Blount Farmers Cooperative, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1681 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

BLOUNT FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC. 1681
Blount Farmers Cooperative , Inc. and John D. Black (Attorney
at Law ). Cases Nos. 10-CA-5651 and 10-CA-56592. February 11,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 23, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts,
as its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, with
the amendments and additions noted below, and orders that the
Respondent, Blount Farmers Cooperative, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
1. Paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order is amended by
placing a period -after the words "all such activities" and striking
the remainder of the paragraph.
2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), the present paragraph
2(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify William F. Pratt and Frank Goan if they are
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces."
150 NLRB No. 163.
775-692-65-vol. 150-108 '
1682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Add the following immediately below the signature line in
the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision :
NOTE.-We will notify William F. Pratt and Frank Goan
if they are presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal,
Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
4: The second paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial
Examiner's Decision is amended by placing a period after the words
"all such activities" and striking the remainder of the paragraph.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges in Cases Nos. 10-CA-5651 and 10-CA-5652, filed on March 16,
1964, by John D. Black, as attorney for the Union and for the individual Charging
Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter
called the General Counsel 1 and the Board, respectively, by the Acting Regional
Director for Region 10, Atlanta, Georgia, issued its complaint dated June 19, 1964,
against Blount Farmers Cooperative, Inc., herein called the Respondent. The com-
plaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as
amended, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of
hearing thereon were duly filed upon Respondent and the Charging Parties.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint
but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a
hearing thereon was held at Maryville, Tennessee, on August 4, 1964, before Trial
Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented
by counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce, examine, and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues,
and were advised of their right to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs and
propose findings and conclusions or both. Oral argument was waived. A brief was
received from General Counsel on August 24, 1964.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Blount Farmers Cooperative, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a
Tennessee corporation maintaining its office and place of business in Maryville,
Tennessee, where it is engaged in the retail sale of farm supplies and the processing
of livestock feeds and seed.' During the past calendar year, which period is repre-
sentative of all times material herein, Respondent in the course and conduct of its
operations received gross revenue in excess of $500,000. During this same period
Respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $5,000 directly from its
Maryville, Tennessee, plant to customers located outside the State of Tennessee.
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION INVOLVED
International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is, and has been at all
times material herein , a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
'This term specifically includes the attorneys appearing for the General Counsel at
the hearing.
BLOUNT FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC. 1683
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts-
On June 18, 1963,2 the Union filed a petition for certification as the duly authorized
bargaining agent of all employees of Respondent in an appropriate unit consisting of
all production and maintenance employees with the usual exceptions thereto includ-
ing supervisors. On July 26, the Acting Regional Director, after a hearing, issued a
,Decision and Direction of Election finding the appropriate unit as'petitioned for but
specifically excluding therefrom the following:
Employer would exclude, and Petitioner would include, William Pratt and Frank
Goan, foremen on the day and night shifts, respectively. Uncontradicted testi-
mony reveals that Goan has effectively recommended the hiring and discharge
of employees, and that Pratt was told at the time of his promotion to foreman
that he had authority to discharge. The fact that Pratt has not.exercised such
authority is not controlling. Capital Transit Company,' 114 NLRB 617, 619. I
therefore find' both Pratt and Goan to be supervisors, and accordingly exclude
them from the unit. .
This decision of the Acting Regional Director was not appealed.
Following this order Pratt and Goan, who theretofore had been active in union
affairs, cease engaging in any union activities. -
On August 12, after having given the employees of Respondent a lecture consist-
ing of arguments why the employees should vote against the Union in the election
the following day, General Manager Ben Robertson invited Goan and Pratt to have
a Coca-Cola with him at the restaurant. While so engaged, Robertson informed the
two that he had had them classified as foremen so that they,could not vote for the
Union at the election. He also stated that Goan was "more of a foreman" than
Pratt because Assistant General Manager Clayton Jones was not present at the
feed mill during the evenings while Goan was on duty. He also informed them that-
they would be taken care of.3 -
The Union won the election the following day. Pratt and Goan did not partici-
pate therein. Subsequently the Union was certified by the Regional Office.
Negotiations began between the Union and Respondent in September. Among
other matters discussed between the parties was the supervisory status of Goan and
Pratt, the Union maintaining that these men were leadmen only and, therefore,
should be considered as a part of the appropriate unit..
After one of these negotiation sessions at which the supervisory status of Goan
and Pratt was considered, the Union notified Pratt and Goan that Respondent had
agreed to their inclusion in the appropriate unit as leadmen. Thereafter Pratt and
Goan again resumed their union activities .4
On or about October 14 the Union went out on strike for reasons not disclosed in
this record. Goan and Pratt both joined the picket line to the knowledge of
Respondent. Neither individual reported for work during the strike.
About October 18, the Union offered to return to work unconditionally. Respond-
ent reinstated all the employees except Goan and Pratt whom Respondent's board of
directors had previously determined were not to be reinstated because they failed to
report for work during the strike and because they joined the picket line.
2 All dates herein are in the year 1963 unless otherwise noted.
3 While making no specific denial of the conversation as testified to credibly by Pratt
and Goan as found above, Robertson In his testimony recalled the Coca-Cola conversa-
tion differently. According to Robertson's account, there were rumors of a strike at
the time and he was, therefore, talking to Pratt and Goan about the fact that he, Goan,
Pratt, and Clayton Jones would be able to do the essential work around the plant in the
event that the employees did go out on strike. I am of the opinion that Robertson was
referring to a conversation subsequent to that testified to by Pratt and Goan which,
according to them, occurred the day before the election. It is highly unlikely that there
would be rumors of an impending strike in the air the day before the election was to
take place.
4 Respondent appeared to maintain that there were no negotiations regarding the in-
clusion of Goan and Pratt in the appropriate unit apparently on the ground that such
admitted discussions as Respondent acknowledged had'occurred took place over coffee
before the negotiation session actually got under way. This is a too technical definition
of negotiations. As with business deals much negotiation takes place over, a cup of
coffee.
1684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon being so informed Goan and Pratt requested a notice in writing as to the
reasons for their discharge. Robertson prepared a form of discharge indicating that
the men had "voluntarily quit their employment." Goan and Pratt each objected
and refused to accept the form.
Goan and Pratt were discharged and have not been reinstated since.
Thereafter it was stipulated that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in
regard to the reinstatement of either Goan or Pratt.
On March 16, 1964, John D. Black, as attorney for the Union and for individual
Charging Parties; filed a charge with the Board regarding the discharge of Pratt and
Goan.
B. Conclusions
1. Respondent's technical defenses
a. John D. Black, Attorney
Respondent's first technical defense is that John D. Black, an attorney, filed the
charges on which the present complaint is based, exclusively as attorney for the
Union and had no authority to file the charges on behalf of Goan and Pratt.
Section 102.9 of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides: "A charge that any
person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce may be made by any person ...."
John D. Black is "any person," even though he is also an attorney.
The uncontradicted evidence proves that John D. Black was attorney for Goan
and for Pratt as well as for the Union.
This defense is lacking in merit.5
b. The supervisory status of Goan and Pratt
In its answer Respondent pleaded: "... the Company challenges the authority of
the General Counsel or the Acting Regional Director to issue this complaint and
notice of hearing in that the issue [of the supervisory status] of the two employees
was previously determined by the Board, and the employees William Pratt and Frank
Goins [sic] had the opportunity to appeal through the same channels they are now
proceeding but did not choose to do so."
It is quite true that in the R case decision the Acting Regional Director did make
a finding that both Pratt and Goan were supervisors and, accordingly, excluded them
from the unit. It is to be noted that this finding was made upon "uncontradicted
testimony." Neither Goan nor Pratt attended the R case hearing nor testified.
Both Pratt and Goan testified at the present hearing and contradicted much, if not
all, of the evidence upon which the Acting Regional Director based his conclusion
excluding them from the unit. Their testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.
The evidence discloses that neither Pratt nor Goan had ever discharged an employee
or recommended his dismissal. It is true that on one occasion several years ago
Robertson asked Goan whether he would prefer to have employee Hall or Dial
working on the night shift. On this occasion Goan chose Hall. Robertson then
transferred Dial to the store from the mill and, according to his testimony, dis-
charged him several weeks later.
Dial's testimony, on the other hand, that he has worked in the store for the past
3 years during its busy season and then annually had been laid off until the com-
mencement of the next busy season would seem to disprove Robertson's claim of
discharge.
In either event Goan's selection of Hall at the instigation of Robertson does not
qualify as an "effective recommendation" for Dial's discharge which eliminates one
of the bases for the Acting Regional Director's conclusion.
The testimony shows that Goan has recommended the hiring of four individuals
who, after being interviewed by Robertson, were hired by Robertson. These "recom-
mendations" by Goan consisted of his asking Robertson to consider the employment-
of one of Goan's friends or acquaintances when next Robertson was hiring. Such
requests are made by all employees and, as the hiring was done only after interviews
by Robertson or Jones, hardly constitutes a "recommendation," much less an "effec-
tive" recommendation.
Pratt has made no similar requests or recommendations.
e Just why the Region chose to include Black's name in the caption hereof is any-
body's guess. However, it is not important.
BLOUNT FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC. 1685
Robertson and Pratt were in disagreement as to whether or not Robertson had
informed Pratt that he had authority to discharge. Pratt testified that about 5 years
ago when Pratt was assigned first to the seed mill, Robertson merely told him that he
was being sent to the seed mill because he could work with the men and lead Them.
As the evidence is quite clear that Robertson never informed the other employees
that Pratt was a supervisor with authority to hire or fire or, in fact, that he had any
supervisory authority, I accept the testimony of Pratt.
Robertson attempted to bolster his testimony by testifying that some years ago he
made out an organizational chart indicating a day and a night foreman under, the
assistant general manager. This chart admittedly without names was never produced
at the hearing. Nobody besides Robertson testified to having seen the same, except
Assistant General Manager Clayton Jones, whose, testimony about it was extremely
vague.
The evidence disclosed that Goan and Pratt did exactly the same work as the other
employees on their shift; to wit, feed grinding and mixing, sacking, and loading. These.
jobs were interdependent and interchangeable. No doubt as the oldest men in the
crew, Goan and Pratt did act as leadmen for the group. Assistant General Manager
Clayton Jones was on duty at the feed mill during the hours Pratt worked and gener-
ally gave his instructions to the crew through Pratt, although, in the absence of Pratt,
he would give those instructions to any other employee who might be there. On the
other hand Goan worked with two other employees for several hours after Jones had
left in the evening. Again, Jones generally gave his instructions to Goan as to the
work to be done but, as in the case of Pratt, Jones would give instructions to any other
member of the crew in the absence of Goan. At the most, Goan and Pratt acted as
the conduit for Jones' orders to the crew. In fact, Goan could not even order the
crew to work overtime, without specific instructions or authority from Jones. On one
occasion the evidence shows that Goan sent a truckdriver to make a delivery in the
evening. The next day Jones reprimanded Goan for so doing and asked him where
he got that authority.
Whatever authority Pratt or Goan may have had over and above that of their fellow
employees was merely of a routine or clerical nature and did not require the use of
independent judgment. Precision Fabricators v. N.L.R.B., 204 F. 2d 567 (C.A. 2);
strawbosses and leadmen do not qualify as "supervisors" as that term is defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act. At most Goan and Pratt were leadmen only. See West
Penn Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 337 F. 2d 993 (C.A. 3).
Respondent maintained that Goan was a supervisor because Respondent "would
have looked" to him over any discrepancies over money received at night. The fact
of that matter is that such discrepancies never arise even though all three members
of the night crew handled the moneys and the orders indiscriminately.
Furthermore it is significant that, after the strike ended, Respondent replaced both
Goan and Pratt as workmen but admittedly failed to appoint anyone to replace either
of them as "foreman" or as supervisor. Respondent suggested that this failure was
due to a change in operations after the strike. However this change only amounted
to ending the second shift a couple of hours earlier than was done before-but the
second shift ceased work some 3 or 4 hours after Jones had left the plant and the
money still had to be handled. Thus this change was unimportant, at least as to the
necessity for supervisors.
The evidence leaves little, if any, doubt that neither Jones nor Pratt had any actual
supervisory authority, albeit they were being paid 25 cents and 10 cents an hour,
respectively, more than the other employees in the crew. They were, of course, also
the senior members of the crews. Regardless 'of how they may have been described
on the payrolls,6 the evidence is quite clear that both Goan and Pratt were ordinary
employees without supervisory authority. I so find.
Respondent maintained that it was entitled to rely upon the decision of the Acting
Regional Director in his R case decision finding both Pratt and Goan to be super-
visors. Ordinarily this might be so.
However, in the instant matter, the uncontradicted evidence is that Robertson gave
testimony at the R hearing to the effect that each of them was a "foreman." After
having given that testimony and the day before the election, Robertson explained to
Goan and Pratt that he had made them into supervisors in order to eliminate their
votes for the Union at the election. In addition Robertson's own testimony proved
that another reason Robertson maintained that the two supervisors was to assure a
crew sufficiently large with which to carry on essential duties at the feed mill in the
event that the employees went out on strike.
0 Oral testimony indicated that Goan and Pratt were referred to as "foremen" on said
payrolls but Respondent did not produce any such payroll.
1686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is this newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the
R case hearing, which permits the relitigation of the supervisory capacity of Goan and
Pratt. Here, therefore, there is evidence "which was newly discovered or unavail-
able at the time of the representation hearing" which the Board has often stated was
necessary in order to relitigate an issue litigated in a previous R case.?
In addition this newly discovered evidence which could not have been available
at the R case hearing indicates that the evidence upon which the Acting Regional
Director based his conclusion amounted almost to a fraud upon the Board. Respond-
ent had no right nor license to rely upon a finding made upon such testimony given
by its own general manager . This defense then is without merit.
2. The discharges
With knowledge that Pratt and Goan had joined the picket line during the strike
and had not reported during that period for work, Respondent's board of directors
decided at the conclusion of this strike not to reinstate Goan and Pratt because they
had walked the picket line and because they had failed to report for work during
the strike.
As employees, Pratt and Goan were engaged in protected concerted union activities
in each of these actions. Respondent discharged them for so acting. This is a clear
violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1). I so find.
3. The refusal to bargain
It was stipulated at the hearing that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union
regarding the reinstatement of Goan and Pratt after the conclusion of the strike.
Thereby Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in good faith in violation of
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. I so find.
However, in view of the finding made above that the discharges of Pratt and Goan
violated the Act, the finding of a refusal to bargain regarding the reinstatement
becomes academic as that reinstatement will hereafter be handled according to the
normal Board processes. Consequently I consider the refusal to bargain aspect of
this case of insufficient importance to require the issuance of an order thereon.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent' discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of William F. Pratt and Frank Goan by discharging and
refusing.to reinstate each of them at the conclusion of the strike on October 18, 1963,
I will recommend that Respondent offer each of them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent employment, and make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of said discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of
his reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period in accordance with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the variety and the extent of the unfair labor practices engaged by
Respondent, I sense an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general,
and hence, deems it necessary to order that Respondent cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act.
7 Clark Shoe Company, 88 NLRB 989; Shreveport Packing Corporation, 141 NLRB
1255, 1260.
BLOUNT FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC. 1687
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
3. By discharging and refusing to reinstate William F. Pratt and Frank Goan at
the conclusion of the strike on October 18, 1963, thereby discriminating in regard
to,their hire and tenure of employment and thereby discouraging concerted and union
activities among its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce-within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Blount
Farmers Cooperative,, Inc., Maryville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging union membership or activities on behalf of International Union
of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to William F. Pratt and Frank Goan immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the
section of this Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Decision.
(c) Post at its plant in Maryville, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 10, shall, after being.duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
1688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .9
I further recommend that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt of
this Trial Examiner's Decision, Respondent has notified the Regional Director that
it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the Board issue an Order
requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
0In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL offer William F. Pratt and Frank Goan each immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and will make him whole
for any loss of pay that he may suffer by reason of the discrimination practiced
against him.
WE WILL NOT in any 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 International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink
and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose 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 by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
BLOUNT FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peach-
tree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No. 876-
3311, Extension 5357, if they. have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Scolding Locks Corporation and District #32, United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 30-CA-81. Febru-
ary 11, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 24, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent
150 NLRB No. 165.