American Beef Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 338 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Beef Packers, Inc. and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local Union No . 641, AFL-CIO and A.
L. Morgan Union , Local No. 3, Party In Interest
American Beef Packers , Inc. and International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local No . 1, AFL-CIO
and A. L. Morgan Union, Local No . 3, Party in
Interest . Case 27-CA-2534 and 27-CA-2534-2
June 3, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
Bti' MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On January 22, 1969, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action , as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner ' s Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent
and the Party in Interest filed exceptions to the
Decision and supporting briefs, and the General
Counsel and one of the Charging Parties,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America , AFL-CIO, filed cross-exceptions
to the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner , with the following modification.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein , and orders that the Respondent,
American Beef Packers, Inc., its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order,
as so modified:
,in ordering that the Respondent reunburse employees for monies
withheld pursuant to checkoff authorizations , we find it unnessary to
consider the Trial Examiner 's additional reason that the Respondent is
prohibited by sec . 302 from honoring checkoff authorizations which are by
their terms irrevocable. absent a valid collective -bargaining agreement.
Delete the words "or to permit" from paragraph
l(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
e wo ids "or permit" also appear in the second paragraph of the
Remedy section of the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , and are unnecessary, as
we find no reason in this case to depart from our customary language.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. 0 BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On October 29,
1968, a hearing was held in the above entitled matter in
the Morgan County Courthouse, Fort Morgan, Colorado,
at which all parties appeared and participated. The
consolidated complaint issued by the Regional Director,
Region 27 of the National Labor Relations Board on
August 14, 1968,' is based upon a charge filed by
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, Local Union No. 641, AFL-CIO on July
9, 1968, and upon a charge filed by International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO on July
10, 1968, alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
The gravamen of the complaint is that Respondent
accorded exclusive recognition to and entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement with A. L. Morgan Union
Local No. 3 at a time when A. L. Morgan Union Local
No. 3 did not represent an uncoerced majority of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
observation of the witnesses while testifying under oath,
and after due consideration of the briefs' filed by counsel
for the General Counsel, and counsel for the Respondent,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
American Beef Packers, Inc., herein called Respondent,
is an Iowa corporation engaged in the business of the
slaughter, processing, and sale of meat and meat products.
It maintains its principal office and place of business at
Oakland, Iowa and also operates plants in Omaha,
Nebraska and Fort Morgan, Colorado. (This proceeding
concerns only the Fort Morgan plant.) Its annual direct
out-of-State shipments and its annual direct purchases
from out of State each exceeds $100,000 in value.
Respondent is now, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act, engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
'All dates are 1968.
'I am precluded by Sec. 102.42 of the Board ' s rules from giving
consideration to the brief tardily filed by counsel for Amalgamated. On
October 29 1 announced on the record that briefs were due in San
Francisco on Monday, December 2 . On Wednesday , November 27, the
Associate Chief Trial Examiner received Mr . King's telegraphic request for
a l week extension and issued a telegraphic order extending time for filing
briefs to Monday, December 9 . Following a telegraphic protest by Mr.
Tate, the Associate Chief Trial Examiner , on December 4, ordered:
Inasmuch as it appears from Respondents telegram of December 4, that
Respondent was not served with your request for an extension of time
for filing briefs in the subject case , in fairness to all parties I have
reviewed the entire matter and with particular reference to section
102.114 the Board's Rules and Regulations , find that your request dated
November 27 as untimely fled due to the intervening Thursday, a
holiday. Saturday and Sunday. Regretfully because of my initial
oversight and any inconvenience thereby caused the parties, I must
therefore rescind my Order granting your request for an extension.
176 NLRB No. 42
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS 339
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
To: Date
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters , and Butcher Workmen of
North America , Local Union No. 641, AFL-CIO, herein
called Amalgamated ; International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, herein called
Engineers ; and A . L. Morgan Union , Local No. 3, herein
called Morgan Union , are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
The principle and controlling issue in this case is one of
fact. The date and time when Respondent recognized the
Morgan Union and the fact that a majority of employees
in an appropriate unit had signed checkoff authorizations
in favor of Arthur L. Morgan before recognition was
accorded are firmly established. The prime question to be
decided is whether Respondent, by directing an employee,
Donald Kroshus, to obtain employee signatures on
checkoff cards destroyed its right to rely on such cards as
evidence that the Morgan Union represented an uncoerced
majority of its employees . The factual issue in its simplest
form is:
On what date did employee Larry Johnson hand blank
check-off cards to Donald Kroshus and request Kroshus
to obtain signatures, and did this transaction take place
in the office of and in the presence of the plant
superintendent, John Stefanich?
B. Uncontroverted Facts
Respondent began operations, i.e., had its first "kill" at
the Fort Morgan plant on Monday, June 10. For some
time prior thereto it had been hiring employees, and some
had been doing preparatory work in the plant since at
least May 16. John Stefanich, who had been employed in
a supervisory capacity by Respondent in Oakland was
appointed superintendent and assumed his new title and
responsibilities on Monday, May 27.
Arthur L. Morgan founded the Morgan Union in 1955
and holds the office of president. The Morgan Union
represents employees in 14 plants in four states, including
all three of Respondent's plants. Shortly before June 10
Morgan told Thomas Sparks, Respondent's general
manager in charge of labor relations at all plants, that he
intended to organize the employees at Respondent's new
plant in Fort Morgan. Sparks replied that the plant while
under previous ownership had operated nonunion, and
that Respondent expected to operate it the same way.
Sparks told Stefanich about Morgan's announcement, and
asked Stefanich to keep him posted on any kind of union
activity around the plant. At a casual encounter in a Fort
Morgan restaurant on Sunday, June 9, Morgan told
Stefanich he was in town to organize the plant.
Morgan entered the plant on Monday morning, June
10, and told Stefanich, whom he had known in Oakland,
that he wished to see an employee, Larry Johnson.
Stefanich escorted Johnson to the parking lot, introduced
him to Morgan and left. Johnson accepted Morgan's
invitation to act as steward and received from Morgan
checkoff authorization forms which read:
I authorize and direct you to check off from my pay
union dues and remit same to our labor organization
representative, Arthur L. Morgan, and authorize said
dues to be spent for wages, expenses, office and clerical,
steward expense, rent of halls and other such expenses.
Withdrawal of this otherwise irrevocable
authorization and membership may be by notifying the
company and union in writing not less than sixty days
before the anniversary date of the contract or
expiration date but not more than seventy-five days
before the anniversary or expiration date of said
contract.
Signed
Later the same day Stefanich asked Johnson whether
he was steward of the Morgan Union and Johnson replied
in the affirmative. By 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 12, a
majority of the 43 employees then working had signed
cards in blank, and these cards had either been handed to
Stefanich by Johnson, or left on the desk of Stefanich's
secretary, Charlotte J. Lapp. The name of Respondent
and the date were written on the cards (after they were
signed), by either Johnson, Sparks, Stefanich or Charlotte
Lapp.
Between 8 and 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 12 (starting
time of production workers was 7:30 a.m.), Morgan called
at the plant and presented to Sparks a typewritten list
comprising at least 25 names, stated that all of these had
signed checkoff cards, that they constituted a majority,
and demanded recognition. Sparks compared the names
on Morgan's list with the cards3 in his possession,
ascertained that a majority of the production and
maintenance employees had signed cards, and agreed to
recognize the Morgan Union.
Sparks had in his valise , copies of Respondent's
contracts with the Morgan Union covering operations in
Oakland and in Omaha. Using these as a guide, additions
and deletions were made and, after negotiating for about I
hour Morgan and Sparks reached complete agreement.
Morgan stated that his signing was contingent upon the
agreement being approved by Johnson. After a clean copy
of the Fort Morgan contract was typed, Johnson went
over it with Sparks and affixed his signature. The
contract, which bears the date June 12, 1968, does not
make union membership a condition of employment.
On June 28 Morgan dispatched to Respondent the
following letter:
Manager
American Beef
Ft. Morgan, Colorado
Re: Union Contract
Violations
Dear Sir:
We fully understand that with a brand new operation
starting out as fast as your doing, you will make
mistakes. We understand this. We do not understand
your apparent disregard of our contract terms and
conditions.
See that the total terms are complied with or we
shall seek our remedy in the courts under Section 301
of the Act.
Sincerely
Arthur L. Morgan
'Appends A attached is a list of all the cards identified by Sparks,
showing the words and figures written on each
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 10, 1968, Charlotte J. Lapp acknowledged
receipt of two registered envelopes. Both were from the
Denver office of the National Labor Relations Board.
Each contained a copy of the charge filed by
Amalgamated. One was addressed to Respondent and one
was addressed to the Morgan Union.
On the evening of July 10, at the Farmers Union Hall
in Fort Morgan, the Morgan Union had its first meeting.
There were 37 members in attendance. (Membership in
the Morgan Union is achieved by signing a checkoff
card.)
Prior to the meeting Kroshus had written out in
longhand and given to Morgan a statement reading:
I wanted Arthur L. Morgans Union. I signed up
everyone accept the ones Larry Johnson signed up the
company didnt talk to anyone about the union.
We gave the cards to the company and demanded
they recognize the Union
July 10 1968 DONALD KROSHUS
On July It , Morgan met with Stefanich and Mr.
Garness , another of Respondent ' s officials , and presented
30 grievances , based on complaints made by members at
the meeting the night before.
As of June 12, there were 43 employees in the contract
unit . As of the date of the hearing , October 29, there were
85 to 90 employees in the unit . Between June 10, and
October 29 a total of at least 70 signed cards had been
received by Respondent . Some of these cards had been
solicited by Kroshus.
C. Testimony Tending to Establish the Date On
Which and the Circumstances Under Which Kroshus
Received Checkoff Cards in Blank from Johnson
1. The testimony of Larry Johnson
Larry Johnson, who had worked at the plant while it
was under prior ownership was hired by Respondent on
May 16, 1968, at $2 per hour. Leland Drake, who hired
Johnson, stated that new rates would be established after
a manager was transferred to Fort Morgan. On the
morning of June 10 or June It:
John Stefanich come back to the rendering room where
I was working and said there was a man out in the car
that would like to meet me, and we walked out to the
parking lot there, and he introduced me to Arthur
Morgan, and then John left....
It was in the morning time . I'd say between nine and
ten o 'clock that I remember . And he said he was a
union man and asked me what I thought about the
union . And he explained the union to me and asked me
if I wouldn't like to be a stewardess for him, and I said
I would and he gave me some grievance forms and
some cards to assign to each man and told me how to
go about signing the men up, and how to use the
grievance forms, and just generally explain the union to
me, and that was about the size of it....
Well, we didn't have nothing at the time. There
wasn't no union in there, and he explained this hospital
plan that we would have which I thought was real good,
and the benefits that this contract would have. I
thought they were real good.
Johnson spent from half an hour to forty minutes of
working time talking to Morgan. During this and the
succeeding two days Johnson obtained six signatures on
checkoff cards. Between the time of his meeting with
Morgan and the date of the hearing (October 29) he
obtained from 25 to 30 signatures. There were about 43
plant workers on June 12, and 85 to 90 on October 29.
In soliciting signatures , Johnson told employees that the
Union would deduct $4 per month from their salary for
union dues, that it was Arthur L. Morgan's Union, that
they belonged to the Union, once they signed the card.
Johnson told employees that they should only sign their
names and should not fill in either the date or the name of
Respondent. He told each employee to whom he spoke
that the employee could either sign the card or tear it up,
that if he signed the card he should either return it to
Johnson or give it to John Stefanich. Acting on
instructions from Stefanich, every card which was
returned to Johnson was handed by him to Stefanich in
person.
A few days after his meeting with Morgan, Stefanich
asked Johnson how the signing was coming. Johnson
replied that he did not have too many. The reason was
that he did not work on the kill floor with the men there.
There followed a meeting in Stefanich's office as to which
Johnson testified:
Q. (By Mr. McCabe) Where did the meeting with
Mr. Stefanich take place?
A. In his office.
Q. What time of day?
A. I am pretty sure it was in the morning time,
between nine and ten o'clock.
Q. Who else was present, if anyone?
A. I think Tom Sparks was present, but I wouldn't
say definite if he was or wasn 't, but I'm pretty sure he
was.
Q. Tell us what took place at that meeting, who said
what?
A. Yes. I know Tom Sparks was present. They
asked me how I was doing with those cards, if I was
getting anyone signed up, and I told them I had a few
signed up, and I asked for some help at that time. I
asked for Don Kroshus' assistance.
Q. You asked who for help?
A. Either John or Tom. I was probably talking to
both of them when I said it. I asked for some help,
somebody to work with me on the kill floor, if I
couldn't have one of them for assistance to get the
cards signed up.
* * *
A. I am pretty sure John Stefanich went down and
got him....
Q. Tell us what conversation you had after Mr.
Kroshus came into the office.
A. Well, we talked about the union, and then I told
Don that I needed some help in signing these cards, and
how to, more or less, go about it, and try to explain the
union to these guys that they wanted to sign these cards
and that they would be deducted this amount from their
pay and I gave them some cards.
* * * * *
Q. (By Mr. Tate) (After Johnson has testified that
the meeting could have been ten days to two weeks
after June 10). . . can you tell me whether or not Mr.
Sparks or Mr. Stefanich discussed the cards at all with
Mr. Kroshus, or did you do that?
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS 341
A. Well that's kind of confusing because I think we
all discussed it with him. I know I did personally. I just
don't remember if they did or didn't but that's what I
wanted him up there for and
Q. Did you give him some grievance forms to fill out
for grievances on the kill floor?
A. I am pretty definite I gave them to them after the
meeting was over when we went into the locker room
but I won't say if I did or didn't.
Q. You gave them to him but you are not sure of
exactly when?
A. Right. But I know I give them cards but the
grievance forms I am not definite on that whether I
give them or not. I might have told him that if he
needed them to come to see me but if I gave them I
don't remember.
*
Q. (By Mr . McCabe) I believe that your original
testimony was that your meeting with Mr . Stefanich
was about five days after he introduced you to Mr.
Morgan , is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then on cross-examination you said it could
have been ten days or two weeks?
A. I'll tell you what . You get me fouled up with two
meetings. There was one meeting just after Mr.
Morgan was introduced to me. That' s when I asked
about this other steward , and then there was another
one when I signed the contract about ten days to two
weeks later , and I am getting confused.
Q. Tell us when each of these two meetings occurred.
A. Well, this one after I met Morgan the first time
was five days or seven days or three days , I don't really
remember . That's when they asked me how I was doing
with my work with the union, and that ' s when I told
them I wanted another steward, and then this other
meeting came up about ten days to two weeks later
when I signed the contract.
A week or 10 days after he first met Mr . Morgan, and
after the meeting with Stefanich and Kroshus , a contract
was presented to Johnson by Mr . Sparks. Johnson read
the entire contract , told Sparks and Stefanich that there
were two job ratings in the contract that he did not think
were right and called their attention to a place where a.m.
and p . m. were transposed through typographical error.
The typographic error was corrected in pen and initialed
by Sparks and Johnson, and Johnson then signed the
contract . Sparks and Stefanich agreed that the pay
inequities to which their attention had been called by
Johnson would be corrected, but no change was made on
the face of the contract . In answer to the question:
Q. (By Mr . McCabe ) Do you know if anyone signed
the contract before that?
A. Yes, almost definitely the men signed - I
wouldn ' t say if it - if they had or hadn ' t, but I am
pretty sure the other signatures were on there, but I
don't know if they were or weren't.
Johnson was not asked whether he observed or noted
any date anywhere on the contract which he signed. The
contract which was received in evidence bore the
signatures of Sparks , Morgan and Johnson and the date
June 12 , 1968, in bold ink . Johnson honestly conceded, "I
sure don't remember dates."
2. The testimony of Thomas F. Sparks
At some time between 8 and 9 a.m. on Wednesday,
June 12, Morgan presented to Sparks a typewritten list of
names of employees, stating that all these had signed
checkoff cards and were members of A. L. Morgan
Union. Sparks compared the names on this list with the
signatures on checkoff cards which had been filed and
recorded by the office girl (Charlotte Lapp). There were at
least 25 cards on file. Some of these cards had been left
on her desk, some had been handed to her by Stefanich,
by Sparks, or by Johnson. Sparks identified 30 cards as
including all those which he had in his possession at the
time of Morgan's call. The bulk of the cards had been
dated by the girl in the office. As of June 12 there were 45
employees in the bargaining unit.
Upon ascertaining that Morgan represented a majority
of Respondent's employees, Sparks agreed to recognize
the Morgan Union. He and Morgan reviewed their
Oakland and Omaha contracts and, after 1 hour of
negotiations arrived at a complete agreement. Sparks
caused a clean copy to be typed. Sparks testified:
A. That afternoon after it had been typed I asked
John [Stefanich) to bring Larry Johnson up to the
office and Larry Johnson and myself and John sat
down and I related what had happened that morning
with Larry Johnson and told him that Arthur Morgan
had agreed that if he reviewed the contract and if it was
- if he was agreeable to the terms then Arthur
Morgan would sign it after he did.
Now, John wasn't there through the entire
discussion. I don't remember exactly the incident but
something did happen in the plant where he had to
leave.
* * * * *
A. There were no changes that were made in the
contract. There were typographical errors that Larry
Johnson and myself both noted and initialed on the
night premium, and the "A.M." and "P.M." were
reversed.
The conference with Johnson lasted about I hour.
Johnson signed the contract at the end of the conference
on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 12, in the presence
of Sparks. Sparks signed immediately thereafter in the
presence of Johnson. Sparks took the contract back to
Oakland with him and on Saturday, June 15, Arthur L.
Morgan signed the contract.
Sparks had only one meeting with Kroshus pertaining
to the Morgan Union. This was after Morgan had met on
July 11 with Stefanich and Garness concering the Union's
many grievances. It was in the hallway, in the general
office just coming into the office.
Q. (By Mr. Dowd) Now, would you please relate to
the best of your recollection what was said by you or
John Stefanich or Larry Johnson or Don Kroshus at
this meeting?
A. Well, Larry had requested through John and John
approached me about it needing more help in resolving
some of these problems as a result of this union
meeting, the numerous grievances, and they would like
to have Don Kroshu* So I told John to go ahead and
proceed to get Don and bring him up, which I did.
Q. Don Kroshus was brought up at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And when Don Kroshus arrived, what if any
conversation took place that you recall?
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Well, the bulk of the conversation was my
concern over these grievances . I related that Larry
Johnson had requested more help in resolving these
things and getting the problems handled and I
expressed my desire to agree to letting Johnson have
Kroshus in order to resolve these problems because they
were concerning to me.
Q. Was anything said during this meeting about
obtaining a union check off card for the A. L. Morgan
union?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the context in which that conversation
took place?
A. Larry Johnson related he would also like to have
him help him sign cards out.
Q. And what if anything did you say to this?
A. I told him if that's what he wanted it would be all
right.
Q. Now, at any time during this meeting did John
Stefanich make any statements to your recollection?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. Have you ever had possession of any blank union
check off cards?
A. No.
Q. Did you observe whether Larry Johnson gave Don
Kroshus any union check-off cards at this meeting?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Was this the only time that you did talk to Don
Kroshus pertaining to the union?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you at any time approach Mr. Kroshus or
any other employee relative to signing an A . L. Morgan
Union check-off card?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any other occasions to meet with
Larry Johnson pertaining to the union other than this
occasion in the early part of July?
A. No, no.
Q. Is it your testimony then that you signed the
union contract in the presence of Larry Johnson?
A. Yes.
Q. And other than that meeting and the meeting as
you related in July , you had no further meetings with
him?
A. No meetings as such . I was in and out of the
plant in my travels and if we passed or my going
through the plant I would ask them how things were
going and that was about - there were no meetings.
3. The testimony of Donald Keith Kroshus
Q. (By Mr. McCabe) What day did you start
working there?
A. I think it was the 6th, if I recall right, a day or
two one way or the other.
Q. Do you remember when the kill started then?
A. The 10th, 6th or 10th. I know we killed one or
two head and then we started in.
Q. But you were working a few days before the kill
started?
A. I think I worked a week before the kill started or
four days or something like that.
Q. Did you sign a card for the A. L. Morgan Union?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you first learn about the union?
A. Larry Johnson got a hold of me well, first, I
think it was right after the kill that day John told me to
come up to the office.
Q. John who?
A. Stefanich. I went up to the office and he
introduced me to Sparks and, of course, I knew Larry
and they started talking about the union -
Q. Mr. Kroshus, speak up.
A. And then they started talking about the union,
and Larry give me those cards and asked me to get
them signed. I got them signed and I either give them
to John or laid them on the desk.
Q. What was said about the union?
A. Just said that it was the same union was in
Oakland, Iowa, and they would like to have it out here.
Q. Who said they would like to have it here?
A. John Stefanich and Mr. Sparks.
Q. In Mr. Stefanich's office?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was present?
A. John and Sparks and Larry. I don't know if
Garness was there or not, Bill Garness.
Q. I am not sure that I understood your testimony,
so I ask you this question: When with relation to when
the kill started did this kill take place? Was it on the
first day of the kill or second or later or before or
what?
A. It was not that day we killed. I think we killed
one or six heads but it was the following day when we
killed 50 or something. It was that first week when we
opened up on the kill, when we were called up to the
office. It was right after we got through killing. I think
it was the day we killed that 50 head.
Q. Was it during working hours?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hold any position with this union?
A. Not until they told me. They just said that I
would work under Larry and help him with the
stewards.
Q. Who said you would work under Larry?
A. John and Sparks.
Q. Who told you that you were an assistant steward?
A. Larry.
Q. Were you told by anyone else?
A. I don't know if John mentioned it or not. He
might have, but all he told me was to help Larry with
the union, if that's an answer, that he said I was a
steward.
Q. Did you get the cards signed after that?
A. Yeah, Larry give me a bunch of them and I got
them signed and I told those guys to either give them to
me or lay them on John's desk when they got off work.
Q. Did you get any cards back signed?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall how many?
A. I don't know, probably 15, 20. I don't know.
Q. Now, during what period of time did you get 15
or 20?
A. Within the first ten days of when we started the
kill.
Q. What did you tell the people about the cards
when you gave them the cards?
A. All I told them was it was the same union they
had in Oakland , Iowa, and they wanted to have it out
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS
here , if they could sign if they wanted to ; they didn't
have to.
Q. Did anybody refuse to sign a card?
A. Albert Trujillo said he wouldn ' t sign it.
Q. Where were you when you gave Albert Trujillo
the card?
A. Up in the locker room.
Q. Was anyone else present?
A. Yes, Felix Franco and I don 't know how many
guys were there.
* * *
Q. Did you tell anyone about the refusal of Albert
Trujillo to sign a card?
A. John Stefanich asked me when I went down in
the basement and I told him he didn't want to sign it
and he told me to tell him to go home, and I said that
was his job.
* * * * *
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr.
Stefanich about signing cards after this first meeting?
A. No. You mean -
Q. Did he ever pass you and ask about the card
signing?
A. He asked me if I had any signed and I said I
would give them - I didn't know if they would give
them back to me or whether they turned them into the
office or what they done with them.
* * * * *
Q. (By Mr. King) What did you do with the cards
after they were returned to you?
A. I laid them on John Stefanich's desk.
Q. Now, do you recall at this time how many cards
you had gotten signed , if any, by the 12th of June?
A. No, I don't recall how many I got signed within
the first week. Altogether I probably got 15 or 20 of
them signed, maybe more, maybe less.
Q. When you say altogether, you mean over the
entire period that you were having cards signed?
A. Yes.
Q. And that extended for how long?
A. Probably a couple of weeks, after that I never got
any signed. If I did, I didn't get them back. They laid
them on John's desk.
Under cross-examination Kroshus freely admitted that
he had quit his job because he was dissatisfied with the
treatment he had received from Respondent and that he
did not get along with his foreman, O'Del. Kroshus on
July 10 wrote out the statement set forth in full, supra,
and told Morgan that he had not intimidated any
employee. He prepared this statement for Morgan because
he thought the Union was "a good deal."
4. The testimony of John Stefanich
In the morning of June 10, Morgan entered the door of
the kill floor, encountered Stefanich and told him that he
wanted to see Larry Johnson. Stefanich replied that when
Johnson went on his break or lunch period, Stefanich
would bring him out to the parking lot. Stefanich went
back to the rendering works where Johnson was working
and told Johnson that Morgan wanted to see him in the
parking lot, and that Johnson could go see him on his
noon break. At noon Stefanich returned to the rendering
343
works, escorted Johnson to the parking lot and introduced
him to Morgan. When Stefanich next visited the rendering
works about 1-1/2 to 2 hours later, Johnson was on the
job.
On June 10 some Morgan Union check-off cards were
handed to Stefanich by Johnson and some were left on his
desk. Stefanich did not have any conversation with
Johnson when the cards were handed to him. The same
was true of the next day, Tuesday, June 11. Some cards
were undated, and Stefanich inserted the date that he
received them. He kept the cards in the personnel desk
and did not mention them to his secretary.
On neither Monday nor Tuesday did Stefanich have
any conversation with Larry Johnson nor with any other
employee concerning the Morgan Union.
On the afternoon of Wednesday, June 12, Stefanich
went down to the rendering room, got Larry Johnson,
brought him to the office where Sparks was waiting and
the three of them went over the contract together. When
they were about one-third of the way through, Stefanich
was called away to take care of a breakdown, or some
other thing. When he returned to the office Johnson had
left. Stefanich looked at the signature page of the contract
and noted the signatures of Johnson and Sparks and also
noted that Morgan had not signed. To this moment
Johnson had had no conversation with any employee
pertaining to the Union or to union check-off cards.
Stefanich knew that Johnson was the steward for the
Morgan Union because, on the afternoon of Monday,
June 10, Stefanich asked Johnson if he was the steward
and Johnson replied that he was a steward.
A couple of times in July, at Johnson's work station
Stefanich, inquired of Johnson how he was coming along
with the union cards.
On July 11, Stefanich met with Morgan and Garness in
Garness' office for at least 3 hours discussing around 30
grievances . Many were adjusted, resulting in backpay for
some employees and results were posted on the bulletin
board.
Around the middle of July, Stefanich encountered
Johnson in the hallway. Johnson said that being in the
rendering works was kind of remote to the plant and he
could use more help. He asked if he could have Don
Kroshus as a kill floor steward. Johnson went down to the
kill floor, asked Kroshus to follow him to the office where
Sparks and Johnson were waiting . There followed a
discussion of grievances. Union cards were not mentioned.
Prior to this meeting with Sparks in the office Stefanich
had never discussed grievances with Johnson. Johnson
never had any discussion with Kroshus about union cards.
5. Testimony of card signers
Jess Pierce was hired and started work on June 10. In
the locker room after he finished work for the day Don
Kroshus handed him a card stating that he wanted Pierce
to sign it and that if Pierce did not sign it he would
probably be dismissed. Pierce signed and inserted the date
in his own handwriting, "6-12-68." Vigorous
cross-examination demonstrated that Pierce's recollection
of the number of hours he worked on each of his first 3
days was unreliable.
William C. Baughman was hired and started work on
June 10. While working in the offal room and during his
own working time he signed a card in blank at Johnson's
request.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Albert Trujillo was hired and started to work on June
10. The next day in the locker room with a number of
other employees present Kroshus handed him a card. "We
was talking about the union , Local No. 3, 1 guess, and we
was talking about it . And we had words. And finally he
told me that anybody that didn't sign it they would fire
them . And I told him I didn ' t think much of it." This
was at the noon lunch break , after the kill was completed
about 1 p .m. With the half hour, and while Trujillo was
still eating lunch his foreman , O'Del, told him to clean up
and go home , stating , "Anybody that didn't sign that card
was fired ." Trujillo then signed the card and handed it to
O'Del and asked if he should come in the next morning.
O'Del said Trujillo would have to ask Stefanich. On the
date of the hearing Trujillo was still employed and had
been elected steward of the Morgan Union at a meeting
held in September . Vigorous cross-examination
demonstrated that Trujillo, like Pierce could not
remember accurately how many hours he worked on June
10 or June 11.
The cross-examination also developed one very material
fact. Respondent 's time records show that Trujillo worked
9 hours on June 10 , and only 5-1/4 hours on June 11.
Felix Franco was hired about May 18. At lunchtime on
June 12 in the presence of other employees Kroshus
handed Franco a card stating that if Franco did not sign
the card he wasn ' t going to have a job too long . Franco
took the card home with him and next day, the 13th, he
signed the card , wrote in the date and put the card on the
desk of Stefanich's secretary . He too, under
cross-examination demonstrated that his recollection of
dates was not reliable.
William O'Neil, a foreman, signed a card at the request
of Johnson.
D. Evaluation of Testimony
I credit the testimony of Sparks in full . On June 12, at
9 a.m., Sparks had in his possession 29 of the 30 cards
which were received in evidence and none other . Sparks
reviewed the contract with Johnson on the afternoon of
June 12 , and Johnson signed the contract in Sparks'
presence on June 12. Sparks had only one meeting with
Kroshus concerning the Morgan Union . This meeting was
after July 11.
In all respects other than dates (and the presence of
Sparks at , and the time of the meeting with , Stefanich
and Kroshus before the contract was signed ), I credit the
testimony of Johnson . Johnson was at the time of the
hearing employed by Respondent , held the position of
steward in the Morgan Union and was obviously loyal to
both his employer and his union . He gave every
impression of testifying honestly to the very best of, his
recollection . Based on demeanor alone I would not
discredit a single word spoken by Johnson . I find,
however, that he was mistaken as to the date and time of
his conference with Kroshus in Stefanich ' s office, was
mistaken as to the date on which he signed the contract
and mistaken as to the presence of Sparks on the former
occasion.
I place no reliance on the testimony of Stefanich. He
appeared - to be under tremendous emotional strain and
may not have been well . His too obvious attempts to give
the "right" answers to his counsel 's frequently leading
questions resulted in glaring contradictions and
inconsistencies , and his defensive attitude under
cross-examination involved him in two impossible
assertions . Further his testimony is contradicted in
material matters by the testimony of Sparks , of Johnson
and of Kroshus. Stefanich testified categorically that no
cards had been solicited by Kroshus before June 12, and
made the positive assertion that prior to June 12,
Stefanich counted exactly 30 checkoff cards which had
been signed by employees . Stefanich ' s assertion that
checkoff cards were not mentioned at a meeting with
Kroshus in July is directly contradicted by Sparks.
Stefanich 's testimony that he did not talk to any employee
about the Morgan Union before June 12 is contradicted
by his testimony that he asked Johnson about his
stewardship and implausible in view of his testimony that
cards were handed to him by Johnson on both June 10
and June 11 . Stefanich 's testimony that he did not speak
to his secretary about the cards that were left on her desk
is hardly to be reconciled with his testimony that the
secretary prepared a typewritten list of the names on those
cards and that Sparks handed this list to Morgan. Here
to, Stefanich is contradicted by Sparks, who testified that
he did not know where or how Morgan obtained the
typewritten list of names.
I credit Kroshus in full as to the date, time and content
of his conference with Johnson in the office of Stefanich.
The substance and circumstances are confirmed by
Johnson . Further confirmation is supplied by the date on
Franco's card , 6-10 and Franco ' s testimony that he
received the card from Kroshus, as well as by the date on
Kroshus' own card , 6-10. Kroshus ' testimony that he
obtained a total of 15 to 20 signatures receives inferential
confirmation from the fact that 18 of the cards received in
evidence bear clock numbers preceded by the character
"t-" and that at least five of the signers of such cards
worked on the kill floor. Kroshus' testimony as to the
Trujillo incident is fully corroborated by Trujillo, and
inferentially by Franco (for whom English is difficult)
The date of the Trujillo incident is firmly fixed by the
date on Trujillo's card, 6-11, and receives further
confirmation from Trujillo ' s time record , which shows
that he was sent home early on June 11. I was favorably
impressed by Kroshus ' demeanor on the stand and am
thoroughly convinced that he gave honest answers to every
question . He was mistaken about the presence of Sparks
in Stefanich 's office on June 10 , having confused this with
the meeting of mid-July, as to which he was not
questioned.
Trujillo ' s testimony that O ' Del (admitted by
Respondent's answer to be a supervisor ) stated : "Anybody
that didn ' t sign that card was fired " is uncontradicted and
unimpeached . The date of the incident is established by
Trujillo's checkoff card and confirmed by his timecard I
credit Trujillo on this point and I also credit his testimony
that Kroshus stated on the same date (June 1 1 ) "Anybody
that didn 't sign it , they would fire them ." This is
consistent with statements attributed to Kroshus by
Franco and by Pierce , and is not specifically denied by
Kroshus.
I credit the testimony of Pierce in full , including his
testimony that he signed and dated his checkoff card on
the evening of June 12. Pierce ' s card was not in the
possession of Mr . Sparks when he recognized the Morgan
Union.
E. Concluding Findings,
On Monday , June 10 , 1968, about 9 a.m. Stefanich
took Johnson from his work , escorted him to the parking
lot and introduced him to Morgan . Stefanich knew that
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS 345
Morgan's purpose was to organize the Respondent's plant.
Johnson was paid by Respondent for the 30 to 40 minutes
that Morgan required to persuade Johnson to act as
steward. At about noon, Stefanich inquired of Johnson
whether he had accepted the position of steward, and how
he was coming with signatures on checkoff cards. Johnson
replied that his remote work station made it difficult for
him to obtain many signatures. Stefanich then took
Kroshus from his work on the kill floor to the office
where Johnson told Kroshus about the Morgan Union,
gave him blank checkoff cards and told him how to get
them signed. Stefanich told Johnson that when the cards
were signed they should be delivered personally to him, or
left on his secretary's desk. Stefanich told Kroshus that
this was the Union that Respondent had in Oakland, Iowa
and they wanted it in Fort Morgan.
Kroshus returned to the locker room where the men
were cleaning up and eating lunch after the kill, told
employees that this was the Union Respondent had in
Oakland, Iowa, that Respondent wanted it in Fort
Morgan and that anybody who did not sign a card would
not be working there very long.
On Monday evening , 11 cards were turned in to
Stefanich, all signed by persons whose clock number was
preceded by the characters "l-."
On Tuesday, June 11, in the locker room while
employees were eating lunch Kroshus had a heated
argument with Trujillo in the course of which Kroshus
stated: "Anybody that didn't sign it they would fire
them." Shortly thereafter Foreman O'Del told Trujillo:
"Anybody that didn' t sign that card was fired,"
whereupon Trujillo signed the checkoff card, which he had
received from Kroshus, and handed it to O'Del. Tuesday
evening eight cards were turned in. One was the card of
Trujillo. One was turned in by Johnson, and six were
turned in by persons unknown. Three of the six were
signed by persons whose clock numbers were preceded by
the characters "l-."
On Wednesday, June 12, before 9 a.m. six cards were
turned in by Johnson and four cards were turned in by
persons unknown. Two of the four were signed by persons
whose clock numbers were preceded by the characters
,{ 1-.,,
On Monday morning , June 12 , when he recognized the
A. L. Morgan Union, Sparks placed his sole and entire
reliance on the 29 cards herein described. These cards,
because of the statements and conduct of Stefanich and
Kroshus are not reliable indicia of the desire of the
respective signers to be represented by Morgan Union. I
find that Morgan Union did not represent an uncoerced
majority of Respondent ' s employees at the time
recognition was accorded by Respondent or at the time
the contract was signed on June 12 and 15. As held by the
Supreme Court in International Association of Machinists
v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72, 80:
We are dealing here not with private rights nor with
technical concepts pertinent to an employer 's legal
responsibility to third persons for acts of his servants,
but with a clear legislative policy to free the collective
bargaining process from all taint of an employer's
compulsion , domination or influence. The existence of
that interference must be determined by careful scrutiny
of all the factors, often subtle, which restrain the
employees ' choice and for which the employer may
fairly be said to be responsible . Thus, where the
employees would have just cause to believe that
solicitors professedly for a labor organization were
acting for and on behalf of the management, the Board
would be justified in concluding that they did not have
the complete and unhampered freedom of choice which
the Act contemplates.
Morgan Union was unlawfully accorded recognition by
Respondent on June 12. It is immaterial that Morgan and
Sparks may have believed in good faith that the Union
did represent an uncoerced majority. The following words
of the Supreme Court in International Ladies Garment
Workers v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731, 738, are particularly
apt:
To countenance such an excuse would place in
permissibly careless employer and union hands the
power to completely frustrate employee realization of
the premise of the Act - that its prohibitions will go
far to assure freedom of choice and majority rule in
employee selection of representatives. We find nothing
in the statutory language prescribing scienter as an
element of the unfair labor practices here involved. The
act made unlawful by Section 8(a)(2) is employer
support of a minority union. Here that support is an
accomplished fact. More need not be shown, for, even if
mistakenly, the employees' rights have been invaded. It
follows that prohibited conduct cannot be excused by a
showing of good faith.
W. THE EFFECT Of THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described above have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As the collective-bargaining agreement of June 12, 1968
has been found to have been entered into and subsequently
maintained under the conditions described above, and at a
time when Morgan Union did not represent the free
choice of a majority of the employees in the unit described
in the agreement, it will be recommended that Respondent
be required to set aside said agreement and cease giving
effect to it or any supplement, extension or renewal
thereof. The setting aside of said agreement shall not
require or permit Respondent to vary or abandon any
existing term or condition of employment. It will also be
recommended that Respondent be required to withdraw
and withhold all recognition from Morgan Union unless
and until said labor organization shall have been certified
by the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit.
In view of the foregoing, and for the additional reason
that Respondent is prohibited by Section 302 of the Act
from honoring checkoff authorizations which are by their
terms (in the absence of a valid collective-bargaining
agreement) irrevocable, it will be recommended that
Respondent be required to reimburse all present and
former employees for union dues withheld from their
wages and remitted to Arthur L. Morgan. In accordance
with the Board's decision in Isis Plumbing and Heating
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Co., 138 NLRB 716, and Quality Coal Corporation, 139
NLRB 492, interest should be included on such dues
reimbursement , such interest to be computed in the
manner set forth in Seafarers International Union, 138
NLRB 1142.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce and
in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated, Engineers , and Morgan Union are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By recognizing Morgan Union at a time when it did
not represent a valid uncoerced majority of its employees
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees , Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.
4. By entering into a collective - bargaining agreement
containing dues checkoff provisions with Morgan Union
at a time when Morgan Union did not represent a valid
uncoerced majority of its employees , and by giving effect
to said agreement , Respondent violated Section 8(aX2)
and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding , I recommend that Respondent , American
Beef Packers, Inc., its agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving unlawful assistance or support to A. L.
Morgan Union, Local No. 3, or to any other labor
organization , by recognizing or entering into a contract
with it as an exclusive bargaining agent at a time when it
does not represent a validly designated majority of
Respondent 's employees in an appropriate unit.
(b) Recognizing A. L. Morgan Union, Local No. 3, or
any successor thereto , as the representative of any of its
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless
and until said labor organization shall have been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of such employees.
(c) Giving effect to, performing , or in any way
enforcing its contract dated June 12, 1968, or any
modifications , extensions , or renewals thereof, or any
other contract , agreement, arrangement, or understanding
entered into with A. L. Morgan Union, Local No. 3, or
any successor , relating to grievances , labor disputes,
wages , rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment , unless and until said labor
organization shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of
Respondent's employees; provided, however, that nothing
in this Decision shall be construed to require or to permit
Respondent to vary or abandon any wages, hours,
seniority , or other substantive feature of its relations with
its employees which Respondent has established in the
performance of said contract, or to prejudice the assertion
by employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
(d) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse each of its former and present employees
for all wages withheld under authorization to check off
and remit union dues to Arthur P. Morgan, together with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date
of each withholding.
( b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from A. L.
Morgan Union, Local No. 3, or any successor labor
organization , as the representative of Respondent's
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless
and until said labor organization shall have been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
(c) Post at its plant in Fort Morgan, Colorado, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."d Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 27, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
4th t e event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 27, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
Name of Co. Date
Ea # Name Clock # Inserted By Date Inserted By
4-A Larry Smethy Johnson June 12 Johnson
1968
4-B Johif Franco 1-9 6-10
4-C Victor Franco 1-10 6-11-68
4-D Andres Rios Jr. 9-4502 6-11-68
4-E Albert Trujillo 1-22 6-11-68
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS 347
4-F Jose M . Jiminez 9-4501 6-11-68
4-G Larry L. Jamison 1-IS 6-11-68
4 H Roger E . Johnson 6--3003 Johnson June II Johnson
1968
4 1 Joe Martinez 1-17 6-11
4 1 Hen Oherharg 6- 1
4 K F. G. Kunke 1-14 6 10
4 I. Don K roshus 1--14 6 10
4 M Alex Luna Jr. 6 10
4 N Manuel Garcia 1--31 6 10
4 0 Ramiro Mares 1-21 6-10
4 P Alex Luna 1-40 name line
blank
6 10
4 0 Donald P ra\ Ior I - 18 6-10
4 R Clarv Harrison I -20 6 10
4 S Alfred Huadeckv 123 6 10
4 T I clix Franco I 6 10
4 11 Jess Pierce 129 6 12 69 Pierce
4 V Roger Dale Sheppard 2-1005 6 12,
4-W Clifford Barnts 4-4005 6 12 68
4 X Richard M. Soto 1-28 Johnson June 12 Johnson
!968
4 -Y Larry B. Johnson 6- 3002 Johnson June 12 Johnson
1968
4 L William C. Baughman 2 1004 Johnson June 12 Johnson
1968
4 AA Chauncey V. Anderson 4 2014 Johnson June 12 Johnson
1968
4 138 Dale L. Nichols I 12 6 I.
4 CC Floyd Nichols 127 6 12
4 1)D 4lickcv Dion John,4In Jun: 12 Johnson
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT give unlawful assistance or support to
A. L. Morgan Union, Local No. 3, or any other labor
organization, by recognizing or entering into a contract
with it as exclusive bargaining agent at a time when it
does not represent a validly designated majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our
collective-bargaining agreement with A. L. Morgan
Union, Local No. 3 dated June 12, 1968, or to any
extension , renewal , modification or supplement thereof,
or to any superseding agreement , or give effect to any
dues checkoff authorizations heretofore executed by our
employees in favor of Arthur P. Morgan.
1968
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
A. L. Morgan Union, Local No. 3 as the
collective- bargaining representative of our employees
and WE WILL NOT deal with it concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment, unless and until such labor organization
has been certified by the Board, following a
Board-conducted election , as the exclusive bargaining
agent of our employees in an appropriate unit.
WE WILL reimburse all present and former
employees by paying to them all wages withheld under
authorizations to pay union dues to Arthur P. Morgan,
together with interest at 6 percent per annum from the
date of each withholding.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of A. L.
Morgan Union , Local No. 3, or any other labor
organization.
Dated By
AMERICAN BEEF
PACKERS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, directly with the Board's Regional Office , 260 New
or covered by any other material. Custom House, 721 19th Street, Denver , Colorado 80202,
If employees have any question concerning this notice Telephone 297-3551.