Western Meat Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1066 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to carry out the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other union , by harassing our employees, by forc-
ing them to leave, or by otherwise discriminating against them in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any of their. working conditions.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their own or other employees'
union sympathies, affiliations , or activities in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion.
WE WILL NOT order, solicit, direct, or urge our employees to spy upon or
inform us about the union sympathies, affiliations, or activities of their fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist unions, to bargain collectively through repiesentatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring union
membership as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Willie Fay Carel immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any
loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against her, with 6 percent
interest.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of any union, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a) (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
NOTE-If Willie Fay Carel should be currently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, we will notify her of her right to full reinstatement after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948.
SPRINGFIELD GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore 1-7000, Extension 731.
Western Meat Packers , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634,
AFL-CIO
Western Meat Packers, Inc. and Keith Warenski . Cases Nos. 27-
CA-1603 and 27-CA-1629. June 1. 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 29,1965, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
152 NLRB No. 113.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC. 1067
=ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
s set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
`Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings 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 Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the 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 adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner , and orders
that Respondent , Western Meat Packers , Inc., Grand Junction, Colo-
rado, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
'The telephone number for Region 27 given below the signature line at the bottom
of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read• 534-4151,
Extension 513
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
William E. Spencer in Grand Junction, Colorado, on October 27 and 28, 1964, upon
a consolidated complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, the latter herein called the Board, dated August 31, 1964, and the duly filed
answer of Western Meat Packers, Inc., the Respondent herein. The consolidated
complaint (based on a charge in Case No. 27-CA-1603 filed by Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634, AFL-CIO,
on May 11, 1964, and a charge in Case No. 27-CA-1629 filed by Keith Warenski,
an individual, on June 22, 1964) alleged in substance that the Respondent, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act, discharged its employee, Keith Warenski, because of his union
and concerted activities, and engaged in other specified conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
Upon the entire record in the case, after consideration of briefs filed with me by
the General Counsel and the Respondent, respectively, and upon my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Colorado corporation, at all times material herein has maintained
its principal office, plant, and place of business in Grand Junction, Colorado, where
it is engaged in the processing, sale, and distribution of meat and meat products.
During the past year in the course and conduct of its Grand Junction, Colorado,
operations, it processed, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000,
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said location
directly to States of the United States other than Colorado.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local
Union No. 634, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Warenski and matteis preceding it
On April 21, 1964, some 20 of Respondent's employees attended a union meeting,
apparently the first of a series of organizational meetings conducted by the Union.
On the following day, in the plant, employee Earl Von Brug was interrogated by
Respondent's secretary, Fred Pahler, about the meeting, whether he had attended
it, and what other employees were present.l On the same day Plant Manager Clarke
asked employee Robert Campbell if he had signed a union card, and continued his
questioning until Campbell admitted that he had signed a card Also, on the morning
following the union meeting, Respondent's owner, Melvin Bruchard Seevers, con-
fronted Foreman Henry H. Davis with the statement that employees in Davis' depart-
ment had attended the meeting, and "if they signed the union papers" he was going
to fire every one of them. On other occasions, according to Davis, Seevers said that
any employee belonging to a union or associated with getting others in a union
would be fired, and he would get all the other evidence he could to use as reason
for firing them.2
In the period immediately following the April 21 meeting, employee James
Martinez and others were active in the Union's organizational drive. On one occa-
sion Martinez approached Foreman Fred Velasquez and asked him to sign a union
card. In the course of the conversation which ensued Martinez applied an uncompli-
mentary epithet to Velasquez for wanting union benefits while refusing to stand up
and be counted when the Union needed his help. Later on that same day, Plant Man-
ager Clarke accused Martinez of intimidating another employee while soliciting sig-
natures to union cards An argument ensued and culminated when Clarke told
Martinez that he was fired. When Martinez called for his check, Office Manager
John Burns asked him what had happened As a result of Burns' intervention,
Clarke called in Velasquez who, when confronted by Martinez, backed down. When
Martinez' version of his conversation with Velasquez was corroborated by a by-
stander, his discharge was rescinded.
1 While Pahler exercised no supervisory function as that term is generally applied, as
Respondent's secretary he was also a member of Respondent's board of directors, this
board being comprised of its officers. It appears to me that regardless of work per-
formed in the plant, his proper and natural identification would be with management. I
am therefore unable to regard his interrogations as merely questions asked by one rank-
and-file employee of another
2 The above findings are based on credited testimony of Von Brug, Campbell , and Davis,
denied specifically or in general terms by Pahler, Clarke, and Seevers This much of the
testimony of General Counsel's witnesses was clear and convincing. No reliance has
been placed on further testimony of Van Brug and Campbell because of the hesitancy,
backtracking, and confusion with which it was given. It may very well be that these
employees, still in Respondent's employ, were diluting their testimony, consciously or
not, so as to give as little offense to management as possible Be that as it may, I do
not feel justified in basing findings independently of their testimony on their prehearing
affidavits when those affidavits were given only a short while prior to the hearing itself
Davis, discharged by the Respondent on September 25, 1964, was an uneasy witness,
nervous in his address , and confused on cross-examination with respect to certain dates
on which he gave prehearing affidavits to Board agents. There are portions of his
testimony which I am unable to credit. His testimony with respect to antiunion state-
ments made to him by Respondent's owner, Seevers , denied only in general terms by the
latter, was, however, clear and convincing; I do not believe he was guilty of outright
fabrication. At the time these statements were made Seevers probably considered him
an ally in his opposition to the Union 's organizational drive , as perhaps he was, but
no contention having been made by any party that foremen such as Davis were supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, and no evidence offered such as would establish supervisory
status, the statements must be regarded as having been made to an employee , as that
term Is defined In the Act.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC. 1069
On May 26, 1964, Respondent and the Union executed a settlement agreement in
Case No. 27-CA-1603, approved by the Board's Regional Director, in which the
Respondent agreed, inter alia, to post notices that "it would not in any manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under
the Act."
On June 19 the Respondent discharged its employee, Keith Warenski, and because
of this discharge, alleged by the General Counsel to have been discriminatory and
violative of the Act, the Board's Regional Director set aside the settlement agree-
ment of May 26.
On or about May 22 Warenski asked Foreman Davis to sign a union card. This
occurred during the lunch break, and other employees were nearby and overheard
all or a portion of what was said. Davis refused to sign, and said he preferred to
bargain for himself. Warenski asked Davis if he had ever worked in a union plant
and when Davis replied in the affirmative, saying that he was a union member himself
at the time, Warenski asked him if production was not better in union plants than
it was in here. Davis agreed that it was. Warenski suggested that if Davis did not
sign up now he might later on be blackballed from becoming a union member.
On June 19, Plant Manager Clarke visited the floor where Warenski was working
several times, and talked to Foreman Velasquez. Warenski asked Velasquez what
Clarke wanted and Velasquez replied that Clarke wanted production speeded up.
According to Respondent's credited witnesses , Respondent was concerned with pro-
duction at that time and was seeking ways to improve it. After Clarke's last visit
to the area on that day, Velasquez told Warenski that he was to punch out as soon
as his part of the job was finished. Others received the same instruction . Previous
to this it had been customary for the employees in the department to punch in at
the same time and then employees finishing their assigned work earlier than others
would assist these others in finishing their work assignments, with the result that all
employees punched out at the same time. Since the employees were paid on an
hourly basis, if required to punch out as soon as they had finished their individual
work assignments, some employees would get in less time than others and conse-
quently would be paid less. Warenski protested to Velasquez, saying that he did
not feel he should be required to punch out earlier than others unless the entire
crew was "staggered" on reporting in so that everybody would wind up the day
with the same number of hours. Velasquez told him he would have to see Clarke.
In the time remaining before the end of the work period, Warenski discussed the
matter with a group of his fellow employees who agreed with him that this new
system of punching out was unfair, and that the matter should be taken up with
Clarke. Warenski was informally designated by these employees to approach Clarke
in the matter. Shortly after he punched out, Warenski saw Clarke, said that he did
not like punching out on his particular job when other employees continued to work,
and suggested that Clarke make up a list of employees for the next work day, a
Monday, with staggered times for both starting and quitting so that all the employees
would work the same number of hours. According to Warenski, Clarke retorted that
he was the manager, he was running that place, and Warenski was fired. No conten-
tion is made that the instructions for punching out made by Clarke on June 19 were
directed against Warenski solely and individually, or were motivated by antiunion
considerations. After June 19, however, the employees worked on the same basis as
they had previously.
Warenski, after his encounter with Clarke, returned to the employees' dressing
room and told them that he had just been fired. Then, accompanied by employees
Jose Martinez and William R. McClellan, he went to the office to get his check. There
Office Manager Burns gave him a slip of paper bearing Clarke's signature which said
in effect that Warenski had approached Clarke and told him that he was tired of the
way the killing floor was being run and was not going to put up with it any more.
After reading this Warenski, accompanied by Martinez, entered Clarke's private office
where the latter was talking to Foreman Davis. Warenski tossed the paper on
Clarke's desk and told him, "This wasn't the reason I was fired." Clarke said it was
and an argument ensued, during which Warenski, losing his temper, told Clarke, "I
better not catch you uptown." Springing to his feet, Clarke replied, "Are you
threatening me? Now I'm really going to hang you," or words to that effect. Clarke
then instructed Burns to bring in a paper that he had previously discussed with Burns.
Clarke told Martinez to leave but Warenski said he wanted a witness and Martinez
stayed. Burns shortly came into the office with a statement signed by Foreman Davis.
The statement, dated May 22, said in effect that Warenski had asked Davis to sign a
paper to get the Union in the plant and when he, Davis, refused, said in front of all
the kill floor employees, "As long as you will not help us get in the union-then we
are not going to put out production-your production is going to get less and less."
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Warenski admitted having solicited Davis to sign up with the Union but denied the
latter part of the statement having to do with a slowdown in production. Davis.
remained firm in his accusation. Martinez corroborated Warenski. No other employ-
ees were called in on the matter. Warenski's discharge stood
Respondent's statement to the job insurance benefits division of the Colorado State
Department of Employment, gave as the reason for Warenski's discharge. "Insubor-
dination . . . Keith Warenski approached the plant manager, John Clarke, and told
him that other employees on the killing floor were getting more overtime than he
was. Clarke told Warenski that it was none of his business how the floor was being
run. Warenski replied that he was not going to put up with it any longer. Clarke
then sent Warenski to the office."
Warenski's statement to the same State agency read:
John Clark approached the forman [sic] and told him to have the employees
punch out for their shift as their job was finished. The foreman told me to do
this but did not notify any one else After changing clothes I approached Clark
and told him I did not feel this was fair, I suggested that since it was Friday a
list be made out so that on Monday morning there wouldn't be the same mix-up,
so that on Monday morning they could start staggering crews, so that everyone
would get the same number of hours per shift at the end of each day If this
was worked out everyone would get approximately the same number of hours
per week In other plants in which I have worked this system has worked out
satisfactorily for all concerned. He [Clark] said he was the manager of the
place, he was running it, and I was fired.
The State agency denied Warenski job insurance benefits on the ground that "the
worker is basically responsible for the separation "
Clarke testified concerning the circumstances of the discharge that after instructing
Velasquez on June 19 that the employees on the kill floor were to punch out
individual on finishing their respective work assignments, Velasquez reported back
to him that Warenski refused to punch out. Velasquez, though testifying for the
Respondent, did not testify in corroboration of Clarke that Warenski refused to punch
out, not being questioned on the point. Clarke further testified that Warenski
approached him and said that he did not like the way he, Clarke, was running the
plant and therefore, he, Warenski, "wasn't going to put up with it." Thereupon„
according to Clarke, he told Warenski the latter didn't "have to put up with it," and
instructed Burns to make out Warenski's check. Concerning the later encounter with
Warenski in his office, Clarke testified that when Karenski denied what was written
on his discharge slip, he replied, "Keith, that's just what you told me right in front
of the smoke house." Warenski then threatened him, after which he. Clarke, called
Burns in to read the statement previously given by Foieman Davis. There was.
further testimony by Clarke and Velasquez concerning Warenski's uneven work
performance and contemptuous conduct which I find it unnecessaiy to relate in detail
inasmuch as nothing was said of it at the time of Warenski's discharge, or in Respond-
ent's statement to the Colorado State Department of Employment, and because there
is no evidence that it entered into the discharge decision itself
B. Concluding findings
Warenski, in his report to the State Department of Employment, was mistaken in.
saying that his foreman told him but no one else to punch out on June 19, inasmuch
as this was a general order which applied to all employees in the department, but
otherwise this statement is consistent with the facts developed in this proceeding It
may very well be that he felt personally aggrieved on receiving these instructions
from Velasquez but I do not credit Clarke's uncorroborated testimony that he actually
refused to punch out as instructed He decided to protest this new system of punch-
ing out, and he was not alone in this. His fully corroborated testimony establishes
that other employees shared his grievance and that he was informally designated to
carry their joint protest to Clarke His action in doing so was clearly protected con-
certed activity and his suggestion, if no more, that the working hours be staggered in,
a manner which would enable all employees in the department to draw the same
wage, indicated that he was not speaking for himself alone but for all the employees.
I am unable to credit Clarke's version of the conversation in which this suggestion
was made. It is true that Warenski had been critical of the way the plant was being
run, and some of this criticism may very well have come to Clarke's notice, and I
incline to the view that Warenski was something of a "know-it-all" when it came toy
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC. 1071
plant procedures, but I do not believe that he threw down the gauntlet to Clarke and
told him, as Clarke testified, that he "wasn't going to put up with" the way Clarke
was running the plant. At the least he would have conveyed his suggestion for stag-
gering hours so as to keep all the employees on the same pay footing, but none of
this appears in Clarke's testimony on what was said.
It further appears that while Clarke in his initial move to discharge Warenski relied
on statements made to him by Warenski after the latter had received his instructions
for punching out, the discharge as finally effectuated rested on additional grounds;
i. e., the statement given earlier by Foreman Davis. The very fact that Clarke called
for this statement to back up his discharge action, is indicative of uneasiness on his
part that grounds previously stated for the discharge would stand up under scrutiny,
and while Office Manager Burns may have had no direct authority in the matter of
discharges, it was his intervention that caused rescission of the earlier discharge of
employee James Martinez. Be this as it may, Warenski's discharge cannot reason-
ably be considered as resting on circumstances wholly apart from the encounter with
Foreman Davis in Clarke's office. It was with Davis' statement that Clarke was going
to "hang him," and this makes no sense unless Clarke meant that he was relying on
Davis' statement to make the discharge stick. In fact, the whole business of having
Foreman Davis confront Warenski with the former's written accusation makes no
sense if Clarke, entirely apart from this and without any reliance on it, had reached
his final discharge decision.
Warenski's testimony on what he actually said to Davis is fully corroborated by
other employees, as Davis' testimony is not. According to Davis' own statement,
Warenski made his remarks in the presence of other employees. Respondent called
none of these employees to testify in corroboration of Davis' accusal. I accept
Warenski's testimony and find that he did not threaten nor suggest a slowdown if the
plant did not go union, and that Davis misconstrued his remarks about production
being better in union plants. Davis, an excitable individual, may not have under-
stood the true import of Warenski's remarks, or, mindful of Seevers' threat to fire
anyone in his department who went union, he may have deliberately misconstrued
those remarks in order to protect his position with management. The fact is that no
such remarks as reported by Davis to management were made by Warenski. Waren-
ski's efforts to get Davis to sign up for union representation occurred during the lunch
period and were in this and all other respects a legitimate exercise of his right under
the Act to engage in union activities. It makes no difference whether he was at the
time a member of the Union, some other union, or no union at all. He had a pro-
tected right to solicit for union representation on his own time. His remark to Davis
that the latter might be blackballed from union membership if he did not sign up at
once, a remark which might reasonably be construed as a threat, was not heard by
Davis or did not register with the latter, for Davis made no report to management of
such a statement having been made and there is no evidence that management at any
time prior to the discharge had knowledge of it. It therefore could not have pro-
voked the discharge or entered into it.
I find that the Respondent discharged Warenski because of his concerted and
union activities 3 in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.4
Warenski's discriminatory discharge was in violaton of the terms of the settlement
agreement of May 26, 1964, and, accordingly, it constitutes no bar to findings based
on statements and conduct predating its execution. Accordingly, it is further found
that in violation the Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Respondent interrogated its
employees in an unlawful manner concerning their attendance at union meetings and
other union activities, and threatened its employees with discharge if they became
affiliated with or assisted the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, 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.
3 The findings of the Colorado State Department of Employment are entitled to and
are accorded our respect, but for obvious reasons have no binding force on this agency.
4 Were it found that Warenski was discharged solely for concerted activities, the
remedy with respect to reinstatement and backpay would be the same.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Keith Warenski, I shall
recommend that it offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges
It is further recommended that Respondent make said Keith Warenski whole for
any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that amount of wages he would have earned, but for
said discrimination, from the date of the discharge, to the date he is offered reinstate-
ment, together with interest thereon. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
The loss of pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula and method
prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
The nature and scope of Respondent's violations of the Act are such as to require
a broad cease-and-desist order commensurate with the potential threat of further
violations.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is and has been engaged in commerce and a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is, and at all times material has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms
and conditions of employment of Keith Warenski, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4 By the aforesaid discriminatory discharge, by questioning its employees in an
unlawful manner concerning their union affiliation and activities, and by threatening
them with discharge if they joined or assisted the Union, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Respondent, Western
Meat Packers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of
Respondent's employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against any individual in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment, except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Interrogating in an unlawful manner its employees concerning their union
affiliation and activities, threatening them with discharge if they join or assist the
Union, or any other labor organization, and in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Offer Keith Warenski immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as described in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its Agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due.
(c) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC. 1073
(d) Post at its offices in Grand Junction, Colorado, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of this notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 27, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other
material.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.6 Unless
Respondent so notifies the said Regional Director, it is recommended that the Board
issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
6If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
In the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision
and Order."
6If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership and activity in Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 634, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in
any manner in regard to hire, tenure, or any other terms or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in an unlawful manner concerning
their union affiliation and activities, threaten them with discharge if they
affiliate with or assist a labor organization, or in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
engaging in any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment in corformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Keith Warenski immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
WESTERN MEAT PACKERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609 Rail-
way Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Exchange Building, 17th and Champa
Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone No. 297-3551, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
7 89-730-66-vol 152-69