Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 440 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. and General Drivers, Helpers
,&'Inside Employees Union , Local No. 487 - affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca. Case 18-CA-2567
November 9, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On May 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Wellington A.
Gillis issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not
engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint, and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the ruling of the 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 briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
Board, against Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent or the Company, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(61 Stat. 136), and upon an answer timely filed by the
Respondent denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues, and to engage in oral argument . Subsequent to the
close of hearing, timely briefs were filed by counsel for the
General Counsel and for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor on the
witness stand, and upon substantial reliable evidence
"considered along with the consistency and inherent
probability of testimony" (Universal Camera Corp. v.
N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 496), I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., with its principal office located
in Indianapolis, Indiana, owns and operates food process-
ing and canning plants in numerous States of the United
States, including Fairmont and Winnebago, Minnesota, the
locations involved in this proceeding. The Respondent, in
the course of its business, annually ships products valued in
excess of $50,000 from its Fairmont and Winnebago,
Minnesota, plants directly to points outside the State of
Minnesota. The parties admit, and I find, that the
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit, and I find, that General Drivers,
Helpers & Inside Employees Union, Local No. 487,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1 In the circumstances of this case, including the bargaining impasse
which he finds attended the lockout , Member Brown affirms the Trial
Examiner's dismissal of the complaint.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard by me at Fairmont, Minnesota, and is based on a
charge filed on March 5, 1968, by General Drivers, Helpers
& Inside Employees Union, Local No. 487, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, upon a complaint, issued on
February 18, 1969, by the General Counsel for the National
Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the
A. Complaint Allegations
Between December 14, when the Union notified the
Respondent of its desire to open the existing collective-
bargaining contract, and April 6, when a new contract was
finally executed, the Union and the Respondent held 13
bargaining sessions. With respect to the period between
January 17 and March 1, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargaining in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, (a) in entering
negotiations on January 17 with a closed mind and with no
intention of entering into any agreement with the Union
except upon the proposals submitted by Respondent; (b) in
presenting its contract proposals on January 18, on a take-
it-or-leave-it basis and with a predetermined resolve not to
alter its initial position; (c) during negotiations subsequent
186 NLRB No. 64
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 441
to February 6 when it proposed significant changes in job
classifications and job brackets in connection with its wage
proposal, in refusing to explain the meaning and effect of
such proposals or to supply the Union with information to
understand the proposals, while insisting that the Union
accept the proposals and present them for ratification to its
membership; (d) in repeatedly threatening, throughout the
negotiations prior to March 4, to lockout its employees
unless the Union accepted the Respondent's proposals; (e)
in compelling certain employees, on February 22, to attend
meetings with Respondent's officials, thereby bypassing
and undermining the Union as bargaining representative,
using the meetings for the purpose of persuading employees
to exert pressure on the Union to accept the Respondent's
proposals; and (f) in refusing to consider, discuss, or
negotiate with the Union, during negotiations on March 1,
on counterproposals which were submitted to the Respon-
dent by the Union previously. The complaint further
alleges that, in locking out all of its employees on and after
March 4, while engaging in bad-faith bargaining, the
Respondent's action was calculated to discourage union
activities and to evade the Respondent's bargaining
obligation, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
B. The Facts
At all times since 1956, the Union has been the certified
bargaining representative for the employees at the Respon-
dent's three Minnesota plants, two of which are located in
Fairmont and the third at Winnebago.' Following the
execution of a number of collective-bargaining contracts
through the years covering the employees employed at
these three plants, the Union by letter dated December 14,
1967, timely notified the Respondent of its desire to modify
,.as we feel necessary" the terms of the current 3-year
collective-bargaining agreement which was due to expire on
February 29, 1968.2 The following day, December 15, the
Respondent served notice on the Union of its intention to
terminate the contract on its expiration date and, indicating
a desire to commence negotiations for a new contract as
soon as possible, requested that the Union meet at the
Fairmont Hotel at 9 a.m., on January 3, 1968. By letter of
December 19, Harold Krueger, secretary-treasurer of Local
487, informed the Respondent that because of other
negotiating commitments , he would not be able to meet on
January 3, and indicated that he would contact the
Company as soon as he could arrange a date. By letter
dated December 27, acknowledging receipt of the Union's
letter, the Company, anticipating considerable contract
changes in a new contract requiring time, requested a
meeting with the union representatives on January 9. By
reply of December 29, Krueger indicated that he could not
meet on January 9 as suggested by the Company, but that
he would be available on January 17, 18, and 19. The
1 Acknowledging that the second of these , plant 172 in Fairmont, was
eliminated on August 1, 1968, the unit stipulated to as appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act is comprised of the following:
All regular and seasonal production , maintenance, cooler, shipping,
receiving, garage and viner shop employees employed by the
Respondent at its plants No. 171 and No . 172 at Fairmont , Minnesota,
and its plant No. 173 at Winnebago, Minnesota ; excluding office,
clerical , watchmen , guards , professional , viner (except viner shop
Company responded on January 2, agreeing to the January
17 date and expressing a hope that Krueger, could be
available for January 18 and 19 as well, if necessary.
Thus, the first series of bargaining sessions got under way
on January 17, 18, and 19, at the Augusta Hotel in
Fairmont. Representing Local 487, in addition to members
of the three-plant bargaining committee, were Donald
Eaton, secretary-treasurer of Local 695 in Madison,
Wisconsin, and Harold Krueger, Local 487 secretary-
treasurer and business representative. Present for the
Respondent were Harvey Davis, manager of labor
relations, C. LeRoy Eldridge, then assistant to the
president, Uddo Idstrom, personnel manager for the
Minnesota district, and Francis Vernon, industrial relations
representative. After the meeting opened at 10 a.m. with an
expressed desire by Eldridge that a contract be concluded
by the February 29 expiration date of the existing contract,
it was turned over to Davis and Eaton, the principal
spokesmen for the parties. The Union presented to the
Respondent its written proposal for a new contract, a five-
page document setting forth suggested deletions, additions,
and changes, article by article relating to the existing
agreement. During the course of the 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
meeting, in an exploratory manner, the parties went
through the various articles of the Union's proposal,
discussing generally that which the Union was seeking, with
perhaps preliminary or tentative agreement reached on at
least some of the provisions .3
The following day, January 18, with the same representa-
tives present, except for Eldridge, the parties again spent a
7-hour session in negotiations. This time the negotiators
spent the whole day in reviewing a company counterpropo-
sal, article by article, which contained basically a complete
contract minus the Company's economic offer, to which
there was no bracket schedule or wages attached. The
Company's counterproposal was annotated with reference
to provisions of the existing contract. To expedite an
understanding of the Company's proposal, the Respondent
presented the Union with a four-page document, referred to
during the hearing as a "road map," containing a summary
of the proposed changes as applied to the existing contract.
Davis explained to Eaton that the Company's proposed
revised bracket structure would be presented later and
would be related to the Company's proposal to eliminate
the computed average rate system and to substitute a
protective rate system. Considerable time was spent during
this session in discussing checkoff procedures, grievance
procedures, vacations and seniority, and picket line
language. At the conclusion of this second session, it
appeared that there were some provisions of the existing
contract that neither party wished to change, that there
were areas where there was tentative agreement, and that
there were many items that were definitely in dispute.
employees), new construction employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2 Unless otherwise specified , all dates herein refer to the fall of 1967 and
the winter of 1968.
3 Davis testified that , in discussing the question of termination, Krueger
stated that the Union did not want anything longer than a 2-year contract,
and, when Davis questioned whether they were about to get into "the same
sort of situation" as before, Eaton replied that the length of the contract
was a matter for negotiation.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 19, the parties again met, spending the better
part of the day discussing the Company's proposals and
going further into items raised by the Union's proposals.
During this session the Union raised the position that it
wanted a 2-year contract. When Davis, who on behalf of
the Company was seeking another 3-year contract, became
concerned about "that same old story" and took the
position that "we are not going to get tied up with
expiration dates and a national agreement," Eaton replied
that "we are not interested in a national agreement, we
aren't here to talk to you about it, we are here to talk about
the term of this contract, which is a subject of which you are
required to bargain with us." 4 By the end of this session, it
appeared that the parties were able to agree on many
provisions of a new contract and had identified other areas
of disagreement . In areas where the parties had found
agreement but that required modification or word changes,
Davis told Eaton he would rewrite these as agreed and
submit them at the next meeting. Before closing , Eldridge
suggested that they meet again on January 22 through 25,
also on January 29 through 31. The Union replied that they
would not be available on these dates. Then Eldridge
suggested the week of February 5, to which the union
representatives agreed, which agreement was subsequently
confirmed by letter of January 22 from Eldridge to
Krueger.
On February 1, having been telephonically apprised by
Eaton that he would not be able to attend the meetings
scheduled for February 5, 6, and 7, because of some official
business that he had to attend to, and that he should
attempt to postpone them, Krueger went to the plant and
talked with Idstrom who told him that he had better speak
to Davis. Davis, on the telephone, stressed the importance
of continuing the negotiations, that the Company was fast
approaching a time when planting would commence, and
then referred Krueger to Eldridge. Krueger, who also
wanted out on February 5, 6, and 7 because he "was
anticipating a strike that morning" at a plant in Mankato,
Minnesota , asked Eldridge if he would agree to postponing
the meetings . Eldridge accused the Union of stalling and,
because of having made arrangements causing the post-
ponement of other matters in order to accommodate the
scheduled meetings, Eldridge refused the Union's post-
ponement request. Later on Davis called Eaton, expressing
his feelings over Eaton's request that the meetings be
postponed, and reminding him of the Company' s arrange-
ment to have a company plane stop at Madison and pick
him up. Davis said that they were going to go ahead with
the meetings anyway, that the plane would stop for him as
agreed. Eaton urged that they not go ahead with the
meeting "since I felt we had made some progress." Davis
accused Eaton of stalling and, notwithstanding Eaton's
explanation for not being able to be present, after
consulting with Eldridge on his end of the telephone and
angry at Eaton for his giving priority to other business and
* Whether this occurred on January 19 as testified to by Eaton, from
whose testimony the quotations are taken, or on January 17, as recalled by
Davis, there is no dispute as to the issue having been raised early in the
proceedings.
5 Davis testified that, at this time , Eaton told him that if a meeting were
held and he were not there, "there will be no decisions made , you are just
going to be spinning your wheels ." I do not credit Eaton's denial, or that
breaking his agreement to meet, Davis stated that they
would hold the negotiations anyway.5 Such intent was
subsequently expressed by letter of February 1, Eldridge to
Krueger.
The Union substituted Don Burger, vice president of
Local 662, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, for Eaton, and the
representatives met as scheduled on February 5, 6, and 7 at
the Augusta Hotel in Fairmont .6
Shortly after the meeting on February 5 commenced in
the early afternoon, Davis handed to the Union a dozen
copies of the rewrite job he had promised concerning the
changes that had been agreed to at the January 19 meeting.
The parties went about discussing these "pink sheets," and
making additional changes as they went along. These
changes, along with others that were arrived at during these
3 days, were rewritten by the Company while in session and
given to the Union. On the morning of February 6, Davis
presented to the Union a document containing a revised
bracket structure with a proposal to eliminate the computed
average rate and substitute a system for providing a
protective rate for employees in brackets I--through III.
Lengthy discussion ensued during which Davis explained
the basis and the reasons for proposing the changes in
bracket structure, discussion which involved job classifica-
tions, number of employees in each classification, and even
the names of employees in some of the brackets.
Just before adjournment on February 6, Eldridge told
Krueger that he would give the Union the Company's wage
proposal and that the money offer would offset any dispute
that might exist on some noneconomic provisions.
According to Davis, just prior to noon on February 7, the
parties, after further discussion on noneconomic provi-
sions, had reached a point in their negotiations where there
was an agreement on the basic language of a contract,
except for provisions relating to picket lines, maintenance
of standards, a "no-strike, no-lockout" clause, and a
management rights provision. Krueger then said that, if the
Company would put back the picket line clause and the
Union's maintenance of standards, the Union would agree
to the "no-strike, no-lockout" clause and then the parties
would be in agreement on the basic language of the
contract, minus any money offer. After lunch on February
7, Eldridge reappeared and was advised by Davis that the
committee and the Company were then in agreement as to
the basic language, without any money offer. According to
Davis and Eldridge, in reply to the latter's direct question,
Krueger and Burger confirmed Davis' statement, as to
having reached an agreement on the basic language, and
the meeting was turned over to Eldridge to make a money
offer, which he promptly did. Among other items, the
money offer included economic benefits such as increase in
rates for all brackets, upgrading of certain jobs, an
additional holiday, increased group insurance and pension
plan items, sick leave, and overtime provisions. This money
offer, in turn, generated a lengthy discussion, particularly
he merely "told him that to preserve the continuity of the meeting it would
be better if I would be there, and I thought we would make more
progress."
6 Krueger and Burger , along with seven or eight negotiating committee
members, were present for the Union , and Davis , Eldridge, Vernon,
Idstrom , and four other management people were in attendance for the
Respondent.
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 443
with respect to the new bracket structure, union questions
being answered primarily by Davis and Idstrom. At some
point, Eldridge asked the Union when it would present the
proposed contract to its members for ratification. Krueger
replied that he would not present it, giving as a basic
reason, according to Davis and Eldridge, that it was a 3-
year contract and the Union was not interested in anything
more than a 2-year contract.?
Finally, after an extended exchange between Eldridge
and Krueger, and an insistence on the part of Eldridge that
under the Taft-Hartley Law he had to take it to the
members, Krueger agreed to take it to his people, but stated
that he would not recommend its acceptance. Davis told
the Union that Idstrom would put into proper form all of
the language agreed upon in the company proposal and
deliver clear and legible copies to the Union.
Within a day or so of February 7, Davis prepared 10
copies of the proposed document showing all the things that
had been agreed upon up to that time and, then, Idstrom
forwarded several copies to Krueger. On February 16, after
Krueger had approached Idstrom the day before and asked
Krueger to meet with him for the purpose of making a few
changes and correcting a few errors and omissions in the
document, Idstrom met with Krueger. Krueger asked for
eight changes, all of which Idstrom agreed to, subject to
Davis' approval. Idstrom then telephoned Davis and got his
approval on all of the eight changes. Idstrom agreed to
retype the pages involved in the eight proposed changes, in
order to assist Krueger in presenting the proposal to the
union membership the following day. Krueger also
suggested that it would be helpful to him if he had
something which would identify the new job nomenclature
of the old jobs as they existed in the brackets. That evening
Idstrom had the pages retyped and prepared a document
containing the job information, which he packaged and
delivered to the union steward that night, February 16.
On February 17 at the V.F.W. Hall in Fairmont,
pursuant to the call of the Union, a meeting of the
Respondent's employees was held, with Eaton, Krueger,
Burger , and Schlieve and the employee bargaining
committee in attendance. Krueger opened the meeting,
introducing the other union officials and, using the
documents supplied by Idstrom, presented and explained
the Company's proposals, as they related to the expiring
contract. After going into the noneconomic aspects of the
proposal, Krueger explained the wage package. Eaton and
Schlieve then talked to the employees, indicating what they
felt were shortcomings, such as the lack of an adequate
picket line clause and a less than adequate money package.
Krueger, at some point, apprised the membership that the
contract was for a 3-year term. The employees were told by
Eaton and Schlieve that they were of the opinion that a
better agreement could be negotiated but, as Eaton
cautioned, that the possibility of a lockout existed if the
proposal were rejected "because this Company had locked
out their employees in other areas."
After several hours, with but few questions from the
floor, a vote was taken, with the proposal being rejected 429
to 25. Following the vote, the committee and union officers
were directed by action of the membership to prepare
counterproposals and to continue negotiations with the
Company.8
Shortly after the employee's rejection of the Company's
contract proposals, Krueger called Idstrom and informed
him of the outcome. Within minutes Eldridge called and
asked Krueger what had happened, to which Krueger
replied that "the employees had rejected his 3-year
proposal."9
During an exchange that followed, Eldridge made known
his feeling that had the Union kept the Wisconsin
delegation out of the proceedings they would have had a
contract. When Krueger said he would try to get some
counterproposals and set up a meeting as soon as possible,
Eldridge asked what dates they could agree on. Krueger
replied that he did not know, that he had to have a meeting
of his committee first to come up with new counterpropo-
sals. After the telephone conversation, Krueger sent
Eldridge a telegram confirming the fact that "your
employees at plants 171-172 and 173 have rejected your
proposal for a 3-year agreement." 10
On February 19, Eldridge sent a telegram back to
Krueger which read as follows:
On Saturday, February 17, 1968, I contacted you at
your home by telephone at 10:50 p.m. e.s.t. and you
advised that the Union membership had rejected our
offer primarily because they did not want a 3-year
contract.
I asked for an immediate meeting on Tuesday,
February 20, 1968 to continue negotiations. You said
you could not meet on that date. I then asked for a
meeting on Wednesday, February 21; again you refused
to meet. I got the same answer to my requests for
meetings on Thursday and Friday, February 22 and 23,
1968.
This collective-bargaining agreement is an extremely
important document to many people and while it has
been apparent to us that you have been stalling these
negotiations since notice was given of contract termina-
tion it would seem to me that you should give this
matter top priority, particularly in view of the little time
left before expiration of the contract.
I again ask for a meeting to continue negotiations any
day or hour this week, and insist that you meet with us
not later than Monday, February 26, 1968, or we shall
have to proceed with out plan to close the plants on
termination of the contract at 12:01 a.m. March 1, 1968.
7
According to committee member Alice Minick, Krueger told Eldridge
that he could not recommend it because "we didn't agree 100 percent on
the wording of it ," and could not understand the price brackets as related
to wages . Krueger's testimony is that he told Eldridge he could not
recommend it because he could not agree on his proposed wage rates.
However, that Krueger asked Eldridge for a 2-year contract is corroborated
by Minick.
s The above account is taken from the testimony of Eaton and Krueger,
the principal union officials at the meeting . Schlieve's testimony varies
somewhat from that of Eaton and Krueger . To the extent that such
variance exists, Schlieve's testimony is not credited.
9 The quotation is taken from the testimony of Krueger.
10 The telegram in full reads:
Your employees at plants 171-172 and 173 have rejected your
proposal for a 3-year agreement . The negotiating committee will
immediately prepare a counterproposal for your considerations. These
proposals will be submitted to you in writing as soon as they are
prepared. At that time we request that you meet with us to bargain. It
is the Union's wish that bargaining continue on an emicable (sic) basis
and that equitable agreement is reached.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The word "out" in last sentence was corrected by
teletype the following day to read "our." ]
By lengthy letter addressed to Respondent's employees
dated February 19, with a copy to Krueger, Eldridge traced
the contract negotiations between the Company and the
Union from December 14 through the February 17
rejection vote, with emphasis placed on the Company's
efforts to expedite the meetings with the union officials, and
the asserted stalling action by the latter. In the letter,
attached to which was a summary of the Company's
economic offer, Eldridge adverted to the Company's
proposal for a new contract as the best offer the employees
had ever had, suggesting that it would have been accepted
by the employees but for the dubious advice of out-of-the-
area union officials, expressing a readiness and willingness
to meet and discuss further the matter with the committee
and union representatives any time before the expiration of
the contract and, after making reference to union efforts
the year before to force a master contract during the
negotiations in Wisconsin that resulted in a 20-day lockout,
closed with the regret that "if the situation reaches an
impasse the plants will be closed at the close of business on
February 29, 1968." At the bottom of the first page of the
attachment, entitled "Company Offer," the following
appears: 11
This is by far the best money offer ever put before you.
We hope that you will give it serious re-consideration
and communicate your feelings to your business agent
immediately. The decision as to whether you work or
not after February 29, 1968, is strictly up to you. Make
no mistake, if the present impasse continues over the
duration of the contract, the plants will be locked up on
February 29.
Several days later, on February 22, the Company held a
meeting at each of its three plants to which seven
employees, in each plant, were asked to attend. The
meeting for plant 171, which lasted about 1 hour, was called
for 9:45 a.m. in the general office, and was attended by
Olesen, Idstrom, and Plant Manager Jim Risher. Olesen
opened the meeting by making clear that this was not a
negotiating meeting, that he had called this in an attempt to
clarify some of the misunderstandings and misinterpreta-
tions of the Company's proposal that had been presented to
the employees for a vote and to answer any questions that
they might have with regard to the company letter that had
been mailed to all the employees on February 19. Risher
answered questions concerning the protected rates and
clarified certain points concerning the job brackets. Olesen
explained the Company's position with respect to a 2-year
versus 3-year contract, specifically stating that the Compa-
ny could not approve a collective-bargaining contract that
contained the same maturity date as its Kuner-Empson
Division, its Wisconsin Division, and its Michigan Division
because of the economic pressures that the Union could put
on it, that other area companies like Libby and Del Monte
did not have a national agreement, and that Green Giant, a
big competitor in the area and countrywide, had no union
at all. Other questions were answered, questions concerning
the insurance plan, the medical plan, and the nomenclature
for administrative employees. At some point, according to
employee Eleanor Hagen, Olesen "mentioned about a
strike we had some years before . . . and they didn't want
to get into that position again," and asked if they did not
think that the employee objection to the proposal "was
more because of the men from Wisconsin than from a 3-
year contract." Olesen also asked the employees to go out
and talk with their negotiating committee and try to get a
settlement "so we could get back to planting the peas." At
some point, Olesen stated that the Company would not
plant its pea seed until an agreement were reached, that the
Fairmont plants represented only 10 percent of Stokely's
operations, and that they had decided to sacrifice that 10
percent.
The meeting at plant 172 commenced at 1:30 that
afternoon in Plant Manager Schultz' office and lasted
about 2 hours. It was opened by Olesen in the same manner
as at plant 171, Olesen specifically making it known that
this was not a negotiating meeting, that the Company
wanted to meet with a few employees and clarify the
Company's proposal which had been offered and rejected.
Present for the Company were Olesen, Idstrom, Schultz,
and Plant Superintendent Bishop. Employee questions were
answered, questions relating to the cost-of-living increases,
the insurance program, seniority in the various job
brackets, and the wage spread within the brackets. In
addition to answering questions, Olesen, as he had that
morning, told the employees that the three plants
represented 10 percent of Stokely's operations, and that he
hoped that the employees could urge the negotiating
committee to get together as soon as possible to resolve the
differences that existed, "so that we wouldn't have a work
stoppage." Olesen, as in the morning, went into the 2-year
versus 3-year contract and the reasons for the Company
wanting a 3-year agreement, and the implications of a
national agreement. Also, as testified to by employee
Bernice Stoner, Olesen said that he hoped that they would
try to explain the proposal to the rest of their fellow workers
so that they would understand it better, "because they
thought that it hadn't been explained fully at our mass
meeting that we had when we rejected the contract." Also,
Stoner corroborated Olesen in that the latter said he
disliked the words "lockout" and "strike," but if they did
not reach an agreement the Company "wouldn't have any
alternative because the competitive basis and the economic
situation we would place them in would be imperative that
they not plant peas." Idstrom told the employees that he
knew the Union was only stalling'long enough to let them
get the peas in the ground and then the Company would be
at the Union's mercy as they were the other time the Union
struck them.12
The final meeting took place in Winnebago at plant 173
at approximately 3:30 p.m. the same afternoon. The seven
employees attending the meeting in Plant Manager Ken
Schutt's office received overtime pay. At the start of the
11 The letter , with the first page of the attachment but minus the four meetings, I credit Olesen 's denial of employee Ralph Pierce's testimony
pages setting forth Wage Rates by Brackets, has been reproduced and is that he told Pierce, who assertedly thought he should return to his job to
attached as Appendix A. take care of a kettle of gravy, he would have to stay for the meeting.
12 With respect to one of the few testimonial conflicts concerning these
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 445
meeting, noticing that an employee, Elbert Miller, was
present, and recalling that Miller had indicated that he did
not want to attend, Schutt informed him that he was not
required to be there. Miller decided to stay anyway. After
opening with the same thoughts as expressed at the earlier
meetings concerning the misunderstandings relating to the
Union's presentation of the proposal and the Company's
February 19 letter, Olesen took the opportunity to make
reference to the newspaper article and the 2-year versus 3-
year contract position of the Company.13 During this
meeting, which lasted 1-1/2 hours, approximately the same
questions were asked with the same answers given as took
place in the other meetings, matters pertaining to wage
differentials, the insurance program, and other benefits. As
testified to by longtime employee Blanche Hickok, Olesen
at some point told the employees that the Company was not
going to get caught like it had the last time when the Union
struck, that they were not going to let it go until they got the
peas in the ground like the last time. Hickok testified that
the company officials made no promises to the employees
nor did they ask the employees what they wanted in their
contract.
On this same day, February 22, the union committee,
with Eaton, Krueger, and Schlieve, met in Minneapolis
where it drafted counterproposals. The following day,
February 23, the Union and the Respondent, by teletype,
were notified by Barton H. Hess of the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service that a joint conference of the
parties was scheduled for 10 a.m., March 1, in Fairmont.
On this same day Krueger replied to his copy of Eldridge's
February 19 letter to the employees, taking exception to the
statement therein that he had at any time informed
Eldridge that he would not discuss a 3-year contract, and
indicating that he was prepared to negotiate the length of
the contract along with the other unresolved issues at a
meeting of March 1. On February 26, the Union mailed two
copies of its counterproposals to Eldridge, which were
received by him on February 28, accompanied by a promise
from Krueger to meet and discuss the counterproposals on
March 1.
The various representatives of the parties met at the
Gilbert Hotel in Fairmont on March 1 to resume contract
negotiations, this time with the assistance of Barton Hess of
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Although
the meeting was set for 10 a.m., Hess met separately with
the parties starting around 11 a.m., going back and forth a
time or two between the groups, attempting to delineate the
issues separating the parties. Apparently with little success
at this, the two groups finally got together around noon.14
The meeting opened with Eaton asking Eldridge to
continue bargaining on the basis of the new union
counterproposals recently submitted by Krueger. Eldridge
stated that he could see no reason to start bargaining from a
brand new proposal when there had been agreement on the
13 A February 19 local newspaper item covering the Union vote on the
company contract proposal indicated that Krueger had reported that the
"principal objections were a 3-year contract instead of the present 2-year
agreement , and dissatisfaction with the wage schedule offered." The
publication of this article , which also stated that "the present three-year
contract expires Feb. 28," was one of the reasons asserted by the Company
that prompted the holding of these employee meetings.
14 Because the union people were late in arriving and, having been
basic language of a contract. Eaton replied by stating the
Union's position that since the committee had refused to
recommend and the membership had rejected the Compa-
ny's proposal, no agreement of any kind existed between
the Company and the Union as to language. Eaton
continued to press for consideration of the Union's
counterproposals and Eldridge continued to reject such
consideration. Eldridge stated, if it were merely a matter of
money or additional fringe benefits, the Company was
flexible with respect to that, but that as far as the basic
language of agreement was concerned he did not intend to
start from scratch after spending so much time achieving a
basic agreement. Eaton again stated his position, that they
were obligated to start over again because the employees
had turned down the full agreement on February 17.
Eldridge retorted that, based on the telegram from Krueger,
the fact was that the employees had voted the company
proposal down solely on the ground that it was a 3-year
contract.
At some point, they got into a discussion of why the
company proposal had been rejected, to which Eaton
answered that, one thing, the people did not understand the
bracket system. When Eldridge accused the Union of
misrepresenting the Company's proposal at the member-
ship meeting, Eaton countered with the question of, how
could it have been misrepresented if the Union did not
understand it. Eaton stated that he did not believe that it
was misrepresented but that, because of the multitude of
changes in it, it was really misunderstood, that Krueger
could not be expected to explain.
Eaton continued asking questions about the jobs and
which employees filled them, and Idstrom provided the
answers from some documents he held. Idstrom then, at
Eldridge's suggestion, turned over the documents to Eaton.
Lengthy discussion then ensued concerning the matter.
Subsequently, Eldridge requested that negotiations contin-
ue using the employee-rejected company proposal as a
basis. Eaton replied that if the Company were to continue
negotiations, it would have to be based on the Union's
counterproposals. When Eaton made known that the
Union would need more time to study and analyze the
bracket information given them by the Company, Eldridge
stated that they did not have much more time, unless an
agreement could be reached by March 4 it would be
necessary to lock up the plant. When Eaton said that the
Company could not analyze the material in that period,
Hess suggested that the parties hold separate sessions.
The parties adjourned for lunch, and then resumed
separately around 2 p.m. After 45 minutes, Hess reported to
the company representatives that the Union was insisting
upon negotiating from their counterproposals, but that they
were going to leave at 3:30 p.m. to catch their plane. With
the hope, pessimistic perhaps, of still settling the matter,
Hess brought the two groups together again . After very
apprised by Hess that they had 4 :40 p.m . plane reservations out of
Fairmont that afternoon and that they were going to insist on negotiating
from scratch with the counterproposals , leaving a bleak outlook for
reaching agreement, Eldridge felt that the Union was stalling. By the same
token, Eaton was informed by Hess that the Company's position was
unchanged from the previous meetings, and that Eldridge had informed
Hess that if no agreement were reached by Sunday night the plants would
close the following day.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
limited discussion, during which Eaton and Eldridge both
maintained their initial positions , Eldridge read a state-
ment, a lengthy prepared statement , setting forth the
Company's position and stating that if there were no
agreement reached by Sunday night and an absolute
impasse reached the plants will be closed as of the close of
business on March 4, and announced that copies of the
statement would be placed on the plant bulletin boards that
aftemoon . 15 When Eaton protested that this was an
ultimatum , Eldridge replied that Eaton could call it what he
liked, that he was there "to negotiate tonight, tomorrow, the
next day, and Sunday , and there is no reason why we can't
come to an agreement . But if we don 't, that statement
stands."
Shortly after the adjournment of the meeting about 3
p.m., Eldridge asked Hess to check on the possibility of
scheduling another meeting between then and Monday,
March 4. Hess reported back that he did not think there
was a possibility of making any specific dates. When
Eldridge then suggested March 5 , 6, 7, and 8, the Union,
through Hess , countered with March 11- 13. Agreement
was finally reached on the week of March 18-21.
During a break in the March 1 meeting , Eaton and Davis
went to the washroom together . According to Eaton's
testimony, Eaton stated that it looked like they were in
trouble , that it appeared to be serious. When Davis agreed,
and Eaton asked if there were not some way they could
solve the problem , Davis retorted that Eldridge was
handling the matter and that he (Davis) did not see any way
out. Eaton volunteered that if the Company locked out the
employees the Minnesota law provided for these people to
receive unemployment compensation . Davis, questioning
the validity of the statement , indicated that in any event
that the Company was not going to finance the dispute.
Davis' version , which I credit , is that at 3:20 p .m., which
places it after adjournment, and after the Company's
lockout announcement, he (Davis) took the initiative with
Eaton in expressing a strong desire not to "see this much
work go down the drain ." Eaton's reply was that , unless the
Company were willing to change its position on bargaining
from the Union 's counterproposals, he did not see that
anything could be done . When Davis replied to Eaton
concerning his thoughts on the possibility of the employees
being eligible for unemployment compensation, Eaton
stated that the Company's case was "on much shakier
ground this time than you were in 1967, and you are going
to lose this one . we have taken particular pains to see
that we didn't make the same mistakes that we made a year
ago." 16 Thereafter, on March 1, the Respondent posted on
its bulletin boards the following notice:
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
March 1, 1968
Because of the currently existing labor dispute with
15 In this statement , after tracing the bargaining developments to date,
and indicating a willingness to consider the economic phase of the Union's
counterproposal, Eldridge accused the Union of a lack of good-faith
bargaining and of stalling, and reiterated the Company 's position that it
intended to resist the Union 's effort to tie in the contract expiration date to
those of the Wisconsin and Michigan plants, as well as others , represented
by the Union . This statement has been reproduced and is attached as
Teamsters Local Union No. 487 and the attendant risks
of economic hardship , as fully set forth in our letter to
you, dated February 19,1968 , the Company is forced to
suspend operations of its Fairmont and Winnebago,
Minnesota plants Nos . 171, 172 and 173 , effective at the
close of business Monday, Mar. 4, 1968.
All employees at those plants are hereby laid off until
further notice.
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
By [signature] C. L. Eldridge 17
Assistant to the President
The next bargaining session got underway at the Gilbert
Hotel during the morning of March 18, with approximately
the same representatives present on both sides , and again
with Hess in attendance . After several separate sessions
with Hess , the parties met and, using the Union's February
22 counterproposals , an effort was made to determine
which of the counterproposals were the same as the
proposals contained in the Company 's proposed contract.
A large number of provisions were discussed, many of
which appeared to have been the same as those in the
Company's proposal , while , with respect to others, it was
found that there was no disagreement.
Upon adjournment on March 18 , the parties mutually
agreed to resume the following day at the Inn Towne Motel
in Minneapolis . Opening the meeting , Eaton reviewed the
provisions discussed the previous day and, using the
Union 's counterproposals as well as the "old contract," the
parties continued in their exchange . The Union agreed to
modifications and changes, and the Respondent did the
same . Other provisions remained unacceptable to one party
or the other, including language of the termination article.
During the day, the parties caucused separately and then
met together with further agreement accomplished on both
sides . Later in the day, March 19, just before adjourning,
Eaton met with Davis , and orally made some further
counterproposals , which Davis wrote down . These included
proposals pertaining to holidays , vacations, management
rights, picketline , and hours of overtime.
The following day, March 20, the parties met again with
the Company requesting more time to consider the Union's
latest counterproposals and to come up with a complete
counterproposal covering all of the items, including the
economic items , and asking whether the Union's last
proposal covered the entire language package or whether
the Union wanted any other language changes . The Union
indicated that no further changes were contemplated, but
that if the Company were to come up with an economic
proposal the Union would want more information while
considering it. Eldridge opened the afternoon session,
stating that the Company had gone over everything that
had been discussed up to then, and that the Company was
ready to give the Union an entire proposal for its serious
consideration, which proposal appears to have been based
Appendix B.
16 This was in obvious reference to the Company's lockout in Wisconsin
in 1967 which resulted in a decision denying unemployment compensation
to the locked -out employees.
17 The date , the signature, and the words "at the close of business
Monday, Mar. 4, 1968" were handwritten in ink.
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 447
on the Union's February 22 counterproposal. Eldridge
went through the entire draft, article by article, including all
provisions previously agreed to and making changes from
the Company's previous position with respect to many of
those not previously agreed upon. After finishing, Eldridge
then made the economic proposal, reading from the
February 19 company letter to Respondent's employees, in
effect proposing the same economic package as contained
therein. When the Union protested that the Company had
not changed a thing in its economic offer, thereby having
wasted 3 days, the meeting broke up.
After the Local Union committee left for home, Neal,
one of the two Federal mediators, approached Eaton and
Schlieve who had not left and told them that Eldridge
wanted to continue the meeting. Eaton refused to meet
without the committee. At some point, however, the Union
asked the Company to draft what had been completed up to
that date and to submit it to them. Thereafter, the
Company prepared a document containing all the noneco-
nomic provisions of a contract that had been agreed upon
by the Union and the Company during the March 18-20
negotiating sessions.
On March 28, pursuant to a telephone call to Eldridge
from Pete Andrade, director of the Western Conference of
Teamsters-Cannery Division, Eldridge and Davis traveled
to Washington, D. C. for a meeting with high union
officials at the Teamsters Headquarters. After lunch they
met with Eaton, Krueger, Schlieve, Jim Nolan of Local 135,
Indianapolis, Indiana, and with Harold Gibbons, vice
president of the International Union. Gibbons opened by
stating that he had asked them to Washington because of
the seriousness of the situation with respect to the
Company's lockout of its employees. Gibbons stated that
this was the second time, that it was embarassing to the
Teamsters International, and that it could not be tolerated,
that he was demanding that the Company immediately put
its employees back to work. Eldridge replied that the
employees would go back to work when the Company had
a signed contract. Gibbons indicated his dissatisfaction and
threatened that if the Company did not put the employees
back now the Union would put a picketline around every
store in the country that handles Stokely goods and would
see that no Stokely products were moved by truck. Gibbons
offered to substantiate his threat by calling in Frank
Fitzsimmons, vice president and acting head of the
Teamsters International, which substantiation Eldridge
indicated was not necessary. When Gibbons acknowledged
Eldndge's realization that such conduct on the part of the
Union could put the Company out of business, Eldridge
told him to do it if he had to, but that there was no reason
for it, that they could negotiate a contract right there that
afternoon. Gibbons replied that Eldridge and Davis were
not called to Washington to negotiate, and in any event, the
Union would not negotiate without the Local committee.
Eldridge offered to fly the committee to Washington in the
Company's plane or, in the alternative, to fly the
Washington group to Minneapolis or Fairmont. Gibbons
rejected this offer, at which Eldridge accused Gibbons of
"attempting to pull exactly the same thing you pulled in
1967, an attempt to force some kind of national agree-
ment."
At this point, Eaton pointed out that at no time during
the negotiations had the Union asked for a National Master
Agreement, and in fact had taken pains not to raise it.
Eldridge acknowledged that it had not been mentioned, but
accused the Union of trying to achieve it through the use of
stalling tactics, the refusal to meet on many, many
occasions when requested by the Company, and through a
common expiration date on certain agreements.
Thereafter, the final series of bargaining sessions took
place at the office of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service in Minneapolis on April 3, 4, and 5. In
addition to the regular party representatives, Andrade was
also present for the Union. During the course of the initial
meeting, while attempting to define the issues, Eldridge
requested a private meeting with Eaton, Schlieve, and
Andrade. Meeting in an adjoining room, Eldridge told the
union officials that he had some more money, and that he
had to have a 3-year contract, and that he knew that they
had to buy it. When asked how much more, Eldridge
replied that he had close to $100,000. The Union then
stated that it needed more information from Eldridge
concerning the number of hours, and the various classifica-
tions and brackets, in order to determine whether they
could distribute the extra money in a manner satisfactory to
the union membership. Eldridge, who did not have it with
him, agreed to give the Union the information. At the two
following meetings, using the document compiled by the
Company and submitted to the Union containing provi-
sions agreed on through March 20, the parties made further
concessions, including the Company's new $100,000 wage
proposal. With this monetary offer incorporated into the
earlier wage proposals of the Company, the Union and the
Respondent finally, on April 5, agreed on the provisions of
a new 3-year contract, which contract, retroactively
effective to March 1, 1968, was executed by the parties on
April 7. Commencing on April 6 and continuing through
April 8, the Respondent's employees were called back to
work, thus ending the lockout that had commenced on
March 4.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Apart from the respective positions of the parties
concerning the specific complaint allegations, the General
Counsel's overall assertion is that the Respondent, having
the year before engaged in a successful lockout of its
Wisconsin and Michigan employees, entered into negotia-
tions on January 17, 1968, with a predetermined resolve to
force the Union to accept its contract proposals on a take-
it-or-leave-it basis and to sign a company-proposed
contract prior to the expiration date of the old contract, and
with a predetermined resolve that should the Company be
unsuccessful, to engage in a lockout of its employees upon
the contract's expiration regardless of the status of the
negotiations at that time. In support of its position, the
General Counsel and the counsel for the Charging Party
assert that the Company seized upon these contract
negotiations to completely rewrite the substantive provi-
sions of the existing contract. They further assert that,
thereafter, the Company refused to budge from its
proposals, failed to explain them so that the Union could
understand them, insisted that the Union take the proposed
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract to an employee vote, and that after the union
membership voted the Company's proposal down, the
Company attempted to persuade the employees to accept
its proposal, subsequently refused to consider the Union's
counterproposals while threatening a unitwide lockout, and
that not until after the March 1 meeting and during the
lockout did the Company finally bargain in good faith with
the Union.
The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the
Union entered into negotiations with an intent to stall, to
avoid real bargaining, and to not agree on a contract until
such time that the Company would be subject to an
irretrievable economic loss through a strike, all pointing
toward the eventual accomplishment of the Union's prime
goal of, first, obtaining a common expiration date of all
contracts which the Union had covering Respondent's
plants throughout the country and, second, securing a
national master agreement covering these plants, thus
strengthening the Union's future bargaining power.
In support of its position in this regard, the Respondent
points to the fact that in the Minnesota District, the
Company is engaged in the growing, contracting, and
processing of vegetables, as well as in the cattle feeding
business. Its own farming operations cover some 9,000
acres with an additional 1-8,000 acres in Minnesota and
Iowa under contract with farmers. In addition to the
Minnesota District involved in this proceeding, the
Respondent owns 14 plants in Wisconsin comprising an
employee unit covered by a single contract with the Union,
a Michigan plant constituting a separate unit under
contract with the Union and, through a subsidiary, Kuner-
Empson Company, four more plants in Colorado also
under contract with the Union. The Respondent asserts
that the year before, during the 1967 contract negotiations
in Wisconsin, the Union openly proclaimed its determina-
tion to force the Company into a master agreement
covering all of the plants represented by the Teamsters,
demanding that the Company enter into a single contract
covering not only the plants whose contracts were open for
negotiation, but all other plants under contract with locals
of the International. When, during the 1967 negotiations, it
appeared to the Company that the Union was stalling to a
point where the Company would have huge economic
commitments to its farmers, i.e., crops in the ground and
peas ready for harvest, resulting in a potential huge
economic loss were a strike called (as was the case in 1961),
the Company engaged in a successful lockout of its
Wisconsin and Michigan employees. At that time, accord-
ing to the Respondent, Eldridge of the Company, was
warned by Gibbons of the Teamsters that the following
year when the Minnesota contract was up for negotiations
the Union planned to carry out its 1967 announced plan of
forcing the Respondent either into a master agreement or,
short of that, forcing the Company to agree to a 2-year
contract, thereby accomplishing a common expiration date
for all of the Company's plants.
While the Respondent admits that during the current
negotiations the term "master agreement" or "national
agreement" was never used, and that the Union at no time
specifically reiterated its intent in this regard, the Company
maintains that the Union, which was represented in these
bargaining negotiations by a number of its Wisconsin local
officials, was, nevertheless, attempting to secure its long
range objective, by refusing, time after time, to agree to
early meeting dates, attempting to postpone agreed-upon
dates , refusing to recommend to its members contract
proposals the language of which had been substantially
agreed to, for the reason that the proposed agreement
contained a 3-year term rather than a 1970 termination
date, inadequately presenting the contract to the employees
resulting in its being turned down, and then insisting that
the Company start bargaining from scratch based on
counterproposals submitted to the Respondent as the old
contract was about to expire and just before the crucial
time when growing contracts to farmers were to be
executed. Finally, in defense of its March 4 lockout, which
it maintains falls within the rules governing a legal lockout,
the Respondent asserts, first, that an impasse "dressed up
as a stall" had been reached and, secondly, that it was a
lockout called in aid of its bargaining position, to protect
itself against a large economic loss, and to compel the
Union to bargain in good faith.
With these contentions well in mind, let us concern
ourselves with the specific conduct alleged in the complaint
as reflecting general bad-faith bargaining by the Respon-
dent. Initially, the complaint alleges that (a) Respondent
entered negotiations on January 17 with a closed mind and
with no intention of entering into any agreement with the
Union except upon the proposals submitted by the
Respondent, and (b) the Respondent on January 18,
presented its contract proposals to the Union on a take-it-
or-leave-it basis and with a predetermined resolve not to
alter its initial position. The General Counsel, in support of
this position, relies in part on the fact that, unlike the
Union's proposed contract changes, the Company's
proposals consisted of a drastic revision of the existing
contract, involving the rewriting of most of the provisions,
and, as urged in its brief, "the extensive revisions .. .
shows that the Respondent entered the negotiations feeling
that it was in a very strong position." I fail to see the
relevancy of this fact to the assertion. Regardless of what
may or may not have been the Respondent's unexpressed
appraisal of its bargaining position, and notwithstanding
the extensiveness of its proposed contract changes, the fact
remains, as the record clearly reveals, that from the initial
December notification of a request to modify the contract
through the final successful completion of a new contract in
April, the Respondent continually pressed for early and
extended negotiating sessions.
Nor am I of the opinion that the record otherwise
supports the complaint allegation in this regard. Thus,
without attempting to detail the negotiations here, the
evidence reveals that the Company discussed at length with
the Union the latter's initial proposals, and, upon
submitting its own the following day, entered into extensive
discussion and explanation of these. Thereafter, during the
sessions that followed, the Respondent continued to discuss
both the Union's proposals as well as its own, in some
instances making concessions, modifications, and changes
suggested by the Union. This is totally inconsistent with the
charge that the Respondent presented its proposals on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 449
The complaint further alleges as indicative of bad-faith
bargaining the Respondent's failure and refusal during
subsequent negotiations to explain the meaning and effect
of its proposals in connection with its wage proposal, job
classifications, and job brackets or to supply the Union
with information to interpret and understand the proposals,
while insisting that the Union present them to the
membership for ratification. While there unquestionably
existed some confusion concerning the Company's pro-
posed job classifications and job brackets as related to its
wage proposal, the evidence, including testimony of
General Counsel witnesses, reveals that the Company
provided the Union with explanatory material to assist the
Union in understanding the proposals, and that Davis and
Idstrom furnished the Union with additional information
requested by the Union, on one occasion travelling back to
the plant for clarifying data, and answered all questions
raised by the Union pertaining thereto . While much of the
testimony of Krueger and Minick would indicate that on
February 7, when Eldridge insisted that the proposed
contract be taken to a vote, there were still a number of
noneconomic provisions with which there was no agree-
ment, other parts of their testimony appear to substantiate
that of Eldridge and Davis to the effect that there was
substantial agreement as to the basic language of the
contract. Thus, apart from alleged misunderstanding
concerning brackets and wages, Minick testified that
Kruegers' expressed reason for not recommending the
contract was because "we didn't agree 100 percent on the
wording of it." In this regard, Krueger admitted on cross-
examination that many of the provisions of the Company's
proposal with which the Union disagreed during the
February 5-7 negotiations were in fact changed and written
the way the Union wanted, and that others, without
exception, were changed by the Company to meet the
Union's approval during the meeting Krueger had with
Idstrom prior to the membership ratification meeting on
February 17. The fact that at no time did the Union raise
nonagreement on noneconomic provisions as a reason for
not recommending the proposed contract, coupled with the
fact that it was at the Union's subsequent request that
certain changes be made prior to submitting the contract to
a vote, appears to corroborate the Respondent's assertion
that there was essential agreement on the proposal as it
went to the membership on February 17. Accordingly, I
find that the record does not support the General Counsel's
assertion that the Company refused to explain or supply the
Union with information, and further find that, under the
circumstances , the Respondent 's "insistence" that the
Union present the proposed contract to the membership for
ratification does not constitute evidence of bad-faith
bargaining.
The complaint specifically alleges that in holding the
,three employee meetings on February 22, the Respondent
compelled certain employees to attend, and did so for the
purpose of persuading the employees to exert pressure on
the Union to accept the Respondent's contract proposals,
thereby bypassing and undermining the Union as bargain-
ing agent. The Respondent, in denying the allegation,
asserts that the sole motivation for conducting these
meetings was prompted by reports of extensive employee
discussion following the February 19 newspaper article and
the Company letter of the same date to employees
indicating some confusion as to the contract proposals. The
Respondent maintains that its purpose was to explain the
proposed contract to a cross section of employees from
each of the plants, to answer their questions, and to clear up
any misunderstanding or misinterpretation the employees
might have.
The record tends to bear out the Respondent. Thus, while
the several employees in each plant were asked to attend,
there is no credible evidence indicating that they were
compelled to be present. At the start of each meeting the
Respondent made it clear that the meeting was not a
negotiating meeting, and that it was called in order to
clarify any misunderstanding the employees might have
concerning the proposals and to answer any questions they
might have pertaining to the proposals or the Company's
recent letter. Questions were in fact raised and were
answered. Either Olesen or Idstrom at one point or another
stated the Company's reasons for requiring a 3-year
contract and its fears concerning its economic position in
the event of further delay in finalizing an agreement with
the Union. In explaining the Company's feelings that the
union officials were stalling in order to place the Company
in a position where, once the peas were planted, it would be
at the Union's mercy, and indicating that it would not plant
its seed until an agreement were reached, suggesting the
possibility of a lockout if this should occur, while at the
same time asking the employees to explain to the rest of
their fellow employees the proposals and urging them to
talk with their union representatives to try to get a
settlement "so we could get back to planting peas," there
was no attempt to bargain with the employees, no promises
made to the employees, and no questions asked as to their
contract desires.
It would appear that the Respondent's conduct in this
regard falls well within the purview of Section 8(c) of the
Act 18 and the Board's rationale in Proctor and Gamble Mfg.
Co.,19 where the Board held that, "as a matter of settled
law, Section 8(a)(5) does not, on a per se basis, preclude an
employer from communicating, in non-coercive terms, with
employees during collective bargaining negotiations. The
fact that an employer chooses to inform employees of the
status of negotiations, or of proposals previously made to
the Union, or of its version of a breakdown in negotiations
will not alone establish a failure to bargain in good faith."
The instant case, like Proctor and Gamble, is distinguishable
from General Electric Company20 where the employer
engaged in an extensive campaign of communication
coupled with a fixed position at the bargaining table, in that
the record reveals that the Respondent here entered
negotiations sincerely desirous of reaching an early
agreement with the Union, thereafter engaging in extensive
rs Sec . 8(c) provides : under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no
The expressing of any views , arguments , or opinion , or the threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
dissemination thereof , whether in written , printed, graphic , or visual 19 160 NLRB 334.
form, shall not constitute or be evidence of any unfair labor practice 20 150 NLRB 192.
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discussion, submitting proposals, and making concessions.
Thus, in the complete absence of threats, promises, and
interrogation of the employees during these meetings, and
in light of the Board's pronouncement in Wantagh Auto
Sales, Inc.,21 to the effect that, violations of Section 8(a)(5)
involving employer communication with employees during
collective-bargaining negotiations "have been found only
when the employer's language was itself coercive, or could
reasonably be construed as coercive in the context of other
unfair labor practices of the employer," I find, contrary to
the General Counsel's assertion, that no attempt was here
made by the Respondent to bypass or undermine the Union
as the employee bargaining representative.
With respect to the complaint allegation that, during the
negotiations on March 1, the Respondent refused to
consider the Union's counterproposals submitted to the
Respondent on February 26, the record is clear, and the
Respondent readily admits, that such was the case. The
Respondent's position, as repeatedly stated by Eldridge at
the time, is that the Company did not intend to start from
scratch on a new set of proposals after so much time had
been spent in arriving at a basic agreement with respect to a
new contract. The evidence reveals that while the Company
was insistent upon not using the Union's counterproposals
as a basis for continuing negotiations, the Union was
equally adamant in refusing to further negotiate on any
basis other than using its own counterproposals. While, at a
later date certain noneconomic changes were made, it
would appear that the real disagreement on March 1
involved contract economics, money matters, and fringe
benefits, as well as some confusion concerning the job
bracket system, subjects which the Company expressed a
willingness to discuss.22 While there existed other problems,
including the duration of the contract term, I question the
validity of the General Counsel's assertion that a refusal at
this point in the contract negotiations to continue
bargaining except upon a completely new set of proposals
constitutes bad-faith bargaining. I find to the contrary.
There remains for discussion the related complaint
allegations that (a) throughout the negotiations prior to
March 4, the Respondent repeatedly threatened to lock out
its employees "unless the Union accepted Respondent's
contract proposals," and (b) in locking out its employees on
March 4, while engaged in bad-faith bargaining, the
Respondent did so to discourage union activity and "to
evade the Respondent's bargaining obligation."
As to (a), the evidence reveals that at no time did the
Company predicate its threat of lockout upon an accept-
ance of its contract proposals. In fact, the Company's
proposals were never mentioned in connection with
statements threatening a lockout. Commencing on Febru-
ary 19 when the Company first indicated that a lockout was
imminent, the lockout threat was always geared to an
impasse in bargaining or to the economic necessity of such
action. The Company first threatened a March l lockout in
Eldridge's February 19 telegram to the Union wherein he
accused the Union of stalling and stated that "I again ask
for a meeting to continue negotiations any day or hour this
week, and insist that you meet with us not later than
Monday, February 26, 1968, or we shall have to proceed
with our plan to close the plants on termination of the
contract at 12:01 a.m. March 1, 1968." In the Respondent's
letter to its employees on the same date, after expressing a
strong desire to meet and discuss contract matters
immediately, the Respondent stated that "if the situation
reaches an impasse the plants will be closed at the close of
business on February 29, 1968," and, by way of attachment,
"if the present impasse continues over the duration of the
contract, the plants will be locked up on February 29."
During the February 22 employee meetings the employ-
ees were apprised of the Respondent's concern over the
possibility of a work stoppage and the position it would
place the Company in once the peas were planted and told
that if an agreement were not reached the Company would
have no alternative but to engage in a lockout. Finally,
Eldridge's lengthy statement on March 1 to the union
negotiators to the effect that if no agreement were reached
by Sunday night and an absolute impasse reached the
plants would be closed on March 4, clearly conditions the
threat of a lockout on something other than acceptance by
the Union of the Company's proposals. I find totally
without merit this portion of the complaint.
Turning now to (b), which appears to be the matter of
prime concern in this proceeding. In view of the above
findings this allegation is divested of a strong supporting
ingredient, namely, the assertion that the lockout occurred
while the Respondent was engaged in bad-faith bargaining.
In resolving the issue as to the legality of the lockout, I
deem it unnecessary to determine whether or not the parties
had reached an impasse on March 4 when the lockout
commenced. I find that the matter is clearly governed by
the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in American
Ship Building, as amplified by the Board in Evening News
Association, and recently extended in Darling and
Company.23 In the American Ship Building case, the Court in
effect held that a lockout of employees to support a
bargaining position after an impasse in negotiations had
been reached was not violative of the Act, and established
as a test of a lockout's legality, whether, assuming no
motive to discourage union activity or to evade bargaining
exists, the lockout is "inherently so prejudicial to union
interests and so devoid of significant economic justification
that no specific evidence of intent . . . is required."
Subsequently, the Board in Evening News recognized that
the Supreme Court in American Ship Building had
"obliterated, as a matter of law, the line previously drawn
... between offensive and defensive lockouts." Finally, in
the Darling case, the Board concluded that the test of a
lockout's legality, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in
American Ship Building, is also properly applicable to
situations involving a lockout of employees prior to an
impasse in contract negotiations.
Here, as in the strikingly similar Darling case, I find there
exists no specific evidence of an intent by the Respondent
to discourage union activity or to avoid its bargaining
obligation. The record evidence supports the Respondent's
21 177 NLRB No. 19. - 23 American Ship Building Co. v. N.LR.B., 380 U.S. 300, Evening News
22 Eventual contract agreement and execution became a reality after the Association, 166 NLRB 219, and Darling and Company, 171 NLRB No. 95.
Respondent came up with a new.$100,000 wage offer.
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 451
assertion that the purpose of the lockout was to get the
Union to negotiate an agreement before the time the
Company had to plant the pea crop and to forestall the
possibility of a work stoppage after the crop was in the
ground. I find that it was called by the Respondent in
support of its bargaining position, and particularly, to
protect itself from a potential large economic loss should
the Union, as it had before, call a strike once the pea crop
was planted and the Company committed. Accordingly, I
find that the Respondent's decision to engage in the lockout
was not unlawfully motivated.
Further, in view of the Company's continuing efforts
throughout negotiations to expedite bargaining sessions
looking toward an early contract agreement, and the fact
that it offered proposals, discussed union proposals, made
concessions, and reached agreement with the Union on
certainly most of the provisions of a collective-bargaining
agreement prior to March 4 lockout, coupled with a well-
founded fear of a disastrous strike at a time most
advantageous to the Union, I conclude that the lockout by
the Respondent was neither inherently prejudicial to union
interests nor devoid of significant economic justification.
Accordingly, under all of the circumstances, I find that in
locking out its employees between March 4 and April 6,
1968, the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) or (1)
of the Act.24 Furthermore, over and above the specific
allegations of the complaint which I have found to be
without merit, I also find that the credited record evidence
herein fails to establish the existence of a bad-faith
bargaining motive on the part of the Respondent and shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. General Drivers, Helpers and Inside Employees
Union, Local No. 487, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint, herein, be
dismissed in its entirety.
24 See Wantagh Auto Sales Inc., supra.
APPENDIX A
February 19, 1968
Dear Stokely Van Camp Employees:
I feel duty bound to inform each of you of the facts as
they have developed in the current negotiations for a
new collective bargaining agreement covering all
Stokely Van Camp employees covered by the current
collective bargaining agreement with Local 487.
1. On December 14, 1967 Mr. Harold Krueger sent a
letter to me opening the agreement for such
adjustments and modifications as the Union felt
necessary.
2. On December 15, 1967 I answered that letter stating
that the Company would terminate the present
agreement on its expiration date. I requested that
the Union Negotiating Committee arrange to
meet with the Company Negotiating Committee
at the Fairmont Hotel in Fairmont, Minnesota at
9:00 AM on Wednesday, January 3rd, 1968 for
the purpose of commencing negotiations for a
new contract.
3. I received a letter from Mr. Krueger dated
December 19th in which he stated he could not
meet on January 3rd and that he would contact
me as soon as possible to arrange a date.
4. I wrote Mr. Krueger on December 27, 1967
requesting a meeting at the Fairmont Hotel at
9:00 AM on Tuesday, January 9th. I received an
answer to my letter from Mr. Krueger dated
December 29th in which he stated he could not
meet on January 9th, but did say he had January
17th, 18th, and 19th open. I immediately an-
swered his letter confirming that we would meet
with him at the Augusta Hotel at 10:00 AM on
Wednesday, January 17th, and meetings were
held January 17th, 18th, and 19th, and I felt that
progress was made at those meetings. Mr. Donald
Eaton, from the Wisconsin Locals was present.
When the meetings adjourned on the 19th of
January, we requested we meet again on the 22nd,
23rd, 24th, or the 25th or 26th of January. Mr.
Krueger stated that no meetings could be held at
that time. We then asked if we could meet on the
29th, 30th, and 31st of January, and he stated that
no meetings could be held then. We finally agreed
to meet on February 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th.
5. On Friday, February 2nd, Mr. Krueger called Mr.
Davis and stated that the meetings for February
5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th must be postponed
indefinitely. Mr. Davis transferred the call to me
and I demanded that we meet as scheduled. We
also talked with Mr. Eaton and they finally agreed
to meet at 1 PM on Monday, February 5th. The
meetings were held again on the 6th and 7th. Mr.
Eaton did not attend these meetings, but Don
Berger, representing the Wisconsin Locals, did
attend. At the close of the meeting on February
7th, Mr. Krueger informed us that no contract
would be accepted on a three year basis.
6. Last week Mr. Krueger advised Mr. Idstrom that a
meeting of all employees involved would be held
on Saturday, February 17 for the purpose of
ratifying or rejecting the Company's last proposal.
He told Mr. Idstrom that he would notify him as
to the results as soon as the meeting ended.
Saturday evening Mr. Krueger notified Mr.
Idstrom that the contract proposal had been
turned down. I received this information by
telephone at my home at approximately 10:30 PM
Saturday evening. I immediately called Harold
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Krueger and he re-stated that the agreement was
rejected on a three year basis. I asked him then for
a meeting on Tuesday, February 20th and he
refused. I asked for a meeting on February 21st
and he again refused, and on Thursday, February
22nd, he again refused and again on February
23rd, and he again refused. I told him that he was
causing a most serious situation by this attitude
and putting the employees in jeopardy. He said he
was sending me a night letter and said, "good
night."
We have placed before you people the best offer of a
new agreement that you have ever had. We have
attempted to re-write the contract so as to overcome or
minimize problems of the past. The economic package
is far above the average of other settlements in this
industry, and in this area, and we felt that it would be
accepted by you if you were not receiving dubious
advice by different people from other local unions that
have little or no concern for you individually. I know
that you realize how serious it would be financially to
you, the farmers in this locality, and the company, if an
impasse is reached in these negotiations and the
company is forced to close the plants.
During the past year, your local business agent has been
identified with the so-called, "Stokely Van Camp
National Committee." A representative of this commit-
tee has been present during the negotiations in
Fairmont. For your information, this committee last
spring attempted to force Stokely Van Camp to agree to
a master contract during the negotiations in Wisconsin.
The Company did not agree to the Union demands and
it was finally necessary for the Company to lock out the
employees and close the plants, causing the employees
to lose twenty working days pay. The Company's
actions at that time were upheld and approved by the
National Labor Relations Board.
Because your welfare and the welfare of your family is
so much involved in this matter, we knew you would
like to be informed. We hope you will think about this
carefully, talk it over with your family and particularly
talk it over with your Union representative so the Union
representative will know how you feel. If you feel that
further discussion is necessary in this matter, the
Company is ready and willing to meet with your
committee and the Union representative anytime before
the expiration date on this agreement. However, I
sincerely regret to state that if the situation reaches an
impasse the plants will be closed at the close of business
on February 29, 1968.
We are enclosing for your information a summary of
the economic offer, and you will note on Schedule A
that Bracket numbering was changed as agreed by
Harold Krueger and Mr. Idstrom.
Sincerely,
[signature ] C. L. Eldridge
C. L. Eldridge
Assistant to the President
cc: Harold Krueger
Donald Eaton E. 0. Olesen
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service 1402 U.S.
Courthouse & Federal Office Bldg. Chicago , Illinois
60604
Division of Mediation & Arbitration Minnesota
Department of Labor & Industry 434 State Office
Building St . Paul, Minnesota 55101
APPENDIX B
STATEMENT BY C. L.
ELDRIDGE-FAIRMONT, MARCH 1, 1968
The developments in these negotiations have definitely
and without question convinced me that this Union is
collaborating with the Teamsters Local Unions in
Wisconsin and Michigan to stall the bargaining and
carry negotiations to a future date that will be
advantageous to the Union. This is proven by the fact
that Mr. Krueger opened the agreement by a letter
dated December 14, 1967.
On December 15, I answered that letter and requested a
meeting for January 3, 1968, for the purpose of
commencing new negotiations . Mr. Krueger answered
my letter by a letter dated December 19, stating that he
could not possibly meet on January 3, 1968.
I wrote Mr. Krueger on December 27, 1967, requesting
a meeting on January 9, 1968 . I received an answer to
that letter from Mr. Krueger dated December 29, 1967,
stating that he could not meet on January 9, but he did
state that he had January 17, 18, and 19 open. I
immediately answered him confirming meetings on
those dates.
When I arrived for the first meeting, Mr. Donald Eaton,
representative of the Wisconsin Locals was present.
When we adjourned on January 19, we asked for
meetings January 22, 23 and 24, or January 25, and 26.
Mr. Eaton and Mr. Krueger stated no meetings could
be held on those dates. We then asked for meetings on
January 29, 30 and 31 and Mr. Krueger and Eaton
stated no meetings could be held then . We finally
agreed to meet February 5, 6, 7 and 8.
On Friday February 2, Mr. Krueger and Mr. Eaton
advised us that they could not meet on February 5, 6, 7
and 8 , and the meetings must be postponed indefinitely.
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Krueger I insisted
upon a meeting on February 5, and he finally agreed to
meet at 1 p.m. February 5. We met on the 5th, 6th and
7th. Mr. Eaton was not present but Mr. Donald Burger
another representative of the Wisconsin Locals was
present . During those meetings all language clauses of
the agreement were agreed to and on the 7th the
Company presented its economic proposal. There were
many questions asked and some changes made at that
time in the economic setup and I insisted that this
proposal be presented to the people for ratification or
rejection . Mr. Krueger stated he could not present it to
the people because they would not accept a three year
contract . After much insistence on my part he stated he
would submit it to the people without recommendation
of the committee. I asked him when he would present
it-he stated he did not know when he would present it.
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. 453
Some time during the next week Mr. Krueger advised
Mr. Idstrom that a meeting of the employees would be
held on Saturday, February 17, and he stated he would
notify Mr. Idstrom immediately after the meeting the
action that resulted. He did not notify Mr. Idstrom until
late on the evening of Saturday 17. I received the
information from Mr. Idstrom around 10:15 p.m.
Saturday night and I immediately called Mr. Krueger
and he stated that the agreement was rejected on a three
year basis. I asked him if there was anything wrong with
the proposal and he answered "Well they didn't like
some parts of the money offer." I then asked Mr.
Krueger for meetings on February 20, 21, 22, or 23, and
he refused to meet on any of these dates and stated he
was sending me a night letter. I received the night letter
at approximately 11:45 a.m. Monday, February 19. In
that night letter Mr. Krueger stated that the proposal
was rejected on a three year basis and that the
negotiating committee would immediately prepare a
counter proposal for our consideration. These proposals
would be presented in writing as soon as prepared. I
received that counter proposal at 11:45 a.m. Wednes-
day, February 28. I immediately answered the night
letter by a straight telegram and I stated in that
telegram that we were ready and willing to meet with
them to discuss the matter any day or any hour up until
February 26, 1968. We heard nothing from the Union
until you as commissioner of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service set up the meeting for today.
On Monday, February 26, I received a letter from Mr.
Krueger dated February 23 in which he claimed he had
never told me they would not discuss a three year
contract and that he was prepared to negotiate the
length of the contract along with the many other issues
that are still not resolved . And he would be happy to
discuss these matters with me on March 1, as previously
arranged.
I might say here that he stated verbally many times that
he would not discuss a three year contract and he
dictated it to Western Union in his night letter. He also
states that the March 1, meeting had previously been
arranged. Both you and Mr. Krueger know it had not
been set up until Monday, February 26, three days after
he had written his letter, when you asked me to meet on
March 1, and to hold everything status quo until we
meet and conciliation procedures had been exhausted
and I am sure you noted in my answer to you I agreed
to status quo at least until after the March 1, meeting
only.
I am sure that any one checking the above mentioned
developments will agree with me that there has been no
effort whatsoever by this Union to negotiate a new
contract in good faith. This counter proposal which
they have submitted to us is another glaring example of
their stalling procedures because all the language of the
new agreement aside from the economic items have
been agreed to by the committee, and I am positive that
they were not turned down by the membership at large
because they never were explained to them. I am
perfectly willing today to take under consideration their
counter proposal in the economic phase of the
agreement and to look it over and come back with an
absolute final proposal by this Company. Before we do
that I want it definitely understood that this Company
realizes exactly what this Union is trying to do. And
when I say that I mean Mr. Krueger and the
representatives of the Wisconsin Locals and possibly
the International Teamsters Union. I am equally sure
that the employees as a whole do not understand
exactly what they are trying to do. I want it fully
understood by every one that Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
owns this Division and that Stokely-Van Camp , Inc. is
offering this money raise to these employees. And I
want it fully understood that this Company in view of
these facts intends to resist with every means possible
this effort of the Union to tie in the expiration date of
this agreement to those of Wisconsin and Michigan and
several other of our plants that the Teamsters represent
the employees. And the first step in that resistance is- if
an agreement is reached today or tomorrow by the
Negotiating Committee for the Union and the Compa-
ny and is presented not later than Sunday night, March
3, 1968, and ratified by the employees, operations will
continue as they have in the past. If this agreement is
turned down by the employees during that period or if
an agreement is not reached by the two negotiating
committees and an absolute impasse is reached these
plants will be closed and locked up at the close of
business Monday, March 4, 1968.
Your counter proposal is rejected.