Shapiro Packing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 777 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY. INC. 777
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions of fact, and pursuant to the Board's
remand order , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Since the foregoing findings and conclusions of fact further support the conclusions
of law already reached by me, they are reaffirmed and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , I reaffirm
my original recommendations and hereby order them incorporated by reference in
full, including the text of the notices to be posted appearing as appendixes thereto,
and excepting only the following paragraph , which is to be substituted for the final
paragraph in the Intermediate Report.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing , within 20 days from the
date of the service of this Trial Examiner 's Supplemental Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith."
Shapiro Packing Company, Inc. and Meat Cutters, Packing House
and Allied Food Workers, District Union 433. Case No. 10-CFI.-
5915. November 15, 1965
1)1'1'(_`1S10N _k-NI) O1iI)ER
On July 9, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision. He also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allega-
tions be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and Respond-
ent filed a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, its amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of die Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner=
1 Respondent 's motion to dismiss the Charging Party's exceptions , taken to the recom-
mended dismissal of the 8 ( a) (5) allegation , is hereby denied.
In concluding that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees at the
time it requested recognition , the Trial Examiner ruled that the union authorization card
of employee Lonnie Buzzie was not valid for purposes of determining the Union' s majority
status because Buzzie testified that he had signed his card on the basis of a statement by
the union solicitor that a majority of or practically everybody had signed such a card,
a statement which was incorrect. As we do not regard Buzzie's card to be determinative
of majority status, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the exclusion was proper.
155 NLRB No. 75.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that
the Respondent, Shapiro Packing Company, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below :
1. Add the following new paragraph to Appendix 5, as the second
indented paragraph thereof :
SVE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to whether they signed
union authorization cards or as to their union activities or sympa-
thies, nor will we ridicule them for signing cards and for their
union support, nor will we ask them to report on the union activi-
ties of other employees or solicit employees withdrawals from
the above-named or any other labor organization, in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed on November 18 and 22, 1964, by Meat
Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers, District Union 433, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 10 (Atlanta, Georgia), issued his complaint, dated
January 15, 1965, against Shapiro Packing Company, Inc , herein called the Respond-
ent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance,
that (1) At all times material herein, the Union was designated as collective-
bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in a specified appropriate
unit; (2) on and after September 24, 1964, Respondent, upon the Union's request,
refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in said appropriate unit; (3) Respondent discriminated
with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of two named employees, (4)
Respondent, through named supervisors, engaged in specified conduct constituting
inteifererce, restraint, and coercion; and (5) by the foregoing conduct, Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1), (3), and
(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denies (1) the appropriateness
of the alleged unit, (2) that the Union was validly designated by a majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit, and (3) all unfair labor practice allegations
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Augusta, Georgia, on March 15 to 19. 1965, inclusive All parties were represented
at the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs. On May 3, 1965.
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which I have fully considered.
For the reasons hereinafter indicated, I find that Respondent has violated Section
8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act but has not violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act
Upon the entire record 1 in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent Shapiro Packing Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation, is engaged in
the processing, sale, and distribution of meat products at its plant in Augusta, Georgia.
1 On May 3, 1965, Respondent also filed a motion to correct the typewritten transcript
of testimony in designated specific respects. In the absence of any objections, said motion
is hereby granted. The document is hereby made part of the record in this proceeding and
has been placed in the official exhibit folder as Respondent's Exhibit No. 35
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC. 779
During the 12-month period preceding the date of the instant complaint. a representa-
tive period, Respondent sold and shipped products, valued in excess of $50,000, from
its plant in Augusta, Georgia, directly to customers located outside the State of
Georgia.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits, that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. TIIE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record shows, and I find, that Meat
Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers, District Union 433, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
In the fall of 1954, the Union, which is the Charging Party in the instant case,
attempted to organize Respondent's employees. In an election conducted by the
Board on November 19, 1954, only 6 of the 61 eligible voters cast their ballots for
the Union. Two years later, the Union again attempted to organize Respondent's
employees. In another election conducted by the Board on September 21, 1956, only
4 of the 64 eligible voters cast their ballots for the Union.
No further attempts at self-organization were made by Respondent's employees
until August 1964. During the months of August, September, and October, employee
solicitors for the Union actively solicited employee signatures to authorization cards
designating the Union as the employee's collective-bargaining representative. Guy
Moffitt, who had signed a union authorization card on August 12 and was one of the
employee solicitors, was removed from Respondent's employ during the period from
September 18 to October 12, 1964. George Albright, who had signed a union
authorization card on September 4, was terminated by Respondent on September 13,
1964. The Union requested recognition and collective bargaining by letters dated
September 21 and October 6, 1964. The Respondent refused both requests on the
stated grounds that it did not believe the Union represented an uncoerced majority
and that the requested unit was inappropriate.
The principal issues litigated in this proceeding are (1) the appropriate unit and
whether the Union represented an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees
therein; (2) the supervisory status of certain employees, (3) whether Respondents
refusals were based on a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority representation
and unit claims; (4) whether the terminations of Moffitt and Albright were discrimi-
natorily motivated in violation of the Act; and (5) whether supervisors or agents
of Respondent engaged in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion violative of
the Act.
B. The refusal to bargain
1. The requests and the refusals 2
By letter dated September 21, 1964, and signed by its secretary-treasurer, the
Union advised Respondent that a majority of its employees had designated the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative, and requested recognition as such repre-
sentative and bargaining "concerning the wages, hours and conditions off employ-
ment in an appropriate unit consisting of your production and maintenance
employees, including truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, firemen, shipping department
employees, and head packer, who were employed during the payroll period ending
September 18, 1964, but excluding manager, superintendent, foremen, livestock
handlers, salesmen, sales promotion men, office and clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees, shochet, and all supervisors as defined in the Act." The letter
further stated that to avoid any question that Respondent might have a good-faith
doubt as to the Union's majority representation claim, there was included a list off 48
names of the employees who had designated the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive, together with 48 photostatic copies of "their signed authorization card showing
both the signature and the date the authorization was received at our office " The
letter further advised Respondent that the Union had no objection to submitting the
original cards to Respondent "in the presence of an impartial third party ... for the
purpose of checking the authenticity and validity of our authorization cards against
company personnel and payroll records," and concluded with a request that Respond-
ent meet with the Union "to commence such collective bargaining no later than
2 The findings in this section are based on undisputed documentary evidence
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two (2) weeks following the submission of proof of our majority status." In a reply
letter dated September 24, 1964, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Union's
letter, advised that "We do not believe that you represent even a substantial number,
much less a majority of our employees in any appropriate unit"; stated that "we have
been advised by a number of our employees that they were intimidated, threatened
and misled into signing some kind of an authorization," and that "We also know
that other employees whose names appear in your letter are unable to read and still
others are unable to sign their names"; and "specifically" contested the appropriateness
of the unit claimed by the Union The letter concluded with the statement that
Respondent was therefore "unwilling to recognize and deal" with the Union "unless
and until the appropriate unit has been established by the National Labor Relations
Board and an election conducted in that unit "
By letter dated October 6, 1964, and signed by its secretary-treasurer, the Union
acknowledged receipt of Respondent's letter, again offered "to submit to any neutral
mutually agreed third party, the signed authorization cards of your employees for
the purpose of checking their authenticity and proving our majority status"; and
requested Respondent to contact the signer within 5 days after receipt of this letter
in order to set a date, time, and place for the card-check procedure and to commence
collective bargaining "for the purpose of consummating an agreement " In a reply
letter dated October 12, 1964, Respondent informed the Union that its "request for a
card-check and for negotiations is improper for the reasons stated in our letter of
September 24, 1964." The letter further stated that Respondent's past experience
with similar demands made by the Union "has been that when our employees have
had an opportunity to cast their ballots freely in secret NLRB-conducted elections,
they have rejected your Union almost unanimously." Respondent stated that "we
believe they will do so again " The letter concluded with a statement of Respondent's
willingness "to have the matter of your claimed majority determined in a fair, secret-
ballot election conducted by the NLRB in an appropriate unit "
2. The contentions of the parties
The Respondent contends in its brief that the Union did not in fact represent an
uncoerced majority of its employees in any appropriate unit. In support of this con-
tention Respondent attacks the General Counsel's position concerning the exclusions
of certain employees from the alleged appropriate unit and the validity of some of
the authorization cards as not constituting freely expressed designations for the pur-
pose of determining the Union's majority status. Respondent further contends that
even if the Union's majority status were to be properly established, it nevertheless
had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority claim on both occasions when it
refused to recognize it. In support of this contention Respondent relies on (1) the
past history involving this same Union which on two prior occasions had claimed to
represent a majority of Respondent's employees but failed to receive more than 10
percent of the ballots cast in each of the two prior Board elections, (2) the fact
that after subtracting the obvious exclusions from the payroll ending September 18,
1964, the payioll period specifically claimed by the Union, the total which remained
was still more than twice the number of the cards submitted by the Union; (3) the
testimony of President Ike Shapiro that (a) he did not recognize some of the names
appearing in the Union's letter as being those of any employees of Respondent, (b)
some of the signatures appearing on the cards were those of employees who he knew
could not sign their name, (c) some of the employees whom he asked if they
signed such a card replied in the negative, and (d) other employees had volunteered
that they had signed a card because they were told that unless they signed they would
lose their job if the Union came in: and (4) the fact that in its second letter of
October 6 the Union gave no indication that it had obtained any new cards since its
first submission so that Respondent could reasonably believe that the Union was still
relying on the same 48 cards previously submitted. Respondent also contends that
the unit specified in the Union's demand is inappropriate and that therefore there was
no valid request for recognition and bargaining Any one of the foregoing grounds,
if sustained, constitutes a valid defense to the refusal-to-bargain allegation.
The General Counsel contends in his brief that: (1) The unit requested and
alleged in the complaint is appropriate; (2) a sufflicent number of valid authorization
cards are in evidence to prove the Union's majority status under "any view as to
which employees should be included or excluded from the unit"; (3) in the light of
Respondent's unfair labor practices herein found, "Respondent's expression of either
a good faith doubt of the Union's majority status or the impropriety of the reauested
unit cannot be considered to have been motivated by any bona fide doubt, but rather
by a desire to undermine the Union"; and (4) tinder these circumstances, Respond-
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC. 781
ent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union upon the latter's request on
September 21 and October 6, 1964, was a refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
3. Analysis and concluding findings
a. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges the following as constituting a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act-
All production and maintenance employees of Respondent at its Augusta, Georgia,
plant, including truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, firemen, shipping department
employees, and head packer, but excluding manager, superintendents, foremen, live-
stock handlers, salesmen, sales promotion men, office and clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, shochet, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
At the hearing the parties agreed that the livestock handler should be included in
the unit and that cattle buyers should be excluded from the unit. The parties further
agreed that regular part-time employees, who generally work in the hide house, should
be included in the unit. As the General Counsel does not dispute the Respondent's
contention that it has no firemen or head packer in its employ, these categories will be
eliminated . The Respondent does not dispute the other listed exclusions except
for the shochet.
The shochet. The General Counsel would exclude him from, while the Respondent
would include him in, the unit. The shochet performs the kosher killing of animals
approximately 4 hours 1 day a week. He performs a technical and religious function.
The slaughter of kosher cattle constitutes about one-tenth of 1 percent of Respond-
ent's total slaughtering operations. The shochet was excluded from the unit by the
Board in its Decision and Direction of Election, dated September 7, 1956. Upon con-
sideration of the foregoing undisputed facts, I find that the shochet should be excluded
from the unit because his interests are different from those of other employees in
the unit.
The parties are also in disagreement concerning the unit placement of relatives of
Respondent's two major stockholders and officers, President Ike Shapiro and his
brother, Harry Shapiro. The General Counsel contends that they should be excluded
because they enjoyed a special status which allied their interest with those of manage-
ment 3 The Respondent contends that the relatives are ordinary rank-and-file employ-
ees who should be included.
The relatives. The payroll for the period ending September 18, 1964, General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 10, lists the following relatives of President Ike Shapiro and
his brother, Harry Shapiro, both officers and the principal stockholders of Respondent.
Under the category of "salesmen-shipping" are listed (1) Herbert Shapiro, the son
of President Ike Shapiro and the nephew of his brother, Harry Shapiro; (2) Norman
Shapiro, the son of Harry Shapiro and the nephew of Ike Shapiro, and (3) Julius
Berman, the son-in-law of Ike Shapiro. All three work in the shipping department,
with Julius Berman also working as a part-time outside salesman Under the category
of "bookkeepers" is listed Sam Shapiro, the son of Harry Shapiro and nephew of Ike
Shapiro. He works in the office but helps out in the shipping department during a
substantial period of his worktime Under the category of "kill floor" is listed
Daniel Longsam, the son-in-law of Ike Shapiro. His principal duties are in the hide
department.
Unlike the other employees, these relatives are not required to punch a timeclock
and are paid a weekly salary, with Herbert Shapiro receiving $175 a week While
the other employees receive a Christmas bonus of a quart of whiskey or two or three
cartons of cigarettes and a piece of meat, all the relatives receive substantial cash
bonuses ranging from several hundred dollars to $750 in the case of Herbert Shapiro 4
Sam Shapiro graduated from Georgia University in October 1964, and Herbert
Shapiro had taken a course of study at Duke University
Upon consideration of the above undisputed facts, I find that the above-named
relatives, because of their relationship to the two principal stockholders and officers of
Respondent, enjoyed a special status which allied their interests with those of manage-
ment. Although those who were employed at the time of the prior elections voted
'The General Counsel also contends that they possess supervisory status and should
be excluded on that additional ground In view of my findings herein I deem it unneces-
sary to determine their supervisory status.
a Although Ike Shapiro testified that he was not certain whether Sam Shapiro was still
working for Respondent at Christmastime, it is a reasonable inference, and I find, that he
was eligible for a bonus similar to that received by the other relatives
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without challenge, there is no showing that they enjoyed the same special status at
that time. I therefore find that they should be excluded from the appropriate unit.5
I find that the unit alleged in the complaint, as qualified by the above-stated inclu-
sion and exclusions, constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 6
b. Supervisory status
The parties are in dispute as to the supervisory status of Paul Garmon, Thomas
Delgato, Edward R. Elsey, Arnold Bowen, and Curtis Wilson. The General Counsel
contends, and the Respondent denies, that they are all supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act and should therefore be excluded from the unit.
Paul Garmon is listed on Respondent's payroll under the category of "engineers "
He is the refrigeration mechanic and maintenance man, and normally woi ks by
himself from 8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m On occasion, he is assigned a man to help him on
a specific job. He is hourly paid, punches a timecard, is paid for overtime, and voted
in the 1956 election without challenge. The record does not warrant a finding that
he possesses any authority which would render him a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Thomas Delgato is also listed on Respondent's payroll under the category of
"engineers." He is the outside maintenance man and, when the hides are taken up,
works with the part-time employees in the hide house. The part-time employees are
supervised by the hide receiver, who is a representative of the Company which has
purchased the hides. Delgato punches a timeclock and voted in the last election with-
out challenge. There is no evidence that he possesses any authority which would
render him a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Edward R. Elsey works on the kill floor, punches a timeclock, works the same hours
as the other employees, and is paid on a scaling basis. His take-home pay is not as
much as some of the butchers. There is no evidence that he possesses any authority
which would render him a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
Arnold Bowen works in and around the shipping department. He works with the
truckdrivers and the boxmen who move the slaughtered cattle from the chiliroom
into the holding cooler. Bowen helps the men pick out the meat. he also trims the
cattle for the Army bids, splits calves with an electric saw, and occasionally fills out
an invoice. Any instructions which he may issue appear to be of a routine nature.
He does not punch a timeclock, is paid on a salary basis, and earns about 30 percent
more than the other employees in the cooler. However, he has been employed by
Respondent for over 30 years, which is from 30 to 100 percent longer than the other
employees. He voted without challenge in the last election.
The General Counsel contends that, except for the two outside salesmen (Gibson
and Schilds), the remaining five employees, including Bowen, listed under the category
"salesmen-shipping" are all supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Respond-
ent contends that the only supervisor listed under that category is Sol Lafferman who
is also a part-time outside salesman. Respondent further contends that the only other
supervisors it has for the entire plant are Ike and Harry Shapiro, and that Harry
Shapiro also spends some time in the shipping department. While not entirely free
from doubt, I am not convinced that the record warrants a finding that Bowen
possesses any authority which would render him a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act.8
Curtis Wilson works in the sausage kitchen with about 10 other employees. The
sausage kitchen is a separate room completely enclosed by itself. Willie James
Williams, an employee in the sausage kitchen, credibly testified that Wilson would tell
him what to do. Wilson punches a timeclock and is paid $2 per hour, which admit-
tedly is more than the other employees receive. His take-home pay was about $110
per week. If any employee in the sausage kitchen does not perform his work prop-
5 See, e g., Sullivan Surplus Sales, Inc., 152 NLRB 132
"I find that there was not such a substantial variance between the appropriate unit
for which the Union made its bargaining requests and the one herein found as would
excuse the Respondent from bargaining collectively with the Union, T L Lay Packing
Company, 152 NLRB 342, Trial Examiner's Decision, footnote 4; The Lone Star Company,
149 NLRB 68'8.
7 Unless otherwise indicated, the factual findings in this section are based on testimony
which is admitted or undisputed.
8I find it unnecessary to pass upon the General Counsel's contention that Herbert and
Norman Shapiro and Julius Berman, the other three employees in the shipping depart-
ment, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, as I have already excluded them
from the unit in view of the special status they enjoyed because of their relationship to
Ike and Harry Shapiro.
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC. 783
erly, Wilson will report him to Ike Shapiro. He admitted that before Rufus Round-
tree was hired in 1962, he recommended to Ike Shapiro that Roundtree was experi-
enced and would be good for the smokehouse.
Respondent contends that it has only the following three supervisors: Sol Laffer-
man is in the shipping department when he is not out of town selling, Harry Shapiro
spends some time in the shipping department and also in the main office: and Ike
Shapiro is in charge of the rest of the plant which employs about 110 production
and maintenance employees and covers 1 square acre. Upon consideration of all the
foregoing and in view of the enclosed location of the sausage kitchen and the fact
that acceptance of Respondent's position would establish an extraordinarily low ratio
of supervisors to employees, I am convinced and find that at the very least Curtis
responsibly directed the other employees and did possess the authority which con-
stituted him a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act I will
accordingly exclude him from the unit.9
c. Part-time employees
Respondent has a group of part-time employees who work in the hide house. The
parties are in agreement that those who are regular part-time employees should be
included in the unit and that the nonregulars should be excluded as casuals. The
parties stipulated that Roosevelt Berrian and Lumbert Lovett, the last two employees
listed under the category "hide house" on Respondent's payroll for the week ending
September 18, 1964, were full-time employees who should be included in the unit
They also stipulated that Respondent's Exhibit No. 33 contains the names of those
employees who worked for Respondent more than 15 days during the calendar quaiter
immediately preceding September 19, 1964, which would be during the period from
June 21 to September 19; and that Respondent's Exhibit No. 34 contains the names
of those employees who worked for Respondent more than 15 days during the
second calendar quarter preceding September 19, 1964, which would be during the
period from March 21 to June 20.
Respondent contended at the hearing, and urges in its brief, that the employees
listed on Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 33 and 34 must be included in the unit on the
basis of prior Board precedents. In his brief, the General Counsel agrees with the
Respondent in this respect, relying on the cases cited in the margin.'() Eliminating
the duplications, I find that the 18 employees appearing on these 2 exhibits were
regular part-time employees who are to be included in the unit for the payroll period
ending September 19, 1964. I further agree with the General Counsel that, other
than Roosevelt Berrian and Lumbert Lovett, the remaining 20 employees listed
under the category "hide house" on Respondent's payroll for the week ending Septem-
ber 19, 1964, do not appear on Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 33 or 34 and therefore
are casual employees who are to be excluded from the unit. This leaves a total of
20 employees who are included in the unit as hide house employees for that payroll
period.
d. Additional agreed exclusions
The parties further agreed to the following exclusions with respect to Respondent's
payroll for the period ending September 19, 1964: Ike Shapiro, Harry Shapiro, and
Maurice Steinberg, as officer of Respondent; Sol Lafferman, as a supervisor; watch-
men George Albright and Harry Lee Williams as guards; bookkeepers Betty Canady
and Nora Coxwell as office clericals; and Kurt Schilds and J. M. Gibson as full-time
outside salesmen.
e. Validity of card authorizations
The General Counsel introduced into evidence 60 union authorization cards. One
was signed by George Albright, admitted by the General Counsel to be a guard
excluded from the unit. Included in the group are also two cards for employee
Willie James Williams and two cards for employee Rufus Roundtree.1' Deducting
0 This finding is not precluded by the fact that he voted in the prior election without
challenge, as it does not appear that his status was litigated at any time
10 Tol-Pac, Inc, 128 NLRB 1439, 1440; and Motor Transport Labor Relations, Inc., 139
NLRB 70, 71-72.
n The first card signed by Willie James Williams is dated August 21, 1964 (General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 9(26) ). He testified that he requested this card back from the Union
The second card which he signed is dated September 29, 1964 (General Counsel's Exhibit
No. 9(27)). The first card which Rufus Roundtree signed is dated August 21, 1964 (Gen-
eral Counsel's Exhibit No. 9(36)). He testified that he requested it back from the Union
when his wife told him it might cost him his job The second card which he signed is dated
September 29, 1964 (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9(29) ).
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the card for Albright and the first cards signed by Williams and Roundtree, there
remain for consideration 57 cards. The Respondent attacks the validity of many of
these cards on the ground that they were obtained by misrepresentations , threats, and
other improper means. The General Counsel contends that all the cards constitute
valid designations.
I agree with the Respondent , for the following reasons, that the cards for Willie
James Williams, Lonzie Buzzie, Willie Morris, Roosevelt Scott, and Henry Lowe, Jr.,
do not constitute valid designations and should not be counted in determining the
Union's majority status.
1. Willie James Williams (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9(27) ). Williams
testified that he signed two union cards, one at the request of employee Morris Perry,
and the other at the request of employee Ben Major. He had asked the Union for the
return of the first card before signing the second one . He tesified that Morris Perry
told him that if he did not sign the card before the Union got in, he would lose his
seniority when the Union got in. He also testified that Ben Major told him that if he
did not sign , he would probably lose his seniority when the Union got in.
Ben Major did not deny having made this statement to Williams . Morris Perry
at first testified that he did not remember mentioning anything about seniority, and
then denied making the statement attributed to him by Williams.
Under all the circumstances , including my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses, I credit the testimony of Willie James Williams and find that his authoriza-
tion card does not constitute a valid designation for the purpose of determining the
Union 's majority status.12
2. Lonzie Buzzie ( General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 9(46 ) ). Buzzie testified that the
first time Ben Major, one of the employee solicitors, showed him a union card, he
stated that he was not going to have anything to do with it because the Union had
unsuccessfully tried to get in twice previously . He further testified that the next time
Ben Major solicited him, the following conversation occurred - Major stated that
"we're trying to get this going", explained that either "a majority " or "practically
everybody" had signed ; and asked if Buzzie was "going along." Buzzle replied,
"Yeah , if everybody done signed , I'll go along too ." He thereupon signed the card
which is dated September 11, 1964.
Ben Major did not specifically deny having had such a conversation with Buzzie.
He merely testified that he asked if Buzzie would be interested in signing a union
card to help get a Union in the plant and that Buzzie replied in the affirmative. The
record shows that Ben Major has been less than accurate in many instances about
his solicitation of employee signatures . Lonzie Buzzie impressed me as a frank and
candid witness. I credit his testimony.
As the Union did not have cards signed by a majority of the employees in any
conceivable unit as of that date , this misrepresentation renders Buzzie's card an
invalid designation for the purpose of determining the Union 's majority status)"
3. Willie Morris ( General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 9(53 ) ). Ben Major testified that
he saw Willie Morris sign his designation card . However, the credible testimony of
Betty Canady, Respondent 's bookkeeper , and of President Ike Shapiro , demonstrates
to my satisfaction that Willie Morris could not write his name, and that on those
occasions when his signature was required he would either make an X or touch the
pen as Betty Canady wrote his name . I do not credit the testimony of Ben Major
and find that Willie Morris did not sign this authorization card. As there is no
evidence that Willie Morris authorized anyone to sign for him , I find that his card is
not a valid designation for the purpose of determining the Union 's majority status.
4. Roosevelt Scott (General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 9(14 )). Employees James
Williams, Jr., Berry Rogis, and Ben Major testified that they were in the dressing room
with Roosevelt Scott on August 31 , 1964, when Scott was asked to sign a union card,
that Scott stated that he could not write and asked James Williams to sign it for him,
and that James Williams then filled the card out and signed Scott 's name in Scott's
presence.
Roosevelt Scott testified that he cannot write his name and signs with a mark. He
remembered the occasion in the dressing room when James Williams , Berry Rogis,
and Ben Major were present and Scott was asked to sign a union card. He denied
authorizing any of them to sign the card for him. He testified that he told them he
did not know how to write but that he would have one filled out . He denied that
12 The same finding applies to the first card which is dated August 21, 1964 ( Genera]
Counsel's Exhibit No. 9(26)).
13 Neuman Transit Co ., Inc., 138 NLRB 659, 676 ; N.L.R B. v H. Rothstein & Co, Inc,
266 F 2d 407 (C.A. 1).
SHAPIRO PACKING COMIPANY. INC. 785
James Williams filled the card out and signed Scott's name in Scott's presence on that
occasion. He testified that he first learned about it a week later when James Williams
said he had filled out a card for Scott.
I have already found Ben Major not to be a credible witness in connection with
obtaining employee signatures to cards. I was favorably impressed by the demeanor
of Roosevelt Scott who testified in a manner which convinced me that his testimony
is entitled to full credence. I credit Scott's version of the incident hereinabove related
and find that Scott had not authorized anyone to sign a card for him. Accordingly, I
find that his card is not a valid designation for the purpose of determining the Union's
majority status.
5. Henry Lowe, Jr. (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9(30)). Lowe testified that
he was asked to sign a card by Morris Perry, an employee solicitor: that he read the
card and asked Perry, "Well, who else?" and that Perry replied that Lowe was about
the last one and that if he did not sign a card and the Union got in the plant he would
not have a job. Lowe thereupon filled out and signed the card.
Morris Perry did not specifically deny having made the foregoing statements. He
testified that he told Lowe it would better their working conditions, shorten their
hours, increase their pay, and would mean more to the older employees. He denied
telling Lowe that he would lose his seniority if he did not sign a card and the Union
got in.
Lowe impressed me as a forthright and sincere witness. I credit his testimony. In
view of the above statements made to Lowe by Perry, I find that his card, dated
October 12, 1964, is not a valid designation for the purpose of determining the
Union's majority status.
Contrary to Respondent' s contentions , I find that the remaining cards do constitute
valid designations for the purpose of determining the Union's majority status.
Respondent in its brief specifically attacks the cards of Charles N. Thomas, Fred
Wright, Dock Collins, Alex Allen, and Jessie Carr on the ground that they each
testified that the name on their respective card was not their signature. However,
they also testified that they authorized the employee solicitor or their wife, as the case
may be, to sign for them and that the cards were so signed in their presence. Respond-
ent also attacks the card of Leroy Perry because the line marked " Signature" is
blank. However, Ben Major credibly testified, without contradiction, that he saw
Leroy Perry sign his name on the line marked "Name." The Board has held that
this constitutes an effective designation of the Union.14 T. C. Walltower testified
that he did not remember having told Respondent 's counsel that he signed his card
because he was told by an employee that if he did not sign and the Union got in he
would lose his job. In any event, there is no independent evidence that such a
statement was made and Walltower categorically and emphatically denied that any
employee had in fact made such a statement to him . I credit his denial . Lumbert
Lovett credibly testified , without contradiction , that when Ben Major solicited him to
sign a card on September 1, 1964, Lovett asked if "the boss knew about it" and Major
replied in the affirmative . The next day he signed a card which employee Rogers
Beard gave and read to him. The record clearly warrants the findings, which I herein
make , that the reference to the "the boss" was to President Ike Shapiro and that
about that time Shapiro was aware that the Union was attempting to organize the
employees and was soliciting employee signatures to authorization cards. I find that
no improper misrepresentation was made to Lovett which would invalidate his desig-
nation . I further find, contrary to the testimony of Cleavester Kelley, that Kelley
was solicited to sign a card by employee Morris Perry, that Perry told Kelley they
were trying to get a Union in the plant, that Kelley replied he was for it, and that
Kelley then signed the card which Perry gave him.15
14lndiana Rayon Corporation, 151 NLRB 1294.
15 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Morris Perry. Kelley testified
that he knew Morris Perry but denied that Perry asked him to sign a union card. He
testified that he signed his card under the following circumstances: A "white fellow"
came by his house, identified himself as an insurance man, and asked how about signing
this insurance card. He cannot read and signed the card without paying any attention
to it. The man then asked if Kelley knew what he had signed. When Kelley replied in
the negative, the man stated that he had signed a union card and that it was now too
late to back out. He testified that he did not know the man's name . He admitted that be-
fore this incident he had heard a lot of talk among the employees that they were trying to
get a union in the plant, that he had heard employees talking about signing cards similar
to the one he had signed, and that he had in fact seen such cards previously. The record
affirmatively shows that there were no white solicitors for the Union. Kelley did not
impress me as as credible witness. Under all the circumstances, I do not credit ]]is
testimony.
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
f. The Union's majority status
As previously noted, the first request for recognition and bargaining was made by
the Union in its letter, dated September 21, 1964, for the employees in the unit
employed during the payroll period ending September 18, 1964 The payroll for
that period appears in the record as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10. As previously
noted, the parties also stipulated that the names appearing on Respondent's Exhibits
Nos. 33 and 34 are to be counted as regular part-time hide house employees to be
included in the appropriate unit for that payroll period. A computation of the pre-
viously found inclusions in, and exclusions from, the appropriate unit herein found,
appearing in the chart attached to this Decision as Appendix A, shows that there were
102 employees in the appropriate unit for that period The Union would therefore
need at least 52 valid designation cards to establish its majority status.
The Union submitted with its September 21 letter, 48 union authorization cards
as the proof of its majority representation status for the employees during that payroll
period. One of these cards was signed by George Albright, admitted by the General
Counsel to be excluded fiom the unit as a guard. Also included in this group of
cards are the cards for Lonzie Buzzie, Willie Morris, and Roosevelt Scott, all three of
which I have previously found do not constitute valid designations for the purpose of
determining the Union's majority status. Deducting these 4 cards from the group of
48, there remain 44 valid designation cards for those in the appropriate unit during
that payroll period. This falls eight short of the required majority. Moreover, even
if, contrary to my previous findings, the General Counsel were also to prevail in his
position of excluding the 4 employees whom I have included 16 and even if all 47
cards were to be regarded as valid authorizations, the Union would still fall 3 short of
establishing a majority i,
The Union's second request was made in its letter, dated October 6, 1964. Although
the Union never submitted nor even mentioned any additional authorization cards, it
had in fact obtained nine additional authorization cards by that date from the employ-
ees in the unit iS Included in this group of nine is the card of Willie James Williams,
which I have previously found does not constitute a valid designation for the purpose
of determining the Union 's majority status. This leaves eight new valid authorizations
to be added to those previously submitted. However, in the meantime, the number
in the unit had changed. The parties stipulated to the terminations and new hires
during that period. Thus, three employees who had signed valid cards prior to
August 21 and whose cards had been included in the group submitted by the Union
were terminated for cause.19 In addition, Respondent hired a new employee who had
not signed a card.20
Thus, by the time Respondent received the Union's second request, the number of
employees in the appropriate unit had been reduced to 100 as a result of the 3 termi-
nations and 1 new hire. The original group of 44 valid authorizations was reduced to
41 as a result of the 3 terminations. When the 8 new valid authorizations are added,
there is a total of 49 valid authorizations, still 2 short of the required majority. More-
19 The General Counsel had contended that Edward R Elsey, Thomas C. Delgato, Paul
Garmon , and Arnold Bowen were supervisors . As previously stated , I have found that
they were not statutory supervisors and should be included in the unit
17 Indeed, the Union would still lack a majority even if I were to count Willie James
Williams' first card , dated August 21, which he returned to the Union and which was not
included in the group submitted by the Union with its letter of August 21 , and Rufus
Roundtree's first card , dated August 21, which he returned to the Union and which also
was not included in the group of cards submitted by the Union For then there would be
49 cards in a unit of 98, which is one short of a majority.
"These cards and the dates on which they were signed are as follows : John Brown,
9/24, T C. Walltower , 9/24, Simmie L Chandler , 9/28; James Kilgare, 9 /29, Willie
James Williams , 9/29; Rufus Roundtree , 9/29; Cleavester Kelley, 9 /29; Jessie Carr,
10/1 , and Perry Williams, 10/2
19
These employees and their termination dates are as follows : Douglas Gillian, 9/26 ,
Tommy Hall, 9/26 ; and Marvin Hall, 10/3.
20 Thomas Brown was hired on October 6 As the Union's letter was mailed on Octo-
ber 6, it is reasonable to infer , and I find , that it was received by Respondent on October 7
The Board has held , with court approval , that "the crucial date on which the Union's
majority status must be established is not the date which it puts on its letter but the
date on which the Respondent is apprised of the Union's majority claim ." Allegheny
Pepsi - Cola Bottling Company , 134 NLRB 388, 405, enfd 312 F. 2d 529 (C A 3).
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY , INC. 787
over, even if, contrary to my prior findings, Arnold Bowen and Paul Garmon were to
be excluded from the unit as supervisors, the Union would still fall one short of estab-
lishing a majority.21
I therefore find that at no relevant time did the Union in fact represent a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit. As this finding requires the dismissal of
the refusal-to-bargain allegation, I deem it unnecessary to pass upon Respondent's
additional defenses that it at all times also had a good-faith doubt of the Union's claim
of majority status and of the appropriate unit.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. By President Ike Shapiro
a. The facts
(1) As to Tommy Hall
Employee Tommy Hall signed a union authorization card on August 9, 1964.
About 2 weeks later, as Hall was getting ready to punch in to go to work, President
Ike Shapiro had a chair in front of the timeclock and beckoned Tommy Hall to come
over to him. Ike then mentioned that he had received a letter from the Union and
added, "I know that you signed one of those union cards." Ike asked, "What is the
Union going to give you that we don't give you?" Tommy Hall replied that it
would give him more money. Ike then asked, "Who is going to take care of your
wife?" When Hall replied that he did not have a wife, Ike asked, "Who is going to
take care of your kids?" When Hall replied that he also did not have any "kids,"
Ike stated, "You are in pretty good shape then." Ike then got up and went into his
office, and Tommy Hall punched in and went to work.
The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Tommy Hall. Ike
Shapiro denied having had any such conversation or having made any of the above
statements. He admitted that when he received the Union's bargaining request of
September 21 and the enclosed photostats of union authorization cards, there was one
bearing the signature of Tommy Hall. He also admitted that after receiving the
Union's request, he did ask some of the employees if they had signed a union authori-
zation card. Tommy Hall was no longer in Respondent's employ when he testified in
this proceeding.
Considering all the foregoing, I have been persuaded by the demeanor of the wit-
nesses while testifying under oath that Tommy Hall's testimony is entitled to full evi-
dence. I do not credit Ike Shapiro's denials.
(2) As to George Turner
Employee George Turner signed a union authorization card on August 28, 1964.
Labor Day and the following day were Jewish holidays during which the plant was
closed. Those who had been in Respondent's employ for more than 1 year were
paid for both days. When Turner received his pay and found that he was paid only
for Labor Day, he went to Ike Shapiro's office and asked Ike why he was not paid
for the 2 days which were Jewish holidays. Ike informed Turner that he had not
been employed long enough to be paid for the 2 days. Ike then warned that after
the Union came in, they would not be paid for any holidays. In response to Turner's
query as to what Ike meant, Ike asked Turner if anyone had talked to him about the
Union. Turner replied that they had not. When Ike stated that he wondered why
they had not, Turner replied, "Maybe I haven't been here long enough and maybe
they don't trust me." Ike then warned Turner that "they are going to tell you a lot
of good things about the Union"; assured him that the Union "is no damn good": told
Turner that he was "a good boy"; and promised to take care of him if he would not
sign a union card.
The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of George Turner, who
was still employed by Respondent when he testified under subpena in this proceeding.
Ike Shapiro admitted that Turner came to his office to complain about not getting
paid for the 2-day Jewish holiday and that he explained it was because Turner had
21The Union's lack of majority status remained unchanged on October 12, 1964, when
Respondent hired an additional employee , Albert Booker, who had not signed a card, and
when employee Henry Lowe, Jr., signed a union card which I have previously found did
not constitute a valid designation. Moreover , on October 10, William L. Smith , who had
signed a card on September 5. was terminated.
212-809-66-vol. 1.55 -51
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not been employed long enough . He denied having made any of the other statements
attributed to him. He did admit that he had been informed by one of his employees
early in September that there was some union solicitation going on at the plant.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, and particularly the demeanor of the witnesses,
I do not credit Ike Shapiro's denials.
(3) As to Mason Boler
On Saturday morning, September 19, 1964, Ike Shapiro called employee Mason
Boler out into the hall of the plant and asked him if he had signed a union authoriza-
tion card. Although Boler had in fact signed a card on August 12 and had solicited
and obtained other employee signatures to cards, he nevertheless answered Ike's
question in the negative. On September 22 Beier was called into Ike's office where,
in the presence of Harry Shapiro, Herbert Shapiro, and Sol Lafferman, he was shown
a photostatic co;dy of his authorization card and was asked by Ike if that was his
signature and who had typed the card. Boler replied that it was his signature and
that someone else had typed it for him. Ike then wanted to know why Boler had lied
to him on the prior occasion when he had denied signing an authorization card.
The above findings are based on Boler's credited testimony which was not denied
in any significant respect. Indeed, Ike admitted that sometime before receiving the
Union's letter of September 21, an employee had informed him that there was some
union solicitation going on in the plant and had named Boler and two others as the
leaders, that he had then asked Boler and the other named leaders if they knew any-
thing about a union in the plant , and that each had replied in the negative.22
(4) As to John Brown
Employee John Brown signed a union authorization card on September 24, 1964.
About a week earlier, Ike Shapiro asked him if he had signed a union card. Brown
replied in the negative. The foliowing week Ike Shapiro was sitting out in the hallway
and asked Brown how much he was making an hour. When Brown replied that it
was $1.45 an hour, Ike stated, "I think I'll put a little more on your check." How-
ever, before p:;yday, Ike told Brown, "I cannot give you a raise now, because if I do
they would make a case against me." Brown replied that he would rather not have
the raise if Ike thought he would get into trouble because of it. About a week later,
Ike was sitting on the loading dock and called Brown over to him. Ike asked Brown
if he had signed a union card. Brown replied that he had. Ike then asked why
Brown had sinned a card. Brown stated that it was in order to get better privileges.
Ike asked. "Dom t you have better privileges?" Brown replied, "No, not like the
Union h.: c.." A';er that conversation, Brown found an increase in his paycheck of 10
cents an hour.
The foreoing findings are based on the credited and undenied testimony of John
Brown.
(5) As to George Albright
Employee George Albright signed a union authorization card on September 4, 1964.
A day or two earlier, Ike Shapiro asked Albright, "Did you know the boys were trying
to get up a union?" Albright replied that he did not. Ike then asked if Albright had
received a union card. Albright again replied in the negative . Ike then asked
Albright to let him know if the boys said anything to him about the Union. Albright
agreed to do so.
On a later occasion, Ike said to Albright, "I thought you told me you had not signed
a card." Albright replied that he had not when he first talked to Ike but that he had
gotten a card after that conversation. Ike asked if Albright had signed the card.
Albright replied in the affirmative. Ike also asked Albright if he was for the Union,
and Aibrig,ht replied that he was.
On still a laser occasion, Albright was talking to employee Walltower in the plant
when Ike Shapiro walked up and asked Walltower what he thought of an old man like
Albright, who was too old to get a decent job anywhere, joining the Union.23 Wail-
tower replied that he did not know. Albright stated that he still had to live, no matter
how old ' : w+lice then asked Albright what the Union had ever done for him.
21 Ike named Ben Major as one of the other leaders whom he had questioned in this
manner on that occasion. The record shows that Ben Major had signed a union authori-
zation card on August 11 and was an active union solicitor.
w Albright was GS years old at that time.
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC. 789
Albright replied that he had belonged to a union before working for Ike and had
received $270 in payments from that union and that he was glad when he heard that
a union was coming here. At that point Ike walked away.24
(6) As to T. C. Walltower
As Ike Shapiro walked away after the conversation described in the preceding
paragraph, employee Walltower got his attention and said, "Mr. Ike, in case the
Union happened to come in here, sir, would I have a job?" Ike replied, "I don't
know."
The foregoing findings are based on the credited and undenied testimony of
employee Walltower.
b. Concluding findings
I find that Ike's rhetorical questions to employee Tommy Hall as to who would
take care of his wife and children, considered in the context and setting in which they
were made, constituted a veiled threat of economic reprisals in the form of a loss or
diminution of employment if the Union were selected as the employees' collective-
bargaining representative. As such, it was plainly coercive within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Equally coercive was Ike's reply to employee Walltower
that Ike did not know if Walltower would have a job if the Union came in, as such
a reply clearly put Walltower's job tenure in jeopardy. Also proscribed by that sec-
tion of the Act was Ike's threat of reprisals and promise of benefits to employee
George Turner when he told Turner that there would not be any more paid holidays
if the Union came in, and promised to take care of Turner if he would not sign a
union card. I also find that under all the circumstances previously detailed, the raise
granted to employee John Brown was for the purpose of inducing him to withdraw
his designation of the Union as bargaining representative, conduct which violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it was reasonably calculated to Impinge on
Brown's freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining representative. u I further
find that Ike's conduct in asking employee Albright to report if the boys said any-
thing to him about the Union, in interrogating Albright about the Union, and in
ridiculing him, in the presence of employee Walltower, for joining the Union tended
to coerce these employees in the exercise of their statutory tights in violation of the
Act.26 The coercive nature of Ike's latter conduct is demonstrated by the fact that it
prompted Walltower to ask Ike if he would have a job if the Union were to come in.
Finally, I find that Ike's previously described interrogation of employees, including
his first interrogation of employee Mason Boler, concerning their signing of union
cards and their union attitudes, in the context and under the circumstances previously
detailed, falls within the proscription of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.27
I find that by the above-described conduct of President Ike Shapiro, Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. By Supervisor Curtis Wilson
a. The facts
Employee Willie James Williams worked in the sausage kitchen where Curtis
Wilson was a statutory supervisor, as previously found. Williams signed a union
rA The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of employees Albright and
Walltower, although there is a discrepancy in their testimony as to the date on which
the last conversation occurred Ike Shapiro merely categorically denied that he ever said
anything to Albright about the Union in any way I do not credit Ike's denials.
zs N.L R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405.
26 Although Albright was a guard and was therefore excluded from the unit which the
Union sought to represent, "he still had the right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act to
continue to be a member of the Union." Chambers Manufacturing Corporation, 124 NLRB
721, 726, 737, enfd. 278 F. 2d 715 (C.A. 5).
21 See, e.g., Cannon Electric Company, 151 NLRB 1465 ; and N L R B v. Zelrich Co.,
344 F. 2d 1011 (C.A. 5), enfg. 144 NLRB 1381. In finding such interrogation to be coer-
cive, I have considered, among other things, the threats of reprisals and other unfair
labor practices herein found, the fact that the interrogation was by the president of
Respondent who was regarded by the employees as "the boss," the fact that these inter-
rogations appeared to be intended to ascertain the identity of the union adherents and
supporters and for the purpose of inducing employees by threats and promises to withhold
and withdraw any such adherence and support, and the fact that most of the employees
so interrogated did not tell the truth about having signed a unioi, card
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorization card on August 21, 1964. About 3 weeks later,1Wilsoli'ealled Williams
into the sausage room and asked if he had signed a union card: Williams replied
in the affirmative. Wilson told Williams to get out of the Union and to get his card
back because the Union was no good and that if the Union came in the employees
would only get a "nickel raise" and their hours would be reduced to 37 a week. At
that time Williams was working 65 to 70 hours a week. The very next day, Williams
asked the Union for the return of his card. ,
Williams signed another union authorization card on September 29. About a
week later, Ike Shapiro stopped him in the plant, called him aside, and asked him if he
had signed another union card. Williams replied that he had. Ike then asked if
Wilson knew about. Williams replied in the negative.
About a week later, Wilson again called Williams into the sausage room and asked
if he had signed another union card. When Williams replied in the affirmative, Wilson
again urged him to get out of the Union because it was no good.28
b. Concluding findings
I find that by the above-described conduct of Supervisor Curtis Wilson in inter-
rogating Williams about signing union authorization cards, soliciting his withdrawal
from the Union, and threatening a reduction in the work week if the Union came in,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)( I)
of the Act.
3. By Herbert Shapiro
The complaint alleges that Herbert Shapiro is the shipping room foreman and a-
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, that he engaged in unlawful interrogation
and threatened a union adherent with loss of employment, and that Respondent
thereby further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The Respondent denies that
Herbert Shapiro is a statutory supervisor or that he engaged in any conduct proscribed
by the Act.
I find it unnecessary to resolve these issues. I have already found that Respondent
violated the Act by such threats and interrogation. Therefore, no useful purpose
would be served by an additional unfair labor practice finding of the same kind, even
assuming that it was warranted by the record, inasmuch as the remedy necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act would be identical in either case.
D. Discrimination in hire and tenure of employment
1. Guy Moffitt
Guy Moffitt was employed as a meatpacker in the cooler with Ben Major and
William Smith. Of the three, Moffitt was the junior in point of service. Moffitt
signed a union authorization card on August 11, 1964 He solicitated other employ-
ees for the Union and in September obtained the signatures of at least two employees
to union authorization cards. In addition, Nathanial Major turned over some signed
union cards to Moffitt, also in September.
On the morning of September 18, Moffitt changed into his work clothes as usual
and went up to the timeclock to punch his card. Ike Shapiro was standing at the
timeclock and told Moffitt not to punch in because Ike did not need him anymore.
When Moffitt wanted to know what he had done, Ike replied, "I just don't need you
anymore." Moffitt thereupon went back into the dressing room where he changed
into his street clothes. He then went into Ike's office and asked, "Mr. Ike, tell me
28 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of Willie James Williams,
who was still employed by Respondent at the time of his testimony under subpena in this
proceeding. Ike Shapiro did not deny having interrogated Williams in the above-described
manner. Curtis Wilson admitted talking to Williams about the Union. He testified that
he told Williams to get his card back because Williams told him he had not signed it.
He further testified that he told him about a friend who worked only 37 hours in a union
plant and pointed out that if they went on a 37-hour week they would be worse off than
they were then. Wilson admitted being strongly antiunion, denied telling Williams the
Company would cut his hours if the Union came in, and testified that he did not remember
anything being said about a raise.
I have previously found Williams to be a credible witness Based on all the foregoing
and the demeanor of the witnesses, I do not credit Wilson's version of the conversations
SHAPIRO PACKING, COMPANY, INC. 791
why you flied me. What have I done7" Ike replied that he did not need Moffitt
anymore because Moffitt "stuck a knife" in'his back by trying to get a union in there,
and told Moffitt to get out of The office . Moffitt thereupon left.29
Moffitt was recalled to work on October 12,, and was still employed at the time of
the hearing in this case.,
Ike Shapiro testified that - Moffitt ' was laid ', off as the junior man in point of service
in the cooler because "busines s was quiet ,',' and that he was recalled when work
picked up , He denied knowing that Moffitt ' had signed a union card or was interested
in the Union at the time of his layoff. , "
With respect to the contention that "busihess was quiet ," Ike admitted on cross-
examination that during the period of Moffitt's layoff, Ben Major had punched in "a
lot of overtime ." Moreover , other than Ike's bald testimony , Respondent offered
no evidence to show that business was slow at the time of Moffitt's layoff or that it
picked up at the time of his recall With respect to Ike's alleged lack of knowledge
of Moffitt 's union interests and activities , Ike would not deny, on cross-examination,
that he bad by that time already been informed that the employees , were organizing
at the plant . Indeed, on direct examination , he admitted that about a week or 10
days before receiving the Union 's letter of September 21, he was informed by an
employee that there was union solicitation going on in the plant, and that he made
inquiries about it. Moreover , as previously found, Ike's warning to employee :Turner
that they would not be paid for any holidays when the Union came in, was made
shortly after Labor Day. -
When all the foregoing is considered in the light of the previously detailed unlawful
conduct in which Ike Shapiro engaged , I am convinced and find that Ike was aware
of or suspected Moffitt's union interests and activities , that he was "aggravated"' by
the fact that a relatively new employee was engag i ng, in conduct which he regarded
as tantamount to "sticking a knife" in his'back, that , Moffitt's layoff was motivated by
antiunion considerations , and that the reason asserted at the hearing ' was advanced
as a pretext or afterthought to cloak his discriminatory motivation . By such conduct,
Respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Guy
Moffitt , thereby discouraging membership in the Union , in violation of ' Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. "
2. George Albright '
George Albright was employed by Respondent as a watchman and-also performed
other duties such as checking refrigeration equipment . He had been employed almost
5 years at the time of his discharge about September 13, 1964, with a week's ' notice.
He was 68 years old the preceding month. , '
Although' Albright was a guard who was excluded from the unit, he nevertheless
signed a union authorization card on September 4. As previously found; a 'day or
two earlier , Ike Shapiro had interrogated Albright about getting a union authorization
card and about his knowledge of the employees ' organizational activities . When Ike
ascertained that Albright had not received a union card , he secured Albright's promise
to inform him about what the boys said in regard to the Union ' After Albright signed
a union card , Ike interrogated him again and ascertained that Albright had signed a
card and was in favor of the Union A few days later, also as 'previously found, Ike
ridiculed Albright , in the presence of another employee , for joining the Union- when
he was such an old man. On that occasion , Ike asked Albright what the Union had
ever done for him. Albright then confessed that he had belonged to a union even
before he worked for Respondent , explained how a union had helped -him,-and
boasted that he was glad to hear about a union coming into Respondent 's plant. Ike
then walked away. '-' - I 'r , , • ••
Shortly thereafter , Albright was discharged under the following circumstances' ^'On
a Saturday afternoon , Paul Garmon , Respondent 's refrigeration ' niamtenance-magi,
,I. I 1_1, I h'.
The findings in this paragraph are based'on thk credited-'testimouy of-G'uyDTo`Ifitt,
who was working for Respondent at the time when he testified ' iiniler ' sulipena' iii "this
proceeding - Ike Shapiro ; testified that lie told Moffitt at the timecl6ek that niornink to
"lay off" and that he would ' call Moffitt when lie needed him back ' ' He furtlier testified
that in the 'office , Moffitt "kept insisting as to why I was laying 'him off,"-'that 'he `t6ib
Moffitt he did not need him now and would call him back when' he needed liim, m tihat
Moffitt "kept' aggravating me," that he told Moffitt , " what in the a`re you ti }•i'ng
to do , stick a' knife in my back')" and that he told Moffitt to "€et'out ' i He'denied suyffnk
anything to Moffitt about a union I have previouSly ' found ' Ik:e"Sh.ipiro' not fd'be''a
credible witness . Upon consideration of the foregoing and particularly the-demeaiioq of
the witnesses , I credit Moifitt 's version , as set forth in the text -i - '
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was on the roof in the cooling tower, repairing the compressor . While the motors
were shut , Albright pushed the "start" button which caused the compressor to start
up but it immediately shut down because of an automatic shutdown device. Garmon
testified that he had told Albright on that occasion not to start the compressor while
Garmon was working in the cooling tower and that when he reminded Albright about
his instruction in this regard Albright replied, "I forgot" or " I didn't understand you,"
or "something like that." Albright testified that no such instruction had been given
to him, that in the past Garmon had always warned him not to let the motors stay
down too long, and that he told Garmon he did not know Garmon did not want it
started at that time and that he was sorry if he started it at the wrong time. In view
of the fact that Garmon did not deny that on prior occasions he had instructed
Albright not to let the motors stay down too long and Garmon's admission that
Albright's reply may have been that he had misunderstood Garmon, I find that at
most Albright's conduct in starting the compressor was due to his misunderstanding
of whatever instructions Garmon may have given him on that occasion and that he
so informed Garmon. In any event, no damage admittedly resulted in the machinery
or to Garmon. However, Garmon reported the incident to Ike Shapiro, who then
discharged Albright.
In a letter to the Board's Regional Director, dated December 9, 1964, Respondent's
attorney stated, among other things, that Albright "was retired at the age of 69"
because he "had become senile," that "we had previously found it necessary to release
him approximately one year ago" and "we took him back with the understanding
that he must be more attentive to his duties," and that the "Company does not deem
him suitable for industrial employment because of his advanced age and demon-
strated inability to work either as a watchman or perform duties commensurate with
plant security and safety." However, Respondent introduced no evidence to the effect
that it had retired Albright. On the contrary, Ike Shapiro testified that he discharged
Albright because of dissatisfaction with his work performance Nor was any evi-
dence adduced that Respondent had released Albright a year earlier and then
reemployed him with any kind of a warning. The undisputed evidence shows, and I
find, that Albright worked continuously until his discharge about September 13, 1964.
Finally, despite the assertion that Respondent did not consider Albright suitable for
industrial employment, Ike Shapiro admitted that at a time which was subsequent to
the filing of the instant unfair labor practice charges, he recalled Albright to work
1 or 2 days a week to help with the hides and to do odd jobs 30
At the instant hearing, Ike Shapuo testified that he was the one who decided to
discharge Albright and that his decision was based upon an accumulation of com-
plaints about Albright's forgetfulness, culminating in the above-described incident
involving the starting of the compressor. He testified to four such complaints over a
period of about 2 years. Garmon testified that he had made three such complaints
to Ike. The first one was in early 1963 and related to Albright's alleged forgetfulness
and specifically allegedly forgetting to open the drain valves in the defrosting freezer,
the second complaint occurred about 6 months before Albright's discharge and
related allegedly to his forgetting to turn over to his relief man the invoices which
came in with the cattle; and the third complaint related to the last incident involving
the starting of the compressor. Garmon testified that when he reported this last
incident , Ike merely stated that he would have to look into it, and that it was not
until a few days later that Ike told him they were going to replace Albright However,
Ike testified that when Garmon reported this last incident, Ike told Garmon right then
and there , "Okay, Paul, I'll let him go." Ike further testified that when he received
Garmon's first complaint, he talked to Albright and told him to try "to do better
about it. " He admitted that he thought Garmon was exaggerating and that he did
not even tell Albright about what Garmon was complaining about. On direct
examination , Ike testified that he had also received a complaint from his cattle buyer
about Albright forgetting to leave the invoices that came in with the cattle and that
he made up his mind "then and there to get rid of him." However, on cross-
examination , he testified to two complaints of this nature, the second one occurring
about 2 months before Albright's discharge, and that he told Albright on the second
occasion that he would have to find another job if it happened again. He then
admitted that it did not happen again. Finally, he testified on cross-examination that
his decision to discharge Albright was made when he received Garmon's complaint
about Albright turning on the compressor. He admitted that he did not inquire of
Albright to receive his version of the incident.
30 The charge alleging discrimination with respect to Albright was filed on November 18,
1964. Albright testified that he was recalled on December 29 or 30, 1964. Ike testified
that he recalled Albright about 2 months prior to the instant hearing.
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC. 793
Upon consideration of all the record evidence, and particularly Respondent's failure
to adduce any evidence in support of some of the assertion contained in its attorney's
letter to the Board's Regional Director, the inconsistencies and contradictions revealed
by the testimony of Garmon and Ike Shapiro, the resurrection of a complaint which
occurred almost 2 years before the discharge and which Ike admitted he had regarded
as an exaggeration at the time, the nature of the incident which allegedly precipitated
the discharge, the summary discharge without seeking to ascertain Albright's version,
an inquiry which would have disclosed that the incident was due solely to a misunder-
standing on Albright's part, Ike's earlier extraction from Albright, upon learning that
he had not yet signed a union card, of a promise to report what the boys were saying
about the Union, Ike's subsequent expressed resentment against a man of Albright's
age joining and supporting the Union, and Ike's opposition to the Union and the
other unfair labor practices in which he engaged, I am convinced and find that
Albright's discharge was truly motivated by antiunion considerations and that the
incident which allegedly precipitated the discharge was seized upon as a convenient
pretext and the other incidents as afterthoughts to cloak a discriminatory motivation.
By such conduct, Respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of
employment of George Albright, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organi-
zation in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent violated the Act by discharging George Albright and
by laying off Guy Moffitt from September 18 to October 12, 1964. Although Albright
was subsequently reemployed by Respondent I find, as Respondent concedes, that
Albright has not been reinstated to his former or substantially equivalent position. I
will accordingly recommend that Respondent offer Albright immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him and Guy Moffitt whole for
any loss of earnings each may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages, from September 18 to October 12, 1964, in the case of Guy
Moffitt, and from the date of his discharge to Respondent's offer of reinstatement in
the case of George Albright, less the net earnings of each during such period, with
backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board
in F. W. Woo/ orth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor practices herein found, I
will recommend that, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Respondent cease
and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.31
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers, District Union 433, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of George
Albright and Guy Moffitt, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor
organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing conduct and by the conduct of President Ike Shapiro and
Supervisor Curtis Wilson, detailed in section III, C, supra, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights
and thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
a' N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co ., 120 F. 2d 532 , 536 (C.A. 4).
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The above-named labor organization was not validly designated by a majority
of the employees in an appropriate unit and hence was not the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in said unit during any material time.
6. Respondent did not violate the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with
said Union , upon request.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that Respondent, Shapiro
Packing Company, Inc., Augusta, Georgia, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Meat Cutters, Packing-
house and Allied Food Workers, District Union 433, or any other labor organization,
by discriminatorily laying off or discharging employees, or by discriminating against
them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees as to whether they signed union authorization cards
or as to their union activities or sympathies, ridiculing them for signing cards and for
their union support, asking them to report on the union activities of other employees,
and soliciting employee withdrawals from the above-named or any other labor orga-
nization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with loss or diminution of employment, loss of paid
holidays, a reduced workweek, or other economic reprisals , in the event that the
employees selected the above-named or any other labor organization as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(d) Promising to take care of employees and offering or granting wage increases
or other economic benefits to induce the employees to reject the above-named of any
other labor organization.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to George Albright immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him and Guy Moffitt whole for any loss of earnings each
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him, in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to detemine
the amount due as backpay.
(c) Post at its plant in Augusta, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B." 32 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 10 (Atlanta, Georgia), shall, after being duly signed by authorized representa-
tives of the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply therewith.33
32 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
"In the event that 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC. 795
I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
Respondent violated the Act by refusing to bargain with the above-named labor
organization.
APPENDIX A
Number of Employees in Appropriate Unit During Relevant Pei iods
A General Counsel ' s Exhibit 'No 10
Cdtegory Total number
listed
Unit disposition
Excluded Included
P 1--,Truckdnver•---------------- `-------------------------- 1 0
1
Ride house--,_----------------------------------------------
22 20 a2
Shochet------ ------------------------- •---------------------- 1
bl 0
Rillfloor -----------------------------------------------------
25 ,1 24
Truckdnvers and packers ------------------------------------ 18 0 18
P. 2-Kill floor--------------------------------------------- 5
0 5
Boning room --------- ---------- •---------- `---- ------------- 14 0 14
Sausage kitchen ---------------------------------------------- 12
di 11
Tankhouse---------------------------------------------------
6 0 6
Bookkeepers------------------------------------------------
3 e3 0
watchmen--------------------- -------------------
2 2 0
Engineers--------------------------------------------------- 2
0 2
Salesmen-shipping-------`------------------------------------
7 i6 1
Cattle-huyers---•---------------------------------------------
4 4 0
P.3-Offigers----------------------------------- -------
3 3 0
B. Respondent's E xhibits Nos 33 and 34
Regular part time (Aide house employees) ------------------- "18 0 18
Total in Unit-------------------------------------------
102
a Roosevelt Berman and Lumbart Lovett are agreed to be full-time employees who are
Included All others are excluded as casual employees, as they do not appear on Respond-
ent's Exhibits Nos. 33 and 34.
b Herman Roth is the shochet and is listed between the categories hide house and
kill floor.
I Daniel Langsam is excluded because of his special status arising from his relationship
to President Ike Shapiro
e Curtis Wilson is excluded at a supervisor.
Sato. Shapiro is excluded because of his special status arising from his relationship
to Ike and lilarry Shapiro
f Berman and the t*o Shapiros are excluded for the same reason as the other relatives ;
Schilds and Qibspn, as full-time outside salesmen ; and Lafferman, as a supervisor.
B Although the total number on these exhibits is 24, 6 of the same names are listed on
each Exhibit
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Meat
Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers, District Union 433, or in any
other labor organization, by discriminatorily laying off or discharing employees,
or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss or diminution of employment, loss
of paid holidays, a reduced workweek, or other economic reprisals, in the event
the employees selected the above-named or any other labor organization as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promise to take care of employees, or offer or grant wage
increases or other economic benefits, to induce employees to reject the above-
named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective baigaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL. offer to George Albright immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and will make him and Guy Moffitt whole for any
loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No.
876-3311, Extension 5357.
Elco Corporation and William B. Perry. Case No. 91-CA-6140.
November 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 12, 1965, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decisiotn. He also found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed certain exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
155 NLRB No. 85.