American Bread Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 970 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY and BAKERY AND CON-
FECTIONERY, WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL
# 128, A. F. OF L.
Case No. C-2230.-Decided October 9, 1494 d
Jurisdiction : baking industry. ,
Unfair Labor Practices
In General: employee who because of his assigning work to other employees and
lay-off of employees subject to approval management found to be a super-
visory employee for whose activities employer was held responsible.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: circulating among employees anti=union
petition ; urging employees ,to vote against the union in a scheduled election ;
threatening to close department if union gained a foothold in plant; anti-
union statements and inquiries into activities of union and union member-
ship; strike found to have been caused by employer's unfair labor practices.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and
back pay awarded unfair labor practice strikers.
Mr.'Dan M. Byrd, Jr., for the Board. .
Mr. George H. Armistead, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., for' the re-
spondent.
Mr. Curtis R. Sims, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Bertram Diamond, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union of-America, Local #128, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint
dated May 11, 1942, against American Bread Company, Nashville,
Tennessee, herein called the respondent, allegilig that, the respondent
had,engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
44 N. L. R B, No. 186.
- 970
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY 971
called the Act. -Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.'
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, alleged, in substance, that the respondent (1) engaged
in the following course of conduct : (a) warned its employees to with-
draw their membership from the Union, or not to become members of
the Union; (b) questioned employees as to who was active in the
Union, and otherwise attempted to obtain information concerning the
Union; (c) stated to employees that the Union would not benefit
them; (d) threatened to close the plant if the employees persisted in
their activities in behalf of the Union; (e) stated to employees that
they should be loyal to the respondent,and should not join or affiliate
with the Union; (f) circulated among the employees petitions designed
to keep them from joining the Union; (g) circulated among its em-
ployees petitions or other literature derogatory to the Union, its, or-
ganizers, or representatives; (h) urged employees to pledge their
loyalty to the respondent and to state that they were satisfied without
the Union; (i) threatened the employees with discharge or other
discipline, if they became or remained members of the Union; (j)
stated to employees that the respondent did not like their attitude
,as evidenced by their membership or activities in behalf of the Union ;
and (k) urged employees to vote against the Union in an election that
was scheduled to be held; and (2) by,the afore-mentioned unfair labor
practices, caused a large number of employees to strike. on, or about
April 15, 1942, and to remain on strike thereafter.
On May 16 and 28,1942, the respondent filed its answer and amended
answer, admitting the allegations of the amended complaint as to the
nature of its business but denying that it had engaged in any-unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on; May 25 and 26, 1942, at
Nashville, Tennessee, before Carl Wheaton, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the-respoind-
ent were represented by counsel and the Union by its international
representative; all parties participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was- afforded all parties.
During the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and .
on objections to the adiiiission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
such rulings and, finding them free from prejudicial error, hereby
affirms them. '
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report, dated
June 16, 1942, copies of. which were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting. commerce, within the
972 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning . of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act, and
recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom , and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Exceptions to the remedy recommended in the Intermediate Report
were filed by the Union ion July 7, 1942. The respondent- filed no
exceptions.
The Board has considered the Union 's exceptions . -Insofar as the
exceptions are inconsistent with the findings , conclusions , and order set
forth below , the Board finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the-case , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Tennessee corporation operating a general
bread and cake baking business at its sole production plant in Nash-
ville, Tennessee . Its principal products , consisting of 58 varieties of
loaf ' bread, doughnuts , cakes, and related bakery , products , amounted
in value in 1941 to more than $250,000, 26 percent of which represented
shipments to points outside the State of Tennessee . During the same
period, the respondent purchased raw materials consisting of flour,
sugar, and shortening, valued in excess of $100,000, approximately
80 percent of which was shipped to,the respondent from points outside
the State of Tennessee . The respondent operates 40 trucks for the
distribution of its merchandise and employs approximately 165
employees.
The respondent admits, for the purposes of this proceeding , that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of
America, Local #128, is a labor organization affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of'Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Attempts to obtain membership in the Union among the ' respond-
ent's employees began in March 1942 . On March 28, 1942, union
representatives , claiming to represent a majority of the employees,
asked F. B. Evers, president of the respondent , to bargain collec-
tively with the Union . Evers declined to do so but suggested that
^ /
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY 973
a further conference be arranged. On March 28 a petition for' ilives-
tigation and certification was filed with the Board by the Union.
Even before the Union requested the respondent to deal with it, the
respondent had einbarked upon a campaign of interference with the
self-organization of its employees. Sometime prior to March 28, ac-
cording to the uncontradicted testimony of employee McGriff, which
we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, Evers asked McGriff, an active
member of the Union, if he was still a loyal employee, telling him
that, someone was stirring up trouble 'in the shop. McGriff assured
Evers that he vas loyal.' Hearing of the foregoing conversation and
knowing of McGriff's continued union activity, Foreman Swanson on
March 30 told McGriff, whose' uncontroverted testimony we credit,
as did the Trial Examiner, that he was surprised at the part McGriff
was playing in the Union, after telling Evers that he was a loyal
employee, and added, "You stabbed the old man in the back."
About March 30, the following notice, drafted by the respondent's
attorney and signed by Evers on behalf of the respondent, was posted
on its time clock :
To OUR EMPLOYEES
The management has received information that some of our
employees are being informed that if,they join the Bakers Union
they would be discharged. The attitude of the Company has
been and still is that you are free to join apy organization, or to
refrain from joining any organization that you might desire.
Under the terms of the Wagner Act you are at liberty to make
your choice free from any threats on the part of anyone.
Evers testified, that the purpose of the notice was to set at rest the
fears of certain employees, including Moseley, who was later active,
in circulating the anti-union petition discussed below, that they Would
be discharged if they did not join the Union.
Subsequent events demonstrate that the notice was not intended as
a declaration of neutrality toward the Union's organizing efforts.,
Cunningham, an icer in the cake department, testified as follows : On
March 30, 2 'days after the Union's request for bargaining rights, she
was informed by employee Katherine Harris that E. C. Faircloth,
the respondent's secretary-treasurer, had told Harris that the equip-
ment in the cake department was to be sold and that the department
was to be closed down. When, on the same day, Cunningham ques-
tioned Hogan, foreman of the cake department, about this matter, he'
replied that it was supposed to be true. Neither Hogan nor any other
witness denied the testimony of Cunningham, and we credit it, as
' In the course of the conversation there was some dissuasion of an occas,on in w hick
Parrish, whose status is discussed below, had laid off McGriff. Evers also told McO,iff
that ' Parrish wanted McGriff to watch his job closer in the future and keep down trouble.
974 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did .the Trial Examiner. In-an attempt to justify the dissemination
of this information, the respondent, through Evers, introduced evi-
dence to show that, the cake shop had been operating at a loss and
that on several occasions the respondent had considered discontinuing
that department. 'Evers admitted, however, that the cake shop had
shown no profit for a period of 6 years, explaining that it absorbed
some of the costs of operation which would otherwise have had to be
borne ' entirely by the bread department and stating that the chief
reason for maintaining the cake shop was to avoid loss of employment
for a great,many employees. The respondent did not, however, con-
tend that any decision to close the cake shop had actually been made;,
and we find that it in fact had no intention to do so. Under all the
circumstances, and particularly in view of the fact-that the rumor
was,circulated at a crucial stage in the Union's effort to gain collec-
tive bargaining rights, we are convinced and find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondent attempted to discourage union mem-
bership by threatening to discontinue its cake department if the Union
gained a foothold at the plant.
Further evidence of, the respondent's plan of interference is to be
found in the conduct of Foreman Hogan, who was particularly active
in his opposition to the Union. Employee Hudgens; an icer in the
cake department, gave the following credible and uncontradicted testi-
mony : On March 30 Foreman Hogan asked her if she had heard "any-
thing" about the Union. When she replied in the affirmative, Hogan
inquired specifically as to what she had heard. In response to her state-
ment that she had "just heard the girls" discussing the Union, Hogan
commented that "he didn't think'it was worth anything; if he thought
it was he would be glad for us to join it, but he just hated to see innocent
girls going into something when they didn't know what they were going
into." He requested Hudgens to. talk against the Union and to say
anything that would keep the girls from joining it, but informed her to
keep this conversation with her secret.
Binkley, another employee in the cake department, testified credibly
and without contradiction to the following events : On the evening of
March 30 several representatives or members of the Union came to her
home to solicit her membership in the Union. During working hours
the next morning, Foreman Hogan asked Binkley if the "union men"
had been to see-her and whether she had joined. Upon Hogan's insist-
ent questioning, Binkley admitted that she had become a member of the
Union. Hogan advised her to get her name off the union rolls. He
first suggested that, in order to accomplish this end, she obtain the
book of union applications and "tear the whole damn thing up," but
then told her not to'bother about the book and to get her application
if she could. Although he offered to type a letter to aid' her in with-
drawing from the Union, Binkley refused to agree to the procedure.
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY 975
He admonished her not to disclose the substance of his conversation
with her, stating that he could be discharged for talking to her about
the Union. The respondent admitted that Hogan had advised Binkley
against joining the Union.
Binkley testified further as follows : After much urging by Hogan,-
Binkley went with him to see Evers. The latter talked to her about
her membership in the Union and asked her to have her name' , removed
from the Union's membership rolls. He stressed the cost of union
membership. In addition, he inquired of Binkley whether or not she
was a member of the credit union and carried insurance which the
Employees had. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, he said that the
Union "would knock all of that in the head." Despite general denials
by Evers, Nye credit, as did the Trial Examiner, the testimony of Hink-
ley concerning her interview with Evers.
'On April 1, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Barrett
and Parham, employees in the cake shop, they asked Hogan for per-
mission to take the day off, as their mother was ill. Hogan replied that
he had heard that they were working for the Union and that he did not
think' they would work against him, like that. Although girls had
frequently in the past taken time off without having been replaced, he
informed them that he would have to get others to take their places,
if they went for the day. When Hogan testified in relation to this.
occurrence, he said that, "When you are working a lot of production
like that you have to have a group that you can depend on to stay there
and to get the work out." He did not, however, deny the statements
attributed to him by Barrett and Parham. Under the circumstances,
we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that his declared intention of get-
ting others to take their places was a threat of discharge, intended to
curb their union activities.
In the meantime, on March 31, an agreement for a consent election,
scheduled to take place on April 7, had been entered into by the Union
and the respondent. On,April 1, the following petition, addressed
to Evers, began to be circulated among the employees for their signa-
ture: ,
We the undersigned employees of the American Bread Company
hereby state that we do not wish to -be represented by the ,Bakery
and Confectionery Workers Union. • '
We prefer to continue working with and, for the American
Bread Company as we have in the past.
The petition was composed by Charles Parrish, after consultation
with Howard Moseley. Both Parrish and Moseley were employees of
the respondent: Though Evers testified that Parrish, had no super-
visory authority, the record reveals that Parrish assigned employees
to various jobs and at least once laid off an employee with the approval
976 " ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Production Manager Swanson and with the subsequent ratification
of Evers. We find, upon the entire record, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Parrish is a supervisory employee for whose anti-union conduct'
the respondent is responsible.' ,Copies of the petition were circulated'
openly and without hindrance throughout the plant during working,
hours for several days by Parrish, Moseley, and at least 3 other em-
ployees. • After 79 employees, including Parrish and Moseley, had
signed the petitions, Parrish turned them in to the office, leaving them
in the care of the respondent's assistant bookkeeper and order clerk.3
Employee McGriff testified that Production Superintendent Swan-
son and Foreman Victor Smith were present in the plant when Mose-
ley circulated the petition. Despite the assertion by Swanson that he
did not observe the circulation of the petition, we agree with the Trial
Examiner that his testimony is to be rejected as implausible, and we
so find.
Upon being questioned as to whether or not lie had seen the petition,
Evers admitted that each day he usually made three or four trips
through the plant, but `stated that he, nevertheless, learned of no un-
usual activity among the employees on the days here in question.
However, the uncontradicted testimony shows that'on April 1 repre-
sentatives of the Union complained to Evers about the circulation of
the petition; that Evers promised to investigate and to have such
activity, if any, stopped; that the following day a representative of
the Union telephoned Evers and, naming Parrish and Moseley as the
persons responsible, asserted that the petition was still circulating and
again requested that it be halted; and that Evers replied'that-his in-
vestigation had revealed, nothing but that lie would inquire further
and, if he found the charges to be true, would put an end to the circu-
lation. On April 2, Evers instructed his chief supervisory employees
not to permit employees to work for or against the Union on the re-
spondent's time. Yet, on April 3, Parrish continued the circulation
of the petition during working hours ; he was never warned to cease
this activity. It appears that Evers' instructions were not communi-
cated to the employees generally or to Parrish specifically, and we
find that Evers did not seriously intend to assume a position of neu-
trality. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, we conclude
that the circulation of the petition was instigated by a representative
2 See International Association of Machinists , etc v N. L R. B, 311 U. S 72 In' any
event, the policy of interference by unquestioned supervisois, together with the widespread
circulation of the petition through the plant, make the respondent answerable as the
instigator of Pariish's conduct
8 Parrish testified that he gave the petitions to this employee for safekeeping,- explaining
that his own locker could be opened•by others. However, we share the doubt of the Trial'
Examiner,as to the validity of this explanation, since, when he produced the documents
at the hearing, Parrish testified that he had obtained them from his locker.
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY 977
of the respondent and was sanctioned' and encouraged by other
supervisory employees and by the management.
On April 5, the consent election, scheduled to take place 5 days later,
was called off, at the request of the Union which claimed-that, because
of the alleged unfair labor practices of the respondent, there 'could
not be a fair election.
In circulating the petition, Parrish told employee Edison Warden,
whose uncontradicted testimony we credit, that he was doing ,the
wrong thing in refusing to sign the petition, that Warden could not
win and was making a mistake, as his failure to sign would "go against
him." When employee Eugene Brown, whose uncontradicted testi-
mony we believe, requested Parrish to remove his name from the peti-
tion, Parrish replied that he would comply but that Brown would
be sorry. Moreover, Parrish informed McGriff that the purpose of
the petition was "to keep you and your damned Union out of the shop."
When asked at the hearing why he had kept the signed petition in his
custody, Parrish replied, "More for voting than anything else." The
petition shows on its face that the number of signers on each page
had been totalled and that it was circulated until a majority of the
employees had signed. The respondent's approval, of the circulation
of the petition, -coming as it did, shortly before the scheduled election
and contemporaneously with the anti-union efforts of Foreman Hogan
and Superintendent Evers, and accompanied by the threats made by
Parrish, could have no other purpose or effect than to discourage em-
ployees from choosing the Union as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative. In, fact, Parrish so told McGriff.. We find that, by its
sponsorship of the anti-union petition, the respondent intended to
interfere with the election that was scheduled to be held.
On or about April 8,, the respondent's attorney came to the plant
and told certain supervisory employees not to give advice about unions
or to make threats against employees for engaging in union activity.
A few days later, despite the counsel of the respondent's attorney,
according to the credible and uncontradicted testimony of McGriff,
Foreman Victor Smith told McGriff and another employee, "You fel-
lows 'are going to have to work a bit harder now you are union men.
I don't have to have the Union get anything for me I can get what
I want."
Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent, by circulating
among its employees an anti-union petition, by urging employees to
vote against the Union in a scheduled election, by threatening to close
the cake shop, and by the anti-union statements and inquiries of Evers,
Hogan, Swanson, Smith, and Parrish, has interfered with;' restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
487498-42 =v oI. 44--62
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The strike
On April 15, 1942, the employees in the cake department went out
on strike. They were joined by other employees, and, at the,time, of
the hearing, the strike was still in progress.
Although the strike was immediately, precipitated by the hiring of
an .extra icer in the cake 'department, it is apparent froth ,the testi-
mony of various employees that that circumstance was in fact regarded
as the culmination of the respondent's efforts to discourage. member-
ship in the Union and that the strike was called in protest against
the respondent's entire course of anti-union conduct. The employ-
ment of the new icer resulted in a diminution of the work of the other
employees. Moreover, she was placed at a table with three of the girls
who had not signed the anti-union petition. Cunningham, a striker
from the cake department, testified that these two factors had led the
employees to believe that the respondent was creating an opportun-
ity for dispensing with the services of some of the employees who had
not signed the petition. She added, "We would not stand there and
do that, and we.just walked out." Binkley, too, named the circulation
of the petition as one cause of the strike. Hudgens also stated that
the strike was caused by the belief that the hiring of new girls in
the cake department indicated that the respondent, intended to dis-
charge employees who had not signed the loyalty petition. Employee
Raider, another cake department employee who was a participant in
the strike, testified that the employees believed that, by sending around
the petition, an effort was being made to determine who favored and
who did not favor the Union and that the threat of closing the cake
shop, if the Union came in, also made her think that Evers was anti-
union. McGriff gave the same reasons for the strike.
The manner in which the loyalty petition was circulated furnishes
additional basis for a finding that it was a significant factor in causing
the strike. As we have already found, in addressing the employees,
Parrish, a supervisor, explained that the purpose of the petition was
to keep the Union and its members out of the plant and that those who
failed to, sign would be sorry., It is most significant that the strike
was, begun by'employees of the cake department, which was the scene
of the anti-union activities of Foreman Hogan, described above.
Upon the entire record we'find that the strike of April 15 was caused
by the respondent's unfair labor practices, particularly, the circula-
tion of the loyalty petition, and the threats, inquiries, and advice con-
cerning union membership.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth.in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY 979
described in Section I, 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
Since we have, found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that the unfair labor practices of the respondent
caused the strike which began on April 15, 1942, and which was in
progress at the time of the hearing. In order to restore the status quo
as it existed prior to the time the respondent- committed the unfair
labor practices, we shall order the respondent (1) to offer reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to, their seniority and other rights and privileges to those
employees who went on strike on April 15, 1942, or thereafter, and
who have applied for and have not been offered reinstatement, and (2)
upon application to offer reinstatement to their former or, substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
'other rights and privileges, to those employees who went on strike on
said date, or thereafter, and who have not previously applied for rein-
statement; and (3) dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired by the
respondent after April,15, 1942, the date of the strike, and not in the
employ of the respondent on said date. If, thereupon, despite such
reduction in force, there is not sufficient employment available for all
the employees to be offered reinstatement, all available positions shall
be distributed among such employees without discrimination against
any employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following
such a system of seniority or other non-discriminatory practice to such
extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of the respond-
ent's business. Those employees, if any, remaining after such distri-
bution, for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be
placed upon a preferential list and offered employment in their former
or substantially equivalent positions as such employment becomes
available and before other persons are hired for such work, in the
order determined among them by such system of seniority or other
non-discriminatory practice as has heretofore been followed by the
respondent. L -
We shall order the respondent to make whole those employees who
went on strike on April 15, 1942, or thereafter, and who have applied
for and have not been offered reinstatement, for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any, to
Y
980 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reinstate them, as provided above, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he could normally have earned as
wages during the period from five (5) days after the date on which
he applied for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement or placement on a preferential list, less his net earnings'
if any, during such period.
We shall also order the respondent to make whole those- employees
who went out on strike on April 15, 1942, or thereafter, and who have
not previously applied for reinstatement for any loss of pay they may
suffer by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them,
as provided above, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
.equal to that which lie normally would have earned as wages during
the period from five (5) days after the date on which he applies for
reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement
or placement on a preferential list, less his net earnings, if any, during
such period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of
America, Local #128, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices,
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 -(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations' Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
American Bread Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
4 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and w orking else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the respond-
ent's discrimination 'against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment
elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L B B-
4'0 Monies received for work performed "upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief piolects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Coi poi atmoa v.
N. L. It B , 311 U. S. 7.
AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY 981
41. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization by urging, persuading, warn-
ing, and threatening its employees to refrain from joining or remain-
ing members of Bakery and Confectionery Workers International
Union of America, Local #128, A. F. L., or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by questioning its employees concerning union
.activities, by threatening to discharge employees, or discontinue oper-
ations because its employees became or remained members of the afore-
said union or any other labor organization, and by interfering with
the free choice by its 'employees of a collective bargaining repre-
sentative ;
(b)_ In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to those employees who went on strike on April 15, 1942,
as thereafter, and who have applied for and have not been offered
reinstatement, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, in the manner provided in the section
entitled "The remedy" above; and place those employees for whom
employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list in
the manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said manner,
,offer them employment as it becomes available;
(b) Upon application, offer to those employees who went on strike
,on April 15, 1942, or thereafter, and who have not previously applied
for reinstatement, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges in the manner provided in the see-.
-tion entitled "The remedy" above; and place those employees for
whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential'
list in the manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said
manner, offer them employment as it becomes available;
'(c) Make whole the employees specified in paragraph 2 (a), above,
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, pursuant to paragraph 2 (a),
above, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages, during the period
from five (5) days after the date on which he applied for reinstate-
982 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, or place-
ment upon a preferential list, less his net earnings, if any, during said
period;
(d) Make whole the employees specified in paragraph'2 (b), above,
for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's
refusal, if any, to reinstate them pursuant to paragraph 2. (b)•, above,
by, payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
he would normally have earned as wages, during the period from
five (5) days after the date on which he applies for reinstatement,
or placement upon a preferential list, less his net earnings, if any,
during said period; '
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
at Nashville, Tennessee, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the con-
duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs,1
(a) and (b) hereof; and' (2) that the respondent will take the affirma-
tive action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) hereof;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within -ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
_respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.