Saticoy Meat Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 713 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SATICOY MEAT PACKING CO.
Jacob Wiesel d/b/a Saticoy Meat Packing Co. and Meat
Cutters Union Local 556 , Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 31-CA-1559 and 31-RC-1128
May 25, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On February 9, 1970, Trail Examiner Benjamin B.
Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trail Examiner's Decision. He also found the allegations
of the objections to the election in Case 31-RC-1128
to have been established by certain of the aforesaid
unfair labor practices committed prior to the election,
and recommended that the election be set aside and
a new one be directed. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed a brief in opposition to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trail Examiner's Decision,
the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Jacob Wiesel d/b/a Saticoy Meat Packing
Co., Saticoy, California, his agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
[Direction of Second Election2 omitted from publica-
tion.]
' Chairman McCulloch would not find that Respondent's August 21
letter violated Sec 8(a)(1) See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc , 166 NLRB
227,fn I
I In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of
voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with
them Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-
Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed
that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses
of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director for Region 31 within 7 days after the date of issuance
713
of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election
No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional
Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with
this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever
proper objections are filed
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON , Trial Examiner : In Case
31-CA-1559, a complaint was issued by the General
Counsel ' alleging that Respondent engaged in certain
coercive conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. In Case 31-RC-1128, pursuant to a stipulation
for certification upon consent election , a Board election
was conducted by the Regional Director on August
29,2 following which timely objections were filed by
the Union . On October 27, the Regional Director con-
cluded that certain ,issues raised by the objections and
other material issues disclosed in his investigation are
related to and involve the same evidence as do the
allegations in the unfair labor practice complaint and,
accordingly , issued an order consolidating both cases
for the purpose of hearing.'
On January 6, 1970, a hearing in the consolidated
proceeding was held before me in Ventura , California.
Full opportunity was afforded all parties to present
relevant evidence , to argue orally on the record, and
to file briefs. After the close , General Counsel submitted
a brief , which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the cases , and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Jacob Wiesel d/b/a Saticoy Meat Packing Co., herein
called the Respondent, is an individual proprietorship
engaged at Saticoy, California, in the retail and wholesale
packing and distribution of meats. Annually, Respondent
' The complaint issued on October 22, 1969 , based on a charge
and an amended charge by the Union filed and served by registered
mail, respectively, on September 8 and October 21, 1969. All dates
herein , unless otherwise noted , are in 1969.
R The election, among 22 eligible employees in a production and
maintenance unit, resulted in a vote of 11 to 5 adverse to the Union,
with 6 ballots challenged
, The Regional Director's report on objections recites that a copy
of the Union's objections was duly served upon the Employer At
the instant hearing , Respondent introduced a letter dated September
9 in which it advised the Regional Office that it had not received
a copy of the objections and that, therefore , the objections were defective
as not conforming with the Board 's Rules and Regulations Respondent
presents the same argument herein , with no other evidence offered
on the subject. Such as issue is not properly one to be resolved
in this proceeding, but is rather an inherent procedural question within
the representation case, with appropriate recourses available before
the Board In any event , assuming the fact as stated by Respondent,
I would find that it suffered no substantial prejudice thereby
182 NLRB No. 104
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has a gross volume of sales valued in excess of $500,000,
and has a direct inflow in interstate commerce valued
in excess of $50,000 Respondent admits, and I find,
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act
iI THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent called no witnesses and did not attempt
to refute the evidence adduced by General Counsel
So far as pertinent, the record establishes the following
undisputed facts
On the testimony of Casteneda, it is concluded that,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1), Respondent threatened
the killing floor employees with loss of their jobs and
replacement by more experienced "Union men," clearly
for the purpose of coercing them to vote against the
Union
On Ramos' testimony, it is concluded that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by engaging in (a) coercive inter-
rogations as to the union activities of the employees,
(b) solicitation of an employee, with an offer of reward,
to act as informer concerning the union activities of
fellow employees, (c) discouragement of employees from
joining or voting for the Union by stating the intention
not to enter into a contract, or bargain in good faith,
with the Union, if selected as majority representative,
and (d) threats to discontinue existing employee benefits,
i e , coffeebreaks, coffee and snacks, if the Union were
allowed to become the employees' representative
Sam Casteneda
Two or three days before the August 29 election,
Casteneda, a meatcutter, had a conversation with the
"boss," Jacob Wiesel, in the latter's office Wiesel told
him in substance that, if the employees joined the Union,
he was going to get rid of all the killing floor men
and hire in their place more experienced "Union men,"
who could do the work better
Amando Ramos
On one occasion in June, Ramos was called by Wiesel
into his office Ramos was asked if he signed "papers
for a Union," to which he replied negatively He was
asked if he knew who had signed , and answered, no
He was then offered a raise to $5 an hour (from his
present rate of $2 75) if he would find out, and tell
Wiesel, which employees had signed for the Union
About July 19, Wiesel approached Ramos while he
was in the freezer, in the presence of a named truckdri-
ver Again he asked Ramos if he had signed papers
for the Union Upon receiving a denial , Wiesel remarked
that he had fought with Hitler and had fought with
Russia, and was not going "to lose here with a Union ""
About July 26, in the kitchen with a few employees
present, Wiesel told Ramos to advise the Union that
it could work the picket line 10,000 times and he would
not sign a contract
The employees were allowed a daily coffeebreak of
15 minutes, and the coffee, together with snacks, e g ,
bologna and salami , were freely furnished by Respond-
ent On about four occasions within the period from
June to August, Ramos testified that Wiesel spoke to
employees concerning the Union during coffeebreak or
lunchtime The substance of Wiesel's comments was
that, if they joined the Union, he would no longer
supply the coffee and snacks or allow the coffeebreaks,
because the Union does not provide him with food
Preelection letter
On or about August 21, Respondent distributed to
the employees a letter signed by Wiesel, concerning
which General Counsel adverts particularly to the follow-
ing paragraphs as allegedly coercive
It has always been our policy to deal directly with
you as an individual and we value this personal
relationship Up to now, you have always been
free to come to us for help with any problem
you might encounter But if the union wins the
election, you will lose this right which you now
enjoy by dealing with us personally with regards
to your hours of work, wages, benefits and working
conditions
Also, if the union wins, you will not be permitted
to deal directly with us but only through strangers
(union officers and agents) which many of you
have never met or do not even know [Emphasis
supplied
General Counsel contends, with merit, that Respondent
has thus conveyed an implied threat of loss of the
employees' statutory right to present grievances directly
to their employer, and to have such grievances adjusted
without the intervention of the bargaining representa-
tive 5 While it is fundamental in the Act that, upon
the proper selection of a majority representative, the
employer can no longer bargain individually with the
employees as to wages, hours, and working conditions,
I find that the intended purpose and reasonable effect
of Respondent' s language extended materially beyond
this simple explanation of the law With the prefatory
emphasis upon their existing freedom to seek help direct-
ly from Respondent with regard to "any problem,"
the subsequent comment that they will lose this right
if the Union wins the election fails to specify or reveal
that the employees may continue to present their griev-
' As long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with a collective
bargaining contract then in effect Section 9(a) and e g N L R B
The latter statement is taken only as indicative of Respondents v Lundy Manufacturing Corp 316 F 2d 921 925 (C A 2) cert denied
union animus 375 U S 895
SATICOY MEAT PACKING CO.
ances personally. The likely effect upon the employees
is sharpened by the record showing that many of them
do not have a clear command or understanding of the
English language. In full context, and in light of Respond-
ent's known union animus, I find that the threat is
well implied that, upon their selection of the Union,
the employees would be deprived of the substantial
benefit of being able to present grievances directly to
Respondent., The violation of Section 8(a)(1) is, there-
fore, sustained.''
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 Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By certain of the aforesaid conduct committed
prior to the Board election , Respondent has interfered
with and illegally affected the results of the Board elec-
tion held on August 29, 1969.
715
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the
cases, I recommend that Respondent, Jacob Wiesel
d/b/a Saticoy Meat Packing Co., Saticoy, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities or sentiments; requesting or
instructing employees to engage in surveillance or to
act as informers regarding the union activities of other
employees; threatening employees with discharge,
replacement, loss of benefits, or other reprisals to restrain
them from union membership or from voting for the
Union in a Board election; informing the employees
or leading them to believe that, if they selected the
Union as their bargaining representative, they would
be deprived of their right to present their grievances
directly to management; or informing the employees
that it will not enter into a contract, or bargain in
good faith with the Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion, if chosen as majority representative of the employ-
ees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant and facilities in Saticoy, California,
copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix."7
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31, shall, after being duly signed
by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places, and be maintained for
a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other materi:il.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Trial
Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I will recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. It has also been found that Respondent interfered
with the election conducted on August 29, 1969. I will
therefore recommend that the election be set aside and
another be conducted at such time as may be appropriate.
" Graber Manufacturing Company, Inc , 158 NLRB 244, Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc , Tampa Division, 166 NLRB 227, Block-Southland Sport-
swear, Inc , 170 NLRB No 101
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order
herein shall , as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and
order, and'all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
' In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election con-
ducted among Respondent ' s employees on August 29,
1969, be set aside and a new election directed at an
appropriate time.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not specifically found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT ask you anything about a union,
or who is in the union , or who favors the union,
in a manner which would coerce you regarding
your rights under the Act.
WE WILL NOT ask you to spy on other employees
and report to us who joins the union, or who
works for it.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you or to replace
you with someone else, or to take away your coffee
and snack privileges, or other benefits, in order
to stop you from joining or helping a union, or
to keep you from voting for a union in a Board
election.
WE WILL NOT tell you, or lead you to believe,
that you will lose the right to take your problems
or present your grievances directly to the Company,
or that we will not sign a contract or bargain
with the union-if the union is selected by a majority
of the employees.
WE WILL NOT in any similar manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed employees in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members
of any union of their choice , except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a union as a condition of employment,
as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
Dated By
JACOB WIESEL
D/B/A SATICOY
MEAT PACKING CO.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, Federal Building , Room 12100, 11000 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024, Telephone
824-7351.