Libby McNeill & Libby

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 11, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 720 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of LIBBY MCNEILL & LIBBY and INTERNATIONAL BROTH- ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LocAI No. 690, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA- TION OF LABOR Case No. C-1453-Decided May 11, 1940 Vegetable Canning Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion: sur- veillance of union meetings ; disparaging remarks about union and union mem- bers ; threats of loss of employment in the event union was organized-Dis- criniination: charges of, not sustained-Collective Bargaining : charges of refusal, not sustained. Mr. Thomas P. Graham, Jr., and Mr. Patrick Walker, for the Board. Mr. Thomas L. Smart, of San Francisco, Calif., for the respondent. Mr. F. Hamilton Seeley, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America, Local No. 690, herein called Local No. 690, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint dated October 30, 1939, against Libby, McNeill & Libby, Walla Walla, Washington, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com- plaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and ll focal No. 690. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged, in substance, that the respondent had (1) refused to bargain collectively with Local No. 690 as the exclusive 23 N. L. R. B., No. 70 720 LIBBY McNEILL & LIBBY 721 representative of its employees in an appropriate unit although a majority of the employees in such unit had designated Local No. 690 as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; (2) discriminated against certain named employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, to discourage membership in Local No. 690; and (3) by the above-mentioned and other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section of the Act. On November 10, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the com- plaint in which it admitted certain allegations with respect to the conduct of its business but denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice duly served upon' the parties, a hearing was held on November 13, 14, and 15, 1939, at Walla Walla, Washington, before Thomas S. Wilson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by coun- sel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion by the Board's attorney to conform the complaint to the proof. During the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudical errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to leave granted by the Trial Examiner, the respondent filed a memorandum with him. On December 14, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and that it had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) or (5) of the Act and recommended that the respond- ent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Neither the respondent nor Local No. 690 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Libby, McNeill & Libby, is a Maine corporation with its principal office for the conduct of corporate matters in Port- land, Maine . Its principal office for the conduct of industrial mat- 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ters is in Chicago, Illinois, and it maintains a district office in San Francisco, California. The respondent is authorized to transact busi- ness ' in the State of Washington and it operates a cannery at Walla Walla, Washington, the portion of its operations here involved, where it is engaged in the processing, packing, and canning of peas and carrots. During 1939 the respondent purchased approximately $300,- 000 worth of these vegetables to be processed, packed, and canned at its Walla Walla plant. Of these, approximately 50 per cent were purchased outside the State of Washington. During the same period the respondent sold $800,000 worth of products canned at its Walla Walla plant: Of these, approximately 85 per cent were sold and shipped to points outside the State of Washington. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America, Local No. 690, is a labor organization affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its mem- bership all warehouse employees of the respondent, excluding clerical and supervisory employees. Cannery Workers Union, herein called the Cannery Workers, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion About May 1, 1938, the Cannery Workers commenced soliciting members among the respondent's employees and other cannery work- ers at Walla Walla, Washington. This organization held two open organizational meetings. Just prior to the first such meeting, George Day, the respondent's plant superintendent, requested M. H. Johnson, an employee; to attend -it and to, take notes on the proceedings. Day told Johnson that Leonard Cooper, another employee, was also going to take notes at the meeting. Johnson attended the meeting, as did several supervisory employees, including Dave Blaylock, the respond- ent's warehouse foreman. Myrtle Emlaw, a stenographer employed by the respondent, was also present taking shorthand notes. On the following day Johnson told Day that there was nothing that he could report concerning the meeting as to which Emlaw had not taken notes. Day replied that he "thought he had it all." About 2 weeks later the Cannery Workers held another meeting, attended by the same group of supervisory employees and the stenographer. The presence of the respondent's supervisory employees and an office stenographer taking shorthand notes at union organizational ineet- LIBBY. McNEILL & LIBBY 723 ings was a clear indication to its employees that the respondent was interested in and maintaining surveillance of their self-organizational activities. Such surveillance of necessity interfered with and re- strained the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Following these union meetings several of the respondent's super- visory employees endeavored to discourage the employees from join- ing the Cannery Workers. Blaylock, the warehouse foreman, told Johnson that "the boys were foolish to join the union and that they would be observing to see what had happened to those that had organized in California; that half of the plants shut down there because they could not afford to pay the [union] wages." Blaylock told Daris Frazier, an employee, that in California unions had re- sorted to violence and "had done more harm than good." Blaylock also requested Frazier and Melvin Donley, another employee, "to watch the union and, if they saw that it was going to get across, to get into it so as to see that it was not run too radically." After Frazier joined Local No. 690 Blaylock asked him how much he was earning and after being told, stated that he "did not think that Frazier was getting enough," and that if Frazier would "play ball with him" he would see that Frazier "got along." On another occasion Frazier asked Day what he thought about the Union and Day replied, "I would like to advise you boys, but I can't in my position because of the National Labor Relations Act." However, Day continued, "You realize that we have a lot of boys [sic] down there at the plant; in fact, enough so we don't have to pack next year if we don't want to." On February 16, 1939, Day told Robert McClure, an employee, that if he would stay out of the Union he would benefit by it. Both Day and Robert Miller, who acted as purchasing agent for the respondent, questioned Max Archer, an employee,'concerning his union membership. Miller told Archer "to string along and let the boys go their way" and he [Archer] "would be fixed up all right," that Frazier, who belonged to the Union, was "an agitator and a troublemaker," and that others who had joined the Union were "fed up" and believed that they would be better off if they had not joined. These statements by the respondent's supervisory employees cle::rly disparaged the self-organizational activities of its employees and con- stituted threats of loss of employment in the event a union vv as successfully organized. The Trial Examiner, in his Intermediate Report, found that bx the above-described activities the respondent had interfered with. restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As stated above, the respondent did not except thereto. We find that the respondent, by the above-described surveillance and statements of its supervisory employees, interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged discriminations in regard to hire and tenure of employment The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent by dis- charging and refusing to reinstate M. H. Johnson, Max Archer, and Halford 1 Kelly, and temporarily laying off Henry Benzel, for the reason that they joined and assisted Local No. 690, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report that the respond- ent had not engaged in such unfair labor practices. Local No. 690 did not except thereto. We have reviewed the evidence and we con- cur in the Trial Examiner's findings. Since no exceptions were filed by Local No. 690 thereto, we shall not discuss the evidence pertaining to the alleged discriminations. We find that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Johnson, Archer, Kelly, or Benzel, to discourage membership in Local No. 690. C. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively The complaint, as amended, alleges that on or about February 23 and April 19, 1939, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local No. 690 as the representative of its employees in an ap- propriate unit, although Local No. 690 represented a majority of the employees within such unit. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found that the respondent did not refuse to bargain col- lectively with Local No. 690. Local No. 690 did not except thereto. We have reviewed the evidence as to the alleged refusal to bargain and we concur in the Trial Examiner's findings with respect thereto. Since no exceptions were filed by Local No. 690 to the Intermediate Report we shall not discuss the evidence pertaining to the alleged refusal to bargain. Since we find that the respondent did not refuse to bargain collectively with Local No. 690, it is not necessary to discuss either the appropriateness of the unit alleged in the com- plaint to be appropriate or Local No. 690's representation of a majority within that unit. i Incorrectly spelled "Alford" in the charge and complaint. LIBBY McNEILL & LIBBY 725 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, A, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, we shall, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, order the respondent to cease and desist from so doing and to post appropriate notices in its plant. Since we have found that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Johnson, Archer, Kelly, or Benzel to discourage membership in Local No. 690 and did not refuse to bargain collectively with it, we shall dismiss those portions of the complaint which allege that the respondent engaged in said unfair labor practices. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stable- men, and Helpers of America, Local No. 690, and Cannery Workers Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Libby, 283034-41-vol. 23-47 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McNeill & Libby, Walla Walla, Washington, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, 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 or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.