Wilson & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 636 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of WILSON & CO., INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 227, AFFILIATED WITH C. 1. 0.
In the Matter of WILSON & Co., INC. and W. M. BLANKENSHIP, AN
INDIVIDUAL and EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE, PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT
Cases Nos . 16-C-1061 and 16-C-1091, respectively.-Decided August
30,19.4.5
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 3, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, on April 2, 1945, the respondent
and Employees' Representative Committee, herein called the E. R. C.,
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. On
April 26, 1945, the Union filed a reply brief. The Board has reviewed
the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds, con-
trary to the contentions made by the respondent and the E. R. C., that
no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondent and the
E. R. C., the Board, on July 26, 1945, heard oral argument at Wash-
ington, D. C. The respondent appeared and participated in the
argument; neither the E. R. C. nor the Union appeared.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
1 The respondent and the E R C except to numerous adverse rulings made by the Trial
Examiner and to the conduct of the Trial Examiner at the hearing, charging him with ex-
hibiting prejudice against them and partiality toward the Union, and thereby denying them
a fair hearing They further accuse the Trial Examiner of assuming the role of prosecutor
by examining witnesses , initiating his ouun objections , and "badgering" counsel. The Board
has carefully examined the Trial Examiner ' s rulings and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The Board further concludes that the Trial Examiner conducted a fair
and impartial hearing and that his interrogation of witnesses was designed , and did serve,
to make a more complete record. See Matter of Nubone Company, Inc. (Eric, Pa ), 62
N. L R B 322
63 N. L. R. B , No. 100.
636
WILSON & CO., INC. 637
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
save as they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions, and order
hereinafter set forth.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the circumstances sur-
rounding the formation of the E. R. C. and the support and assistance
subsequently rendered to the E. R. C. by the respondent, which are
fully revealed in the Intermediate Report, clearly establish that the
respondent has unlawfully dominated and assisted the E. R. C., within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.2 Thus, at the respondent's
suggestion the E. R. C. was formed in September 1935 by the govern-
ing committee of the Joint Plan, a typical employer-dominated and
controlled labor organization which had existed in the respondent's
plant from about 1920 until it was abandoned in favor of the newly
formed E. R. C. The respondent did nothing to mark the separation
between the Joint Plan and the E. R. C. and to disabuse publicly the
employees of the reasonable belief that the E. R. C. had the same
management favor and support which accompanied the Joint Plan.
The record indicates that the E. R. C. functioned for many years
under an organizational structure similar to that of the Joint Plan,
except for the fact that the element of direct management participa-
tion was eliminated.
Furthermore, since the genesis of the E. R. C., the respondent has
provided without charge a place in the plant for E. R. C. committee
meetings, permitted such meetings to be held during working hours,
and paid the employees members of the committee their regular wages
for time thus spent. For many years, all non-supervisory employees
"automatically" became members of the E. R. C.; no membership lists
were kept or membership cards issued. Not until the latter part of
1942 or the first part of 1943, when the Union was attempting to
organize the plant, did the E. R. C. attempt to secure signed member-
ship applications from the employees, as evidence of its representa-
tive status which the respondent had accorded it since 1935. Upon
the advent of the Union, the E. R. C., with the assistance of the re-
spondent, solicited employee memberships at the plant during work-
ing hours. Thereafter, the E. R. C. requested and secured its first
written exclusive bargaining contract with the respondent upon its
unsupported claim of majority status. The respondent has also con-
tributed financial support to the E. R. C. by giving it the monies
collected from the vending machines placed in the plant by a con-
cessionary company. Finally, by the anti-union statements and con-
2 we do not agree, however, with the Trial Examiner that the respondent is responsible
for pro-E R C and anti-union activities of Roy G Decker, a watchman, because it does
not here appear that the respondent authorized or ratified his conduct. See Matter of
Standard Gage Company, Inc., 54 N L. R. B 160; Matter of Drava Corporation, 52
N. L. R B . 322. Our unfair labor practice findings herein are in no part based on Decker's
activities.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duct of Superintendent Kellert and Foreman Jones, more fully set
forth in the Intermediate Report, the respondent has shown its animus
toward the Union and its preference for the E. R. C.
The maintenance of a company-dominated and supported organi-
za€ion presents a ready and effective means of obstructing self-organ-
ization of employees and their choice of their own representatives for
the purpose of collective bargaining. The respondent's long domina-
tion of and interference with two successive labor organizations, its
contribution of support to them, and the activities of its supervisory
employees, denied to its employees the free opportunity to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and sub-
stantially deprived them of their right to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, except in channels directed by the respondent. Because of
the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced and find that the unfair labor practices found are persua-
sively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and
that a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past. The preven-
tive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive
with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and thereby to minimize strife which burdens and ob-
structs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall
order the respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner has found that Millard L. Blassingame was
discriminatorily discharged because of his union activity in violation
of the Act. We do not agree.3 Blassingame, first employed by the
respondent in 1942, joined the Union and became active on its behalf
in January 1944. On March 17, 1944, Decker, the watchman men-
tioned above, while engaged in the performance of his regular duties,
observed Blassingame smoking in the plant contrary to the respond-
ent's well known rules. Decker reported the incident to Superin-
tendent A. M. Kellert and, upon the latter's instruction, told Blas-
singame to go home and report back the next day. Blassingame,
however, desirous of settling the matter immediately, sought out
Kellert in the plant and had a conversation with him in the presence
of Foreman Clinton Hughes, Blassingame's immediate supervisor.
During the ensuing conversation, Blassingame admitted the infraction
observed by Decker as well as a charge then made by Hughes that
Hughes on at least two prior occasions had observed Blassingame
violating the no-smoking rule and had warned him about his infrac-
we do agree, however, with the Trial Examiner that Blassingame was discharged and
that lie did not voluntarily quit his job.
WILSON & CO., INC. 639
tions. The conversation concluded when Kellert instructed Hughes to
``write out" Blassingame's "time." Immediately following this con-
versation, Blassingame "got his time" from Hughes and left the.plant.
The Trial Examiner's finding of discrimination rests principally on
the view that there was disparity in the treatment of Blassingame and
other employees who had also violated the no-smoking rule and that
Blassingame's admitted infraction of the rule was seized upon as a
pretext for effecting a discriminatory discharge. In support of this
view, the Trial Examiner gives controlling significance to Blas-
singame's uncorroborated and disputed testimony that at the time
Decker observed Blassingame violating the no-smoking rule, four other
employees were also smoking with him, but that Decker reported only
Blassingame to Kellert.4 However, any discrimination which Decker
may have practiced on this occasion was not, as found above, attribut-
able to the respondent. The Trial Examiner also relies on testi-
mony by two employees that numerous employees smoked in the plant,
contrary to the rule, with impunity. We do not believe that this
testimony accurately reflects general conditions prevailing in the plant.
Nine of the employees, including five members of the Union, named
in this testimony as violators of the rule denied having smoked in the
plant, and one admitted the charges. In any event, it appears that
Blassingame was a chronic violator of the rule and, according to the
testimony of Kellert, five other named employees had been discharged,
between July 1943 and January 1945, for repeated violations of the
no-smoking rule.
Under all the circumstances and upon the entire record, we find that
Blassingame's discharge was not discriminatory, within the meaning
of the Act, and we shall therefore dismiss the complaint as to him.
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, Wilson & Co., Inc., and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Employ-
ees' Representative Committee, or with the formation and adminis-
tration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing financial or other support to Employees' Representative
Committee or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Employees' Representative Committee as the rep-
resentative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the re-
4 Decker testified that at the time in question Blassingame was alone ; two of the four
employees implicated in Blassingame's testimony testified that they were not present; and
the remaining two were not available at the time of the hearing
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or any other condition of employment;
(c) Giving effect to the contract which became effective June 11,
1943, between the respondent and Employees' Representative Com-
mittee, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, or to any other contract or agreement which may now be in
force between the respondent and the said labor organization;
(d) 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 United Packinghouse Workers of
America, Local 227, affiliated with the C. ,I. 0., or any other labor or-
ganization, 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, 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) Withdraw all recognition from, and completely disestablish,
Employees' Representative Committee as the representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other terms or conditions of employment;
(b) Post at its plant at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth 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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days 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 is alleges
that the respondent discriminated against Millard L. Blassingame,
within.the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
WILSON & CO., INC . 641
NLRB 584
(10-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We hereby disestablish Employees' Representative Committee
as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of
dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto for any
of the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or admin-
istration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other
support to it.
We will not give effect to the contract with the Employees' Rep-
resentative Committee which became effective June 11, 1943, or to
any other contract or agreement between us and said labor
organization.
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 United Packinghouse Workers
of America, Local 227, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 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. All our
emplyees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any
other labor organization.
WILSON & CO., INC.,
By ------------------ ---------------
Dated ------------------------
(Representative) (Titlel
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof.
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John H. Garver, for the Board.
Mr. Richard C. Winkler and Mr. Frank C. Anderson (of Rainey, Flynn, Green,
and Anderson ), for the respondent.
Mr. William L. Murphy, for E. R. C.
Mr. Buck Whittaker, for the Union.
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed July 5, 1944, by W. M. Blankenship, an individual, in Case
No. 16-C-1091; and upon a first amended charge filed December 23, 1944, by
United Packinghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0, herein called the Union,
in Case No. 16-C-1061; and pursuant to an Order Consolidating Cases , issued
on December 26, 1944, by the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, the Board, by its Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Forth Worth,
Texas), issued its complaint, dated January 16, 1945, against Wilson & Co.,'
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8 (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Employees' Representative
Committee, herein called E R C.
With respect to the unfair labor practices.and complaint alleges, in substance:
(1) that in 1935 the respondent formed and sponsored E. R. C. and since then
has assisted, dominated and interfered with its administration; (2) that on
June 11, 1942„ the respondent and E. R C entered into a collective bargaining
agreement; (3) that on March 17, 1944, the respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Millard L Blassingame because he joined the Union or because he re-
fused to join E R C.; (4) that from about October 16, 1944, the respondent has
discriminated against William M. Blankenship, by providing him with "less
employment", because he joined the Union, or because he refused to join E. R. C.,
or because he filed charges under the Act; (5) that since January, 1944, the re-
spondent, by its agents and representatives, has vilified the Union, warned its
employees to refrain from joining it, and has threatened and persuaded its
employees to join E R. C. ; and (6) that by these acts the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer filed January 29, 1945,. the respondent denies that it has engaged
in the alleged unfair labor practices, and affirmatively alleges that Blassingame
was "indiscriminately [sic] suspended for cause." In its answer, filed February
1, 1945, E. R. C. denies that the respondent has dominated or interfered with its
formation or administration.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from
February 6 to February 9, 1945, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and
E R. C. were represented by counsel, and the Union by a field representative.
All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues.
At the opening of the hearing the Trial Examiner denied motions, previously
filed by the respondent with the Regional Director,. to dismiss the allegations of
the complaint as to both cases.' Also at the opening of the hearing the Trial
Examiner denied a motion by E. R C. to dismiss allegations in the complaint as to
employees Blassingame and Blankenship, on the grounds that charges as to
I At the opening of the hearing a motion was granted, made by counsel for the Board
without objection , to coirect the name of the respondent , wherever it appeared on formal
papers in these proceedings , to read "Wilson & Co , Inc ," instead of "Wilson and Company "
2 One motion was urged upon grounds alleging , in substance , that in a prehearing investi-
gation the Board had failed to "obtain any affirmative substantial evidence " supporting
allegations as to Blassingame and Blankenship ; the other motion was urged upon grounds
contending that the Board was without authority to proceed as to the 8 ( 2) portion of
the complaint under the "National Labor Relations Board Appropriations Act".
WILSON & CO., INC. 643
'them had been filed with the Board by neither themselves nor by E. R. C. At the
close of the hearing a motion by the respondent' and the Board was granted,
to dismiss allegations of the complaint averring that Blankenship had been
accorded discriminatory treatment by the respondent, thereby engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section S (3) and (4) of the Act.
Ruling was reserved upon motions by the respondent and E R C. to dismiss
allegations of the complaint relating to Blassingame and E R C. These motions
are hereby denied. Also at the close of the hearing •a joint motion was granted
to conform the pleadings to the proof in minor particulars.
After the receipt of evidence, all parties waived an opportunity to argue orally
before the Trial Examiner. Reasonable opportunity was afforded all parties
to file briefs with the Trial Examiner after the close of the hearing. No briefs
have been received.
Upon the entire record in this case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE 13USINESS Ol? THE RESPONDENT
Wilson & Co Inc, is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in operating nine meat packing
plants in various states and about 85 branch houses throughout the country.
It operates a meat packing house in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where it is en-
gaged in the procurement, handling, slaughtering, dressing of livestock, and the
manufacturing and processing of meat food products. Only the Oklahoma
City plant is involved in these proceedings.
At the Oklahoma City plant, the respondent annually receives raw materials
consisting principally of live stock, valued in excess of $1,000,000.00, of which
10 percent is received from points outside the State of Oklahoma. In connection
with the same plant the respondent sells products valued at more than $1,000,-
00,0.00, of which SO percent is sold and delivered to points outside the State of
Oklahoma.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 227, affiliated with C. I. 0.,
and Employees' Representative Committee, are labor organizations admitting to
membership employees of the respondent at its Oklahoma City plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The major issues raised by the complaint are concerned with: (1) the re
spondent's part in the formation and administration of E. R C.; (2) the termi
nation of the employment of Millard J. Blassingame, an employee who had been
active on behalf of the Union; and (3) the anti-union and pro-E. R. C conduct
of Superintendent A. M. Icellert and other management= representatives. Since
all of these issues are interrelated, conclusions as to them will be reserved
until factual findings concerning each have been set forth.
662514-46-vol 63--42
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The respondent's domination of and interference with the formation and
administration of E R C.
1. Joint Representative Committee Plan-predecessor of E. R. C.
From the early 1920's until October 1935, there existed at the respondent's
Oklahoma City plant the Joint Representative Plan, which operated in accord-
ance with provisions of a printed "plan" issued by the respondent and distributed
among its employees. The "committee" was composed of five elected employee
representatives and an equal number of appointed management representatives.
The purpose of the Joint Plan, according to its printed provisions in evidence,
was:
To establish a better understanding and closer co-operation between the
employees and the management and to provide a means for the adjustment
of all Industrial Relations problems by representation of all interests involved
in accordance with right principles.
According to the Plan no employee was eligible for nomination as a representa-
tive unless he had been working for the respondent for one year before nomina-
tion, and unless he was 21 years of age or older. At its own expense the respond-
ent provided meeting places for the Joint Committee, and the employee members
were paid for time spent on committee work. The respondent's president was
the final arbiter in the event of a dispute between employee and management
representatives.
The Joint Plan continued to operate at the Oklahoma City plant until October,
1935, soon after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. Although the
"joint" committee ceased to function at that time, when E. R. C. was set up as
described below, the respondent made no official announcement of its abandon-
ment or dissolution.
2. E R. C. replaces Joint Plan in 1935
In September, 1935, at a meeting of both management and employee representa-
tives of the Joint Plan, some management official' submitted details of a substi-
tute "plan", which he said was in operation at other "places" and which he had
found "much better than the old plan." According to the new plan, which he
read, there were to be no management representatives serving upon the committee.
It was thereupon adopted, and called the Employees' Representative Committee.
This organization, thus proposed and sponsored by management and adopted by
both management and employee representatives under the Joint Plan, has con-
tinued to function at the respondent's Oklahoma City plant and, as found below,
is recognized by the respondent as the sole collective bargaining representative of
its production and maintenance employees.
3. Administration of E. R C.
(a) Until 1942 employees "automatically" were members
Employee representatives were elected in October, 1935 The committee's first
chairman, under the new set-up, was William J. Lassiter, who some years before
3 The identity of this individual is not revealed by the record . The finding that it was
a management official rests upon the undisputed testimony of William J. Lassiter, now a
shipping foreman, who was present at the meeting as an employee representative. Lassiter
testified that someone from the "front office " . . . "came down and set up, gave us the
plans of the new plan."
WILSON & CO., INC. 645
had been a management representative on the Joint Committee, but who in 1934-
1935 had been an elected employee representative and was re-elected upon the
adoption of E. H. C. (Lassiter is now a foreman, and most of the findings relating
to the transition from the Joint Plan to E. R. C. are based upon his uncontradicted
testimony.) In 1936 Roy G Decker became chairman, and he has remained in
this office, with the exception of one year, until the time of the hearing. Decker's
supervisory duties as watchman in the respondent's "Safety First Department",
since 1942, are described in the section next below.
Since E. R. C. was set up in 1935 no general membership meetings have been
held. From its adoption by Joint Plan representatives until the latter part of
1942 or early in 1943, non-supervisory employees at the plant "automatically"
were members. Until then no membership lists were kept and no membership
cards were issued.
(b) Watchman Decker Serves as agent for the respondent
Since 1941 or 1942 4 Roy G Decker has been the only watchman, on his shift
and in the entire plant, charged with the sole and specific duties of enforcing
the respondent's rules for fire prevention, "safety first" and sanitation He
wears a special cap bearing the words "Safety First Department" and has the
privilege of visiting any part of the large plant, consisting of several buildings,
whenever he wishes.
While there is no evidence that he possesses any authority to discipline em-
ployees,-it is found below that upon his instigation employee Blassingame was
discharged in 1944. Moreover, as a guard and overseer of employees' conduct
and their observance of company rules he enjoys special privileges, not accorded
employees generally. He is "in a strategic position to translate . . . the
policies and desires of management." ` The Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that the respondent must be held accountable for any anti-union or pro-
E. R. C. conduct he has engaged in since being appointed to his present position.
(c) The respondent contributes financial and other support to E. R. C ; super-
intendent advises no dues be charged
The respondent has maintained a practice, also observed during the long
existence of the Joint Plan, of providing a meeting place, adjacent to its main
office, and without charge, for E. R C. representatives. Regular and special
meetings, since 1935, have been held during working hours, and the respondent
has paid the representatives their regular wages for time thus spent The
secretary of E. R. C. has had the use of the respondent's mimeograph machine
for the preparation of E. R C. documentary material.
During the latter part of 1942, when the Union became active at the plant.
the question of membership cards and dues was brought up at an E. R C. com-
mittee meeting. As to dues, Superintendent A. M Kellert advised the repre-
sentatives at this meeting that collecting them from employees would be unnec-
essary, and that they could get the "same thing" from E R C that employees
4 The exact date of his transfer to this job is not made clear by the record. He testified
that it took place after be returned to work following an operation in 1941.
s International Association of Machinists, etc., v. N. L. R. B ., 311 U S 72. See also
N. L. R. B. v The Baltimore Transit Company , 140 F . ( 2d) 51 (C C A 4), cert denied
64 S. Ct 848.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at a nearby Armour packing plant were "paying for" by being members of the
Union a
Thereafter Kellert permitted E R C to have the money in the "canteen fund"
which, according to E. R. C.'s secretary, is a varying monthly sum paid as
commissions by a local "canteen" company for the privilege of operating
"peanuts, candy and chewing gum machines at the plant." These commissions,
which amount to not more than $40 monthly, before being contributed to E. R. C.
were used by the respondent to support athletic teams for the benefit of its
employees At the time of the hearing these funds were still being turned over
to E. R. C for its organizational use.
(d) The respondent assists E R. C. membership campaign
During the latter part of 1042 the Union began a campaign to obtain members
among the respondent's employees at this plant.
Although Superintendent Kellert's testimony establishes the fact that since
the first election of E R C. committeemen in 1935 it had been the respondent's
"policy" to recognize the Committee as the representative of a majority of the
production and maintenance employees, no contract had been executed and, as
noted above, E R. C. had no membership lists until employees began to display
an interest in the Union.
At about this time Kellert informed the representatives that the "Company"
could deal only with a union that represented a majority of the employees, and
that it would probably be necessary for the "Committee" to show that it did have
a majority' Soon thereafter chairman Decker called a meeting of representa-
tives and others in the respondent's "private" dining hall during working hours
Employee Louis B. Williams, not a representative, was sent by his foreman to the
office of division superintendent Tom Peacock who, in turn, sent him tol the
meeting being conducted by Decker. Decker gave Williams and the representa-
tives a number of E It. C. application cards, told them he was "trying to head
the CIO off", and sent them back to their departments with instructions to get
them signed. The representatives followed instructions. Representative
Holmes called employees in his department together during working hours for
this purpose Representative Willrich and Williams informed their foreman,
Joe Kolar, of the instructions they had received from Decker, and went to each
employee in the department, obtaining signatures to the cards. They were paid
regular wages for the time thus spent.
(e) E. R. C. had neither constitution nor bylaws until. 1942
Except for provisions of the printed plan read to and approved by management
and employee representatives at the final meeting of the Joint Plan Committee,
Fl This finding rests upon the credible testimony of John B Holmes and Preston Willrich,
who were employee representatives present at this meeting. Concerning this point Kellert
testified
I tried to freshen that in my mind kihen that came up , and I really don't know of
any time I was in a meeting where they discussed dues.
He bad previously testified :
I am probably called in there every time they have a meeting discussing either one
or another request that they have made. . . .
The Trial Examiner does not accept the superintendent ' s implied denial as true.
I This finding rests upon the testimony of Preston Willrich, formerly an E. R. C. repre-
sentative , in answer to questioning by counsel for E R C.
WILSON & CO., INC. 647
D R C operated until the latter part of 1942 or early in 1943 without constitu-
tion or bylaws'
(f) The respondent enters into a collective bargaining contract with E. R. C.
After employees' names were obtained to authorization cards, as above de-
scribed, E R -C representatives informed M R Swanson, the respondent's Indus-
trial Relations Manager, that they had about 1,100 membership cards At that
time, according to E. It. C.'s secretary, about 1,400 employees were eligible for
membership in the organization.
E R C. submitted a proposed contract. The respondent submitted a counter-
proposal which, in major respects, was signed by both parties on June 11, 1u43.
By terms of the contract the respondent agreed to recognize E. R. C. as the
exclusive "Bargaining Agency" for all production and maintenance employees at
its Oklahoma City plant, with certain exclusions. The contract was for a period
of one year, with an automatic renewal clause.
On May 16, 1944, the parties agreed that the contract would remain in effect
until certain proposed changes should be agreed upon. The original contract,
therefore, was in effect at the time of the hearing.'
C. The discriminatory discharge of Millard L. Blassingame
1. Events leading up to the discharge
Millard L. Blassingame was employed by the respondent in 1942, and worked
in the sausage department.
In January, 1944, he joined the Union, and thereafter actively solicited mem-
bers among employees in his own and other departments.
In February he was approached by Decker, previously identified, who asked if
he was a member of E. R. C. Blassingame said that lie had signed a card He
also admitted, upon Decker's further questioning, that he had joined the Union
and attended its meetings. The watchman then told him, "There's none of them
attend a meeting that we don't know nothing about . . . I thought you was a
better man than that."
Blassingame continued to solicit members for the Union. On March 17, during
a break-down in his department, he went to another floor in the plant. While
standing at the head of the stairs, with four other employees, all of whom were
also smoking, Decker approached them, singled Blassingame out, and demanded,
". . . how many times have I warned you about smoking!" Blassingame replied
that this was the first time any watchman had ever caught him smoking in the
plant. Decker thereupon said, "I guess I'd better carry you to the front office,"
8 This finding is based upon the testimony of E R. C.'s first chairman, Lassiter, and the
reasonable inference drawn from records of E. R. C. in evidence. The only constitution
and bylaws produced at the hearing were those adopted by E. R C , according to the testi-
mony of its secretary, McCasland, in the latter part of 1942. The testimony of Perry
Robinson, now a foreman but in 1935 an employee representative, that the "new committee"
drew up a constitution and bylaws that year is refuted by Lassiter, who was chairman of
the committee during this period Although so requested by E R. C.'s counsel, neither
Robinson nor the organization's secretary produced any document at the hearing to support
their testimony that a constitution and bylaws, drawn up by the employee representatives,
had been in existence before 1942 The records of E. R C. in evidence fully support
Lassiter's testimony that, until 1912, E. R C. ". . . carried out the same plan, outside
of the appointed members," that had been in operation for many years before 1935
' At the time of the hearing a dispute beta een the parties as to certain proposed changes
in the contract was awaiting disposition by the National War Labor Board.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and escorted him to Kellert's office. The watchman said nothing to the other
men who had been with Blassingame.10
Kellert was out. His secretary located him in the plant, and Decker reported
to him by telephone:
This is Decker and I've caught Blassingame smoking What do you want
me to do with him... .
Decker turned to Blassingame and told him that the superintendent had ordered
him to check out and go home, and come back the next day Blassingame pro-
tested, and insisted that he wanted to know that day whether or not he was
going to "continue working or not," since the following day was his day cff-
He went into the plant, and found Kellert in conversation with his foreman,
Clinton Hughes.
Blassingame explained that he was the employee reported by Decker as having
been caught smoking. Hughes interrupted and declared that he had caught
him smoking in the past, and Blassingame admitted that fact. Kellert thereupon
instructed Hughes to "write out" the employee's time. The foreman followed
the superintendent's instructions and Blassingame was discharged.
At the time of the hearing he had not been reinstated by the respondent"
2. The respondent's contention as to Blassingame
On April 6, 1944, the Union filed a charge with the Board' s Regional Director,
alleging that Blassingame had been discriminatorily discharged because of his
Union activities. The following day the Regional Director wrote to the re-
spondent , informing it of the nature of the charge.
On April 10 Kellert wrote to the Regional Director , in part, as follows :
I would like to give you the actual facts suirounding Mr. Blassingame's
dismissal. Approximately six weeks before Mr. Blassingame was dismissed
on March 17th, 1944, it was necessary to reprimand him on several occasions
for violating our "No Smoking" rule. This rule was put into effect ninny,
many years ago, restricting any Production and Maintenance Employees from
smoking on the plant premises where edible food products are manufactured
and processed. This matter was called to Mr Blassingame's attention by
his Foreman On March 17th, 1944, one of the watchmen in the plant caught
Mr. Blassingame smoking again and brought him to my office. I advised
him that he had received repeated warnings against bieaking this rule . . .
I also reminded him that the last time I warned him about smoking on plant
premises, that if he was caught smoking once more he would be dismissed.
Therefore we terminated his employment on March 17th, 1944. [Italics
supplied.]
-Despite the fact that the above-mentioned letter was already in evidence, both
counsel for the respondent and Kellert claimed at the hearing that Blassingame
was not dismissed, for any reason, but insisted that the employee voluntarily
"resigned", while Hughes testified that Blassingame asked for his "time". .
Kellert offered no explanation, as a witness, for the obvious contradictions in
his testimony and statement made in his letter to the Regional Director.
10 This finding as to the above incident rests upon Blassingame 's credible testimony and
other evidence that, although the respondent has a rule against smoking in certain parts
of the plant , it is not an uncommon practice . Decker testified that "as far as" he "knew"
Blassingame was alone at the time. Two of the four employees named by Blassingame
testified that they were not with him on this occasion. As to the other two, Kellert testified
that he had been unable to locate them at the plant
"The findings as to the events preceding his discharge are based upon Blassingame's
testimony , in large part supported by the testimony of Decker , Hughes and Kellert.
WILSON & CO., INC. 649
The unreliability of Kellert's testimony is further demonstrated by his reply
"none whatsoever", when asked if Blassingame had shown any "inclination" to
get his job back,-a statement wholly inconsistent with ( 1) testimony previously
given by himself that on March 18, the day after the discharge, he received a
telephone call from a Union representative concerning the employee's dismissal,
and (2) his own letter of April 10, 1944, acknowledging receipt of information
which could have had no other reasonable implication but that Blassingame was
seeking reinstatement through the Board.12
3. Conclusions as to the respondent's contention
The contradictory reasons advanced by Kellert, in his letter to the Regional
Director and at the hearing as a witness , for the termination of Blassingame's
employment cast genuine doubt upon the validity of both contentions. That the
employee "resigned", however, is a claim undeserving of credence, under any
circumstances revealed by the record . He immediately sought reinstatement
through the Union representative and a few days later through the Board. His
conduct was that of an employee who believed that he had been discriminatorily
discharged.
Tne record is without any explanation of Kellert's inconsistent letter and
testimony, although this inconsistency was repeatedly brought to the attention
of the respondent' s counsel in his presence.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds: (1) that Blassingame was actually
discharged on March 17, 1944; and (2) that he was not discharged for the reason
stated by Kellert in his letter of April 10, 1944.
Conclusions as to the real reason for his discharge are contained in Section
III-E below.
- D. Other acts of interference, restraint , and coercion
In September or October, 1942, Kellert called employee Aubrey Deitrick to his
office and accused him of trying to organize his department "into the CIO."
He further told Deitrick that they already had a union in the plant and he did
not think further protection was needed. He also warned the employee that if
the Union "came into the house" he would be compelled to pay dues each month 13
In February, 1944, employee W. Al. Blankenship was summoned to Kellert's
office. The superintendent told the employee that he wanted no "CIO cards
signed up on Wilson & Co's premises " At about the same time Foreman
Clarence Jones told Blankenship that he had been advised by a "good, responsible
person" that if he "didn't cut out the Union talk", they would be "minus another
man there." In April Blankenship was instructed to come into the plant 3
hours later each day than was* his custom. He protested this change to Kellert,
who declared: "Don't come to me with things like that, the things you're a-doin'."
Blankenship then appealed to an E. R. C. representative, who told him he must
12 Further evidence of Kellert 's unreliability as a witness is the fact that he testified
that he spoke only to his secretary on the occasion when Decker brought Blassingame to
his office , while both Decker and Blassingame were in agreement that the superintendent
talked to Decker at length
13 Kellert admitted having called Deitrick to his office on this occasion , but claimed he
had received a complaint that the employee was soliciting union members during working
time. The superintendent did not deny having told Deitrick about being forced to pay
union dues . Since Kellert had openly permitted E R. C. representatives to conduct their
business , including its membership campaign , on company premises and time since 1935,
his treatment of Deitrick , even - if his version were to be accepted as true, was clearly
discriminatory.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
first sign up in E R C. The employee signed an E .R C card, and the next
morning was reinstated to his regular working hours 14
Shortly after employee Joe James joined the Union in 1943, he wore a CIO
button to the plant. He met watchman Decker, who asked the nature of the
button. When James identified it, Decker declared that the "boys" would not
like to see that button in the plant. According to Decker's own testimony he
told James that he did not want him to belong to the Union, and asked him both
to give him the button and to quit the Union.
E. Conclusions
The foregoing findings of fact depict a continued course of conduct since 19;35,
on the part of the respondent's superintendents, foremen and Decker, its watch-
man, which is proscribed by the Act. Management has successfully prevented
the exercise of free choice by its employees of their collective bargaining
representative.
The evidence is uncontradicted that E R. C. was not only proposed by man-
agement but also approved and set in motion by the group of management and
employee representatives who had been serving on the respondent's Joint Plan.
Throughout its existence, E R. C. has received management's open support,
financially and otherwise. Until the latter part of 1942, when some workers dis-
played an inclination to join the Union, the employees generally were given not
even the semblance of an opportunity to indicate whether or not they wished to
be represented by E. R. C. Until then, according to E. R. C.'s secretary, all
employees "automatically" were members. And when the formality of obtain-
ing membership signatures was observed, the campaign was accorded the sup-
port and assistance of management. Representatives proceeded through the
plant during working hours, openly soliciting signatures. Thereafter a collec-
tive bargaining agreement was executed. Management accepted the unsupported
E. R. C. statement that it represented a majority of production and maintenance
employees.
It has been found that Watchman Decker, at least since 1942, has had duties
and responsibilities enforcing certain management policies, and that the re-
spondent must reasonably be held accountable for his conduct. As noted above,
superintendent Kellert, foreman Jones and Decker warned employees against
engaging in union activities or joining that organization. At Decker's admitted
request an employee yielded his union insignia.
In the light of such conduct on the part of management officials and agents the
true reason for Blassingame's discharge is plainly revealed. It is reasonable
to infer, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Kellert shared Decker's knowledge
of this employee's activity on behalf of the Union. Blassingame continued his
activity following the implied warning by Decker,-"I thought you was a better
man than that." Decker's selection of Blassingame alone from among the
employees also smoking was significant disparity in treatment And, whatever
the reason was that Kellert later abandoned his original claim that Blassingame
was dismissed for smoking, the Trial Examiner concludes that the superintendent
seized upon the employee's admitted infraction of a rule as an excuse. for the
discharge, while the real reason was his activity on behalf of the Union.
14 The above findings rest upon Blankenship's testimony, in large part uncontradicted.
Although Jones was a witness, the employee's testimony concerning the foreman's warning
was undenied. Jones admitted that the employee's hours had been changed for a period of
four days. Kellert admitted calling Blankenship to his office, but stated he did not "recall"
talking about the CIO on this occasion.
WILSON & CO., INC. 651
In summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds : (1) that the respondent
has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of E. R. C.,
and has contributed financial and other support to it; (2) that the agreement
entered into between the respondent and E R C , and the contractual relation-
ship existing thereunder, have been and are a means of utilizing an employer-
dominated organization to frustrate the exercise by the respondent's employees
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; (3) that the respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged Millard L Blassingame on March 17, 1944, to discourage
membership in the Union; and (4) that by the above-described conduct and by
the anti-union and pro-E. R C remarks of Kellert, Jones and Decker the re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1V. 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 operation of the business of the respondent 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of E R C., and has contributed financial and
other support thereto The effect and consequences of this conduct of the
respondent, as well as the continued recognition of E R C. as the bargaining
representative of its employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free
exercise by its employees of the rights guaranteed in the Act. Because of the
respondent's illegal conduct with regard to it, E. R. C is incapable of serving
the respondent's employees as a genuine collective bargaining agency. Accord-
ingly, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the respondent disestablish and
withdraw all recognition from E. R C. as the representative of any of its
employees for the purposes of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment.i6
It has also been found that the agreement entered into between the respondent
and E R C has been a means whereby the respondent has utilized an employer-
dominated labor organization to frustrate self-organization and defeat genuine
collective bargaining by its employees. Under these circumstances any continua-
tion, renewal, or modification of the current agreement would perpetuate the
conditions which have deprived employees of the rights guaranteed to them by
the Act and would render ineffectual other portions of these remedial recommen-
dations It will therefore be recommended that the respondent cease giving effect
to any agreement between it and E. R. C, or to any modification or extension
thereof. Nothing in these recommendations should be taken, however, to require
the respondent to vary those wage, hour and other substantive features of its
relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the respondent established
15 See N L. R B v Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, 308 U S 241 ;
N. L. R. B V The Falk Corporation , 308 U S . 241 ; N. L. R . B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, 303 U. S. 261.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS bOARD
in performance of the agreement as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or
superseded 18
It has also been found that on March 17, 1944, the respondent discriminated as
to the hire and tenure of employment of Millard L Blassingame. In order to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the
respondent offer him immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi-
leges. It will also be recommended that the respondent make him whole for any
loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination from the
date of said discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings 1P during that period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 227, affiliated with C. I. 0,
and Employees' Representative Committee, are labor organizations, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Employees' Representative Committee, and by contributing support to it, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Millard
L. Blassingame , thereby discouraging membership in United Packinghouse Work-
ers of America, Local 227, affiliated with C. I. 0, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Trial
Examiner recommends that the respondent Wilson & Co. Inc., its officers, agents,
successors and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Packinghouse Workers of America,
Local 227, affiliated with C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing, to reinstate any of its em-
10 See National Licorice Co v. N. L R. B, 309 U. S . 350, aff ' d as mod 104 F. (2d) 655
(C C. A 2), enf'g as mod 7 N L . It. B 537 , N. L. R. B v. J Greenebanm Tanning Co.,
110 F ( 2d) 984 (C. C. A. 7 ), enf'g as mod . 11 N. L R. B 300, cert den . 311 U S. 662.
17 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company , etc, 8 N. L. R B 440 Monies received for work performed
upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 311 U. S. 7.
WILSON & CO., INC. 653
ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment ;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Employees' Repre-
sentative Committee, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support
to Employees' Representative Committee or to any other labor organization of
its employees ;
(c) Giving effect to the contract which became effective June 11, 1943, between
the respondent and Employees' Representative Committee, or any extension, re-
newal, or modification thereof, or to any other contract or agreement between
the respondent and the said labor organization which may now be in force;
(d) Recognizing Employees' Representative Committee as the representative
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment, or any
other conditions of employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 227,
affiliated with C. I. 0., or any other labor organization to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties 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 Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish Employees'
Representative Committee by whatever name it may be known as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
(b) Offer to Millard L. Blassingame immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges;
(c) Make whole Millard L. Blassingame for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him to the
date of offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period; 18
(d) Post at its plant at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, copies of the notice
(attached hereto, marked "Appendix A"). Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director of the 16th Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, 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 ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth 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 herewith
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
11 See footnote 17, supra.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective July 12, 1944, as amended,
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, Rochambeau
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
brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each 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 within ten (10) days'from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
C. W. WHITriMORE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 3, 1945.
NLRB 585
(10-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a trial examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We hereby disestablish Employees' Representative Committee as the repre-
sentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor
thereto for any of the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
We will offer to Millard L. Blassingame immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
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 organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 227,
affiliated with C. I. 0 , 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. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this
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
WILSON & CO., INC. 655
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
such labor organization.
WILSON & CO, INC.
By ------------------------------ ------------------
(Representative)
Dated --------------------------
(Title)
NOTE : If the above-named employee is presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States he will be offered full reinstatement upon application rn
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 (lays from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.