacity as director of human
resources for Wells he is not in any way involved in Wells’
relationship with Chesterman. DeLaughter testified he did not
know how much on a monthly basis during 2015 Chesterman
forwarded to the Union from revenue which they collected
from vending machines and micro-markets located in the man-
ufacturing facilities. However, DeLaughter also testified he did
see reports from Chesterman regarding how much they for-
warded to the Union during that period of time during the in-
vestigation of this case. DeLaughter testified apart from infor-
mation he gathered to respond to the unfair labor practice
charge he did not independently receive reports from Chester-
man regarding how much it sent to the Union.
DeLaughter testified he had no role in drafting the Union’s
March 2014 bylaws. He testified he has never appointed any-
one to serve as a union officer, steward, or on the Union’s ne-
gotiating committee. DeLaughter testified he has not partici-
pated in the Union’s process for CBA ratification. DeLaughter
testified he has never provided the Union with technical support
such as computers, laptops, tablets, iPhones, scanners, and fax
machines. DeLaughter testified he has never reimbursed any
steward, officer, or negotiating committee member for expenses
such as meeting room expenses, secretarial support, or travel
expenses.
Jesse Vondrak works for Chesterman as a sales representa-
tive. He testified Premium Food and Beverage (PFD) is the
full-line vending subsidiary of Chesterman. For purposes of
this decision PFD and Chesterman will jointly be referred to as
Chesterman. Vondrak testified he has worked for Chesterman
for approximately 17 years. Vondrak testified he was not
aware of any joint ownership between Chesterman and Wells.
Vondrak testified that as a sales representative for Chesterman
he has interaction with Wells, and that primarily his interaction
is with McCannon, who is Chesterman’s primary contact with
Wells for the vending services. Vondrak testified McCannon
oversees the Wells’ facilities.
Vondrak testified the process beginning in January 2014 for
vending and micro-market purchases at Wells is that Chester-
man tabulated the receipts on a monthly basis. He explained
that at the end of every month reports are run to calculate the
percentage of commissions, which is an eight percent commis-
sion on snack and food items. Those checks are generated and
then distributed to the customer. Vondrak testified in the Janu-
ary 2014 timeframe all of the plant sales revenue would get
calculated into one check. Vondrak testified he thought the
check was sent to the Wells SICP. Vondrak testified they start-
ed to install the micro-markets in April 2014, and that would
have been at the NICP. Vondrak testified that, at that point,
they began to issue a separate check for the micro-markets
which was addressed to the NICP. He testified the commis-
sions for the other Wells vending locations were still being
combined into a check and sent to the SICP. Vondrak identi-
fied a vending commission check dated February 12, 2014,
with the payer listed as Chesterman in the amount of $1375.12
made out to Wells SICP. When asked why the check was made
out to Wells SICP, Vondrak testified that he had been oversee-
ing the commission procedure since 2009, off and on. He testi-
fied that since he was doing this in 2009, that was how the
checks were always addressed, and they were all sent to a cen-
tral location. He testified he thought the checks being sent to a
central location was something agreed upon between Wells and
Chesterman. Vondrak testified he did not know what happened
to the checks after they were sent to the central location stating,
“That’s kind of really none of our business. We just kind of try
to stay out of that part.” However, Vondrak was then asked
concerning the period between January 2014 and June of 2015
if he had stated everything he understood “about the process
through which Chesterman collected money from vending ma-
chines, processed it, and then forwarded it to the Employee’s
Committee?” To which Vondrak replied, “Yes, I have.” Thus,
Vondrak was aware the checks were addressed to and sent to
Wells, after which Wells turned the commissions over to the
Union. Vondrak identified three checks from Chesterman dat-
ed May 14, 2015, one in the amount of $345.66 addressed to
Wells Dairy SICP North Freezer. He explained this check was
for micro-market. Another check with the same date was ad-
dressed to Wells Dairy SICP; and the third check was ad-
dressed to Wells Dairy NICP Freezer. Vondrak testified that in
May 2015 they were sending individual commission checks out
to the different Wells facilities.
On April 21, Kruckenberg filed the unfair labor practice
charge in this case against Wells. On May 21, McCannon sent
an email addressed to Vondrak and Chesterman General Man-
ager Ken Hagestrom, who is Vondrak’ supervisor. In the
email, McCannon asked Vondrak to send her as quickly as
possible, “An accounting of vending sales and payments by
location since January 1, 2014 (on a monthly basis), including:”
the amounts kept by Wells; the amounts the vendor sent to
Wells for non-corporate-headquarter vending machines; and the
amounts Wells forwarded to the Employee Committee.
Vondrak responded on May 21 stating “Attached is the com-
mission information for 2014 and for 2015 Year to Date.” He
stated, “We do not have any information as to where the money
was distributed after the commission checks were sent out…
such as the amounts kept by Wells or the amounts Wells for-
warded to the Employee Committee. The only information we
have is the amounts of the commissions that were sent out
along with where the check was issued to.”
On June 25, McCannon sent Vondrak an email, stating, “Ef-
fective immediately, please make the following changes with
respect to any and all commission checks payable by Chester-
man in connection with the vending machines placed by Ches-
terman at non-corporate facilities owned by Wells Enterprises,
Inc.” Vondrak was told to make such checks payable to “Unit-
ed Dairy Workers of Le Mars;” to eliminate any references to
Wells, Wells Enterprises, Inc., and Wells Dairy, Inc. on the
checks. Vondrak was instructed to mail such checks directly to
United Dairy Workers of Le Mars to the attention of DeVos at
the listed post office box contained in McCannon’s email.
Vondrak responded to McCannon by email dated June 26
wherein he listed some questions. One of which was, “Do you
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 9
want us to continue to provide you with a month by month
report on the commissions sent out which will show the
amounts for each location?” Vondrak also asked for “As far as
negotiating any future commission changes, pricing changes,
vending/market program changes, will we continue to work
with you on these matters or will we need to be in contact with
the” Union’s representative? McCannon replied by email dated
July 1, wherein she stated that Wells does not want any com-
mission reports for the amounts paid to the Union. She stated,
“We expect to contact you within the next couple of months
with a process for negotiating these issues.”
Vondrak testified there was a change in the commission dis-
tribution process in June 2015. Vondrak testified Chesterman
received instructions from Wells that the commission checks
needed to be forwarded to the United Dairy Workers of Le
Mars moving forward, instead of being addressed to all the
different Wells locations to which they were being sent.
Vondrak testified that McCannon did not explain why she
wanted the change. He testified that beginning in June 2015 all
of the vending commissions were combined into two separate
checks both were issued to the Union. One was for the vending
machines only. The other was a combination of all the micro-
market locations which Chesterman serviced, excluding the
corporate office. Vondrak testified, “Since I have been doing
this, we’ve never included the corporate office commissions in
with the plant commissions. That’s always been a separate
check issued to Wells.” Vondrak explained the corporate office
commissions are sent directly to the Wells corporate office.
Vondrak testified Chesterman issues a separate check to the
corporate office, but that is only for sales run through the cor-
porate office. The check is made out to Wells Dairy Corporate
and it is for a commission for sales at the micro-markets and
the vending machines located in the Wells corporate office.
Vondrak testified McCannon is the person that signed Ches-
terman’s contract with Wells. He testified that if she had said
“Please make all checks payable to Wells Enterprises, Inc.,” he
would have conformed to her request. Vondrak testified he
followed McCannon’s instructions as to who to send the checks
to. Vondrak testified the agreement on the eight percent com-
mission was done solely with McCannon and it was not done
with the Union.
On November 23, McCannon sent Vondrak an email stating
that by November 25, she needed a letter on Chesterman letter
head explaining a detailed description of the flow of funds from
employee purchases at vending machines to payment of funds
to the Union, ownership of the vending machines, that Ches-
terman does not provide any reporting to Wells with respect to
monies collected from the vending machines or paid to the
Union, that Chesterman remits funds to the Union at the post
office box owned by the Union. On November 23, Vondrak
sent a draft three page letter to McCannon in response to her
request. Vondrak’s draft was dated November 23. On Decem-
ber 2, McCannon sent a revision of Vondrak’s draft to him.
McCannon’s revision of Vondrak’s draft contained the date
November 30. On December 3, Vondrak sent McCannon an
email, stating “I have signed the letter which you had sent back
to us, scanned it, and attached it to this email. Let me know if
you need anything else from me.” Vondrak signed the revised
version provided to him by McCannon as it was sent including
the November 30 date. The memo is addressed to: “To Whom
It May Concern.”
The Vondrak memo, dated November 30, states “this letter
pertains to the flow of the money which Wells employees use
for the product purchases from Premium Food and Beverage
(which is owned by Chesterman Co.) vending and micro-
market equipment, to the” Union. Included in the description is
that Wells’ employees make purchases through one of the
vending or micro-market locations which Premium has placed
throughout the Wells’ facilities. Premium, on a monthly basis
calculates based on sales the commissions which are sent to the
Union. The memo states that all vending and micro-market
equipment placed at Wells is the property of Premium. The
memo states Premium does not report to Wells regarding the
funds collected; and no reports are shared with Wells which
show the amount of funds which Premium forwards to the Un-
ion. The memo states all monthly commission statements and
checks in regard to the vending and micro-market sales are
issued exclusively to the Union listing the name United Dairy
Workers of LeMars, to the attention of DeVos, with a listed
post office box.
On December 18, Vondrak emailed McCannon, stating that
Chesterman would like to set up a meeting in early to mid-
January to discuss pricing adjustments for the upcoming year
for both the micro-markets and the vending machines. He stat-
ed they received numerous price increases from their suppliers
and have to address passing those on to the consumers. He
stated, “Also, we would like to discuss the situation regarding
the Employee’s Committee and determine what information
can and cannot be shared with Wells’ and the Employee Com-
mittee. We are more than happy to provide requested reports,
but we do not want to get stuck in the middle should we pro-
vide information that we aren’t supposed to (in regards to the
letter which was composed outlining the vending process at
Wells’).” On December 22, McCannon wrote back, “I have a
meeting scheduled in January to review your questions below
and get you a better explanation. For now… You can pass any
reports related to the corporate market and vending to me or
Tanya. Any reports associated with the markets and vending at
the plants would continue to go directly to the Employee
Committee. Wells does not need to see any of the plant vend-
ing information.”
A. Analysis
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act provides that “it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer to dominate or interfere with the
formation or administration of any labor organization or con-
tribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to
rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursu-
ant to section 6, an employer shall not be prohibited from per-
mitting employees to confer with him during working hours
without loss of time or pay. In Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB
990, 996 (1992), enfd. 35 F.3d 1138 (7th Cir. 1994), the Board
concerning Section 8(a)(2) stated that:
…our inquiry is two-fold. First, we inquire whether the entity
that is the object of the employer’s allegedly unlawful conduct
satisfies the definitional elements of Section 2(5) as to (1)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
employee participation, (2) a purpose to deal with employers,
(3) concerning itself with conditions of employment or other
statutory subjects, and (4) if an “employee representation
committee or plan” is involved, evidence that the committee
is in some way representing the employees. Second, if the
organization satisfies those criteria, we consider whether the
employer has engaged in any of the three forms of conduct
proscribed by Section 8(a)(2).
In Post Publishing Company, 136 NLRB 272, 273 (1962),
enf. denied 311 F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1962), the Board majority
stated in the remedy section of its decision that:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that an order requiring Re-
spondent to withdraw and withhold recognition from the
PCCU until and unless it is certified as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the Respondent’s mechanical
departments is necessary to remedy the unfair labor practices
found herein. The facts of the case demonstrate that, for al-
most the entire period of the PCCU’s existence, the Respond-
ent has been furnishing virtually all of the financial support
necessary to carry out its functions. The record further
demonstrates that at a meeting called by the Employer to dis-
cuss employee grievances which the Respondent viewed as
the reason behind the organizational drive being made by the
ITU, the Respondent unlawfully offered to pay the expenses
of an attorney to represent the employees in bargaining nego-
tiations. That offer was made in response to employee ex-
pressions of doubt as to the benefits of negotiating with the
Respondent under the old system. At the same meeting the
Respondent expressed its opposition to the ITU and its prefer-
ence for dealing with PCCU. Sometime after this meeting,
employees, who had signed authorization cards on behalf of
the ITU, submitted a formal petition of withdrawal to the ITU.
In our opinion, the above-circumstances warrant a conclusion
that PCCU cannot maintain its exclusive representative status
without the Respondent’s unlawful support and assistance.
While it is true, as Member Rodgers points out, that there has
been no criticism or suspicion cast upon Respondent’s rela-
tions to the PCCU until the issuance of the instant complaint,
this is not a ground for ignoring the evidence adduced now
before us. Accordingly, we shall provide a remedy which will
enable the employees freely to select or reject, as the case may
be, the PCCU as their exclusive representative.
The Board’s Order in Post Publishing included withdrawing
recognition from the union and to cease giving effect to any
contract with that union.
The Trial Examiner noted in Post Publishing that the, “Gen-
eral Counsel claims Respondent has given unlawful assistance
and support to the PCCU by (1) allowing it to hold meetings on
company property, and to print meeting notices on company
time and with use of company machinery; (2) permitting the
PCCU to engage in union activities on company time and prop-
erty; (3) donating the proceeds of coffee vending machines to
the PCCU, and (4) allowing it to use the profits from the com-
pany cafeteria for the benefit of its members.” Id. at 279. It
was noted that when a cafeteria was installed in 1952, certain
employees asked the respondent to let them run it, the respond-
ent consented and appointed a PCCU member as cafeteria di-
rector. This individual operated the cafeteria until March 1961
when he retired. The respondent exercised no control or super-
vision over his operation of the cafeteria, and paid him nothing
for it; his sole compensation for that work was 10 percent of the
profits, which he received by arrangement with the PCCU.
Shortly after he became manager, respondent told the individu-
al the PCCU could take the cafeteria profits and since that time
those profits, amounting to about $600 per year, have been used
by the cafeteria director mainly to defray the costs of refresh-
ments served at PCCU meetings and at its annual Christmas
parties. In addition, cafeteria personnel used its food stocks to
serve refreshments at some PCCU meetings. Since the em-
ployee’s retirement another employee in like manner continued
to manage the cafeteria and disburse its funds for the benefit of
the PCCU. In 1959, when employees spoke about dissatisfac-
tion with a coffee vending machine, the respondent allowed
them to procure the type they wanted, permitted its installation,
and has then turned over all checks representing its share of the
profits from it to the PCCU treasurer who deposited them in the
PCCU savings bank account. Between January 30, 1959, and
June 16, 1961, the only deposits in that account, totaling about
$237, represented checks from the distributor made out to the
respondent employer but deposited to the credit of PCCU. It
was stated that for a time during 1955 and 1956, the PCCU had
in like manner received the profits averaging about $20 every 2
months from a prior coffee machine. It was noted that the re-
spondent admittedly controlled the installation and continuance
of such machines on its property, and the proceeds from the
concession have always been payable in the first instance to it,
and since these machines are used by all employees, it is obvi-
ous that respondent has in effect donated its profits from this
source to the PCCU, as in the case of the cafeteria profits.
The Trial Examiner stated, “If the grant of the cafeteria for
meetings after workhours, and acquiescence in occasional use
of company time and equipment for preparing and posting un-
ion notices and soliciting signatures for a petition were the only
acts of ‘courtesy or generosity’ involved in the case, I would be
inclined to agree with Respondent that this type of ‘support’ did
not amount to a violation of the Act.” The Trial Examiner went
on to state, “However, Respondent’s financial assistance to the
PCCU was of such a nature and extent that, in my opinion, it
amounted to unlawful assistance and support, it allowed the
PCCU to eliminate the collection of dues, and largely eliminate
initiation fees.” The respondent in the most recent carnation
there was giving the PCCU $600 a year cafeteria profits; and
about $237 a year coffee vending machine profits. It was noted
that from January 1959 onward, PCCU has received roughly
$700 a year from these sources from respondent as against less
than $15 a year from initiation fees. It was stated:
It is clear from these facts that well over 95 percent of the
money used by the PCCU in its normal operations since 1959
has come from operations controlled by Respondent.15 Re-
spondent has thus almost completely subsidized the opera-
tions of the PCCU to such an extent that it has never run into
debt, but has always had a surplus fund. This subsidy has not
been a matter of general or casual benevolence of Respondent
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 11
toward all employees, but has been consciously afforded to
the PCCU alone, for the record shows that the proceeds from
the cafeteria and coffee machine have come from use of those
facilities by about 175 employees, but the net income has
been given to and used by the PCCU for the benefit only of its
members, who constitute about a third of the entire company
payroll.16 I find on these facts and circumstances and con-
clude as a matter of law that Respondents grant of these funds
to the PCCU constituted substantial financial support and as-
sistance to that organization which was well calculated to in-
fluence employees to continue their adherence to that organi-
zation, and thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced em-
ployees in their statutory right of free choice of bargaining
representative, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
Act. The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670, 682-684,
688-690; The Standard Transformer Company, 97 NLRB
669; Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. (Dage Television Di-
vision), 132 NLRB 993. Id at 281-282. Id. at 281-282.
In NLRB v. Post Pub. Co., 311 F.2d 565, 569–570 (7th Cir.
1962), the court, in reversing the Board, stated:
Absent any showing of employer domination, we fail to find
in the record that showing of proscribed motivation warrant-
ing an inference drawn by the Board that it was calculated to
unlawfully coerce or restrain the employees in their right to
freely choose or change their bargaining representative.
The fact that the union members chose to eliminate dues and
forego the provision for many fringe benefits to its members
was a decision it made. Respondent did not participate in any
way in the decision of the union as to how it would derive its
income, or in what manner it would incur expenses in the
conduct of its business. All that respondent did was to assist
the employees in carrying out their independent activities. No
one ever complained until a representation dispute was pre-
cipitated. That complaint was made by the dominant interna-
tional organization in its effort to oust the small independent
group.
***
We have carefully reviewed the many cases cited by the
Board. In practically all of them, the facts clearly demonstrate
antiunion bias by the employer, financial support combined
with union domination by the employer, discriminatory dis-
charges, threats or other unfair labor practices interwoven with
acts of alleged illegal financial support. Such is not the case
here.
We hold, absent any showing of employer motivation in the
original organization or the independent union or any showing
of subsequent employer domination thereof, that a course of
conduct over a period of years by an employer in its amicable
relationship for 38 years with an independent union acting as a
bargaining agent for employees (1) in permitting the union to
hold meetings in its cafeteria (after working hours), (2) in per-
mitting the union to print notices on the employer’s duplicating
machines, (3) and in permitting the union to retain annual prof-
its of about $600 from the operation by the union of employer’s
cafeteria for employees and about $120 annually from the oper-
ation of a coffee vending machine for employees on its premis-
es by the Union, all at the instance and request of the union and
under the circumstances as herein earlier set out, is a permissi-
ble form of friendly cooperation designed to foster and result-
ing in uninterrupted harmonious labor-management relations,
and is not the form of ‘support’ designed to interfere with, re-
strain or coerce employees in the free exercise of their right to
choose or change their bargaining representative.
In Utrad Corp., 185 NLRB 434, 441 (1970), enfd. 454 F.2d
520 (7th Cir. 1971), it was stated by the Trial Examiner as
adopted by the Board that:
Respondent also contends that it neither assisted nor dominat-
ed the Association. Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, in pertinent
part, makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to
dominate or interfere with the ... administration of any labor
organization or contribute financial or other support to it.” As
pointed out, supra, the employees pay no dues or assessments
to the Association which has no means of financial support
other than what Respondent furnishes to it by its arrangement
with the vending machine company. Respondent pays the of-
ficers of the Association not only for their time spent in con-
ferring with management but also for time spent in conferring
with each other and with Association department representa-
tives, and for the time spent in conducting their elections. It
also supplies the ballots and other paraphernalia to the Asso-
ciation for its elections, and furnishes the Association with
space for its meetings in the plant. I, therefore, conclude that
Respondent furnished unlawful assistance and support to the
Association within the meaning of, and in violation of, Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act. See St. Joseph Lead Company, Zinc
Smelting Division, 171 NLRB No. 74.
In Utrad Corp., supra, the respondent employer was ordered to
withdraw and withhold recognition from the employee associa-
tion to which it was found to have dominated, assisted, and
contributed support.
In St. Joseph Lead Co., 171 NLRB 541, 545–546 (1968), it
was stated:
It is also clear that Respondent has furnished unlawful assis-
tance and support to the committees. As pointed out supra,
the employees pay no dues or assessments to the committees
and they have no means of financial support other than what
Respondent furnishes them. Thus, Respondent pays the rep-
resentatives not only for their time spent in conferring with
management representatives (a payment which can be con-
strued as expressly contemplated in the proviso to Section
8(a)(2) but also for their time spent in conferring with each
other and with other employees, time spent in the conduct of
their elections, and for the cost of the clerical and secretarial
services they need. It also furnishes them with their only of-
fice space and furnishings and all supplies they need.
***
Whatever may be said with respect to the legality or illegality
of employer support to a strong independent labor organiza-
tion, which receives substantial financial support from its
members and has a meeting place for employees off the em-
ployer’s premises, there can be no doubt that the complete fi-
nancial support given by Respondent to the employer domi-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
nated committees here involved is proscribed under Section
8(a)(2) of the statute. Such support and assistance tends to in-
flate the degree of the domination existing by virtue of other
factors pointed out above and further weakens the ability of
the labor organization to act freely as a true bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees it purports to represent.5
In St. Joseph Lead Co., the respondent employer was ordered to
disestablish the involved employees’ advisory committee.
In Jackson Engineering Co., 265 NLRB 1688, 1688–1689
(1982), enfd. 735 F2d 1384 (DC Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469
US 1072 (1984), the Board approved the judge’s finding that
the respondent employer violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act and
the respondent union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by certain
union officials receiving concealed kickback payments from the
respondent employer. The Board noted that at about the same
time the respondents were negotiating midterm contract modi-
fications granting the employer economic concessions con-
cealed payments of large sums of money were exchanging
hands. The Board stated, “We find that these concurrent ac-
tions operated to taint and undermine the bargaining relation-
ship between Respondents and the contract which was negoti-
ated by them while the payments were being made. Our con-
clusion in this regard is not affected by the fact that Anastasio,
Scotto, and Seregos personally did not engage in the negotia-
tions which led to the modified contract. Although those indi-
viduals may not personally have participated, they were, at all
material times, Respondent Union’s executive vice president
and president and Respondent Employer’s president, respec-
tively. Under these circumstances, we do not regard their di-
vorce from the actual negotiations to be determinative of this
issue.” The Board stated, “we shall order that: (1) Respondent
Employer withdraw and withhold all recognition from Re-
spondent Union as the collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent Employer’s employees, unless and until said labor
organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Re-
lations Board as the exclusive representative of such employ-
ees; (2) Respondent Employer and Respondent Union cease
giving effect to the September 1979 collective-bargaining
agreement, or to any modification, extension, supplement, or
renewal thereof, unless and until Respondent Union shall have
been certified by the Board; …”.
Similarly, in Mistletoe Exp. Serv., 295 NLRB 273, 293
(1989), an employer and union were found to have violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, re-
spectively, by placing in their contract a clause providing that
the employer pay the union 50 cents for each hour worked by a
casual employee. See also, Sweater Bee By Banff, LTD., 197
NLRB 805 (1972), enfd. 486 F.2d 1395 (2nd Cir. 1973),
where the respondent employer was found to have violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by paying dues to a union from em-
ployer funds without deducting dues from employees’
paychecks, and the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
by executing and giving effect to a collective-bargaining
agreement where this practice continued.
In the instant case, Wells operates a multi-building facility
housing about 1,565 bargaining unit employees where it pro-
duces ice cream related products. Kruckenberg, the charging
party, signed off on a Department of Labor Form LM-1 on
October 19, 2005 as the president of the Employee’s Commit-
tee of Le Mars and Omaha, whose name was changed over the
years to take on the current name of the Union. It stated in the
2005 Form LM-1 that there were expected receipts of over
$10,000 for that year. The form contained the statement ex-
plaining that, “Our funds for the Committee is derived from 8%
return from the vending machines in our plants.” Kruckenberg
signed the Union’s Form LM-3 reports as the Union’s president
for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. For 2006, vending and
recycling earnings for the Union were: $23,757. Similar earn-
ings were reported as follows: for 2007 $21,747; for 2008,
$23,109; for 2009, $20,757; for 2010, about $8000; for 2011,
$15,430; for 2012, $15,594; for 2013, $18,111; and for 2014,
$17,395. A position statement filed by Wells with the Region
dated May 27 shows that for the first four months of 2015, the
Union on average was earning over $2,400 a month in vending
and micro-market commissions, which would equal $28,800 on
an annual basis. In fact, a Union expense sheet shows in 2015
through October 21, 2015 the Union received $25,644 in vend-
ing revenue from Chesterman the company that contracted with
Wells to provide vending and micro-market services.
DeVos, the Union’s secretary-treasurer, testified the Union is
funded by receiving an 8% commission from the sale of vend-
ing of snacks and products, not soda, from vending machines
supplied by Chesterman which contracts with Wells to provide
vending machines and micro-markets at Wells’ facilities. The
vending machines and micro-markets from which the commis-
sions are forwarded to the Union are used by bargaining unit
employees as well as non-bargaining unit personnel such as
secretaries, managers, and supervisors. The Union’s expense
sheet for 2014 shows a cash balance at the end of 2013 was
$34,957.55. It shows, during the year 2014, the Union had a
total in deposits of $17,395.44, all of which were listed under
the name Chesterman Company “Vending Machine,” except
for a $275.00 IRS refund and a listing for a $200 void check.
DeVos testified the funds were received from the eight percent
revenue the Union receives from the vending machine sales; as
well 5 percent can redemption amount. DeVos testified that
after he became treasurer the Union stopped receiving funds for
recycled cans. The record contains the Union’s partial expense
sheet for 2015. The great bulk of the deposits were listed as
derived from Chesterman under the heading “vending ma-
chine.” The Union’s expenses in 2015 included over $6000 in
attorney’s fees, which DeVos testified were for defending the
NLRB charge, as well as a Department of Labor Investigation.
There was an additional $3828.50 going to the same law firm
marked as just “services.”
DeVos testified the Union has no contractual relationship
with Chesterman or any of its subsidiaries. He testified he
thought Wells has such a relationship with Chesterman. DeVos
testified the Union does not negotiate any terms with Chester-
man, like price, equipment, or services to be provided. DeVos
testified the Union does not provide any services to Chester-
man. The record contains a contract between Wells and Ches-
terman dated April 8, 2014. The contract was signed for Wells
by McCannon, facilities manager. DeVos testified he has never
seen the agreement between Chesterman and Wells. DeVos
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 13
testified since he has become a union officer he has not attend-
ed a union meeting where they discussed vending.
DeLaughter, Wells director of HR for operations, testified
Wells furnishes Chesterman and its vending subsidiaries access
to the Wells property, including space for their equipment and
vending, furnishes them electricity, lighting and heat.
DeLaughter testified he believes the Union’s only source of
revenue is the funding from Chesterman. He testified that
Wells, to his knowledge, has not received any authorization
from employees that they want the eight percent commission to
go to the Union. While DeLaughter testified did not know how
much on a monthly basis during 2015 Chesterman forwarded to
the Union from revenue which they collected from vending
machines and micro-markets, he testified he did see reports
from Chesterman regarding how much they forwarded to the
Union during that period of time as part of the information he
gathered to respond to the unfair labor practice charge.
Vondrak works for Chesterman as a sales representative.
Vondrak testified that as a sales representative for Chesterman
he has interactions with Wells. Vondrak testified that primarily
his interaction is with McCannon. Vondrak testified that re-
ports are run on a monthly basis concerning vending and micro-
market sales at Wells to tabulate the eight percent commission
on sales. He testified that in 2014 those checks were generated
and distributed directly to Wells. Vondrak identified a vending
commission check dated February 12, 2014, with the payer
listed as Chesterman in the amount of $1375.12 made out to
Wells SICP. When asked why the check was made out to
Wells SICP, Vondrak testified that he had been overseeing the
commission procedure since 2009, off and on. He testified that
since he was doing this in 2009, that was how the checks were
always addressed, and they were all sent to a central location.
He testified he thought the checks being sent to a central loca-
tion was something agreed upon between Wells and Chester-
man.
On April 21, Kruckenberg filed the unfair labor practice
charge in this case against Wells. On May 21, McCannon sent
an email addressed to Vondrak and his supervisor. In the email
McCannon asked Vondrak to send her as quickly as possible,
“An accounting of vending sales and payments by location
since January 1, 2014 (on a monthly basis), including:” the
amounts kept by Wells; the amounts the vendor sent to Wells
for non-corporate-headquarter vending machines; and the
amounts Wells forwarded to the Employee Committee.
Vondrak responded on May 21 stating “Attached is the com-
mission information for 2014 and for 2015 Year to Date.” He
stated, “We do not have any information as to where the money
was distributed after the commission checks were sent out…
such as the amounts kept by Wells or the amounts Wells for-
warded to the Employee Committee. The only information we
have is the amounts of the commissions that were sent out
along with where the check was issued to.”
On June 25, McCannon sent Vondrak an email, stating, “Ef-
fective immediately, please make the following changes with
respect to any and all commission checks payable by Chester-
man in connection with the vending machines placed by Ches-
terman at non-corporate facilities owned by Wells Enterprises,
Inc.” Vondrak was told to make such checks payable to “Unit-
ed Dairy Workers of Le Mars;” to eliminate any references to
Wells, Wells Enterprises, Inc., and Wells Dairy, Inc. on the
checks. Vondrak was instructed to mail such checks directly to
United Dairy Workers of Le Mars to the attention of DeVos at
the listed post office box contained in McCannon’s email.
Vondrak responded to McCannon by email dated June 26
wherein he listed some questions. One of which was, “Do you
want us to continue to provide you with a month by month
report on the commissions sent out which will show the
amounts for each location?” Vondrak also asked for “As far as
negotiating any future commission changes, pricing changes,
vending/market program changes, will we continue to work
with you on these matters or will we need to be in contact with
the” Union’s representative? McCannon replied by email dated
July 1, wherein she stated that Wells does not want any com-
mission reports for the amounts paid to the Union. She stated,
“We expect to contact you within the next couple of months
with a process for negotiating these issues.” Vondrak testified
there was a change in the commission distribution process in
June 2015. Vondrak testified Chesterman received instructions
from Wells that the commission checks needed to be forwarded
to the United Dairy Workers of Le Mars moving forward, in-
stead of being addressed to all the different Wells locations to
which they were being sent. Vondrak testified that beginning
in June 2015 the vending commissions were combined into two
separate checks both issued to the Union. One was for the
vending machines only. The other was a combination of all the
micro-market locations which Chesterman serviced, excluding
the corporate office. Vondrak testified McCannon is the person
that signed Chesterman’s contract with Wells. He testified that
if she had said “Please make all checks payable to Wells Enter-
prises, Inc.,” he would have conformed to her request.
Vondrak testified he followed McCannon’s instructions con-
cerning the checks.
Similarly, DeVos testimony reveals that prior to June 2015,
the Chesterman vending checks were made out to and sent
directly to Wells, rather than the Union. The checks were then
handed to DeVos by Wells personnel, and or forwarded to him
via inter office mail. Upon receipt of the checks, made out to
Wells, DeVos took them and deposited them into the Union’s
credit Union account. DeVos testified that in June 2015, the
process changed in that the checks were then made out to the
Union, and mailed by Chesterman to the Union’s newly ac-
quired post office box to DeVos attention.
The unfair labor practice complaint issued against Wells and
the Union on December 8. Section 10126.2 of the NLRB
Casehandling Manual pertaining to unfair labor practices pro-
vides that, “Following a Regional Office determination as to
the merits of a case, the Board agent should pursue settlement
before issuance of complaint.” On November 24, DeLaughter
sent DeVos an email with the Subject: “EC letter regarding PO
Box, funding, etc.” In the email DeLaughter stated to DeVos,
“As discussed yesterday, could you provide me with a letter
from the EC Officers, either you as Secretary or Kevin as Pres-
ident that covers the following information:
 The fact that you receive checks directly from Ches-
terman’s not Wells.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
 The fact that checks are sent directly to the EC PO
Box and deposited by the EC.
 The fact that the EC no longer receives the proceeds
of can/bottle deposits.
 The fact that you don’t share the amounts of the
checks from Chesterman’s with Wells.
DeVos responded by email that afternoon stating he was work-
ing on it and asking, “Do you also want me to include that the
vending commission we receive is only for machines in repre-
sented work places?” To which DeLaughter replied that would
be helpful. Shortly thereafter on November 24, DeVos wrote to
DeLaughter, “Here is what I have. If you would like changes,
revisions or word smithing just tell me what you need.”
DeLaughter wrote back on November 24, “I made just a couple
of small corrections. I removed the phrase ‘very few represent-
ed employees’ and just left it as you don’t receive commission
from areas where there aren’t represented employees.” On the
morning of November 30, DeLaughter emailed DeVos that
DeLaughter had to make another correction. He stated, “Can
you re-sign this attached version and email it back to me?”
DeVos signed the memo, dated November 30, 2015, to
DeLaughter. The memo states it provides an outline of how the
vending commission from Chesterman to the Union works.
The memo states the Union receives a commission on all sales
from vending in areas that represented workers of the Union
use, and that the Union does not receive any commissions from
areas that do not have represented workers. It states that
“Monthly, Chesterman sends commission checks” to the Union,
which are made out to the Union as payee on the check, and are
mailed to the Union’s P.O. box. It states, “At no time, does
Wells Enterprises see or have any knowledge of the size or
amount of the checks.” DeVos testified he wrote the memo at
DeLaughter’s request, and there was no prior written procedure
he was aware of describing the process prior to DeVos’ No-
vember 30 memo. DeVos testified he thought the request for
the memo came from DeLaughter’s attorney.
Similarly, on November 23, McCannon sent Vondrak an
email stating that by November 25, she needed a letter on Ches-
terman letter head explaining a detailed description of the flow
of funds from employee purchases at vending machines to
payment of funds to the Union, ownership of the vending ma-
chines, that Chesterman does not provide any reporting to
Wells with respect to monies collected from the vending ma-
chines or paid to the Union, that Chesterman remits funds to the
Union at the post office box owned by the Union. On Novem-
ber 23, Vondrak sent a draft letter, dated November 23, to
McCannon in response to her request. On December 2,
McCannon sent a revision of Vondrak’s draft to him. McCan-
non’s revision of Vondrak’s draft contained the date November
30. On December 3, Vondrak sent McCannon an email, stating
“I have signed the letter which you had sent back to us, scanned
it, and attached it to this email. Let me know if you need any-
thing else from me.” Vondrak signed the revised version pro-
vided to him by McCannon as it was sent including the No-
vember 30 date. The Vondrak memo, dated November 30,
states “this letter pertains to the flow of the money which Wells
employees use for the product purchases from Premium Food
and Beverage (which is owned by Chesterman Co.) vending
and micro-market equipment, to the” Union. Included in the
description is that Wells’ employees make purchases through
one of the vending or micro-market locations which Premium
(Chesterman) has placed throughout the Wells’ facilities. The
memo states Chesterman does not report to Wells regarding the
funds collected; and no reports are shared with Wells which
show the amount of funds which Chesterman forwards to the
Union. The memo states all monthly commission statements
and checks in regard to the vending and micro-market sales are
issued exclusively to the Union listing the name United Dairy
Workers of LeMars, to the attention of DeVos, with a listed
post office box.
I find that Wells has violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of Act
by contributing vending and micro-market funds to the Union,
and the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
receiving those funds. It is admitted by the parties that the
Union is a labor organization with the meaning of section 2(5)
of the Act, and Section 8(a)(2) provides that “it shall be an
unfair labor practice for an employer to dominate or interfere
with the formation or administration of any labor organization
or contribute financial or other support to it..” Here there is no
question that Wells is contributing significant financial support
to the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. In this
regard, the Union collects no dues or initiation feels and there-
fore these contributions by Wells are its sole source of income.
See, Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990, 996 (1992), enfd. 35
F.3d 1138 (7th Cir. 1994); Post Publishing Company, 136
NLRB 272, 273 (1962), enf. denied 311 F.2d 565 (7th Cir.
1962); Utrad Corp., 185 NLRB 434, 441 (1970), enfd. 454
F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1971); St. Joseph Lead Co., 171 NLRB 541,
545–546 (1968); Jackson Engineering Co., 265 NLRB 1688,
1688–1689 (1982), enfd. 735 F2d 1384 (DC Cir. 1984), cert.
denied 469 US 1072 (1984); Mistletoe Exp. Serv., 295 NLRB
273, 293 (1989); and Sweater Bee By Banff, LTD., 197 NLRB
805 (1972), enfd. 486 F.2d 1395 (2nd Cir. 1973).
Here, the Union was receiving large sums of money from
Wells from vending sales on an annual basis since at least
2006. For example, it received for 2013, $18,111; and for
2014, $17,395. A position statement filed by Wells with the
Region dated May 27 shows that for the first four months of
2015, the Union on average was earning over $2,400 a month
in vending and micro-market commissions, which would equal
$28,800 on an annual basis. In fact, the Union’s expense sheet
for 2015 through October 21, 2015 the Union received $25,644
in revenue from Chesterman for the vending and micro-market
receipts. The testimony of the witnesses reveals these receipts
are the Union’s sole source of funding. As the General Counsel
points out, citing Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB 378, fn. 1, I
am constrained to follow Board law regarding Post Publishing
Company, 136 NLRB 272, 273 (1962), enf. denied 311 F.2d
565 (7th Cir. 1962). It should be noted that I also agree with
the Board precedent there. Moreover, the facts here are mark-
edly different from what the court relied on in refusing to en-
force the Board order in NLRB v. Post Pub. Co., supra. There,
the court noted that the annual amount of contributions to the
union through vending sales came to $720. The General Coun-
sel cites a Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation conversion site,
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 15
which shows that $720 at the applicable time adjusted for infla-
tion in 2015 dollars would only equal $5,650.74 annually. Yet,
here the Union received $25,644 for just the first 10 months of
2015, which was more than fourfold the amount PCCU had
received annually. Here, the Union did not choose to eliminate
dues as they have no history of dues ever being collected.
Moreover, while I do not view this as determinative, the court
noted in Post Publishing that no one had ever complained until
a representation dispute precipitated the charge by an interna-
tional labor organization seeking to oust the PCCU there. Here,
the charge was not initiated as result of an election dispute.
Rather, it was filed by a bargaining unit member and employee
of Wells who voiced his complaint by the filing of his unfair
labor practice charge. Here, the Union’s expenses in 2015,
listed $9,828.50 in legal fees, which DeVos testified were for
defending the NLRB charge, as well as a Department of Labor
Investigation. Thus, Wells was funding the Union’s litigation
expenses, not just promising attorney’s fees as had been done in
Post Publishing.
Moreover, the vending and micro-market funds are not the
only funds and/or support Wells provides the Union. DeVos
testified there is no procedure for becoming a union member.
Rather, as per the CBA, once someone becomes a full time
employee in the defined unit they are considered a represented
employee of the Union. DeVos testified the Union has no
membership card, no initiation fees, dues, or assessments. He
testified that during his 30 years working for Wells there has
never been any dues, initiation fees or assessments. DeVos
testified that all 1,565 employees in the bargaining unit are
automatically members of the Union. As per the CBA between
the Union and Wells, the five Union officers receive 1 hour
paid time from the Wells to meet after the monthly joint Union-
Employer meeting to discuss amongst themselves what was
discussed between the management and the officers at the prior
meeting. The CBA also provides the Employer will provide 5
paid hours a week to be used at the discretion of the Union
president to conduct union business. The CBA provides that
the purpose of this paid time is for the Union officers to meet
with employees and start building relationships and trust be-
tween the employees and the Union. This time is not to be used
to resolve or work on grievance issues, nor prepare for negotia-
tions. The CBA also provides that “The Company will provide
the EC with the opportunity to meet with full-time regular new
hires or rehires for purposes of explaining the roles and respon-
sibilities of the Employee Committee.” It is stated that the
Employer “will provide paid time, not to exceed 30 minutes,
for EC members to conduct an orientation meeting.” DeVos
testified these meetings are actually 45 minutes long for new
full time employee orientation. DeVos testimony was murky as
to who was paid for attending these meetings, however, the
CBA provides for paid time, and I did not find DeVos testimo-
ny credibly contradicted it. Thus, the CBA provides at least
two aspects of paid time for the Union to proselytize its agenda
amongst existing and new employees. Finally, DeVos testified
the Union last negotiated a CBA with Wells in 2013, and the
process took about 4 months. He testified the Union officers
over the 4 month period were meeting with the Employer 5
days a week concerning the negotiations. DeVos testified the
meetings were held offsite, but during basic work hours.
DeVos testified the Union officers were paid for the time spent
during the meetings. The union officers being paid for these
meetings was not provided for in the CBA, therefore not neces-
sarily known by the bargaining unit. While permitted by Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act, the length of time of these payments for
negotiating with management took place as reported by DeVos
could certainly lead to questions of the bonafides of the Union
officers in acting on behalf of the bargaining unit. St. Joseph
Lead Co., 171 NLRB 541, 545–546 (1968).
Moreover, the conclusion that the Union was not operating
in an arm’s length fashion in its dealings with Wells is con-
firmed by the fact that about two months after the unfair labor
practice charge had been filed against Wells, and within 3
weeks after a similar charge had been filed against the Union,
McCannon sent Vondrak an email, stating, “Effective immedi-
ately, please make the following changes with respect to any
and all commission checks payable by Chesterman in connec-
tion with the vending machines placed by Chesterman at non-
corporate facilities owned by Wells Enterprises, Inc.” Vondrak
was told to make such checks payable to “United Dairy Work-
ers of Le Mars;” to eliminate any references to Wells, Wells
Enterprises, Inc., and Wells Dairy, Inc. on the checks. Vondrak
was instructed to mail such checks directly to United Dairy
Workers of Le Mars to the attention of DeVos at the listed post
office box contained in McCannon’s email. Vondrak respond-
ed to McCannon by email dated June 26 wherein he listed some
questions. One of which was, “Do you want us to continue to
provide you with a month by month report on the commissions
sent out which will show the amounts for each location?”
McCannon replied by email dated July 1, wherein she stated
that Wells does not want any commission reports for the
amounts paid to the Union. Vondrak testified there was a
change in the commission distribution process in June 2015.
Vondrak testified Chesterman received instructions from Wells
that the commission checks needed to be forwarded to the
United Dairy Workers of Le Mars moving forward, instead of
being addressed to all the different Wells locations to which
they were being sent. Vondrak testified McCannon is the per-
son that signed Chesterman’s contract with Wells. He testified
that if she had said “Please make all checks payable to Wells
Enterprises, Inc.,” he would have conformed to her request.
Vondrak testified he followed McCannon’s instructions as to
who to send the checks to. Similarly, DeVos testimony reveals
that prior to June 2015, the Chesterman vending checks were
made out to and sent directly to Wells, rather than the Union.
DeVos testified the process changed in June 2015, in that the
checks were then made out to the Union, and mailed by Ches-
terman to the Union’s newly acquired post office box to
DeVos’ attention. I have concluded, noting that McCannon did
not testify, that Wells orchestrated the change in the process in
response to the unfair labor practice charges, as the testimony
reveals that prior to the change the checks, since at least 2009,
has been sent to Wells as the payee, the Union received them
from Wells and then deposited them in the Union’s account.
Along these lines, towards the end of November shortly be-
fore the unfair labor practice complaint issued, Wells instructed
both Chesterman and the Union to set forth in writing the new
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
procedures they were following in terms of mailing the checks
to the Union, rather than Wells. In fact, Wells set forth in writ-
ing to each the details it wanted in each of their statements,
including the assertion that Wells did not have access to the
amounts the Union was being paid. Of course, both Chester-
man and the Union cooperated with Wells’ instructions, and in
fact allowed Wells to make changes in their original submis-
sions which they incorporated in each of their final signed
statements. Since Wells was in total control of the contract and
relationship with Chesterman as Vondrak acknowledged, he
would have followed any instructions McCannon provided with
respect to the issuance of the checks. Moreover, while both the
Union and Chesterman stated in their submission that Wells
currently did not have access to the amounts paid to the Union;
prior to June 2015 change in procedure Wells did have such
access for many years as the checks were made out to Wells.
Even after the policy change, all Wells had to do was request
from Chesterman the amounts being paid to the Union and
Chesterman provided the information to Wells. Wells made
this request to respond to the unfair labor practice charge, and I
have concluded that Wells as the contracting party with Ches-
terman could have made such a request any time it desired.
Thus, the process by which the Union received the checks from
Chesterman changed in form not in substance. This was done
at Wells behest, and indicates the control that Wells exercised
not only over Chesterman but over the Union as Wells orches-
trated the actions of each.
In sum, there is no procedure for becoming a union member.
The Union has no membership card, no initiation fees, dues, or
assessments. DeVos testified that during his 30 years working
for Wells there has never been any dues, initiation fees or as-
sessments. DeVos testified that all 1,565 employees in the
bargaining unit are automatically members of the Union. He
testified they are fully represented as soon as they reach full
time status. DeVos testified he knows there are certification
papers for the Union dated December 19, 2005. However,
DeVos did not know how the Union was certified, and he did
not recall there being a vote for the Union. As per the CBA in
effect at the time of the trial, the Union officers receive 1 hour
paid time from Wells to meet with each other after the monthly
joint Union-Employer meeting. The CBA also provides the
Employer will provide 5 paid hours a week to be used at the
discretion of the Union president to conduct union business.
The CBA provides this time is for the Union officers to meet
with employees and start building relationships and trust be-
tween the employees and the Union. It states, “this time is not
to be used to resolve or work on grievance issues, nor prepare
for negotiations.” The CBA also provides that “The Company
will provide the EC with the opportunity to meet with full-time
regular new hires or rehires for purposes of explaining the roles
and responsibilities of the Employee Committee.” It is stated
that the Employer “will provide paid time, not to exceed 30
minutes, for EC members to conduct an orientation meeting.”
DeVos described these orientation meetings being 45 minutes
in length. DeVos testified the Union last negotiated a CBA
with Wells in 2013, and the process took about 4 months.
DeVos testified they were meeting with the Employer 5 days a
week over the 4 month period. DeVos testified the Union of-
ficers were paid for the time spent during the meetings.4
In addition, to these payments the Union receives vending
commission payments from Wells to perform its basic func-
tions. In this regard, the Union since at least 2005 has been
receiving an eight percent vending machine commission from a
third party for vending machines maintained on Wells’ property
for which the contract is with Wells for which the Union does
nothing in consideration for this money. In 2014, the vending
machine sales where expanded to include the sales of fresh
foods sold at micro-markets again at certain Wells facilities for
which Wells maintained the contract for the sales. In 2014, the
Union received $16,920 in vending income. For the first 10
months of 2015, the Union received $25,649.56 vending in-
come. In fact, I have concluded that following the filing of the
current unfair labor practice charges, Wells orchestrated with
the Union and Chesterman a change in the way the Union re-
ceived its vending checks from Chesterman in that the checks
were no longer made out to Wells but were now made out to
and mailed directly to the Union by Chesterman. I have also
concluded that shortly before the complaint issued, Wells in-
structed both the Union and Chesterman to codify this new
procedure in writing, instructing them what to write, editing
what they wrote, and having them sign their respective docu-
ments when Wells was satisfied with the final written product.
Wells argues in its brief as reasons to dismiss the complaint
that it is not involved in the Union’s CBA ratification process
and that the last agreement was initially voted down by the
employees. It argues that DeLaughter played no role in draft-
ing the Union’s bylaws, nor did he appoint union stewards.
Wells argues it does not determine who serves as union offic-
ers, and who serves on the Union’s negotiation committee.
Wells argues it does not determine who serves as legal advisors
for the Union, or control who the Union uses for accountants.
Wells argues it does not provide the Union with computers, or
technical support such as tablets, phones, scanners, fax ma-
chines, etc. Wells argues it does not provide the Union with
administrative support such as secretarial or word processing.
It does not provide the Union with office or meeting space at
Wells facilities. These points should be put in context, since
Wells through vending and micro-market funds provided the
Union with at least $25,649.56 for the first 10 months of 2015,
alone. If the Union needed to rent rooms, provide for technical
support, etc., it certainly had the funds accorded by Wells to do

4 While the complaint only specifically alleges the payments and re-
ceipt of vending fees as violative of the Act, Wells introduced into
evidence the parties’ current and prior CBA. Wells and the Union also
introduced evidence pertaining to grievance processing and collective-
bargaining. Thus, they sought to litigate the full relationship between
Wells and the Union, and I find it appropriate to consider that relation-
ship as background information to the allegations listed in the consoli-
dated complaint. In this regard, at the behest of Respondents these
matters have been fully litigated. I also find of no moment to this case
that Charging Party Kruckenberg participated as the Union’s president
from 2005 to 2008, during which time the Union was receiving vending
funds as its sole support. Kruckenberg, an employee of Wells, is a
layperson and the fact that early on he may have viewed those pay-
ments as proper, does not go to the ultimate conclusion in this case as
to whether they are violative of the Act.
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 17
so. In this regard, in July 2015, the Union spent $513.58 on a
“scanner & equip” as reported in its expense sheet for that year,
as well as substantial sums in legal fees in 2015, and paid for
bookkeeping services all gleaned from its vending income
courtesy of Wells. Additionally, Wells paid the Union officers
for time spent negotiating the current CBA, which also pro-
vides for additional paid described time for the Union to con-
duct promotional and other activities. So, for the reasons stat-
ed, I have rejected Wells’ arguments and have found as stated
that it has violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by con-
tributing financial or other support to the Union, and the Union
has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by receiving those
funds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wells Enterprises, Inc. (Wells) is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. United Dairy Workers of LeMars (the Union or the Em-
ployees Committee) is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By providing vending machine proceeds to the Union ei-
ther directly from Wells or through a third party for vending
machines and micro-markets operated on Wells’ premises
Wells has contributed financial or other support to the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
4. By accepting and receiving financial support from Wells
in the form of vending machine proceeds either directly from
Wells or from a third party for vending machines and micro-
markets operated on Wells premises the Union has accepted
and received financial support from Wells in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. Wells and the Union’s unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found Respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, Respondents must cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. The General Counsel in its brief only seeks
the cessation of payments by Wells and the receipt by the Un-
ion of vending machine proceeds as a remedy. While the Gen-
eral Counsel argues that I am bound by the Board’s decision in
Post Publishing Company, 136 NLRB 272, 273 (1962), enf.
denied 311 F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1962), no explanation is given as
to why the remedy the Board required in that decision is not
appropriate here. The Charging Party seeks in its brief and in
its addendum thereto an Order that the Union no longer be the
collective bargaining representative, and that the existing col-
lective-bargaining agreement be eliminated pending an election
by the Board. Wells argues in its brief that such an order would
be punitive. Aside from Wells position in its brief that no vio-
lation exists, it contends that if a violation is found any remedy
should be limited to that sought by the General Counsel.
In Arden Furniture Industries, 164 NLRB 1163, 1164–1165,
(1967), in finding a violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
Act as stated by the Trial Examiner, the Board majority, never-
theless refused to follow the Trial Examiner’s recommendation
that the respondent employer be ordered to cease giving effect
to its current contract with District 50. The Board majority
stated the Board has refused to grant a cease-recognition reme-
dy where the “unfair labor practice to be remedied occurred
during the term of an agreement, lawful on its face, the execu-
tion and maintenance of which are not under attack.” However,
the Board majority stated, “in the special circumstances of this
case, we believe that more than the routine cease-assistance
remedy is required.” The Board noted that, although near the
termination of the current contract the employees would have
the right to timely file a petition, upon a showing of interest, for
a representation election the respondent employer’s threats
were having a continuing effect upon employees in discourag-
ing their activity on behalf of a rival union. The Board majority
stated, “To expunge the effect of these unfair labor practices,
we shall order that Respondent refrain from recognizing or
bargaining with District 50 or its Local Union No. 15386 as
representative of its employees when the current contract ex-
pires on June 18, 1967, unless and until it is certified by the
Board as such representative.” The Board majority stated:
Nor do we view the other cases cited in the dissenting opinion
as requiring a contrary result. In The Post Publishing Compa-
ny, 136 NLRB 272, 273, the Order set aside an existing con-
tract which was presumptively valid in its execution but did
so on special considerations that the assisted union was shown
on that record to be unable to maintain its exclusive repre-
sentative status and carry out its functions without the re-
spondent’s unlawful support and assistance which had contin-
ued into the 10(b) period. Id at 1165, fn. 4.
As set forth in detail above in Post Publishing Company, 136
NLRB 272, 273 (1962), enf. denied 311 F.2d 565 (7th Cir.
1962), the Board majority stated in the remedy section of its
decision that:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that an order requiring Re-
spondent to withdraw and withhold recognition from the
PCCU until and unless it is certified as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the Respondent’s mechanical
departments is necessary to remedy the unfair labor practices
found herein. The facts of the case demonstrate that, for al-
most the entire period of the PCCU’s existence, the Respond-
ent has been furnishing virtually all of the financial support
necessary to carry out its functions. The record further
demonstrates that at a meeting called by the Employer to dis-
cuss employee grievances which the Respondent viewed as
the reason behind the organizational drive being made by the
ITU, the Respondent unlawfully offered to pay the expenses
of an attorney to represent the employees in bargaining nego-
tiations. That offer was made in response to employee ex-
pressions of doubt as to the benefits of negotiating with the
Respondent under the old system. At the same meeting the
Respondent expressed its opposition to the ITU and its prefer-
ence for dealing with PCCU. Sometime after this meeting,
employees, who had signed authorization cards on behalf of
the ITU, submitted a formal petition of withdrawal to the ITU.
In our opinion, the above-circumstances warrant a conclusion
that PCCU cannot maintain its exclusive representative status
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
without the Respondent’s unlawful support and assistance.
I find the facts in Post Publishing Company, supra, more
akin to the situation presented here in that Wells has provided
total financial support for the Union throughout its existence in
the form of vending, and later vending and micro-market com-
missions. In many ways the facts are more compelling here for
the type of remedy visited by the Board in Post Publishing, in
that the financial contributions here in 2015 provided by Wells
to the Union were around five times the amount provided by
the employer in Post Publishing for the same period of time.
Noting that the employees automatically become Union mem-
bers here, that they have never signed anything showing their
support for the Union, that the CBA accords the Union paid
time to meet with new hires, as well as provides paid time allot-
ted to meet with incumbent employees, I find that this process
of indoctrination and support visited upon the bargaining unit
by the Wells and the Union has the intended purpose of limiting
employee free choice. The removal of the long term total sup-
port provided to the Union by Wells here raises a similar ques-
tion raised in Post Publishing as to whether the Union here,
which has used that support for gift cards and attorney’s fees do
defend allegations of impropriety “can maintain its exclusive
representative status without the Respondent’s unlawful sup-
port and assistance.”
However, I have concluded that a more limited remedy than
the Board required in Post Publishing will be effective here and
less disruptive in serving the Act’s ends of employee free
choice. First, I note that the current CBA between Wells and
the Union is set to expire on December 31, 2016, a time that is
fast approaching. While I have concluded that Respondents
unfair labor practice both current and long term have created a
systemic atmosphere denying the employees free choice of
their collective-bargaining representative as required by the
Act, in view of short remaining term of the CBA, I do not feel
it necessary to recommend that it be totally expunged. Accord-
ingly, I recommend that Wells refrain from recognizing or bar-
gaining the Union as representative of its employees when the
current contract expires on December 31, 2016, unless and until
it is certified by the Board as such representative. I also rec-
ommend in my Order that Wells cease providing the Union the
paid financial assistance required in the CBA for the Union to
meet with new hires and current employees. I do not view this
remedy as punitive as Wells contends. There is no indication
that the employees ever selected the Union as their collective
bargaining representative other than it being foisted upon them
by unfair labor practices that continued within the Section 10(b)
period. Giving the employees the opportunity to vote, and
perhaps legitimize the Union if it is selected for future repre-
sentation, without unlawful assistance, certainly is not punitive
to the Union, nor to Wells which under the Act has no say in
the employees’ right to select a union, or to refrain from union
activity.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended.5

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that:
A. Respondent, Wells Enterprises, Inc. (Wells) its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Offering or contributing financial or material assistance
and support, including providing vending machine proceeds
either directly from Wells or through a third party for vending
machines and micro-markets operated on Wells’ premises, to
the United Dairy Workers of LeMars or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, or otherwise interfering with the repre-
sentation of its employees through a labor organization of their
own choice.
(b) Recognizing or bargaining with the United Dairy Work-
ers of LeMars, as the representative of its employees when their
current agreement expires on December 31, 2016, unless and
until such Union is certified after a Board election.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Immediately take all actions necessary to end any ar-
rangements that permit the United Dairy Workers of LeMars to
receive vending machine and micro-market proceeds from
these operations taking place on Wells’ premises as well as any
other financial assistance provided by Wells to the Union.
(b) At the expiration of the current contract between Wells
and the United Dairy Workers of LeMars on December 31,
2016, withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Union as
the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with Wells concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, un-
less and until such Union is certified after a Board election.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Le Mars, Iowa where bargaining unit employees rep-
resented by the Union work, perform services, or have access to
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A.”6 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 18, after being signed by Wells’ authorized representative,
shall be posted by Wells and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Wells to insure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, dur-
ing the pendency of these proceedings, Wells has gone out of
business, or is no longer providing services at the facilities
involved in these proceedings, it shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by Wells at those facilities at any

Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notices reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. 19
time since October 21, 2014. Similarly, Wells shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense copies of the attached notice to all
employees who are on layoff, and former bargaining unit em-
ployees who have left Wells’ employ who worked at the in-
volved facilities on or after October 21, 2014. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Wells cus-
tomarily communicates with its employees by such means to all
bargaining unit employees represented by or formerly repre-
sented by United Dairy Workers of LeMars.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent Wells has taken to comply.
B. Respondent the United Dairy Workers of LeMars (the
Union), its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Accepting or receiving financial or material assistance
and support for Wells, including vending machine or micro-
market proceeds either directly from Wells or through a third
party, for vending machines and micro-markets operated on
Wells premises.
(b) Bargaining with Wells, as the representative of its em-
ployees, after the current agreement with Wells expires on De-
cember 31, 2016, unless and until such time the Union is certi-
fied after a Board election as the representative of Wells’ em-
ployees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Immediately take all actions necessary to end any ar-
rangements with Wells, or any third parties, that permit the
Union to receive vending machine and/or micro-market pro-
ceeds from these operations taking place on Wells’ premises as
well as any other actions needed to end any other financial
assistance provided by Wells to the Union.
(b) At the expiration of the current contract between Wells
and the United Dairy Workers of LeMars on December 31,
2016, immediately cease serving as the collective-bargaining
representative of Wells’ employees for the purpose of dealing
with Wells concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, un-
less and until such Union is certified after a Board election.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its of-
fices, meeting halls, and locations at Wells facilities where the
Union customarily posts notices copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix B.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms provid-
ed by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed
by the Union’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notices reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
Union and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees and
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Union to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In addition to physi-
cal posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed elec-
tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an inter-
net site, and/or other electronic means, if the Union customarily
communicates with Wells bargaining unit employees and/or its
members who are Wells employees by such means to all Wells
bargaining unit employees represented by the Union, or who
were represented by the Union on or after December 8, 2014.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent Union has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 20, 2016.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.
WE WILL NOT offer or contribute financial support or material
assistance and support, including providing vending machine
and micro-market proceeds either directly from us, or through a
third party, for vending machines and micro-markets operated
on our premises to the United Dairy Workers of LeMars or any
other labor organization, or otherwise interfere with the repre-
sentation of our employees through a labor organization of their
own choice.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with the United Dairy
Workers of LeMars, as the representative of our employees
after their current agreement with us expires on December 31,
2016, unless and until such Union is certified after a Board
election.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL immediately take all actions necessary to end any
arrangements that permit the United Dairy Workers of LeMars
to receive vending machine and micro-market proceeds from
operations taking place on our premises as well as end any
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
other financial assistance provided by us to the Union.
WE WILL upon the expiration of the current contract between
us and the United Dairy Workers of LeMars on December 31,
2016, withdraw and withhold all recognition from that Union as
the representative of our employees for the purpose of dealing
with us concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, un-
less and until such time as the Union is certified after a Board
election.
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-150544 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.
WE WILL NOT accept or receive financial or material assis-
tance and support from Wells Enterprises, Inc., including vend-
ing machine or micro-market proceeds either directly from
Wells or through a third party, for vending machines and mi-
cro-markets operated on Wells’ premises, or receive any other
material assistance or financial support from Wells Enterprises,
Inc.
WE WILL NOT bargain with Wells Enterprises Inc., as the rep-
resentative of its employees, after our current agreement with
Wells Enterprises Inc., expires on December 31, 2016, unless
and until such time as we are certified after a Board election as
the representative of employees of Wells Enterprises Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
WE WILL Immediately take all actions necessary to end any
arrangements with Wells Enterprises Inc., or any third parties,
that permit us to receive vending machine and/or micro-market
proceeds from operations taking place on Wells Enterprises Inc.
premises as well as any other actions needed to end any other
financial assistance provided by Wells to the Union.
WE WILL after the expiration of our current contract with
Wells Enterprises Inc. ending on December 31, 2016, immedi-
ately cease serving as the collective-bargaining representative
of Wells Enterprises Inc.’ employees for the purpose of dealing
with Wells concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, un-
less and until such we are certified as the collective-bargaining
representative after a Board election.
UNITED DAIRY WORKERS OF LE MARS
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-150544 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.