Service Foods

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Service Foods ; Select Packaging, Inc.; Joe Murez,
Inc.; Spice-O-Meal, Inc. and General Warehouse-
men Local 598, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 31-CA-5282
April 29, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On January 8, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief , and the Re-
spondent filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
MEMBER JENKINS , dissenting in part:
I disagree with my colleagues' finding that
Respondent's request for and receipt of employee
Higaki's affidavit to the Board did not constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
The facts surrounding this allegation are uncom-
1 The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In agreement with the Administrative Law Judge , we conclude that the
Respondent, by acquiring a copy of a statement given to a Board agent
under the circumstances of this case , did not violate Sec. 8 (a)(I) of the Act
since the supervisor involved "thought she was doing nothing more than
obtaining a copy of a statement given to Respondent's attorneys by an
employee" and she "was totally unaware that she actually had possession of
a Board agent's investigative statement until some substantial time had
passed."
plicated. Prior to the incident in question, Respon-
dent had filed objections to a Board-conducted elec-
tion at its plant in which the Union had received a
majority of the valid votes cast. In support of these
objections, Respondent, through its attorneys, inter-
viewed and took affidavits from numerous employ-
ees, including Higaki. Higaki also gave an affidavit
to the Board and, on May 22, 1975, she was waiting
to make a xerox copy of her Board affidavit on one
of the company machines when Victoria Bloch,
Respondent's secretary-treasurer, came over and
asked if she could assist Higaki. Bloch had been as-
signed the task of keeping a file of the affidavits giv-
en to Respondent's attorneys and, thinking that the
affidavit in Higaki's possession was one she had pre-
viously given to Respondent's attorneys, Bloch asked
for and received from Higaki a copy of the affidavit,
without realizing until sometime later that it was a
Board affidavit.
My colleagues seemingly recognize the well-estab-
lished principle that such a request has an inherently
coercive effect on employee rights,' but they excuse
the conduct here in question because Respondent did
not know it was requesting a Board affidavit and it
was only through a purely inadvertent error that Re-
spondent came into possession of the affidavit. But
Respondent's motive or intent has nothing to do with
the question of whether Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by infringing upon employee
rights. In such a circumstance, we are concerned
only with the effect such conduct is likely to have
had on the exercise of employee rights and it is plain
that the effect on employees is the same whether the
request for the affidavit was by design or by inadver-
tence.
Granted that there are times when an employer
may have a legitimate basis for demanding affidavits
given to the Board, the balance has been struck in
principle in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657
(1957). The right of an employer to such otherwise
confidential information from an employee does not
arise during the investigatory stages of the proceed-
ing. At most, the right arises only after some action
by the Board or its agents has been taken on the
specific basis of the affidavit, so that the affidavit
becomes relevant and necessary to resolution of the
issue ;4 and, indeed, the taking of such action in itself
may not be sufficient to warrant the employer's ob-
taining the affidavit, as in the case, for example, of
3 Winn -Dixie Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Louisville, Inc., 143 NLRB 848
(1963); Johnnie's Poultry Co. and John Bishop Poultry Co., Successor, 146
NLRB 770 (1964).
Midland Broadcasters, Inc., 176 NLRB 107, 113-114 (1969), on which
my colleagues rely, is distinguishable in that there the employer had
prompted the affidavit and perhaps knew its content , and a tentative deci-
sion had been rendered , from which the employer was preparing an appeal.
223 NLRB No. 176
SERVICE FOODS 1141
the issuance of a complaint. Thus, certainly this re-
quest was improper because it was made at a time
when the Region had not even contemplated its in-
vestigation of the objections. Accordingly, I would
find that by requesting and receiving a copy of an
affidavit employee Higaki had given to the Board,
Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
In all other respects, I agree with the determina-
tions made by my colleagues.
ued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located out-
side the State of California. On the basis of these admitted
facts, I find Respondent to be, and at all times material
herein to have been, an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is now , and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. RASBURY , Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on Sep-
tember 11, 1975.1 The charge in this matter was filed by the
General Warehousemen Local 598, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America (herein Union) dated May 12, 1975. The
complaint and notice of hearing issued on June 30 and
was served on Respondent on July 1. The Complaint alleg-
es that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent's answer,
filed on July 9, acknowledged the requisite jurisdictional
data required under the Act, but denied all other allega-
tions of the complaint.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally if they so desired, and to file
briefs. Helpful briefs were received from both the Respon-
dent and General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Each of the individually named companies, Service
Foods, Select Packaging, Inc., Joe Murez, Inc., and Spice-
O'Meal, Inc. (herein collectively referred to as Respon-
dent), are now, and at all times material herein have been,
corporations duly organized under and existing by virtue
of the laws of the State of California, with a common place
of business in Los Angeles, California, where they are en-
gaged in the packaging , packing, sale, and distribution of
supermarket food and nonfood specialty items. Each of the
named companies are now, and at all times material herein
have been, affiliated business enterprises having an interre-
lation of operations, centralized control of labor relations,
common management and common ownership and finan-
cial control, constituting a single employer for the purposes
of the Act. In the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, the Respondent annually sells and ships goods val-
1 All dates hereinafter will refer to the year 1975, unless otherwise indi-
cated.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues involved herein are: 1. Did the Respondent
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its agent and super-
visor, Victoria Bloch, requested and received from Sadie
Higaki, an employee, a copy of an affidavit she had given
to a National Labor Relations Board agent? 2. Was em-
ployee Imelda Rodriguez, interrogated by Respondent's
supervisors and agents concerning her union activities and
sentiments? 3. Were Rafael Gutierrez and Carlos Del Real
interrogated and threatened by Respondent's supervisors
and agents in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act? 2
B. Background
In late January the Union began its organizing efforts at
the Respondent's place of business. On February 12, the
Union filed an RC petition seeking to represent all produc-
tion and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving
employees, warehousemen, order fillers, machine opera-
tors, and delivery drivers employed by Respondent. Subse-
quently, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election pursuant to which an election
was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board,
Region 31, on April 25. The Union received a majority of
the votes cast. On May 2 the employer filed timely objec-
tions to the election alleging in part that the Union en-
gaged in threats and actual violence during the preelection
campaign.' The alleged wrongful conduct of Respondent
occurred during this postelection period when the Respon-
dent was seeking evidence to support its objections to the
election and the Board agent was, in turn, conducting its
own investigation regarding the objections to the election.
C. The Evidence
1. Relating to the Sadie Higaki affidavit
Victoria Bloch is the secretary-treasurer of Respondent
and an acknowledged agent and supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Her uncontradicted
testimony established that there were at least five different
2 The third issue was raised when the General Counsel was permitted to
amend the complaint at the start of the hearing.
7 At the time this case was heard, the parties informed the court that the
election matter was still pending before the Board.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attorneys and a management consultant involved in inter-
viewing Respondent's employees and, where deemed ad-
visable , taking statements and affidavits in an effort to sup-
port their objections to the election. These people were in
addition to any Board agents involved in investigating the
objections to the election. Victoria Bloch was assigned the
task of maintaining a company file reflecting a copy of all
of the affidavits that were taken by Respondent's attorneys
or agents . The number of statements collected by Bloch
were exhibited to the court and consisted of two stacks of
paper each approximately 4 inches thick; it was estimated
that there were at least 100 statements and affidavits con-
tained therein.
Sadie Higaki gave at least four statements or affidavits
to the company attorneys and/or the Board agents.
Respondent's Exhibit I is a statement given by Sadie Hi-
gaki dated May 23, 1975, consisting of two handwritten
pages . Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a one-page handwritten
affidavit signed by S. Higaki and dated May 22, 1975, tak-
en by Carlos Zaragoza, a Board agent. Respondent's Ex-
hibit 3 is a single page typewritten statement dated May 22,
and signed by S. Higaki . General Counsel's Exhibit 2 is a
two-page handwritten affidavit taken by Carlos Zaragoza
dated May 14 and signed by Sadie Higaki . It is the affida-
vit dated May 22 and taken by Board Agent Carlos Zara-
goza (Resp. Exh. 2) that was allegedly acquired by Respon-
dent in a manner violative of the Act.4
Victoria Bloch testified that the only affidavit given to a
Board agent by a rank-and-file employee that she obtained
was the one (Resp . Exh. 2) given to her by Sadie Higaki 5
4 The General Counsel contends in his brief that Higaki's testimony sup-
ports the position that she (Higaki) gave Bloch copies of both the May 22
and the May 14 affidavits taken by Zaragoza . While there is an arguable
basis for the contention , I am convinced that Higaki-who obviously had a
language problem-was confused by the questions and did not intend to
indicate that she gave copies of two different affidavits to Bloch . The testi-
mony tending to create the confusion is as follows:
Q. (By Mr. Sandron) Mrs. Higaki, did you ask Mr. Zaragoza for a
copy of your statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when you asked him for a copy?
A. After we finished.
Q. Did you ask him for a copy of each statement after you gave him
one?
A. Two statements but separate dates.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Zaragoza for a copy of your statement on May
22nd. 1975?
A. That's the second statement?
Q. Right.
A. Yes.
Q. What happened after you requested these affidavits for copying?
A. I went to the copy machine and made the copies.
Q. What happened when you were at the copying machine?
A. Mrs. Bloch asked me for a copy. So I gave her one.
Q. Was anything else said?
A. No.
Q. Did she say anything to you about her purpose in wanting a
copy?
A. No.
Moreover, even if Higaki did give Bloch copies of two different affidavits,
under all the circumstances of this particular case , my legal conclusion
would not be different.
S The record is slightly confusing in this regard , because Bloch did obtain
copies of affidavits given by supervisory "employees" to Board agents. I am
confident, however, that the only issue here is the single affidavit obtained
from Higaki.
As to the manner and circumstances surrounding the ob-
taining of the affidavit, the following testimony is reveal-
ing:
Q. You indicated earlier that you were given an af-
fidavit by Sadie Higaki. Can you tell us where she
gave you the affidavit?
A. At the xerox machine.
Q. Did you have a conversation with her at that
time?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us what was said?
A. Yes. I saw Sadie at the machine, at the Xerox
machine, waiting to make copies. I walked over. I
asked her whether I could help her. There were many
copies that I was making-people were making. I
asked her whether I could help her and she said,
"Yes." I made a copy for her and it looked as if it was
a copy of what I have been making for the attorneys.
They had been talking to the employees that day. So I
just took a copy.
Q. Can you recall anything else being said between
the two of you?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask her if you could take a copy or did
you just take it?
A. I asked-Yes, I asked her whether I could have
a copy. It looked like a copy that the attorney was-
had-like one of our attorney's copies.
Q. Was anything else said that you can recall?
A. Not to my recollection, no.
Q. (By Mr. Young) ... At the time that you asked
for a copy of the document that Sadie Higaki was
copying, did you recognize that as a National Labor
Relations statement?
A. I did not.
Q. You subsequently discovered that you had in
your files a copy of the National Labor Relations
statement given by Sadie Higaki?
A. I did.
Q. When did you first discover that you had such a
statement in your files?
A. It was quite some time after that date.
Sadie Higaki testified that she was asked by someone
with the company to talk to the Board agent and give him
information. Higaki also testified that Bloch did not do
anything or say anything that would indicate that she
(Bloch) knew that the affidavit(s) involved had been taken
by a Board agent.
2. The evidence regarding the questioning of Rodriguez,
Gutierrez, and Del Real
Respondent is alleged to have illegally questioned Imel-
da Rodriguez about I week after the election in an office at
the company.
Rodriguez had worked for Respondent approximately 5
SERVICE FOODS
months and was an assistant floorlady when she was laid
off on May 8. She voted in the election held on April 25.
She testified that some time just before the election, at her
request, she spoke to Mr. Graham concerning pay raises
that some of the employees had received at a time when
she was in the hospital. She wanted a raise also .6 Rodriguez
further testified that about a week after the election she
was again questioned by Mr. Bob Graham and an un-
known unidentified "Bob."' During this conversation she
testified she was asked why she had been called to the
office, and the reply was, "They hear my name mentioned
in a bad form in the office several times ." She also testified
she was asked, "If it was true that I threatened the employ-
ees not to vote for the Union by bringing the immigration
department-they did." She further testified she was asked
if the Union had offered to pay her initiation fees or other
payments if she would help them with the other employees.
Moreover, she stated that Mr. Graham gave her assurances
that there would be no reprisals taken against her because
of anything she might say during the interview.8
Graham had a vague recollection of talking to Imelda
Rodriguez some time before the election following three
requests which she had made through her supervisor to
speak to him. At that time Rodriguez asked Graham
"What was the company's position with the Union." To
which Graham replied that, "The company didn't want a
Union, that our competitors didn't have a union, etc." Gra-
ham could not confirm any conversation about a pay
raise-as testified to by Rodriguez-but added that it
could have occurred. Graham specifically denied any con-
versations with Rodriguez after the election. He testified
that on May 2 it would have been absolutely impossible to
have had a conversation with Rodriguez because he was
involved in taking inventory. Graham specifically denied
that he had asked Rodriguez to "talk to your coworkers
about not-needing a union."
The alleged questioning of Gutierrez and Del Real oc-
curred when they were together. Gutierrez testified that he
had worked for Respondent from May 29, 1974, until May
15, 1975. Del Real was employed from August 20, 1974,
until May 8, 1975. Gutierrez and Del Real testified they
did all types of miscellaneous jobs as directed. Both voted
in the April 25 election.
Neither Gutierrez or Del Real was able to identify the
company representative who spoke to them through an in-
terpreter, nor were they able to even come close to a de-
scription of the person.9 When asked what was said in the
conversation, Gutierrez replied: "Through the interpreter
he tried us to understand if we had voted in favor of the
Union or in favor of the Company." Later he said he was
6 When asked if the Union was mentioned during this conversation Ro-
driguez responded, "Yes." In answer to the question, "What was said?" her
response was unintelligible.
Rodriguez was unable to identify the interpreter that was present, or
give a description of either "Bob" or the interpreter.
8 There was other testimony from this witness , but in order to be intelligi-
ble it requires interpolations which I feel the court cannot justifiably make.
9 Rachel Juarez , one of the interpreters and translators used by Respon-
dent, testified that she interpreted for David Netka, operations manager for
Respondent , on a date during May when only Netka , Gutierrez, Del Real,
and she were present . Netka also acknowledged having talked to the two
employees using Juarez as an interpreter.
1143
asked how he voted and that was all he remembered. Del
Real's response to the same question was even less intelligi-
ble:10 "That the man was something in the office through
the interpreter of everything they say, give or done-we
didn't understand anything. That was one of the reasons
why the Union got in but there was still time to move to
one side the Union." That was all Del Real could remem-
ber. Even when asked a leading question, "Were you asked
how you had voted in the election?", Del Real responded:
"I don't remember too well."
As to the second conversation which allegedly occurred
that day between Rachel Juarez, Gutierrez, and Del Real,
Del Real testified that Juarez told them not to be afraid of
the rumors that were floating around and she asked if we
knew who had started the rumors. Del Real testified that
she (Juarez) said they (Respondent) had a private detective
investigating to see who brought in the Union. Under
cross-examination Del Real testified that the interpreter
told them the private detective was hired to find out who
started those rumors (concerning immigration). According
to Gutierrez, Juarez told them not to be afraid regardless of
how they had voted in the election but to, "Tell us the
truth, because we are going to put this into a machine that
will tell us the truth or if it is a lie, on this point and about
the rumors about the Immigration Department being in-
volved." When asked if the interpreter had mentioned any-
thing about who had brought in the Union, Gutierrez re-
sponded, "I don't remember." When asked if there was any
mention of a detective he responded: "That in the office
was a detective which was going to run an investigation on
each one of us."
Rachel Juarez testified that she had been asked by a
management representative of the Respondent to talk to
the employees to ascertain their feelings toward general
working conditions and what specific gripes or complaints
they might have because management was having a diffi-
cult time communicating with the employees and they (the
employees) seemed to be willing to talk to her. She specifi-
cally denied that she asked them any questions regarding
how they had voted in the election or that she had said
anything to them about the rumors concerning immigra-
tion or naturalization. She also denied that she had indi-
cated anything to either Gutierrez or Del Real concerning
a lie detector or a truth machine and she stated that no one
with the Respondent had instructed her in any way to in-
terrogate people concerning their union activities. With re-
gard to the conversation in which she served as an inter-
preter for David Netka, she testified that her best
recollection was that Mr. Netka had talked to the employ-
ees regarding possible future layoffs and that he had a sim-
ilar conversation with other groups of employees during
the course of the day in which she had served as an inter-
preter.
David Netka testified that following the election he had
been asked by a number of the employees what was going
to occur. Rather than answer all of them individually he
recognized it as a group problem and discussed it with all
the employees in groups. During these discussions Rachel
10 Del Real thought there was a fifth person present whom he could not
identify or describe.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Juarez served as the interpreter and on one occasion there
was a discussion with Del Real, Gutierrez, and himself. He
testified that the meeting with Del Real and Gutierrez was
a small one because these two employees worked alone in a
section of the plant segregated from the other employees.
During the meeting the employees were told that Respon-
dent "had been trying to stabilize employment, but as ev-
eryone was aware that had worked there, there's a slow
time of the year and there would be some layoffs coming
up, but we would try-we were trying to increase our sales
through greater sales efforts and we had hoped whatever
layoffs did occur would be of short duration and we could
recall those that were affected as soon as we could." Netka
denied that he had any conversation with Gutierrez and
Del Real regarding the Union. Netka further testified that
Rachel Juarez had never been instructed to question the
employees regarding their union activities or interests.
Analysis
Accepting Rodriguez' testimony in a posture most fa-
vorable to the General Counsel, I am unable to find
Respondent's conduct to be proscribed by the Act. Rodri-
guez testified she was given assurances that there would be
no reprisals taken against her. Moreover, at best her testi-
mony only tends to indicate that the Respondent was en-
gaged in seeking evidence which would support its objec-
tions to the election and that its conduct was not illegal.
Moreover, Rodriguez was sufficiently confused, vague, and
indefinite to cause me to be of the opinion she was never
talked to by Mr. Graham following the election, but rather
was one of several employees interviewed by Respondent's
counsel and Bob Seigmund as testified to by Mr. Young.
The record testimony concerning this allegation of the
complaint is totally insufficient to find a violation of Sec-
tion 8(axl) of the Act, and I shall recommend that it be
dismissed.
The testimony of Gutierrez and Del Real concerning
conversations in which both were present are not only un-
intelligible and incoherent, but also inconsistent as be-
tween the two individuals. Giving full recognition to the
language difficulties, I am fully convinced that Gutierrez
and Del Real were mixed-up and confused as to what they
were being told. Based on my observations of the demean-
or of the witnesses as they testified, I am compelled to
credit the denial of any wrongful questioning or interroga-
tion as testified to by both Juarez and Netka. From my
observations of Juarez, I do not believe she would perjure
herself to protect a part-time employer to the detriment of
her fellow countrymen. The General Counsel has failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gutierrez
and Del Real were wrongfully interrogated or threatened
by either Netka or Juarez. ' I shall recommend dismissal of
the amendment to the complaint permitted at the hearing
in which Netka and Juarez were alleged to have wrongfully
interrogated employees on May 8, 1975.12
11 There was no testimony to prove that Juarez was a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act and insufficient evidence to prove that she was an
agent of Respondent for any purpose other than to serve as an interpreter.
12 It is perhaps unfortunate that General Counsel was so dependent upon
The allegation relating to the acquisition by Respondent
of an affidavit given by an employee to a Board agent
presents a more difficult problem for disposition.
The Board has, in a number of cases, generally estab-
lished the principle that an employer violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when he interrogates an employee about
a statement given to a Board agent and/or seeks a copy of
any statement given to a Board agent.13 The courts, howev-
er, have not always upheld the Board's position.14 The
Board has gone so far as to say that it is unnecessary to
consider whether the methods used by an employer to elicit
information from employees about their statements given
to Board agents were actually coercive since any such
questioning is inherently coercive.15 The Board has left the
door open, however, for possible exceptions based on the
particular circumstances of the case. For example, in Mid-
land Broadcasters, Inc., 176 NLRB 107 (1969), the Admin-
istrative Law Judge found no violation in the employer's
request to certain employees for copies of their statements
given to Board agents. The Board did not disturb this find-
ing. In the Midland case the employees had given their
statements to the Board at the request of the employer who
was attempting to press unfair labor practice charges
against the Union. When the Regional Director dismissed
the charges the employer asked the employees for copies of
their statements to use in appealing the dismissal. The Ad-
ministrative Law Judge found no coercion and no violation
of the employees' 8(a)(1) rights.16 While the facts of the
Midland case are distinguishable from the instant case,
nevertheless the Midland case would seem to remove a bare
request, or mere possession of an employee's statement, as
a per se violation of the Act.
I credit Bloch's testimony that she thought she was doing
nothing more than obtaining a copy of a statement given to
Respondent's attorneys by an employee and that she was
totally unaware that she actually had possession of a Board
agent's investigative statement until some substantial time
had passed. Under the circumstances of this case I find it
impossible to attribute coercion to Respondent's conduct. I
find this inadvertent acquisition of a Board agent affidavit,
under the circumstances of this case, to have been uninten-
tional and without motive, desire, or actual violation of the
Act. I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint in its
entirety.
Spanish-speaking witnesses for so much of his case and that "they" were so
totally inadequate . Their testimony was simply not intelligible in too many
instances . I feel it inappropriate to indulge in speculation as to what "they"
may have been trying to say. The interpreter was a highly qualified , capable
individual in whom I have the utmost confidence . I have tried to be consid-
erate under the circumstances , but refuse to engage in fanciful speculations.
13 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., etc., 143 NLRB 848 (1963); W. T. Grant Com-
pany, 144 NLRB 1179 (1963); Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 156 NLRB
671 (1966); Waggoner Corporation, 162 NLRB 1161 (1967); Dan Carter
Company, 168 NLRB 314 (1967): John Oster Manufacturing Co., 173 NLRB
503 (1968).
14 I.e., W. T. Grant Company v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 447 (C.A. 7, 1964);
Robertshaw Controls Company, Lux Time Division, 483 F.2d 762, (C.A. 4,
1973).
15 Kay Corporation d/b/a Holiday Inn of Chicago-South, Harvey, 209
NLRB 11 (1974).
16 The Board has made it clear that there is no general exception merely
because the statement or affidavit requested is to be used in pretrial prepa-
ration. Bayliner Marine Corporation, 215 NLRB No. 11 (1974).
SERVICE FOODS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The General Warehousemen Local 598, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America is a labor organization under the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The General Counsel has failed to prove by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that the allegations set forth in the
complaint are meritorious and worthy of being sustained.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Sec-
1145
tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER'?
The complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety for lack
of merit.
'7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
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.