Armour & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1100 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of ARMOUR & COMPANY and PACKING HOUSE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR UNITED PACKING HOUSE WORKERS,
LOCAL 347
In the Matter of ARMOUR & COMPANY and UNITED PACKING HOUSE
WORKERS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 347, THROUGH PACKING
HOUSE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE
COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
Cases Nos. R-584 and C-895, , respectively .Derided September 15,
19008
Meat Packing Industi y-Intei ference, Restraint , and Coercion : posting notice
in plant; expressed opposition to labor organization-Company-Dominated
Union: domination of and interference with formation and administration ; sup-
poi t ; intimidation and coercion to join ; elections held during working hours ;
discrimination in favor of , in recognition as representative of employees ; dis-
established , as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination : discharges:,
for union membership and activity ; refusals to reinstate ; lay-offs ; charges of,
not sustained as to four persons-Reinstatement Ordered: discharged em-
ployees-Back Pay: awarded-Investigation of Representatives : controversy
concerning representation of employees ' controversy concerning appropriate
unit-Unit Appi opi late for Collective Bai gaining: production and maintenance
employees-Election Ordered: company -dominated union excluded from the
ballot.
111r. Stephen M. Reynolds and Mr. Robert Rissman, for the Board.
111r. Walter C. Dirk, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. G. L. Grant and Mr. J. J. Brownlee, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr.
Anthony Wayne Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the United.
Mr. Euclid Louis Taylor, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association.
Mr. Harry E. Sele7eman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 29, 1937, Packing House Workers Organizing Com-
mittee for United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union
No. 347, herein called the United, filed with the Regional Director for
S N L. R. B., No. 137.
1100
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1101
the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois) a petition alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Armour L','- Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called
the respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On January 15,
1938, an amended petition was filed by United Packing House Work-
ers Local Industrial Union No. 347, through Packing House Workers
Organizing Committee. On January 8, 1938, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered
an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it
and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On January 14, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and upon
Employees' Mutual Association of Chicago, herein called the Asso-
ciation, a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly
affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was
held on January 20, 21, 26, and 27, 1938, at Chicago, Illinois, before
P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
At the hearing the Association filed a motion to intervene, which was
allowed by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the
United, and the Association were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing and
at its conclusion, the respondent and the Association moved that the
petition be dismissed. The Trial Examiner denied these motions and
made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 9, 1938, the United filed with the Board in Washing-
ton, D. C., a petition alleging that the evidence introduced on direct
examination of the witnesses of the respondent and the Association
in the representation proceedings revealed that the Association was
company-dominated and requesting that the name of the Associa-
tion be omitted from the ballot.
On December 15, 1937, the United filed charges that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor,practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. On March 18, 1938,
the Board, acting pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the representa-
1102 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion case and the complaint case be consolidated for all purposes. On
March 19, 198, the United filed amended charges alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (3) of the Act. Upon the charges and amended charges filed by
the United, the Board, by Leonard C. Bajork, the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region, issued its complaint dated March 21, 1938,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that from on or about April
20, 1937, to the date of the complaint the respondent had fostered,
dominated, and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Association and had contributed financial and other support
thereto; that the respondent discharged Peter Davis and Jacob Brya
and refused to reemploy them because they joined and assisted the
United; that the respondent laid off 11 named employees in the beef-
cutting department and refused to reinstate them because they had
engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection
and/or joined and assisted the United; and that the respondent by
advising, urging, and warning its employees to refrain from joining
or retaining membership in the United interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them in Section 7 of the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing
thereon were duly served upon the respondent and upon the United.
On March 22, 1938, copies of the order of consolidation were duly
served upon the respondent, the United, and the Association. On
March 24, 1938, the respondent filed an answer admitting its inter-
state activity, but denying the alleged unfair labor practices and
setting forth affirmative defenses to the discharges and lay-offs.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing upon the consolidated cases was
held on March 31 through April 11, 1938, at Chicago, Illinois, before
Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the respondent, and the United were represented by coun-
sel and participated in the hearing. The Association was given an
opportunity to intervene in the proceedings, but refused to do so
unless and until served with a copy of the charges and the complaint.
Since the Association was not a necessary party to the complaint
proceedings,' it was under the duty of petitioning for intervention,
had it desired to participate. No duty rested on the Board to serve
a potential intervenor with a copy of the charges and of the com-
plaint. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
I See National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc ., and Grey-
hound Management Company, 303 U. S. 261 ( 1938).
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1103
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af-
forded all parties. During the hearing, counsel for the Board moved
to dismiss the allegations of the complaint that the respondent had
discriminatorily laid o$ Stanley Flodinsky, Frank Kalinsky, Ed
O'Brien, George Spevak, Brucel Landsey, Tliates Rogers, and Lee
Gentry, employees in the beef-cutting department. At the conclusion
of the Board's case and at the close of the hearing, counsel for the
Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof. These
motions were allowed by the Trial Examiner. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. During the hearing, the respondent moved that the order
of consolidation be vacated, asserting in support of its motion (1)
that the testimony given at the hearing on the representation case
relating to the origin and nature of the Employee Representation
Plan, which was operated by the respondent in the plant from 1921
until 1937, would have been objected to if the respondent had known
that such testimony was to be used in a subsequent proceeding
involving a charge that the Association was company-dominated, and
(2) that the order of consolidation is null and void inasmuch as it
was issued prior to the issuance of the complaint. The Trial Ex-
aininer denied the motion of the respondent. The respondent con-
tends that this evidence, which was admitted in the representation
case, was incompetent in that proceeding. It is not necessary for its
to decide whether the evidence was properly admissible there, since
the respondent had an opportunity to raise the objection in that pro-
ceeding but failed to exercise it. The respondent fails to specify
any grounds on which it might have sought to exclude this evidence
from a proceeding on the complaint. So far as appears, therefore,
we can not determine that the respondent's rights have been preju-
diced in any way by the order of consolidation. Moreover, in its
brief, the respondent appears to have taken a position inconsistent
with any objection to the order of consolidation, objecting to the con-
sideration, in the complaint proceeding, of only the evidence intro-
duced in the second hearing, on the ground that because of the order
of consolidation it failed to reoffer in the second hearing evidence
that it had introduced in the first. Article III, Section 37 (b), of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, expressly provides that the Board may, at any time after
a charge has been filed with a Regional Director pursuant to Article
III, Section 2, order that such charge, in any proceeding which
may have been instituted in respect thereto, be consolidated for the
purpose of hearing, or for any other purpose with any other proceed-
ing which may have been instituted in the same region. The issuance
2 Upon motion of counsel for the Board, paragraph 13 of the complaint was amended
by adding after the numbers "8 (1)" therein the number "(2)" which had been inadvert-
ently omitted.
1104 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the order of consolidation prior to the issuance of a complaint is in
accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules and Regula-
tions. The ruling of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed. During
the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several other rul-
ings on motions and on objections to admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial' errors were committed. All such rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On May 23, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but that the respondent
by the lay-offs of the einployees in the beef-cutting department had
not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
The respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support of its motion to dismiss and of its exceptions.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on June 23,
1938, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the
United were represented by counsel and participated therein. The
Board has reviewed the exceptions filed by the respondent and finds
them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case,2a the Board makes the following
findings of fact :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Armour & Company, an Illinois corporation, having its principal
office and place of business at Chicago, Illinois, operates 28 meat pack-
ing houses in 22 States and about 30 branch houses throughout the
United States. The Union Stockyards packing house at Chicago,
Illinois, is the only plant herein involved. At this plant, the respond-
ent purchases and slaughters livestock, and processes, manufactures,
and distributes various products and byproducts.
Over 2,000,000 animals, having a value of approximately $74,800,000,
were purchased and slaughtered by the respondent at the Chicago
plant during the fiscal year ending October 30, 1937. The livestock
was purchased principally through commission men doing business in
Chicago. However, approximately 60 per cent of the cattle, 40 per
cent of the hogs, and 80 per cent of the sheep originated outside Illinois.
The total volume of all products and byproducts distributed from the
Chicago plant during the aforesaid fiscal year amounted to approxi-
2r The findings contained in Section III below may, however , be rested entirely upon the
record made at the second hearing.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1105
mately 900 ,000,000 pounds . About 85 per cent of such products and
byproducts were shipped outside Illinois.
Approximately 7,000 production and maintenance workers are em-
ployed at the Chicago plant.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Packing House Ỳorkers Local Industrial Union No. 347 is
a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization , admitting to its membership hourly paid production and
maintenance employees of the respondent at its Chicago plant.
Employees ' Mutual Association of Chicago is an unaffiliated labor
organization . It admits to its membership all hourly paid and steady-
time employees "provided such employees should not have the power
of supervision , employment , or discharge , or is not a subscriber to the
Armour and Company Pension Plan.",'
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with Employees' Mutual Associa-
tion of Chicago
In 1921 the respondent established at the Chicago plant an Employee
Representation Plan, under which there was set up a Conference Board
consisting of employee representatives chosen by employees from pre-
cincts established in the plant and an equal number of management
representatives appointed by the plant superintendent. There was
also set up an executive committee of 12 members consisting of three
representatives each from the beef, pork , mechanical , and production
divisions . The executive committee at first met with the management
in handling grievances . However, in 1923 it was agreed that griev-
ances should be taken up with the management by two members of
the executive committee chosen from the whole committee by secret
ballot. The two representatives thus chosen devoted their full time
to the handling of grievances , but received all their compensation from
the respondent.
Shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States on April 12, 1937, sustaining the constitutionality of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, Donald King, the general plant super-
intendent, informed the employee representatives on the Conference
Board that the respondent was dissolving the Employee Representa-
tion Plan and that the employees were free to form any organization
they desired. He also stated that the respondent would continue to
3 Board Exhibit 1-C, motion of the Association to intervene
1106 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deal with the employee representatives elected under the Employee
Representation Plan until the employees indicated a desire for some
other type of organization. Accordingly, C. H. Talley and James R.
Holmes continued as under the Plan to represent employees in the
matter of grievances. They still occupied-their desks in the em-
ployment office of the respondent and drew their full-time pay from
the respondent for their services. Although classified as a butcher
on the respondent's pay roll, Talley had devoted his entire time
since 1923 to his activities as an employee representative. Holmes
was carried on the pay roll of- respondent as an engineer but since
1933 he had acted in a capacity similar to that of Talley.
On April 25, 1937, Talley, Holmes, and about 30 or 40 employees
met at Holmes' residence and discussed the formation of an or-
ganization of employees. A committee, of which Holmes was chair-
man and Talley a member, was named to determine the organiza-
tional plans. Further meetings were held at homes of members of
the committee. During May 1937, this committee circulated cards
authorizing the employee representatives elected in the January
1937 election under the Employee Representation Plan to act as a
bargaining agent until another election was held. Talley testified
that from 4,000 to 5,000 employees signed such cards.
About the middle of May 1937, Talley and Holmes informed King
that approximately 85 per cent of the employees had signed authori-
zation cards, and King replied that he would recognize them as the
bargaining representative of the employees. Shortly thereafter,
Talley and Holmes told King that they wanted to form a union of
their own and requested permission to conduct an election. This
permission was granted.
On June 2, 1937, an election was held at the plant at which the
employees voted whether or not they wished the "Employees Mutual
Association" to represent them for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. Talley, Holmes, and King testified that approximately 85
per cent of all the employees voted in the affirmative. About 10 days
later a second election was held for the purpose of electing divisional
and precinct representatives.
The record discloses that each election was held under substantially
the same arrangements as those of the Conference Board elections
under the Employee Representation Plan. The tellers at the elec-
tion were designated by forms carrying the printed name of Super-
intendent King. The forms directed the appropriate foremen to ex-
cuse the men from work during the election and to find a substitute
to carry on the tellers' regular duties. The tellers received pay from
the respondent for the time spent during the election.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1107
The extent of the respondent's - participation in the elections is
indicated not only by the foregoing and by the fact that the balloting
was conducted at the plant of the respondent during working hours,
but also by the following additional circumstances. George Irving,
who had acted as teller in the - election under the Employee Rep-
resentation Plan, testified that Thomas Clark, his foreman, notified
him to act as teller in the June 2 election. William Mooney testified
that his foreman, Bob McLean, had in accordance with instructions
from King and Adams, the construction plant superintendent, di-
rected him to act as teller. James Gallagher, the beef-cutting de-
partment foreman, stated at the hearing that he had given orders
that Irving was to be excused from work to participate in the elec-
tion and that somebody be put in his place. The tellers were fur-
nished with lists of employees secured from the respondent and
indicated on such lists whether the particular employee voted in the
election or refused to vote.
Following the second election of employee representatives, 23 of
whom had served in a similar capacity under the Employee Repre-
sentation Plan, a committee of 5 or 6 was appointed to draw up a
constitution and bylaws. The constitution and bylaws which were
drafted provided for an organizational set-up patterned closely after
that existing under the Employee Representation Plan, except that
no provision was made, for management representatives. The con-
stitution and bylaws were approved at a meeting attended by approxi-
mately 70 of the 7,000 employees of the respondent.
During June 1937, Holmes was elected president of the Association,
and Talley the secretary-treasurer. Holmes and Talley were also
chosen as members of a bargaining committee of 12 and were desig-
nated by the bargaining committee as a subcommittee of two to handle
grievances. Although Holmes and Talley devote their entire working
time to discussing grievances with and handling grievances for em-
ployees, they receive all their pay from the respondent and are
furnished office space by it.
On September 13, 1937, Holmes, as president of the Association,
sent the respondent a letter stating that over 85 per cent- of the em-
ployees had participated in the election of June 2 and that the Asso-
ciation represented over 80 per cent of the employees. The letter
requested a conference to discuss recognition of the Association as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. On Septem-
ber 28, 1937, King replied on behalf of the respondent, accepting the
claims of the Association as to its membership and recognizing it as
the collective bargaining agent for its members. The recognition
was gradually extended- so that within several months the Associa-
117213-39-vol 8-71
1108 NATIONAL, LABOR Rl7I.ATIONS BOARD
tion became the exclusive bargaining representative of all the
employees.
Numerous witnesses testified that representatives of the Associa-
tion were accustomed during working hours and on company
premises freely to solicit membership , to collect dues, and to distribute
association buttons. For example , Peter Shields , an employee in the
sheep-kill department , testified that he saw Lawrence Walker, an
association representative , collecting dues and distributing buttons
and the publication of the Association in the dressing room. Jesse
Perez and Thomas Goodlow stated that while they were unloading a
railroad car , Edward Sutton , another association representative, dis-
tributed cards and buttons to the employees , although Sutton did not
work on that gang. Mary Tudosy and Ann Novak , employees in the
canning department , stated that William Kulick engaged in similar
activity for the Association in their department.
The respondent states that on April 28, 1938, a notice was posted
prohibiting solicitation of members by any labor organization on
plant property and during working hours . There is no evidence,
however, that any action was taken against the members of the Asso-
ciation who engaged in such practices although their activity was
repeatedly brought to the attention of the supervisory officials of the
respondent.
It is clear from the foregoing that the respondent has actively
aided and assisted in the formation and administration of the Asso-
ciation. It paid Holmes and Talley not only for time spent present-
ing grievances to the respondent , but also for the time spent dis-
cussing these grievances with the members of the Association. It
actively assisted in the two elections held in June 1937 . It recognized
the Association as exclusive bargaining representative apparently
without any investigation into its claims of membership . It per-
mitted members of the Association freely to engage in such activities
on company property during working hours.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association , and has con-
tributed support to it.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
While the respondent assisted and participated in the formation
and administration of the Association as described above, it was
meanwhile through its supervisory employees actively impeding or-
ganizational efforts of the United when it began to solicit members
at the plant about February 1937. Early in the United's campaign,
an employee named Malachi and a group associated with him formed
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1109
"flying squads" to solicit members during lunch hours. - In April,
a "squad" of four employees visited the canning department during
the noon hour and found Holmes talking to a group of girls about
the formation of an organization of employees. When Holmes dis-
covered that the "squad" had come to solicit members for the United,
lie ordered a plant policeman to take them to the office of the chief
of the plant police. After this was done, the men were ordered to
report to Guyol, the personnel manager, who warned them about
their activities. King, the plant superintendent, in his testimony
manifested full knowledge of this incident. He stated that he gave
directions that the four United members should be released and sent
back to work. He also stated that following this occurrence he had
a notice posted throughout the plant forbidding solicitation in the
plant of members by any labor organization. The evidence shows,
however, that the rule was enforced only against solicitation on
behalf of the United.
Mrs. Tudosy, an employee of 5 years' service in the canning de-
partment, testified that her forelady, Mary Mitchell, warned her
against wearing a C. I. O. button during working hours and
advised her against paying a dollar to the C. 1. O. since she could
bet an association button for 35 cents. This testimony was not denied.
Talley interrupted James Wright in his work on October 5, 1937,
to inquire why he had not joined the Association and to warn him
that if he was not "careful" he would find himself "on State Street."'
We have noted, above, Talley's close identification with the
respondent.
When Cleveland Johnson, an employee in the beef-casing depart-
ment, stopped to talk to a fellow employee before work began on
November 9, 1937, his foreman, Edward Marquardt, stated, "You
are not allowed off your bench to talk union activities or anything."
Johnson then protested that John Brown, an association representa-
tive, often came into the department and spoke for 15 or 20 minutes
about the Association, Marquardt replied that he had the "privilege of
talking to anybody he wants to at any time." The respondent sought
to explain the different treatment accorded Brown on the ground
that he was the leader of the Jubilee Singers, an organization which
gave the respondent much publicity, and that it was pursuant to
his duties as leader of the Jubilee Singers that Brown interviewed
the employees. It is clear, however, on the basis of the uncontro-
verted testimony that Brown spent considerable time discussing the
Association.
The uncontroverted testimony of Joe Bezonhofer was that during
November 1937 his foreman, Louis Rumpf, told him : "You are doing
4 State Street is a place where unemployed congregate.
1110 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
too much talking for the C. I. O. This is what I want you to do.
Quit talking C. I. O. or else you may get into trouble." Bezonhofer
testified that he stated that he was willing to do so when William
Bogar, an association representative in his department, ceased his
activities. He also stated that although Rumpf replied that Bogar
had promised to do so, Bogar in fact continued soliciting members
and collecting dues in the plant.
Shortly after the United on November 29, 1937, filed with the
Regional Director a petition for investigation and certification o f
representatives, the respondent posted a notice throughout the plant,
stating that it was not necessary for the employees to join a union in
order to retain their jobs with the respondent. In view of the date
on which this notice was posted and the fact that the respondent
was actively assisting the Association, it is plain that the notice was
designed to hinder the United in its organizational efforts.
We find that the respondent by its domination and interference with
the formation and administration of the Association and by the other
acts above set forth has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees'in the exercise of-their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
C. The discharges
Peter Davis was employed by the respondent in the beef-kill depart-
ment from August 1923 to December, 9, 1937. He joined the United
on June 19, 1937, and was elected a steward in his department in the
latter part of June. He was an active union member and engaged
in the distribution of union literature and the solicitation of member-
ship, as well as in collecting dues.
On September 2, 1937, Davis was discharged allegedly for care-
lessness in allowing sweetbreads trimmed from beef carcasses to fall on
the floor. He had been frequently warned about this and increased
emphasis had been previously placed on the regulation against allow-
ing meat to fall on the floor. Davis was reinstated on September 13
after intervention by United representatives with C. L. Guyol, the
employment manager of the respondent, who had conferred with Don-
ald King, the plant superintendent, regarding Davis. King was in-
duced to reinstate Davis by consideration of his long service record
and because he believed that the discharge was too severe a penalty.
Davis was reinstated without prejudice to his seniority rights or
service record.
On November 18, 1937, Davis brought an armful of C. I. O. litera-
ture into the dressing room and distributed it to his fellow employees
before work. His foreman, John Kastenbeik, ordered him to remove
the literature from the dressing room. When Davis-refused to listen
DEC1'SI67S Nr) ORDERS All
to Kastenbeik, flie latter took up the matter with George' Rush, -the
divisional superintendent, who informed Davis that he would not be
allowed to work unless he opened his locker and removed all the
literature from the plant. Davis refused to carry out these instruc-
tions, and went ahead with his work. Davis was then called to the
office of Bush and efforts were made to obtain from him a promise
that he would not bring any more union literature into the plant.
Davis refused to make such a promise, stating that the respondent
had no control over his time and activities during non-working hours,
and that he would refer the matter of his union activities to the union
committee. During the noon hour, Davis, together with a committee
of 10 employees, made an effort to see Bush but failed to find him.
Bush testified that lie closed the incident and told Davis to return
to his job.
On December 9, 1937, Davis appeared at work wearing a steward's
button encircled by four small C. I. O. buttons.' The steward's button
was 23/4 inches long and 13/4 inches wide and bore the legend "Packing
House `Yorkers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., Steward, Pay Your
Dues." Davis testified that he had been wearing the steward's button
on the three previous days, but his supervisors testified that December
9 was the first day on which they had seen the button displayed. Upon
protest' by John Brown, the association representative, Kastenbeik
ordered him to remove the steward's button. About the same time
other stewards in the plant were approached with similar requests, and
they apparently complied. Davis replied, however, that his union
committee had given him this button and that he would not take it
off until he spoke with them. Kastenbeik then stated, "If you don't
take it off, you're fired." Upon Davis' continued refusal to remove
the button, he was discharged and paid in full. The following day,
Davis, accompanied by two United representatives, unsuccessfully
applied to Guyol for reinstatement.
At the hearing King stated that Davis was discharged because he
refused to remove the steward's button when instructed to do so. He
asserted in justification of such action that the wearing of the button
was causing confusion and commotion in the plant and that "there
was very likely to be trouble, friction, fights, and even riots." Various
witnesses testified that when Davis'appeared at the plant wearing the
steward's button a number of employees gathered around him to in-
spect it. This activity and the objections voiced by the association
'The pi otest was based in part upon the ground that since April the respondent had
not permitted members of the Association to wear employee representative badges which
they had previously worn under the Employee Representation Plan It is to be noted
that such badges were the property of the respondent and the paraphernalia of an olgani-
zation patently illegal under the Act.
1112 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members created some confusion in the plant. However, the evidence
does not show any basis for the fear asserted by the respondent regard-
ing a serious disturbance in the plant.
We are of the opinion that Davis as a steward in the United was
entitled to wear the button indicating his rank and function in the
labor organization and that the order of the respondent directing a
removal of the button constituted an interference with the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We conclude, moreover, that
under the circumstances Davis was justified in refusing to obey such
an order and that the respondent's act in discharging him upon such
refusal constituted a discrimination against him within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
At the time of his discharge, Davis received 651/2 cents per hour.
He has not obtained employment elsewhere and desires reinstatement.
We find that by the discharge of Peter Davis on December 9, 1937,,
the respondent has discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, and it has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees,
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Jacob Brya was employed by the respondent continuously from
June 13, 1928, until his discharge on November 22, 1937. He worked
at various times as a nailer, a checker, an order clerk, an order filler,
and a scaler. He received a number of pay increases, including a pay
increase of 9 cents an hour on Marc] 115, 1937. Brya joined the United
on August 9, 1937, and was elected a steward on November 11, 1937.
Thereafter, he was actively engaged in soliciting members. for the,
United. Brya's supervisors admittedly had full knowledge of his
union activities, at least during the last 3 or 4 weeks of his employ-
ment. This knowledge was based upon his activity and upon the
fact that he regularly wore a C. I. O. button. Indeed, John DeRenne,
superintendent of the products-chill department, stated that he kept
Brya 'under surveillance during the 3 days preceding his discharge.
Whenever DeRenne noticed that Brya was absent from his scale, he
promptly followed him and endeavored to overhear whatever he^
night say. DeRenne stated that he was moved in this action by his,
zeal to enforce a rule of the respondent which prohibited union solici-
tation or activities on company property.
On Saturday, November 20, 1937, Frank Antonneli, the assistant,
department superintendent, interrupted Brya while he was dis-
tributing union literature during his lunch hour to girls in the plant,
office and ordered him to leave this office. A. short time afterwards,,
Brya informed Antonneli that he was steward- of, his department,,
that it was organized 90 per cent by the United,, and, that, he had, a:
long list of grievances which he was going to present to Guyol the;
I
4V
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1113
following Monday. Whereupon, Antonneli questioned Brya about
the nature of the grievances.
When Brya returned to work on the following Monday, November
22, his card was not in the time-clock rack. Antonneli informed Brya
that his card was in DeRenne's office and that he should go there.
When Brya reported to DeRenne, DeRenne told him, "You know,
Jake, you know what you have been doing last week," and then ques-
tioned Brya as to whether the figures on a designated slip of paper
Were his. When Brya replied that some of the figures had been
placed on the paper by him, DeRenne informed him, "You have been
making a lot of mistakes, you're doing a lot of things you shouldn't,"
and stated that he was being discharged because of errors made by
him on November 20 relative to a shipment of sheep cheeks to the
Morris Packing House.
At the hearing, the respondent contended that Brya as discharged
because of numerous errors which lie had made in his work and that
such errors had increased in number and seriousness since the middle
of October 1937. It attributed such errors to a neglect of work
resulting from the large amount of time which Brya devoted to
union activities.
Brya's duties in connection with which the respondent claims he
made mistakes leading to his discharge consisted of the scaling of
products which came to his department to be chilled and thereafter
distributed to the different manufacturing departments or to the
freezer packing unit. As a part of these duties, he filled out scale
tickets and shipping memoranda and compiled recapitulation sheets.
He was confronted by the usual difficulties attached to such a position
and his work was attended by considerable additional difficulty re-
sulting from a lack of centralized authority and functions. He was
expected to derive his information not only from his own duplicate
scale tickets but also from a number of other sources. Thus, the re-
sults would depend not only upon his own care and accuracy, but also
upon data furnished him. For example, glandular products for
the pepsin department were scaled on a smaller and finer scale by
other individuals and Brya was expected to get the result from their
scale books. On occasion Brya's recapitulation sheets were removed
by R. L. Fulford, a clerk in the plant office No. 2, before they ,were
completed. Brya was also burdened with other duties which took
him away from his scale sometimes for half a day at a time, resulting
necessarily in some confusion in handling the scale tickets.
The alleged error on November 20 which the respondent asserts as
the immediate cause for Brya's discharge was based upon an incident
connected with the delivery of two loads of sheep cheeks. The two
loads went out on the, afternoon of November 20 and were billed,
1114 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respectively to the Morris Packing House and the Armour Wholesale
Market. However, both loads were through some mistake delivered
to the Armour Wholesale Market. When the mistake was there dis-
covered one load was taken to the Morris Packing House. There is
some confusion in the testimony as to whether the scale tickets on
the two loads were inadvertently changed at the Armour Wholesale
Market. In any event, when the Morris Packing House received its
consignment it was billed to them at 908 pounds whereas it actually
weighed 57 pounds more." When the Morris Packing House discov-
ered the discrepancy on delivery, it reported it to the respondent.
Thereupon, without consulting Brya, DeRenne made out his discharge
slip, and on Brya's return 'to work on the following Monday, he was
summarily discharged without being given an opportunity to make
any explanation.
The respondent -cites as additional factors motivating it regarding
its decision to discharge Brya, alleged errors occurring during Au-
gust and October 1937. In August the respondent received an order
of 20,000 pounds of oxtails to be accumulated and delivered to Gold-
blatt Brothers department store. Brya included the products as
they were sent to the freezer on his recapitulation sheets, and the
packing division of the products-chill department included them on
its reports when the oxtails were consigned to Goldblatt Brothers.
Thus, a duplicate record was made which resulted in throwing the
yield calculations of oxtails out df line. Antonneli testified that the
duplications resulted from Brya's failure to comply with his written
instructions. Brya denied that such instructions had been given.
The witnesses for the respondent conceded that the procedure adopted
for the handling of the Goldblatt order was an unusual one necessi-
tated by the breakdown of the Ashland freezer. Nor did any two
of the witnesses agree as to the procedure which should have been
followed in accounting for this transaction.
The respondent cites an alleged failure by Brya to include on his
October 16 freezer report a consignment of 1,399 pounds of beef livers
received from the respondent's Milwaukee plant. Information con-
cerning the delivery was not given Brya until October 18 and they
were included in his report of that date. Testimony at the hearing
concerning this incident was exhaustive. It points out clearly, how-
ever, that Brya followed his usual practice in placing the shipment in
his freezer report on the day that he was informed of it.
A further incident given by the respondent related to an alleged
error of some 18,000 pounds of beef livers discovered when the
October 30 check-up of yields was made. Brya testified that he
V&
° The load which remained at the Armour Wholesale Market weighed 958 pounds. The
eleik testified that this was the proper weight for the Armour shipment.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1115
began an investigation and located some 4,500 pounds. The inves-
tigation was then taken over by Antonneli, DeRenne, and members
of the accounting department. They testified that some 10,600
pounds of the missing amount were found in the freezer. They
alleged that this amount had not been weighed before being sent to
the freezer and that the failure to do so was the fault of Brya. How-
ever, it was not established as to how livers of this amount could
get into the freezer without being weighed and their scale tickets
supplied. Indeed, Antonneli stated that the person in charge of the
freezer had definite orders not to accept anything to be singly frozen
in the freezer unless it was first weighed and a scale ticket attached.
He further stated that the person in charge of the freezer declared
that no loads had entered the freezer without a ticket. The witnesses
for the respondent, however, were unable to state the source of the
livers discovered in the freezer, the date on which the livers were
placed there, or whether Brya was working at the scale -at that time.
We conclude that Brya was discharged because of his union ac-
tivities -and not because of these alleged errors. There is, as noted,
considerable confusion in the record relative to the alleged errors
and Brya's responsibility for them.' It is clearly established, how-
ever, that Brya was an active participant in the United ; that the
respondent's officials knew of such activity and immediately pre-
ceding Brya's discharge kept a close check on such activity; and that
the decision to discharge Brya took place on the Monday following
the Saturday on which he made a statement to an official of the
respondent concerning the presentation of union grievances.
Brya testified at the hearing that he was receiving 657/2 cents
an hour at the time of his discharge and that he had received $127
by working for the Works Progress Administration since that time.
We find that by the discharge of Jacob Brya on November 22,
1937, the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership, in a labor organi-
zation, and it interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The alleged discriminatory lay-offs
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Martin
Vannek, Charles Stiegall,' Jesse Perez, and Thomas Goodlow were
laid off on or about March 12, 1937, because of their activities on
behalf of the United. The four employees were working in the beef-
cutting gang which consisted on March 12 of 69 workers. Vannek
7 Referred to as Charles Stiegale in the complaint.
1116 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Stiegall were employed as butchers and Goodlow and Perez as
luggers. Vannek, Perez, and Goodlow were laid off on March 12
and Stiegall on March 17. Approximately 19 other workers on the
beef-cutting gang were laid off during the period from March 12 to
March 17. After a number of requests for reinstatement by Perez,
Goodlow, and Vannek, Vannek was given work on a different floor
on March 16 and the following week was returned to his old job.
Stiegall was given work as a laborer on March 2.8.
In support of the allegations that the men were discriminatorily
laid off, a number of witnesses testified relative to a stoppage of work,
for 15 or 20 minutes on March 7 following a complaint by James
Gallagher, the foreman of the beef-cutting department, that the
employees were not getting out their quota of production. Gallagher
denied that there was an actual stoppage of work. There was no
attempt at the hearing to show that the alleged stoppage of work
was sponsored by any union or to connect it with any union activity.
Although the four men with whom we are here concerned were mem-
bers of the United there is no evidence that they were particularly
active in its affairs.
The respondent states that on or about March 12 there was an un-
usual drop in the amount of the livestock received at the plant.
It introduced records showing that such a decrease resulted in the
employees of the beef-cutting gang working much less than the 32
hours per week guaranteed to the hourly paid workers. It was un-
controverted that the employees were laid off in accordance with their
seniority except that certain highly skilled workers were retained
over certain unskilled workers having greater seniority. This was in
accordance with the established policy of the respondent, which was
stated to be based upon the necessity of retaining skilled workers
who became scarce whenever production rose to peak levels.
We are of the opinion that the allegations of the complaint as
amended that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Jesse Perez, Thomas Goodlow, Martin
Vannek, and Charles Stiegall have not been established. We find
that the respondent did not discriminate against them in regard to
hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization.
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 re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1117
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 certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist from further
engaging in such practices. Moreover, we shall order the respond-
ent to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since we have found that Peter Davis and Jacob Brya were dis-
criminatorily discharged, we shall order the respondent to offer them
reinstatement without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges. We shall order the respondent to make them whole
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective
discharges by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings a during said period.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association, and contributed
support to it. We shall order the respondent to withdraw all recog-
nition from and disestablish the Association as the representative of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
The allegations in the complaint relating to the alleged discrimi-
natory lay-offs of the employees in the beef-cutting department will
be dismissed.
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In February 1937 a group of employees requested the Committee
for Industrial Organization to organize the plant. The first member-
ship cards to be distributed and signed by the employees were those
of the United Packing House Workers Industrial Union. On Novem-
ber 10, 1937, the members of the United authorized the Packing
House Workers Organizing Committee to act as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining. Subsequent to that data
the employees of the respondent signed Packing House Workers
8 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, i oom
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . 'See Matter
of Crosset Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Ameiice,
Lumber Sawmill Workers, Local No. 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
Organizing Committee cards. During October and November 1937,
the officials of the United attempted to obtain an interview with the
respondent to discuss the question of recognition, but each time they
were told that such a conference would not be granted because the
respondent had already recognized the Association as the represental-
tive of its employees. Finally, on December 13, 1937, the Packing
douse Workers Organizing Committee sent the respondent x regis-
tered letter stating that the United represented a majority of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the respondent and requesting,
a conference. No answer was ever received from the respondent.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
the employees of the respondent.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION IIFON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has,
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petitions as amended by motion at the first hearing, the United
alleged that the appropriate unit should be composed of all hourly
paid production and maintenance employees, excluding supervisors,
foremen, and assistant foremen, clerical and office workers, time-
keepers, checkers and scalers, general office and dressing-room janitors
and matrons, firemen; policemen, and watchmen, guides, student
employees, medical department employees, teamsters and chauffeYnrs1
garage mechanics and helpers, bricklayers, safety inspectors, plant
storeroom employees, chemists and technicians, and the employees in
the plant restaurant and retail meat market. At the second hearing,
the United sought also to exclude from the unit employees in the
label-storage department, in the stationery department, at the Ash-
land cold storage freezer, at the Morris garage and parking lot, the
messengers, the tel-autograph workers, and the street cleaners. Thus,
the United seeks to exclude from the unit all steady-time employees 9
and in addition several types of hourly paid workers.
The respondent contends that the general distinction which the
9 The United defines as steady-time employees, those who receive a definite and fixed
salary each week regardless of the number of hours such employees work each week. This
classification does not include the hourly paid or piece-work employees.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1119
United seeks to draw between hourly paid and steady-time employees
should not be adopted and that certain of the classifications of the
employees whom the United desires to exclude should be included
in the unit. It also disagrees with the United as to whether or not
certain employees should be classified as clerical workers. We shall,
accordingly, consider in detail the various employees concerning whom
there is a dispute.
Parl-time clerical and ogee workers.-Both the United and the
respondent agree that clerical employees should be excluded from
the unit. They disagree, however, regarding certain hourly paid
production employees who assist the regular clerical and office work-
ers during the busy seasons. The United wants such employees in-
cluded in the unit; the respondent wants them excluded. Since such
employees are engaged only a limited period of time in clerical work
and are essentially production employees, we shall include them in
the unit as production employees.
Checkers and scalers.-A large number of these employees are
steady-time workers paid by the week, but during rush periods
employees usually engaged in production work are assigned to assist
the regular scalers and checkers. The United seeks to exclude from
the unit checkers and scalers on a steady-time basis, but to include
the production employees who assist the checkers and scalers. The
respondent states that no distinction should be drawn between the
various employees. It indicates no preference relative to the inclu-
sion or exclusion of the group as a whole. We are of the opinion
that there is no inconsistency in the position taken by the United
and since it is the only bona fide labor organization here involved,
we shall exclude such steady-time checkers and scalers from the
unit and shall include the production employees who are occasion-
ally assigned as checkers and scalers. _
Other disputed employees.-The United claims that the general
office and dressing-room janitors and matrons; the student employ-
ees who are placed in the production and maintenance departments
to train them for supervisory positions; the safety inspectors whose
function it is to assist the general inspector in making periodic in-
spections; the plant storeroom employees who are responsible for
the receipt and distribution of supplies; the plant restaurant em-
ployees; the meat market employees; the label-storage department
employees; and the Morris garage and parking lot employees are
all engaged in the performance of duties which distinguish them from
the production and maintenance employees and that all such em-
ployees should - be excluded from the unit. It also desires the ex-
clusion of the garage mechanics and helpers and the street cleaners
on the ground that they are eligible to membership in other unions.
1120 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The ,respondent desires the inclusion of all the aforesaid employees
in the unit . Since the United is the only bona fide labor organiza-
tion here involved and since the exclusion of the aforesaid employees
is not inconsistent with the claims made by the United relative to
the other employees , we shall exclude all the aforesaid employees from
the bargaining unit.
The respondent and the United agree that although the employees
in the car shops, the 31st Street plant of the respondent , and the
soap and glue works appear on the pay rolls of the respondent, they
are not involved in these proceedings . Accordingly , we shall not
consider such employees in our discussion of the bargaining unit.
We find that the production and maintenance employees of the
respondent , excluding supervisors , foremen, and assistant foremen,
clerical and office workers, timekeepers , steady-time checkers and
scalers, general office and dressing -room janitors and matrons, fire-
men, policemen , and watchmen , guides, student employees, medical
department employees , teamsters and chauffeurs, garage mechanics
and helpers , bricklayers , safety inspectors , plant storeroom employ-
ees, chemists and technicians , employees in the plant restaurant and
meat market , Morris garage and parking lot employees , street clean-
ers, employees at the Ashland cold storage freezer , messengers, tel-
autograph employees , label -storage department employees, and the
stationery department employees , constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure
to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The respondent submitted in evidence the pay roll for the week
ending December 4, 1937, containing the names of a total of 7,419
employees , of whom approximately 5,600 are in the appropriate unit.
Although the United claimed a membership of 3,900 of such em-
ployees, it did not present authorization or- membership cards, or
other similar evidence. We find, therefore, that the question which
has arisen concerning the representation of employees can best be
resolved by holding an election by secret ballot.
The United requests that eligibility be determined on the basis of
.the December 4 pay roll. The respondent objected to the determina-
tion of eligibility on the basis of the pay roll of December 4 in the
event an election was ordered . It stated that persons who had been
laid off for a period of 60 days were by virtue of the seniority rule
established at the plant no longer considered as employees , and that
many persons whose names appear on the pay roll of December 4 fall
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1121
within this 'category. We are of the opinion that in view of the
nature of the business here involved, eligibility to vote in the election
may appropriately be determined on the basis of the pay-roll period
next following the hearing on January 20, 1938. Persons eligible to
vote in the election shall be those in the appropriate unit who were
employed by the respondent during the pay-roll period next follow-
ing January 20, 1938, including those persons since laid off but who
retain their seniority rights, but excluding those persons who have
since quit or been discharged for cause.
At the hearing and in its brief the United requested that its name
appear on the ballot as follows : "United Packing House Workers
Local Industrial Union No. 347, through Packing House Workers
Organizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. 0." It also asks that
the election be held forthwith. We shall grant these requests.
Since the respondent has dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of the Association, We shall make no pro-
vision on the ballot for designation of the Association.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No. 347,
and Employees' Mutual Association of Chicago are labor organiza-
tions, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Employees' Mutual Association of Chi-
cago, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Peter Davis and Jacob Brya, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, Within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondent, by laying off Jesse Perez, Charles Stiegall,
Thomas Goodlow, and Martin Vannek in the beef-cutting department,
has not engaged in and is not engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
1122 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre
sentation of the employees of the respondent , within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The production and maintenance employees of the respondent,
excluding supervisors , foremen, and assistant foremen, clerical and
office workers , timekeepers , steady -time checkers and scalers , general
office and dressing -room janitors and matrons , firemen, policemen,
and watchmen , guides, student employees , medical department em-
ployees, teamsters and chauffeurs , garage mechanics and helpers,
bricklayers , safety inspectors , plant storeroom employees , chemists
and technicians , employees in the plant restaurant and meat market,
Morris garage and parking lot employees , street cleaners , employees
at the Ashland cold storage freezer , messengers , tel-autograph em-
ployees, label -storage department employees , and the stationery de-
partment employees , constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations 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, Armour & Company,. Chicago, Illinois, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Employees' Mutual Association of Chicago, or with the
formation or administration of any other labor organization of its
employees, and from contributing support thereto ;
(b) Discouraging membership in United Packing House Workers
Local Industrial Union No. 347, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging any of its employees because of membership
in United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No. 347,
or any other labor organization, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights 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 and 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:
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1123
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees ' Mutual Association
of Chicago as the representative of any of its employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor dis-
putes, wages , rates of pay , hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment , and completely disestablish said organization as a rep-
resentative of its employees;
(b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Peter Davis and
Jacob Brya to their former positions without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Peter Davis and Jacob Brya for any losses of pay
they have suffered by, reason of the respondent 's discrimination in
regard to ' their hire or tenure of employment , by payment to each of
them, respectively , of a sum of money equal to that which he would
have earned as wages during the period from the date of such dis-
crimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his net
earnings during said period;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty (30)
consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and
desist as aforesaid ; ( 2) that the respondent will withdraw all recogni-
tion from Employees' Mutual Association of Chicago as the repre-
Fentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment , or other conditions of employment , and that
said organization is completely disestablished as such representative;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
And it is further ordered that the allegations of the complaint,
as amended , that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act, by laying off and
refusing to reinstate Jesse Perez, Charles Stiegall , Thomas Goodlow,
and Martin Vannek in the beef-cutting department be, and they
hereby are , dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Armour
& Company, Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
117213-39-vol. 8--72
1124 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted within thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, acting in this manner as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, among the production and
maintenance employees of the respondent, who were employed by the
respondent during the pay-roll period next following January 20, 1938,
including those persons since laid off but who retain their seniority
rights, but excluding supervisors, foremen, and assistant foremen,
clerical and office workers, timekeepers, steady-time checkers and
scalers, general office and dressing-room janitors and matrons, firemen,
policemen, and watchmen, guides, student employees, medical depart-
ment employees, teamsters and chauffeurs, garage mechanics and help-
ers, bricklayers, safety inspectors, plant storeroom employees, chemists
and technicians, employees in the plant restaurant and meat market,
Morris garage and parking lot employees, street cleaners, employees at
the Ashland cold storage freezer, messengers, tel-autograph employees,
label-storage department employees, stationery department employees,
and also excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No.
347, through Packing House Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated
with the C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.