Poultry Producers of Central California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, A
CORPORATION and OFFICE EMPLOYEES' UNION No. 21320
Case No. 0-1533.-Decided July 13, 1940
Jurisdiction : poultry and egg industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Company-Dominated Union: formation of, following display of interest on part
of employees in outside organization ; participation of representative of
management in formation and administration of, by soliciting members,
advancing membership dues, and serving as officer; alacrity of recognition
and agreements entered into in contrast with opposition to outside
organization.
Withdrawal of supervisory employee from the office of vice president
of the inside organization after the completion of its organization in his
branch office and the establishment of the inside organization as the
bargaining agent of the employees, held to be too late to remove the
effects of employer interference and support.
Statement of office manager that if the employees joined a union the
respondent -would move its main office held intended to influence them
not to join an outside union since no similar warning was given when
the formation of the inside organization was under consideration.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated union and abrogation
of contract ordered.
Mr. Jonathan H. Rowell, for the Board.
McCutchen, Olney,, Mannon & Green, by Mr. Edwin S. Pillsbury
and Mr. Gerald H. Trautman, of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr.
Milton D. Sapiro, of San Francisco, Calif., for the respondent.
Mr. Robert Wilson, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. George F. Hoff and Mr. A. V. Scott, of San Francisco, Calif.,
for the Intervenor.
Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Office Employees'
Union, No. 21320, American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San Francisco,
25 N. L. R. B., No. 47. 347
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
California) issued a complaint, dated January 15, 1940, alleging
that Poultry Producers of Central California, a corporation, San
Francisco, California, herein called the respondent, had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing
were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Poultry Pro-
ducers of Central California Office Employees' Association, herein
called the Association, a labor organization alleged in the complaint
to be dominated by the respondent.
With respect to the unfafir labor practices the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondent
during 'February and March 1938 dominated and interfered with
the formation of the Association and had continuously since then
dominated and interfered with its administration and contributed
support to it; that the Association was formed and organized among
the respondent's employees at the instigation and suggestion of the
respondent; that it was organized during working hours, with the
use of the equipment and facilities of the respondent and the assist-
ance of the respondent's supervisory personnel; that the respondent
urged, persuaded, and warned its employees to join the Association,
but not to form, join, or assist any other labor organization; that
certain officers of the Association are supervisory employees of the
respondent; that the respondent permitted activities of the Associa-
tion, including the holding of meetings and the collection of dues
and assessments, to be carried on during working hours, with the
use of the respondent's equipment and facilities, in the presence of
and with the active assistance of its supervisory personnel; that the
respondent in numerous other ways well known to it dominated,
interfered with, and contributed support to the Association. The
complaint further stated that by the acts enumerated the respondent
had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act-' On
January 26, 1940, the respondent filed its answer in which it denied
that it had engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from January 29 to Feb-
ruary 2, 1940, inclusive, at San Francisco, California, before William
B. Barton, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At
' On motion of the respondent at the hearing , paragraph 6 of the complaint , alleging
"sundry and divers acts of intimidation and coercion ," was stricken with the consent of
counsel for the Board.
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 349
the hearing the Association filed a motion to intervene, which was
granted 2 The Board and the respondent were represented by coun-
sel and the Association by two of its officials, all of whom partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues of the case was afforded all parties. At the close of the hear-
ing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint.' The Trial
Examiner reserved his ruling on this motion, which he subsequently
denied in his Intermediate Report. A motion of counsel for the
Board to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted so far as
dates, typographical errors, and the spelling of names were concerned.
The Trial Examiner also ruled on a number of other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were made. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Counsel for
the respondent filed a brief which was duly considered by the Trial
Examiner.
On March 30, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which
lie found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices and disestablish and withdraw
all recognition from the Association. He recommended, further,
that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the
respondent allowed the Association to conduct its activities on com-
pany time and property. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a brief in support of the exceptions were filed by the respond-
ent, and a petition in the nature of exceptions was filed by the
Association.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash
ington, D. C., on May 14, 1940, for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent and the, Association did not appear. The Union was
represented by counsel. The Board has considered the exceptions to
the Intermediate Report, the brief filed by the respondent, and, the
arguments advanced at the oral argument before the Board, and,
in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
2 Although the motion to intervene was not filed and granted until the second day of
the heaiing , the Association had been served with a copy of the complaint and notice of
hearing , and had entered its appearance at the beginning of the hearing.
3 The respondent made substantially the same motion at the beginning of the hearing
and at the close of the Board ' s case . It was denied on both of these occasions.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Poultry Producers of Central California is a cooperative market-
ing association, incorporated in the State of California, which sells
eggs and purchases feed and supplies on a cooperative basis for its
farmer members. It also sells poultry through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Producers Company, Limited. During 1939 the com-
bined sales of eggs and poultry within the State amounted to $8,099,-
551.59; and outside the State, to $1,233,110.55. Over 16 per cent of
the amount spent by the respondent for feed in 1938, or $850,867.50,
was spent for feed shipped from outside California.'
Besides its principal office at San Francisco, California, the re-
spondent has branch offices in various other cities and towns in the
State. Of its 141 clerical employees in June 1939, 62 were employed
in San Francisco, 27 in Petaluma, 10 in Oakland, 9 in Stockton, and
8 or fewer in each of the other branches.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Office Employees' Union, No. 21320, is a labor organization affil-
iated with the American, Federation of Labor. It admits to member-
ship office employees in San Francisco and the vicinity, except exec-
utive or supervisory employees having the power to hire and
discharge.
Poultry Producers of Central California Office Employees' Asso-
ciation is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to member-
ship persons who have been regularly and continuously employed
for a period of not less than 30 days as office employees of the
respondent, and who do not occupy executive or managerial posi-
tions, and are not members of any other industrial association or
union.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Although the respondent has been in business since 1916, and
during that time has negotiated collective bargaining contracts with
unions affiliated with both the American Federation of Labor and
the Congress of Industrial Organizations,4 its office workers were
4 John Lawler , the respondent ' s general manager , testified that the respondent had con-
tracts with the C. I 0 warehousemen at Stockton and Petaluma, with the warehousemen
at the respondent's platform at the egg department in Petaluma, with the A. F of L Team-
sters and the Warehousemen ' s Division of the Teamsters, with the C. I O. Office Workers
Union, and with a Butchers Union.
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 351,
unorganized until 1938. During the preceding year Thor Romwall,s
a minor clerical employee, first discussed the possibility of unionizing
the office with a member of the United Office and Professional
Workers of America, Local 34, C. I. 0., and with some of his fellow
employees. Later Paul Hatt, a C. I. O. organizer, called to see him
one morning at the respondent's office. At Hatt's request, Romwall
tried to arrange a luncheon meeting to discuss the matter with some
of the other employees. Being unable to do so, Romwall next sug-
gested that organizers be sent to talk to the women employees.
As a result of this suggestion, in January or February 1938 two
women representing the Committee for Industrial Organization went
to the San Francisco plant of the respondent one noon and spoke to
a group of about 12 women employees in their lunchroom. The
organizers pointed out the advantages of belonging to a C. I. O.
union, and left with the employees some pamphlets and copies of
contracts, including one between the Office Workers and Safeway
Stores.
During the afternoon of the same day Celeste Jorgensen ,6 a comp-
tometer operator who had been present at the meeting, told Fred H.
Seaman, the respondent's office manager, about the visit of the
organizers, and asked whether it would be all right for the employees
to hold a meeting the next day in the lunchroom to decide whether
they "wanted to join a union-or stay with the company." Jorgensen's
testimony on this - point was to the effect that Seaman asked her
to explain to the other employees that if they "decided to join a
union," the respondent could and probably would move the San
Francisco office to another branch.
Seaman, although admitting that he had a conversation with
Jorgensen, denied mentioning unions to her or asking her to tell the
employees anything. His testimony regarding their conversation
was in part as follows :
By Mr. SAPIRO :
Q. Was anything else said in that conversation?"
A. Yes, at that time I conveyed to her this idea which I had-
which had been in my mind through discussions with Mr. Lawler
many times, previous to-in fact, every time a statement was
6 Romwall , the son of one of the founders and first - president of the Association , was one,
of the principal witnesses for the Board . Much of his testimony was directed to showing
that the respondent had discriminated against him because of his union activities. As
the complaint did not allege that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act, Romwall 's testimony was admitted and
considered solely for its bearing on the question of domination , interference , and support
of the Association by the respondent.
U Bv the time of the hearing , Jorgensen had married and left the respondent's employ.
She gave her name in her testimony as Celeste Jorgensen Barry.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prepared we would go over the costs of doing business, and
we have, on many occasions, discussed the feasibility of de-
centralizing the central office, and so I conveyed to her the
idea which we had discussed.
Q. What did you say, so far as you can remember?
A. I said, so far as I can remember, that there was a probabil-
ity that we might decentralize the central office if our operating
costs became exorbitant.
Q. Was anything said by you to the effect that if they became
members of the C. I. O. on a 100 per cent basis, that the office
would be decentralized and they would be thrown out of their
jobs.
A. No.
Q. Or words to that effect?
A. No.
Q. Was anything said by you to the effect that if they all be-
came members of the C. I. O. there would be a change so as to
cause them to lose their jobs?
A. No, sir.
Seaman admitted on cross-examination that it was not his habit to
discuss the company's plans with the employees. When asked what
prompted him to make the remark to Jorgensen at that time he
testified :
A. Well, I would say that I had seen, you might say, exorbitant
demands made by unions and I knew that if that became effective
that our operating costs would become exorbitant.
By Mr. RowF.LL :
Q. That is what prompted you to tell Miss Jorgensen that?
A. What prompted me was the fact that it would no doubt be
doing a duty to the employees as a whole to know that there
may be some decentralization.
Q. And you had in mind that Miss Jorgensen would tell the
other employees what you had said?
A. No doubt.
On the basis of all of the testimony, and his observation of the
witnesses, the Trial Examiner found that Seaman told Jorgensen to
inform the employees that if they joined a union the respondent
would move the San Francisco office. Having reviewed the evidence,
we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding, and find accordingly.
On the day following the visit of the organizers, approximately
31 female and 5 male employees assembled in the lunchroom at noon.
Jorgensen opened the meeting by telling the purpose for which it,
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 353
had been called, and then repeated what Seaman had said.? After
some discussion a secret ballot was taken, resulting in a vote of
33 to 3 against affiliating with an outside union.
It is apparent from the foregoing that Seaman's remark about
moving the office was intended to influence the employees not to join
an outside union. As office manager for the respondent he was in
a position of authority over the clerical workers and represented
the management to them. Whether he said that joining a union
would bring about decentralization or merely that increased labor
costs would have that effect, is immaterial when his remark is con-
sidered in connection with the request of the employees for permis-
sion to hold a meeting to decide about joining an outside union.
They could not construe it otherwise than as a threat to their jobs
in case their decision was in favor of the union.
About a week later a notice signed by some of the employees was
circulated, announcing another meeting to be held during a lunch
period to determine whether the employees desired to form an un-
affiliated union.S At the meeting held pursuant thereto, attended by
approximately the same group as before, Bernice Johns, a stenog-
rapher who handled the purchasing of minor supplies and whose
office was diagonally across the hall from that of the respondent's
general manager,' spoke in opposition to the C. I. 0., and suggested
that a committee be set up to investigate and report on whether the
C. I. 0. could force its way into the plant against the will of the
employees. A committee was elected, consisting of T. J. Nyrhila,
one of the men whom Romwall had originally approached in regard
to joining the C. I. 0., A. V. Scott, and George F. Hoff. In view of
the active part of these three men in the subsequent preceedings, and
the finding of the Trial Examiner that two of them were employees
with supervisory authority, it is important for us to determine their
relationship to the respondent.
Nyrhila was at that time a voucher clerk working with two female
employees on accounts payable in the feed department. While he
Romwall testified that at this meeting Jorgensen "stated that Mr Seaman said if we
joined the union 100 per cent the management will rearrange the work in the various
branches in such a manner as to eliminate a good number of employees , especially in the
feed department "
8 Testimony was offered to show that this notice was mimeographed or multigraphed on
the kind of paper and in the same color ink ordinarily used by the respondent , and was
circulated during working hours by the respondent ' s mail clerk It was not shown that
the muneographmg or distribution had been done with the knowledge or permission of
anyone in authority The Trial Examiner made no finding that the respondent had thereby
contributed support to the Association , nor do we deem the evidence to support such a
finding
8 The Trial Examiner made no finding that Johns represented the management, although
lie stated there was some evidence to indicate that she did We do not find that Johns
spoke as a representative of the respondent.
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'was accustomed to see that the work of their department was properly
executed and gotten out, he had no power to, hire or discharge, nor
does it appear that he recommended action of this sort, or exercised
any disciplinary powers. Occasionally he dictated letters to one of
the girls, and signed the letters. At that time his salary was $35
or'$37.50 a week. Although in 1939 he was made branch manager at
Gilroy, California, at the same salary, we do not feel that the evidence
supports a finding that Nyrhila was a supervisory employee in 1938.
Scott was employed in the feed commodity control department at
-a salary of $30 a week. Most of his time was spent in clerical work,
- although he also delegated work to the five other employees in the
department, and if necessary told them how it should be done. He
had no power to hire or discharge, and it does not appear that he
exercised any disciplinary authority. While Seaman, the office man-
ager, testified on cross-examination that, under him, Scott had the re-
sponsibility of seeing that the conunodity-control department ran
-properly, and said Scott might be described as "being in charge" of
the department, we do not concur with the finding of the Trial
Examiner that Scott was an employee with supervisory authority.
Hoff was an order and billing clerk in the sales department and
also spent part of his time calling on the trade and inspecting eggs.
His authority was no greater than that of 9 or 10 other salesmen,
although he had more inside work than the others. In the office he
worked with three girls whose salaries were approximately $10 a
week less than his, but according to his testimony there was no neces-
sity for him to give them directions, and he had no responsibility
for their work. The Trial Examiner made no finding regarding
Hoff, and we see no reason to consider him a supervisory employee.
B. The Association: domination, interference, and support
Shortly after the second meeting of the employees, the committee
composed of Nyrhila, Scott, and Hoff made its report at another
meetii.g of the employees. According to Romwall, Nyrhila stated,
and the other members of the committee agreed, "that they had
reached the conclusion that it would be possible for the C. I. O. to
'force their way in whether we [the employees] wanted it or not, and
it looked as though unionization was here to stay, and sooner or later
the office workers, as well as_ other workers, would be organized into
unions, and' in order to prevent unionization by the C. I. O. it would
be advisable to form an independent union." A vote' was taken
which showed approximately the same number in favor of an
unaffiliated union as had previously opposed joining an outside
union.
Nyrhila testified in this connection that his report dealt only with
independent unions, while Hoff reported on the A. F. of L., and
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 355
Scott on the C. I. 0.. He said further that in his report he made
no comparison of independent unions with other organizations.
Hoff, who was called as a witness by the Trial Examiner, was not
questioned about the report. On the basis of all the evidence we
find that Nyrhila stated that it would be possible for the C. I. O.
to force its way into the respondent's office; and that the belief on
the part of the employees that this was the case, in conjunction with
the position of the company toward outside unions, as conveyed
to them by Seaman's remark to Jorgensen, led them to form an
unaffiliated union for the purpose of preventing organization by
the C. I. O.
At the same meeting a committee of five was appointed to pre-
pare a constitution and bylaws for the proposed organization.
Nyrhila was chairman, and Scott, Jorgensen, Hoff, and Rose Magoria
were the other members of the committee. During the next few
weeks they met at Nyrhila's house to prepare the constitution and
bylaws.
On the evening of March 8, 1938, 50 or more employees from the
San Francisco office and some of the branch offices met in the Mills
Building in San Francisco pursuant to notices sent out by Nyrhila.
He also acted as temporary chairman of the meeting. The proposed
constitution and bylaws of the Association were discussed and
adopted with some minor changes; dues were paid; and officers were
elected by secret ballot. Nyrhila became president; James L. Govan,
vice president; Magoria, treasurer; and Scott, secretary.
Govan, the vice president,.was the only employee present from
the Oakland office. Because of his subsequent activities, it is im-
portant to note his position in the respondent's organization.
According to Catherine Summy, one of the other Oakland employees,
he was assistant manager of the Oakland branch. Although he was
not so designated on the respondent's letterheads, on the office door,
or on his business cards, he admitted that he had at times identified
himself as assistant manager in signing government bids, and that
in the absence of the branch manager, he took charge of the office.
It appears that during 1939, Govan had full charge of the Oakland
office for a period of 6 weeks. 'We find that Govan was a super-
visory employee. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that
shortly after the second meeting of the Association the membership
committee of the Association requested Govan's resignation on the
ground that his supervisory position made him ineligible.
After the meeting on March 8, Govan talked to the employees in
the Oakland office as he walked through the building or at lunch
time, telling them about the formation of the Association, explaining
the benefits to be derived from it, and urging them to join. Accord-
ing to Summy he also talked to a group of six employees during
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working hours, telling them that the Association was "for social
reasons and to keep the C. I. O. out." 10 She further quoted him as
saying "that the C. I. O. had gotten into the Stockton office," and
"that the C. I. O. could force us into a union, and they could use
any means that they wished, and that if we were clubbed one night
going home, that we would be sorry that we hadn't paid a dollar and
a quarter instead of seven and a half or whatever it was he stated
was the initiation in the C. I. 0." Govan denied speaking to any
group of employees or making the, alleged statement. None of the
persons named by Summy as being present during Govan's remarks
were called by the respondent to deny the truth of her testimony.
We find that Govan told the Oakland employees in effect that the
purpose of the Association was to prevent organization by the C. I. O.
Summy also testified that when Govan talked to the employees,
none of them said that they wanted to join the Association, but
that on pay day he presented unsigned IOU's to them, and they
found that their dues had been paid with company money. Govan
admitted that he had authorized the advancement of dues from the
petty cash drawer,1' but denied that he had had anything to do
personally with the IOU's. He said that he had received from
the cashier, Gaylord Martin, money for the dues and a list of the
employees paying them, both of which he turned over to the Associa-
tion at the next meeting.12 While it seems unlikely that Govan put
IOU's in the cash drawer without the knowledge or consent of the
employees concerned, we find that he was active in soliciting mem-
bership in the Association and that he at least arranged for the
advancement of company money for the payment of dues.
Following the adoption of the constitution and bylaws and the
election of officers, the Association on March 11, 1938, requested
recognition by the respondent as the sole bargaining agent for its
office employees in San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward, and Santa
Rosa. This was promptly granted by letter of March 14, 1938."s
A committee with Nyrhila as chairman then prepared a contract,
which was submitted to the Association. After a general dis-
10 Rnmwall testified that at the first meeting in the Mills Building Govan asked the pur-
pose of the Association , and was told that it was to prevent organization by the C I O.
it It appeared that the employees were ficquently allowed to borrow from the cash
drawer up to whatever amount the respondent owed them at the time, the necessary deduc-
tion being made from their pay on the next pay day. Gaylord Martin, the cashier, was
in charge of the drawer
La Romwall's testimony in this connection was that at the first meeting of the Associa-
tion. Govan "went up to the desk and paid dues, and it was announced by Nyiliila that
the Oakland b•anch had signed up 100 per cent"
12 The respondent ' s letter was in part as follows
We heieby accept your statement as being correct. and pending further develop-
ments, recognize your Association as the bargaining agency of said employees. How-
ever, it will be perfectly in order for you to pi esent to us a certified list of the
employees who have membership in your organization in order that we may be assured
that you do represent the employees as indicated
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 357
cussion during which some changes were made, the committee was
authorized to submit the contract to the respondent. A reply from
the respondent's general manager, John Lawler, commenting on the
various provisions, was read and discussed at an Association meet-
ing, and after negotiations involving further discussions by the
members, a contract dated April 18, 1938, was signed on June 17.14
On April 18, 1939, this contract was renewed with certain changes
made as a result of further negotiations and conferences between the
respondent and the Association. A similar contract covering the
employees at the Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Sonoma branches was
concluded on May 23, 1938, and one covering the Sacramento,
Modesto, Merced, Turlock, and Gustine employees on August 13,
1938, following organizational activities of the Association at those
branches.
The employees at Stockton meanwhile had been organized by
United Office and Professional Workers, Local No. 44, affiliated with
the C. I. 0., which on March 23, 1938, notified the respondent that
it represented a majority of the respondent's staff at Stockton, and
submitted a proposed agreement. Negotiations finally resulted in
a contract dated October 21, 1939, over a year and a half after the
request was first made.11 It is significant that this agreement does
i4 Soon after this contract went into effect the'employees in Oakland complained to the
Association that the provision regarding hours was not being observed A comniittee of
five, including Nyrhila as chairman and Romwall as one of the members, was elected to
look into the matter. Although Romwall and Summy testified that no action was taken
by the comniittee, it appeared that Nyrhila discussed the matter with Lawler, and that
as a iesult the 40-hour week was put into effect Although the 5-day week was not extended
to the Oakland office, this apparent breach of the agreement was permissible under the
terms of a supplemental agreement.
15 The letter of March 23, 1938, from the C I 0 local, signed by Roblin I-1 Moy, secre-
tary, and addressed to R S Cannon, the manager of the respondent's Stockton bianch, was
forwarded by the latter to General Manager Lawler, who acknowledged it on March 26, 1938,
saying that a reply would be sent later. Further correspondence led to one or , inoie con-
ferences between Lawler and Garvin, a C. I 0 organizer, during the course of which Lawler
apparently asked that negotiations on the contract covering office employees be defeiied
until negotiations on a contract covering the respondent's waicliousemen were completed
On July 6 he wrote that he would make a study of the agreement that had been presented,
and would try to submit one the respondent could sign . A few days late:', in making an
appointment to meet Garvin, he stated, "I have not as yet received definite authority to
bargain with you, but I have no doubt but that this can be accomplished " Garvin and
Lawler then had a conference on July 25, and Garvin later wrote the respondent asking for
"a copy of the agreement as you see it for our study " Lawler's secretary acknowledged this
letter, but stated, "Due to urgent demands upon his time this week, Mr. Lawler has re-
quested me to inform you that it will likely be some time next week before he can giNe tile
necessary attention to the Stockton office workers contract " The respondent's proposals
were evidently submitted later, as on September 16 Garvin wrote suggesting certain mod Ai-
cations Three days later Laiilei replied that the respondent could not consent to the
changes outlined There is no evidence of further correspondence or conferences on the
subject in 1938
In February 1939 the charge in the present proceeding was filed, alleging that the re-
spondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Association
On August 10, 1939 Elvin Balatti, president of Local No 44, wrote Lawler that the
Stockton employees had chosen that local as their collective bargaining agency, and enclosed
a copy of a proposed agreement On the following day Lawler replied by letter, indicating
a willingness to resume discussion of the agreement The ensuing negotiations continued
until October 21, 19.9, when a contract between the parties w as signed.
283036-42-vol 25--24
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD-
not contain a provision similar to the modified closed-shop section 16
of the contracts between the Association and the respondent, or the
'provision for time and a half for overtime which was incorporated
in the renewal of the agreement covering the San Francisco branch.
The first of these provisions had been suggested to the Association
by the respondent. Lawler's testimony was that although the ori-
ginal form of contract submitted by the Association had not con-
tained a closed-shop provision, it was included in a subsequent
submittal, and as a counterproposal the respondent had offered' to
agree to require all new employees to apply for membership in the
Association. No similar counterproposal was made to'the C. I. O.
local at Stockton when it submitted its proposed contract containing
a closed-shop provision.
C. Conclusion with respect to the Association
It is apparent from a consideration of the' evidence that the re-
spondent was opposed to the organization of its office staff by an
outside union because it believed that its operating expenses would
thereby be increased. As soon as Seaman, its office manager at San
Francisco, heard of the activities of the C. I. 0., he warned the
employees of the possibility of decentralization of the office, a change
which would necessarily involve the loss of their jobs. No similar
warning was given when the formation of the Association was under
consideration, although the preliminary meetings were held on the
respondent's property and could not have escaped the attention of its
officials. We are convinced that the Association arose not as a free
expression of the desires of the employees, but as the result of fear
on their part that the office would be decentralized and their jobs
abolished unless steps were taken to keep the C. I. O. out 17
The favorable attitude of the respondent to the Association and
its opposition to the C. I O. were evinced by the alacrity with which
the former was recognized, and the ease with which an agreement
was subsequently reached, in contrast with the delay and difficulties
encountered in the course of similar negotiations by the C. I. O. local
at Stockton. Moreover, the agreements finally reached were more
favorable to the Association than to the C. I. 0., the result in part
of a voluntary offer by the respondent to include a provision re-
quiring new employees to become members of the Association within,
10 This provision reads as follows, "All persons employed in the offices covered by this
agreement as office employees subsequent to the execution of this ago Bement shall make a
bona fide application for membership in the Poultry Producers of Central California Office
Employees' Association within thirty days after their employment and shall be accepted
into' membership by said Association "
11 See Matter of Jac Fez;nbeog Hosiery Mills, Inc and American Federation, of Hosiery
WPoohcos North Carolina DiStrlct, 19 N L R B 667.
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 359
30 days of their permanent employment. The renewal of the San
Francisco contract contained also a provision for time and a half
for overtime, which was not granted, although requested, in the
Stockton contract concluded 6 months later. We can only infer
from these circumstances that the respondent in fact welcomed the
Association as a means of combating organization by an outside
union, and showed its preference by an active cooperation extended
to the Association and not to the C. I. O.
Although the employees directly and actively engaged in the for-
mation of the Association have not been found to be supervisory
employees, they enlisted the cooperation of Govan, the assistant man-
ager at Oakland, to reach the employees at that branch. He not
only solicited membership on company time and property, but ar-
ranged for the advancement of money for dues from company funds
and served as one of the officers of the Association. His remarks,
as well as Seaman's, revealed the opposition of the respondent to the
C. I. O. While he later gave up the office of vice president, to which
he had been elected, and resigned from membership in the Association,
he had by that time completed the organization of the Oakland
branch and the Association was established as the bargaining agent
of the employees. His withdrawal at that time was clearly too late
to remove the effects of employer interference and support.18
There was some evidence to show that the respondent assisted the
Association by permitting it to conduct its activities on company
time and property.l" The Trial Examiner found, however, that the
respondent had asked the Association to discontinue such activities,
and that there was no evidence that it had interfered with the C. I. O.
organizers who came on its property to see its employees, and he
therefore recommended that such allegations be dismissed. We
agree with the findings of the Trial Examiner in this respect.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed
support thereto, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with' its operations described in
18 See Matter of Sparks-Withington Company and International Union, United Automobile
Woi kers of America, Local No 62, 21 N L R B 1
SU Romwall testified that the pieliminary meetings held dm lug the lunch hour lasted
until after 1 o'clock, that Nyrhila left the office during working hours to get information
about other independent unions, and that on two occasions he (Romwall) found the Execu-
tive Board of the Association meeting in the respondent's Directois' Room After one of
these meetings General Manager Lawler wrote the Association foibidding such meetings on
the respondent's property.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States , and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and-the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, Ave shall order it to cease and desist from further-
engaging therein. We shall also order it to take certain affirmative
action which we consider necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association. Under
the circumstances, the continued existence of the Association as a
bargaining agent would be a continuing obstacle to the exercise of
the employees' right of self-organization and to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and the employees
would not be freed from the effects of the respondent's previous inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion merely by the respondent's perform-
ance of an order to cease and desist from its domination and support
of the Association. We shall therefore order the respondent to with-
draw all recognition from the Association and disestablish it as the
representative of any of 'the respondent's employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining; to refrain from giving effect to any existing
contracts with the Association or any extensions, modifications, or
renewals thereof; and to notify its employees that it will comply with
our Order herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following :
CoNCLusIONs OF LAW
1. Office Employees' Union, No. 21320, American Federation of
Labor, and Poultry Producers of Central California; Office Employ-
ees' Association are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and ad-
ministration of Poultry Producers of Central California Office Em-
ployees' Association, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 2) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 361
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Poultry Producers of Central California, a corporation,
San Francisco, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and as
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Poultry
Producers of Central California Office Employees' Association or
with the formation or administration of any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Poultry Producers of Central California Office
Employees' Association as- the representative of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of work;
(c) In any manner giving effect to any existing contracts with
Poultry Producers of Central California Office Employees' Associa-
tion, or to any extensions, modifications, or renewals thereof;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their- right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other
mutual aid or protection, 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) Withdraw all recognition from Poultry Producers of Central
California Office Employees' Association as the representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or conditions of work, and, completely disestablish
Poultry Producers of Central California Office Employees' Associa-
tion as such representative;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its San Francisco,
Oakland, Hayward, Walnut Creek, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sonoma,
Sacramento, Modesto, Merced, Turlock, and Gustine offices, and
maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the re-
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE1AT1ONS BOARD
spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered
to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this
Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISEasoN, dissenting :
I cannot concur in the decision of the majority and would dismiss
the complaint in its entirety. The complaint contains no separate
allegation of interference, restraint, or coercion and alleges only that
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation of the
Association and contributed support to it. The weight of the evi-
dence does not support this allegation.