Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 92 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARMOUR AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1381.
April 15, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 29, 1953, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Armour
and Company, Orlando, Florida, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the United Packinghouse
Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discriminating in regardto the hire or tenure
of their employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees as to their union interest,
sympathies, activities, the identity of a union representative, or
the Union's activities, informing employees that an effort was
being made to determine the identity of the instigator of the
Union, threatening a reduction in working hours in the event of
union organization, or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the aforesaid or any other labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, to
refrain from any or all of such activity except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
'The Respondent 's request for oral argument isherebydenied because the record, including
the exceptions and briefs, in our opinion , adequately presents the issues and the positions of
the parties.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Naiional Labor Relations Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman
Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
104 NLRB No. 15.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 93
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Robert L. Owens immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position with prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents,
for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the a-
mounts due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its branch house at Orlando, Florida, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as an appendix. 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) 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.
3 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner " in the caption, the words "A Decision and Order ". In the event that this
Order is enforced by decree of United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant toa Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of theUnited
States Court of Appeals , Enforcing and Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, herein called the
Union, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , issued his complaint dated
April 3, 1952, against Armour and Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947, 61 Stat 136, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and the charge together with
notice of the hearing were duly served upon the parties
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleges that the Respondent beginning
about August 1, 1951, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in discrimination by
terminating the employment of Robert L. Owens on or about August 17, 1951 The Respondent's
answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on November 3, 1952, at Orlando, Florida, before the
undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The charging party
appeared through its representative and the General Counsel and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross - examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded the parties. The parties did not
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
present oral argument at the close of the testimony nor did they file briefs with the
undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, maintains its principaloffice and place of business
at Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in the operation of meatpacking plants, meat-distributing
houses, and related enterprises throughout the United States, including a branch house at
Orlando, Florida, where it prepares and distributes meat products In the conduct of its branch
house at Orlando, the only operation involved in this proceeding , the Respondent uses annually
materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which more than 90 percent has been purchased,
transported, and delivered from and through States of the United States other than the State of
Florida. In the operation of this branch house, the Respondent has processed, sold, and dis-
tributed products valued in excess of $500,000 annually within the State of Florida The
undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO , is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1 The events
Organization on behalf of the Union at the Respondent's Orlando branch house which em-
ploys about 25 or 30 persons first started in August 1951 The activities were under the
leadership of Robert L. Owens, who is alleged by the General Counsel to have been dis-
criminatorily discharged. Owens spoke about the Union to fellow employees at the plant as he
came into contact with them. On Tuesday, August 7, Owens notified some of the employees at
the plant that there was to be a meeting that night at Lake Lorna Doone. In conducting this
meeting Owens stated that he had been in the Union before and explained how the Union
functioned and answered questions put to him by the men. The next night, Wednesday, August
8, a meeting was held at a hotel in town On this occasion, in addition to Owens, two repre-
sentatives of the Union were present and spoke in favor of the Union
On Saturday, August 11, the Respondent received notification from the Union asserting ma-
jority status and requesting recognition and bargaining During the following week which
preceded Owens' discharge on August 17, the Respondent sought to find out who was interested
in the Union and who was its instigator.
Thus during that week, according to the credible testimony of James Sweat, Otis Pace, who
was in charge of the branch house during the night shift, questioned Sweat whether he had been
approached by the union representative and Sweat replied that he had Pace inquired what the
representative looked like and also what Sweat thought of the Union. Sweat gave Pace some
description of the organizers, stated that he did not think too much about it because he had a
wife and children , and asked why the inquiries were being made Pace stated that the branch
house manager , William F . Vassar , had been informed that organization was being attempted.
Sweat asked what Vassar thought about the Union, and Pace replied that Vassar did not say
much about it but that they weretryingto find out for him who got the Union started.' Further,
according to Sweat's credible testimony, the beef department head, George W Daniel, also
declared to Sweat that he had heard that the employees were trying to get the Union started.
Sweat explained toDaniel that he did not know too much about it Daniel asked Sweat to describe
the union organizer and Sweat, while disclaiming a union interest because of family respon-
i Pace at first admitted only that he had idle conversation with employees about the Union
and denied questioning employees about the Union. Thereafter Pace admitted that when the
organizing was going on he had questioned employee Roy Cadwell as to whether he had been
approached about joining the Union.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 95
sibilities, gave Daniel the organizer's name and some description of him.2 Daniel also,
according to Owens' credible testimony, during the morning of Friday, August 17, approached
employees Tom Shaw, Morris Williams, and Owens while they were standing in a group and
inquired if they knew anything about the Union Shaw and Williams stated that they did not know
anything about it and left. Daniel then asked Owens what connection he had with the Union and
Owens replied that he did not have much to do with the Union Daniel inquired of Owens how he
expected the Union would help the employees Owens replied that the Union would help in the
matter of job security 3 Later that day Owens was discharged
At about the close of the next week employee William Miller applied for work and was hired
as a truckdriver to begin work the following Monday, August 27 According to Miller's credible
testimony, during his interview with Vassar, in the presence of Pace, Vassar asked Miller
what he thought of the Union and Miller replied that if the employer treats the employee all
right a union was not needed, but if the employer did not treat his employees well that is the
time to get a union.; During the first week of Miller's employment, according to his further
credible testimony, Foreman John G Pratt stated to employee Carl Faulk in Miller's presence
as the trucks were being gassed that when the Union came in the employees would never get
the hours they were getting and all the Respondent had to do was to guarantee the employees
36 hours a weeks
On September 19, the Respondent executed a consent-election agreement and an election was
held on October 3 A few days before the election, according to the credible testimony of em-
ployee Lawrence Tanner, Pace approached him and asked him what he thought about the Union
and if he believed in unions Tanner replied that he believed in unions and learned about them
when he had worked for a railroad and that that union was a fine organization. 6
The Union obtained a majority of the approximately 14 employees in the unit at the election
and was thereafter certified A contract between the Union and the Respondent was thereafter
executed
2 Conclusions
It is accordingly found that by the following acts and conduct the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act- (1) Pace's (a) inquiry of certain employees as to whether they had been
approached by the Union, (b) inquiry of an employee as to what the union representative looked
like, (c ) declaring to an employee that he was trying to find out for the plant superintendent who
had started the Union, and (d) inquiring of an employee what he thought about the Union and if
he believed in unions; (2) Daniel's (a) inquiry of an employee as to union activities at the plant,
(b) asking an employee to describe the union organizer, (c) inquiring of certain employees if
they knew anything about the Union, (d) inquiring of an employee what connection he had with
the Union, (3) Vassar's inquiring of an employee as to what he thought about the Union, and (4)
Pratt's threatening an employee that when the Union came in the employees would never get
the hours they were getting
B. The discrimination
As has been noted, Owens' discharge on August 17 is alleged to be discriminatory. Owens
came to the Respondent as an experienced beef boner . It takes about 6 months to develop a good
beef boner and it is sometimes difficult to find an experienced man. At the time of his discharge
Owens had been employed by the Respondent for a little over a year.
Branch House Manager Vassar, who ordered Owens' discharge, explained that the work which
Owens performed , beef boning , had fallen off because of the seasonal decline in the receipt of
2 Daniel testified that he probably approached several employees about the Union, but he
was not asked to testify about the Sweat conversation specifically.
3Daniel testified that hehad heard some rumors about the Union and that during the middle
of a week as a matter of personal curiosity he asked Owens if he had been approached by the
Union and that Owens replied in the negative Neither Shaw nor Williams appeared as a
witness
4Pace testified that he was present when Miller was hired but did not remember that the
subject of unions arose Vassar remembered only having discussions about the Union with
three of the employees, not including Miller. Vassar also gave a different version of the
hiring
5 Pratt denied having a conversation with Miller regarding the Union. Faulk was not called
as a witness.
6 Pace testified that he remembered talking to Tanner about the Union and who was trying to
organize the Union but that he could not remember anything else.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
boning cattle and that Owens was selected for discharge because he had been away from his
place of work and engaged in conversations with employees in the egg room Concerning Owens
engaging in conversations in the egg room, Vassar testified that he had seen Owens in the egg
room quite a few times over a period of 6 to 8 weeks and that there was not a week in that
period that he did not see Owens there Vassar testified further that in accordance with his
practice of not dealing with the employees directly he did not take the matter up with Owens but
that he talked with Owens' superior, Daniel, the beef department head, after the second time he
saw Owens in the egg room Ontwodifferent occasions, according to Vassar, he warned Daniel
of Owens' conduct of idling on the job and told Daniel to talk to Owens and if Owens did not get
himself straightened out he would be replaced Daniel stated on these or other occasions, ac-
cording to Vassar, that Owens was a goodworker, but that his production was spasmodic. The
third and last occasion when Vassar talked to Daniel about the matter was on Wednesday,
August 15, when according to Vassar he found Owens in the egg room at three different times
during that day. Vassar continued that he then directed Daniel to discharge Owens at the end
of the week on Friday, August 17, stating to Daniel that it seemed like Daniel was not going to
do anything about the situation Vassar stated at the hearing that he did not find out from Daniel
whether Daniel had warned Owens, and that he had not taken the matter up with Owens directly
during the entire period Vassar at first testified that he had found other employees not as-
signed to the egg room in the egg room besides Owens on different occasions, but that it had
not occurred too often until then Vassar thereafter testified that he had not found others in the
egg room until after the Owens episode and that then things started to-get so bad in the latter
part of August that he had to post a notice thereafter prohibiting non-egg -room employees
from entering the egg room After Owens' discharge, Vassar continued, when everyone was
going to the egg room, he talked to individual employees about going to the egg room too much,
but he never laid off anyone except Owens for going to the egg room too much.
The version on the discharge which Daniel gave was that about 2 months before Owens'
discharge, Vassar told him that he, Vassar, wanted to let Owens go because he was not satis-
fied with Owens' work and had found Owens in the egg room every time he went back there.
Vassar, Daniel continued, talked to him about Owens 3 or 4 times and that he, Daniel, fully
intended to talk to Owens about it in order to try to get the matter straightened out but it was
"lust one of those things" he never got around to doing. Daniel testified further that on Friday
morning, August 17. Vassar told him that everytime he went down the hall he saw Owens in the
egg room with some other employees, talking, and that he was getting sick and tired of it and
instructed him, Daniel, to let Owens go. Daniel discharged Owens that afternoon not giving him
as the reason Vassar's complaints but insufficiency of boning cattle.? Daniel, who held the
view that Owens was a good beef boner and who had a personal regard for Owens, also stated
to Owens at the time of the discharge that if Owens could get by on part-time work until the
winter season he might be able to talk to Vassar and get Owens put back to work.
According to Owens on the day of his discharge Daniel came to him stating that there was
bad news for Owens, that Vassar had got word that he had to cut expenses or lay someone off,
and that Owens had been selected for layoff. Owens testified further that he asked Daniel why
he was selected and Daniel replied that he did not know. Owens then inquired whether he was
needed and Daniel replied that he was needed. According to Owens he told Daniel that he
understood that there was a truckdriver's job vacant and asked Daniel if he would inquire of
Vassar whether he could have that job Daniel left, went into the office, and returned stating
that there was not a vacancy and that he would have to lay Owens off.8 Owens also testified that
he generally went to the egg room about once in the morning.
From about early 1950, when the sales in the beef department were built up, until Owens'
discharge, the Respondent had operated the department with more than one beef boner. For a
period of several months after Owens' discharge, the Respondent did not hire a beef boner.
An employee whom Owens had trained continued to work as a beef boner after Owens' dis-
charge The undersigned is convinced from the record that there was a marked decline in
cattle receipts at about the time of Owens' discharge.
There remains for determination whether Owens' union activity was the cause for his dis-
charge The Respondent through Vassar explains that when a reduction in force was indicated,
Owens, the man who was idling on the job, that is talking in the egg room, was selected for
the discharge. Undoubtedly, in view of Owens' union interests and a decline in beef boning
7 Daniel testified further that about that time cattle receipts had fallen off substantially and
he thought that the boners had not been working their full 40 hours.
8 The record also shows, as had already been noted in Miller's testimony, that there was a
vacancy for a truckdriver during the week following Owens' discharge. It is also clear that,
to the Respondent's knowledge, truck driving was within Owens' immediate employment
experience.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 97
work, the amount of time Owens actually spent in the egg room , is somewhere between Owens'
version and Vassar 's version. It appears also, however , that Vassar exaggerated the sig-
nificance of the egg - room incidents . For example , Vassar testified that after the second time
he saw Owens in the egg room he told Daniel that Owens would be replaced if Owens did not
cease going to the egg room . It appears also that at no time did Vassar speak to Owens even
though Vassar had concluded that Daniel had not done anything about the matter In addition,
after Owens ' discharge , talking in the egg room , according to Vassar , became a serious
problem involving many employees Yet, although Vassar had already used discharge as the
penalty in the Owens case and although he spoke to these employees directly without apparent
success, no one was discharged . Vassar merely resorted to posting a notice and it does not
appear that any disciplinary action was taken as to these employees . Moreover , if, as Vassar
testified , Vassar had warned Daniel on several occasions that Owens would have to cease his
conduct or be replaced, Daniel, who testified that he had a personal regard for Owens, did not
appraise the situation as being serious for he admittedly never took the matter up with Owens
explaining his inaction merely as "lust one of those things." Consistent also with Daniel's
appraisal of the warnings . if they occurred , as not be...g serious , was Daniel' s suggestion to
Owens of part-time work until the winter season after Vassar had directed Daniel to discharge
Owens.
The General Counsel has shown through a threat and many inquiries an antiunion animus on
the part of the Respondent and further that the Respondent was seeking to determine the identity
of the union instigator. When Daniel asked Owens and the other two employees if they knew
anything about the Union, the other employees denied any knowledge about the Union and left
Owens with Daniel. Daniel then asked Owens what connection he had with the Union and Owens
stated his views. The Respondent having thus found Owens to be a prounion employee rid itself
of him later the same day. It is accordingly found that the egg-room matter was not a factor
bringing about Owens' discharge and that Owens was discharged because of his union activity
in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
In making the findings herein of violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and also a violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, the undersigned has taken into consideration the testimony of Claude F
Hutchison, the district manager of the territory which includes the Orlando branch house, to
the effect that the Respondent has a policy of neutrality and that it would not sign a closed-shop
contract As has been seen, the Respondent's policy has not been followed locally at the branch
house. It appears, moreover, that Pace testified that he did not recall making any statement to
employees regarding the Respondent's policy, Daniel testified that he knew the Respondent's
policy, but that he guessed that in conversations with employees the trend of the conversations
was probably away from the Union, and Vassar testified that he informed three employees of
the Respondent's policy of neutrality.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that beginning August 17, 1951 , the Respondent discriminated against
Robert L. Owens and it will therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to offer
Owens immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position 9
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any
loss of pay suffered by him as a result of the discrimination, by payment to him a sum of
money equal to the amount he would have earned from August 17, 1951, the date of the discrimi-
nation , to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 10 to be computed on a
quarterly basis in a manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for
9The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan , Puerto Rico , Branch, 65
NLRB 827.
to Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R. B., 311
U.S. 7.
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any other such period. It will be also recommended that the Respondent make available to the
Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amounts due
The Respondent's infractions of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act, herein found, dis-
close a fixed purpose to defeat self-organizationand its objectives. Because of the Respondent's
unlawful conduct and its underlying purposes, the undersigned is persuaded that the unfair
labor practices found are related to the other unfair labor practices prqscribed by the Act, and
that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the
Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventative purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless
the remedial order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and
thus to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert L Owens
beginning August 17, 1951, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organi-
zation, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
3. By inquiring whether employees had been approached by the Union, inquiring as to the
identity of the union representative, declaring that an effort was being made to determine the
identity of the instigator of the Union, inquiring of employees as to their union interest,
sympathy, or activities, inquiring of employees as to their knowledge of the Union's activities,
threatening a reduction in working hours when the Union came in, andengaging indisc rimina-
tion and thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in exercising 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 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pgrsuant to the recommendations of a TrialExaminerof the National Labor Relations Board
in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of the United Pack-
inghouse Workers Of America, CIO, or in any other labor organization, by dis-
criminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT inquire of our employees whether they have been approached by the
union, inquire of our employees as to the identity of a union representative, declare to our
employees that an effort was being made to determine the identity of the instigator of the
union, inquire of our employees as to their union interest, sympathies, or activities, in-
quire of our employees as to their knowledge of the union's activities, or threaten our
employees with a reduction in working hours in the event of union organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the United Packinghouse Workers Of America, CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section (a) (3) of the Act
CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY 99
WE WILL offer Robert L. Owens immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially similar position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination
against him.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ................ By..............................................................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY and ELBERT A. MARTIN
and FRANK H. SCHAFLER. Cases Nos. 14-CA-716 and
14-CA-718. April 15, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Bertram G. Eadie
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
The Board' has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
(Respondent excepts to the admission by the Trial Examiner of evidence relating to the
joining of Local 535, United Construction Workers, by Martin and Schafler, the alleged dis-
criminatory dischargees herein, and of evidence relating to their expulsion from Local
No. 6. International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers, Maintenance Men and Helpers, AFL,
and from Local No. 4, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America,
AFL, respectively. For reasons appearing below, we find no merit in this exception.
The Trial Examiner reserved his ruling as to whether to admit in evidence General
Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9, which were letters from Bakers Local 4 to Schafler noti-
fying him, first, of his trial before the Union's executive board, and second, of his expulsion
by vote of the membership. No ruling admitting or rejecting this evidence was ever made
by the Trial Examiner. We find the letters to be relevant and proper evidence of union ac-
tivity, and hereby admit them.
104 NLRB No. 17.