Allen Fruit Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC. 761
ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC. and CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, FOOD
PROCESSORS, DRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 670, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 36-CA-235. December 4,
1952
Decision and Order
On March 10, 1952, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of the Act, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Murdock and Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's ex-
ceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with
the additions noted herein.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Forelady Jensen's state-
ment to Hasselblad regarding the withholding of a wage increase
from the employees violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The full text of Jensen's statement to Hasselblad, which was not
set forth by the Trial Examiner, is as follows :
All of you girls have come crying back after your jobs. You've
just knocked yourself out of 10 cents an hour because Kenny
(Respondent's manager) was going to give you a dollar raise.
But now that you've negotiated with the union, why he can't
give you that raise.
The Respondent's manager testified that the employees were in-
formed in early December 1950, shortly before the union had filed its
1 Whether or not knowledge of a union meeting at the home of Skeffington 's father came
to the attention of the Respondent as found by the Trial Examiner , it is unnecessary to
decide. Respondent 's knowlege of Skeffington's interest in the union may reasonably be
inferred in view of the Respondent's clearly evidenced interest in the employees' union
activities and from the relatively small size of the plant and community . See Standard
Service Bureau, 87 NLRB 1405 and cases cited therein . Moreover , the Respondent
manager's reference to "loyal" workers at the time when the employees , among whom
was Skeffington , applied for reemployment further demonstrates his knowledge of their
union activities . Angwell Curtain Company , Inc., 192 F . 2d 899 (C. A. 7) enfg. 94
NLRB 675.
101 NLRB No. 144.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representation petition, that they would receive a 10 cent an hour
raise . The Respondent's manager further testified, and the Respond-
ent in its exceptions 2 contends, that such wage increase was withheld
upon the union's filing of its petition for fear of committing an unfair
labor practice.
The Board in a recent case has held that it was not violative of the
Act, absent an unlawful motive, for an employer acting in response to
inquires from its employees during the pendency of a petition, to
answer them that a wage increase had been decided upon but, upon
the advice of its attorney, would not be granted until after the repre-
sentation election, for fear that it might otherwise be charged with
an unfair labor practice.3 However, this principle is not applicable
to the case at hand. Here, not only is there no evidence in the instant
record that the Respondent's asserted motive in withholding the in-
crease was ever communicated to the employees, but Jensen's state-
ment was apparently gratuitous and made several months after the
union had lost the representation election ordered by the Board on its
petition rather than during the pendency thereof.
Furthermore, the reasonable tendency of such statement, in any
event, is to interfere with the free exercise of rights guaranteed to
the employees under the Act.4 Thus, we find that the statement is a
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall enter
our usual order covering both this and the 8 (a) (3) violations found
by the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Allen Fruit
Company, Inc., Newberg, Oregon, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
2 The Respondent in its exceptions appears to be under the impression that the Trial
Examiner found that the withholding of the wage increase violated the Act rather than
the statement in that regard.
"Standard Coil Products, Inc, 99 Nr.RB 899. However, in this case , the Board again
took occasion to point out that an Employer is not foreclosed from announcing or granting
economic benefits during a union's organizational campaign or during the pendency of a
Board ordered election, but only from announcing or granting such benefits ( although
previously determined upon as bona fide) for the purpose of causing the employees to accept
or reject a representative for collective bargaining. Cf. Western Cottonoil Company, 95
NLRB 1433, where the Board held that the Employer' s numerous statements to its em-
ployees, during the pendency of a representation petition, that a wage increase had been
held up because of the advent of the union violated 8 (a) (1) of the Act, despite the fact
that on one occasion the Respondent , in a letter to its employees stated that "by law the
company could not increase your pay as long as the union had a petition to represent
you." Cf. also Hudson Hosiery Company , 72 NLRB 1434, where the Employer waited
more than a month after it had decided to grant wage increases to inform its employees, 2•
days before the election, that the increases already decided upon , were being postponed for
fear of violating the Act, but would be granted as soon as possible.
6 Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia, 85 NLRB 1439.
ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC. 763
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union or in any other labor
organization by discriminatorily giving such membership or activity
operative force in determining what employees should be recalled after
economic layoff or in any other manner discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or terms or
conditions of employment.
(b) Announcing that a wage increase has been withheld because of
employee interest in a union, or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activity except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed by Section 7
thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make Viva Adkins, Irene Pugh, Arlean Hasselblad, Doris Skef-
fington, and Hattie St. Antoine whole for any loss of pay in the manner
set forth herein in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy," and offer St. Antoine immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or substantially equivalent position.
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the
rights of employment under the terms of this order.
(c) Post at its plant in Newberg, Oregon, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of such notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in com-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
5 In adopting the Trial Examiner 's recommended notice td the employees , the Board, in
conformance with its Order herein, has substituted the words "announcing the withholding
of wage increases" for the words "withholding wage increases."
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals . Enforcing an Order."
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, Seattle,
Washington, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this
order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT by announcing the withholding of wage increases,
by refusing to rehire after layoff, or in any other 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 CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, FOOD PROCESSORS, DRIVERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL 670, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
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, or to refrain from any or all such activities, ex-
cept to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Viva Adkins, Irene Pugh, Arlean Hasselblad,
Doris Skefngton, and Hattie St. Antoine whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL offer to Hattie St. Antoine immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position with-
out loss of seniority and other rights and privileges.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. We will
not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
of condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization.
ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ------------------------ By -------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC. 765
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and
Helpers, Local 670, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued his complaint dated Jan-
uary 15, 1952, alleging that Allen Fruit Company, Inc., Newberg, Oregon, herein
called the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (61 Stat.
136), herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charges, and a notice
of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the hear-
ing, alleges in substance that since on or about January 1951, to the date the
complaint issued, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by in,
terrogating employees concerning membership in or activities on behalf of the
Union and urging, persuading, and warning its employees by threats of reprisal
or promise of benefit, to refrain from assisting, becoming, or remaining members
of the Union, or engaging or continuing to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, by urging or
inducing its employees to deal with it individually with respect to wages and
other conditions of employment for purposes of discouraging legitimate union
activity, and by threatening its employees with loss of employment should they
assist, become, or remain members of the Union or engage or continue to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual
aid or protection. The complaint further alleged that Viva Adkins, Irene Pugh,
Arlean Hasselblad, and Doris Skeffington were for a time not recalled after eco-
nomic layoffs because they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in con-
certed activities with other employees for purposss of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and that for the same reasons, Hattie St.
Antoine was never recalled from layoff.
Respondent's answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Newberg, Oregon, on February 11
and 12, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues. No briefs have been filed.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Oregon corporation engaged at Newberg, in that State,
in the processing of cherries and other fruits. During the fiscal year preceding
the hearing, Respondent purchased fresh fruits, supplies, and equipment having
a value of $150,000, of which about 90 percent originated outside the State
of Oregon. During the same period, Respondent's sales approximated $200,000,
of which approximately 95 percent was shipped to points outside the State of
Oregon.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent's plant operates throughout the year except for periods when it
is closed for purposes of cleaning and repair. There is some seasonal fluctua-
tion in the number of employees.
The Union began its organizational effort in late 1950 and filed a representa-
tion petition with the Board on December 14 of that year. Following the
filing of the petition, but still in December, some employees inquired of Manager
Kenneth Allen, he testified, what steps they might take to manifest their
opposition to the selection of a bargaining representative. The discussion led
to the drafting of a document to which employees could subscribe, indicating
their desires in that respect. Under instruction from Allen, Foreman Nickey
and Forelady Jensen circulated the paper among the employees and invited them
to sign it. Pugh signed ; St. Antoine, Hasselbiad, and Adkins refused to ; and
Skeffington, not then being employed, was not solicited. In January the employ-
ees met in connection with the Union at the house of St. Antoine and on
another occasion at the residence of one Calloway, Skeffington's father. Allen
was told of the St. Antoine meeting by Pugh who at the same time said that
she would attend.
The election on the Union's petition was held January 25, 1951. The Union
lost. St. Antoine was the Union observer at the polls.
Following that event, Allen asked the employees in each department to desig-
nate one of their number to serve on a committee which would concern itself
with social functions and "general improvements." Such a committee was estab-
lished, met weekly, and at one of their meetings came to a decision on a pro-
posed wage scale which they submitted to Allen. The matter seems to have
been dropped there without bargaining.
On a date which the record does not state with precision but which probably
fell in March or April, some employees suggested to Allen that the "trouble"
in the plant might be eliminated if St. Antoine was discharged. Allen replied,
"She's entitled to talk for the union if she wants to, and I have nothing to say
about that end of it. That's her right to do it, and I couldn't fire her if I wanted
to."
In May and June the plant operated with a sharply reduced force; for the
week ending June 2 no women were employed. With others, St. Antoine, Pugh,
Hasselbiad, Adkins, and Skeffington were laid off. The complaint does not
allege discrimination in that connection.
On July 5, learning that the plant was in operation, Adkins and Pugh, both
of whom had worked with some regularity for Respondent for the past 5 or 6
years, asked Manager Allen why they had not been recalled. Allen replied that
he was employing only those who had been "loyal" to him. A day or two later
Hasselblad, who had worked for the Respondent intermittently since 1945, and
Skeffington, who was first employed in February 1951, asked Allen the same
question. Hasselblad inquired why it was that she, who had worked years
for the Respondent, was passed over while Hilda Faubert, a new employee, was
recalled. Allen replied, according to Hasselblad's undenied and credited testi-
mony, that Faubert was not a member of the Union.
Adkins, Pugh, and Hasselblad were rehired on July 12 ; Skeffington on July 13.
The complaint does not allege discrimination with respect to them after that
ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC . 767
date. Hasselblad testified credibly and without contradiction that in late
August, Forelady Jensen told her that Respondent had intended raising wages
10 cents an hour and commented, "But now that you've negotiated with the
Union, why, he can't give you that raise."
Learning that Adkins and Pugh were back at work, St. Antoine telephoned
Allen on July 14 and asked to meet with him. Allen answered that he would
come to her house to speak to her. When he did so, 3 days later, St. Antoine
asked if he would rehire her. Allen said, St. Antoine testified, that the Respond-
ent was experimenting with some new machinery and, besides , that St. Antoine
was a "big" union worker ; that the Union was still holding meetings. A week
later St. Antoine again applied for work. Allen told her, she testified, that
there was nothing for her ; that the Respondent wanted to run its business
without the interposition of a third party. In early September she again applied
and was told that there was no job for her.
According to Allen, the period from the election to May was one of unsatis-
factory production. Responsibility for this development seemed not to center
upon any individual but Allen concluded, he testified, that the employees were
engaged in a slowdown. In this connection, according to Allen, Foreman Nickey
commented that St. Antoine sometimes left her work station unnecessarily and
on an occasion in April, Allen saw her do so three times in the space of 20 min-
utes. However, no criticism was voiced to St. Antoine. Allen admitted that
he told Adkins, Pugh, Hasselblad, and Skeffington when they applied for rehire
that he preferred to surround himself with "loyal" workers and did not deny
that he characterized Hilda Faubert as a nonmember of the Union. He ex-
plained that when he used the word "loyal" he had reference to conscientious
workers. He agreed that he had no individual complaint about the work of
any of the four applicants.
As to St. Antoine, Allen testified, he came to a conclusion shortly before she
applied for rehire that he would not take her back basing his decision on the
production difficulties he assertedly had suffered during the spring. He denied
that he said anything to St. Antoine about her being a union member but re-
called that she had suggested to him that her activity in that connection ex-
plained her unemployment.
I am convinced and find that when Allen said he would prefer loyal workers
for employment he had reference to those who he believed did not favor the
Union. This conclusion is buttressed by his admission to Hasselblad that he
recalled Faubert in the belief that she was not a union sympathizer. Further,
there is no evidence that Adkins, Pugh, Hasselblad, or Skeffington were lacking
in the qualities of loyalty that Allen described at the hearing. Their work as
individuals had never been the subject of criticism before the layoff and no re-
flection upon their work performance, as individuals, was cast by Allen's testi-
mony at the hearing. Finally, there is no evidence that these four in any man-
ner effected or attempted to effect a slowdown in production. Allen had reason,
however, to believe that these employees lacked the qualities of "loyalty" which
he prized. Adkins and Hasselblad had refused to sign a petition in opposition
to the Union ; Pugh had announced that she would attend a union meeting at
the home of St. Antoine ; and such a meeting was held at the home of Skeffing-
ton's father. Newberg is a small community and Respondent's plant employs
no more than 35 or 40 workers. It is reasonable to assume that information of
the holding of a meeting at Calloway's reached the Respondent.
For the week ending June 2, Respondent had no female employees. During
the week ending June 9, 5 were employed ; for succeeding weeks the figures are:
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Female workers
Week ending-
June 16---------------------------------------------- 5
June 23---------------------------------------------- 5
June 30---------------------------------------------- 5
July 7 ----------------------------------------------- 9
July 14 ---------------------------------------------- 21
These figures represent individuals who worked for any period during each
week. Many worked less than full time. One of the five working during the
first 4 weeks listed was Forelady Jensen. Hilda Faubert who, it is found,
was first hired in the spring of 1951, was recalled during the week ending
July 14 perhaps no more than 1 day before Adkins, Pugh, and Hasselblad.
The complaint alleges that Adkins, Pugh, Hasselblad, and Skeffington were
discriminated against during the period from about May 28 to July 12 or 13.
It is not asserted that the reopening of the plant from its partial or complete
shutdown was delayed for any discriminatory reason so the earliest date upon
which unlawful considerations may have operated to the detriment of those
laid off was when hiring was resumed during the week ending June 9. Other
than Forelady Jensen, only four women worked any portion of that week. I
do not believe that the record affords a firm basis for finding that absent a dis-
criminatory motivation one of those named in the complaint would have been
recalled rather than those who were. The same situation prevailed through
the week ending June 30. The ensuing week four female employees were added
but one worked only a single day and another for only 4 hours. Not until the
week ending July 14 was there any substantial expansion of the work force.
Considering Respondent's efforts to combat the Union through a petition
circulated in the plant by its supervisory force (conduct which amounted to
unlawful interrogation), Allen's statement that he wanted only loyal em-
ployees in the plant (meaning nonunion employees), and his admission to
Hasselblad that Faubert received preferential consideration for employment
because she was believed not to favor the Union, I conclude and find that the
applications of Adkins, Pugh, Hasselblad, and Skeffington were considered in
reference to a discriminatory standard ; that their believed membership in or
activity in behalf of the Union was given weight in considering their appli-
cations for employment. The first concrete manifestation of Respondent's dis-
position in this connection occurred in Allen's conversation with Adkins and
Pugh on July 5. I do not consider that the record establishes a discriminatory
practice in regard to hiring before that date.
I find that the applications of Adkins and Pugh were rejected on July 5
and those of Hasselblad and Skeffington on July 7 because they were believed
by Respondent to favor the Union and that by the rejections Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights under
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and also, by
discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment or terms and con-
ditions of employment, discouraged membership in and activity in behalf of
a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The same considerations lead to the conclusion that St. Antoine was dis-
criminatorily refused employment. Additionally, I credit her testimony that
on July 17 Allen referred to her as a "big" union worker and expressed the
opinion that the Union was still holding meetings ; that the next week he said
that Respondent wanted no interference from a "third party." Recalling fur-
ther that a union meeting was held at St. Antoine's house, that she was an
observer for the Union in the January election, that Allen was aware of her
interest in unionization, and that she had worked for the Respondent with
ALLEN FRUIT COMPANY, INC. 769
regularity since 1942 , I find that she would have been rehired upon her applica-
tion of July 14 had it not been for her earlier manifestations of interest in the
Union. I do not credit Allen's explanation that her proclivity for leaving her
work station was an operative factor in the decision not to hire her.
I find that by refusing to hire St . Antoine on July 14 , 1951 , Respondent dis-
criminated unlawfully in regard to her hire and tenure of employment thereby
discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the Union and that the
Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. By the same refusal,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
The interrogation of employees by means of the petition in December 1950,
occurring as it did more than 6 months before the filing of the charge herein,
may not be made the subject of an unfair labor practice finding. However,
Jensen's remark to Hasselblad in August 1951 that "negotiating" with the Union
had cost the employees a raise of 10 cents an hour had a coercive and restrain-
ing thrust. By telling Hasselblad that a benefit had been withheld from the
employees because they had engaged in activities which the Act protects, the
Respondent, through Jensen, interfered with, restrained, and coerced them in
respect to their statutory rights and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act. I so find. I do not find that the evidence establishes by its preponder-
ance that the committee established by the Respondent to consider social func-
tions and "general improvements " was such an impediment to self -organization
as the Act proscribes.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with its operations set forth in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recom-
mended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that a discriminatory
motivation operated in connection with the recall of Skeffington, Adkins, Pugh,
and Hasselblad, it will be recommended that the Respondent make each of them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination by payment
to each of them of a sum of money which absent the discrimination each would
have earned from the date of application to the date when each was recalled.
Having found that the same discriminatory practice resulted in the failure
of St. Antoine to be recalled to work at all, it will be recommended that she be
made whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result thereof and be offered rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position, and be made whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination on July 14, 1951,
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such
period.
Loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter
or portion thereof during the back-pay periods. The quarters shall begin with
the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be deter-
mined by deducting from a sum equal to that which these employees normally
would have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings,
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if any, in other employment during that quarter. Earnings in one particular
quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available
to the Board upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking
of the amount of back pay due.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following :
CONCLUsIOrs OF LAW
1. Cannery Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers, Local 670,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Viva
Adkins, Irene Pugh, Arlean Hasselblad, Doris Skeffington, and Hattie St.
Antoine, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by stating that "negotiating" with the Union
had deprived employees of a wage increase, Respondent has violated Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION AND
LOCAL 19, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION and CLARENCE PURNELL and ALBERT G. CRUM
WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS OF WASHINGTON, AND ITS EMPLOYER MEM-
BERS and ALBERT G. CRUM and CLARENCE PURNELL
LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and CLARENCE PURNELL
ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY and CLARENCE PURNELL
ROTHSCHILD-INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING COMPANY and CLARENCE
PURNELL
ALASKA TERMINAL AND STEVEDORING Co. and CLARENCE PURNELL
TAIT STEVEDORING Co., INC. and CLARENCE PURNELL. Ca. eS Xo'. 19-
CB--.38,19-CB-62,19-CA-. 20,19-CA-229,19-CA-227,19-CA-2288,
19-CA-230,19-CA-256, and 19-CA-257. December 4, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarifying
Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26,
1952
On February 26, 1952, the Board issued its Decision and Order in
the above-entitled case. Upon further consideration, it appeared to
the Board that certain findings in such Decision and Order should be
1 98 NLRB 284
101 NLRB No. 151.