Tualatin Valley Cooperative, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 907 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE , INCORPORATED and
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No.19-C-1416.Decided February 06, 1947
Messrs. Ervin A. Peterson and Ben E. Law, for the Board.
Mr. Fred W. Packwood, of Portland, Oreg., and Mr. Francis E.
Sturgis, of Hillsboro , Oreg., for the respondent.
Mr. Chester C. Dustin, of Portland, Oreg., for the Union.
Mr. Paul Bisgyer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 9, 1946, Trial Examiner Joseph C. Wells issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Union filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, and the respondent filed a reply
thereto.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
Union's exceptions, the respondent's reply, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, additions, and modifi-
cations noted below.
1. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Foreman
Plass' membership in the Union and Foreman Waibel's voting in the
employee-conducted secret election constituted interference, restraint,
and coercion, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The
record discloses that both Plass and Waibel, who were working fore-
men with minor supervisory authority, were solicited to join the
Union; in fact, it does not appear that either the Board attorney or the
Union relied on the conduct in question as evidence of unlawful inter-
ference. We have recently held that a supervisor's membership in a
72 N. L. R. B., No. 155. 907
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rank and file labor organization is not per se violative of the Act.,
Nor are we persuaded that WVaibel's casting a ballot in the secret elec-
tion 2 warrants, under the circumstances of this case, a finding of inter-
ference. Accordingly, we shall overrule the Trial Examiner's deter-
mination that the respondent independently violated Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent, in violation
of Section 8 (3) of the Act, discharged employee Seehafer for union
activity, and he recommended reinstatement of Seehafer, but without
back pay because of Seehafer's allegedly unwarranted derogatory re-
marks about management officials.3 The Union excepts to the recom-
nlendatlon that back pay be disallowed; no exception to the finding of
discrimination has been taken. While we agree with, and the record
supports, the Trial Examiner's finding of discrimination, we see no
reason to deny the normal remedy of back pay. As fully discussed in
the Intermediate Report, the motivating cause for Seehafer's dis-
charge was his legitimate union activity protected by the Act, and not
his accusations against the respondent's officials. Under these cir-
cumstances, to reinstate him without restoration of the earnings which
he may have lost in consequence of his wrongful discharge would be
to leave the effects of the unfair labor practice i icompletssly rennedied.
and thus defeat the policies of the Act. We do not condone the alleged
misconduct of Seehafer; nor is the respondent precluded by this deci-
sion from disc] aiging or otherwise disciplining him for future mis-
conduct of- for any reason other than his union membership or activity.
For, as we have uniformly recognized, "an employer may discharge
an employee for a good reason, a poor reason or no reason at all so
long as the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act are not
violated." i Since, however, Seehafer's union activity precipitated his
discharge, his derogatory remarks, whether or not unwarranted, have
no material bearln, in our opinion, on the question of back pay
Matter of Clime a Phigiicei eq Company. Diiision of General Finance Corporation. GG
N L R B 1359 , Matter of Jones X Laughlin, Steel Coo poration, 66 N L R sB 386, and
7L N L R B 1261
2 we find. as dud the Trial Examiner, that the respondent did not instigate this election
we also adopt the Ti nil Exaniner s conclusion that, in the circumstances of this case, the
respondent did not isolate the Act by allowing the poll to be conducted during working
Hours, for the record does not establish that it thereby supported a maneuver designed to
tl'wwait the Union's oiganizational efforts In so doing, howevei, we do not rely on the
implication in the Intermediate Report that an enipiover who tolerates some union dis-
cussion and soli(itation during working houis is thereby iequired to extend to employees
identified with an opposing faction the distinctly greater privilege of utilizing working time
for a meeting and an election concerning the issue of union repiesentation
The recoil discloses that Seehafer. like most of his coworkcis, was also a stockholder
in the respondent
J Eduard C Budd iltanufaotui eq Company v N L T B, 138 F ( 2d) 86 , 90 (C C A
5 As the issues in this case were framed. the truth or falsity of Seehafer's charges like-
wise had no material bearing on the reason foi his discharge Had evidence substantiating
these charges been offered at the licaiing, it would have been properly excluded as iriele-
%aut in this case
TIALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 909
Accordingly, we shall not adopt the Trial Examiner's recomniencla-
tion. In conformity with our practice, we shall order the respondent
to offer Seehafer reinstatement and make him wholes
Tills RE,1117DY
We have found that the respondent violated the Act by dlscriniina-
torlly discharging and refusnig to reinstate employee Richard H.
Seehafer because of his union and concerted activities. Such dis-
crimination, in the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, "goes to the very heart of the Act."
Upon the entire record, we infer and find that the respondent's
illegal action, mentioned above, discloses an intent to defeat self-
organization and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the
purposes of the Act. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct
and the underlying purposes manifested thereby, we are convinced
that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that danger
of conmlissiou in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices
defined in the Act is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct
in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted
unless our order is coextensive with the threats In order, therefore,
t o make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to pre-
vent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to
cease and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices herein found,
but also from In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Acr, and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the respondent
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Richard H. Seehafer, we shall order the respondent to offer him
numediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
equivalent position,' without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
"Matte) of The Life In iti anoc Coil-um/ of t iigatna, 65 N L It B 1140, flatter of Carl
L Noden, lite. 62 N I. R B 828 flatten of English Freight Conptaul, 61 N L R B
M5 enf d 152 F (2d) 706 (C C A 10) Matter of Johnson Bronze Company, 57 N L
It B 814 cut d as mod 148 F (2d) 818 (C C A 3) , flatter of 91len Boat Company,
62 N L It B 751 3fattei of Columbia Products Corpoation, 48 N L It B 1452, enf'd
141 F (2d) 687 (C C A 2) , platter of I7dieard G Budd Manafactuiing Company, 41
N I. R B 872, cif d 138 F (2d) 86 (C C A 3), cent den 321 U S 77:;
' N L R B v ITnt-v tstle Maniifactanriny Co , 120 F (2d) 532, 536 (C C A 4) See
also N L R B v Automottbc 3larntenance Maehnren y Company, 116 F (2d) 350, 353
(C C A 7)
,IN L I? B v Express Publishing Company, 312 ii S 426, flay-Depai tment Stoi cs
Company v N T R B,32613 S :'.76
In aceoidance vNith the Board's consistent inteipietation of the term , the expression
.'former of 'ubstautialli equivalent position" is intended to mean "fornici position wher-
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by pay-
nment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the 'late
of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 10
during the said period.
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 the respondent, Tualatin Valley Coopera-
tive, Incorporated, Hillsboro, Oregon, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Richard H. Seehafer immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Richard H. Seehafer for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of rein-
statement, less his net earnings during said period;
ever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equiv-
alent position " Matter of The Chase National Bank of The City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico Bianch , 65 N L. R B 827, 829
10 By " net eai nuigs" is meant earnings less expenses , such as tot transportation, ioom,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the conse-
quent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere Matter of Crossett Lumber Company,
8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, munic-
ipal or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings Republic Steel Cor-
po;atiai ti L K B , 311 U S 7.
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 911
(c) Post at its plant at Hillsboro, Oregon, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A."" Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be
posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent independently violated Section 8 (1) of the Act,
and that it discriminated against Joseph Wyatt, Alfred H. Kimball,
and Robert Linenberger, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE 1o 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 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 Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination.
11 In the event that this Older is enforced by a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals
then e shall be inserted, before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
731242-47-vol 72-59
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richard H. Seehafer
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated --------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after
discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays front the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Ei win A Pete) son and Ben E Lam, for the Board.
Mi Fred TV Puck-wood, of Portland, Oteg, and Mi. Francis E Staigis, of
Hillsboro, Oreg., for the iespondent.
Mr Chester C. Dustin, of Portland, Oreg, for the Union.
STAIPMENT OF THE CASP
Upon an amended charge duly filed-on May 21, 1946, by Congress of Industrial
Oiganizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
her ern called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Se-
attle, Washington), issued its complaint dated May 23, 1946, against Tualatin
valley Cooperative, Incorporated, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2,(6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copses of the
complaint and the charge, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly
sei ved upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that
the respondent (1) discharged Joseph Wyatt on November 22, 1945, Alfred H.
Kimball on November 30, 1945, Robert Linenberger on December 13, 1945, and
Richard H Seehater on February 8, 1946, and has failed and refused to rein-
state said employees for the reason that they joined or assisted the Union or
engaged in other concerted activities for the puiposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection; and (2) from on or about 0-tuber 1, 1945, vili-
fied, disparaged and expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its em-
ployees concerning their union affiliation, urged, persuaded, and warned its
employees to refrain front assisting, becoming nieinbers or remaining members of
the Union; threatened its employees with chscha i ge or other reprisals if they
joined or assisted the Union ; and conducted a poll on its property chuing working
hours to determine whether its employees desired to be represented by the
Union.
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 913
Thereafter the respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and affirmatively alleging that
the employees named above were discharged for business and economic reasons.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Hillsboro, Oregon, on June 11 and 12,
1946, before the undersigned, Joseph C. Wells, Trial Examiner, duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondent and the Union appeared
and participated in the hearing The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel and the Union by a representative. Pull opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence hearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, opportunity was-
afforded the parties to argue orally before the undersigned The parties were
advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned on or about June 17, 1946.
_No brief has been received from any of the parties
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses.,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Tualatin Valley Cooperative, Incorporated, a cooperative association organized
under the cooperative association laws of Oregon, having its principal office and
place of business in Hillsboro, Oregon, is engaged in the purchasing, sale and
distribution of hardware, farm equipment, gasoline, oil, fertilizer and ielated
products, and the processing and marketing of gi.un, hay, seedh, peas and related
products Dining tlieeyear ending December 31, 1945, respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business, purchased materials valued in excess of $1,000,000,
approximately 50 percent of which was shipped to it from points outside the
State of Oregon. During the same period respondent pi ocessed and marketed
products valued in excess of $500,000 of which approximately 20 percent was
shipped outside the State
At the hearing, respondent conceded that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOI VED
Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bersli:p employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Back grounid
Respondent's cooperative membership is composed of about 2,200 producers of
agricultural products, each of whom has an equal vote with respect to the mian-
agenient of respondent's business and the election of its Board of Directors Its
Board of Directors consists of five members who are all actively engaged in farm
operations in addition to their duties as directors of the cooperative. The Board
of Directors meets regularly on the first Tuesday of each month or in ease of
emergency, and is vested with complete authority to manage the respondent's busi-
ness The members of the Board of Directors each receive $5 00 for every Direc-
tors' meeting they attend and are reimbursed for actual expenses incurred by them
in the exercise of their duties Otherwise they receive no compensation beyond
that received by each member of the cooperative in the form of cooperative bene-
fits Day to day supervision of the business is exercised by Manager R M. Baker
subject to the Board of Directors' advice and control Most of the respondent's.
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees are members of the cooperative and operate small farms Respondent
employs about 35 or 40 workers throughout the year and during its busy season,
which extends from approximately May to November, and employs seasonal
workers as needed. As many as 40 seasonal workers have been employed during
a busy season.
There is no evidence of any union activity among respondent's employees
prior to the events described below.
Sequence of Events
Subsequent to the surrender of Japan in August 1945, some of respondent's
employees began discussing the possibility of organizing a union. Richard
Seehafer, a witness for the Board whose discharge is hereinafter discussed,
testified that "the way we [the employees] started it, there was rumors that
they were going to lay off certain guys, and we thought that if we started a
union we could hold our jobs."
On or about November 15, 1945, during a discussion between Seehafer and
Ernest D. Schmidt, a farmer and a member of the cooperative, Schmidt sug-
gested that the employees join a union and, upon being advised that.Seehafer
didn't know how to "go about it," offered to assist.
On November 19, 1945, Schmidt approached Seehafer while the latter was
working and reported that he had arranged for a representative of the Union
from Portland, Oregon, to visit Hillsboro and guide organizational activities.
The employment of Joseph Wyatt was terminated on November 22, 1945,
under circumstances discussed below.
On November 29, 1945, Dave Teitelbaum and Chester Dustin, representatives
of the Union, visited Hillsboro and supplied Seehafer with union application-
for-membership cards. Seehafer and Linenberger together with Teitelbaum
visited the homes of several of respondent's employees to solicit their member-
ship in the Union. Among the employees visited was Garnet Oxley, a clerk
employed in respondent's store'
Alfred H. Kimball, whose discharge is hereinafter discussed, was discharged
on November 30, 1945.
By a letter dated December 4, 1945, the Union advised respondent that it
represented a majority of the "warehouse" employees and requested that
arrangements be made for a meeting between it and respondent to discuss
matters relating to union recognition, wages, hours, and working conditions.
In a letter dated December 7, 1945, respondent replied to the Union's letter
stating that respondent "recognizes the right of its employees to organize for
collective bargaining purposes and • stands ready at any time to meet with
the representatives of the majority of our employees," but declined to meet with
the Union until it acquired proof of the Union's majority status. The Board,
in a letter to respondent dated December 11, 1945, and signed by its Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), advised respondent
that the Union had filed a petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives alleging that the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing consisted of all production workers handling seed and grain in respondent's
warehouse. The Board's letter requested that respondent furnish a list of the
employees engaged in such work and other relevant information, and outlined
the various methods by which the issue of the Union's majority status might
' Oxley was the apparent instigator of an election hereinafter discussed According
to Oxley's testimony Seehafer and Linenberger had visited his home relative to organizing
the Union-on 2 different occasions.
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 915
be determined. In a letter dated December 19, 1945, respondent replied in
detail to the Board's letter of December 11, 1945, expressing its willingness to
bargain with its employees' representative, but soliciting the Board's assistance
in determining the Union's majority status by "any method" satisfactory to
the Board "as long as all the employees involved have an opportunity of ex-
pression" Respondent also stated in its letter that it was "in a quandry (sic)
as to whether the employees which the Union claims to represent constitute a
proper group for collective bargaining."
Meanwhile, on December 13, 1945, respondent discharged Robert Linenberger.
In a letter dated December 18, 1945, respondent was advised by the Board's
Regional Director that the Union had filed a charge alleging that respondent
had discharged Linenberger because of his union activities and had interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (1) of
the Act. Respondent's reply, dated December 26, 1945, denied the allegations
contained in the Union's charge, and affirmatively set forth its reasons for the
termination of Linenberger. Details relative to the discharge of Linenberger
are set forth below.
Sometime in December 1945 or January 1946, respondent's employees voted
in a non-Board-conducted election whether or not to be represented by the Union.2
The result indicated overwhelming sentiment against the Union.'
Seehafer was discharged on February 8, 1946, under circumstances described
below.
- The Union's charge was amended on May 21, 1946, to include as unfair labor
practices the discharges of Seehafer, Kimball and Wyatt as well as Linenberger.
Interference, restraint, and coercion
In support of the allegation in the complaint that the respondent violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act, the Board contends that the evidence reveals that
respondent conducted the election described above, and interrogated certain
employees relative to their union activities.
Neither the Board's witnesses nor those called by respondent testified with
any degree of certainty as to the exact date the above-mentioned election was
held' Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the election was conducted some-
time between December 20, 1945, and February 4, 1946, the earliest and latest
dates set for the events by the above-named witnesses.' The election was osten-
siJily instigated by Oxley who appeared one morning at respondent's warehouse
together with other employees of the retail store and the shop, and during the
ensuing meeting suggested that the election be held to determine whether or
not a majority of the employees wanted representation by the Union. At the
request of Oxley, Foreman William Waibel shut down the machinery operating at
the time. Seehafer voiced an objection to the effect that the election was "illegal"
2 Seehafer first testified that the election was held February 4, 1946. After it was sug-
gested by Board ' s counsel , lie testified that it was held January 4, 1946, but that I "might
be mixed up on what happened "
3 The Union received about 20 percent of the ballots cast
° Seehafer first testified that it was held on February 4, 1946, then, after being prompted
by Board ' s counsel , that the date was January 4, 1946, but added , ". . . everything is so
far apart, I might be mixed up . . . " Garnet Oxley, a clerk employed in respondent's store,
indicated by his testimony as a witness for respondent that the election took place prior
to Christmas of 1945 but stated "I can't positively recall. I couldn't say offhand whether
it was December or January' Julius Christenson, a member of respondent's Board
.11
of Directors called as a witness for the Board, was similarly confused as to the date of
the event
6 The Board's counsel apparently sought to show that the election was held on the day
following the meeting of the respondent's Board of Directors on January 3, 1946
`916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but participated therein and assisted in counting the ballots Foreman Waibel
without objection cast a ballot in the election which, as stated above, disclosed
overwhelming sentiment against the Union." After the results of the election
were apparent, some of the store employees threatened that they would take
concerted action unless Seehafer abandoned his efforts to organize the Union.
Seehafer replied. " . . if you don't want to cooperate with the fellows in the
warehouse, there are other fellows that would like to have the job."'
The Board's counsel contended at the hearing that Oxley conducted the election
pursuant to the instruction of Manager Baker and the Board of Directors and,
that in any event, the election constituted an unfair labor practice because held on
respondent's property during working hours The undersigned finds no merit in
the-contention that respondent instigated the election The evidence apparently
relied upon by Board's counsel to show that respondent rather than Oxley
actually instigated the election consists of the testimony of Christenson, one of the
members of the Board of Directors who testified as a witness for the Board
However, Christen son's testimony, although confused, clearly comprises evidence
contrary to the Board's contention' Oxley testified that he instigated the election
without permission or the suggestion of anyone Baker testified that lie did not
know that the election had been held until after, its completion Snnilaily,
the undersigned finds no merit in the contention that, under the circumstances of
this case, the fact that the election was held on respondent's property during
working hours is per se an unfair labor practice The evidence clearly established
that respondent had neither issued nor enforced any rule against the utilization
of working time for the purposes of union activities, and the testimony of See-
hafer, the principal union adherent, shows that he and others utilized such work
ing time for the purposes of discussion of and solicitation for the Union without
any objection being raised by respondent although it was aware of such activity.
Obviously, the mere fact that respondent tolerated the employees' action in hold-
ing a meeting and election daring working time which resulted unfavorably to
the Union is no more violative of the Act than its toleration of the use of its
time by Seehafer and others for the promotion and organization of the union.
Indeed it would appear that the placing of any festrictinns by respondent on the
activities of its rank and file employees opposing the Union which it had not
theretofore imposed on those favoring the Union would indicate assistance to the
Union which the Act pLoscribes.
With respect to the interrogation by respondent of its employees relative to
their union activities, Seehafer testified that on November 19, 1945, at the close
of the work clay, Manager Baker asked him if he "believed in" the Union, and
receiving an affirmative reply, asked "in what way" he believed in the Union.
Baker testified as follows :
Question: Did you ever have any talk with Mr Seehafer relative to Union
activities?
Answer. Mr. Seehafer injected the idea or discussion of the union into any
discussion we had, almost always. He said something-verb frequently that
lie was accused of fomenting trouble through union activity, and niy only reply
was that we recognized his right to any union activity, but there were certain
things, in our opinion, which were not union activity, and we confined our
discussions to those things
°Theie is no inateiial dispute with respect to the manner in which the election was
conducted
"Phis finding is based on the credible and uncoiitiadicted testimony of Seehafer
'Clinstenson testified, "That (the election) was all done without lily knowing it As I
undeistand, it was suggested tliiough the laborers in the warehouse "
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 917
No other witness appears to have been interrogated by Baker relative to his
union activities, and Seehafer' s union activity, which respondent admits it was
aware of, was so open that the purpose of such interrogation is not apparent
Accordingly, the undersigned credits Baker's testimony and finds that Seehafer
informed Baker of his union activities on his own initiative on various occasions.
Foreman Plass and Waibel, under the direction and control of respondent's,'
manager and assistant manager, were in charge of the employees and work in
the seed mill and feed mill, respectively. The seed mill employs from-3 to 40
workers depending on the season, and Plass, while lie has no authority to hire
or discharge employees, had duties which, entail exercise of authority affecting
the status of such employees.' Waibel has similar jurisdiction over the 6 or 7
workers in the feed mill." Accordingly, the undersigned finds that both Plass
and Waibel are supervisory employees and representatives of management The
conduct of both of these foremen, as shown by undisputed evidence in the record,
reveals that they deviated from the policy of non-interference with union activi-
ties which at the hearing respondent asserted that it had adopted and to which
the Act requires that it nest adhere Thus, Foreman Plass signed a union
designation card, thereby assisting the Union and Foreman Waibel voted in
the election conducted by employee Oxley, thus adding his weight in the
determination of an issue outside the scope of management activity."
In view of the foregoing the undersigned finds that the respondent, through
the conduct of Foremen Plass and Waibel as described above, has interfered
with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act 'Z
The alleged disci imsnatoi y discharges 13
Joseph, Wyatt was employed by respondent first in the spring of 1943 in the
seed mill for temporary work which ended in the fall of 1943 " At the time
he was employed he was advised by respondent that he was being hired for
approximately that period In the spring of 1944, Wyatt was reemployed for
the same work he had performed the previous year , and again informed by
respondent that the work was temporary His work terminated , as it had the
year before , in the fall of 1944 About April 1 , 1945, respondent again em-
ployed Wyatt , and assigned him to the seed mill under the supervision of Fore-
man Plans He was not advised in 1946 as to the probable. duration of his
'Plans testified that he reported unsatisfactory performance by an employee in the
seed null to Assistant Manager Franz, and that "sometimes lie (Franz ) talked to him
about it and they snap out of it , sometimes he puts him on another job , sometimes they
have to terminate him " Plass further testified that lie tiansferred employees from one
job to another, and that dining the busy season lie spends most of his time supeii isuig
the employees
'"Linenberger testified without contradiction that after being employed in the feed
mill. Assistant Manager Franz told hem to "take orders" from Waibel
11 Oxley testified that ashen solicited by Seehafei and others to join the Union lie had
stated that he saw no need for a union but that "if the rest of the boys go m," he would
also loin
The undersigned finds no merit in the contention of Board's counsel that Warbel's
interrogation of Lenenbergei as to what the latter "thought about" the Union consti-
tuted an unfair labor practice The undersigned is of the opinion, and so finds, that
the solicitation by the Union of Waibel and Plans constituted a clear invitation to discuss
the Union
" The discharges are discussed in chi onological order
14Duirng the period of approximately April through November each year, respondent
employed seasonal workers in the seed mill Wyatt testified that at the time he was
discharged theie were 6 employees including Foreman Plass working in that null.
Plans testified, as noted aboi e, that at times as many as 40 workers were so employed.
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employinent,35 but was assigned to the seed mill for work which, according to
his testimony at the hearing herein, was "a little bit different" than that
he had performed the previous year. When terminated on November 22, 1945,
he was told by Assistant Manager Franz that he would be advised when lie
was again needed. Sometime in December 1945, he applied to Manager Baker
for work and was told that no work was available at that time At'the time
of the hearing herein, the seed mill was manned by Foreman Plass and two
other employees, all of whom had been working at the time Wyatt was employed
in April 1945'°
In view of these facts, all of which are established by Wyatt's own testimony,
it is clear that the Board's complaint alleging discrimination with respect to
the termination of Wyatt on November 22, 1945, is not substantiated by the
evidence." Furthermore, Wyatt did not join the Union until after the termina-
tion of his employment with respondent, and his only activity on behalf of the
Union consisted of expressing his approval of the Union to some of his fellow
Rorkers.'B Accordingly, and in view-of the entire record in the case, the under-
signed finds that the allegations of the complaint as to Wyatt's discharge have
not been sustained
Alfred H. Kimball did not appear as a witness, and the only evidence in the
record pertaining to his discharge on November 30, 1945, is contained in the
testimony of Manager Baker, Seehafer and Linenberger. Baker testified that
Kimball "stopped work to go on a vacation, on a hunting trip, * * * with
the statement that * * he didn't know how long it would be before he
got back," but at any rate we (respondent) had to employ somebody for his
position before he got back" ; that when Kimball returned he asked "if we needed
him at that time," that Baker told him that respondent had employed another
worker to take his place; that Kimball said he was "glad" because he was not
well and had other business to attend; that Kimball asked if work would be
available at a later date, and that Baker replied to the effect that respondent
probably would need him and would then contact him. Baker further testified
that there had been no discussions between him and Kimball relative to the
Union Seehafer had little to add except that at the time of Kimball's discharge
there were employees who had less seniority than Kimball ;--end that Foreman
Waibel complained of Kimball's work during the fall of 1945. Linenberger
added that in discussions among the employees Kimball was "for" the Union.
In view of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that respondent replaced Kim-
ball because of his extended absence from work, and that the allegations of the
complaint as to Kimball's discharge have not been sustained.
Robert Linen,berger was employed on or about April 1, 1945, as a seasonal or
temporary worker in the seed mill At about the middle of September 1945,
16 Wyatt testified that he was "led to the opinion" when hired in 1945 that he was
hired for permanent employment. When questioned by the undersigned as to the
basis for his "opinion," Wyatt responded, "Well, the grain was more plentiful ; there
was more %tored than we had gotten cleaned, in other words, there was more grain to
be cleaned than I had seen in previous years I had been there, and that is why I was led
to think there would be steady employment "
1e There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts set forth in this
paragraph
11 For reasons too obvious to necessitate explanation, the undersigned attaches no
significance to the fact that when hired in April 1945 Wyatt was not advised that Ills
work would be temporary or to his "opinion" that such employment was permanent.
18 This finding also is based upon Wyatt's own testimony It is further noted by the
undersigned that the Union did not appear at respondent's plant until after Wyatt's
discharge.
"Baker testified that it was his "impression" that Kimball was gone for more than a
month.
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 919
Linenberger told Assistant Manager Franz that he was quitting Franz compli-
mented him on his work and offered to transfer hum to another job Linenberger
was persuaded and transferred to a job in the feed mill under Foreman Walbel
who assured him that the new work won](] be of a permanent nature On De-
cember 13, 1945, Baker discharged Linenberger, paying him severance pay equiva-
lent to weeks' pay and again complimenting him on his work Baker advised
Linenberger at the time of his discharge that the action was necessary in order
to reinstate returning war veterans There is no dispute as to the fact that
Linenberger's job was filled by Norman Stunkard, a war veteran who had been
working for respondent at the time of his induction into the armed services, and
that during the month of December 1945 respondent reinstated three additional
employees with veteran's status 20
Linenberger had been, with the exception of Seehafer, the most active on
behalf of the Union of all respondent's employees, and the undersigned so finds 21
Further, it appears that respondent was aware of Linenberger's activity and his
pro-union sentiment,22 and the undersigned so finds Also, the respondent con-
cedes that Linenbeiger was a satisfactory employee. However, assuming that
respondent looked upon Linenberger's union activities with disfavor, the clear
evidence that respondent rehired returning war veterans for the work which
Linenberger had performed is not contradicted by any evidence that respondent's
employee needs were such that employment was available for both Linenberger
and the returning war veterans or that, but for Linenberger's union activity,
respondent would have selected another employee for discharge.23
In view of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the Board has failed to
sustain the allegations of the complaint as to the discharge of Linenberger.
The discriminatory dtisohaige of Seehafer
Richard II Seehafer- was employed by respondent on or about May 1, 1944, as
a permanent employee in the feed mill, which was under the supervision of
Foreman WVaibel. On about July 1, 1944, he received a wage increase and was
complimented by Assistant Manager Franz with respect to his work. He received
Iwo additional wage increases prior to his discharge on February 3, 194d 21
Respondent was aware of Seehafer's dominant role in the attempted organiza-
tion of the Union among the employees of the cooperative, and the undersigned so
finds2' Further it is clear, and the undersigned so finds, that Baker looked with
disfavor upon certain views of Seehafer on the subject of employee-employer
relations.21
_20 Wesley Fostei, Clarence Waibel and Lawrence Waibel
21 The evidence is undisputed that on at least two occasions Linenberger accompanied
Seeliafei and representatives of the Union on a tour of the homes of other of respondent's
employees to induce them to join the Union.
22 As noted hereinafter in connection with the discharge of Seehafer, the record shows
uncontradicted evidence that Linenberger accompanied Seehafer and a union representa-
tive on a visit to the home of Garnet Oxley to solicit Oxley's assistance to the Union, and
that Orley reported at least some of the details of this visit to Manager Baker
23 There i@ no evidence that any employee was retained who had been employed for a
shorter time than Linenberger. Further there is no evidence that respondent has em-
ployed any new employees since Linenbeiger's discharge.
21 Seehafer received one 5-cent per hour increase in December 1944 and another such
increase in December 1945 The undersigned notes that 2 of the 3 nicieases winch re-
spondent gave Seehafer occurred pfior to his activity on behalf of the Union and the other
subsequent thereto
20 As noted above, Baker testified that Seehafer informed him of this fact on various
occasions
11 Seehafer testified credibly without substantial contradiction that Baker, following a
conversation between him and Seehafer on the subject of seniority, called Seehafer a "radi-
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent advances as its reason for the discharge of Seehafer its contention
that Seehafer had falsely accused Baker of mismanagement of the cooperative's
business , had threatened " to get" Tommy Franz, the assistant manager , and had
made derogatory remarks about Foreman Waibel.
Baker testified that during the 1945 "haying season " 27 Seehafer had sought
Waibel's job and had told him that Waibel "was in the habit of taking home
sweepings of screenings , * * had appropi iated a good many things around
the mill that [ Baker] * r * didn't know anything about * * that dlr.
Waibel was getting old, * * * was slow _ * * careless and inefficient
* * * - dishonest ." 28 Baker further testified ' that Foreman I'lass, Garnet
Oxley, and Fred Gordon had reported to him that Seehafer had stated to them
that he [Baker] had appropriated the money for a load of soya bean meal which
the respondent had sold to a neighboi mg cooperative , and that Seehafer had told
him [Baker ] that lie [Seehafer ] was -out to get" Tommy Fianz Garnet Oxley
testified that Seehafer had made the accusation pertai n ing to the soya bean meal
episode to him during a discussion of the Union at Oxley ' s home,'° and that
he reported the accusation to Baker Foreman Plass testified that Seehafer dis-
cussed the soya bean meal transaction with hum and implied that Baker had
appropriated the money received as payment for the meal t0 Plass further testi-
fied that Seehafer had accused Foreman W Ta ibel of being a "thief ', and had
asserted that Tommy Franz "couldn ' t live on the money he was drawing the
way he was living , without getting it fi om somewhere else" Waibel testified
that on frequent occasions during working hours lie heard Seehafer tell members
of the cooperative to be sure to be at the annual meeting, that we I the cooperative
membership ] would have to have new directors in there, and a new manager"
Julius Christenson , a member of respondent ' s Board of Directors, testified as a
witness for the Board on direct examination , that, prior to Seehafer's discharge,
Seehafer had told him that iespondent needed new m:Imgement , : isserted that
he [Seehafer ] could "do it much better ," mmentioned the soya bean meal that had
been shipped out , mentioned that Waibel was favored by being permitted to take
home molasses and feed , and mentioned all difterent things about the mill there
that should not be
Seehafer denied that he had node any of the above statements atti ibuted
to him prior to his discharge , but admitted that at the respondent 's annual
meeting on March 19 , 1946, he had addressed the membership of the cooperative
and accused Waibel of taking six bai rels of molasses" Seehafer further ad-
mitted that he had discussed the shipment of soya beaus referred to above, but
denied that he had intended to imply that Baker had acted improperly in han-
dling the matter Linenberger , who had been present during the discussion
cal" Baker admitted that lie considered that certain views expressed bi Schmidt, the
apparent instigator of the Union ' s appearance at respondent ' s plant, were "very radical
n Baker ' s testimony indicated that the "haying ' season was in Jnly of 1945
,3 Waibel had been employed by the respondent since March, 1936 Seehafer substituted
for Waibel in 1945 while Waihel atttended to the "haring " on his farm At the end of the
haying season Waihel retui ned to his formei job with respondent
2" Oxley testified that Lnienberger hadcbeen present during the conveisation Linen-
berger , although a witness for the Boaul , did not tebtily with respect to this conversation.
39 Plan testified as follows
Well, on one occasion, lie [Seehafei ] asked me if I remembered Tillamook getting
any soy beans, and then I thought for about a minute and then I recalled * *
and lie wants to know what became of it, and I said , " I suppose they brought it back "
He said they didn ' t and then he said "Who got the inonev'i" I said I didn't know,
that I Imagined the co-op did And lie said, "I don't know whether it did or not " He
interied M i Baker might have got it
31 Seehafer testified that lie did not state whether or not Waibel had paid for the
molasses
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 921
described by Oxley in which, according to the testimony of Oxley, Seehafer had
accused Baker lof misappropriating the proceeds received from the soya bean
shipment, laded to testify with respect to this episode although he appeared
as a witness tor the Board and did recall having visited the home of Oxley with
Seehater on another occasion.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record in the case, including the under-
signed's observation of the witness, the undersigned does not credit the partial
denial of Seehafer and finds that Seehafer did accuse Baker, Waibel, and Franz
of dishonesty with respect to their management of respondent's business, and
that respondent was aware of these accusations at the tune it discharged See-
hafer The undersigned further finds, as counsel for the Board appears to
concede, that there is no evidence tending to establish the truth of the accusa-
tions made by Seehafer.
However, while the undersigned does not in any manner condone the conduct
of Seehafer there is clear evidence that Seehafer's accusations against Baker,
Franz and Waibel did not comprise the sole consideration motivating respond-
ent's action in discharging him, but that one of the reasons was his union mem-
bership and activity Julius Christenson, one of the five members of respond-
ent's Board of Directors, admitted on direct examination by the Board's counsel
that Seehafer would not have been discharged but for Seehafer's activity on
behalt of the Union and respondent's antipathy toward the Union'
Inasmuch as the action of the Board of Directors was admittedly so motivated,
at least in part, the undersigned finds that respondent discharged Richard H.
Seehafer on February 8, 1946, and, by including as one of the substantial reasons
for such discharge Seehafei's activities on behalf of the Union, has diserim-
mated against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, has dis-
couraged membership in a labor organization and thereby interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In recommending the affirmative action to be taken by the respondent to
remedy its discrimination against Seehater, the undei signed has considered
carefully the effect of Seehater's unwarranted attacks against the reputation
and integrity of the respondent's officials The conclusion is inevitable that such
conduct by Seehafer invited disciplinary action by the respondent, and that the
application of the Board's usual reined} of both reinstatement and back pay
wound tend to place a pienmm on conduct which, as stated above, the under-
signed does not in any manner condone. Accordingly, the undersigned will not
recommend that Seehafer be reimbursed for any loss which he may have incurred
because of his discharge on February 8, 1946, but will recommend that the
respondent offer Seehafer reinstatement While Seehafer's conduct may have
engendered some personal bitterness among the individuals i nvolved,33 the under-
signed is convinced that, in this instance, lie should be given an opportunity to
utilize his workmanship, which according to the iespondent was excellent, in
respondent's employ without any discrimination, because of his union activity.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations described in Section 1, above, have it close, inti-
'= Christenson te,titied, "I don't think lie would havc been discharged, but it seemed to
us like the best wav out, or the best way to deal with the CIO organ ization, as us farmers
didn't think we wanted it * * * we decided * * * we had better let Haystacker
[Seehafer] go * * * these was too much talk about unions * * *,"
14 If Seehafer should engage in such activity in the future, iecpondent is free to discipline
hum for such conduct.
922 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 commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Inasmuch as it has been found that respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Because it has been found that respondent has failed to restrain its representa-
tives Plass and Waibel from interfering with the union activities of its employees,
the undersigned will recommend that, in order to make more effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac-
tices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs com-
merce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the respondent cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Since it has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Richard H. Seehafer, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union, the undersigned will recommend that respondent offer him
immediate and full reinstatement to his former position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LJw
1. Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. i
2. By interfering with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Richard
H. Seehafer, thereby discouraging membership in Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of Section S (3) of the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by the discharges
of Joseph Wyatt, Alfred H. Kimball, or Robert, Linenberger.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Tualatin Valley Cooperative, Incorporated, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharge and refusal to reinstate
any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor
TUALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 923
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Richard II Seehafer immediate and full reinstatement to his
former, or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Millsboro, Oregon, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, after being signed
by the respondent's representative, shall-be posted immediately by the respondent
upon the receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days froiu the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent
discriminatorily discharged Joseph Wyatt, Alfred H. Kimball and Robert Linen-
berger be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November ^7,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II, of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochanibeau Building, Washington 25, D. C , an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a beef in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon eaeh of the other parties and shall file
a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of the order transferring the case to the Board Any party desiring to
submit a brief in support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen
(15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the
Board, by filing with the Board an original and four copies thereof, and by
iminediately serving a copy thereof upoh each of the other parties and the
Regional Director.
JOSEPH C WELLS,
Trial Bxamirier
Dated September 9, 1946
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO-ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant_t_o the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 riot 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 Congress of Industrial Organizations or any other 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.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed
Richard H. Seehafer
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
T IALATIN VALLEY COOPERATIVE , INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated-------------------------- By--------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the aimed farces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.