Alco Feed MillsDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 26, 194241 N.L.R.B. 1278 (N.L.R.B. 1942) Copy Citation In the Matter of ALCO FEED MILLS and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. C-20094.-Decided June 26, 1942 Jurisdiction : animal feed manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices: In General: employer held responsible for acts of employee whose position was such that the employees had just cause to believe that he represented the employer. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: questioning, advising, warning, and polling employees as to union membership ; disparaging union. Discrimination: discharge for union membership and activity ; alleged lay-off because of lull in business rejected, where the employer digressed from an established practice by laying off a regular employee, who admittedly was performing satisfactory work, while retaining extra employees, and where on the work day following such alleged lay-off another employee was hired ; refusal to reinstate. Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded to employee discrimina- torily discharged. Mr. James W. Dorsey, for the Board. Mr. John L. Westmoreland, of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent. Mr. C. H. Gillman, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. Mr. Gerard J. Manack, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated January 2, 1942, against Alco Feed Mills, Atlanta, Georgia, herein called the re- spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. 41 N. L. R. B, No. 238. 1278 ALCO FEED MILLS 1279 In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent : (1) on or about November 8, 1941, discharged and refused to reinstate Leavy 1 Clay, because of his union membership and activities; and (2) by the foregoing act, and by (a) polling its employees as to union membership, (b) urging its em- ployees not to become or remain members of the Union, (c) threaten- ing its employees with discharge, demotion, or other discipline if they persisted in their union activities, and (d) by various other acts designed to discourage membership in the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On January 10, 1942, the respondent filed its answer admitting the allegations of the complaint as to its business, but denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15, 1942, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof with regard to minor details was granted without objection. Various rulings were made by the Trial Examiner on other motions and on objections to the ad- mission of evidence during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. On February 10, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) <Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation