Pennsylvania Dutch Farms, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1600 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said union,
as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit
set forth above.
KEARNEY & Tae cKER CORPORATION,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
PENNSYLVANIA DuTcH FARMS , INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CIITrERS
& BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 4-
CA-456. December 31,192
Decision and Order
On September 18, 1951, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued
his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
On October 8, 1951, the Respondent moved to reopen the record, on
the ground that it had newly discovered certain evidence. Pursuant
to a Board Order granting Respondent's motion and remanding the
case, a further hearing was held by Trial Examiner Doyle on the
issues raised in Respondent's motion. On October 13, 1952, he issued
his Supplemental Intermediate Report on this proceeding, affirming
his previous findings, but adding another finding, and making the
same recommendations set forth in the Supplementary Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent again filed ex-
ceptions 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 Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Supplementary Intermediate Report, the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby accepts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
101 NLRB No. 245.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1601
After a careful review of all the facts in this case, we find, in agree-
ment with the Trial Examiner, that Carmeletta Taylor was discharged
by the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the
Act. Like the Trial Examiner, we view the conduct of Taylor, in
offering Dorothy Ort, a former employee, one hundred dollars out of
Taylor's prospective back-pay award to induce Ort to talk again to
the Board's field examiner and to testify in this proceeding, as an act
of impropriety. However, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
there is no evidence in the record to warrant the inference that Taylor
was motivated by a desire to secure perjured testimony. Accordingly,
we find no reason to disturb the Trial Examiner's credibility findings
as to the testimony of Taylor.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Pennsylvania Dutch Farms, Inc., Miffiin-
town, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging its employees from engaging in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge or other economic
reprisal, if they engage in said concerted activities.
(c) Interrogating its employees concerning their concerted activi-
ties or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist such organizations,
to bargain collectively through repesentatives of their own choos-
ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, all as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Carmeletta Taylor immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole
in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report
entitled "The Remedy."
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to an analysis of the amount
of back pay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of
this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Miffiintown, Pennsylvania, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region, after having been duly signed by authorized
representatives of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1 This notice , however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3 thereof
the words "The Recommendations of Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu thereof the
words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a
Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on August 29, 1950, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, respectively called herein the
General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director fur the Fourth Region
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated July 20, 1951, against
Pennsylvania Dutch Farms, Incorporated, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent has engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter
called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) On or about August 1, 1950, the Respondent discharged Carmeletta Taylor,
an employee of the Respondent, because she engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and has since August 1, 1950, for the same reason refused
to reinstate Carmeletta Taylor to her former or substantially equivalent position ;
(2) Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by in-
terrogating them concerning their concerted activities; (3) threatened its em-
ployees with economic reprisals because of their concerted activities; and (4)
that by the foregoing conduct the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1603
Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted the jurisdictional allega-
tions of the complaint and the allegation that the Union was a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Mifflintown , Pennsylvania, on
August 21, 1951, before David F. Doyle, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respond-
ent were represented by counsel and the Union by one of its officers . Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the
hearing counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because of
Insufficient evidence. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion.
The motion is hereby denied. Also at the close of the hearing the parties were
advised that they might present oral arguments, proposed findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and briefs. The Respondent filed a brief, and proposed find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law which are dealt with in this Report.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having its principal office and
plant at Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, where it engages in the business of process-
ing poultry for sale and distribution. During the year 1950 the Respondent,
in the course of its operations, shipped processed poultry of a value exceeding
$200,000, from its plant in Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, to its customers in other
States . The Respondent concedes , and I find , that it is engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and I find that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIg LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent conducts its operations at Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, where
it maintains a plant for processing poultry. In its operations chickens are
purchased from farmers in the vicinity. These chickens are brought to the
plant where they are cleaned of feathers, drawn, graded, and packed and there-
after shipped to customers throughout the United States. To perform this
work the Respondent employs a force of more than 30 employees.
Carmeletta Taylor testified credibly that she began her employment with
the Company in May 1950.1 She was placed on the "pinning line." Her duties
required that she stand at a particular station to which the poultry were car-
ried on an assembly line and to "pin" the fowl as they went past. Approximately
eight girls were so engaged. Her employment appears to have been uneventful
until July 28. On that date, feeling that the employees on the pinning line
were inadequately paid, she decided to sound the employees out on the subject
of presenting a petition for an increase in pay to management. During the
morning, while engaged on the pinning line, she spoke to employees Varner and
I All dates in this section of the Report are 1950 unless otherwise noted.
242805-53-102
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ort. She asked these employees, if she prepared a paper requesting a 5-cent
an hour raise, would they sign it. Varner told her that she would sign and
Ort replied that she did not know whether she would sign or not. At noon-
time Taylor spoke to employees Gill and Zook. She told these two employees
that she was going to prepare a paper asking for a raise. She did not testify
as to their reaction. At the end of the working day she spoke to employees
Slagel and Cisney. Slagel told Taylor that she would not sign the paper ;
Cisney was undecided. On Monday, the next work day, nothing was said by
Taylor, or by any of these employees about the proposed paper.
Between 1 and 2 p. in. on Tuesday, August 1, Norman D. Leonard, Jr., foreman
of the plant, came to Taylor at the pinning line and said, "What is this I hear
that you have a paper for the girls to sign to get a raise ?" Taylor explained
that she didn't have a paper but was going to prepare one. He said, "Well,
the plant was closed down once before on account of this," and told Taylor
that Mr. Snyder, the manager of the plant, wanted to see her in Snyder's office.
As Taylor started for Snyder's office she noticed that Leonard started to talk
to some of the other girls.
Taylor testified that when she reached his office Snyder was alone. He said
to her, "I hear you have a paper for the girls to sign to get a raise." Taylor
said that she did not have a paper but that she intended to prepare one. Then
she named some of the girls to whom she had spoken, saying that they all wanted
a raise. Snyder replied that he was required to pay the girls only 65 cents an
hour because they were classified as agricultural workers. Taylor started to
explain to Snyder that some of the girls had too much work, and that some of
the others didn't have any, but Snyder interrupted her saying that she could
get her check, that she should take a couple of weeks off and get a job she liked.
Taylor was then given her check in full for wages due, which Snyder had ready.
Taylor denied that she quit her job or that she indicated in any way to
Snyder that she was quitting. She stated that at that time she did not know
of another available job. Taylor stated that neither Snyder nor Leonard had
ever complained to her personally about her doing too much talking, nor had they
ever complained to her about the quality of her work.
LaRue Bohrman, the inspector on the pinning line, also testified. She stated
that around recess time, 2: 30 p. in., on August 1, before Taylor's termination
Foreman Leonard came to her at the pinning line. He asked Bohrman if she
knew anything about a piece of paper going around to be signed for a raise.
Bohrman answered in the affirmative, whereupon Leonard asked her if she had
signed the paper. Bohrman said that she was asked to sign a paper and would
have signed but that the paper had not been prepared as yet. She mentioned
that Carmeletta Taylor was the girl who was going to prepare the paper.
Leonard told Bohrman that something like that had happened before in the
plant, and that the plant was closed down, and that if it happened again they
would have to close down and nobody would have any work. This witness, who
was the inspector at the end of the pinning line, testified that occasionally a large
number of unclean chickens were permitted to pass inspection. She stated that
her job was to reject the chickens, but that on occasions when the rejects were
very numerous, she was instructed to pass these unclean fowl, rather than send
all of them back to be reprocessed through the assembly line procedure. She
explained that some chickens were harder to pin than others, and that when a
hatch of chickens hard to pin were received, many dirty chickens were allowed
to pass. Snyder, in his testimony, verified this to be the established procedure
in the plant. Bohrman stated that as inspector she had never complained about
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC . 1605
Taylor's work prior to her discharge. Bohrman also stated that on several
,occasions Leonard had complained to all the girls about their excessive talking,
and had told them to get to work, but that these admonitions were not addressed
to any particular employee. She named two employees, who in her judgment
did the most talking. Taylor was not one of these.
On cross-examination this witness was interrogated as to her conversation
with Leonard on the day of Taylor's termination. On cross-examination, she
testified that Leonard asked her about the paper, after Taylor had gone to the
office. On direct examination this witness also testified that she was not given
a raise in pay in the course of her employment. On cross-examination it was
proven and stipulated by the parties that she had received a 5-cent an hour
increase on August 19. The witness explained that she had not noticed that
her pay bad been increased.
Nora Mae Varner, another employee on the pinning line, testified that on August
1, prior to Taylor' s termination , she overheard a conversation between Foreman
Leonard and Ort, another female employee. In this conversation Leonard asked
Ort if she had agreed to sign her name for a raise . Ort replied in the negative,
and as Leonard walked away he said, "We are going to get to the bottom of this
thing," and he went down the line to talk to the rest of the girls. Later in the
day, at quitting time, Leonard asked Varner if she knew that Taylor was getting
up a paper for a raise. Varner told him, that Taylor had told her on Friday,
-that she was getting up a paper for a raise , and that Varner had discussed it
with her husband on the way home from work, and that Varner did not think
Taylor would make much headway with the paper. Leonard then asked Varner
if she knew that while Taylor was in the office with Snyder, Taylor had men-
tioned that Varner had gotten a raise. The conversation came to an end when
Leonard said , "Well, things were settled and we found out who was the
smarties."
Harry J. Snyder was the principal witness for the defense. He stated that
Taylor quit her employment, although he was ready to discharge her if she
didn't quit. He gave the following version of Taylor's termination . In answer
to a question as to why he sent for Taylor on August 1 his answer was:'
Well, different times we have had complaints about poultry being dirty
and her work wasn't being done correctly in the plant, and she was talking
to the employees, and through talking to them, they weren't doing their job
properly, and she was talking on time that was our time and I told Mr.
Leonard before to try to correct her which he tried to do. So, then, the
last time he came up, in the morning, he said-he had talked to her before,
and he said, "she just keeps talking down there."
I said, "send her up and I will talk to her." So that is why he brought
her up. * * * Well, she came in and I started to talk to her about what
the trouble was and what things were wrong. I said, "I guess you are
not"-wait until I get this right here, to have it correct.
She came in and I said to her, "your work hasn't been satisfactory here
on account of your talking and you talk to other employees and they don't
get their work done successfully and we have been getting complaints about
dirty poultry, and I told Junior about it two or three times."-Mr. Leonard-
"and he is supposed to have told you to break the talking up or move you
to another place to get it broken up. We continue to get these complaints,"
and I said , "due to its affecting our production we can't have you down
there talk, talk, talking on our time to talk to the employees."
2 Transcript , page 11, et seq.
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Well, then , I said , "I guess from the way everything is you are not satis-
factory to us. If I were working for an employer and I was not satisfied I
would try to seek employment somewhere else where I could satisfy the-
employer and also maybe be happy myself."
This witness denied that he said anything to Taylor about preparing a paper
asking for a raise. He also denied that she mentioned the names of the other
girls who wanted a raise.
At this point he testified as follows :
I said , "our office is open to you at any time to come in any time you want
to.,,
After she quit I said , "what were you talking about ?" and she started out
the door and she turned around and said , "I was talking." I said, "what
were you talking about?" She said, "I was trying to get a paper signed to
come up here to give you about a raise." I said , "why didn 't you come to see
me? The office is open all the time. Why didn 't you bring the paper up?"
She said, "I could never get anybody to sign the paper," and I certainly
didn 't see any paper . Wherever the paper was I didn 't see it and I don't
think anyone else did.
Snyder denied that Leonard had told him anything about the paper before his
conference with Taylor.
When asked at what stage of the conference Taylor quit , the witness replied :
I said that, "your work here is unsatisfactory and you hold up the produc-
tion by talking to other employees down there , and you talk continuously,"
and I said , "I have had reports different times and told Mr . Leonard to tell
you about it but you still continue to talk ." I said, "you are not satisfactory
as far as we are concerned. Why not find an employer you are satisfactory
to and maybe do yourself some good and be happy?"
She said, "I believe I will."
Thereupon Taylor was given her check in full to August 1.
Snyder also testified in the following way about the fact that dirty chickens
were passed by the inspector . He said:'
Well , I mean , when you have a production line you can't slow it down
that slow . We had to let some go through dirty. The complaints we were
getting were about the chickens being dirty. We were letting the things
go through . It was bad, but we couldn't take everything off.
Snyder testified that the Company has a policy of reviewing the work per-
formance of employees after they have been with the Company 30 days and of
giving worthy employees a 5-cent raise . He stated that upon reviewing Taylor's
record with Leonard , they came to the conclusion that she did not merit the
5-cent raise and that during the course of her employment with the Company
she had not been raised because she was never deemed efficient by the Company.
Norman D. Leonard , Jr., foreman of the Company , testified that he did not
know anything about a paper which Taylor was contemplating, until after
Taylor had left the employ of the Company . After Taylor quit Snyder told
Leonard , that Taylor had told him , that she was trying to get some girls to
sign a paper to obtain a raise. Leonard testified that either the same day or
afterwards he went downstairs in the factory to some of the girls and asked
them if they knew anything about a paper which Taylor wanted them to sign.
Mrs. Bohrman told him that she didn't know anything about a paper and,
s Transcript, page 25.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1607
`kidding Bohrman , Leonard asked her if she would have signed the paper if
there was one. Bohrman said that she would have. Leonard admitted that
later in the day he asked Varner if she knew anything about the paper, and she
-said that she did . He denied that in any conversation with the employees he ever
threatened that the plant would be shut down. Leonard corroborated Snyder's
testimony concerning the policy of the management to give employees a 5-cent
an hour increase after 30 days' employment. Leonard testified that the com-
plaints about dirty chickens were received sometime in July, and that he told
Snyder that some of the girls were talking, and that Taylor seemed to be the
center of the group. At about that time he spoke to Taylor about talking,
neglecting her work, and interfering with other employees by her conversation.
Leonard also spoke to the other girls generally about talking.
On cross-examination he said that Snyder informed him of the manner of
'Taylor's termination. Snyder told him that Taylor "just left, and, it was easier
than what he figured. He said that she had a paper and she was going to
get these girls to sign it and come up to him or me, I don't know which one,
about a raise."
On cross-examination the witness was confronted with a statement which he
had given to a field examiner of the Board. When confronted with his prior
statement the witness admitted that the statement read, "We were getting com-
plaints from customers about the chickens being dirty. It seemed Mrs. Taylor
was the one responsible for letting them get through , so she was let go." Despite
the wording of the statement, he maintained that Taylor had quit. The witness
also admitted that at a second place in his statement he used the words,
"Taylor was let go." Leonard also admitted that nowhere in the statement
given to the field examiner did he give as a reason for Respondent's dissatisfaction
with Taylor the fact that she talked too much, or that she interfered with the
work of other employees.
Concluding Findings
Certain facts appear to be undisputed. Among these is the fact that on
July 28 Taylor conceived the idea of petitioning management for a 5-cent an
hour raise and in furtherance of this project she consulted with six of her fellow
employees. Of these, some said they would sign the petition, some were
undecided, and one said she would not sign. This activity of Taylor's, in which
she was joined by some employees, is undisputed in the record. The Respondent
does not deny that this activity occurred, but takes the position that it was
unaware of the activity until after Taylor had voluntarily quit. It also appears
to be undisputed in the record that the Company had shipped to customers a
quantity of chickens which were improperly cleaned, but it is apparent that
this was the result of the Respondent 's assembly line methods rather than the
inefficiency of the pinners. Bohrman, the inspector, testified that some chickens
took longer to pin than others, and that the speed of the assembly line resulted
in dirty chickens, when the plant was processing chickens hard to pin. Snyder
himself verified the fact that when this occurred dirty chickens were passed
by the inspector on management's instructions because the Respondent refused to
reject all the unclean chickens and process them anew . It is also apparent that
the work of the pinning girls was accompanied by considerable conversation on
occasion and that management , in the person of Leonard , had cautioned the girls
about excessive conversation on several occasions . These undisputed facts are
the background of the controversy.
Taylor testified that after her talks with the employees on Friday she was
discharged on the following Tuesday without prior warning. She testified that
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on Tuesday, Leonard said to her, "What is this I hear that you have a paper-
for the girls to sign to get a raise," and that immediately thereafter, he sent
her to Snyder's office. At Snyder's office the manager opened his interview
with her by the words, "I hear you have a paper for the girls to sign to get a
raise," and thereafter she was discharged. This testimony of Taylor's imputes
to the management full knowledge of her activity and gives that activity as the
reason for her discharge. I can find no reason based on this record why this
testimony of Taylor's should not be accepted. As a witness she testified in a
forthright, straight-forward manner. Cross-examination did not blunt the effect
of her testimony. I credit it fully.
To some extent Taylor's testimony is corroborated by the other employee
witnesses. Employees Bohrman and Varner both testified that Taylor talked
to them about the proposed petition. As stated above there appears to be no
dispute about this fact. However, the testimony of both these employees falls
short of corroborating Taylor on the element of company knowledge. Bohrman,
testified on direct examination that around recess time, 2: 30 p. in., before
Taylor's employment was terminated, Leonard quizzed her about the petition.
On cross-examination she testified that Leonard talked to her about the petition,
after Taylor had gone to the office. This discrepancy in time is important in
view of Leonard's testimony and the Respondent's contention that any inter-
rogation of employees by Leonard occurred after Taylor's termination . Because
of this discrepancy I give no weight to Bohrman's testimony on this point. Also,
it was proven that Bohrman was mistaken in regard to her increase in pay.
To my mind this illustrates that Bohrman is not a very accurate observer as
to details and that her testimony on such a fine point as this element of time
cannot be accepted at face value. The remainder of her testimony, I credit.
She testified with authority and accuracy on matters touching routine opera-
tion of the plant, her own activities, and matters growing out of her relation-
ship to fellow employees and management officials.
Varner to a limited extent also corroborated Taylor. She testified that she
overheard Leonard's questioning of Ort, prior to Taylor's termination, and that
she herself was questioned by Leonard at quitting time which would be after
Taylor's termination. Of course the questioning of Varner herself is consistent
with Leonard's testimony and the Respondent's contention, but this witness
placed Ort's questioning as prior to Taylor's termination and to that extent
her testimony is corroborative of Taylor. Her testimony supports Taylor by
shedding light on another phase of the case. This witness states that Foreman,
Leonard ended his talk with Ort by saying, "We are going to get to the bottom
of this thing," and ended his questioning of Varner herself by saying, "Well,
things were settled and we found out who was the smarties." These state-
ments attributed to Leonard certainly portray him as determined to investigate
the employees' concerted activities, and as happy with the result of his investi-
gation. In point of time, his investigations began before Taylor's termination,
and were concluded after her termination.
Varner was not cross-examined, except to show that she was related to
Taylor, who is the niece of Varner's husband. I do not think that relationship
affords sufficient reason for rejecting the testimony of this witness who testified
with candor and frankness and impressed the undersigned very favorably.
I credit her entire testimony.
Leonard as a witness for the Respondent impressed the undersigned unfavor-
ably. He followed Snyder on the witness stand and appeared to be striving to
support his superior. He denied that he knew anything about Taylor's con-
templated petition until after her termination, but he admitted that after
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1609
Taylor quit, he asked the girls about Taylor's proposed petition. His admission
as to`tuestioning the girls, by its tenor, seems to extend to more employees than
testified, or were testified about. Leonard's admission on this point seems in
most general terms, indicating that his interrogations covered a substantial
group of the employees. As to specific employees he said he was "kidding"
Bohrman and had talked to Varner.
Leonard testified that Snyder told him Taylor had quit, but he admitted that
in a sworn statement made to a field examiner of the Board he had said that
the Company blamed Taylor for letting dirty chickens go through so she was let
go. This witness admitted, that in a second place in this statement he said,
"Taylor was let go." Despite this he maintained on the witness stand that
Taylor quit. He also admitted, that nowhere in the statement did he assign
as a reason for Taylor's termination the fact that she talked too much or inter-
fered with the work of other employees. As noted above, in his statement he
said Taylor was "let go" because "she let dirty chickens go through."
This testimony of Leonard's is a very important factor in my findings herein.
His admission of interrogating employees, in addition to establishing that vio-
lation hereafter found, supports and gives credence to much of Taylor's, Bohr-
man's, and Varner's testimony. I deem it of major importance that in hikv
statement to the field examiner he said that Taylor was let go, and that she
was let go for letting dirty chickens go through, and that he said no word in the
statement about Taylor talking too much. He admitted that on three vital
points his prior statement was at variance with his present testimony, and was
at variance with the basic position of the Respondent in this proceeding. Since
he was Taylor's immediate superior, it would seem that he should know the
true reason for her termination if anyone did, yet in his statement he assigned
a reason for Taylor's termination different than the one now furnished by the
Company, and he has changed the method of Taylor's termination from discharge
to voluntarily quit. This disagreement between Leonard's prior statement and
the Respondent's position at the hearing, coupled with the lack of evidence that
Taylor talked too much, which will be discussed hereafter, renders incredible
not only Leonard's testimony but that of Snyder as well. For the reasons stated
I do not credit any of Leonard's testimony deeming it to be unreliable.
The testimony of Harry J. Snyder has been set forth at some length in this
Report. In my judgment his testimony was not marked by either candor or
frankness. He appeared to be testifying not to facts which he remembered, but
to a distortion of the remembered facts which he thought were favorable to
Respondent's cause. The witness betrayed this in several significant instances.
In the first part of his testimony quoted above, it will be noted that he seemed
to testify quite normally until he got to a place in which he said, "I guess you
are not"-"wait until I get this right here, to have it correct." He then made
a new start and testified, "She came in and I said to her, your work hasn't been
satisfactory here, etc." A few paragraphs later his testimony also has a
peculiar twist. His testimony reads-"Well then I said, 'I guess from the
way everything is you are not satisfactory to us. If I were working for an
employer and I was not satisfied I would try to seek employment somewhere
else where I could satisfy the employer and also maybe be happy myself.' " This
peculiar manner of testifying suggests that the tenor of the conversation actually
was, "I guess from the way everything is you are not satisfied with us. If I
were working for an employer and I was not satisfied I would try to seek employ-
ment somewhere else, where I could be happy." This unnatural quality about
Snyder's testimony as he testified, and when his testimony was later read in the
record, gave me the impression that he was relating not the conversation as it
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
took place, but a distorted version of it which he had reconstructed for his own
purposes . In his version of the conversation there also seems to be another
unnatural feature. He testified that ultimately Taylor and he did discuss the
fact that she was talking about a petition for a raise in pay. His narrative of
how this subject came up, appears to be strained and strange. According to.
Snyder, at the point when Taylor had voluntarily quit and had reached the
door in the process of making her exit, she turned and voluntarily said , "I admit
I was talking." Then, and only then, did Snyder say, "what were you talking
about," which brought up a discussion of the proposed petition, the rates of pay,
and the names of the girls who were interested in the petition. This unnatural
way in which the subject of the petition was opened leads me to believe that
the conference did not proceed in the fashion testified to by Snyder, but rather
that it took the course outlined by Taylor. I cannot believe that Taylor volun-
teered to quit and volunteered to discuss the petition. It appears to me that
the two subjects embarrassing to Snyder-the termination and the discussion of
the proposed petition-he disposes of too patly by saying she volunteered that.
As opposed to Taylor' s version of the conference, Snyder's testimony appears
incredible . Another unusual point about Snyder's testimony is that when
Leonard told Snyder that Taylor was still talking, Snyder directed Leonard to
send Taylor to him. At that time he said nothing about discharging her. When,
in the course of the conference between Snyder and Taylor, Taylor voluntarily
quit, her check in full to date was already prepared for her. Snyder explained
the ready check by saying that he intended to give the girl a chance to quit, and
if she did not, then to discharge her. However, when he directed Leonard to
send Taylor to his office he said nothing to Leonard about discharging Taylor.
These points and the impression of distortion in Snyder's testimony, coupled with
the less than candid manner of the witness on the witness stand, left the under-
signed with the distinct impression that Snyder's testimony did not merit credence.
The employee witnesses frankly admitted that on several occasions officials
of the Company had remonstrated with them for talking too much. However,
these admonitions were described as being addressed to all the girl employees
and not to anyone in particular. Taylor testified that she was never warned
that she was talking too much, or told that if she continued to talk too much,
-she might be discharged. The only witnesses who testified that Taylor talked
too much are Snyder and Leonard. Their testimony on this point I also reject,
in view of the testimony of Taylor, Bohrman, and Varner.
Upon a preponderance of the credible evidence I find that Taylor was dis-
charged by the Respondent on August 1, 1950, because she had proposed to the
employees on the pinning line that they prepare and present to the Respondent
a petition asking for an increase in pay, a protected concerted activity, and that
Taylor did not voluntarily quit after being reprimanded because she was talking
too much to the detriment of Respondent's efficient operation. I find that this
discharge was a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
In view of Foreman Leonard's admission that he asked some of the employees
questions concerning their knowledge of Taylor's proposed petition and their
willingness , to sign it , I find that the Respondent interrogated employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In accordance with my findings as
to the credibility of witnesses I find that the Respondent threatened employees
with economic reprisal for their concerted activities in (1) Leonard's conver-
sation with Bohrman in which he said that something like that had happened
before in the plant and that the plant was closed, and that if it happened again
they would have to close down, and nobody would have a job ; and (2) in
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1611
Leonard's conversation with Taylor in which he told her that this had happened
once before and the plant had been closed down. Both those statements were
threatening and coercive in nature and are violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
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 relationship 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 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated in the hire and tenure
of employment of Carmeletta Taylor. It will be recommended that the Re-
spondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position,` without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her. Consistent with
the policy of the Board,' it will be recommended that the loss of pay be com-
puted on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof, during
the period from the Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper
offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter called quarters, shall
begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay
shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which this employee
normally would have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, her net earn-
ings,' if any, in other employment during the period. Earnings in one particular
quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability of any other quarter.
It is also recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to the
Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate checking the amount
of back pay due.'
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner the Respondent's conduct discloses a
fixed purpose to defeat concerted activities on the part of Respondent's em-
ployees and their objective. Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct
in its underlying purpose the Trial Examiner is convinced that the unfair
labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by the Act and that the danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the
past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the recom-
mendations are coextensive with the threat . In order therefore to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices, and to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs
11 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289.
n Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
811 U. S. 7.
7 F. W. Woolworth Co., supra.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commerce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended
that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing
findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner
makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F. L.,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Carmaletta Taylor, thereby discouraging its employees from engaging in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, and by interrogating its employees about these concerted activities,
and by threatening its employees with economic reprisal for engaging in con-
certed activities, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection ; or threaten them with reprisal or economic loss because of their
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activities among our employees by dis-
charging any of them or in any other manner discriminating with regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist any 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 of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Carmeletta Taylor immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make her
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organi-
zation or to refrain from so doing, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1613
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC.
Employer.
By -----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
mot be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Supplemental Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 21, 1951, a hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held at
Miffiintown, Pennsylvania, before the undersigned, the duly designated Trial
Examiner. Thereafter on September 18, 1951, the Trial Examiner filed his In-
termediate Report and Recommended Order.
On October 8, 1951, the Respondent made a motion to the Board to reopen
the record to receive further testimony alleging that the Respondent had dis-
^covered certain new evidence which warranted presentation.
On April 14, 1952, the National Labor Relations Board issued an order re-
-opening the record and remanding the case to the Regional Director for further
hearing. The order reads in part as follows:
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the record in this proceeding be reopened and
that a further hearing be held for the purpose of permitting the Respondent
to introduce such newly discovered evidence proferred in the aforesaid
motion, and also permitting the General Counsel to offer any rebuttal evi-
dence; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region for the purpose of arranging such further
hearing and issuing notice thereof ; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a duly designated Trial Examiner submit a
supplemental intermediate report setting forth his findings of fact and con-
clusions with respect to the evidence adduced at the further hearing.
The motion papers of the Respondent relating to the proffered testimony
stated that Miss Dorothy Ort an ex-employee of the Respondent was a material
witness as to the issues in the case and that she would testify to the following
facts :
(a) Carmeletta Taylor, the alleged discriminatorily discharged employee,
called her by telephone about one (1) month before the hearing and offered
her the sum of $100. to testify in Carmeletta Taylor's behalf.
(b) The conversation she had with Norman Leonard, the foreman, in
regard to an alleged paper occurred after Carmeletta Taylor was discharged
or left the employment of the company (and not before, as testified by
a Board witness, Mrs. Varner), and that she informed the General Counsel's
representative of this fact.
(c) The conversation which took place between Miss Ort and Mr. Leonard
could not have been overheard by Mrs. Varner, a Board witness and a rel-
ative of Carmeletta Taylor, who testified that she overheard the conver-
sation, because of the noise caused by the machinery, which prevented
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
normal conversation, so that it was necessary for an individual to speak-
directly into another person' s ear while carrying on a conversation when
the production line was in operation.
(d) Miss Ort observed the foreman, Norman Leonard, talking to
Carmeletta Taylor from time to time and that on most of the occasions,
when Leonard's back was turned after the conversation was over, Carmeletta
Taylor would thumb her nose at him or make other signs to make fun of
Mr. Leonard.
The motion papers also alleged that the testimony of Miss Ort would affect
the final decision in the case on the following issues :
(a) A basic issue in this case is whether the alleged questioning of em-
ployees took place before or after the termination of Mrs. Taylor's employ-
ment.
(b) The credibility or lack of credibility of certain witnesses is of major
importance in the determination of the issues in this case.
(c) The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report credited fully the
testimony of Mrs. Taylor who, it will be seen, offered this witness the sum
of one hundred dollars to testify in her behalf.
(d) The Trial Examiner found that the company's warnings or admoni-
tions were addressed to all the employees, while the above testimony shows
that Mrs. Taylor was spoken to directly by the foreman and after his
back was turned, she would thumb her nose and otherwise ridicule him;
the fact that employees were warned individually is also supported by
other evidence in the record.
(e) The Trial Examiner credited the entire testimony of Mrs. Varner, a
Board witness and relative of Mrs. Taylor, who testified that she heard
foreman Leonard questioning Miss Ort prior to Mrs. Taylor's termination,
and the above testimony of Miss Ort shows that the conversation in regard
to an alleged paper took place after Mrs. Taylor's termination.
(f) The Trial Examiner credited the testimony of the said Mrs. Varner in
regard to a conversation which took place between Mr. Leonard and Miss
Ort, while the above testimony shows that Mrs. Varner could not have
heard the conversation, which took place after Mrs. Taylor's termination,
because of the noise caused by the machinery so that it was necessary for
an individual to speak directly into the other person's ear to make himself
heard while the production line was in operation. The fact that it was
impossible to hear conversations while the production line was in operation
is fully supported by the testimony of other board witnesses.
On April 25, 1952, the Regional Director for the Fourth Region issued a,
notice of further hearing in the above-entitled matter. After several adjourn-
ments the proceeding came on to be heard on August 4, 1952, at Mifflintown,
Pennsylvania, before the undersigned, the duly designated Trial Examiner.
Testimony : Hearing of August 4, 1952
Dorothy M. Ort called as a witness by the Respondent testified that she was
at that time employed at the Mechanicsburg Naval Supply Depot. During the
summer of 1950 she had been employed by the Respondent, voluntarily quitting
her employment in August of that year. While employed by Respondent she
worked on the pinning line with the other girls, scraping feathers from chicken
legs. She started to work at Respondent's factory on the same day as Carmel-
etta Taylor.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS , INC. 1615
The witness testified that on the day on which Taylor's employment was
terminated Taylor worked only the first part of the day. She learned that Mrs.
Taylor had left the employ of the Company from the conversation of other
employees, which she heard at lunch time, and during working hours in the
afternoon. Some of the girls said that Taylor had been called to the office, and
that she had quit ; others said that Taylor had been fired.
Ort testified that she had a conversation with Leonard relating to the activi-
ties of Taylor after she had learned from the conversation of the other girls
that Taylor's employment had been terminated. This conversation took place
at the pinning line. Though several other girls were working on the line, Ort
could remember and could name only Mrs. Cisney as being present. At the time
of this conversation Ort said that a steamer, which steams chickens, was in
operation, and that the assembly chain which brings the chickens through the
factory was working. She stated that she didn't know whether the steamer
made any noise or not. She said that the "pickers" were operating, and that they
made "some noise." Leonard spoke to her using a medium tone of voice. The
witness stated that on other occasions when Leonard had spoken to other girls,
when the assembly line was operating, she was not able to hear what Leonard
said to them. She did not remember whether Mrs. Varner was working at
the time of her conversation with Leonard.
In reference to the telephone call from Taylor to this witness mentioned in
the motion papers Ort testified as follows : I
A. She called and asked for me and when I answered the phone, she
said , "This Is Mrs. Taylor." And I said, "I didn't know who it was." So
she said she was the girl that was fired up at the chicken plant for getting
a paper up. And T remembered who she was, and she said if I would come
and testify for her, she would give me a hundred dollars if she won the case,
and I told her I wouldn't. And she started to say something else, but I
hung up.
Q. Was there anything else she said before you hung up, or is that the
entire conversation?
A. She just tried to get me to come and I said I wouldn't.
Q. When was this, Mrs. Ort? Do you remember when it was that this
telephone conversation took place?
A. It was before the last hearing.
Q. During the conversation you had with Mrs. Taylor on the telephone,
was the name of any other employee or former employee of Pennsylvania
Dutch Farms mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. By whom?
A. Mrs. Taylor.
Q. And what was said about such other employees ? Excuse me, strike
that. What other names were mentioned?
A. Mrs. Bohrman and Mrs. Varner.
Q. And what was said about those people?
A. She said she offered them the same she offered me.
Mr. ToPOL. I object, Mr. Examiner. I move to strike this last testimony
on the grounds that that was not part of the motion to reopen. There
was no assertion in the motion to reopen that Mrs. Taylor, at the time she
spoke to Miss Ort, told Miss Ort that she offered the same to the others as
she did to her. I am frankly unprepared for that type of testimony. Mrs.
I Transcript, page 19.
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bohrman is not here. I had no reason to believe that I would be required:
to refute that type of testimony.
Mr. HELWIO. If the Examiner please, if, in the opinion of the Examiner,
that goes beyond the scope of the motion and the scope of the order, I will
join with Mr. Topol in asking that it be stricken.
TRIAL EXAMINER DOYLE. Well, I could see where it would put the General
Counsel at a disadvantage here, inasmuch as there is no allegation in the
papers up until this moment of any question of undue or improper in-
fluncing (sic) of these other witnesses.
Mr. HELWIO. I might remark, sir, that it was not with the purpose of
substantively showing these other witnesses received such an offer, and (if)
in rebuttal Mr. Topol had offered to call those witnesses to show there had
not been such an offer, I would have objected. It was my thought that this
constitutes an admission on the part of Mrs. Taylor alone and certainly
couldn't be binding on the part of those people.
TRIAL EXAMINER DoYLE. All right. With your statement, I am going to
leave the testimony in. But it is received only as regards the conduct of
Mrs. Taylor.
Ort also testified that on several occasions prior to Taylor's termination she
had seen Leonard talk to Taylor. She could not hear these conversations. When
Leonard turned from Taylor, the latter made faces and thumbed her nose be-
hind Leonard's back.
On cross-examination Ort testified that some time after the first hearing,
Snyder, the plant superintendent, and Houck, Respondent's attorney, inter-
viewed her. They questioned her, and her answers were reduced to a statement,
which she signed. Ort stated that she was in attendance at the first hearing
on August 21, 1951, from its beginning until the noon hour. Ort stated that
prior to the first hearing Field Examiner Montgomery of the Board interviewed
her and asked her questions concerning the case. He reduced her answers to a
statement, but she refused to sign the statement. After her interview by Snyder
and Houck, Montgomery visited Ort a second time. He asked her to read over
the statement, which he had drafted on his previous visit, and asked Ort to
make any corrections in the statement which she wished. Ort testified that
she agreed to make such corrections, but that Montgomery refused to make the
corrections that she wanted. She admitted that Montgomery asked her which
part of the statement she didn't like. When Ort was asked at the hearing why
she signed the statement for the Company, and not for the field examiner, she
replied that she told the field examiner that the Company wrote what she said,
"that they didn't add anything on to it."
When cross-examined as to the telephone call by Taylor to her, Ort stated that
she did not recall whether Taylor had mentioned Mr. Montgomery in the con-
versation, or that Taylor asked her to speak to Montgomery, or said that
Montgomery would come to see her. Ort admitted that she told Taylor that she
didn't want to have any part of the case, because she was working in Mechanics-
burg, and didn't want to lose any time. The witness did not remember if
Montgomery had asked her on his last interview on what day or at what time
Leonard engaged her in conversation in regard to Taylor.
Chester S. Montgomery was called as a witness by the General Counsel.
Montgomery testified that he is a field examiner for the Board assigned to the
Philadelphia Regional Office. He testified that he interviewed Ort on two
occasions in his investigation of this case. The first interview occurred in July
1951. At that time he interviewed Ort at her home. He questioned the witness
concerning the events connected with the termination of Taylor's employment.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS , INC . 1617
He noted her answers on a yellow pad. When he had completed his examination
of Ort he then drafted a statement on two sheets of yellow pad paper, which he
then presented to Ort, with the request that she read it, acknowledge its ac-
curacy, and sign it. Montgomery testified that the statement was substantially
What Ort had told him. However, Ort refused to sign the statement. He asked
her what was wrong with the statement, but she refused to point out any
specific portion of the statement as inaccurate. She merely said that she would
not sign the statement, as she didn't want to be involved in court proceedings.
Montgomery explained to her the importance of making a statement, that court
attendance would entail only a small loss of time, and that she would be paid
witness fees to reimburse her for the time lost. Ort persisted in her refusal to
sign the statement. Montgomery retained possession of the unsigned statement.
In April 1952 Montgomery interviewed Ort on a second occasion. On this
occasion he went to her home and found that she was not there, so he waited
outside in his car. Presently Ort appeared and he held a conversation with her
in the driveway of her home. He had brought with him Ort's statement, which
he produced, and showed to her. He asked her to reread the statement, and to
tell him again if there was anything in the statement which was not accurate.
Ort took the statement, and said it was correct except one sentence. The
sentence to which Ort objected read as follows, "Mr. Leonard then told me that
any girl that signed a paper would be fired." 2 Montgomery asked Ort at that
point to note her objection to this line on the statement, and to sign it. She
refused to do either.
Montgomery also sought to clarify the time relationship between the Leonard-
Ort conversation and Taylor's discharge. The statement read as follows :
On the day Mrs. Taylor was fired, I don't recall the exact date, Norman
Leonard, our boss came to me and asked if I had signed a paper for an
increase. I told him I had not signed a paper, but had told Mrs. Taylor
I would if the other girls signed'
Montgomery sought to clarify with Ort that portion of the above sentence
which reads, "On the day Mrs. Taylor was fired, I do not recall the exact date,
Norman Leonard came to me and asked if I had signed a paper." According
to Montgomery he asked Ort if she could recall when that conversation took
place, and Ort replied that it was either on the day on which Mrs. Taylor was
let go, and before Mrs. Taylor was let go, or the day before. She could not
remember which day. Montgomery asked Ort why she wouldn't sign a state-
ment for him, inasmuch as she had signed one for the Company. She did not
answer that question ; merely reaffirming that she would not correct the
statement or sign it.
On cross-examination Montgomery stated that he re-examined Ort, because
of certain statements made in the Respondent's motion papers requesting a
reopening of the case.
Nora Mae Varner who had previously testified in this proceeding was called
as a witness by the General Counsel. She drew a rough diagram showing the
positions of Ort, Foreman Leonard, Taylor, and herself, on the pinning line.
Varner stated that she was pinning on one side of the pinning line while Ort
was pinning on the other side. She was pinning one leg, and Ort was pinning the
other leg, of the same chicken. Taylor and Bohrman were on the pinning line
approximately 10 feet away. As to Leonard's actions, Varner stated that first
Leonard talked to Taylor, and then went upstairs.` Upon coming down he talked
' Transcript, page 69.
° Transcript, page 69.
° Snyder's office was upstairs.
1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Taylor again , and then to the other girls on the pinning line, and then to
Taylor again ; after which Taylor went upstairs.
On cross-examination counsel for the Respondent brought out that Varner
and her husband had lived at Taylor's home for approximately 2 weeks. Varner
explained that she and her husband who is a Bible student occupied a cottage
at their church, but that the cottage was required for some special services which
were being conducted, so for a period of 2 weeks they stayed with Taylor.
Miss Donnis Fisher was called as a witness by the General Counsel. She
testified that she had previously worked at the Respondent's factory and that
she had been so engaged on the day that Taylor's employment was terminated.'
Fisher testified that on the day that Taylor was terminated Leonard spoke
to her, asking her if she was going to sign the paper prepared by Taylor. She
did not recall what answer she made to Leonard. After he talked to her, Leon-
ard spoke to the other girls, and then he went upstairs . Taylor was working
at that time.
Fisher was not cross-examined by the Respondent. Counsel for the Respond-
ent stated that he did not elect to cross-examine the witness but preferred to
stand on his objection to her testimony.
Carmeletta Taylor was called as a witness by the General Counsel. She testi-
fied that in April 1951 prior to the hearing she spoke to Ort by telephone. Tay-
lor explained that she had received a letter from Montgomery saying that it was
important that he talk to Ort. This letter, on the stationery of the National
Labor Relations Board, dated April 18, 1951, and signed by Chester S. Mont-
gomery was introduced into evidence, and reads as follows :'
DEAR MRS. TAYLou: I have talked with Mrs. Varner concerning this matter
and from her conversation it seems important that I locate and talk with
Mrs. Ort. I would appreciate it if you would advise me either by phone or
letter as to the location of Mrs. Ort and when it might be possible for me
talk with her concerning your charge.
Very truly yours,
Following receipt of the letter Taylor phoned Ort and asked her if she would
talk to Montgomery about Taylor 's case . Ort said that she was working at
Mechanicsburg and didn't want anything to do with the case. Then Taylor
said, "Well, if I got anything I would give her a hundred dollars, and she said
that she still didn't want anything to do with the case."'
Taylor testified that her purpose in phoning Ort was to get Ort to talk
to Montgomery. She stated that she did not attempt to influence Ort's testi-
mony, or suggest that Ort testify falsely. Taylor denied that she told Ort that
she had made a similar offer to Bohrman or to Varner.
On cross-examination Taylor testified that from the tenor of Montgomery's
letter she felt that it was important that Montgomery speak to Ort, and that
6 The Respondent objected to the receipt of the testimony of Fisher, on the ground that
it was beyond the scope of the bearing as ordered by the Board. The General Counsel
argued that the testimony of Ort was received to support the testimony of Leonard, and
to discredit the testimony of Taylor and Varner. He offered the testimony of Fisher as
supporting the testimony of Taylor and Varner, and rebutting the testimony of Ort. He
assured the Trial Examiner that Fisher was the only new witness whom he would produce.
The Trial Examiner then accepted the testimony, ruling that on doubtful points he would
give an interpretation to the Board's order favoring the receipt of testimony, inasmuch as
he believed the Board desired a final submission of this proceeding. It may also be noted
here that the testimony of Carrie Henderson , offered by the Respondent, and objected to
by the General Counsel, was accepted on the same basis.
6 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4.
7 Transcript page 99, et aeq.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1619
Ort was a quiet type, and she though Ort would be more willing to testify if
she were paid.
On cross-examination Taylor denied that she had written a letter to Carrie
Henderson, another employee, making a similar offer. Taylor admitted that she
had sent a letter to Henderson, with a union application card enclosed for
Henderson's use, if Henderson wanted to join the Union. This letter was sent
after Taylor left the Respondent's employee .8
Taylor also testified that she had no reason to believe that Henderson had
any knowledge of her case. Henderson did not work in the same department as
Taylor, except in emergencies.
Carrie Henderson was called as a witness by the Respondent. This witness
stated that she lived in Mifflin and had been employed by the Respondent for
about 6 years. She knew Taylor as another employee, but was not acquainted
with her personally, as Taylor worked in a different part of the factory. At
that point of her direct examination she testified as follows :'
Q. (By Mr. Helwig.) Did you ever receive any letter from Mrs. Taylor?
A. Yes, I got one to join the Union, and one-she called up and wanted me
to be a witness in August, 1951. She offered me $100.00. She said Mr.
Snyder would have to pay her $1,500.00 if she won the case and would have
to take her back to work, and she would give me $100.00 if I would be a
witness.
Q. How was that offer made to you?
A. She told me if I would be a witness, she would give me a hundred dollars
if she won the case. Mr. Snyder would-
Q. Did she tell you that in person?
A. No, sir, in this letter she wrote that I got in August, 1950.
Q. Do you have that letter with you, Mrs. Henderson?
A. No, I don't. I was afraid of bribery and I burned it for her offering
money.
Q. When did you burn it?
A. I burned it whenever I burned my papers.
Q. And with reference to the time that you received it, when was that?
A. That was the same day or the day after. My can is small, and when-
ever I burned my papers, I burned the letter too. (Emphasis supplied.)
Upon cross-examination the General Counsel called the attention of the
witness to the fact that she had testified that Taylor called her up and talked
to her. Henderson denied that she had so testified, saying that she had no
telephone. Henderson stated that the letter which she burned was on the
same kind of stationery as the letter she received from Taylor about joining
the Union. The witness stated that she burned the letter, without telling
anyone about it. However, when she learned that the Company had lost the
case, she "told them about it, because I figured right was right," 'o and because
she "felt as if it was a dirty deal."" When asked her reason for telling the
Company when they lost the case, Henderson replied, "Why because-why
wouldn't I? If they could have won it without me coming in here, without her
bribery, then I was going to come in and show my part because she offered the
money."'' The witness then testified that Snyder was the first person to whom
8 A letter admittedly signed by Taylor was produced by Respondent and was marked
Respondent's "Exhibit A" for identification. The letter was not offered in evidence, as it
was stipulated by counsel that the letter did not contain any reference to this proceeding,
or to any sum of money, and was related only to a proposal that Henderson join the Union.
9 Transcript, page 111.
'° Transcript, page 117.
11 Transcript, page 124.
12 Transcript, page 117, et seq.
242305-53-103
1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she mentioned the letter. Further cross-examination developed that Henderson
learned that the Company had "lost the case" from the conversation of other
employees. However, she could not recall the approximate date she gained this
knowledge; whether it was the fall or winter of 1951.'
Henderson, on redirect examination, stated that she gave a statement to
Respondent's counsel. This statement was dated May 7, 1952. Henderson
then stated that about that date she first mentioned the letter to Snyder.
On recross-examination the witness testified that she heard the Company
"had lost the case" in September 1951.
The Trial Examiner then asked the witness what event, or factor, prompted
her to tell Snyder about the letter in May 1952, 8 months after she first learned
the Company had lost the case. She answered that she did not know.
Henderson also testified that she had not discussed the case with Taylor at
any time ; that she did not work in the same department as Taylor ; and knew
of nothing that would lead Taylor to believe that she was a prospective witness
in the case.
The Issues
The complaint in this proceeding alleged in substance that :
(1) On or about August 1, 1950 the Respondent discharged Carmeletta
Taylor, an employee of the Respondent, because she engaged in concerted
activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and has since August 1, 1950 for the same
reason refused to reinstate Carmeletta Taylor to her former or substantially
equivalent position ; (2) interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees
by interrogating them concerning their concerted activities; (3) threatened
its employees with economic reprisals because of their concerted activities ;
(4) that by the foregoing conduct the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act.
In its answer the Respondent denied the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices. The issues framed by these pleadings are the issues presented
in the case. These are the issues to which the testimony at both hearings was
directed.
Supplementary Concluding Findings
Dorothy M. Ort was presented as a witness by the Respondent. It will be
noted from the review of Ort's testimony set forth above, that on one point her
testimony was contrary to that of Nora Mae Varner on the first hearing. In the
course of the first hearing Varner testified that on August 1, prior to Taylor's
termination, she overheard a conversation between Foreman Leonard and Ort.
In this conversation Leonard asked Ort if she had agreed to sign her name for a
raise. Ort replied in the negative,, and as Leonard walked away he said "We
are going to get to the bottom of this thing" and he went down the line to talk
to the rest of the girls. It is worthy of note that in testifying on this point
Ort did not deny that the conversation as related by Varner took place. In
fact on that point she was not questioned by counsel for the Respondent on
direct examination. Ort stated, however, that she had a conversation with
Leonard, relating to Taylor, after Taylor's discharge. She said that she knew
the conversation took place after Taylor's discharge, because she learned that
Taylor had been discharged during the lunch hour, 12 to 1 p. in., when she
"The Intermediate Report and Recommended Order as to the prior hearing was issued
September 18, 1951.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1621
heard other employees talking about the fact that Taylor's employment "had
ended that day." According to Ort, at the noon hour "some of the employees
were saying that she quit and others were saying she was fired." On the latter
point, Ort is clearly wrong for no such discussion could have taken place during
the lunch hour. It was clearly established at the first hearing that Taylor
was not discharged until approximately 1% hours after the lunch hour. Snyder
testified that Taylor came to his office about 2 p. in. Taylor testified that the
conversation in which she was discharged took place between 2:30 and 3 p. m.
Furthermore Ort testified that she did not recall seeing Taylor at any time
after lunch on that day.
On cross-examination when asked to name the employees in the group of girls
who were allegedly discussing Taylor's discharge during the noon hour, Ort
could not remember the name of a single employee ; nor could Ort remember
whether Varner was working at the time of Leonard's conversation with her
about Taylor's concerted activities.
According to the later testimony of Varner, she was in fact working face
to face with Ort, "standing directly in front of her." They were working on
opposite sides of the same moving chain, each one cleaning one leg of the same
chicken. It is clear, therefore, from Garner's testimony that the two girls and
Leonard were all standing very close together at the time of Leonard's conversa-
tion with Ort.
Counsel for the Respondent has claimed that it was impossible for Varner to
hear the conversation between Leonard and Ort because of the noise of the
moving machinery. On that point, Ort testified that a steamer, which steamed
chickens, was in operation, and that the chain which brought the chickens to the
workers was in operation. She said this machinery made "some noise." In-
asmuch as the two girls were working on the same chicken, they must have been
standing very close together, and since Leonard stood behind Ort, facing Var-
ner as he spoke, there appears to have been small impediment to Varner hearing
the conversation. The tenor of Ort's testimony, that the machinery made "some
noise," is not sufficient evidence for me to disregard Varner 's unimpeached
testimony that she heard this conversation, the substance of which is not denied
by either Ort or Leonard. Varner is admittedly correct as to the substance of
the conversation, and has testified clearly on all points, while Ort is obviously in
error as to the conversation with the girls at lunch time, and possessed no recol-
lection on other pertinent points.
Varner testified at the first hearing and again at the second hearing. On
both occasions she testified with intelligence, fairness, and candor. Counsel for
the Respondent points out that Varner is related to Taylor, who is a niece of
Varner's husband, and that Varner and her husband stayed at Taylor's home
when their home was required for special church services. According to my
observation of Varner as a witness on two occasions, she appeared to be un-
affected by either factor. I credit her fully, and reject Ort's testimony that
the Leonard-Ort conversation occurred after Taylor's discharge. Montgomery's
testimony, hereafter related, also supports this finding.
Furthermore, Ort appears to be a biased and prejudiced witness in this pro-
ceeding. Originally Ort sought to avoid inconvenience to herself, by avoiding
involvement in this proceeding. This was demonstrated by the testimony of
Field Examiner Montgomery. He stated that on his first visit to Ort he asked
her questions concerning matters within her knowledge which were material to
the proceeding. He made notes of her answers, and then drafted her answers
into a statement, which he asked her to sign. She refused to sign it, on the
ground that she "didn't want to lose any time in getting involved in court pro-
1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceedings ." When Montgomery asked her if the statement , "contained anything
that was not accurate she merely looked at it and shook her head ." At the
hearing Ort herself admitted that she refused to sign the statement , which was
prepared by Montgomery. Some time after the first hearing in this matter, Ort
evidently had a change of heart. She was visited by Snyder , the Respondent's
superintendent , and Houck , the Respondent 's attorney . They asked Ort ques-
tions, and made out a statement for her , which she signed.
In April 1952 , after Ort had signed the statement for Messrs. Snyder and
Houck , Field Examiner Montgomery again met with her. He asked her to read
the unsigned statement , which he had prepared in his previous interview with
her, and state whether there was anything in that statement that was not
accurate . At this time, Ort chose to deny that at the time of her first interview
she had said , "Mr. Leonard told me that any girl who signed the paper would be
fired." Montgomery asked her to make notations on the unsigned statement,
correcting the part she objected to, and then to sign the statement. According
to Montgomery's credible testimony Ort said, "that she would not make any
change on it and would not sign it," and, "she would not strike anything or add
anything or sign or initial it."
At the hearing Ort testified that when asked by Montgomery for her reason
for signing a statement for the Respondent , but not for him, she told Mont-
gomery, "they wrote what I said, they didn't add anything on." Montgomery
denied that she gave any such reason to him. Montgomery sought to obtain
from Ort, in the second interview , a statement as to the time of Leonard's con-
versation , more precise than Ort had originally given, because of the issue raised
by the Respondent in its motion to reopen the record . In the earlier unsigned
statement Ort had said , "on the day Mrs. Taylor was fired, I don't recall the
exact date , Norman Leonard, our boss came to me and asked if I had signed the
paper for an increase ." In answer to questions seeking clarification of the time
element, Ort stated to Montgomery that this conversation took place either on
the day that Taylor was let go , or the day before, but it was before Taylor was
let go. Ort denied having made these statements to Montgomery.
Montgomery 's testimony demonstrated that his procedure in obtaining the
statement of the witness was conventional and proper. To some extent Ort
herself admits that. She first refused to sign the statement, only because she did
not wish to be involved in court proceedings . Under those circumstances it
would appear that Montgomery 's testimony of the manner in which the state-
ment was obtained is correct, and that the substance of the statement was true.
Later at the hearing Ort assigned another reason for her refusal to either sign
the original statement, to correct it, or to sign a corrected version . However, it
appears that this reason was given by her, after she had given a statement to
Respondent 's counsel , and become an adherent of that side in the proceeding.
It is also worthy of note that the two statements which Ort chose to deny were
statements which attributed unfair labor practices to the Company. They were,
"Mr. Leonard told me that any girl who signed the paper would be fired," and,
"on the day Mrs. Taylor was fired, I don 't recall the exact date, Norman Leonard,
our boss came to me and asked if I had signed the paper for an increase ." These
statements made by Ort to Montgomery are consistent with the testimony of
Taylor, Varner , and other employees to the effect that Leonard interrogated the
employees about signing the paper for a raise, and threatened some of them with
discharge in the event they joined in the concerted activities begun by Taylor.
Furthermore Ort's statement to Montgomery that the conversation with Leon-
ard took place either on the day that Taylor was let go , or the day before, but in
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS , INC . 1623
any event before Taylor was let go, would be entirely consistent with the testi-
mony of the other employees, and is in contradiction of Ort's testimony at the
hearing.
In the light of the foregoing facts, I credit the testimony of Montgomery, and
reject the prejudiced testimony of Ort.
Ort also testified that on several occasions she saw Leonard speak to Taylor,
and after the foreman left Taylor, the latter thumbed her nose or made faces
behind Leonard's back. There was no evidence as to what was said by Leonard to
Taylor on any of these occasions. The Respondent in his brief alleges that this
testimony proves that Taylor was rebuked and reprimanded individually by Leon-
ard, and that Taylor's testimony on the first hearing that she was not individually
reprimanded is therefore false. I cannot accept this testimony as the basis for
such a remote conclusion. The conversation between Leonard and Taylor on
these occasions might have been on any subject, and Taylor' s distaste or dis-
pleasure arise from any of a multitude of causes. Because of Ort's manifest prej-
udice in favor of the Respondent I am skeptical that any such gesticulations actu-
ally occurred.
As related above, Ort testified that in April 1951 Taylor called her on the phone.
According to Ort, Taylor introduced himself, but Ort replied that she did not
know who Taylor was. Then Taylor further identified herself saying, "she said
she was the girl that was fired up at the chicken plant for getting up a paper.
And I remembered who she was, and she said if I would come and testify for her,
she would give me a hundred dollars if she won the case , and I told her I
wouldn't. And she started to say something else, but I hung up."
This testimony is significant in two respects . Ort did not recognize Taylor
by name, but did recognize the girl who was fired for getting up a paper. Also,
Ort later amplified this conversation to attack the credibility of two other wit-
nesses for the General Counsel , under leading questions proposed by counsel for
the Respondent as follows :
Q. Was there anything else said before you hung up, or is that the entire
conversation?
A. She just tried to get me to come and I said I wouldn't.
Q. When was this Mrs . Ort? Do you remember when it was that this
conversation took place?
A. It was before the last hearing.
Q. During the conversation you had with Mrs. Taylor on the telephone,
was the name of any other employee or former employee of Pennsylvania
Dutch Farms mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. By whom?
A. Mrs. Taylor.
Q. And what was said about such other employees ? Excuse me, strike
that. What other names were mentioned?
A. Mrs . Bohrman and Mrs. Varner.
Q. And what was said about those people?
A. She said she offered them the same she offered me.
This inclusion of Bohrman and Varner in the conversation seemed incredible
when heard , as Ort had twice before said that she had related her short conversa-
tion with Taylor in its entirety, and she apparently needed the prompting of Re-
spondent 's counsel before she included those two employees in the conversation.
In Including Bohrman and Varner in this conversation , it appears to me that Ort
was "gilding" or "stretching" her testimony. I do not credit that portion.
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, Taylor, as a witness, admitted that in April 1951 she had called Ort
and in an effort to induce Ort to see Montgomery and to testify in the case, that
she had offered to pay Ort $100. Taylor explained that she had received a letter
from Montgomery saying that " it seemed important that I locate and talk with
Mrs. Ort," and asking Taylor to ascertain Ort's whereabouts, and when Montgom-
ery could talk to her. Taylor testified without contradiction that she asked Ort at
the outset "if she would talk to Montgomery" about her case. Ort testified that
she did not remember whether or not Taylor asked her to talk to Montgomery.
Ort and Taylor agree that Ort did not want to become involved in the case, be-
cause she "didn't want to lose any time." Ort and Taylor are in substantial
agreement to the offer which was then made to Ort, and that Ort still refused to
participate in the case.
In determining the effect of this conduct on Taylor's credibility, I believe it is
clear that Taylor's motive and intent are the decisive factors. Counsel for the
Respondent cites many cases on the principle that the attempt to bribe witnesses,
or to affect their testimony by offers of reward, constitutes misconduct which
strongly impeaches the credibility of the person making such offer, and con-
stitutes an admission on the part of a party to litigation who makes such an offer,
that he is unwilling to rely on the truth of his case. I find that such a principle
has no application here.
Taylor testified on the first hearing, and impressed me as an honest, frank,
and reliable witness. On the second hearing, when she was confronted with
charges and testimony impugning her veracity, she comported herself again
as an honest, sincere, and reliable witness. She explained that her purpose
was to obtain the testimony, not certain testimony, or perjured testimony, or
favorable testimony, of Ort, which Ort was selfishly withholding, and which
Taylor was led to believe was important" Montgomery bears out Taylor, and
even Ort admits that she first refused to participate in the proceeding because
it would inconvenience her or cause her loss of pay. Taylor's offer, viewed
in the light of attendant circumstances, was an offer to reimburse Ort for her
inconvenience, expenses, and loss of wages, if Ort would testify, and if Taylor
received any financial award as a result of the proceeding, from which she
could pay Ort.
Taylor is a married woman in her late twenties, of a moderate education,
and respectable bearing. On two occasions she was subjected to cross-examina-
tion by counsel for the Respondent. On both occasions she conducted herself
in such a way that the undersigned was favorably impressed . Taylor's testimony,
and her demeanor on the witness stand, leads me to the conclusion that Respond-
ent's charge that Taylor attempted to bribe Ort in this matter is without sup-
port in the evidence. In that connection, I cannot reconcile the two pictures of
Taylor furnished to me by the witnesses for the Respondent on the two hear-
ings. On the first hearing, Snyder and Leonard pictured Taylor as such a
guileless, timid young lady, that she voluntarily quit her employment, when she
was called to Snyder's office, and volunteered the information to Snyder that
she had circulated a paper for a raise. On the second hearing Taylor is pic-
tured as an experienced, evil person engaged in bribing three witnesses, in an
effort to prove that this Respondent committed unfair labor practices. In my
Intermediate Report I rejected the Company's first portrayal of Taylor, and
now I must reject the second. Taylor is neither an immature child afraid
of Snyder, nor is she a brazen corrupter of the judicial process. She appears
to be a young woman, of average experience, average education, with the
14 It is clear from Ort's testimony that she had knowledge of Leonard's interrogation,
and of the events leading up to Taylor' s discharge.
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1€25
average layman's knowledge of legal proprieties, and with a normal reaction
to the circumstances in which she finds herself. That her conduct constituted
an impropriety, there is no doubt. One hundred dollars would more than reim-
burse Ort for her rail fare from Mechanicsburg, and her wages lost while testi-
fying. To the extent that Ort would have been overly reimbursed Taylor's
offer was reprehensible, but her conduct in this regard is not sufficient reason
for rejecting her testimony, either in whole or in part, when I am convinced
from all the evidence that Taylor's testimony is entirely true.
In contrast to Taylor's candid admission of her offer to Ort, Taylor stead-
fastly denied that she ever wrote a letter to Carrie Henderson, containing a
similar offer. Henderson testified that she knew Taylor only as another girl
employed at the plant. Henderson was usually employed in the gutting depart-
ment, and only in emergencies worked on the pinning line. For that reason,
Henderson knew nothing of the events immediately preceding or following
Taylor's discharge. Henderson testified she had no knowledge or information
bearing on Taylor's discharge, and she knew of no fact that would lead Taylor
to believe she had any such knowledge. Yet, Henderson testified that Taylor
wrote her a letter containing an offer similar to the one made to Ort. This
presented an unusual situation on the cross-examination of Taylor. The situ-
ation developed in the following manner. On cross-examination counsel for
the Respondent asked Taylor if she had made an offer (similar to Ort's) to
anyone else. Taylor replied in the negative. Then Respondent's counsel asked
if she had written a letter in which she had made such an offer, again Taylor
replied in the negative." Then Taylor was asked if she knew Mrs. Henderson,
Taylor replied that she knew the woman by sight. Counsel for Respondent then
asked for a recess until Henderson could be called from home to the hearing.
The recess was granted, and upon convening counsel for Respondent said he
had a few additional questions for Taylor. Then in the presence of Henderson,
Taylor was again asked if she did not write a letter to Henderson making such
an offer. Taylor again replied in the negative. Then Taylor was asked if she
had not written a letter to Henderson, and Taylor replied in the affirmative,
explaining that a letter had been sent by her to Henderson, asking Henderson
to join the Union, and enclosing an application card. At this point, Respondent's
counsel, asked that a certain letter be marked for identification, and thereafter
showed it to Taylor. Taylor identified it as the letter concerning the Union,'
which she had previously mentioned.
Counsel for Respondent did not offer the letter in evidence, whereupon the
General Counsel inquired about the propriety of his introduction of the letter.
Finally it was stipulated that the letter concerned the Union, and contained no
reference to a sum of money or to prospective testimony by Henderson.
However, as Taylor's examination progressed she had no way of knowing
what papers were in Respondent's possession. If Taylor had, in fact, written
a letter to Henderson offering her money to testify, she was in a very dangerous
position to deny that fact if the letter or letters were in Henderson's or counsel's
possession. Yet, Taylor acknowledged writing the letter concerning the Union,
and denied emphatically writing the second letter offering Henderson money to
testify. It then developed that the only letter then in existence was the union
letter.
Henderson testified that she received the first letter from Taylor about the
Union, containing a union application blank, and a second letter from Taylor
which offered her one hundred dollars to testify in the case, provided Taylor
won the case. Henderson testified she burned this letter, soon after its receipt,
75 Transcript , page 104.
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and told no one, even her husband about it. Around September 15, 1951, she
learned that the Company had "lost the case," and she considered it a "dirty
deal." The witness stated that she first mentioned the letter to anyone, on or
about May 7, 1952, when she mentioned it to Superintendent Snyder. When
asked what prompted her to reveal the receipt of the letter to Snyder at that
late date, the witness said she did not know.
I do not credit Henderson's testimony. In the first place her demeanor and
bearing did not inspire confidence. Henderson is somewhat older than the
other employee-witnesses, and appears to be much more mature and worldly wise.
She testified with a self-assertive, militant air. She said she testified because
"right was right," and the Company in losing the case had received a "dirty
deal." But her testimony and bearing gave the impression that the witness was
not testifying to facts within her knowledge, but was actively championing the
Company's cause for her own reasons.
Furthermore, Henderson's testimony appears incredible. She knew nothing
about the circumstances surrounding Taylor's discharge. She knew of no reason
why Taylor would think she knew anything about the case. She was not con-
nected with the case in Taylor's, Montgomery's, or even her own thoughts.
Henderson was not even in Taylor's department in the plant. That Taylor
would try to obtain testimony from Henderson, a stranger to the events of
August 1, 1950, with or without offers of money, is entirely unlikely. But,
Henderson received one letter from Taylor. According to her testimony, Hender-
son preserved this innocuous letter about the Union, but destroyed the letter
offering her money to testify. Henderson's testimony that she saved the union
letter for many months, but destroyed at once the second letter, because she was
afraid of bribery, does not have the ring of truth. Furthermore, she testified
that she knew the second letter was a matter of importance, but she did not tell
anyone about it until 8 months after the first hearing in this matter. Approxi-
mately 3 weeks after the Board reopened the hearing for the receipt of further
evidence, she told Snyder about the letter, but could give no explanation as to
what prompted her belated disclosure.
Upon all the evidence on this point, I accept Taylor 's testimony , and reject
Henderson's.
The General Counsel offered the testimony of Donnis Fisher to rebut the
testimony of Ort, and to support the testimony of Taylor and Varner. This
witness appeared to testify with candor and frankness. Her testimony was not
contradicted, nor was she cross-examined . She stated that on the day that
Taylor's employment was terminated, Leonard spoke to her, asking her if she
was going to sign the paper prepared by Taylor . She did not recall what answer
she made to Leonard. After Leonard talked to her, Leonard spoke to the other
girls, and then went upstairs. She stated that Taylor was working at that time.
I credit Fisher's testimony fully, and on the basis of it, I find that on August 1,
1950, the Respondent by Leonard violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
this interrogation of Fisher as to her participation in protected concerted
activities. This finding is in addition to those unfair labor practices which
have been previously found in my original Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order.
This proceeding has been so vigorously presented by counsel, and they have
presented such conflicting views as to the credibility of witnesses, that I feel
that a further statement as to my findings herein is appropriate . Especially
is this so since the hearing was divided Into two parts with an interval of some
11 months between hearings.
When I was directed by the Board to take further testimony in this proceeding,
I put from my mind as far as humanly possible the fact that I had made credi-
PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH FARMS, INC. 1627
bility findings as to the witnesses who had testified on the first hearing. I was
aware of the many limitations upon the trier of the fact in judging the credibility
of witnesses. Also, I knew that occasionally dishonest witnesses are succussful
in perpetrating frauds upon a court. Therefore, under the circumstances, I con-
ceived it to be my duty to evaluate the testimony of all witnesses afresh, view-
ing the case as a whole, and, to analyze the testimony in the same manner, as if
all witnesses were heard in one hearing on consecutive days. Following this
procedure, I have again reached the same conclusions and findings as to the
credibility of the witnesses who testified on the first hearing, as set forth in my
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order of September 18, 1951, and reached
the conclusions and findings as to the credibility of the witnesses at the further
hearing, which I have stated herein.
Upon all the credible evidence I find that Taylor was discharged by the
Respondent on August 1, 1950, because she had proposed to the employees on the
pinning line that they prepare and present to the Respondent a petition asking
for an increase in pay, a protected concerted activity, and that Taylor did not
voluntarily quit after being reprimanded because she was talking too much to
the detriment of Respondent's efficient operation. I find that her discharge was
a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act 1°
I also find upon all the credible evidence that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act on August 1, 1950, by the conduct of Foreman Leonard
in interrogating the employees concerning their knowledge of Taylor's proposed
petition, and their willingness to sign it ; and that the Respondent threatened
the employees with economic reprisal for their concerted activities by (1),
Leonard's conversation with Bohrman, in which he said that something like that
had happened before in the plant, and that the plant was closed, and that if it
happened again they would have to close down and nobody would have a job;
and (2) by Leonard's conversation with Taylor in which he told her that this had
happened once before and the plant had been closed down. Both these state-
ments were threatening and coercive in nature and are violations of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Counsel for the Respondent has requested that I find certain proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the findings contained in
this Report I find as follows :
As to proposed finding of fact numbered 1, I find that before the hearing
held on August 21, 1951, in this matter, Carmeletta Taylor offered to pay one
Dorothy Ort the sum of $100, if said Dorothy Ort would testify in this case,
provided Carmeletta Taylor won the case. I have found further, in the course of
this Report, that Taylor's said conduct was not sufficient ground for disregarding
her testimony, which I have credited.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to support proposed findings of fact
numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
The proposed conclusions of law submitted by counsel for the Respondent are
likewise not found, because the principles of law stated in proposed conclusions
numbered 1, 2, and 3 are not applicable to the facts as found in this case, and
the General Counsel has sustained the burden of proof mentioned in proposed
conclusion numbered 4.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
16 It is noted that in the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order of September
18, 1951 , through inadvertence I found that Taylor 's discharge was a violation of Section
8 (a) (1) only. The above finding corrects that error.