American Bakery & Confectionery Workers' Local Union 300

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 596 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The American Bakery and Confectionery Workers'
Local Union 300 , AFL-CIO (National Biscuit
Company) and Frank Pulizzi . Case 13-CB-2065
September 26, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 19, 1967, Trial Examiner Thomas F.
Maher issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.I
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called
the Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent, while ad-
mitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the
commission of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me in
Chicago, Illinois, at which time all parties were
represented by counsel, afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, present
oral argument,' and file briefs with me. Briefs were filed
by counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent on
May 22 and June 2, 1967, respectively. Upon considera-
tion of the entire record, including the briefs filed with
me, and upon my observation of both witnesses appearing
before me and my analysis of their testimony,2 I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
National Biscuit Company, the employer of the em-
ployees involved herein , is a New Jersey corporation
with a factory and place of business in Chicago , Illinois,
where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribu-
tion of bakery products . In the course and conduct of
these operations it is conceded that it manufactured, sold,
and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000,
which it shipped directly in interstate commerce from its
Chicago plant to other States of the United States. Upon
the foregoing agreed facts I find and conclude that Na-
tional Biscuit Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, the American Bakery
and Confectionery Workers' Local Union No. 300,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer ' s Recommended Order.
Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record, exhibits, and brief adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties herein
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS F . MAHER , Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on September 29, 1966 , by Frank Pulizzi, an in-
dividual , on behalf of himself and six other individuals,
the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National
Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board, issued a
complaint on March 23 , 1967, against the American
Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Local Union 300,
AFL-CIO, Respondent herein , alleging violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act,
It is agreed and I , accordingly , conclude and find that
The American Bakery and Confectionery Workers'
Local Union 300, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent restrained and coerced its mem-
bers for filing a charge with the National Labor Relations
Board.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of Events
As an outgrowth of a strike against the National Biscuit
Company at its Buena Park , California , plant by Local
66, a sister local of the Respondent , Respondent engaged
in supporting strike activity at National Biscuit 's Chicago
plant from July 10 to 18 , 1966. During the course of the
strike it was observed that certain employees, members
' Upon the submission of General Counsel's case-in-chief, Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground , among others , that there
was a fatal variance between the charge and the significant allegations of
the complaint For the reasons which appear with greater clarity as my
findings and conclusions are developed herein Respondent 's motion is
dismissed, as more fully discussed , infra, fn. 14.
2 Cf Bishop and Malco, Inc, 159 NLRB 1159
167 NLRB No. 76
AMERICAN BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' LOCAL UNION 300 597
of Respondent, failed to respect the picket line and re-
ported for work. This fact was duly noted by officers and
agents of Respondent and official action was taken which
forms the basis of this proceeding.
Among those employees, members of Local 300, who
admittedly passed through the picket line and reported for
work at the National Biscuit Company plant were Frank
Pulizzi, the Charging Party, and Ray Zinn, John Ingarra,
Pauline Passco, Clara Haley, and Eileen Carol], all of
whom were named in the charge filed with the Board by
Pulizzi on September 29, 1966.
On July 22, shortly after the strike, Respondent's ex-
ecutive board held its regular monthly meeting during the
course of which the subject of strike breaking came up.
The minutes of the meeting indicate that President
Florence Callahan "asked for members who actually saw
some of our members who crossed the picket line and
went to work, and asked the board for a motion to expell
[sic] and fine these members." Such a motion was made,
setting the fine at "not less than what they earned that
week." There appears to have been an amendment to this
motion setting the fine at $1,000. The minutes indicate
further, however, that the "amendment carried, motion
defeated."
The subject of strike breaking again arose 2 days later,
on July 24, at a general membership meeting. Discussion
of this subject was described, in part, by the following ex-
cerpt from the minutes of the meeting, relating President
Callahan's comments:
She also spoke on the few members who had crossed
the picket line that under the Constitution and
Bylaws, they could be expelled and possibly fined.
[Emphasis supplied.] 3
On July 26, 1966, 2 days following the general mem-
bership meeting , an official notification over the signature
of officials of Local 300 was sent to each of the six mem-
bers accused of violating the picket line, advising them of
the charges filed against them, and notifying them of a
trial to be held before Respondent's executive board at 10
a.m. on August 20.
At the appointed hour the executive board assembled
for the announced purpose of conducting the trial, and
waited for 45 minutes for the accused members to appear.
Upon their failure to appear the executive board con-
sidered the matter, as reflected by a report prepared by
Respondent's Secretary-Treasurer Joseph Prieto. This
report was submitted on October 3 to an attorney of the
Board , upon his request , in the course of investigating the
instant case ; and according to Prieto the report was
prepared prior to any inquiry made by Board 's agents. In
its entirety, it states as follows:
REPORT OF TRIAL HEARING
Statement of the Case
Upon the charge filed on July 26, 1966 by the Of-
ficers of Local 300 against Raymond Zinn , John In-
garra, Frank Pulizzi, Clara Haley, Pauline Passco
and Eileen Caroll , a trial hearing was set at the union
office of Local 300, 4376 Archer Avenue on August
20, 1966 at 10 a.m.
The charges alleged a violation of Article XX, Sec-
tion 1, Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),
(9), (11) and (18) of the International Constitution.
The charged petitioners were alleged , in substance,
to be guilty of gross disloyalty by crossing the picket
line of Local 66, American Bakery & Confectionery
Workers' International Union , calculated to injure
the chances of Local 66 in settlement of their con-
tract with National Biscuit Company in Buena Park,
California.
FACTS
During the period of July 10 through 18, 1966,
A.B.C. Local 66 was engaged in picketing National
Biscuit Company at 7300 South Kedzie Avenue.
During the period of July 10 through 18 while
Local 66 was engaged in picketing National Biscuit
Company, 7300 South Kedzie Avenue, the charged
parties were seen entering the plant by Executive
Board members Lorraine Ingels, Phil Marshall, Otil-
la Green , James Jordan , Marie Papp and Jaime
Reyes.
DISCUSSION
GENERAL STATEMENT
All parties who were present (and even those who
were not parties ) were given opportunity to present
evidence , examine and cross -examine witnesses and
to make statements on the records. The hearing was
fair in every respect . All findings and conclusions
were made on the basis of (1) statements of the wit-
nesses and (2) failure of the charged to appear and
present a defense in their behalf.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our observation of the witnesses
and of all the evidence presented , the Executive
Board adopts the following findings:
1. Violation of a specific provision of the
Constitution.
2. Violation of the member's oath.
3. Gross disloyalty.
4. Conduct unbecoming a member.
5. Cessation or fostering of same.
6. A dishonorable act which injures the labor
movement in general or the International Union
in particular.
8. Remaining at work when called upon to
strike, or taking the place of a union member on
strike.
9. Undermining the International Union by
joining or giving aid and comfort to any or-
ganization hostile to the local or International
Union.
11. Persecuting or injuring another member
in his or her work.
18. Such other acts and conduct which are in-
consistent with the duties, obligations and fealty
' There is no question concerning the Respondent 's procedures under
provisions of its constitution in this respect nor of its right to impose
punishment for such conduct.
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a member of a trade union and which violate
sound trade union principles.
PENALTY
In view of the seriousness of the charges, the Ex-
ecutive Board of Local 300 expelled the charged
parties from membership in the A.B.C.4
Two days following the trial, on August 22, 1966, identi-
cal letters over the signature of Secretary-Treasurer
Prieto were sent to each of the six expelled members, as
follows:
After full consideration of the evidence and their
failure to appear at the hearing, it is the decision of
the Executive Board of Local 300 that you are guilty
as charged; and it is the judgment of the Executive
Board that you be, and hereby are, expelled effective
as of the receipt of this communication.
On the same date the Company was notified of the expul-
sion of these six employees and was requested not to
further honor their checkoff assignments.5
Simultaneously notices were posted under the signature
of President Callahan advising members of the Respond-
ent that the six named members had been tried by the
executive board and that its decision was expulsion. This
notice was displayed in various prominent places about
the National Biscuit Company plant where Respondent's
members, including members of the executive board,
were employed. There is no evidence that any complaint
or protest was made that the notice was erroneous in any
respect.
On September 29, 1966, as previously noted, Frank
Pulizzi filed his charge with the Board alleging restraint
and coercion by Respondent against him and the five
other expelled members. As a customary incident to the
investigation of the charge the Board's attorney requested
and received certain information and documents from
Respondent's officials which described the events which
had transpired to that date. These were the report of the
trial prepared by Prieto and quoted above, the letters and
notices to the expelled members and their employer, the
notice posted in the plant, and the minutes of the several
executive board and membership meetings. This material
was received at the Board's Regional Office on October
5, 6 days after Pulizzi had filed his charge.
President Callahan testified that upon receiving the
Board's request for details it was brought to her attention
that when the six members were notified of their expul-
sion they were not then notified of the $1,000 fine which
had been levied against them by the executive board
(again, according to President Callahan) at the August 20
trial.
Since the August 22 notification to each of the six,
there has been no further communication between them
and Respondent except the refund of their most recently
paid dues. On October 18, however, following what
President Callahan described as "an embarrassing
" When asked at the hearing if he prepared this report of the trial in his
capacity as secretary-treasurer, Prieto replied that he attended the trial
"to take minutes of the meeting "
5 Respondent did not request the discharge of these employees and it is
not alleged that discrimination against them was caused or attempted to be
caused by the action taken
discovery," the following letter was sent to each of the six
expellees:
This is to inform you that the letter sent to you on
August 22, 1966 informing you of the decision of the
Executive Board was not complete.
In checking, we find that the full decision was not
given to you at that time. The letter should have
read:
After full consideration of the evidence and your
failure to appear at the hearing, it is the decision of
the Executive Board of Local #300 that you are guil-
ty as charged; and it is the judgment of the Executive
Board that you be, and hereby are, expelled from
membership in the A.B.C. Local Union #300, and
fined $1,000.00, effective as of the receipt of this
communication.
B. The General Counsel's Contention
It is the contention of the General Counsel that by its
October 18, 1966, letter to each of the expelled members
imposing on them a $1,000 fine Respondent thereby
restrained and coerced them in reprisal for their recourse
to the processes of the Board by filing the September 29
charge. It is contended that the delayed imposition of the
fines was not occasioned by a oversight as Respondent
claims but was nothing but a pretext to disguise its true
purpose.
It is not contended, however, that Respondent's earlier
action of expulsion for the reason stated constituted
anything but proper exercise of union discipline.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Whether there has been a violation of the Act here de-
pends, it would seem , upon whether I believe the
testimony presented to me and upon what inferences I
drew from this testimony and from the documents sub-
mitted in evidence. It is suggested by Respondent that
because the evidence upon which I would decide is unde-
nied I have no alternative but to accept it without
question. There are no such limitations upon my evalua-
tion of the credibility of evidence; for it does not follow
that simply because a statement has not been denied it
must be believed.6
Here I am presented with the testimony of two of
Respondent's officers who attest to the accuracy of the
documents in evidence but emphatically deny that the
long overdue imposition of a $ 1,000 fine on each of the
six expelled members was anything but an innocent over-
sight. For reasons which I shall detail I reject this ex-
planation and conclude and find that each individual was
fined for having filed or been the subject of a charge with
the Board. Because, however, it is not uncommon "to be-
lieve some and not all" of a witness' testimony,7 I have
frequently based my finding upon testimony of these wit-
- N L R B v Walton Manufacturing Company, 369 U S 404,
N L R B v Homedale Tractor & Equipment Company, 211 F 2d 309
(C A 9), cert denied 348 U S 833, N L R B v Dimon Coil Company,
Inc, 201 F 2d 484 (C A 2)
N L.R B. v Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F 2d 749, 752 (C A
2)
AMERICAN BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' LOCAL UNION 300 599
nesses which comports with documents received in
evidence or with obvious reality.
There is no contemporaneous evidence that either
Respondent's executive board or its membership in-
tended to impose a fine on strikebreakers. Thus it appears
from the minutes of the executive board meeting of July
22 (a month before the trial of the six), a motion was made
to expel and fine strikebreakers. Originally the fine was
suggested as not less than "what they earned that week "
The motion was then amended to $1,000 and the final
disposition of the matter is completely in doubt-the
minutes stating "amendment carried," i.e., the $1,000
fine in preference to the lesser amount; and then: "motion
defeated," presumably referring to the "motion to expel
and fine these members." Without attempting to resolve
this confused report of the executive board's July action,
I am satisfied that nothing so positive as a $1,000 fine was
then agreed upon. Indeed what transpired at the general
membership meeting 2 days later supports just such a
conclusion, for the minutes of that meeting quote Presi-
dent Callahan as stating that those who had crossed the
picket line could be expelled and, to use the exact words
of the minutes, "possibly fined." Thus, from the docu-
mentary evidence supplied by the Respondent itself, it is
clear that a $ 1,000 fine had not been determined prior to
the trial of the six accused strikebreakers.
Nor does the report of the August 22 trial disclose a
disposition to impose a fine. This report which Secretary-
Treasurer Prieto first supplied the Board on October 3
limited the penalty to one of expulsion, and this was en-
tirely consistent with the letters sent to the six members
notifying them of their expulsion, which letters made no
reference to any fine. The posted notice was equally con-
sistent.
Through all of the testimony and documents con-
sidered to this point there run distinct threads of con-
sistency. First, all of the events and activity occurred
before September 29, 1966, the date of the filing of the in-
stant charge. Second, all of the documents, including
Prieto's report, were prepared, before that time. And
third, nowhere is there any indication that a $1,000 fine,
or any fine, was part of the penalty imposed.
In contrast, what transpired after the filing of the
charge against Respondent reflects an entirely different
mood. Thus, according to President Callahan, it was only
after being notified of the filing of the charge that she was
apprised of the Respondent's failure to notify the six ex-
pellees that they had been fined. If, as Mrs. Callahan
testified, the fines were intended from the very beginning
any suggestion that failure to notify them was an over-
sight strains credulity. From Mrs. Callahan's point of
view it would be odd indeed to overlook the con-
sequences of the second trial of the year and the first one,
according to her, where a fine had ever been imposed.
From Prieto's point of view, as treasurer of the organiza-
tion, it would be equally odd for him to overlook the
prospects, at least, of an addition of $6,000 to his ac-
counts. From the point of view of the members of the ex-
ecutive board, all of whom appear to have been em-
ployees at National Biscuit Company and active
unionists, it would be strange indeed if one of them had
not detected the "oversight" as it appeared prominently
posted throughout the plant-detailing the expulsions but
nary a word of the fines, supra, section IV, A Quite apart
from all other considerations, therefore, the theory that
the fine was overlooked before October 5 does not ring
true, and I do not accept it.
More directly contradictory is the manner in which the
report of the trial was made available to the Board agents.
First Prieto supplied a fullsome account, as quoted
above, supra, document entitled "Report of Trial Hear-
ing" nowhere referring to a fine. Then, according to
Prieto, in the course of gathering together information for
the Board as it proceeded with its investigations of the
charges against the Respondent, he came upon notes
taken at the trial which indicated that $1,000 fines had
been imposed. Up to this time, says Prieto, he had "for-
gotten" about the fines, but upon recalling them as a con-
sequence of "finding" his trial notes he proceeded to
prepare another report of the trial and sent it to the Board
agents. This trial report, admittedly prepared by him only
2 days before the October 18 date upon which the expel-
lees were first notified of their fines, did contain a
reference to the imposition of $1,000 fines and it was
proffered in evidence to substantiate Respondent's claim
that the fine was, in fact, imposed at the trial. I reject this
document. Written 2 months after the event, from the
notes that had first been misplaced, then recently found,
and finally destroyed, this most recently prepared report
lacks the details of Prieto's earlier report which I have
quoted above. This latter document's only purpose could
be the self-serving one of proving the imposition of the
fines at an earlier, not a later, date. Because it appeared so
long after the fact, was prepared under suspicious circum-
stances, from documents that were promptly destroyed,
I give it no weight as a contradiction of Prieto's earlier re-
port of the trial. Indeed, with respect to the source of the
report, Prieto's destroyed notes, it is significant to reflect
upon the unfavorable inference, and perhaps presump-
tion, that attaches to the destruction of evidence.'
By way of summarizing and evaluating the evidence,
then, it is apparent that nowhere in anything that occurred
before, or that was written before the charge was filed
against Respondent, was there reference to the imposi-
tion of a $ 1,000 fine as part of the penalty for the strike
breaking of which the six members were found guilty.
Only after employee Pulizzi had sought recourse from the
Board in his own and the others' behalf did the specter of
a fine appear. Prieto found the notes, President Callahan
suddenly recalled the incident of the fine, however
unusual the penalty may have been, the "new" trial report
was prepared and sent to the Board, and the expelled
members were notified for the first time, on October 18
to be exact, that a $ 1,000 fine was being levied against
each of them in addition to the previous expulsion of
which they had already been notified.
Proceeding to the merits of these facts as they appear
in proper perspective I have no hesitancy in assessing
Respondent's true motive for the belated imposition of
the fines. Rejecting as I have the notion that the fine had
been overlooked, I am left with the task of determining
why it was belatedly imposed.
The timing of events following the September 29 filing
of the charge inexplicably links the charge with the fine,
"2 Wigmore , Evidence §§ 285, 291, and 9 Wigmore , Evidence § 2524
(3d ed )
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for it does not appear that the true gravity of the mem-
bers' misconduct, from Respondent 's point of view,
became evident to it until it had learned that these people
had complained to the Board . 9 It is not contended, nor do
I mean to imply, that the Charging Party's initial com-
plaint to the Board contained merit. Indeed the proviso of
Section 8(b)(I)(A) would appear to favor the Respondent
in this respect.1° What is basic to this situation is the
Charging Party's, and every citizen's or labor organiza-
tion's right to seek access to the Board's processes. In-
deed that is the very substance of Section 8(a) (4) in an
employer-employee context. i I
While the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) clearly reserves
to a labor organization certain sanctions, including expul-
sion and the imposition of fines for the effective enforce-
ment of its rules, it is well established that these sanc-
tions, specifically the imposition of fines, when extended
beyond the scope permitted by the Act, constitute unlaw-
ful restraint and coercion. 12 Here, by the only reasonable
inference possible, I have found that the $1,000 fines
were imposed in reprisal for the expelled members' resort
to the Board's processes. This conduct on the part of a
labor organization is the precise sort which the Board has
held to constitute unlawful restraint and coercion of an
employee by a labor organization. 13 Upon the facts be-
fore me, including the timing of Respondent's actions and
the manner in which it handled the transaction, including
the effort to substitute one report of the trial for an earlier
one, I conclude and find that Respondent, by belatedly
imposing fines upon Frank Pulizzi, Raymond Zinn, John
Ingarra, Pauline Passco, Clara Haley, and Eileen Caroll,
restrained and coerced them in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act, and thereby violated Section
8(b)(I)(A). 14
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
IV, above, occurring in connection with the operations of
the employer of the employees involved herein have a
close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and have led
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices I will recommend that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It is not contended that the penalty of expulsion of the
six members found guilty of strikebreaking was anything
but a proper exercise of the Respondent's right to enforce
rules respecting its affairs. It will, therefore, not be
recommended that the Respondent be required to undo
any action it has taken with respect to this particular
penalty. Having found, however, that a fine of $1,000 was
belatedly imposed upon each of the expellees by means
of letters of notification on October 18, 1966, and that
this action constituted unlawful restraint and coercion, I
shall recommend that Respondent rescind the fines im-
posed in this manner, that it revoke all letters and notices
relating to the fine, that it reimburse any of the expelled
members for any moneys they may have paid to Re-
spondent in compliance with its October 18, 1966, letter,
and that it post appropriate notices of compliance.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , I recommend , 15 that The American Bakery and
Confectionery Workers' Local Union No. 300,
AFL-CIO, its officers , representatives , and agents , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Imposing fines upon employees , notifying them of
the imposition of fines, or otherwise disciplining them for
filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board, or
otherwise participating or cooperating in Board
proceedings.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind and revoke any and all letters, notices, or
announcements in which it is stated that Frank Pulizzi,
Raymond Zinn , Frank Ingarra , Pauline Passco, Clara
Haley, and Eileen Caroll, or any one or more of them
0 Cf Agwdmes, inc. v. N L R.B , 87 F 2d 146 (C A. 5)
10 The proviso to Section 8(b)(I)(A) reads as follows " Provided, that
this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to
prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership therein "
' 1 Section 8(a)(4) reads as follows "It shall be an unfair labor practice
for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an em-
ployee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act "
11 Peerless Tool and Engineering Co , I I I NLRB 853, 857-858.
13 The Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of
America, Local Union No 585, Galveston, Texas, AFL-CIO (Yndalecio
L Narvaez), 159 NLRB 1362, Cannery Workers Union of the Pacific, af-
filiated with Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO
(Van Camp Sea Food Co ), 159 NLRB 843, Local 138, International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Charles S. Skura), 148 NLRB
679
14 Respondent urges that there is no charge underlying the central al-
legation of unlawful conduct in the complaint and for that reason the com-
plaint should be dismissed.
Relating the imposition of the fines to the filing of the charges , and, in
the first instance , relating the charge to the expulsions , a chain of events
has been created which fully justify the issuance of the complaint herein
The Supreme Court has disposed of such an obligation in language
clearly applicable here, stating that the Board is not precluded "from deal-
ing adequately with unfair labor practices which are related to those al-
leged in the charge and which grow out of them while the proceeding is
pending before the Board " (Emphasis supplied) N L R B v Font
Milling Company, 360 U S 301, 307 My finding and conclusion herein
amply demonstrate that the October 18, 1966, notification of fines to each
of the expellees most certainly "grew out of the charges filed in their be-
half on September 29, 1966 Respondent ' s motion for the dismissal of the
complaint on the foregomgtgrounds is accordingly dismissed
15 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
the word "Recommended " shall be deleted from its caption and wherever
else it thereafter appears, and for the words " I Recommend" there shall
be substituted "the National Labor Relations Board hereby Orders "
AMERICAN BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS ' LOCAL UNION 300 601
have been fined for engaging in strikebreaking activities.
(b) Reimburse the aforesaid individuals for any
moneys paid by them or any one of them in satisfaction of
the fines unlawfully imposed upon them, together with 6-
percent interest per annum.
(c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in and
about Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."16 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being duly signed by it representative, shall be posted by
Respondent, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional
Director for Region 13 for posting by National Biscuit
Company, it being willing, at all locations where notices
to its employees are customarily posted in its plants
located in and about Chicago, Illinois.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT impose fines upon employees of Na-
tional Biscuit Company, or of any other employer,
notify them of the imposition of fines, or otherwise
discipline them for filing unfair labor practice charges
with the National Labor Relations Board, or other-
wise participating or cooperating in its proceedings.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce the employees of National Biscuit
Company or of any other employer in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE HEREBY rescind and revoke any and all letters,
notices, or announcements in which it is stated that
Frank Pulizzi, Raymond Zinn, Frank Ingarra, Pau-
line Passco, Clara Haley, and Eileen Caroll, have
been fined for engaging in strikebreaking activities.
WE WILL reimburse Frank Pulizzi, Raymond
Zinn, Frank Ingarra, Pauline Passco, Clara Haley,
and Eileen Caroll for any moneys paid any of them
in satisfaction of the fine which was unlawfully im-
posed upon them, together with 6-percent interest
per annum.
'" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN BAKERY
AND CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' LOCAL UNION No.
300, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
THE AMERICAN BAKERY
AND CONFECTIONERY WORK-
ERS' LOCAL UNION No.
300, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 S. Dear-
born Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
828-7570.