Amalgamated Packinghouse

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 853 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

AMALGAMATED PACKINGHOUSE 853
Amalgamated Packinghouse , Leather and Allied Food
Workers of Wisconsin and Packerland Packing
Company, Inc. Case 30-CC-253
June 25, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Counsel's motion should not be granted. On April 3,
1975, Respondent filed opposition to the General
Counsel's motion, requesting that it be denied and
the complaint dismissed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding,2 the
Board makes the following:
Upon a charge filed on December 30, 1974, by
Packerland Packing Company, Inc., hereafter Pack-
erland, against Amalgamated Packinghouse, Leather
and Allied Food Workers of Wisconsin, hereafter
Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for
Region 30 issued a complaint and notice of hearing,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Thereafter, on February 21, 1975, the Regional
Director issued an amendment to the complaint. The
complaint, as amended, alleges in substance that
Respondent I threatened and coerced Hillshire Farm
Co.., a Division of Consolidated Foods, hereafter
Hillshire ; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.,
hereafter A & P; Jewel Tea Company, hereafter
Jewel; and other persons engaged in commerce, with
an object of forcing or requiring Jewel, A & P, and
other persons to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of
or to cease doing business with Hillshire, with the
further object of forcing or requiring Hillshire to
cease using , selling, handling, transporting, or other-
wise dealing in the products of Packerland, in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and amendment thereto
were duly served on Respondent. Thereafter, Re-
spondent filed timely answers to the complaint and
amendment thereto, admitting in part and denying in
part the allegations of the complaint and denying the
commission of unfair labor practices.
On March 3, 1975, the General Counsel, by
counsel, filed with the Board a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, submitting, in effect, that the
pleadings raised no material issues of fact or law
which required a hearing, and therefore requested
that the Board grant the motion and issue an
appropriate order. On March 11, 1975, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceedings before it
and a notice to show cause why the General
' Wits answer, Respondent denies that it has been involved in a labor
dispute with Packerland . However, it admits that its constituent member,
Local 444, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, hereafter Local 444, has been. In his motion, the
Ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings
The underlying facts of this dispute, as set forth in
the parties' pleadings, are as follows. Hillshire
purchases beef carcass quarters from Packerland and
then processes them at its plant together with
products from other sources to make finished
sausages , which in turn are marketed by A & P,
Jewel, and other retail stores. Since about September
1973, Local 444 has been engaged in a labor dispute
with Packerland at its Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin,
plant, and has been engaged in picketing at that
facility. In furtherance of this primary dispute,
Respondent's agent sent letters dated December 16,
1974, to various retail grocery stores, including Jewel
and A & P, secondary employers not involved in the
dispute, which stated in pertinent part:
Upon conducting a survey of retail stores in
Wisconsin, we found that, among others, Jewel (A
& P) was offering for sale meat products
processed by the Hillshire Packing Co.
The Wisconsin unit of the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters is going to inform via leaflets and picket
signs that Hillshire Packing Co. processes meat
purchased from a struck Packerland plant.
We will do only that which we are permitted
within the existing laws and will not engage in
any secondary boycott.
We estimate our informational program to begin
about January 1, 1975.
Should you have any questions relating to our
program feel free to contact our office.
The General Counsel characterizes this letter as a
threat to picket the various secondary retail stores
General Counsel modifies his complaint to conform to the answer in this
regard.
2 Unless noted otherwise, our decision herein rests on uncontroverted
allegations of the parties' pleadings.
218 NLRB No. 145
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selling Hillshire sausage because the sausage con-
tained Packerland meat.3
In his -motion, the General Counsel argues in
substance, that Packerland's product (beef) has
become so integrated with Hillshire's product
(sausage) that it no longer has a separate identity,
and that therefore any picketing of A & P or Jewel or
other retail stores which sell Hillshire products could
not be confined to the "struck product" of Packer-
land. Accordingly, he asserts that such picketing
necessarily would have as an object the cessation of
business between the secondary retail stores (A & P
and Jewel) and Hillshire, as well as between the
secondary employers and the primary employer
(Packerland). In this situation, he asserts that the
informational picketing would not be lawful under
the principles enunciated in Fruit & Vegetable
Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760, and Joint
Council No. 28 of IBT [Tree Fruits Labor Relations
Committee, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 377 U.S. 58 (1964),
commonly referred to as Tree Fruits.4 In that case,
the Supreme Court held that consumer picketing at
the site of a neutral secondary employer is not illegal
as long as it is confined to persuading customers not
to purchase the "struck product" of the primary
employer, but is unlawful if it seeks to persuade
customers not to deal with the neutral employer.
Respondent concedes that Packerland's product
has become so intermingled with that of Hillshire so
as to lose its separate identity, but argues that it only
announced a lawful consumer information program
and did not threaten, coerce, or restrain anyone,
alluding to the language of its letter specifically
disclaiming an intent to engage in a secondary
boycott and advising of its intent to abide by existing
law. In response to the General Counsel's argument
that any picketing of the secondary retail stores
would be unlawful due to the commingling of
Packerland's product with that of Hillshire, Respon-
dent asserts, in substances, that such a per se rule is
not within Board or court law. Further, it argues that
inasmuch as no picketing has occurred no determina-
tion can be made as to the validity thereof, other
than to establish that lawful informational picketing
is possible. In support of this latter contention,
Respondent offers examples of what it contends
would be lawful informational picketing in the
circumstances herein.
3 Respondent denies "threatening !' A & P, Jewel, or anyone else.
4 Citing: Honolulu Typographical Union No. 37, AFL-CIO (Hawaii Press
Newspapers, Inc.), 167 NLRB 1030 (1967), enfd. 401 F.2d 952 (C.A.D.C.,
1968), and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local 327,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware
housemen and Helpers ofAmerica (American Bread Company), 170 NLRB 91
(1968), enfd. 411 F.2d 147 (C.A. 6, 1969).
5 It is settled that a threat to picket alone may be coercive, whether or
Crucial to the General Counsel's motion is his
contention that since any picketing of the secondary
retail stores would have been unlawful, due to the
product of the primary employer (Packerland)
having lost its separate identity with that of the
secondary employer (Hillshire), the threat to do so
violates Section 8(b)(4) of the Act .5 We find no merit
in this contention. Without delving into the various
forms the legend on the picket signs may have taken
had picketing occurred, it is sufficient to find that
lawful picketing could have been conducted in the
circumstances herein, and we so fmd. Respondent
advised the subject secondary employers of its intent
to "inform via leaflets and picket signs that Hillshire
Packing Co. processes meat purchased from a struck
Packerland plant" and of its intent only to engage in
lawful activity and not a secondary boycott. There is
no basis for inferring that there is bad faith or
subterfuge by Respondent as evidenced by its letters.
It is entitled to publicize its primary dispute with
Packerland by all lawful means. Having found that
lawful means may include informational picketing in
the circumstances herein, Respondent's advising
secondary employers that it will do so does not
evidence a violation of the Act .6 In these circum-
stances, we conclude that the pleadings are insuffi-
cient to sustain the complaint and, accordingly, we
shall deny the General Counsel's motion and dismiss
the complaint.
Upon the basis of the entire record herein, the
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
(a) Hillshire Farm Co., a Division of Consolidated
Foods, is a Maryland corporation engaged in the
processing and sale of meat and agricultural products
from its plant in New London, Wisconsin. During
the past calendar year, a representative period,
Hillshire had gross sales in excess of $500,000 and
during this same period sold and shipped in
interstate commerce products valued in excess of
$50,000 from its New London, Wisconsin, plant
directly to customers located outside the State of
Wisconsin.
(b) The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc., is
a Delaware corporation engaged in the retail sale of
grocery and meat products throughout the United
not picketing actually ensues, and if the threat is intended to achieve a
proscribed objective it may violate Sec . 8(b)(4). General Teamster,
Warehouse and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 126, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers ofAmerica (Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc.), 200 NLRB 253 (1972).
6 Cr. General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 886 (The
Stephens Company), 133 NLRB 1393, 1396 (196I).
AMALGAMATED PACKINGHOUSE 855
States, including at its stores located in the State of
Wisconsin which are involved herein. During the
past calendar year, a representative period, A & P
had gross sales from its stores located within the
State of Wisconsin in excess- of $500,000, and during
this same period these A & P stores purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of
$500,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of Wisconsin.,
(c) Jewel Tea Company, a New York corporation,
is engaged in the retail sale of grocery and meat
products in Illinois and Wisconsin. The only stores
involved herein are located in Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin. During the,past calendar year, a representative
period, Jewel had gross sales, in excess of $500,000
from its Milwaukee stores, and during the same
period these Jewel stores purchased and received
goods and materials valued in excess of $500,000
directly from suppliers located outside the State of
Wisconsin.
(d) Packerland is a Wisconsin corporation engaged
in the processing, packing, and transportation of
meat products with its main office in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, and plants located in Green Bay and
Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, and Pampa, Texas.
During the past calendar year, a representative
period, Packerland sold and shipped in interstate
commerce products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points located outside the State of
Wisconsin.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, we fmd that at
all times material herein Packerland, Hillshire, A &
P, and Jewel are, and have been, employers as
defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce and in industries affecting commerce as
defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, Amalgamated Packinghouse, Leather
and Allied Food Workers of Wisconsin, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing fmdings of fact
and upon the entire record, we make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Packerland, A & P, Jewel, and Hillshire are
persons engaged in commerce or in industries
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Packinghouse, Leather and Al-
lied Food Workers of Wisconsin is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act.
3. The conduct of Respondent as alleged in the
complaint to constitute an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, has not
been sustained by the pleadings.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the General Counsel's
motion for judgment on the pleadings be, and it
hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.