Shen-Valley Meat Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 491 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 491
having a right to hire or discharge, and those whose duties
include recommendations as to hiring or discharging (but not
leaders); and those employees whose work is of a confidential
nature, time-study men, plant-protection employees (but not
to include maintenance patrolmen or fire patrolmen); all
clerical employees, chief engineers and shift operating
engineers in powerplants, drawing board designers, production
estimating and planning engineers, draftsmen and detailers,
physicists, chemists, metallurgists, artists, design artists,
timekeepers, technical school students, indentured appren-
tices, and those technical or professional employees who are
receiving training, kitchen and cafeteria help. to
If a majority of the employees in groups 1 and 2 vote, respec -
tively, for the labor organization seeking to represent that
group separately, the Board finds that the employees in each
group constitute a separate appropriate unit; if a majority
of the employees in group 3 select a different bargaining agent
than that selected by employees in groups 1 and 2, the Board
finds that the employees in group 3 also constitute a separate
appropriate unit. If the employees either in groups 1 and 2 or
both select the same bargaining agent as group 3 employees,
the Board finds that the employees in these groups together
constitute an appropriate unit. The Regional Director conducting
the elections is instructed to issue a certification of represent-
atives to the union or unions for the unit or units which may
result from the elections.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
10 Voting group 3 is substantially the unit agreed to by the Employer and the UAW.
SHEN -VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED and
PEAR LIE H. BAKER
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN
OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 393, AFL and PEARLIE H.
BAKER
SHEN -VALLEY MEAT PACKERS , INCORPORATED and
DORIS RODEFFER
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN
OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 393, AFL and DORIS
RODEFFER. Cases Nos. 5-CA-513, 5-CB-86, 5-CA-514,
and 5-CB-87. June 11, 1953
DECISON AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed by Pearlie H. Baker and
Doris Rodeffer on September 27, 1951, and amended charges
105 NLRB No 56.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed by these individuals on November 29, 1951, and June 16,
1952, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the General Counsel and the Board,
respectively, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued an order on June 20, 1952,
consolidating the above-captioned cases, and simultaneously
therewith issued his complaint alleging that Shen-Valley Meat
Packers, Incorporated, Timberville, Virginia, herein called
the Company, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called
the Act, and that Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, Local 393, AFL, herein called
the Union, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (1) (A) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies
of the complaint, the order of consolidation, the charges, and
notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents and
the charging parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint
alleged, in substance, that the Company, on August 31, 1951,
discharged employees Baker and Rodeffer, because of their
sympathies for and activities on behalf of the United Con-
struction Workers, herein called the UCW, affiliated with
United Mine Workers of America, in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act; that the Union had caused and attempted to
cause the Company to discharge Baker andRodefferin violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, because of their UCW sympathies
and activities, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act;
that the Company's conduct, as related, constituted assistance
and support to the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the
Act; and that the conduct of the Company and the Union
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Actin violation of Section
8 (a) (1) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, respectively.
In its answer, duly filed, the Company admitted the allegations
of the complaint concerning its corporate existence and the
nature and extent of the business transacted by it. The answer
denied that the Company had discharged Baker and Rodeffer
for reasons violative of the Act, but admitted that it has not
reinstated them as employees. The Union likewise denied in
its answer that it had committed conduct violative of the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Harrisonburg,
Virginia, from August 19 to 21, 1952, before Bertram G.
Eadie, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The Company, Union, and General Counsel were
represented by counsel. All the parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 493
witnesses ,' and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted without
objection the General Counsel ' s motion to conform the pleadings
to the proof with respect to minor variations between the
pleadings and proof such as the spelling of names and dates.
Various rulings were made by the Trial Examiner during
the course of the hearing on other motions and objections to
the admission of evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . These rulings are hereby affirmed.' All
parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs and pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law . The Company
and the Union filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
On October 29, 1952, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter-
mediate Report , copies of which were duly served on the
parties, in which he found that the Company had engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act by discharging Baker and Rodeffer , and that such conduct
also was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Although the
Trial Examiner had, in the Intermediate Report, denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the allegation of the complaint
that its conduct had violated Section 8 ( a) (2) of the Act,3 he
i The Union has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's ruling at the hearing that its examina-
tion of Fritz Lindner, a witness produced and first examined by the Company, be conducted
as direct and not cross - examination The Union contends that the Trial Examiner ' s ruling
improperly limited the scope of its examination of this witness. We are satisfied that the
Trial Examiner ruled correctly Cross-examination presupposes the hostility of the witness,
or that the matter testified to upon which he is crossed is opposed and contrary to the con-
tention of the party conducting the cross- examination . 70 CJS Sec. 781. The record shows
that the witness, Lindner , was friendly to the Union' s position , and that his testimony on
direct examination by the Company was not contrary to the Union' s position We are further
satisfied that the Union was not prevented by the Trial Examiner ' s ruling from examining
the witness regarding any natter properly within the scope of the issues in this case, and
was not prejudiced by the Trial Examiner 's ruling.
2 The Union has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's ruling permitting the General Counsel
to elicit testimony from a witness (Bynaker) contradicting other testimony by a witness
(Lucas) previously called by the General Counsel. As we do not rely on the testimony in
question in reaching our ultimate findings and conclusions , we find it unnecessary to pass
on the merits of this exception.
3The Company has excepted to the denial of this motion on the ground that the 8(a) (2)
allegation in the complaint was not based on a valid charge filed within 6 months of the
commission of the conduct alleged to be unlawful, as provided by Section 10 (b) of the Act
As noted above, the original charges in this proceeding were filed on September 27, 1951,
less than 1 month after the allegedly unlawful discharges of Baker and Rodeffer. First
amended charges were filed on November 29, 1951, and second amended charges , alleging
for the first time that the discharges were also violative of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act,
were filed on June 16, 1952. The Board has held with judicial approval that it may base a
finding of unfair labor practices upon any conduct which occurred within a 6-month period
before the filing of a charge asserting that the Act has been violated although the charge
does not specifically set forth such conduct, provided the complaint which issues pursuant
to the charge alleges the conduct as an unfair labor practice . See Cathey Lumber Company,
86 NLRB 157, enfd 185 F 2d 1021 ( Board's order set aside for other reasons ), and Stokely
Foods, Inc , 91 NLRB 1267, enfd. 193 F 2d 736. As the complaint here merely enlarged
upon the original charge which was clearly filed within time, by alleging the Company's
conduct described therein to be violative of Section 8 (a) (2) as well as of Section 8 (a)
(3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we affirm the Trial Examiner 's denial of the Company' s motion
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
failed to make a concluding finding with respect thereto. He
further found that the Company's unlawful conduct affects
inter state commerce , and recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from these activities and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint
with respect to the alleged violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and 8 (b) (2) by the Union. The Company, Union, and the
General Counsel have filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs.4 The Company and Union have
also requested oral argument . These requests are hereby
denied as , in our opinion , the record and the exceptions and
briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel
[Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in the above case,
and makes the following findings , conclusions , and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia engaged at Timberville, Virginia, in the production
of fresh, cured, and smoked meat, and meat products. Annual
purchases of goods and equipment by the Company are valued
at approximately $3,000,000 of which about 40 percent repre-
sents shipments from other States. The Company annually
produces finished products valued at approximately $3,500,000
of which about 40 percent represents shipments to points in
other States.
We find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4 The Union excepted to the Intermediate Report on the ground that the Trial Examiner
was biased and prejudiced against both Respondents In support of this exception, the Union
asserts that the Trial Examiner's findings uniformly favor the General Counsel, and that
various rulings and actions by the Trial Examiner at the hearing allegedly reflect unfair
treatment of Respondents' witnesses, hostility towards cooperative corporations of the
Company's type, animus towards counsel for the Union as evidenced by the Trial Examiner's
asserted misinterpretations of the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, and
alignment with the General Counsel in the prosecution of his case as shown by the Trial
Examiner's remark to the General Counsel, near the close of the hearing, regarding the
calling of a witness in rebuttal We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record and find no
warrant for the Union's claim of bias and prejudice. We are satisfied that the Trial Ex-
aminer's Intermediate Report and his rulings and other actions at the hearing do not in
any manner manifest bias or prejudice for or against any party in this proceeding, but, on
the other hand, reveal his sincere effort fairly and impartially to obtain a complete record
as expeditiously as possible The Union's exception is without merit
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 495
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , Local 393 , AFL, and United Construction
Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Baker' s and Rodeffer's rival union activities
Shortly after the Company started its operations at Timber-
ville in November 1949, it began negotiations with the Union
which culminated in a collective -bargaining contract in March
1950 with that labor organization . The Company and the Union
subsequently entered into two other contracts , the last of which
was in force at the time of the alleged unfair labor practices
on August 31, 1951. The UCW had competed with the Union in
1949 to become the bargaining representative of the Company's
employees , but ceased these activities after the Union obtained
its contract . In about June or July 1951 it resumed its organ-
izing drive and procured as members various employees of the
Company who already belonged to the Union . Among these were
Baker who signed a UCW card in June or July, and Rodeffer
who joined in August . Baker became actively engaged in the UCW
movement and solicited the membership of the female employees
in the sausage room where she worked in the Company ' s plant.
She distributed about 12 cards and signed up 2 to 5 employees.
Two UCW meetings were conducted in August 1951, the
second being held on Friday night , August 23 , at the Timber-
ville fire hall under the auspices of Marhl William Clatterbuck,
the UCW field representative . A decision was reached by the
approximately 20 persons attending this meeting to strike
the Company ' s plant on the following Monday morning to force
recognition of the UCW . A "strike committee " consisting of
Baker and Rodeffer was chosen at the meeting to join
Clatterbuck in negotiating with the Company if the strike
were to result in recognition of the UCW . On Monday morning,
August 26, Clatterbuck appeared at the Company ' s plant to
direct the strike . Contrary to expectations , UCW strength
did not materialize and after sidewalk discussion with M. J.
Sheffield , the Company ' s general manager , Albert G. Gray,
the Union ' s business manager and secretary -treasurer, and
his local representative , Jess Spitzer , Clatterbuck decided to
abandon the strike. The plant doors were opened and the
employees who had meanwhile congregated outside the plant
entered and reported to their duties without interruption
of their work. Baker did not participate in the discussions
between Clatterbuck , Sheffield , and the others , but remained
with the employees who had gathered in the vicinity and
entered the plant with them when the strike was called off.
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rodeffer arrived at the plant after the doors were opened,
and immediately reported for work.
To prove the 8 (a) (3) and 8 ( b) (2) allegations of the complaint
it was necessary in this case for the General Counsel to
establish , inter alia , that the Company and the Union, re-
spectively , had knowledge or belief before the discharges of
Baker and Rodeffer on August 31, 1951, with respect to their
UCW activities . We are satisfied that the record supports
the conclusion that the Respondents had such knowledge or
belief. Knowledge of Baker's solicitation of her fellow employees
in the sausage room, where approximately 12 employees were
employed, may reasonably be imputed to Florence Dellinger,
the union stewardess , who also worked in the sausage room.
Dellinger ' s knowledge is chargeable to the Union . We also
reasonably infer that Gray and his local representative,
Spitzer, knew that Baker and Rodeffer had been chosen to
constitute the "strike committee" at the UCW fire hall
meeting on August 23 . Gray, whose office was in Washington,
D. C., testified that he arrived at the Company ' s plant at
5 a. m. Monday , August 26 , and was the first person on the
scene ; that he had been informed before then by Spitzer of
the UCW meeting on the preceding Friday night and was at
the plant to head off the strike . We believe that as Spitzer
and Gray were so promptly and reliably informed regarding
the strike vote taken at the UCW meeting, they necessarily
had access to and learned of other business transacted at the
meeting of major concern to the Union , including the identity
of company employees designated as a "strike committee" to
negotiate for UCW bargaining status. From the foregoing, we
find that the Union was apprised of Baker's and Rodeffer's
UCW activities before they were discharged.
We are convinced , for reasons explicated below , that the
Union brought to the Company ' s attention the facts concerning
Baker's and Rodeffer ' s rival union activities in urging their
discharges for -these reasons. Moreover , there is sufficient
proof in the record to warrant the conclusion that the Company
had independently learned of their UCW activities. Thus,
Fritz Lindner , the assistant foreman directly over the sausage
room, testified that he had been aware of UCW activity in the
plant although he did not know which employees were thus
engaged. He further testified , however, that he discovered
"what it was all about " on the day of the strike, and that
during the week before Baker and Rodeffer were discharged
he was told by some of the girls in the sausage room that
Baker and Rodeffer "were with the others that were there
in the picket ." Plant Manager Sheffield denied in his testimony
knowing that Baker and Rodeffer were active for the UCW,
although he knew there was UCW activity in the plant. He
testified further that he had learned via the "grapevine"
about the UCW fire-hall meeting on the day of the strike or
the next day . Plant Superintendent Garside testified that he
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 497
had known by "hearsay" that Baker and Rodeffer were either
members or adherents of the UCW, and further testified that
their names might have been mentioned to him in this con-
nection . Garside also testified that Sheffield had conferred
with him about Baker and Rodeffer in arriving at the decision
to discharge them. We are satisfied that Lindner's and
Garside's testimony clearly reveals their knowledge of
Baker's and Rodeffer's UCW activities before their discharges.
We are also satisfied that if, as Sheffield testified, he had
received "grapevine" information of the UCW fire -hall meeting,
he was apprised of the events transpiring at the meeting,
including the selection of Baker and Rodeffer as the "strike
committee." In view of the foregoing, we find that the Company
had knowledge or belief as to the rival union activities of
Baker and Rodeffer before they were discharged.
B. The discharges of Baker and Rodeffer
Baker's employment with the Company began in July 1950.
Rodeffer was hired in February 1951. At the time of their
discharges their duties consisted of hanging links of frank-
furters on a rack for smoking as they were ejected from a
stuffing machine. Two other employees, Florence Dellinger,
the aforementioned union stewardess, and Evelyn Litten were
the stuffers who regularly operated the machine producing
the frankfurters. Edna May Clutters, another sausage-room
employee, occasionally replaced one of the stuffers. All these
employees, together with the rest of the women in the sausage
room comprising a force of 12 or 13 women, were directly
supervised by Fritz Lindner who served as assistant foreman
under his father, Henry Lindner, the foreman.
At about 3:30 p. m. on August 31, 1951, Foreman Henry
Lindner brought Baker and Rodeffer their paychecks and
instructed them to check out. Inquiry from Fritz Lindner as
to what his father had meant brought confirmation of their
understanding that they were discharged. Thereupon they,
and Mary Moyer, another employee who had also been given
her paycheck, spoke to Henry Lindner and asked why they
were discharged. He informed Moyer she had been "too
slow," but said to Baker and Rodeffer, "I don't know, you will
have to see the management. I honestly don't know." Later
that afternoon Baker and Rodeffer spoke to Sheffield and asked
for an explanation as to their discharges. He indicated only
that they had caused trouble and that he had received complaints
about them from three sources. When they pressed him for
the names of the complainants he refused to divulge their
identity, but said "I can't run the plant with you two girls.
If I keep you two girls, the rest will all quit."
On the following Tuesday, September 3, Baker, accompanied
by Ernest Martz who was the union steward on the kill floor,
but who was also a UCW adherent, again requested reasons
from Sheffield for their discharges, but obtained no further
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
information than the general explanation that they had caused
trouble, and couldn't get along with the girls in the sausage
room. Sheffield denied the query by Martz whether the dis-
charges were the result "of the other union in the plant,"
and refused to comply with the suggestion to bring in some
of the employees from the sausage room to testify concerning
the complaints against Baker and Rodeffer.
That same day, or the next, Martz procured the signatures
of 18 to 20 employees on the kill floor toapetition requesting
Sheffield to give reasons for Baker ' s and Rodeffer's dis-
charges . This petition was presented to Sheffield. When Gray
learned of the petition he contacted Sheffield and then came
to the plant to form a grievance committee composed of men
from the kill floor. The following week a meeting was held at
the plant which was attended by Sheffield, Gray, and the
employee members of the committee. Baker and Rodeffer did
not attend the meeting although it had been their understanding
they would be notified of the time it would be convened so that
they could be present . They testified that they did not learn
of the meeting until Gray telephoned Rodeffer one evening to
say that it had already been held and informed her it was the
consensus of the committee that the Company had justifiably
discharged her and Baker . Gray, on the other hand , testified
that he had called Rodeffer the day before the meeting to
give her and Baker an opportunity to attend . Baker and
Rodeffer , however , testified in rebuttal that the day after his
call to Rodeffer, which according to Gray's testimony was the
day when the meeting was held, they came to the plant to clear
out their lockers. While there they went to the Company's
office where Baker picked up her vacation check from a
Mr. Lindstrom in the office. As they went from there to the
parking lot, Gray and Spitzer passed them in an automobile
at a distance of not more than 3 feet and " sneered " at them.
The Trial Examiner credited Baker's and Rodeffer' s testi-
mony that they had not been apprised of the meeting before
it was held. We agree with this resolution .5 Sheffield testified
that it was his impression that they were to have been notified
in advance of the meeting , and Gray's testimony indicates he
had the same impression . Yet, neither Sheffield nor Gray
delayed the meeting pending their arrival. Although the meeting
lasted from lZ to 2 hours, no attempt was made to contact
them to find out whether they were going to appear. We do not
regard such lack of interest in the absence from a grievance
meeting of the parties principally affected by the action to
be taken at the meeting as indicative that their presence was
either expected or desired by those conducting the meeting.
Persons in whose behalf grievance meetings of the sort here
in question are called are generally eager to attend to defend
5 Because the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence does not convince us that
the Trial Examiner's resolution was incorrect, we adopt this credibility finding Standard
Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F. 2d 362.
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 499
against adverse charges and to confront complaining witnesses.
It is unlikely that Baker and Rodeffer , who we find were at
the plant on the day of the meeting and were seen there by
Gray , would not have appeared at the meeting if they had
known it was to be held that day. We are convinced, as was
the Trial Examiner, that Gray had not notified them in advance
of the meeting when it was to be held , and conclude from all
the circumstances relative to the meeting that Gray had misled
them as to the time of the meeting to prevent their appearance.
No employees from the sausage room were called to the
meeting to present their complaints against Baker and Rodeffer.
According to Gray, Sheffield related to the committee numerous
complaints he had received about Baker and Rodeffer from the
sausage-room foreman and his assistant that "the girls were
almost impossible to work with, that they were hard to get
along with , argumentative , that they used vile language on
occasion , cussed out some of the employees in no uncertain
terms , that they had complained about the way that two of the
girls ( Dellinger and Litten ) were stuffing the franks out,
claiming that the girls didn't stuff them properly even though
the girls were following the instructions of their foreman."
Gray testified that he had talked to Fritz Lindner before the
meeting as to the complaints against Baker and Rodeffer, and
was satisfied that Sheffield ' s statement of the Company's
position was supported by what Lindner had told him. He
therefore considered Sheffield ' s explanation as to the reason
for the discharges as adequate . Apparently the other committee
members formed a similar impression as no dissent was
voiced at the meeting to the Company ' s position.
Sheffield testified that the charges against Baker and Rodeffer,
as related by him at the grievance meeting, were based on 2
investigations made by him , the first about 2 or 3 months be-
fore the discharges , and the second about 3 days after the UCW's
attempted strike. These investigations resulted from com-
plaints by Fritz Lindner and Dellinger ,6 and consisted merely
of consultation with these 2 persons and Foreman Henry Lindner.
Sheffield stated that Baker and Rodeffer were reported to have
been abusive , and that they found fault with their coworkers.
Dellinger assertedly told him that they were always causing
trouble on the stuffing bench and calling names. Sheffield did
not in his investigation obtain names of aggrieved employees
other than Dellinger ' s or any particulars as to dates or other
facts pertaining to incidents in which Baker and Rodeffer
might have been involved.
Superintendent Garside testified that he had received com-
plaints about Baker and Rodeffer about 4 months before their
discharges from both Henry and Fritz Lindner. These com-
plaints were to the effect that they were "troublemakers and
were retarding production ." He estimated that he had received
about a dozen complaints . He stated that he was informed by
6Sheffield testified that Dellinger had spoken to him "about 2 or 3 days after the so-
called strike "
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the foreman (Henry Lindner) that Baker and Rodeffer had
argued with all the girls. Like Sheffield, he was satisfied with
his foreman ' s report concerning the complaints and spoke to
no sausage - room employees concerning them except Dellinger.
Fritz Lindner, the assistant foreman, testified that he had
asked his father, Foreman Henry Lindner, to discharge Baker
several times long before she was finally discharged. He did
not find fault with her productiveness as a sausagehanger
because, in his own words , " she had to work , because she
had to keep up with the machine." The main difficulty, he
testified, was her inability to get along with the other girls.
It appears that the Company had had a supply of casings which
were too small for the size frankfurters being produced but
which Lindner nevertheless instructed the stuffers, Dellinger
and Litten, to use. As a result, frankfurters were frequently
produced with broken casings. This necessitated additional
work by Baker and Rodeffer who were required to shell the
meat out of the broken casings and to tie the loose ends. Del-
linger, Litten, and Clutters, the substitute stuffer, complained
to Lindner that Baker and Rodeffer blamed their operation of
the sausage machine for the broken casings, and that these
criticisms made their working conditions unbearable. They
threatened to walk out if Baker and Rodeffer remained. On
the several occasions that he had mentioned this matter to his
father and requested the discharges of Baker and Rodeffer,
Fritz Lindner was told by his father than nothing more was
involved than the usual disagreements of female employees
and "to let the girls go on." Lindner was uncertain as to the
time when Dellinger threatened to walk out, but it appeared
from his testimony that she made one threat about a month
before the attempted strike of August 26 and then not again
until about a week before Baker and Rodeffer were discharged
on August 31. Lindner admitted that he had never heard argu-
ments in the sausage room , and that he had never admonished
Baker and Rodeffer for excessive talking during work except
as part of a group of sausage-room employees.
Dellinger testified that her difficulties with Baker and Rod-
effer concerning her stuffing operations started about 3 months
before they were discharged . She mentioned only 2 occasions
when she complained to her superiors about their faultfinding
and threatened to walk out with other employees if they were
allowed to remain. On the first occasion she spoke to Sheffield
in Fritz Lindner's presence, and on the second occasion she
was accompanied by Spitzer when she again spoke to Sheffield.
She fixed the time of this last occasion at about 3 weeks before
the discharges . Her recollection as to this date, however, is
at variance with Sheffield's testimony that he was away from
the plant between August 2 and August 22 or 23. Like the Trial
Examiner , we find that Dellinger ' s last complaint and ulti-
matum were made to Sheffield 2 or 3 days after the UCW
strike attempt, as Sheffield testified.
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 501
Apart from the matter of the broken casings, Dellinger had
no arguments with Baker and Rodeffer , nor did she know of
any arguments between them and other employees in the
sausage room . She acknowledged that they did not swear at
her,7 and that they did not while at work speak in tones louder
than others in the sausage room. Litten and Clutters testified
to the same effect. The fact that Baker and Rodeffer did not
use profanity or obscene language , or create commotions or
disturbances at work was also confirmed by the testimony of
sausage-room employees Bynaker, Lucas, and Nesselrodt.
Baker and Rodeffer testified without contradiction that they
were never criticized by their supervisors because of their
work or behavior on the job.
Henry Lindner was not called as a witness , but Baker testi-
fied that about a week after her discharge , she and her husband
called at his home. On this occasion Lindner told her he didn't
know why she had been discharged , but "that he thought it was
because of the other union ." He repeated to her what he had
told his wife the day of their discharges that "before he would
go through that door again he would have to do the hardest thing
he ever did in his life--fire two of the best workers he had in
his department ." Baker ' s husband confirmed his wife's testi-
mony in this respect.
From the testimony of the foregoing witnesses , many of whom
were called by the Respondents , these facts are clear:
(a) Contrary to Sheffield ' s charges related at the grievance
meeting , Baker and Rodeffer had not used vile language or
cursed their coworkers.
(b) Superintendent Garside's indictment of Baker and Rod-
effer , to the extent that it is based on alleged numerous com-
plaints about them from Foreman Henry Lindner, is not
sustained , particularly in view of Lindner ' s high regard for
these employees as shown by his remarks to Baker.
(c) Apart from criticisms by Baker and Rodeffer as to the
manner in which Dellinger , Litten, and Clutters performed
their stuffing operations , they engaged in no arguments with
these employees nor with any of their coworkers in the sausage
room.
(d) At no time relevant to their discharges had Baker's and
Rodeffer ' s deportment while at work furnished cause for
disciplinary action, and they had never during their entire
employment with the Company been singled out for repri-
mands, warnings , or disciplinary action.
(e) There is no evidence that the Company was dissatisfied
with their productiveness during any period relevant to their
discharges ; on the other hand the record indicates that they
were regarded as efficient employees.
7 The strongest language apparently used by Baker , according to Dellinger, was her
reference to the sausage-stuffing machine as a "damn machine "
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Discrimination
It is evident that the only bona fide reason which the Company
could possibly have asserted for its discharges of Baker and
Rodeffer was their alleged faultfinding about the broken frank-
furter casings . The record clearly shows , however, that
Dellinger and Fritz Lindner had voiced their complaints con-
cerning this faultfinding months before the discharges occurred,
and that the Company ' s supervisors and officials did not regard
them to be sufficiently serious to warrant even a reprimand or
a warning of disciplinary action . On the other hand , the Com-
pany's official attitude was one of complete indifference or
forbearance as evidenced by General Manager Sheffield's
silence after his first investigation , and Foreman Lindner's
instructions to his son , Fritz , to overlook the complaints
against Baker and Rodeffer . The question necessarily arises
as to what prompted the change in the Company ' s attitude
which resulted in their discharges.
The answer to the question thus posed may best be derived
by considering the discharges in the light of the attending facts
and circumstances . Notable among them is the fact that the
discharges were ordered within the week following the attempted
strike by the UCW , and the equally important fact that Baker's
and Rodeffer ' s UCW activities and sympathies were known to
the Company and the Union at this time . Also highly significant
is the fact that Dellinger renewed her complaint against Baker
and Rodeffer and threatened to walk out 2 or 3 days after the
UCW's strike attempt, and that now, as contrasted with its
former inaction, the Company complied with her demandto get
rid of them. Not to be overlooked is Dellinger ' s remark after
the UCW strike action , "that those who attended the UCW
strike meeting would be fired ," and Gray's hostility towards
Baker and Rodeffer as evidenced particularly by his success-
ful scheme to keep them away from their grievance meeting.
Together with these facts and circumstances must be considered
the precipitate character of the discharges , the vague reasons
given by Sheffield at that time for the discharges and the sub-
sequent assignment of reasons at the grievance meeting and
hearing by Sheffield and Garside some of which had no basis
in fact , and the admission by Foreman Henry Lindner shortly
after the discharges that he did not know of reasons for the
discharges and his regret over the loss of his two best workers.
We conclude from all the facts in this case that Dellinger's
demand to Sheffield to discharge Baker and Rodeffer after the
UCW strike attempt was prompted by her desire as the Union's
stewardess in the department where these rival unionists
worked to get rid of them because of their part in the UCW's
move to supplant the Union as bargaining representative . Gray's
hostility towards Baker and Rodeffer is indicative of his desire
also to eliminate them from the plant because of their rival
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 503
unionism , and we find that he acquiesced in and ratified Del-
linger ' s demands and threats. We are further satisfied that
Sheffield ordered the discharges to appease Dellinger ' s threat
to walk out , and that he did so with knowledge that her threat
was motivated by her desire as the Union's stewardess to get
rid of Baker and Rodeffer because of their rival union activities
and sympathies . We find , as did the Trial Examiner , that the
Company violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
discharging Baker and Rodeffer for these reasons.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we also find that the Union
violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, by causing
or attempting to cause the discharge by the Company of Baker
and Rodeffer for the reasons set forth above. The Trial Exam-
iner had dismissed the complaint as to the Union on the ground
that the record lacked proof of authority by Dellinger from
the Union to demand the discharges . However , under general
rules of agency applicable here, the Union is chargeable with
Dellinger ' s conduct as its stewardess whether she acted with-
out express authority or even if her action was specifically
forbidden, provided that she had been empowered by the Union
to represent it in the general area within which she, as stew-
ardess, had acted .8 Gray testified that Dellinger ' s duties as
stewardess consisted in part " of doing everything in her power
outside of coercion to persuade [employees] to join the union,
to become members." Clearly, the elimination of rival union
adherents competing for the membership of employees whom
she might seek to enroll in the Union would enable her to
achieve this objective more effectively. Moreover, she would
clearly be aided in carrying out her function in signing up new
employees , because of the coercive effect upon them of the
discharge of rival unionists for such activities. Apart from
these considerations , the evidence of Gray's animus towards
Baker and Rodeffer occasioned by their rival union activities,
and his acquiescence in Dellinger ' s move to have them dis-
charged sufficiently shows ratification of her conduct by the
Union to render it responsible therefor . Accordingly, we
reverse the Trial Examiner ' s dismissal of the complaint as
to the Union.
We also find that the Company ' s conduct in discharging
Baker and Rodeffer because of their activities in behalf of a
labor organization opposed to the Union constitutes unlawful
assistance and support to the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(2)oftheAct. 9
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above , have a close, inti-
SPerry Norvell Co., 80 NLRB 225; Sunset Line and Twine Co., 79 NLRB 1487.
9 Harrison Sheet Steel Co , 94 NLRB 81.
291555 0 - 54 - 33
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , we shall order them to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act. We shall , therefore , order the
Company to offer Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions , P without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges . We shall also order the Company
and the Union , jointly and severally , to make whole Pearlie
H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer for any loss of pay they may
have suffered because of the discrimination against them, by
payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amounts they
would have earned as wages from August 31, 1951 , to the dates
of offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings during such
periods. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with the
Board ' s Woolworth formula" on the basis of each separate
calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from
the discharges to the dates of proper offers of reinstatement.
The quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters ," shall
begin with the first day of January , April, July, and October.
Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal
to that which these employees would normally have earned for
each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings' if any,
in other employment during that period . Earnings in one par-
ticular quarter shall have no effect upon the back pay liability
for any other quarter.
In accordance with our practice , the period from the date
of the Intermediate Report to the date of the Order herein will
be excluded in computing the amount of back pay to which these
individuals are entitled from the Union, because of the Trial
Examiner ' s recommendation that the complaint be dismissed
as to the Union.
We shall also order the Company to make available to the
Board, upon request , payroll and other records to facilitate
the checking of the amount of back pay due.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record
in the case , the Board makes the following:
loin accordance with the Board ' s consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position when-
ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equiva-
lent position ." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
ii F. W. Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289.
12 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 505
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and .Butcher Workmen of
North America, Local 393, AFL, and,, United Construction
Workers, affiliated with United Mine, Workers of America,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment
of Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer, the Company has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, has furnished unlawful
support and assistance to the Union in violation of Section
8 (a) (2) of the Act, and has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the Company to dis-
criminate against Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Union has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2)
of the Act, and has restrained and coerced employees of the
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
A. Respondent Company, Shen-Valley Meat Packers, In-
corporated , Timberville , Virginia , its officers , agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its
employees or encouraging membership in Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 393,
AFL, by discharging any of its employees , or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment
or terms or conditions of employment of its employees.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist
any labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activ-
ities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree -
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of employment in the manner and to the extent authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action whichthe Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equi-
valent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents
for examination or copying all payroll records , social-security
payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back
pay due under the terms of this Decision and Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its Timberville, Virginia,
plant , copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix
A."13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
the Respondent Company's representative , be posted by the
Respondent Company immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of sixty ( 60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to the employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent Company to insure that
said notices shall not be altered , defaced , or covered by other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in
writing, within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, Local 393, AFL, its officers,
representatives , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Company,
Shen -Valley Meat Packers , Incorporated , its officers , agents,
successors, or assigns to discriminate in regard to the tenure
of its employees or any terms or conditions of employment in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees
of Respondent Company, Shen -Valley Meat Packers , Incor-
porated , its successors, or assigns , in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except in the manner
and to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
13 In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED 507
(a) Notify in writing the Respondent Company, Shen-Valley
Meat Packers , Incorporated , that it withdraw all objections to
the employment of Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer, and
that it requests said Respondent Company to offer them im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges.
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Timber-
ville, Virginia, or wherever its offices or meeting halls may
be located, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked
"Appendix B."44 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region , shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent Union' s representative , be posted by
the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its members are customarily posted . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said
notices shall not be altered , defaced, or covered by other ma-
terial.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,what
steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
C. Respondents Shen-Valley Meat Packers, Incorporated,
Timberville, Virginia, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 393, AFL, their
respective officers, representatives , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
Jointly and severally, make whole Pearlie H. Baker and
Doris Rodeffer for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner
prescribed in the section of this Decision and Order entitled
"The Remedy."
14 In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order ." the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees
that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in any labor
organization of our employees or encourage membership
in Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
North America, Local 393, AFL, by discharging employ-
ees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
the tenure of employment or terms or conditions of em-
ployment of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by a valid agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially'equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and, jointly and severally with Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America- Local 393, AFL,
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members
of the above-named labor organization, or any other labor
organization, or to refrain from such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We
will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employees
because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such
labor organization.
SHEN -VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated ............ By ........................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for '60 days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
SHEN- VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
509
TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL
393, AFL
AND
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS,
INCORPORATED
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of
the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you
that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Shen-Valley
Meat Packers , Incorporated , its successors or assigns,
to discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment or the terms or conditions of employment of
its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
except in the manner and to the extent authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Shen-
Valley Meat Packers, Incorporated, its successors or
assigns, in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except in the manner and to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization,
as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Shen-Valley Meat
Packers, Incorporated, its successors and assigns,
make whole Pearlie H. Baker and Doris Rodeffer for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND
BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMER-
ICA, LOCAL 393, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated .................... By ... . ................. ..... ............. . ..........
(Representative) (Title
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the
date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. -