Ontario Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1528 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ontario Foods, Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union, Local
No. 1099, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO
and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , Local No. 7, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 9-CA-3039
and 9-CA-3046. December 10, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 24, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Deci-
sion 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 therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissing the
complaint insofar as it pertained thereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief; no exceptions were filed
by the General Counsel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner,' with the amendment noted below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent,
Ontario Foods, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
as amended below :
1. Paragraph 1(b) in the Recommended Order is amended to read:
"Coercively interrogating employees regarding their union senti-
ments and activities or the union activities of other employees, induc-
ing them by bribes, offers of promotion, or other material benefits to
engage in surveillance of employees' union activities and report
1 We conclude, as the Trial Examiner apparently did, that Respondent violated the Act
both by the announcement and institution of the group life insurance and sickness benefit
plan for meat department employees shortly before the election.
149 NLRB No. 139.
ONTARIO FOODS, INC. 1529
thereon to Respondent, or persuading employees to vote against
either of the above-named labor organizations in an election by
threats of reprisal or promises or grants of benefits of any kind."
2. Add the following to paragraph 2(a) in the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner's Decision :
"Notify the above-named employees, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstate-
ment 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 Service."
3. The second indented paragraph of the Notice to all Employees
is amended to read :
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees regarding
their union sentiments and activities or the union activities of
other employees, induce them by bribes, offers of promotion, or
other material benefits to engage in surveillance of employees'
union activities and report thereon to us, or persuade our employ-
ees to vote against either of the above-named labor organizations
in an election by threats of reprisal or promises or grants of
benefits of any kind.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The issues in this case are whether Respondent , Ontario Foods, Inc., during an
organizing campaign of Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 1099, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO ( herein called the Retail Clerks ), at its Ridge
Avenue, Cincinnati , store, ( 1) discharged two employees because of their union activ-
ities and membership , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), and
(2) coerced and restrained employees in exercise of their statutory rights by interroga-
tion , and promise and grant of benefits to induce them to abstain from union activity
and to spy on activities of the Retail Clerk, threats of discharge and other reprisals
to induce them to abandon union activity during organizing campaigns conducted by
the Retail Clerks and Local No. 7, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Meat Cutters), in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act. These issues arise on a consolidated complaint issued March 25,
1964, by the General Counsel of the Board through the Board's Regional Director for
Region 9,1 as amended at the hearing , and the answer of Respondent which admitted
jurisdiction but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices . A hearing on
the issues was held on due notice before Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey at Cincin-
nati, Ohio, on May 11 to 13, 1964, in which all parties participated fully through
counsel. All parties waived oral argument at the close of testimony , but Respond-
ent and the Charging Parties have filed written briefs which have been carefully con-
sidered by me in preparation of this Decision.
Upon the record as a whole, and from my observation of witnesses on the stand,
I make the following findings of fact:
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged at Cincinnati , Ohio, in the operation
of retail stores. Its Ridge Avenue, Cincinnati store is the only one involved in this
case . In the calendar year before the hearing, Respondent had a direct inflow of
I The complaint issued after Investigation by the Board of charges filed December 3,
1963, by Retail Clerks, and December 9, 1963, by the Meatcutters.
1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
goods and materials to its Cincinnati stores valued in excess of $50,000. I find that
at all material times herein Respondent has been an employer' engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
At all material times mentioned herein, the Ridge Avenue, store was supervised
by the following officials, all of whom are supervisors within the meaning of the Act:
Arnold E. Meade, store manager; Lawrence W. Lockwood, supervisor of meat depart-
ment; Leslie Swearingen, supervisor; Ray Sizemore, head grocery clerk and stock
manager ; Jerry Stamp, assistant store manager; Bea Willett, head cashier; and Helmut
Woebking, manager -trainee.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The Retail Clerks and Meat Cutters are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The activities of the Unions
The Retail Clerks started an organizing campaign at the Ridge Avenue store late
in August 1963, during which it-openly distributed handbills to grocery department
employees at the store and solicited them to sign union authorization cards.
The Meat Cutters began to organize the meat department employees at the store
sometime in 1962. In November of that year it filed a representation petition in Case
No. 9-RC-5164, in which it procured a Board-conducted election among such
employees. After it lost the election and filed objections, the Board on November 1,
1963, set that election aside and ordered a new election, which was held Novem-
ber 29, 1963. The Meat Cutters again lost, and filed objections which are still pending.
B. Respondent's reaction to the campaigns
The proceedings in Case No. 9-RC-5164 show that throughout the greater part of
1963 Respondent was actively contesting the issue of the validity of the election of
November 1962; after the Regional Director issued his report of March 22, 1963,
supporting the Meat Cutters' objections to the 1962 election and recommending that
it be set aside, Respondent appealed to the Board which issued its order for a new
election on November 1, 1963. In the interim, of course, Respondent was well aware
that the question of a new election was pending. I also find from credible testimony
of Manager Meade that he knew as early as August 1963, that the Retail Clerks were
actively distributing propaganda and soliciting grocery employees on the store parking
lot, and that this activity continued up to the day before the second election among
the meat department employees. During all this period Respondent carried on a
continuous campaign to persuade employees to abstain from adherence to both labor
organizations.
When Rubenia Tanner applied for a job in the meat department about July 1, 1963,
she was interviewed by Meat Manager Lockwood, who said he did not know how
she felt about the Union, but if she was "for" the Union, Ontario was no place for
her to work. She was hired and remained as an employee until sometime after the
election . About 2 weeks before the election, she overheard Lockwood tell employee
Don Young in the cutting room that if the Union got in quite a few employees would
be without jobs, because the union contract allowed so many apprentices for so many
journeymen, which would put some apprentices out of work. About a week before
the election , Lockwood called Tanner in his office, and said he did not know how
she felt about the Union, but he could not see why anyone would vote for it, that
Ontario was a nice place to work, and he could not understand why anybody would
vote the Union in. She said it was no one's business how she voted, and she would
not tell anyone to stay out of trouble. After the election, Lockwood told Tanner that
President Kantor was unhappy with the four meat wrappers, as he understood they
voted for the Union, that from then on the meat department would be run on a
"demerit basis," that another employee was going to "demerit" the girls, and would
not help them by giving them prices, so that after they made a certain number of
mistakes in pricing they would automatically be dismissed. That afternoon Lockwood
showed her Leach's timecard, indicating earnings of about $180 that week, and said
he knew Leach had voted for the Union, and he could not understand how anyone
who made that much money would vote for the Union, that instead Leach should "get
down and kiss Mir. Kantor's feet"; he added that Leach had never starved as he
(Lockwood) had and that Leach did not appreciate that kind of money.
ONTARIO FOODS, INC. 1531
About a week before the election, Kantor called Tanner to the store office for a
private talk. He asked her about her work schedule. She explained that she worked
40 hours a week, but in order to get 40 hours, she had to work Sundays. He asked if
Lockwood made her work Sundays. She said, no, but she did it to get the 40 hours.
He apologized for this, said it was an oversight, that he did not mean to have her
work that way, and after the election it would be changed. Shortly after the election,
Tanner's hours were changed so that she accrued 40 hours during the week without
Sunday work. She also got a 10-cent-an-hour raise.2
I find that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by (1) Lockwood's sug-
gestion to Tanner at her hiring that if she were prounion, Ontario was not the place
for her to work, which was calculated to put a prospective employee in fear of pos-
sible reprisals or unpleasant experiences for union adherence; and (2) his clear threat
after the election that the meat wrappers, including Tanner, who presumably had
voted for the Meat Cutters, would be penalized for that action by working under more
onerous conditions , including a more rigid check on their pricing errors which might
lead to quick discharge; and (3) Kantor's offer to Tanner before the election to correct
her work schedule to avoid the need for Sunday work to make 40 hours, and his effec-
tuation of that promise after the election. It does not appear that Tanner had previ-
ously raised this as a grievance, so that the timing of Kantor's apparently unsolicited
offer before the election, in the light of Respondent's clear union animus and other
unfair labor practices, warrants the inference that it was designed to persuade Tanner
to vote against the Union .3 I find no violation of the Act in Lockwood's other remarks
which are no more than instances of legitimate free speech, in expression of antiunion
opinions , his views of possible consequences of unionization and enforcement of a
union contract, and his emphasis of existing company benefits.
About 2 weeks before the 1963 election Lockwood told the meatcutters in the
cutting room that they would get a Christmas bonus, and a paid vacation when they
were qualified by length of service for it, and they should give Kantor a "vote of
confidence or standby him." About a week later, Lockwood made substantially the
same remarks to at least two meat department employees in the same place. Once in
this same period, employee J. C. Hopper told another employee that he was sure
there would be enough employees to vote the Meat Cutters in the election. The latter
employee apparently repeated this to Lockwood, for the latter called Hopper to his
office and asked him privately where he got that information. Hopper said an
employee had told him. Lockwood asked his name. Hopper asked if the worker's
employment would be endangered in any way if he revealed the name. Lockwood
said it would not. Hopper then said one William Hammons had said it. Lockwood
asked if Hammons had named any employees who would vote for the Union. Hopper
said he had not, and Lockwood then asked Hopper, if he had a chance, to try to find
out their names from Hammons. The next day Lockwood asked Hopper if he found
out anything. Hopper said, "No." At another time about 7 to 10 days before the
election, Lockwood told Hopper that union rules allowed only one apprentice for
every three journeymen meatcutters, and that if the Meat Cutters won the election
some employees including Hopper would automatically lose their jobs.4
I find that Respondent further violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by:
(1) Lockwood's reminder to employees that they would get a Christmas bonus and
a paid vacation after service accrued, and should vote for Respondent in return. There
is no proof that Respondent had given such bonuses or paid vacations in the past,
such as to warrant the inference that mention of them was merely a lawful mention
of existing benefits, hence it is inferrable that the remark was in effect an initial promise
of new or one-time benefits which was well calculated to coerce employees to vote
against the Meat Cutters. .
(2) Lockwood's interrogation of Hopper as to names of employees who expressed
prounion sentiments , and his attempt to persuade him to learn and report names of
others so minded.
2 Tanner's experiences are found on her credited testimony, which is not contradicted
by Kantor I do not credit Lockwood's formal categorical denials of certain remarks
attributed to him, in view of his failure to give his version of talks with Tanner or other
employees, and the other unfair labor practices of Respondent found herein.
'While Kantoi's offer and its effectuation were not alleged in the complaint, the issue
was litigated at the hearing, hence a finding thereon is warranted
4 Lockwood's remarks to Hopper are found on credited testimony of the latter. Lock-
wood's pro foinia denials thereof are'not credited for reasons stated above.
1532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Grant of Insurance Benefits
In April 1963 Respondent arranged for a group life insurance and sickness benefit
plan to cover employees at the store. At the outset, the plan was drawn to cover
owners of the business and key management personnel, with the intention of extending
it to all personnel both in the Ridge Avenue and Evendale stores within 18 months,
if business conditions warranted it. The plan went into effect for key personnel at
Ridge Avenue on May 30, 1963, and was extended to such personnel at the other store
on September 1, 1963. On September 10 Respondent began to investigate the cost
of extending the plan to meat department employees in both stores, and about mid-
October determined to take that step. The plan was put into effect for meat depart-
ment employees as of October 30, 1963. On or about November 9, 1963, Respondent's
insurance agent, Jack Twyman, explained the plan to meat department employees at
Ridge Avenue in a meeting called by Manager Meade. Twyman explained the fea-
tures of the plan, said it would be paid for entirely by Respondent, and had the
employees fill out personal information cards in connection with their coverage.
Thereafter, these employees received formal certificates of coverage on November 23,
at which time Respondent also posted a notice announcing the insurance and its
benefits. When the notice was posted, Lockwood called employee's Tanner's atten-
tion to it, said that it had cost Kantor a lot of money and "when the time came Mr.
Kantor expected something in return." 5
The insurance plan appears to have been conceived and first instituted without
unlawful motive; neither the complaint nor General Counsel charges otherwise. How-
ever, Respondent had sole control over the time of extension of the plan to meat
department employees: announcement of it between October 15 and 30 might have
afforded little support for a coercive inference, since Respondent did not know in
that period if or when a new election would be ordered. But when Respondent elected
to announce the extension only 8 days or less after direction of a new election (which
it presumably received prompt notice of under Board procedure), and actually handed
out the evidence of coverage to the employees only 6 days before the election, a strong
inference of coercive motivation arises from the timing alone, especially in view of
Lockwood's remark to Tanner on the 23d that Respondent expected "something in
return" when "the time came," a thinly veiled reference to the imminent election, and
in light of Respondent's other extensive attempts in November to turn the votes of
meat department employees against the Meat Cutters by unlawful means as found
herein. Respondent offers no noncoercive argument or explanation for its institution
of the plan at this time. Hence, I find and conclude that its institution of the plan
shortly before the election was a deliberate and coercive grant of benefit well calculated
to induce employees to vote against the Union, and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.6
Kantor's Speeches and Letters to Employees 7
On November 19, 1963, Meat Cutters agents including Carroll Jamison had a talk
with President Kantor to explore the possibility of some agreement without the
necessity of another election. Both sides agreed this would be advisable, but Kantor
indicated that the Meat Cutters' stand against Sunday work was a stumbling block to
settlement.8 The agents said they thought they could work something out with
Respondent on that point. The parties agreed to meet again later. Shortly after this
meeting, Kantor assembled the meat department employees and told them about his
talk with the Meat Cutters, and commented that the Sunday work question was not
settled, because its agent said he would have to try to persuade competitors of Respond-
ent to work on Sunday, before he could guarantee Respondent the right of Sunday
work.
5 These facts are based on credited testimony of various witness of General Counsel, ad-
missions of 'Meade, and stipulated testimony of Twyman. Testimony of Lockwood in con-
flict therewith is not credited.
0 N L R B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U S 405, reversing 304 F 2d 368, and en-
forcing Board Order in 131 NLRB 806, 807.
1 The complaint does not charge Respondent, acting through Kantor, with any specific
violations of the Act on the dates set forth below ; however, I have considered his conduct
because that issue was fully litigated at the hearing
8 Kantor referred to the fact that both unions had picketed the store with citizens'
groups on three or four successive Sundays in August and September, protesting violations
of the State blue laws and requesting shoppers not to patronize the store on Sunday.
ONTARIO FOODS, INC. 1533
On November 25, the Meat Cutters presented a' contract proposal to Kantor which
included a clause in effect preventing Sunday work , and another allowing only one
apprentice for every three journeymen meatcutters. Kantor objected to the Sunday
work clause because the prohibition was not in the major grocery chain contracts,
and his lease with the storeowner required him to keep the food department open the
same hours ( including Sundays ) as the discount department . He asked how the
Meat Cutters could guarantee him the right to operate Sundays. Jamison said he
would have to talk to other employers to get them to agree that their employees could
work Sundays . Kantor said that the apprentice clause would require him to lay off
some apprentices at once. Jamison said he did not want to take away any present
employee's job, and would give Respondent his informal assurance , outside the con-
tract , that present apprentices need not be discharged , so that the clause would apply
only to new employees . Kantor wanted the exception for present employees spelled
out in the contract , but Jamison refused. The parties reviewed other clauses in the
proposal , but reached no understanding. The same day, Kantor mailed meat depart-
ment employees a letter, copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix B. At a meet-
ing with these employees on November 26 or 27, Kantor reported on his last talk
with Jamison , indicating that the Sunday work question was still open, but that the
contract offered by Jamison would require him to stay closed Sundays, contrary to
his lease with the store owner. He said that the apprentice clause proposed by the
Meat Cutters would require the layoff of some apprentices , because Jamison had
refused to put any clause in the contract protecting jobs of present apprentices. He
said he would leave a copy of the Meat Cutters' proposed Toledo contract and the
Meat Cutters ' proposals on insurance in the office for employees to examine . In dis-
cussing the Meat Cutters ' proposed contract , Kantor called it "sweetheart " contract,
saying it provided a lower pay scale than his employees were getting , and wondered
whether he would be "selling the employees down the river " if he signed it. On the
question of health insurance , he told the employees that the insurance recently pro-
cured by Respondent for them was better in some respects than the insurance the
Meat Cutters provided for its own members , and that Respondent 's plan would not
cost the employees anything . He said he wanted to create a "family feeling" in the
meat department , and keep the store on a "family basis ," without a contract, that in
the past the workers could come to him for financial or other help, but that if the
Union got in it would not be that way . He also reiterated other arguments contained
in his letter of November 25, in answer to statements made by the Meat Cutters in a
leaflet distributed to the workers .9
Neither General Counsel nor the Unions present any cogent arguments to indicate
wherein Kantor 's letter or speeches violated the Act. In the light of his two discus-
sions with the Meat Cutters and the inability or unwillingness of its agents to offer
any real solution to the problems of Sunday work and employment of apprentices,
I consider that the letter and speeches presented no more than a fair and accurate
account of the results of Kantor 's discussions with the Meat Cutters on those points,
and temperate statements of his own opinion as to some probable consequences of
the enforcement by the Meat Cutters of the clauses it proposed on those subjects. In
this aspect , I conclude that the letter and speeches contained no more than temperate
and legitimate expressions of fact and opinions which amounted to free speech within
the purview of Section 8(c) of the Act. However, when Kantor adverted to the new
insurance plan which had first been announced to the employees on November 9 with
coercive implications , he was emphasizing and reinforcing in the workers' minds the
coercive implications of the original announcement , hence I find that thereby Respond-
ent further violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The Termination of Jacobs and McGill
John D. ("Dave") Jacobs began to work for Respondent at Ridge Avenue in'
August 1962 as a box boy at $1 an hour . He was given the job of lot boy about
January 1 , 1963 , with a raise to $1.10 an hour , and was doing this work at his termina-
tion on September 13, 1963 . As lot boy, his duties were to gather package carts left
in the parking area around the store by customers , and roll them back into the food
'These findings are based on credited testimony of various witnesses of General Coun-
sel, and documentary evidence, as corroborated in part by admissions of Kantor. I do
not credit or make findings on other equivocal testimony of Tanner regarding Kantor's
prophecy of changes in wage rates and working conditions if the Meat Cutters became the
bargaining agent.
1534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department for reuse by customers. Gary L. McGill was hired at the store in May
1963 as a lot boy at $1 per hour, working with Jacobs. In addition to his lot duties,
he at times worked at other jobs in the store. While working on the lot, both boys
were under supervision of Supervisor Les Swearingen.
In July 1963 Swearingen called Jacobs into the backroom and privately asked him
if any union men had contacted him at home, and suggested that if they did, Jacobs
should get their names. Jacobs said he would. Sometime early in August, an agent
of the Retail Clerks solicited Jacobs, and he signed a union authorization card, and
offered to help that organization by soliciting other employees. Thereafter he solicited
at least three other employees, including McGill and Barbara Prater from the bakery
department, to sign cards. He talked to Prater about this in the last part of August
outside the store, but she refused to sign a card. McGill signed his card about mid-
August, and later he also solicited Prater and others to sign. In his talk with Prater,
McGill told her that Jacobs had solicited him and he had signed up, and she said
Jacobs had solicited and she refused. She refused to sign for McGill. Later in the
week of her talk with Jacobs, Prater had a talk with head cashier Bea Willett in the
bakery, in which Willett said she thought some employees were working for the Union.
Prater replied she thought she knew who it was. Willett asked, who, and Prater
named Jacobs. Later that week Willett asked Prater in the bakery if she knew who
else was working for the Union, and Prater said she thought McGill was, but she was
not sure.
Shortly after his talk with Prater, McGill had a short talk with two Retail Clerk's
agents in the parking lot. As he returned to the store after this talk, Meade came to
him and asked if any unionmen had talked to him. He replied, no. Meade said
that if they did, McGill should tell either Meade or Kantor, whichever was available.
The Retail Clerks distributed handbills in the parking lot several times late in
August and around September 1. On one of these occasions, Jacobs came to the
store early to shop, and talked in the parking lot with several organizers. While
talking, Stock Manager Ray Sizemore drove by in his car and looked at Jacobs and
the group. When Jacobs walked into the store shortly to buy a drink, Sizemore
asked him if the men outside had been union officials or "price jackers." Jacobs said,
union officials. Sizemore then took Jacobs to the store office and told Meade about
it. Meade called President Kantor and told him in Jacob's presence that "we have
trouble, there are union organizers working outside," and that "we could get rid of
50% of the crew and get new men the next day." Meade told Kantor that Jacobs
had told him about the union men, and asked Kantor if he wanted to make Jacobs a
store boy. Jacobs did not hear Kantor's reply, but after completing the call, Meade
asked Jacobs if he wanted to be a store boy with a 25-cent raise. Jacobs asked what
his duties would be, and Meade told him he would have to go around and find out
what employees were meeting with the unionmen that night, where they would meet,
their future plans, and then report back to Meade. Meade told him "you are on the
clock now." Jacobs then went around the store for about an hour, talking to workers,
and then reported to Meade that he did not think anything would come of it. There
is no proof that Jacobs thereafter worked inside the store or got the raise.
When the Retail Clerks distributed handbills at the store a day or so before Sep-
tember 13, Jacobs took one of the leaflets to President Kantor in the store, and asked
if he had seen it. Kantor asked him if he thought the Union would get into the
store, or just fade away. Jacobs said he thought it would just fade away.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through the interroga-
tion of Jacobs in July by Swearingen and the latter's suggestion that Jacobs report to
him on union activities, Meade's similar interrogation and suggestion to McGill in
August, Sizemore 's similar interrogation of Jacobs in September, Meade's offer of a
bribe to him in the form of a promotion which induced him to question other employ-
ees about union activities, and report on it to Meade, and the latter's remark to Kantor
in the presence of Jacobs that, with a union campaign going on, he could lay off and
replace half the workforce quickly.
About September 1, 1963, McGill was given sole charge of the parking lot on a
full-time schedule, with a raise to $1.15 an hour, when Jacobs arranged to go back
to school and work only part-time thereafter. After the change, McGill's schedule
was from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, while Jacobs' schedule was from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Thursday and Friday nights, and all day Saturday.
On the evening of Friday, September 13, which was one of the busiest periods of
the week in the food department, Jacobs arrived at the store about 5. McGill, who
had had his car parked in an out-of-the-way portion of the large parking lot, told
him about oil line trouble he was having with his car, and asked Jacobs to help him
ONTARIO FOODS, INC. 1535
the store as usual , but occasionally checked on Jacobs' progress , and helped him by
for about a half hour , during which time McGill collected carts and took them into
fix it so that he could drive it home that night. Jacobs worked on the car steadily
handing him tools. About 5:26 p .m., Jacobs stopped work, entered the store , punched
in and washed up , and then went out to the lot to help McGill collect carts. After
doing this about a half hour, McGill told Jacobs that he was quitting at 7 p .m., but
needed the car fixed so he could drive home, so shortly after 6 p.m ., Jacobs went to
work on the car again for a short time, trying to fit an oil connection into the oil
line. While working on it, Jacobs was on the ground under the car, while McGill
was leaning into the engine space from above, handing him tools.
About 5:30 p .m., Manager Meade had noticed a shortage of carts in the store to
supply the crowd of customers , so he checked the parking lot, but could not find any
lot boys there. He then collected all available stockboys (about five to seven boys)
by a call on the public address system , and sent them to the lot to collect carts. While
they were out there , Meade again looked for but could not see either McGill or
Jacobs working . After about 20 minutes , he again noticed a shortage of carts, check-
ing the parking lot without seeing the regular lot boys, so again sent stockboys out
there. At the same time, he checked the timecards of McGill and Jacobs and found
them both punched in. He then went out about 6 p.m. and searched the whole parking
lot, and finally located McGill's car in a far corner of the lot away from the grocery
parking area , with Jacobs on the ground under the car, and McGill leaning inside the
engine hood. McGill saw Meade come up near their car. On seeing them, Meade
went inside . Both boys hurriedly went inside and washed up in the restroom, where
Meade found them about 6:30 p.m. Meade told them he had tried to find them three
or four times in the lot, but could not, and asked them what they had been doing.
Both said they had been working on McGill's car. He asked how long they had
been doing this, and they said about 5 minutes . He told them they knew they had
been working on it longer than that. He asked them if they had been "on the clock,"
and they admitted that. He then told them to go to the office.
In the office Meade called in Manager Trainee Helmut Woebking as a witness;
employee Dennis Puthoff was also present during the interviews . Meade talked to
Jacobs first . He asked what Jacobs had been doing . Jacobs said he had been work-
ing on McGill 's car. Meade asked how long, and Jacobs said 5 minutes . Meade dis-
agreed , saying he knew it had been longer than that. He then asked Jacobs if he
knew it was against company policy for employees to handle personal business on
company time . Jacobs admitted he knew it . Meade then asked him "what's this I
hear about you bothering my employees about the union?" Jacobs denied he had
done so. Meade then asked if he had signed a union card and tried to get other
employees to sign. Jacobs denied that . Meade then said, "Well , do you want me
to go get her9" Jacobs replied , "Suit yourself." Meade then asked Woebking to get
Barbara Prater. When Prater came to the office door , Meade said to her , "Don't
say anything, but did this boy walk around the corner of the building with you with
cards in his hands?" Prater replied , "Yes." Meade told her to go back to work, and
then asked Jacobs , "Come on now , didn 't you sign a union card?" and Jacobs admitted
he did . Meade asked if anyone else had signed, and Jacobs said , "No." At the sug-
gestion of Meade, Puthoff then made some uncomplimentary comments about activ-
ities of union officials . Meade then said he was laying off Jacobs permanently. Jacobs
accused him of doing it for his union activity . Meade said it was because he had
worked on the car on company time, not because of his union activities.
Meade then called in McGill, asked him the same question about the car, got the
same admissions , reminded him of the same company policy, and discharged him
for the same reason as Jacobs. McGill asked if Meade would not reconsider the
decision . Meade said he could not at this time , because the workers in the front of
the store knew he was not doing his job. In explaining his decision , Meade told McGill
he was taking into consideration the fact that McGill had helped Meade 3 or 4 weeks
before to repair a motor scooter of Meade's on the parking lot but after working
hours, and told McGill that because of this, if he had asked Meade for permission
to work on his car , Meade would have allowed it, but since he did not, and "because
of other events , which I cannot explain now," he would have to let him go. He sug-
gested that McGill should call him Monday when Meade would try to get him a job
in another store. McGill called Meade on the next two Mondays , but was told each
time that Meade had been unable to talk to the manager of the new (Evendale ) store.
In October , McGill called President Kantor, who told him to contact Manager
Swearingen next Tuesday at Evendale . When McGill did so, Swearingen gave him a
1536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job at first cleaning out the incinerator, then transferred him to stock work, then to
bagging groceries, and finally to the parking lot, all at $1 per hour. Three or four
weeks after starting there, McGill asked for a 15-cent raise, but never got it. Shortly
after, he was laid off for slack business, but told to call back in several weeks. When
he called back for a job twice, he was told the store was still laying off people. Neither
he nor Jacobs have ever been recalled.1°
I find from uncontradicted testimony of Jacobs and Prater that Respondent knew
shortly before the discharge of Jacobs and McGill that both boys had been actively
soliciting for the Retail Clerks.11 However, when they readily admitted that they
had used company time for personal business in violation of company policy, Meade
had a clear right to discharge them on the spot for that, regardless of their union
adherence or activities which gave them no immunity from discipline for misconduct;
and this is so particularly because they deliberately absented themselves from the
parking lot and their duties at the busiest hours of the week, when they were most
needed.12 The uncontradicted testimony of Meade and Swearingen shows that
Respondent considered the handling of personal business on company time a serious
offense, for it had instantly discharged other workers in the past for that offense.
Hence, if Meade had mentioned only this misconduct in the discharge interviews with
Jacobs and McGill, I would have grave doubt whether the record, even including
Respondent's other unfair labor practices and clear antiunion animus, would support
a finding of discriminatory discharge. But Meade's pointed inquiry of Jacobs about
his union activity, including his confrontation by Prater which caused him to break
down and confess his union activity, indicates strongly that such activity was one of
the reasons in Meade's mind when he fired him. This inference is supported by,
Meade's statement to McGill that, besides his misconduct that evening, he was being
discharged for "other events which I cannot explain now." Lacking any explanation
of those "events" then or later by Meade, it seems unlikely that they were past mis-
conduct;13 and the only other facts were his known union activity, about which he
had been questioned by Meade. His admitted misconduct that evening appears to
have been more of a pretext than a real ground for discharge, in view of Meade's
reminder that he would probably have allowed McGill to work on his car on com-
pany time if he had first asked permission, and Meade's prompt offer immediately
after discharge to get him a job in another store and his actual procurement of that
job for him. These circumstances leave his union adherence and association with
Jacobs, the main employee solicitor for the Retail Clerks, as the only plausible explan-
ation for Meade's action. Moreover, the inference that such activity was the main
motivation in discharge of both is also supported by the fact that Respondent took
some pains to prove prior derelictions by both. In the case of McGill they were
minimal , although they included a discharge and prompt reinstatement early in his
career. Jacobs had in the past been far from a model employee, for he was early
cautioned about being slow, he had once accidentally but carelessly kicked a woman
customer for which he was at once discharged on her complaint (but as quickly
reinstated at her request), he was discharged for another instance of using company
time for personal business (but reinstated by President Kantor himself), and had
been guilty of a series of absences without prior notice for false reasons of illness
for which he was laid off (but then reinstated with a warning to make sure to call in
in the future when absent for illness ). However, none of these derelictions were
serious enough to warrant permanent dismissal without reinstatement, and none of
them, large or small , were called to the attention of the boys by Meade at their dis-
10 The above findings are based on credited testimony of Jacobs, McGill, and Prater, as
corroborated in part by testimony of Meade, Puthoff, and Woebking. Testimony of these
or other witnesses in conflict therewith is not credited.
11 In this connection, Prater also testified that, after she returned to her department
from the confrontation of Jacobs, cashier Willett said to her "I hope you are not mad, but
I had to tell Mr. Meade that Dave was for the Union "
12 Both boys tried to minimize the extent and effect of their absence, but I am satisfied
and find from all the pertinent proof including their admissions that they both worked
on the car far longer than the 5 minutes they claimed, and that they did so because they
saw at least two other employees on the lot gathering carts in their absence, and felt they
would not be missed. However, the workers they saw were clearly store employees sent
to the lot temporarily by Meade when neither Jacobs nor McGill could be found.
18 This consisted mostly of some erratic punching of his timecards on reporting in and
out, which had apparently not warranted substantial discipline, or even warnings, accord-
ing to Meade.
ONTARIO FOODS, INC. 1537
charge,14 which warrants the inference that they were brought up at the hearing
purely as afterthoughts to hide the true reason for discharge (see Hurd Corporation,
143 NLRB 306; Detroit Plastic Products Company, 121 NLRB 448, 479-482; G & I
Company, Inc., 146 NLRB 115) and militates against the inference that the miscon-
duct of September 13 was merely the last in a series of their derelictions and the
"straw that broke the camel's back," so to speak. In reaching the conclusion that the
main motive was discriminatory, I have also given weight to the fact that Respond-
ent's unlawful conduct herein follows the same pattern of unlawful conduct in which
it engaged during the earlier organizing campaign of the Meat Cutters in 1962, on
the basis of which the Board found it guilty of unlawful discrimination against two
of the employees who testified in this case, and unlawful interrogation of and threats
to employees. Ontario Foods, Inc., 144 NLRB 1057.
On careful considerations of all the circumstances pro and con, I conclude that
General Counsel has sustained the ultimate burden of proof that Jacobs and McGill
were discharged on September 13, 1963, and have since been refused reinstatement,
for their union adherence and activity, and I find that by such discriminatory discharge
and refusal of reinstatement, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the
Act.15
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist there-
from, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
As I have found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged, and has refused to
reinstate, John D. Jacobs and Gary L. McGill, I shall recommend that it offer each
employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
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 a proper offer of reinstatement, less interim earnings, the amount to be com-
puted in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, to which should be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as
prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend
that Respondent be ordered to preserve and make available to the Board or its agents,
upon request, for examination and copying, all pertinent books and records which
may be necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due and the right
to reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations.
In view of the variety of unfair labor practices committed, which indicate Respond-
ent's fundamental hostility to the purposes of the Act, I shall recommend the issuance
of a broad cease and desist order.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The above-named Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act, and Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
14 To the contrary, credible testimony of Jacobs and Meade establishes that Jacobs
had been complimented several times by supervisors and told to "keep up the good work,"
had been given the parking lot with a raise early in 1963, and had been retained at
working during a later layoff of a large number of workers, despite his youth McGill
had been given the parking lot job, with a raise, early in September, when Jacobs went
on part-time employment. Meade admitted that Jacobs was a good worker "when he
was working"
151n view of the above conclusions, I find It unnecessary In appraising and recom-
mending a remedy to make any findings on other conduct of Respondent on November 26
and 27, 1963, and some earlier dates.
770-076-65-vol. 149-98
1538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By discriminating in regards to the hire and tenure of employment of John D.
Jacobs and Gary L. McGill, hereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the above conduct, and by interrogating employees regarding their union
sentiments and activities, and union activities of other employees, inducing them by
bribes and other forms of material persuasion to engage in surveillance of employees'
union activities and report thereon to Respondent, persuading employees to vote
against the Meat Cutters' Union in an election by threats of reprisal and promises
and grants of benefits, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire
record herein, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that Respond-
ent Ontario Foods, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activity on behalf of Retail Store Employees
Union, Local No. 1099, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 7, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of
its employees, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees regarding their union sentiments and activities or the
union activities of other employees, inducing them by bribes, offers of promotion, or
other material benefits to engage in surveillance of employees' union activities and
report thereon to Respondent, or persuading employees to vote against either of the
above-named labor organizations in an election by threats of reprisal or promises or
grants of benefits of any kind.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from
the exercise of any or all of such rights, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to John D. Jacobs and Gary L. McGill immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole from any loss
of earnings, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due and the right to reinstatement under the terms of the Recommended
Order.
(c) Post at its Ridge Avenue store in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 16 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
16 In 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, Enfoicing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order "
ONTARIO FOODS, INC. 1539
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.17
I further recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed msofar as it alleges
violations of the Act other than those found in this Decision.
17 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 Oi der, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here« ith "
APPENDIX A
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 , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity on behalf of Retail Store
Employees Union, Local No. 1099, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, or Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local No. 7, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharg-
ing or refusing to reinstate any of our employees , or in any other manner dis-
criminating against employees in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union sentiments and
activities or the union activities of other employees, induce them by bribes, offers
of promotion , or other material benefits to engage in surveillance of employees'
union activities and report thereon to us, persuade our employees to vote against
either of the above -named labor organizations in an election by threats of
reprisal , or promises , or grants of benefits of any kind.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act,
or to refrain from the exercise of any or all of such rights , except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement - requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer John D. Jacobs and Gary L. McGill immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of our dis-
crimination against them.
ONTARIO FOODS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify John D. Jacobs and Gary L. McGill if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, Federal
Office Building, Room 2023, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No. 381-
2200, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
APPENDIX B
DEAR FELLOW EMPLOYEE:
In the coming NLRB election, you will decide if our family-type relationship in
the Meat Department will continue or if we will have to deal with each other through
a stranger from the Meat Cutters Union. In making your decision, there are some
things I would like you to consider.
1540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FIRST: This Meat Cutters Union is not interested in you. They are only inter-
ested in using both of us as a tool to help the big chain supermarket-and this is how
you can be affected.
No Sunday Work-The best proof that the Union really doesn't care about
you, your jobs, or the amount of pay in your envelope every week was their
picketing our stores on Sundays, trying to persuade people not to buy from us.
They were hoping that we would lose so much business that you wouldn't have
the opportunity to work on Sunday. The Union didn't ask how you felt about
it-and they didn't care; they were only interested in fighting for the big chains.
No matter what they promise you, nothing would make the Union happier than
to see you lose all time-and-a-half and better pay on Sunday. And they don't
care if closing Sundays force us to lay off some employees or to reduce the hours.
Apprentices and Helpers-All major Meat Cutters Union contracts (Kroger's,
A & P, etc.) require that only one apprentice can be hired for every three journey-
men and there is no provision for Helpers. The Union doesn't care if this might
force us to lay off most of our apprentices and helpers. In fact, they would
probably be happy so that they could fill the jobs with some of their favorite
members.
Part Time Employees-The Union may try to place minimum hour restric-
tions on the use of part-time employees which would make it impossible to
schedule some of our employees at hours which are convenient for them-as
we do now. And, of course, if we are forced to close Sunday there will prob-
ably be less work to be distributed to part-time employees.
Think about these things when the Union gives you the sales pitch about "job
security " Remember , our business and your jobs depend on our keeping our present
store hours-otherwise we can 't compete and stay in business.
SECOND: Consider that with unions come the possibilities of strikes and the loss
of employment. If we would not be willing to close on Sunday, or change our hours
and the Union insisted, they would try to pressure you into going on strike. In the
event of a strike, we would continue to operate, and even though we would not want
to, it would be necessary to replace all strikers. Furthermore, strikers could lose
their jobs and their pay (strikers are not entitled to unemployment compensation).
So you and your families would suffer-not the Union.
THIRD: Also consider that the Union will undoubtedly insist on a unit shop con-
tract. This would mean that you would have to pay initiation fees and dues to the
Union in order to continue to work. We don't believe you should have to pay $5 per
month to anybody for the privilege of working here.
In addition , the Union will probably attempt to get special privileges for its favor-
ites by having them appointed union stewards so that they will have preference of
employment over everyone else. We have tried to treat every one equal, and we do
not want the Union creating special privileges for anyone.
NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE: This is what you already have without a
Union and without paying a $5 a month union dues:
WAGES: Our Wages are comparable and better than any union places in
Cincinnati and I 'll bet that our pay checks are a lot bigger because of the over-
time and Sunday work which the other people don't have an opportunity
to earn.
OVERTIME : Overtime after 40 hours at time -and-a-half; time -and-a-half or
better on Sunday ; double time on Holidays.
PAID HOLIDAYS : You receive the same paid holidays as any other super-
market employee in the city receives.
PAID VACATION: One week after one year ; two weeks after two years.
UNIFORMS: Furnished at no cost to you.
INSURANCE & HOSPITALIZATION: Furnished at no cost to you.
JOB SECURITY; NO LAYOFFS; SENIORITY: The Union talks about se-
niority and job security , but look at our record . It may surprise you, but since
the last election we have not laid off or fired one employee in the Meat Depart-
ment. In the last year we have not reduced the hours of any fulltime employee.
Even though business was slow , we created work so that you would have a full
paycheck every week. Let the Union try and match that for job security:
AND ONE MORE THING that no union can give you-a personal , friendly,
family relationship in which we all work. You all know that when you have had
financial problems, we were always willing to loan you money or give you advances;
and that if any of you had any other problems, my door was always open and you
could come and discuss them and my door will always be open.
CARIBE GENERAL ELECTRIC, INC. 1541
The Union would like to substitute for our personal interest in each other a cold
piece of paper where everything is black and white and according to the book. They
would want us to give up our personal relationship with each other and deal with
some strange union representative who doesn 't know about and doesn 't care about
your personal problems.
This letter is probably too long now, but I want to say again that we are a com-
paratively new company, we have grown together , and we will continue to grow
together. Don't take a chance on your future . You are doing better all the time
without paying dues to the Union for the right to work.
Don't let the Union make you fight somebody else's battles.
We urge you to vote NO!
Sincerely,
(S) Milton H . Kantor
Caribe General Electric , Inc., and General Electric Switchgear,
Inc. and Aurelio Marquez Burgos. Case No. 24-CA-1859. De-
cember 10, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 18, 1964, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications 3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent Caribe
General Electric, Inc., and General Electric Switchgear, Inc., Palmer,
1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as , in our opinion, the
record, including the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and positions of
the parties.
2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently at one point referred to the representation election
as having occurred on September 28, 1963 . The correct date is September 28, 1962.
awe find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner 's 8(a)(1 ) finding based on
the wage increase which the Respondent granted its employees on or about Novem-
ber 3, 1963.
149 NLRB No. 137.