Califruit Canning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 290 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of FRED VOLANDRI, DINO VOLANDRI, AND S. MONTANELLI,
D/B/A CALFFRNIT CANNING COMPANY and FOOD, TOL'ACCO, AGRICUL-
TURAL & ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O. and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,, WAREUOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., AND CALIFORNIA STATE
COUNCIL OF CANNERY UNIONS, A. F. of L., AND CANNERY WORKERS,
PROCESSORS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 601.
PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. l0-C-1128.-Decided April 10, 1947
Mr. Thomas J. Davis, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. J. Paul St. ,Sure, by Mr. Edward H. Moore, of Oakland, Calif.,
for the respondents.
Mr. R. L. Warren, of Stockton, Calif., for the FTA-CIO.
Tobriner cfi Lazarus, by Mr. Albert Brundage, of San Francisco,
,Calif., for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Seymour Cohen, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 18, 1946, Trial Examiner , Irving Rogosin issued his_
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents
and the A. F. of L. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs of the respondents and the A. F. of L.,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations ' of the Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner ' s recommendation in Section V of the Intermediate Report, en-
titled The remed y," with respect to the method foi making whole those employees against
whom the respondent has been tound to have discrmnnated should, and is hereby cor-
73N L R B, No 55.
290
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY
ORDER
291
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 respondents, Fred Volandri, Dino
Volandri, and S. Montanelli, doing business as Califruit Canning
Company, Manteca, California, and their agents, successors, and as-
signs shall:
1. Cease ,Ind desist from :
(a) Recognizing California State Council of Cannery Unions,
Cannery Workers. Processors. Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
Union No. 601, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, each affiliated with the Anieri-
can Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of their em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until said
organizations or any of tlneni shall be certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees;
(b) Giving effect to their contract dated April 13, 1946, with Cali-
fornia State Council of Cannery Unions, Cannery Workers, Processors,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 601, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or to
any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereto, or to any
superseding contract with those labor organizations, or any other labor
organization or affiliate I hereof, unless and until said organizations or
any of them shall be certified by the National Labor.Relations Board as
the representative of the respondents' employees;
(c) Discouraging nlenibershlp in Food. Tobacco, Agricultural
Allied Workers Union of America. affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, or any other labor organization of their em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their em-
ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire and tenure of eniploylnent or any terns or condition of their
employment ;
(d) Encouraging membership in California State Council of Can-
nery Unions, Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Help-
ers, Local Union No. 601, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, each affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, by acceding to any demands
or requests, or yielding to any other pressure, for the discharge or re-
fusal to reinstate or employ any employee or through any other form
rected to, lead as follows • " . by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount which they normally would have earned as wages (luring the period
from April IT, 1946, the date upon which, as alleged in the complaint, they were finally
refused employ ment by icason of their failure to `clear' with the A F of L , to the date
of the respondents ' offer to reinstate them , less their net earnings 3° during said period."
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment;
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Food, Tobacco,
Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Sophie Armendariz, Nellie Calderon, Pauline Verigin,
and Telveina Lima immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in
Section V of the Intermediate Report, entitled "The remedy";
(b) Make whole in the manner set forth in the afore-mentioned
remedy section of the Intermediate Report the persons whose names
appear in the immediately next preceding paragraph for any loss
that they may have suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimina-
tion against them;
(c) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from California State
Council of Cannery Unions, Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehouse-
men and Helpers,•Local Union No. 601, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive
representative of their employees for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and
other conditions of employment, unless and until said organizations
or any of them shall have been certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of such employees;
(d) Post at their plant at Manteca, California, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." Copies
of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director' for the
Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondents'
representative, be posted by the respondents immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
2 Said notice , however, shall be , and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words : "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting
in hen thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is en-
forced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals , there shall be inserted in the notice , before
the voids . "A Decision and Order ," the words : "A Decree of the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals Enforcing "
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 293
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writinb, within ten (1C) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
AIR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Thomas J. Davis, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. J Pant St. Sao-C, by Mi Ed iva, d H. Moo? e, of Oakland, Calif., for the re-
spondents
Mr. R L. War, en, of Stockton, Calit., for the FTA-CIO.
Tobrrner JG Lazar as, by Mr Albe, t Brundage, of San Francisco, Calif, for the
A F of L
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed by the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural
& Allied Workers Union of America. C. I. 0, herein called the FTA-CIO, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California), issued its complaint dated
August 1, 1946, against Fred Volandri, Dino Volandri and S. Montanelli, doing
business under the firm name and style of Califruit Canning Company, herein
called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 3 (1) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of
hearing thereon weie duly served upon the respondents, the FTA-CIO, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L, California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L,
and Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No
601, herein jointly and severally called the A F of L , parties to the contract
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the respondents: (1) since on or about April 1, 1946, have interfered with,
restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act by (a) urging, persuading, and warning said employees
to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the FTA-CIO, (b) demanding,
under threat of discharge, that said employees become and remain members of
the A. F. of L , (c) granting the A F. of L. representatives access to the re-
spondents' plant, and otherwise assisting the A. F. of L, while denying similar
privileges to the representatives of the FTA-CIO, (d) urging, persuading, and
coercing the employees to pay dues to the A. F. of L, and requiring said em-
ployees to obtain clearance cards from the A F of L, as a condition of employ-
ment, and refusing to employ or continue in their employ persons who failed
or refused to obtain such clearance; (2) on or about April 13, 1946, while a
question concerning reps esentation between the A. F. of L, and the FTA-CIO
at the respondents' plant was pending and unresolved before the Board, executed
an exclusive collective bargaining agreement with the A F of L., contrary to
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a directive in the Board's Supplemental Decision and Order, dated February 15,
1946, setting aside an election held among the employees of the respondents on or
about October 17. 1945, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of an election;'
(3) on or about April 17, 1946, and on oi about June 27, 1946, discharged certain
named employees,' because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the
FTA-CIO, and their refusal to become or remain members of the A F. of L, or
to pay dues and assessments to the said A F. of L., thereby discriminating in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the said employees, discouraging
membership in the FTA-CIO. and encouraging inenibeiship in the A F of L ;
and (4) by all of the foregoing conduct, have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exei cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3).
Pursuant to notice a healing as held at Manteca, California, on August 20
and 21, 1946, before Irving Rogosin, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondents, and the
A F. of L were represented by counsel; the FTA-CIO, by one of its representa-
tives. All participated in the hearing ahd were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the A. F.
of L moved, orally and in writing. to dismiss the complaint upon various grounds
discussed hereinafter The motion was denied. Counsel for the A. F. of L.
was thereupon permitted to file it written :answer in its behalf. No answer
having been filed in behalf of the respondents prior to the commencement of the
hearing, counsel for the respondents answered orally upon the record the allega-
tions in the complaint Certain of the jurisdictional and procedural allegations
were admitted ; others, including the commission of any unfair labor practices,
were denied After the close of the hearing, pursuant to leave granted, counsel
for the respondents filed it formal written answer, embodying the defenses stated
oially upon the record A motion of counsel for the respondents to dismiss the
complaint, upon substantially the same grounds as those asserted by counsel for
the A F of L, was similarly denied. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties
were afforded an apportunity to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs
with the undersigned. Counsel for the Board, the respondents, and the A. F of
L, argued orally upon the record ; only the respondents and the A. F of L.
have filed briefs
Upon the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. tHE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Fred Volandii, Dino Volanciri, and S llontanelli, co-partners doing business
under the firm name and style of Califruit Canning Company, having their princi-
pal office and plant at Manteca, California, are engaged in the business of proc-
essing and canning iruits and vegetables The annual cross sales of the re-
spondents' products exceed $100.000, of which in excess of 90 percent constitutes
1 See Matter of Be) cut-Richards Packing Company, et at , 64 N L R B. 133. See also
Supplemental Decision and Order, 65 N L. R B 1052
1 Those alleged to have been discrimniatorily discharged on April 17, 1946, are
Sophie Armendariz Pauline Verigin
Nellie Calderon Telveina Lana
Upon the unopposed motion of counsel for the Boaid, the complaint was dismissed, with-
out pieludice, insofar as it alleged that Walter Fender and Palmyra Fender were discrimi-
natorily discharged on or about June 27, 1946
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 295
salds-of productS'sold'anti transported in interstate and foreign commerce and
from the respondents' plant to States and territories of the United States other
than the State of California, and to foreign countries The respondents admit
that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act'
II THE oitG ANIZATIONS INVO.VF1)
Food, Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations; International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, California State
Council of Cannery Unions, and Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen
and Helpers, Local Union No. 601, each affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
respondents
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Intel fercnee. lestralnt. and coercion
1 Introduction, collective bargaining history between the respondents and the
A F of L
This case stems from the conflicting claims of the PTA-CIO and the A F of L
to represent employees of vatious Independent Companies, as well as Member
Companies of the Cpliforina Processors and Growers, Inc., generally referred to
in the industry and throughout the proceedings in which they have been in-
volved as the CP & G The controversy finally culminated in a series of petitions
for investigation and cei titication of representatives which were consolidated,
and have since been designated as the Bci t,ut-Richards cases'
The respondents have been engaged in the cannery business since 1942 and,
although not members of the CP & G, but operating as an Independent Company,
have adopted and agreed to be bound by the terms of a collective bargaining
agreement between the CP & G and the A F of L, as adopted on June 10, 1941,
(amended .January 26, 1942 and July 10, 1943), commonly designated the "Green
Book" of Master Agreement Thus, by a document, dated July 17, 1944, the re-
spondents entered into a stipulation with the A. F. of L,' acknowledging the
existence of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties identical with
the terms of the "Green look" contract, as amended, further acknowledging the
custom of executing agreements identical with those negotiated between the
CP & G and the A. F. of L, and agreeing to be bound by the determination of
the National War Labor Board for the Tenth Region, in proceedings entitled "In
the Matter of California Processors and Growers, Inc, and the California State
Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L, Case No 111-7030," and to execute a col-
lective bargaining agreement embracing the provisions of any directive order
issued by the Regional War Labor Board
On January 9, 1946, the respondents entered into an agreement with the
A. F. of L.,' reaffirming and adopting the terms and provisions of the "Green
8 These findings are based upon the respondents ' admissions of jurisdictional allegations
In the complaint, and the stipulation of the parties at the hearing
See footnote 1.
The contracting unions are therein denominated, "California State Council of Cannery
Unions, and Cannery Workers Union No 20676," the latter being the apparent piedecessor
of Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No 601
6Altliougli the preamble of this agreement names the "California State Council of Can-
nery Unions, A F. of L, and Cannery Workers Union, Local -, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, A F of L ," the actual signa-
tory III behalf of the A F of L, is "Cannery Workers Union A. F. of L #601 Successor
to A P of 1, Local Union #20676 "
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Book" contract, as amended, and providing, among other things, for union se-
curity and preferential hiring This agreement expired in accordance with its
terms on March 1, 1946.
On April 13, 1946, the respondents entered into the agreement with the A. F. of
L, which is directly in issue in these proceedings, and upon which the respond-
cuts rely for justification of their subsequent action
The representation proceedings: the elections and subsequent action thereon
In the summer of 1945, a number of petitions for investigation and certification
of representatives were filed, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Member Companies of the
CP & G and of Independent Companies, including the respondents herein The
Board, by appropriate proceedings, consolidated these petitions tor hearing which
were held between July and September,, 1945'
On October 5, 1945, the Board issued a telegraphic order of Decision and Di-
rection of Elections in the cases so consolidated and, thereafter on October 12,
1945, issued its formal Decision, Direction of Elections and Order, in which it
found that the existing contracts constituted no bar to the proceedings ; that all
production and maintenance employees, with the conventional exclusions, of the
Member Companies of the CP & G, constituted one appropriate unit, and that
those of the Independent Companies, including the respondents herein, con-
stituted sepaiate appropriate units; and ordered that elections be held among
each of these units of employees to determine the question of representation."
Elections were thereupon conducted, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Di-
rection of Election, between October 11 and October 18, 1945, inclusive,' with the
results, at the respondents' plant, set out below.10
Thereafter, between Octobai 29, 1945 and January 5. 1946, the A F of L.
duly filed objections to the conduct of the elections held among the employees
of the CP & G and of the Independent Companies On January iii, 1946, the
Regional Diiectoi issued his Report on Objections to the elections and, on
Februaiy 15, 1946, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order respect-
ing the consolidated cases, vacating and setting aside the results of the elections.
The Board, in its Supplemental Decision and Order, stated, in part.
The current AFL contract will expire on March 1, and since the legal
effect of the foregoing detei urination is to keep the question ot representation
pending, before the Board, none of the unions is entitled to an exclusive status
The petition invohiug the respondents herein is numbered Case No 20-R-1428
8 The labor organizations appeasing on the ballot in the proceedings involving these
respondents were
Cannery and Food Piocess Workers Union of Stockton Area, affiliated with Cannery
and Food Piocess Workers Council of the Pacific coast
Caliloinia State Council of Cannery Unions, American Federation of Labor.
Food Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, C I 0
0 Except lot an election held at one of the companies not hcte involved
10 Approximate number of eligible voters--------------------------------- 136
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------- 101
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A F of L------- 22
Votes cast for F T A -C I 0---------------------------------------- 77
Votes cast fox C.unierr and Food Process Workers Union of Stockton Aiea,
Independent-------------------- --------------------------- 1
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------------- 1
Challenged ballots--------------------------------------------------- 0
Void ballots-------------------------------------------------------- 2
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 297
as the bin gaining agent after that (late. In accoidanee with well-estab-
lished principles,' the employers may not, pending a new election, give
preferential treatment to any of the labor organizations involved, although
they may recognize each one as the representative of its members In this
state of the iecord, no legal effect may be given the closed-shop provision
contained in the current collective agreements after their expiiation date ; 2
the inclusion of such provision in any new agreements, or action putsuant
thereto, would clearly be contrary to the proviso in Subsection 8 (3).
Nothing in our decision, however, should be construed as requiring any
change in the substantive conditions of employment now existing by virtue
of the foregoing agreements "
1 See Mattes of Midwest Piping it Supplrl Co , Inc, 63 N L It B 163. 'See aio
Matter of Lien - Red Tube eC Lanip Corp, 62 N L R B 21
211oreove , no requests foi iii echo rgcsi esriIt ing fro in actiiit e in the election aie
rii.iified undei the pre.ent agreement See: hatter of Rutland Coatt Owneies, 44
N L R B 5S7, 46 N L R B 1040
3 The subsequent events
Shortly before the expiration of the agreement between the respondents
and the A. F of L on March 1, 1946, a group of employees, including those alleged
herein to have been discriminatorily discharged, called upon the respondent
Dino Volandri" at the plant and inquired if he had signed it contract with
the A. F of L When lie replied that he had not, they informed him that they
desired to work peacefully at the plant as they had in the past In response
to the employees' request that the respondents comply with the Board "order,"
and refrain from executing a contract, Volandri assured them that lie would
not sign a contract"'
On March 20, 1946, the Regional Director notified the respondents that an
unfair labor practice charge has been filed by the FTA-CIO, on March 14, 1946,
alleging that the respondents had entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the A. F of L, granting that labor organization exclusive recognition,
at a time when a question concerning representation was pending and unre-
solved before the Board, of which pioceedurgs it had knowledge, and in which
it had participated, in violation of the Act. The letter requested information
regarding the circumstances, copies of any union contract which might have
been entered into, and any pertinent coirespondence. The following day, the
respondents replied by letter:
This is in reply to your letter of March 20th, stating that the Califruit
Canning Company violated certain sections of the National Labor Relations
Act.
We wish to state, that although we have had visits from the members
of the C. I. 0. and also visits from the members of the A. F. L., and have
been asked by the A F. of L. to sign a contract or a rider to the old contract,
we have refused to do so. We told both members of the respective Unions
that we would not sign anything that would violate the directive sent to
our Comptvny from Washington, stating that neither the A F. of L. or
C. I. O. is entitled to an exclusive status as the bargaining agent.
11 The respondents acknowledged that they i eceived a copy of this Supplemental Decision
and Order within the usual course of the mails
12 All references to Volandri hereinafter are intended to apply to the respondent, Dino
Volandri
13 These findings aie based upon the undisputed , mutually corroborative and credited
testimony of Sophie Armendariz , Nellie Calderon and Telveina Lima.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Despite the position asserted in this letter, and contrary to the assurance
given the employees who called on Volandri shbrtly before the expiration date
of the A. F. of L. contract on March 1, 1946, the respondents, on April 13, 1946,
entered into an exclusive collective bargaining agreement with the A. F of L.,
requiring membership therein as a condition of employment at the respond-
ents' plant"
4 The exclusion of the FTA-CIO representatives
Late in February 1946, International RepiesentatiNe R L Warren, of the
FTA-CIO, accompanied by another union representative, called upon Volandri,
and requested that they "be allowed to represent [the FTA-CIO] members in
the plant" Volandri told them that he had no intention of recognizing either
the CIO or the A F. of L, and that he planned to afford both unions equal
treatment. Y
On the morning of April 15. 1946, Warren and a union member went to the
iesponclents' premises and spoke to employees as they reported for work. While
they were there, an unidentified man came out of the plant and inquired whether
they were CIO representatives. When they replied that they were, he informed
them the respondents had a contract with the A. F of L, and that the FTA-CIO
representative's were not permitted on the respondents' property. Warren in-
sisted on their right to be there, but the man told them that the respondent had
instructed him to order them off the propeity Warren protested, stating that
they did not intend to leave, and suggested that the respondents notify them
personally if they desired them to leave. The man left Shortly afterward,
Volandri came out of the plant and reiterated that the respondents were under
contract with the A F. of L. under the terms of which only A F of L repre-
sentatives were permitted on the respondents' property. that he intended to
live up to the terms of his contract, and that lie would have to ask these repre-
sentatives to leave Warren argued that they were entitled to be on the premises
under the terms of tl'e Board's order, and that any contract which the respondents
might have entered into was illegal as violative thereof A discussion ensued
concerning the legality of such contracts Volandri eventually returned to the
plant, and the union representatives left."
1i Although "California State Council of Cannery Unions A F of L , and Cannery
Woikeis' Union, Local 601, International'Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
h"usemen and Helpers, A F of L" are denominated in the preamble to this contract as the
"Union", the signatories in behalf of the Union are "California State Council of Cannery
Unions, A F of L " and "Cannery Workers' Union Local 601" The provisions of the
contiact, which makes no iefeience to any earlier contracts and which does not specify
the term for which it shall be operative, follow.
1 It "hall be a condition of employment with the Employer that all employees covered
by this agreement shall become and remain members of the Union in good standing Pres-
cut employees who are not as of the date of this agreement membeis of the Union must
become members within ten (10) days from the date hereof Any new employee shall be
required within ten (10) davs of the (late of hiring to become a member of the Union and
thereafter i emain a member in good standing
Persons who tail to maintain good standing in the Union in accordance with the by-
laws thereof shall be dischaiged within thiity-six (36) hours aftei the company is so
notified by the Union
In the hiring of additional employees, the employer shall give preference to unemployed
members of the local Union provided such individuals have the necessary qualifications
and aic available within fortyyeight (48) hours after being5notified As a basis for pref-
erential consideration, unemployed members of the local Union shall be required to present
a clearance card fiom the local Union, evidencing the fact of their paid-up membership
Any adjustment in wages, houis or conditions, which may hereafter be agreed upon by
the pax ties, shall be effective as of Minch 1, 1946, and retroactive to that date
15 The above findings are based upon undisputed testimony of Warren
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 299
B -Drcrinnnation in regard to hire and tenure of employment 16
In April 1946, the respondents began preparations for the resumption of sea-
sonal operations . On April 12, they notified Sophie Armendariz, Nellie Calderon,
Pauline Verigin and Telveina Lima, seasonal employees, by identical post cards,
that the respondents would begin canning asparagus on April 15, 1946 at 9
o'clock a. m
On Monday morning, April 15, these employees, among others, reported for
work at the respondents ' plant. Shortly after their arrival, Nancy Montanelli,
the wife of the respondent, Silva Montanelli, announced to the employees that
they would be required to "clear" with the A F. of L. before starting work
After some indecision, a number of employees presented themselves to the A. F.
of L representatives, seated at the table, -provided for that purpose at the plant,
and obtained clearance Others, including the employees named above, declined
to apply for cleat ance upon the ground bat this requirement violated the Board's
order. Soon , however, the procedure of clearing came to a halt. Silva Monta-
nelli thereupon announced irately that the employees could not work in the
cannery unless they cleared with the A. F. of L He instructed his wife, in the
presence of the employees, to order those who did not wish to clear with the
A. F. of L. out of the plant onto the platform The employees, numbering between
85 and 100 , thereupon left and congregated outside, discussing the matter. Soon
afterward, Montanelli came out and, addressing the employees, reiterated that
they would be obliged to clear through the A. F of L if they wished to work
at the cannery At this point, either Montanelli or Volandri, who appeared on
the scene , informed the employees that the respondents had a contract with
the A. F of L The employees protested that this was in violation of the Board
order, and- askell to- see-the contract.
Volandri offered to produce'i.t, and, over Montanelli's objection, procured the
contract and exhibited it to the employees. At their request, Telveina Lima
read the contract aloud, and then returned it to Volandri
A number of the employees then proceeded to clear with the A. F. of L. repre-
sentatives Another group consisting of about 23 employees, including those al-
leged to have been discriminatorily discharged, left the platform to look for FTA-
C1O representatives. Several of this group left in a car to telephone them, re-
turning shortly after- and to report that the representatives-would arrive shortly.
The group of 23 employees remained on the premises outside the cannery until
about noon
While there, they were advised by the A F. of L representatives that if they
did riot wish to clear they had better leave because they were "just making
trouble." Nellie Calderon protested their right to order them off the property
and suggested -that she would prefer to have the owners do so Observing Vo-
landri nearby, Calderon inquired, "What about it, Dino? Don't we have a job
here ?" When Volandri shrugged but made no comment she inquired, "Well, do
you want us to get out of here?" Volandri replied, "Well, Girls, I'm awfully
sorry, but I can't do [anything] for you "
The FTA-CIO representatives arrived in the meantime, and upon their advice,
the group of employees conferred with Volandri at his othce and again asked him
if he intended to give them their jobs He informed them that lie could do noth-
ing for them at the time, but that he would see what he could do. The employees
thereupon left.
The next day the-.same group of employees, including those named in the com-
-ptaint , excepting Lima ,,who had been delayed, arrived at the plant at.about 7
16 The findings in this section are based upon the combined, undisputed, credible, and
mutually corroborative testimony of Armendauz, Calderon, Verigin, and Lima
300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
o'clock in the morning. Employees were already entering the plant to go to
woi k As the former group attempted to enter the cannery, a group of A. F. of L.
representatives standing on the platform barred their way , and, reviling them
as aliens and Communists , announced that they were not going to clear them.
The group , including those already named , then went to Volandri 's office and
informed him that they had attempted to clear with the A. F. of L. so that they
might be able to work at the plant, but that the representatives of that union
had refused them clearance . Volandri replied that there was nothing that he
could do. When the employees remonstrated with him , appealing to him to inter-
cede in their behalf , he replied that he was anxious to have them work at the
cannery but that his hands were "tied " Meanwhile , Lima, who had arrived some-
what later than the others , observed some of the employees approaching the plat-
form apparently intending to clear. As she and another employee joined them,
the A . F of L representatives , addiessing Lima and her companion , asked what
these "Communists want[ed] there " They replied that they had come " to clear."
According to Lima's undisputed and credited testimony , one of the A F. of L. rep-
representatives , whom she recognized as Beggs ;' told her that she would not be
cleared because she had persuaded the girls to change their minds, presumably
in shifting their allegiance from the A. F. of L . to the FTA-CIO. Lima retorted
that "those girls had a mind of their own and [that she ] didn 't have to tell them
what to do ." Beggs insisted that she had influenced them in favor of the CIO.
When the representatives refused them clearance , Lima left for Volandri's office,
where she arrived in time to join the group of 18 or 20 girls , including Verigin,
Calderon, and Armendariz
Lima testified credibly , and without contradiction , that in a conversation with
Volandri at the time , he asked her why they did not go to work, remarking that
lie did not "see what difference it made " to which union they belonged , and even
offered to pay their dues [ in the A. F of L.] out of company funds Lima
declined, insisting that she was capable of paying her own dues . Volandri stated
that he wanted to see them go to work , but that that was all he would do for
their. The employees replied that they desired to go to work , but had not been
required to clear the previous fall, and were unwilling to do so at this time.
Volandri informed them that there was nothing he could do . Finally, however,
lie agreed to discuss the matter with the A. F of L representatives , and advised
the employees to return the next morning.
Calderon , Armendariz , and Verigin arrived at the plant between 7 and 7: 30
o'clock the following morning.' Proceeding to the platform outside the plant,
they engaged in a conversation with some of the girls who, they learned, had
been cleared and had returned to work. The three employees assumed that they
would be cleared that morning and would be permitted to go to work, on the
basis of what Volandri had told them the day before . As they were standing
in a group near the table at which employees were cleared, A. F. of L. Repre-
sentative Beggs appeared and, looking about him, announced that some of the
girls could be cleared . Calderon thereupon stepped forward and said that she
was "ready to clear ." With that, Beggs declared that he would not clear her
because she was "one of the ringleaders of the C. I. 0 " Then, indicating
Armendariz and Verigin , he informed them that they would not be cleared for
the same reason. Other A F. of L representatives had appeared in the mean-
time , and the three demanded to know why they were not being cleared They
11 Lima testified that she was unable to identify the others because they all wore click
glasses and were similai ly dressed There is no dispute, however, that they wei e A F
of L representatives At least one other A F of L repiesentative, Brown, was identified
by name by some of these employees
1s Lima (lid not aiiiye until somewhat later
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 301
were informed that they were not wanted in the [A. F. of L ] union Beggs
continued, that they would be unable to obtain employment at this or any other
cannery in California because they ww ould not be cleared through the A. F of L.
Calderon then went to Forelacly Palmira Fender, and told her what had
uninspired. Fender replied that there was nothing she could do.
As the three employees left the cannery, they were met by Lima who was just
entering . They related what had occurred. Lima continued into the plant and
attempted to clear with one of the A. F. of L representatives, but was informed
that she would not be cleared, and that they wanted no one like her in their
union because she had caused the girls to change their minds. Lima denied this,
stating that those employees had pretended to be in favor of the A. F. of L,
although they were in fact in favor of the C. I. 0 He refused to discuss the
matter further, and ordered her out of the plant. She reiterated that she wanted
to clear, but he remained adamant. Thereupon, she informed him that she
intended to let the "government take its course," to which lie made a scurrilous
reply.
The four employees involved then called upon Volandri and complained that
they were tired of being shuttled back and forth between the A F. of L and the
respondents, and i equested Volandri to effect their clearance. According to
Armendariz' credible and uncontradicted testimony, Volandri replied that the
A F of L had refused to clear them because they were "CIO leaders," and that
there was nothing that lie could do10 The employees then left for the FTA-CIO
office at Stockton, from which they telephoned Volandri, and again asked him
Whether lie was going to give them their lobs He replied that there was nothing
that he could do They thereupon informed him that they intended to file charges
with the Board
Later that day, they returned to the plant and distributed union leaflets. They
were ordered off the premises by a person, allegedly a foreman, and by A F of L
Representatives Brown and Beggs They thereupon left
On or about April 22, 1946, the local union of the A F of L 20 dispatched identical
letters to each of the four employees here involved, notifying them that charges
had been preferred against them of violation of certain provisions of the "Inter-
national Constitution By-Laws," 21 and informing them that a trial would be held
on Wednesday, April 24, 1946, at 8 p in at the local union offices Contending
that they were not required to maintain membership in the A F. of L, in view
of the proceedings before the Board , culminating in the Supplemental Decision
and Oider setting aside the results of the elections, none of these employees
appeared to answer to the charges preferred against them
C Issues ; contentions ; conclusions
The facts which have been related are not in serious dispute . It is, in fact,
conceded that the testimony of the Board witnesses substantially reflects the
events as they occurred.
19 Verigin also testified credibly, and without contradiction, that during the discussion
with Volandri on either Tuesday or Wednesday, Lima stated to Volandri that the A P
of L representatives had refused to clear them because they believed that they were "CIO
i ingleaders " Thus, it is clear that Volandri was put upon actual notice that the A F of
L was denying these employees membership in the union , and consequently preventing
them from obtaining employment at the respondents ' plant, because of their belief that
they had been active in behalf of a rival union
20 Reference here is to Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers Local
U11ion No. 601.
21 Although the letter referred to the section and articles of the constitution and by-laws,
alleged to have been violated , it furnished no further information as to the contents of
those pi ovlsions The constitution and by-laws were not offered in evidence , not was any
other evidence offered of the grounds for the charges beyond this
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondents contend, in effect, that, although they had assumed, despite
the decisions of the Board, that they had been bound, since the commencement
of operations in 1942, by the "Green Book" or Master Contract, as amended from
time to time, and as adopted by their several successive contracts with the
A. F. of L, they had agreed in 1946 to execute another contract, if and when the
CP&G, and the remaining Independent Companies did so. Having "held out until
the last moment," and having been informed by the A. F. of L. that all the other
companies had signed, they finally executed the successive contracts of January
S and April 13, 1946, upon the A F. of L.'s assurance that the contracts afforded
them protection.22 Insofar as the closed-shop provision of the April 13 contract
was concerned, Volandri testified that he made at least two attempts to effect
clearance of the employees here involved, but was informed that they were not
"in good standing" and, although lie attempted to persuade the A. F. of L to clear
them, he was unsuccessful and so advised these employees.
Although the respondents attempt to rely, in justi4cat4,on of the conduct
complained of, upon the "Green Book" Contract, as amended, and the indi-
vidual intervening contracts, as well as the latest outstanding contract of April
13, it is clear that they rely primarily upon the contract of April 13. Moreover,
the January 8 contract expired in accordance with its teams on March 1, 1946.
Even if it be inferred from the record that the respondents, in executing the
closed-shop contract of April 13 and subsequently denying the employees oppor-
tunity to work at their plant, acceded to economic pressure by the A. F. of L.,
this would afford no justification for the respondents' subsequent action 28
The remaining defenses and contentions advanced by the respondents and
the A. F. of L. relate primarily to the rights of the parties under the "Green
Book" contract, and present no novel propositions They are substantially
the same as those raised in other "cannery cases," arising out of the repre-
sentation proceedings, and have been considered by the Board in two recent
cases 24 Briefly, it is argued that, inasmuch as the A. F. of L. had been the
bargaining agent for the CP & G, and Independent Companies adopting their
contracts, for a number of years, the A. F. of L continued as such repre-
sentative until the certification of a new collective bargaining representative
Consequently, these parties contend, the respondents were not only entitled,
but required, to bargain with the A. F. of L under the principle of presuinp-
tion of continuance of majority status. This contention has already twice
been decided adversely to the respondents by the Board26 As the Board said
in Flottll Pt oducts, Inc., quoting from the Phelps Dodge decision,
We are of the opinion that if, during the pendency of an election di-
rected by the Board to resolve a question concerning representation, an
employer extends or renews an existing contract with a labor organiza-
tion, or makes a new one, he violates the Act insofar as that organization
is accorded recognition as exclusive bargaining representative or em-
ployees are required to become or remain members thereof as a condition
of employment 26
22 It will be recalled that, although the respondents had ececuted the January 8 contract
at the time they were notified by the Regional Director of the filing of a charge against
them, no mention was made of this in their reply.
"See Matter of Fur eta Vacuum Cleaner Company, 69 N I, R B 878, and cases cited.
24 Matter of Flotill Products, Inc, 70 N. L. R. B. 119 ; Matter of Lincoln Packing Com-
pany, 70 N. L R. B. 135.
25 See Matter of Flotill Products, Inc ; Matter of Lincoln Packing Company, supra.
10 Matter of Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corp , 63,N1 L R B 686, 687
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 303
It-is clear therefore that where , as here , the Board has held that a question
concerning representation exists , no presumption of continuance of majority
in favor of a contracting union may be invoked.
The further contention deals with the so-called "order" in the Board's
Supplemental Decision and Order that "none of the unions is entitled to an
exclusive status as the bargaining agent after [the date of the expiration of
the existing contract ]," and that "the employers may not, pending a new elec-
tion, give preferential treatment to any of the labor organizations involved,
although they may recognize each one as the representative of its members."
It is argued that the Board was not empowered to enter such an ex parte
"order" and, by doing so, had "prejudged " the case , thereby disqualifying
itself from rendering a decision . As has been pointed out by the Board in
the decisions reterred to, the quoted language merely enunciated "well-estab-
lished principles" of law and apprised the parties of the obligations which
the law imposed The subsidiary argument , that even if such an "order" were
valid and enforceable , the only appropriate forum in which it could be
enforced would be the Circuit Court of Appeals , requires no comment in
view of what has been said 2
It is not only clear from the foregoing , but it is undisputed , that the respond-
ents entered into a contract with the A F of L on April 13 , 1946, requiring
membership in that labor organization as a condition of employment , with actual
knowledge of the pendency before the board of proceedings to determine an
existing question of representation. Moreoiei, not only did the respondents
have actual knowledge of the existences of the question concerning representation,
but they actually entered into the said agreement in express disregard of their
assurance to the Regional Director that they would not deal with either rival
organization The record further establishes that the respondents indicated
their approval of the A F of L., accorded it unwarranted prestige, specifically
urged employees to joni or remain members of the said A F of L , actually
offering to pay their membership dues, per nutted representatives of the A F of L
upon their premises , and assisted them in and facilitated the collection of dues,
while denying representatives of the FTA-CIO access to their premises for
the purpose of dealing with members of their union . The respondents thereby
encouraged membership in the A F of L, discouraged membership in the
FTA-CIO, and rendered unlawful assistance to the A. F of L, thereby inter-
fering with , restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, all in violation of Section 8 (1) of
the Act
The record further discloses , and the undersigned finds , that as part of, and
in furtherance of, the foregoing conduct , the respondents required Sophie Ar-
mendaiiz, Nellie Calderon, Pauline Veiigin and Telveina Lima , to become or
remain members of the A. F of L in violation of the illegal closed -shop provision
of the contract and, when they failed to obtain , and were denied, membership
2' Counsel for the respondents and the A F of L have also urged that the denial by the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of a petition by the Board to adjudicate the
respondents in contempt of a previous consent decree in N L R. B. v. Beicut-Richards
Packing Co , et al, No 9499, is deter inmative in favor of the respondents of the validity
of the closed-shop contract The petition sought to enforce a consent decree entered by
the Circuit Court of Appeals in 1940 pursuant to Board ordeis based upon stipulations
between the parties involved in the Matter of Bercut-Richards Packing Co , et al , 22
N L R. B, 250 The denial by the Court, without opinion, of the Board's petition for
contempt, especially in view of the provisions in the stipulation, and the Court's subsequent
refusal, upon application by the Board, to clarify its action cannot be held to be determina-
tive of any of the issues in the present proceeding
789920-47-vol 7 3 21
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the A . F. of L ., refused to employ them , thereby discriminating in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment , encouraging inembeiship in the A F of L,
discouraging membership in the FTA-CIO, in violation of Section 8 (3) of the
Act,20 and interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operation of the respondents 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
Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
It has been found that the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Sophie Arniendariz, Nellie Calderon, Pauline
\'erigin, and Telveina Lima, by refusing to reemploy them because they had
failed and refused to become or remain members in good standing in the
A. F. of L, and had been denied membership therein. It will therefore be
recommended that the respondents offer each of them immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions i° without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any ,
loss of pay they may have suffered by i eason of such discrimination by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount they normally would have
earned as wages during the period from April 17, 1946, the date upon which, as
alleged in the complaint, they were finally refused employment by reason of their
failure to "clear" with the A. F of L, less their net earnings 30 during said
period. Inasmuch as the respondents' business is of a seasonal nature, and the
cannery may not be in operation at the time said offers of reinstatement are
made, it is recommended that in such event the offers of reinstatement to the
said employees shall become effective with the commencement of the respondents'
next seasonal operations In view of the seasonal nature of the employment of
28 It will be noted that the Board in its Supplemental Decision and Order specifically
stated
Moreover, no requests for dischai ges resulting from activity in the election are justi-
fied even under the present agreement See Matter of Rutland Court Owners, 44
N L It B 587, 46 N L R B 1040
Even if the closed-shop contiact here were valid, it is clear that it could not be relied upon
by the respondents, in the circumstances disclosed as a ground for denying these persons
employment. 'See Wallace Corporation v N L R B, 323 U. S 248, ieheaung denied 323
U S S19
20 in accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"foinier or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible, but if such position is no longei in existence, then to a substantially equiva-
lent position " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New Yoik, Sall,
Juan, Puerto Rico Bianeh, 65 N L B B 827
30 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incuired 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, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other woik-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L R. B , 311 U S 7.
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 305
these persons, it will further be recommended that no back pay be paid to them
for any period during which they would not normally have worked in the respond-
ents' cannery, and that no deduction of earnings be made of any monies earned
elsewhere by them during such period
It has further been found that the respondents have unlawfully assisted the
A F of L, and interfered with the I'TA-CIO by recognizing and entering into
a closed-shop contract with the A. F of L as the exclusive' collective bargaining
representative of their employees It is apparent therefore that no free
selection of a bargaining representative can be made where recognition in a
contract, requn ing membership in a union as a condition of employment, has
been accorded to one of two competing unions while a question concerning rep-
iesentation remained pending and undetermined before the Board. It will
therefore be recommended that the respondents cease and desist from recog-
nizing the A. 1+' of L. as such exclusive representative unless and until it shall
have been certified as such repiesentative by the Board Inasmuch as the
contract of April 13, 1946, perpetuates the respondents' unlawful assistance to
the A. F of L. and piecludes the employees from exercising their right to select
a bargaining representative of their own choice, it will further be recommended
that the respondents cease giving effect to the contract of April 13, 1946, or to
any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, unless and until
the said A F of L shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the respondents' employees Nothing
herein, however, shall be construed to require the respondents to vary any wage,
hour, seniority, or other substantive features o1 its relations with the employees
themselves, which the respondents have established in the performance of this
contract, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any right they may
have under such an agreement."
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the under signed makes the following
CONCLUSION S OF Liw
I Food. Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated
with the Congress o1 Industrial Organizations, and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, California State Council of Cannery
Unions, and Cannery Worker s, Processors. Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
Union No. 601, each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sophie
Arniendariz, Nellie Calderon, Pauline Verigin, and Telvelna Lima, thereby en-
couraging membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, California State Council of Cannel y
Unions, and Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
11 Although there is some intimation in the record that membership dues of employees of
the respondents were checked off in favor of the A F of L at tones under the several con-
tracts, the evidence is iiisnfhicient to istabrrsh that such an arrangement was actually in
effect during the pmiod involved Inasmuch as none of the employees alleged herein to
have been discru mated against were afforded niembeishin in the A F of L during this
period. and were not eniploved after Apt it 15, 1946, when seasonal open ations were resumed,
obviously no question of refund of dues is miolved with respect to them. Moreover, inas-
much as it is not specifically alleged in the complaint that nienibership does of eniplo^ees
were checked off involuntarihv for the period involved, and the record affords no justifica-
tion for hiding that this occurred it will not be recommended that anv dues be paid to the
.1 h' of 1, by the respondents' emplovee5 be refunded
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union No. 601, all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and dis-
couraging membership in Food, Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers Union
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respond-
ents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have
engaged and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (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
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondents, Fred Volandri, Dino Volandri, and S
Montanelh, doing business as Califruit Canning Company, of Manteca, Cali-
fornia, their agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing California State Council of Cannery Unions, Cannery Workers,
Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 601, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representa-
tive of their employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until
said organizations or any of them shall be certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of such employees ;
(b) Giving effect to their contract dated April 13, 1946, with California State
Council of Cannery Unions, Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union No 601, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, each affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereto, or to any superseding contract with those labor organizations, or any
other labor organization or affiliate thereof, provided however, that in so doing
the respondents shall not be required or permitted to vary those provisions of
such contract, understandings, supplements, extensions, or other agreements
which established wages, hours of employment, rates of pay, seniority or other
substantial rights of its employees, unless and until said organizations or any of
them shall be certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representa-
tive of the respondents ' employees ;
(c) Discouraging membership in Food, Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers
Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or
any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of their employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(d) Encouraging membership in California State Council of Cannery Unions,
Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.
601, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, by
acceding to any demands or requests, or yielding to any other pressure, for the
discharge or refusal to reinstate or employ any employee or through any other
form of discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment ;
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization , to form, join or
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 307
assist. Food, Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Sophie Arunendaiiz, Nellie Calderon, Pauline Verigin, Telveina Lima,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges in
the manner set forth in "The remedy" ;
(b) Make whole in the manner set forth in "The remedy" the persons whose
names appear in the immediately next preceding paragraph for any loss they
may have suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against them ;
(c) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from California State Council of
Cannery Unions, Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union No. 601, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, all affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, as the exclusive representatives of their employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment
and other conditions of employment, unless and until said organizations or any
of them shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
exclusive representative of such employees ;
(d) Post at their plant at Manteca, California, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A " Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
the respondents' representative, be posted by the respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by them 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 respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what stels
the respondents have taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondents notify said Regional Director
in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to take
the action aforesaid
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Boaid, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel
for the board muay, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.3S of said Rules and
Regulations, file with the Board, Itochamibeau 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 (includ-
ing rulings upon all motions or objections) as lie relies upon, together with the
original and four copies of a brief in support thereof; and any party or counsel
for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such
statement of exceptions and/or briefs, 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 Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
203 65. As further provided in said Section 203 39, should any party desire
permission to argue Orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
IRVINE RooOSIN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 18, 1946,
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our emiployees that:
We will not recognize International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, California State Council of Cannery
Unions, and Cannery Workers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union No. 601, all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
or any of them, as the exclusive representative of any of oui employees in
our Manteca plant, for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and
until said organizations, or any of them, shall have been certified by the
Board as the representative of such employees.
We will not give effect to our contract dated Api it 13, 1946, with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Wai ehousemem and Helpers
of America, California State Council of Cannery Unions, and Cannery Work-
ers, Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 601, all
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any of them, or to any
extension, renewal, modification or supplement thereof, or to any super-
seding contract with said labor organization, or any of their, unless and
until said labor organizations, or any of them, shall have been certified by
the Board as the representative of oui employees
We will not encourage membership in International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, California
State Council of Cannery Unions, and Cannery Workers, Processors, Ware-
housemen and Helpers, Local Union No 601, all affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, or any other labor orgaization, by yielding to pressure
from those labor organizations, of any of their, or any other labor organiza-
tion, or by any other means, or discourage membership in Food, Tobacco,
Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any employee or in any other manner discriminat-
ing in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any terns or condition of
employment.
We will not in any like or related 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 Food, Tobacco, Agricultural &
Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or any other labor organization, to baigain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
CALIFRUIT CANNING COMPANY 309
to any senoiity or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whple for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the disci lmination.
Sophie Arniendariz Pauline Verigin
Nellie Calderon Telveina Lima
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Food,
Tobacco, Agricultural & Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industiial Oiganizations, of any other labor organization
We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment against :illy employee because of
membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
FRED j OLANDRI, DINO VOLANDRI, AND S MONTANELLI,
DOING BUSINESS AS CALiFRUIT CANNING COMPANY,
Dated --------- By -------------------------- -------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Arined
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon'application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material