O. N. Jonas Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 958 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE HAVE disestablished Koehler's Employees Union as the representative of
any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning terms or
conditions of employment.
KOEHLER 'S WHOLESALE RESTAURANT SUPPLY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana, Telephone Number, Melrose
2-1551, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
0. N. Jonas Co ., Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4912, 10-CA-4950, and 10-
CA-1953. November 15, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1962, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended
dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, 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 In-
termediate Report and the entire record in the cases, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, except that the last clause of paragraph 1(d) of the Order
and the last clause of the last indented paragraph of the Appendix,
both beginning with the words "except to the extent," are hereby
deleted.
139 NLRB No. 83.
0. N. JONAS CO., INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
959
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, were heard before Trial
Examiner Eugene E. Dixon at Dalton, Georgia, May 22 to 24, 1962, pursuant to
due notice with all parties being represented. The consolidated complaint issued
by the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called
the General Counsel and the Board) on May 1, 1962, and based upon charges fled
on February 7 and March 12, 20, and 21, 1962, and duly served, alleged in sub-
stance that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employee Donald Jay Cross on March
19, 1962, and by reducing the work hours of certain other named employees on
February 12, 1962, because of their union or concerted activities, and by engaging
in various specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion against its employees
in connection with their union activities.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a Georgia corporation
maintaining its principal office and place of business at Dalton, Georgia, where it is
engaged in the processing and sale of carpeting. During the 12 months prior to
the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all times material
herein, Respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its
place of business at Dalton, Georgia, directly to points outside the State of Georgia.
I find that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sometime about the middle of January 1962, or shortly thereafter, the Union
began to organize Respondent's employees. At that time there were about 50 or
60 employees, at least 35 or 40 of whom apparently supported the Union.' The
plant was then operating on a one-shift basis of 60 or more hours a week with all
hours in excess of 40 being paid for at time and a half. About the middle of
February, Respondent went on a three-shift 40-hour week more than doubling its
employee complement in the process? While the General Counsel contends that
the reduction in the workweek was discriminatory, he does so only as to nine of
the employees so affected? This reduction of hours and the discharge of Donald
Cross are the main issues.
A. The discharge of Donald Cross
There is no dispute, as testified to by Donald Cross, that he was discharged be-
cause of his refusal to make the commitment to Respondent that he would dis-
continue his support of or activity on behalf of the Union. This occurred on March
19, 1962, a few days after Cross had testified for the Union in a Board representa-
tion hearing. About a month and a half before that, according to Cross' further
testimony, he had been told by Respondent that he was a supervisor 4 and as such
could not engage in union activity. At that time he agreed to honor Respondent's
1 Union buttons were worn In the plant by approximately 35 or 40.
2 Peak employment went to about 120
2 Because of my disposition of this matter, the Charging Party's motion to amend com-
plaint or have me amend it is denied.
I This occurred on January 27, 1962. According to Cross, this was the first he had
heard about being a supervisor. As will be seen elsewhere he testified somewhat
inconsistently.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demand during working hours but contended that Respondent had no authority
over what he did on his own time.
Respondent 's defense to Cross' discharge is that he was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act and thus not protected in his union activity . While the matter
is not free of doubt I am inclined to find , and I do find , chiefly on Cross' own testi-
mony, that he was a supervisor . In this connection Cross testified as follows:
He was hired in 1960 . About a year later he was made shipping clerk. His
supervisors in order of importance were Oscar Jonas, Respondent 's President , Blaine
Wright, the plant superintendent , and Charles Wilson , in charge of receiving and
shipping .5 As shipping clerk he usually had 3 or 4 employees working under his
direction ; but at times he had as high as 25 or 30 . Sometime in July or August
1961 (before the advent of the Union ), he was told he was "the boss in charge,
had the responsibility" for, the customer shipping . But Cross did- not take this
to mean he was a supervisor on the pay he was making.°
Approximately 10 percent of his time was spent in manual work helping load
trucks and similar tasks, the rest in paper or clerical work .? He had authority to
transfer men within his own unit. He took it upon himself to keep the work area
clean because he did not "like to work in a dirty place ." Periodically, he would
tell his people "when you get caught up with your shipping , let's get the place
cleaned up." When work was not at its peak he would do "a lot of clean up work
fixing stock and changing around different changes." He would see that the men
had something to do and were kept busy. If he needed extra men and he saw one
doing nothing, he would ask him to help .8 He also took it upon himself to curtail
the `%orse play" because it was dangerous.
He admitted that on one ocasion before Christmas when the men were swinging
chains on a truck as they were loading it he told them, "Cut out that damn racket
and get back to work ." 9 On another occasion iO when his opinion was asked by
Superintendent Wright about the performance of an employee under him, one
Hollifield,11 he testified before me that he told his superiors that Hollifield "liked
to talk ; that he liked to stand around and talk"; but that he "was working OK,
he liked to talk, and we left it at that ." In the "R" case hearing Cross had testified
that when he was asked how Hollifield was working out, he said , "He's not working
out too good with me. He likes to stand around and talk too much." In any
event,•a day or two after his remarks about Hollifield , the latter was transferred out
of his jurisdiction.
It further appears from Cross' testimony that Wright originally checked his clerical
work as a doublecheck matter . Ultimately, this doublechecking detail was taken
over by Wilson . But Wilson's work was never checked by Cross. On the other
5 Wilson was described by Jonas as being responsible for all shipping and receiving-
"for the entire back end of the plant ." Wilson himself testified that he was over the
whole back end of the plant including customer shipping. Elsewhere, Respondent's evi-
dence would show that Wilson was in charge of all receiving and raw material shipping
as distinguished from customer shipping which was Crass ' province Both Wilson and
Cross were required to punch the timeclock There was about the same absolute differen-
tial between Wilson's pay and Cross' as there was between Cross' and the men in his crew
6 On March 19, his rate was $1 35 an hour ; on the same date the employees working
under his direction were getting $ 1.21 an hour with one of them getting $1.26 an hour.
He had received a Christmas bonus of $125 while one of his men had received $ 100. The
differentials were relatively the same prior to March 19
4 He checked production tickets against order tickets ; prepared bills of lading ; arranged
for the routing of shipments ; typed stencils and made tickets for rugs ; caused physical
inspections to be made ; and searched out missing rugs.
8 On cross-examination he was asked if he had not testified on the "R" case hearing
that he believed the men worked better if one asked them rather than gave them a direct
order. His answer was, "I don't give anybody direct orders."
9 He explained that he had been hit with one of the chains and felt that it was his
duty to stop it.
is This was after January 27, 1962, but Cross could not recall whether it was before
or after March 2, 1962
n It appears that Hollifield actually worked under the guidance of one Gus Parker
whose duties were confined to the shipping of J. C. Penney orders from a warehouse de-
voted to that account The evidence shows, and I find, that Parker worked essentially in
a subordinate position to Cross and in certain respects under his authority It was
Parker who first raised the question of Hollifield's performance with Respondent That
Respondent then sought out Cross' opinion as to Hollifield is significant as to the former's
supervisory status, I believe, notwithstanding that Cross may not have made any specific
recommendation regarding him.
O. N. JONAS CO., INC. 961
hand, it appears that Cross did make a check on some of President Jonas' work. In
processing orders, Jonas compiled a sheet or list of customers' orders from the order
tickets. Both a paper check and a physical check was then made by Cross to see
that Jonas had not made an error. The physical check was made by whoever Cross
designated for the task. He picked those he felt were the more experienced because
if a mistake was made he was responsible.
There is no doubt that at no time did Cross have authority to hire or fire or perform
on his own any of the statutory functions of a supervisor. On March 2, however,
he was informed by Jonas that he had the authority to effectively recommend such
action. On that date, according to Cross' testimony, he and five others attended
a supervisor's meeting with Jonas and other officials which type of meeting became
a weekly affair thereafter. In this meeting he was told that he was over customers'
goods and shipping and that he would be working under Wilson; 12 that he (and the
others) had authority to recommend hiring and firing and disciplinary action; and
that they could sign timecards.13 Several matters pertaining to the running of the
plant were discussed among which was an impending reduction of the workweek.
Cross and the others were told to call their men together and inform them of the
possible cut and apprise them of the fact that all requests or grievances would have
to go through them.
Jonas explained the March 2 increase of supervisory authority for Cross and the
others as follows: That because of the growth of the Company it was no longer
convenient for him and Wright to deal directly with the men. Thus the supervisors
were going to have to take a more active part in running the plant and that the chain
of command, that had somehow broken down, was to be reactivated.
Jonas also said, according to Cross, "that because of this union affair that he had
to hire extra shifts and put in another plant to protect his interest and the plant's
interest: that the orders was getting caught up; with these extra hands, we would go
on a 4-day week the following week, possibly a 3, and down to 1, but that nobody
would be laid off; that the new hands had just as much right to work as the old hands
and the union men." That Jonas had made any allusion to the Union in connection
with his having put on the extra shifts was denied in Respondent 's testimony. Al-
though Johnny Gravitt was called as a witness by the General Counsel (and the
evidence shows he attended the March 2 supervisory meeting), he was not questioned
about it. I do not credit Cross' testimony in this connection.
B. The alleged discriminatory reduction in hours
Respondent's business was relatively new and its growth had "mushroomed rather
quickly." Respondent explained that its change to a multishift operation 14 was the
result of (1) the criticism of a newly hired firm of auditors to its overtime practices,
(2) the desire to build up its "production potential" by increasing its number of
employees and the shifts it operated , and (3 ) an increase in standardized orders
on which a lower unit profit required a cut in costs.
The Charging Party in its excellent brief admits that Respondent 's explanation of
its change from a 60-hour week to a multiple shift 40-hour week "has considerable
plausibility ." I agree. Moreover , the fact that twice in 1961 Respondent had
resorted to two 12-hour shifts to meet increased demands certainly is no ground (as
the Charging Party apparently contends ) for claiming that the establishment of
three 8-hour shifts was abnormal , particularly under the circumstances.
The Charging Party points to an apparent inconsistency in Respondent's evidence
regarding the decision to increase the number of shifts. Thus it points to Vice
President Freedman's testimony that a decision as to "definitely going ahead" with
a three-shift operation was made in October or November, while Jonas' testimony
shows that the auditor's report was not received until January 16, 1962. It further
points out "that although the Company produced certain written recommendations
from the auditor at the hearing, it could not produce any recommendation on this
12 Notwithstanding that Wilson testified that he was over the whole back end including
customer shipping, he further testified in corroboration of Jonas that he had no authority
over Cross . In this connection Jonas testified that Cross was responsible directly to
Wright. I find it unnecessary to resolve the discrepancy and conflict because it appears
to me that the record establishes Cross' supervisory status notwithstanding that Wilson
may have had some authority over him.
13 Before this any timecard corrections had to be approved by Superintendent Wright.
14 In viewing the drop in the workweek to 40 hours I am cognizant of the antiunion
arguments made by Respondent to the employees regarding a reduction of hours to 40 or
less if the Union came in That Respondent was inconsistent in this respect is not of
fatal significance
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
point in writing." This is a valid observation, but here again I do not believe that
it is of such significance as to be fatal to Respondent's position. Having gone on
two shifts before it is obvious that a multishift basis of operation was not foreign
to Respondent's thinking. A decision in October or November "to go ahead" on
this basis may not have been crystallized until the auditor's appraisal. As Freedman
testified, the auditors showed them the amount they had spent in overtime and asked
what they were going to do about it pointing out, "It's kinda foolish." 15
When the evidence as a whole is considered, I am inclined to find and I do find
that notwithstanding several suspicious circumstances in Respondent's action,16 the
General Counsel again has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent's action was discriminatory. Accordingly, this count of discrimina-
tion is also recommended for dismissal.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In February Respondent's comptroller, Chawkins, interviewed all current em-
ployees individually in the office ostensibly for the purpose of requiring them to fill
out application forms-a matter that the company had neglected to do when they
had been hired.27 This was done, the company officials testified, as a result of the
study made by the auditing firm.18 Whatever the reason they were called in as
to these interviews, the following testimony was adduced from witnesses called by
the General Counsel:
Arlin Broyles: After filling out the application form and signing it Chawkins said,
"No doubt you have heard about the union activity inside the plant." He replied
that he had and Chawkins asked him how he felt about it. He told Chawkins he
thought it was a good thing. "He thought everybody should have a raise and paid
vacations and insurance, and things like that " Later, Chawkins called him back into
the office and told him that if he "would back out of the Union and go with the com-
pany (he) wouldn't have anything to worry about . that there'd always be
bread on (his) table." Chawkins further said that he "had a wife and family to
think about.. . He then told Chawkins that that was what he had been think-
ing about and that was why he had decided he had "better back out." Chawkins
assured him that he "was doing the right thing and . . wouldn't be sorry."
R. L. Hollifield: On the occasion when Hollifield filled out his application blank
in Chawkins' office, the latter told him that if the Union came in they would not get
any more than 40 hours a week and asked him if he could make it on 40 hours.
When he replied that he though he could-that he had made it on less-Chawkins
said that with one child and a wife maybe he could make it but that there were
employees with three and four children that might not make it. He told Hollifield
that some of those would probably quit and might not find jobs elsewhere and advised
him to think it over.
Charles Laster: When Laster filled out his application, he was asked by Chawkins
how he felt about the Union. Laster replied that he was going along with it, that
he had been in the Union 15 years and would be in the Union all his life if there was
one. Chawkins then asked how he thought he could get by on 40 hours a week and
how much did he think the Union would pay them. When he answered approxi-
mately $1.30 an hour, Chawkins figured up that even on that rate at 40 hours he
would be making less than he currently was earning and could not see how Laster
could live on it.
As to these conversations Chawkins testified that he told the men that he wanted
to take that opportunity of telling them what the Company's position was on the
matter of the Union. He told them that the Company was against the Union com-
ing ino the plant because it felt that the Union could not get the employees any-
thing that they could not get for themselves. He further told them it was not a
requirement that they belong to a union to work there. He also said it was their
prerogative to be for or against the Union. He pointed out that because of the
newspaper clippings and radio reports the employees were no doubt aware of the
fact that the AFL-CIO unions had been pushing for a 40-hour workweek all over
15 Of course, if the decision was made in October or November, it could not have been
discriminatory because the Union was not yet in the picture
19 The timing particularly.
17 Some had been working for as long as a year or more.
18 Here, again, the Charging Party points out that "although the auditing firm had put
its other recommendations (and particularly those involving the use of forms) in writing,
Respondent could not come up with any written recommendation from the auditor on
this matter"
O. N. JONAS CO., INC. 963
the country and raised the question with them how they would make out if the
Union came into the plant and were successful in achieving its national objective.
In this connection Chawkins testified that he was referring and did refer in these
conversations to an article from the Journal of Labor on February 9 which Re-
spondent had posted on its bulletin board.19
Chawkins also denied that he had called in Broyles for a second interview per-
taining to dropping the Union. He testified about a second conversation with
Broyles (in which Broyles came to the office on his own initiative) as follows:
Mr. Broyles came in and told me that he had been reconsidering his union
activity and that he felt that he might want to back out, but that he had heard
rumors in the plant that anybody who had worn a union button and backed
out would be fired from his job. I assured him of the fact that nobody at
our plant would be fired whether they wore a union button or did not wear
a union button as long as they did a job, and that I personally felt that if
he had changed his mind, he had done a wise thing.
I credit Broyles here.
in addition to the foregoing 8(l) matters three employees testified as to similar
conversations with Jonas. In this connection Hollifield testified as to a conversa-
tion with Jonas late in February 1962. Hollifield had been called in the office on
this occasion to see if he knew anything about some threats having been made by
one employee to another. During the course of the conversation Jonas told Holli-
field that he had heard that the latter was a strong union member and that he
had been attending meetings . Hollifield admitted it. Jonas then asked him how
the Union would help him. He replied that it could help by providing less hours
of work and more pay. They then proceeded to discuss the good points and bad
points of unions. Jonas told him that he did not think the Union could do any-
thing for him that he could not do for himself. He also told Hollifield to think
it over.
About the same time according to the testimony of J. W. Verner he also had a
conversation about the Union with Jonas. This occurred in the shipping depart-
ment during a lunch period. Jonas had come in and apparently there was a dis-
cussion among the employees going on about the Union. Jonas asked why he
wanted a union. He told Jonas he wanted job security and further pointed out
that on one occasion he had been kept working when another employee with more
seniority and who had a family to support had been laid off. The following day
Jonas again talked to him about the Union. On this occasion Jonas pointed out
that they would work 40 hours a week and that even if their rate was much higher
they would be better off working 60 to 80 hours a week at their current lower rate
of pay. During this conversation (or possibly in the preceding one) according to
Verner's further testimony they talked about strikes and violence and Jonas told
them that he would sit and bargain with the Union and what came out of it is
what they would get. Jonas further told them that he knew that there were some
complaints on the supervision. He also told them that it was a new business and
that as the business grew the people would grow with it-that he always shared what
he had made and would continue to do so. Jonas further said that if the Union
came in they would work 40 hours a week.
Forrest Hall testified that he had a conversation with Jonas on February 14, 1962,
about the Union. Chawkins and the bookkeeper were present. Jonas asked him
if any supervisor had asked him to sign an authorization card. He said no he
had signed one on his own. Then Jonas wanted to know what he thought he
would gain by being in a union and he answered that they wanted better working con-
ditions, job security, and more money. Jonas asked how much he thought the Union
would get him and he replied approximately $1.40 an hour on the first contract.
Jonas said that the Union would probably ask 20 cents an hour and he would
offer 5 and the Union would not like that and would call a strike and that strikes
lead to violence and so forth. Jonas also said that the whole town was com-
pletely antiunion and that he would be blacklisted throughout the town if he con-
tinued his union activities.
There was no substantial contradiction by Jonas of Verner's testimony. Jonas did
testify credibly that at the time he talked to Verner the latter was wearing a large
19 This article had to do with the news report of a discussion taking place at the
Atlanta Building and Construction Trades Council pertaining to a shorter workweek in
the building construction industry.
672010-63-vol. 139--62
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union button. As for his conversation which Hollifield, he admitted, after first
denying that the Union was mentioned at all, that he might have asked him what a
union could get for him. As for Hall's testimony, Jonas flatly denied making any
comment to him or to any other employee about blacklisting. In this connection
it appears that Hall's sworn statement taken by a Board agent the day after his
conversation with Jonas makes no mention of any blacklisting comment by Jonas.
I credit Jonas' denial.
Conclusions
Even though Respondent may have couched its comments regarding a 40-hour
week in general terms of union objectives and possibilities, I am convinced and find
that in the course of its many conversations on the matter with the employees the
distinction between conjectural generality and specific fact was lost. Thus, I am
inclined to and do find that its comments to the employees about a reduction in the
workweek if the Union come in were made as factual threats against continued
union support and were so understood. As such they violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. As a corollary, Chawkins' promise to Broyles of bread on the table and
nothing to fear if he backed out of the Union and went with the Company is
clearly a promise of benefit within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and
also a violation of that section.
In view of these two types of interference, restraint, and coercion on the part
of Respondent with rights of its employees, I also find that the various questions
posed to the employees about their attitudes and hopes regarding a union were also
coercive and in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Southeastern Mills, Inc.,
123 NLRB 1783; N.L.R.B. v. Harbison-Fischer Manufacturing Co., 304 F. 2d 738,
(C.A. S), enfg. 131 NLRB 885.
In its brief, the Charging Party alludes to Respondent's orders to Cross and the
others it maintained were supervisors to cease their union activity and support as
additional evidence of Section 8(a)(1) violations on the grounds that they were
not supervisors. I have found to the contrary regarding Cross. I deem it un-
necessary to go any further on the question as to the others since the complaint
makes no such allegation and in any event any additional 8(a)(1) finding in this
respect would not affect the Recommended Order herein.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 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 certain unfair labor practices, I
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organiza-
tion, all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not engaged , as alleged in the complaint , in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is
0. N. JONAS CO., INC. 965
recommended that the Respondent, O. N. Jonas Co., Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with a reduction of work hours or other economic
reprisals if they join, retain membership in, or engage in activity on behalf of
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization.
(b) Promising employees economic benefits for refraining from any of the fore-
going union activity.
(c) Interrogating employees as to their union attitudes, hopes, and aspirations
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the Union or any other labor organization, 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, 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 authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its plants at Chatsworth and Dalton, Georgia, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta, Georgia, shall, after being duly signed by
a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.21
20 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
21 In 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 recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a reduction of work hours or
other economic reprisals if they join, retain membership in, or engage in activity
on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees economic benefits for refraining from
engaging in the foregoing activity.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their union attitudes, hopes,
and aspirations , in a manner constituting inference , restraint, or coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the Union or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in 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
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
authorized by the National Labor Relations Act.
O. N. JONAS Co., 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
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, NE., Atlanta 23, Georgia , Telephone
Number, Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Hawaii Meat Company, Limited and Meat Cutters Union, Local
594 (AFL-CIO). Case No. 37-CA-2O?. November 15, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 9, 1961, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support
thereof.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
modifications.
Meat Cutters Union, Local 594 (AFL-CIO), referred to here as the
Union, was certified in February 1960 as the exclusive bargaining
representative for a unit of the Employer's employees, including its
truckdrivers, helpers, and garage mechanics, referred to here as the
delivery department. Bargaining for an agreement continued until
July 1, 1960, when the Union struck for its economic demands.
About a month before bargaining broke down, the Respondent, con-
sidering that a strike was a possible eventuality, undertook negotia-
tions with an independent trucking company to subcontract its de-
The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, exceptions,
and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
139 NLRB No. 75.