Conagra, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 609 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

CONAGRA. INC. 609
Conagra, Inc. and Southeast Council, Retail, Whole-
sale and Department Store Union. Cases 10-
CA-14238,1 10-CA-14280, and 10-RC-11553
March 21, 1980
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On November 8, 1979, Administrative Law
Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions and sup-
porting briefs.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge to the extent consistent herewith and to
adopt his recommended Order.
Supervisor Rick Semple approached employee
Carolyn Long at work on September 15, 1978, and
stated that he thought he would attend the employ-
ees' union meeting. When Long replied that he
could come, but she did not think he could vote,
Semple stated, "Well, I could come and take
names." The Administrative Law Judge found that
Semple's statement did not constitute a violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act because no reasonable
employee would have thought he was actually
threatening to attend their union meeting. We dis-
agree.
It is no defense that a violation is committed in a
friendly or joking manner.3 Furthermore, by the
time this statement was made, Respondent was
well into its unlawful campaign against the Union.
Numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) had already
been committed by Respondent's agents, including
the holding of meetings at which Plant Manager
Roberts made it clear that Respondent intended to
do everything it could to undermine the Union's
support. In addition, Semple himself, about 2 weeks
earlier, had threatened another employee with sur-
At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the General
Counsel's motion to dismiss Case 10-CA-14238 in its entirety.
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
I Ethyl Corporation, 231 NLRB 431 (1977).
248 NLRB No. 85
veillance of union meetings. Evaluated in this con-
text, we find that Semple's remark, even though
jokingly made, created an impression of surveil-
lance in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
On September 20, 1978, employee Carolyn Long
was called to speak with Customer Service Super-
intendent William Orr and Plant Manager Roberts.
Orr told Long, "You know you're not supposed to
be talking about the Union on the job." Roberts
stated, "I know we don't pay the highest wages.
. . . If you're looking for higher wages you'll have
to look somewhere else. We won't have you talk-
ing Union on the job."
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that,
even though the warnings made to Long may have
constituted disparate treatment, they were limited
to cautioning Long not to discuss the Union
"during work," and, therefore, were not violative
of Section 8(a)(1). We do not agree.
The Administrative Law Judge has mistakenly
equated the phrase "on the job" with "worktime."
It is not clear that the prohibition herein has limit-
ed to worktime, and thus it could reasonably be in-
terpreted as a prohibition against solicitation at all
times, including nonworking time. 4 Accordingly, in
the absence of evidence that the restriction was jus-
tified by a need to maintain discipline or produc-
tion in the plant, we conclude that the statements
made to Long constitute an unlawfully broad re-
striction on her right to engage in union activities
and are in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.5
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Conagra, Inc.,
Dalton, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint alle-
gations not specifically found herein be, and they
hereby are, dismissed. 6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held
on December 8, 1978, in Case 10-RC-11553 be set
aside, and that case be severed and remanded to
the Regional Director for Region 10 for processing
in accordance with our Decision, Order, and Di-
rection of Second Election herein in the appropri-
ate unit.
4 Plastic Film Products Corp., 238 NLRB No. 22 (1978).
5 Florida Steel Corporation, 215 NLRB 97 (1974); Stewart-Warner Cor-
poration, 215 NLRB 219 (1974).
a Although the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent had
not violated the Act in certain respects, he inadvertently failed to dismiss
the allegations relating thereto in his recommended Order
CONAGRA. INC. 609
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This matter was heard in Dalton, Georgia, on July 10-
13, 1979. The charges in Cases 10-CA-14238 and 10-
CA-14280 were filed on December 15, 1978, and Janu-
ary 3, 1979. The charge in Case 10-CA-14280 was
amended on January 25. A complaint issued in Case 10-
CA-14280 on February 7, 1978. On February 28 a com-
plaint issued in Case 10-CA-14238 along with an order
consolidating Case 10-CA-14238 with Cases 10-CA-
14280 and 10-RC-11553. Case 10-RC-11553 was con-
solidated for hearing on objections pursuant to a Report
on Objections dated February 28.1 On July 12, during
the hearing, counsel for General Counsel moved to dis-
miss Case 10-CA-14238 in its entirety. The 10-CA-
14238 complaint alleged that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize the Union after a
majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate
unit designated the Union as their representative on Sep-
tember 22, 1978. General Counsel's motion to dismiss
was granted.
The complaint (Case 10-CA-14280) alleges that Re-
spondent committed numerous violations of Section
8(a)(1) following commencement of the Union's organiz-
ing campaign during July 1978. The complaint also al-
leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by with-
holding the granting of a scheduled wage increase and
by eliminating the job of one of its employees.
The Union filed the 10-RC-11553 petition on Septem-
ber 25, 1978. The election was held on December 8,
1978, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election. Of approximately 377 employees who
were eligible to vote, 88 cast valid votes for the Union
and 188 cast valid votes against the Union; there were 27
challenged ballots and no void ballots. On December 15,
1978, the Union filed timely objections to the election. In
accordance with the Report on Objections and the
Board's Order, the hearing herein was held, in part, to
resolve the issues raised by the Union's Objections 3, 4,
5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.2
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is engaged in the processing of poultry
products at its plant in Dalton, Georgia. 3
Following Respondent's March 9 exception and Motion for More
Definite Statement and Bill of Particulars to the Report on Objections,
the Board sustained the Report on Objections, Order Directing Hearing,
Consolidating Cases, and Notice of Hearing by Order dated March 22,
1979.
2 Pursuant to Respondent's motion to overrule Objections 3 and 4, and
upon petitioning Union's assertion that no evidence had been offered in
support of those objections during the hearing, Objections 3 and 4 were
overruled.
3 Neither jurisdiction nor the status of the Union is at issue. The com-
plaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent meets the
Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction and is an employer en-
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
The Union's organizing campaign started during July
1978. Respondent's former plant manager admitted learn-
ing of that campaign during July. The evidence regard-
ing the allegations includes:
1. Employee Linda Sue Hastings testified that, some-
time in late July or early August, her supervisor, James
Roddy, approached her at work and asked her if she had
signed a union card. Hastings admitted to Roddy that
she had signed a card. Roddy was not called, so Has-
tings' testimony stands undenied.
2. Marjorie Wells testified that, after she returned to
work following sickness around August 22, she had a
conversation with Plant Manager Roberts. During that
conversation, Roberts stated, "Marjorie, about you sign-
ing a Union card,4 what do you hope to gain?" Wells re-
sponded that she hoped to gain a little leverage. Roberts
then said that he did not understand what she meant.
Wells explained that the employees had nowhere to go
with their problems. Roberts said, "Well you can
come-you can bring your problems here." Roberts testi-
fied that he did have a conversation with Wells, and that
he commented that he didn't really understand why she
felt she needed a union.5
3. Joyce Stover was called to Roberts' office on Sep-
tember 18 and asked "what a union could do for" her.
After Stover said she wanted to be treated like some-
body, Roberts said, "I don't know what the Union could
do. We're not going to sign no contract no matter how
many unions you get to make us lose money or to make
us give you any better wages. We feel we're giving you
all the wages we can right now." Roberts admitted stat-
ing to Stover that he didn't understand what the people
hoped to accomplish by getting a union.
4. Carolyn Long testified to a conversation with Rob-
erts around September 27. Long testified that she was in
Roberts' office, and he asked her why she thought the
people wanted a union. Long replied she thought it
would be good job security. Roberts replied that he
didn't hear anyone mention wages or money. He then
asked Long if she knew why the "Feed Mill" never got
a union. Long answered no. Roberts said, "because they
wouldn't agree to deduct the union dues from the em-
ployees." Roberts then said, "We don't have to do any-
thing we don't want to." Mr. Roberts recalled one con-
versation with Long regarding employee Kate Warnack.
Roberts placed the conversation around September 18.
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Respondent also admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization
as defined in the Act.
I Wells testified that she volunteered to her supervisor, but not to Rob-
erts, that she had signed a union card.
5 Roberts testified that Wells brought up the Union during their con-
versation, and that he told her it was her privilege to do whatever she
wanted to do. However, in contending that Wells volunteered the infor-
mation regarding her union activities during their conversation, Roberts
testified, "She told me that in spite of the fact that she knew it was going
to get her in trouble." Roberts said that he was careful to avoid direct
questions about employees' union activities. However, he testified that he
would ask questions like "I don't understand what the problem is" in an
effort to determine "what made people feel that they needed" a union.
CONAGRA, INC. 611
In response to a question of did he ask why Long felt
she wanted a union, Roberts admitted that he may have
made a statement like, "I don't understand what the
problem is or something like that."
5. Employee Delia Hicks testified to a conversation
with her supervisor, Rick Semple, around the middle of
September. After Semple asked Hicks if she knew of any
way things could be made better for the employees, he
asked if she thought a union would be any help. Hicks
told Semple that a union would absolutely not help.
Semple also told Hicks that things were going to be
made better. Semple denied asking Hicks why the em-
ployees needed a union.
6. Clara Swanson testified that, around the latter part
of September, she was having her arm wrapped around
her arm brace and she remarked that, unless she hurried,
she would be fired. Semple heard her remark and com-
mented, "Just sign a union card." Swanson replied that
she had signed a union card. Semple denied making the
above comment.
7. Delia Hicks testified that, during September or the
first part of October, Rick Semple asked her if she was
still passing out union cards. Hicks said, "No, I'm not
passing out cards, but if this is what you're getting at-I
did sign one." Semple responded, "Well, be careful."
Semple admitted this conversation except for the "be
careful" remark.
8. Joyce Stover testified that, on October 11, Rick
Semple told her, "Conagra had a place to run the chick-
ens for one year if they had to close down for anything."
Semple then asked if she knew why the Feed Mill didn't
get their Union. Stover replied it was because they went
on strike. Semple said, "[N]o, because Conagra wouldn't
take out the union dues. They won't take them out down
here either." Semple recalled a conversation with Stover
regarding strikes, but he placed the conversation in Sep-
tember. Semple denied saying the plant would shut down
if the Union came in.
9. Carolyn Long testified that she talked to Semple
around September 15. Semple told Long, "I think I'll go
with ya'll to that meeting tomorrow." Long replied,
"Well, come ahead but I don't think it'd do you any
good. I don't think you could vote." Semple said, "Well,
I could come and take names."
Semple admitted saying, "I guess I ought to go to the
Union meeting and get all the names, because after all I'd
been invited."
10. Joyce Stover testified that during late August she
had a conversation with Rick Semple in the first aid
office. Semple remarked that he had heard that the union
man was packing his bags. Stover replied that the Union
was there to stay. Semple then said that some of the
leaders in the plant go to all the meetings and come back
and tell us everything that is said. Stover replied that she
knew he sent some over; that she knew he sent Mary
White over. Stover remarked, "She's not the only one
who was there."
Semple admitted talking to Joyce Stover in the first
aid office. He also admitted starting the conversation by
saying that he had heard that the union man had packed
his bags. However, Semple denied that he said the Com-
pany was sending Mary White or anyone to the union
meetings. Semple did admit that Mary White had told
him she had gone to the meeting.
11. Employee Charlcia Mullins testified about a con-
versation she had with Semple on September 19. Semple
said, "Charlcia, don't be talking to my employees trying
to get them to sign a Union card. And don't be talking
to them about the Union." Mullins replied, "I'm off the
clock. I know my rights and I haven't violated any."
Semple also said, "Kate Warnack was the one that start-
ed the Union in the Plant. .... (Warnack) has been
having Union meetings at her house." Mullins said,
"Well, I don't know about that. I have never been to a
meeting at her house." Semple said, "Carolyn Long
wouldn't be for the Union if it wasn't for Kate War-
nack." Mullins said she didn't believe that. Semple said
that, if the Union came in, the Company could buy out
the committee and you would be hurting.
Semple testified that he did tell Mullins that he felt
Kate and Harold Warnack were responsible for Carolyn
Long's involvement in the Union.
12. Carolyn Long testified that, around September 20,
Rick Semple said to her, "I heard ya'll was going to file
a petition against us." Long responded, "Well, we
could." Semple said, "You don't have a right to talk to
one of my employees." Long replied, "Well, you don't
have the right to question her about the Union either."
Semple admitted telling Long that he heard they were
going to file a petition for an election. According to
Semple he told Long, on one occasion, that she was not
supposed to leave her department and discuss the Union
with another employee during company time.
13. Delia Hicks recalled a conversation with Semple
during September in which Semple told her, "[Y]ou've
run your help off talking about the Union." Hicks testi-
fied that she had been training a lady who quit after 12
days. Semple admitted that he made the above remark to
Hicks.
14. According to Carolyn Long, she was called into
Superintendent Bill Orr's office on August 25. Orr asked
Long if she was satisfied with her job anymore. Long
denied that she was dissatisfied. Orr said, "Well, I
know-I heard about that meeting that Harold and Kate
had." Long said that the meeting was Kate's not Har-
old's. Orr stated, "I think this Plant has done a lot for
Harold and Kate." Orr then said that Conagra did not
need a third party to come in and try to solve the prob-
lems." Long asked if Orr had ever worked woth a union
before. Orr replied no; that he wanted the people to un-
derstand what they were doing. Long testified that Kate
Warnack had held a union meeting prior to this conver-
sation between Long and Orr. Orr admitted that he had
a conversation with Long around August 25, during
which he questioned her about what she could gain from
asking representation from the Union.
15. Charlcia Mullins recalled a conversation with Rick
Semple in early October in the break room. Semple told
Mullins and two other employees that they had another
plant that they could take the chickens to and process
them; that they would close the plant down before they
would bring in a union. Mullins said that Joyce Stover
was present during this conversation. Stover placed the
conversation on October II. According to Stover's ver-
CONAGRA, INC.
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sion, Semple told them that they had a place to run the
chickens for a year if they had to close down for any-
thing (see par. (8) above). Semple placed the conversa-
tion in mid-September, and he testified that he was re-
sponding to Stover's contention that the plant would go
under if the employees went on strike when he said they
could send chickens to other processing plants. Semple
denied that he threatened that the plant would close if
the Union came in.
16. Joyce Stover testified to an incident on October
11, 1978. Stover was copying a list of employees from
the timecards when she was called to Plant Manager
Roberts' office. Roberts told her that he wanted her list.
Stoven replied that she didn't have a list except for her
"Christmas list" which was downstairs. Roberts told her
to go get the list. Stover left but returned with only one
page of her two-page list. Roberts said to her, "You
don't know half the people on this list; the Union's got
their ways and we gonna have our way." Stover told
Roberts that she didn't know it was illegal to copy the
names from the timecards. Roberts said she was not sup-
posed to check with the timecards or pick them up.
Stover told him that she had not picked any up. Roberts
asked if she hadn't picked one up and turned it over.
Stover told him she had not. Roberts told her that he
wasn't going to do anything to her on this occasion, but
that she should be honest with him since he was always
honest with her. Roberts testified that he was told that
Joyce Stover was going through the timecards, and he
called Stover into his office. Roberts testified that Stover
finally admitted the list was not a Christmas list. Roberts
neither admitted nor denied that he told Stover that the
Union had their ways and "we gonna have our way."
17. During their late August conversation in the first
aid room, Rick Semple told Joyce Stover that 40 percent
of the people that signed union cards have quit or been
fired. According to Stover, Semple said, "We have to
get rid of them one way or another." Semple denied that
he threatened that the Company would fire employees
because of the Union. According to Semple, he was re-
ferring to natural turnover when he told Stover that 40
percent of the card signers were gone.
18. Joyce Stover attended an employee meeting con-
ducted by Plant Manager Roberts on December 5. Ac-
cording to Stover, Roberts said that Conagra would not
sign a contract, and that Conagra would not sign a con-
tract that would improve wages or working conditions.
Roberts also said it may take up to 3 years to get a con-
tract signed. Roberts testified about his several meetings
with employees, but he did not rebut these particular as-
sertions by Stover.
19. During their September 19 conversation (see par.
11 above) Rick Semple told Charlcia Mullins that the
Union couldn't do anything for them and couldn't get
them any benefits without the Company agreeing.
Semple said that the Company wasn't going to agree;
that they would close down the plant before they would
do so. Semple admitted that he told Mullins on Septem-
ber 19 that if the Union came in the employees would
start from zero and they would bargain for each benefit;
what it would amount to was what the Company was
willing to negotiate on.
20. Employee Linda Hastings testified about an em-
ployee meeting held by Plant Manager Roberts on De-
cember 5. During the meeting, Roberts said employee
benefits would be taken away if the Union came in, and
they would "just start from blank." Roberts admitted
holding several employee meetings involving all the em-
ployees in at least one of those meetings. Roberts ad-
mitted showing the employees a blank page from a chart
to illustrate where negotiations would begin. Roberts tes-
tified he used the term starting from scratch with negoti-
ations more often than starting with a blank sheet.
21. Clara Swanson testified that, during the first part
of September, Rick Semple brought an employee back
near her work station to fill in for one woman that was
out. Semple told Swanson to instruct the woman on how
to stuff chickens. Then Semple pointed a finger at Swan-
son and said, "Don't talk Union to her because she
doesn't believe in it." Semple admitted telling Swanson
that the woman had not come over there to listen to
Union talk.
22. Carolyn Long testified to an incident that occurred
on September 20. According to Long, another employee,
Linda Pell, asked her if she could be fired for signing a
union card. Long told her no. Thereafter Rick Semple
told Long that she didn't have the right to talk to one of
his employees (see par. 12 above). Thereafter, Long was
called in to speak with Customer Service Superintendent
William Orr. Orr told Long, "You know you're not sup-
posed to be talking about the Union on the job." Long
said, "Yes, I know that." Orr said, "I know your job is
moving from place to place. If this continues, which is
not [sic]-we'll put you on a job where you won't be
moving around. But that's not a threat."
Long testified that Roberts talked to her after Orr.
Roberts told Long, "I know we don't pay the highest
wages and we don't pay the lowest. If you're looking for
higher wages, you'll have to look somewhere else. We
won't have you talking Union on the job."
Joyce Stover testified that she had an argument with
another employee on December 4. The other employee
was wearing a "Vote No" hat. Both Stover and the
other employee were called into Roberts' office. Roberts
told Stover that he didn't want her talking about the
Union anymore on company time, and that they could
not pass out any union literature at all in the plant.
Plant Manager Roberts admitted that both he and Mr.
Orr warned Carolyn Long not to discuss the Union
while she was going around to various jobs.6 Orr ad-
mitted telling Long she was not permitted to discuss the
Union during working hours. Roberts admitted that Orr
threatened to change Long's job.
Roberts testified about the December 4 incident in-
volving Joyce Stover. Roberts testified that he cautioned
Stover and the other employee against "arguing, bicker-
ing, or anything else down there during working time."
According to Roberts, Joyce Stover called Betty Sellers
an "ass-kisser" for wearing a "Vote No" hat, and the
two almost got into a fight.
I During 1978, Carolyn Long's job of "bathroom relief' required her
to go to various jobs and relieve employees. However, according to Orr,
Long was in a completely different area of the plant rather than her own
work area when she spoke to Linda Pell on September 20
CONAGRA, INC. 613
23. Joyce Stover asked to see the plant manager on
November 1. Stover complained to Roberts about a rule
that limited her to one bathroom visit with a 5-minute
limit. Roberts told her he could not change the rule.
Stover asked Roberts why they were fighting the Union
if the Union couldn't help the employees. Roberts replied
that they didn't want a strike, and there would be one if
the Union came in. Roberts said, "I don't know what
you want a Union for. We can offer you the same bene-
fits for nothing." Stover testified that Roberts said they
were entitled to a raise that month but the Union had
things tied up and they wouldn't be getting anything.
Roberts also said that he enjoyed talking to the employ-
ees, "but if someone had a grievance, he wouldn't talk to
the Shop Steward and the one that filed the grievance.
He would only talk to the Shop Steward." Stover asked
what the Company could do for the employees, and
Roberts held up a blank piece of paper and said, "This is
what you'll start with if the Union comes in and build
your way up with the Union."
Roberts denied that he held up a blank paper during a
meeting with Stover. He also denied that he told Stover
that a wage increase had been withheld because of the
Union. Roberts also denied telling Stover that if the
Union got in the employees wouldn't have any benefits.
Employee Sandy Ellis attended one of the plant man-
ager's meetings on December 6. Ellis testified that Rob-
erts told them that if the Union came in they would have
to have a union representative any time they came up to
see him, whereas now the employees could go to him
with their problems. Roberts neither admitted nor denied
Ellis' testimony.
24. During her late August conversation with Rick
Semple (see pars. (10) and (17) above), Joyce Stover tes-
tified that the subject of bathroom breaks came up.
Semple told her, "When you're standing there and it's
tinkling down you [sic] legs, we're not going to worry
about it. We'll let the damn Union worry about it. And
they can't do a damn thing about it." Semple did not
deny that he made the above statement to Stover. He ad-
mitted telling Stover that the extra or "go between"
bathroom breaks was one item that could be taken away
during negotiations because it was something the Compa-
ny did out of courtesy to the employees.
25. Dean Ellis, who is presently a supervisor although
he was an employee during the union campaign, testified
that he attended one of the plant manager meetings a day
or two before the election. Ellis recalled that Roberts
told the employees that when negotiations started they
would start with a blank sheet of paper. Ellis testified
that Roberts said something to the effect that the Com-
pany would not abide by the contact. Ellis asked Roberts
during the meeting, "Well, as long as it's in a contract,
it's a legal document, it's the law." Roberts replied, "Not
necessarily." Ellis asked if Roberts meant that Conagra
was above the law, and Roberts replied, "Yes." Roberts
did not testify regarding Ellis' assertions.
Employee Patsy Southern testified that she attended a
plant managers' meeting around Thanksgiving. During
that meeting, Roberts told the employees, "Now if the
Union wins the election, this is what you start with---
nothing." As Roberts made this statement, he showed
the employees a blank sheet on his chart. Roberts ad-
mitted making similar statements during employee meet-
ings.
26. Employee Joyce Stover attended a plant manager
meeting on December 5. Stover recalled Roberts telling
the employees that they didn't want outsiders coming in.
Roberts said the employee benefits would be cut without
insurance or a pension plan (see par. 18 above regarding
more of Stover's testimony on this meeting). Roberts did
not touch on the above contentions by Stover in his tes-
timony.
Patsy Southern recalled that, during the plant manager
meeting that she attended (see par. 25 above), Roberts
told the employees that there would be no retirement
fund if the Union came in.
27. Linda Hastings recalled that, during the plant man-
ager meeting she attended on December 5 (see par. 20
above), Roberts said that they couldn't give us a raise
soon because the Union would feel like they were influ-
encing us. Roberts denied telling any employee that, "if
it hadn't been for the Union, they would have gotten a
wage increase."
Clara Swanson testified that Roberts told the employ-
ees in the meeting she attended just before the election
that they would have already gotten a raise if they
hadn't been talking Union; if it hadn't been for the union
activities, they would have gotten a raise at the usual
time which had just passed.
28. Delia Hicks testified that, during September, Rick
Semple called her off the line into an office and asked
her if she knew of any way that things could be made
better for the employees. Hicks told Semple of some of
the things that she felt would result in improvement.
Semple said that he thought those things could be im-
proved; "that things were going to be made better."
Semple then asked Hicks if she thought a union would
be any help (see par. 5 above).
29. Charlcia Mullins attended a meeting held by Plant
Manager Roberts in late August or early September
during which employees complained about various prob-
lems in their departments. Roberts told the employees
that, if they had problems they couldn't work out with
the supervisors, he would be glad to help out.
Roberts admitted holding employee meetings in
August and September to discuss various employee prob-
lems that had surfaced, including getting rapid action on
insurance claims, longer lunch breaks, and problems with
the "chiller." However, Roberts testified that these meet-
ings had nothing to do with the union campaign and the
Union did not come up during the meetings.
30. During their September 18 conversation (see par. 3
above), Joyce Stover was told by Roberts that, any time
the employees had a problem, all they had to do was
come upstairs and talk to him. Roberts said that he was
trying to make changes, but that he could not do it over-
night.
Discussion
To the extent their testimony conflicts with credited
evidence, I do not credit the testimony of Plant Manager
Roberts or Supervisor Rick Semple. Both Roberts and
Semple admittedly engaged in extensive antiunion activ-
CONAGRA INC.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ity. Those admissions, in large measure, corroborated tes-
timony from employee witnesses. A great deal of the tes-
timony which was denied by Roberts and Semple was
corroborated by several employee witnesses. For exam-
ple, Roberts testified that he did not tell employees that
their union activity prevented them from receiving a
scheduled wage increase. However, as shown above,
several employees recalled Roberts making those state-
ments.
I do credit the testimony of Superintendent Orr. I
found his testimony to be straightforward and candid.
Conclusions
(a) In view of the extensive antiunion involvement by
Respondent's agents during the organizing campaign, I
find that the matters related in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
and 8,7 constitute interrogation of employees concerning
their union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(l). I find
that Semple's comments to Clara Swanson referred to in
paragraph 6 do not constitute a violation. Semple's com-
ments do not appear to be the type that would prompt a
response even though Swanson did in fact reply that she
had signed a union card.
(b) I find that the facts mentioned in paragraph 9 do
not constitute a violation. The tenor of the conversation
between Long and Semple demonstrate that Semple's
statements were such that no reasonable employee would
have thought he was actually threatening to attend their
union meeting. The record did not reflect there was any-
thing unusual in Semple's knowing about the meeting.
However, I find that Semple's statements to employees
in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 above create an impression
of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1). 8
(c) An impression of surveillance was also created by
William Orr's discussion with Carolyn Long mentioned
in paragraph 14.
(d) General Counsel alleged that Respondent threat-
ened to close its plant if the Union was elected. The only
evidence I found supporting that allegation was the testi-
mony of Charlcia Mullins mentioned in paragraph 15.
However, Joyce Stover, who was also present during
the conversation, revealed that Semple did not threaten
to close the plant. Instead, Semple said the Company
could "run the chickens" if the plant closed for any
reason. This is more in accord with Semple's testimony
that he was responding to Stover's contention that the
plant would go under if the employees struck. I credit
Stover's account and find that Semple did not threaten
plant closure.
(e) I find in agreement with General Counsel that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting employ-
ee Joyce Stover from preparing a list of employees for
the Union's use. Plant Manager Roberts cautioned
Stover and confiscated a portion of her list. Roberts con-
tended that employees were prohibited from handling
other employees' timecards. However, the evidence
failed to reveal that Stover was doing anything more
than standing by the timecard rack and copying the
I7 credit the testimony of employees Hastings, Wells, Stover, Long,
and Hicks set forth in pars. 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-12.
Ibid.
names from the cards. I find Roberts' actions in that
regard, which are included in paragraph 16 above, con-
stitute a violation of the Act.
(f) The facts mentioned in paragraph 17 above9 reveal
a threat to discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and I
so find.
(g) General Counsel in several instances alleges that
Respondent threatened its employees that it would be
futile for its employees to select the Union. During the
conversation mentioned in paragraph 3 above, Plant
Manager Roberts told an employee that Respondent was
not going to sign a contract no matter how many unions
you get. On September 19, Rick Semple told Charlcia
Mullins that, if the Union came in, the Company would
buy out the committee, and she would be hurting (par.
11 above). During that same conversation, Semple told
Mullins that the Union couldn't do anything for them,
and the Company wasn't going to agree (par. 19 above).
I find, in agreement with General Counsel, that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) in the above instances.'°
On December 5, during an employee meeting, Plant
Manager Roberts told the employees that Conagra
would not sign a contract, and that Conagra would not
sign a contract that would improve wages or working
conditions (par. 18). I find those statements constitute a
threat that it would be futile to select the Union.
(h) The record reveals that, on several occasions
during the union campaign, Respondent prohibited its
employees from discussing the Union during work. On
September 19, Semple told Mullins not to talk to em-
ployees about the Union (see par. 11). On September 20,
Semple told Long that she didn't have the right to talk
to one of his employees about the Union (see par. 12).
During September, Semple told Delia Hicks that she
would run away her help talking about the Union (par.
13). On September 20, both Bill Orr and John Michael
Roberts told Carolyn Long that she couldn't talk about
the Union on the job (par. 22). Since there was no show-
ing that employees were prohibited from talking about
other matters on the job, the prohibition of union talk
constitutes disparate treatment. There is evidence that
Carolyn Long was out of her work area when she spoke
to an employee about the Union on September 20, but
the evidence reveals that Semple, Orr, and Roberts cau-
tioned her about talking about the Union rather than
being out of her work area. Roberts also told Joyce
stover that she was not allowed to talk about the Union
or pass out union literature on company time (par. 22).
According to Roberts, he called Stover in along with
employee Betty Sellers because they almost fought over
Stover's calling Sellers an "ass-kisser" for wearing a
"Vote No" hat. General Counsel did not allege and I do
not find that Respondent is prohibited from taking rea-
sonable steps to avoid disruption in its plant. However, I
find in agreement with General Counsel that the above-
mentioned statements to employees constitute disparate
treatment. The statements by Semple to employees Mul-
lins, Long, and Hicks were not limited to a prohibition
I credit the testimony of Joyce Stover set out in paragraph 17.
'o 1 credit the testimony of Stover and Mullins. See The McCuller
Press, Inc., 227 NLRB 145 (1977); El Monte Tool and Die Casting. Inc.,
232 NLRB 186 (1977).
CONAGRA, INC. 615
during work. It appears from his complaint allegation
that General Counsel is seeking a remedy which would
prohibit Respondent from restricting its employees'
union discussion during nonworktime. I find in agree-
ment with General Counsel that the restrictions placed
upon Respondent's employees by Supervisor Semple
were overly broad in violation of Section 8(a)(l). How-
ever, it appears that, even though Orr and Roberts Sep-
tember 20 warnings to Carolyn Long may have consti-
tuted disparate treatment, they were limted to cautioning
Long not to discuss the Union during work. Therefore, I
find those statements do not constitute violations as al-
leged by General Counsel.
(i) During September, Rick Semple asked Delia Hicks
if she was still passing out union cards. After Hicks re-
plied that she signed a card, Semple told her to be care-
ful (par. 7 above).' This statement constitutes a threat
of reprisal and violated Section 8(a)(1).
(j) During Carolyn Long's September 20 conversation,
with Superintendent Orr and Plant Manager Roberts
(par. 22 above), Orr, in cautioning Long about discussing
the Union with other employees during work, told Long,
"I know your job is moving from place to place. If this
continues, which [it] is not-we'll put you on a job
where you won't be moving around. But that's not a
threat." 2 Respondent offered no evidence to show that
other employees were ever warned about talking on the
job. Long testified without rebuttal that the conversation
for which she was warned included nothing more than
her response to employee Linda Pell's question of wheth-
er Pell would be fired if Pell signed a union card. Long
told Pell no. Under the circumstances, it appears, and I
find, that Long was threatened because she engaged in
protected activity. I find that Respondent's action consti-
tutes a violation.
(k) General Counsel alleges that on two occasions Re-
spondent's Plant Manager Roberts threatened its employ-
ees that they would no longer be able to bring their
grievances directly to management if the Union was se-
lected. Joyce Stover testified to a November 1 conversa-
tion with Roberts during which Roberts told her, "if
someone had a grievance, he wouldn't talk to the Shop
Steward and the one that filed the grievance. He would
only talk to the Shop Steward" (par. 23 above). Sandy
Ellis testified that, during an employee meeting on De-
cember 6, Roberts told them that, if the Union came in,
they would have to have a union representative any time
they came up to see him whereas now the employees
could go to him with their problems. The above state-
ments impose a threat of more difficult working condi-
tions if the Union is selected, and thereby violate Section
8(a)(l).
(1) I also find a violation in Supervisor Semple's late
August statement to Joyce Stover regarding the loss of
the extra bathroom break (see par. 24 above).
(m) The record reveals several instances of Plant Man-
ager Roberts' threatening the employees with loss of
benefits if the Union was selected. Roberts admitted that,
I I credit Hicks' account of this incident
12 Although I generally credit Orr's testimony, I do not credit his
denial of a threat to change Long's job in view of Plant Manager Rob-
erts' admission that Orr made the threat
during his employee meetings in November and Decem-
ber, he showed the employees a blank sheet of paper and
told them they would be starting from scratch with ne-
gotiations (par. 20 above). Linda Hastings testified that
Roberts told the employees that employee benefits would
be taken away if the Union came in and they would just
start from blank. Joyce stover testified that Roberts held
up a blank sheet of paper to her on November I and
said, "This is what you'll start with if the Union comes
in" (par. 23 above). 3 I credit the testimony of Hastings
and Stover.14 Roberts' statements constitute threats to
reduce employees' benefits if they select the Union, and
violate Section 8(a)(1).' 5
(n) I credit the testimony of Stover, Swanson, and
Hastings that Plant Manager Roberts told them during
November and December that they were being denied
an increase in pay because of the union campaign (see
pars. 23 and 27 above). I find those threats violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(l).
(o) Charlcia Mullins testified that Plant Manager Rob-
erts held employee meetings during August and Septem-
ber during which employees were asked to explain their
problems to Roberts. Roberts told the employees that, if
they couldn't work out their problems with their super-
visors, he would be glad to help out. Roberts admitted
holding the meetings, but contended these meetings had
nothing to do with the union campaign. However, I
credit the employees' testimony that meetings of this
type were unusual.' 6 I find that those meetings held
during the employees' union campaign were likely to
affect the employees' activities by holding out improved
conditions, and violate Section 8(a)(1).'7
(p) I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by threatening to eliminate its employee's pension plan. I
credit employee Patsy Southern's testimony (par. 26
above) that, during the plant manager meeting which she
attended around Thanksgiving, Roberts told the employ-
ees that there would be no retirement fund if the Union
came in.
B. The 8(a)(3) Allegations
General Counsel alleged that Respondent withheld the
granting of a scheduled wage increase since November 1,
and eliminated the job of employee Carolyn Long on
December 27, in violation of Section 8(a)(3). I find that
the evidence fails to sustain General Counsel on both
those allegations.
1. The wage increase
The evidence does demonstrate that Respondent's
agent told the employees on several occasions that they
were being denied a wage increase because of the union
I' See also the testimony of Patsy Southern, par. 26 above, which I
credit.
14 See also par. 19 above, where Rick Semple threatened that bargain-
ing would start from zero.
15 The Kenrte Company, a subsidiary of Harvey Hubbell. Inc.. 236 NLRB
1084 (1978); Tufts Brothers. Incorporated, 235 NLRB 808 (1978); Interstate
Engineering A Division of A-T-O. Inc., 230 NLRB 1 (1977)
'8 See also par. 5 above,
17 See par 30 above, where Roberts told Joyce Stover to come to him
with her problems.
CONAGRA, INC.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
campaign.' 8 General Counsel contends that Respon-
dent's claim, that the wage survey which it admittedly
scheduled for September was not completed until near
the end of the year, is pretextual. However, General
Counsel offered no evidence to support its pretext claim
other than the aforementioned 8(a)(l) statements.
Plant Manager Roberts testified that Respondent usual-
ly conducts a wage survey among 12 different plants in
the Dalton area. Roberts stated those surveys are usually
started in March and September. Roberts testified that, in
accordance with that practice, he instructed his person-
nel manager, Steve Ferguson, at some time during or
after August, to perform the survey. However, Ferguson
was subsequently discharged. According to Roberts, Fer-
guson's discharge resulted from Ferguson's failure to
perform several functions including the requested wage
survey for the fall of 1978. Roberts testified that a new
personnel manager, Fred Campbell, was hired in late Oc-
tober or early November. Campbell was instructed to
conduct the wage survey around the first of December.
Roberts testified that Campbell completed the survey in
early January 1979. Subsequently, in due course, the em-
ployees received a wage increase.
Although this issue is bothersome, the record contains
no evidence which quarrels with Roberts' testimony re-
garding Steve Ferguson's neglect. I have presumed that
the facts would not conflict with Roberts' testimony in
this regard, especially in view of what appears to be a
situation where there were several sources from which
contrary evidence could have been obtained if it existed.
For example, there were 12 companies involved in those
surveys, and the man who allegedly failed to conduct the
survey, Steve Ferguson, is no longer with Respondent.
No evidence was offered from any of the 12 companies,
and Ferguson did not testify. Therefore, I find that the
statements to employees that they were being a wage in-
crease because of the Union were nothing more than a
fabrication designed to assist Respondent in its antiunion
campaign.
2. The elimination of Long's job
A similar dilemma is presented in the allegation that
Respondent violated the Act by eliminating Carolyn
Long's job. Until late December, Long's job involved
the relieving of women for bathroom breaks in packing.
In her role as "bathroom relief," Long circulated
through the department. Her role obviously afforded
Long opportunities to speak to many of the employees
about the Union. The evidence demonstrates that, on
September 20, Superintendent Orr threatened to change
Long to a job that would not involve her moving around
if she did not discontinue discussing the Union on the
job.
Plant Manager Roberts admitted that a decision was
made in October which would eliminate the necessity of
having a bathroom relief in packing. 9 According to
'8 Although statements that a wage increase was being withheld are
entitled to substantial weight in considering whether Respondent actually
withheld the increase, the statements alone are not dispositive of the
issue.
19 The only bathroom relief job in packing was Long's job. There was
no bathroom relief position on the other shift in packing.
department because of product flow problems. Roberts
testified that the grading belt in packing was too small
and they did not have enough packing bins. Also, one of
the packing department functions, the "drop-out," was
being performed in the cooler, which is in Shipping.
The evidence developed that Respondent uses bath-
room reliefs only in those departments where it would be
impractical for the department employees to relieve each
other or be relieved by supervisors. Until late December,
bathroom reliefs were used in the eviscerating cutting,
and packing departments. During the Christmas holidays,
while the plant was closed, Respondent engaged in ex-
tensive remodeling at a cost of over $60,000. These
changes, which were designed to relieve overcrowding
and improve efficiency, resulted in substantial remodel-
ing in the packing department. According to the testimo-
ny of Roberts, those changes permitted Respondent to
reconsider use of bathroom reliefs and eliminate those
positions in both packing and cutting. The changes also
permitted Respondent to eliminate five other jobs in the
plant. According to Roberts, the two bathroom relief
employees whose jobs were eliminated, Carolyn Long
and Lillie Everett, were offered other jobs in the plant.
Long reminded Plant Manager Roberts that, when she
accepted the bathroom relief position several years earli-
er, Roberts promised her that she could return to her old
job as scale operator if he ever found it necessary to
eliminate the bathroom relief job. Roberts asked Long if
she wanted the scale operator job, but Long said that she
didn't want to "bump" the woman that presently held
that job, "Snooky" Whitted.
Long testified that, after she told Roberts that she did
not want to bump Whitted, she asked Roberts to give
her a layoff. Roberts agreed, and Long took a layoff and
drew unemployment conpensation benefits. After the
benefits period expired, Long returned to work in the
job she selected, "stuffing."
Under these facts, I find no basis for a violation. The
evidence fails to establish that Respondent was unjusti-
fied in eliminating Long's job. Seven positions were
eliminated by Respondent's remodeling. Apparently, all
those positions remain unoccupied. Long was not laid
off. Instead, she was offered her choice of jobs. She
chose a layoff which she admitted was temporary.20
General Counsel contends that Respondent's action
was motivated to curtail Long's union activities. Howev-
er, the evidence does not support that contention. Some
of Respondent's 8(a)(l) activity undoubtedly had the
effect of curtailing employees' union activities, and I
have so found, but there was no evidence offered to
show that the elimination of Long's job resulted in cur-
tailment of her union activities. In fact, the evidence
failed to demonstrate that all the jobs available to Long
after Christmas would result in curtailing her ability to
talk with other employees during the workday. There-
fore, I find that the evidence fails to support the allega-
tion of an 8(a)(3) violation in the elimination of Long's
job.
20 General Counsel has not alleged that the voluntary layoff constitut-
ed constructive discharge.
CONAGRA, INC. 617
C. The Objections to the Election
In considering the Union's Objections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12,2' I have considered the evidence reflecting ac-
tivity during the critical period of September 25 to De-
cember 8, 1978.
Objections 5 and 10 both contend Respondent engaged
in objectionable conduct by threatening economic repri-
sals if its employees selected the Union. I find that the
evidence sustains those objections. During November
and December, Plant Manager Roberts conducted a
series of antiunion meetings with the employees. Roberts
told the employees that negotiations would start from
scratch if they selected the Union. Testimony revealed
that Roberts would turn to a blank white sheet on a
chart and say something to the effect of "this is what
you will start with if the Union comes in." Respondent
defended Roberts' actions, citing Coach and Equipment
Sales Corp., 228 NLRB 440 (1977), and Plastronics, Inc.,
233 NLRB 155 (1977). Respondent contends that the
"bargaining from scratch" statements are objectionable
only when they leave the employees with the impression
that what they ultimately receive depends in large mea-
sure upon what the Union can induce the Employer to
restore (Plastronics, Inc., supra). Respondent contends
that, during the meetings, Roberts told the employees
that the bargaining could result in their receiving more
or less, and thereby dispelled any implication that wages
or benefits would be reduced during bargaining. I dis-
agree. The rule in Plastronics, Inc., should be applied by
examining the total context. Prior to its November and
December meetings, Respondent engaged in numerous
8(a)(l) violations, including numerous threats that it
would be futile for the employees to select the Union
(pars. g and 19 above); a threat that the employees
would be deprived of their extra bathroom break (par. I
above); threats that employees could no longer bring
grievances directly to management if they selected the
Union (par. k above); and threats that employees were
21 Objections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are as follows:
Objection 5: The Employer threatened its employees with econom-
ic reprisals because of their union activities, sympathies, and desires.
Objection 6: The Employer advised its employees that a scheduled
wage increase was being withheld from them because of their union
activities and the organizing campaign being conducted by the Peti-
tioner.
Objection 8: The Employer, through its officers and supervisors,
summoned employees singly or in small groups to the plant manag-
er's office, or other areas of authority within the plant, where they
were subjected to anti-union talks.
Objection 9: The Employer threatened its employees with dis-
charge because they engaged in union or concerted activity, and cir-
cumscribed the movement and activities of employees during non-
working time to prevent them from engaging in activities on behalf
of the Petitioner.
Objection 10: The Employer threatened its employees that, if the
Petitioner became their collective bargaining representative, dire
economic reprisals would occur and the employees' present benefits
would be taken away, and they would have to bargain from a blank
sheet of paper
Objection 11: The Employer threatened its employees that selection
of the Petitioner as their bargaining representative would prevent
any employee from taking up his or her grievance or problem direct-
ly with management.
Objection 12: The Employer interrogated its employees concerning
their union activities and sympathies.
being deprived of a wage increase because of the Union
(par. n above). In the atmosphere of those threats, Re-
spondent's threats to bargain from scratch is objection-
able conduct.
I find that Roberts' threat during the meeting attended
by Patsy Southern around Thanksgiving, to eliminate the
employees' pension plan if the Union was selected, con-
stitutes objectionable conduct.
In Objection 6, the Union alleges that Respondent told
its employees they were being deprived of a wage in-
crease because of the union campaign. As indicated
above in paragraph n, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) during November and December by tell-
ing its employees they had been denied a wage increase
because of the union campaign. That conduct is objec-
tionable.
Several incidents which would qualify as objectionable
under the Union's Objection 9 occurred before the
Union filed its petition. However, I find that Respon-
dent's action in prohibiting Joyce Stover from preparing
a list of employees from the timecards (par. e above) on
October II and its December 4 restriction of Stover's
union talk (pars. h and 22 above), 22 are objectionable
within the scope of Objection 9.
As indicated above in paragraph k, Respondent threat-
ened its employees on two occasions during the critical
period that they would not be able to continue to bring
their grievances directly to management if the Union
was selected. That conduct is objectionable, and I so
find. Respondent's conduct on those occasions falls
within the scope of Objection 11.
Carolyn Long was interrogated about the employees'
union activities during a conversation with Plant Man-
ager Roberts on September 27. On the basis of that activ-
ity, which I find violates Section 8(a)(1) (see pars. a and
14 above), and Rick Semple's October I I interrogation
of Joyce Stover (see pars. a and 8 above), I find the evi-
dence sustains Objection 12.23
Although Objection 8 is factually supported by the
evidence, the objection does not raise a basis for setting
aside the election. Therefore, I would overrule Objection
8.
Therefore, I recommend that Objections 5, 6, 9, 10, I 1,
and 12 be sustained, and the election set aside and a new
election ordered.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Southeast Council, Retail, Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
22 I find Respondent's December 4 statement to Joyce Stover, that she
could not discuss the Union anymore on company time, is disparate since
the evidence fails to demonstrate employees were otherwise prohibited
from talking.
2a The incidents discussed in pars. 6 and 7 may have also occurred
during the critical period. However, the evidence reflects that both Clara
Swanson and Delia Hicks were unable to recall with precision the dates
of those incidents In view of my finding that Objection 12 should be sus-
tained on other evidence, it is unnecessary to make a finding as to the
dates of those incidents
CONAGRA, INC.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interrogating its employees about their union ac-
tivities; creating the impression of surveillance of its em-
ployees' union activities; prohibiting its employees from
compiling a list of employees because of its employees'
union activities; threatening its employees with discharge
because of their union activities; threatening its employ-
ees that it would be futile to designate the Union as their
bargaining representative; prohibiting its employees from
discussing the Union during nonworktime; threatening its
employees with reprisals for supporting the Union;
threatening to change an employee's job to prevent its
employees from engaging in union activities; threatening
its employees that they could no longer bring their
grievances directly to management if they designate the
Union as their representative; threatening to take away
its employees' extra bathroom break if they designated
the Union as their representative; threatening its employ-
ees with loss of benefits if they select the Union as their
representative; threatening its employees that a scheduled
wage increase was being withheld because of the em-
ployees' union organizing campaign; soliciting grievances
from its employees in order to persuade its employees to
refrain from union activities; and threatening it employ-
ees with loss of their pension plan if they selected the
Union as their representative, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
by failing to grant a wage increase on or after November
1, 1978, or by eliminating Carolyn Long's job of bath-
room relief during December 1978.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I recommend that the allegations of the complaint that
were not proved be dismissed.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2 4
Respondent, Conagra, Inc., Dalton, Georgia, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act, by interrogating its employees about their union ac-
tivities; creating the impression of surveillance of its em-
ployees' union activities; prohibiting its employees from
24 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
compiling a list of its employees because of its employ-
ees' union activities; threatening its employees with dis-
charge because of their union activities; threatening its
employees that it would be futile to select the Union as
their bargaining representative; prohibiting its employees
from discussing the Union during their nonworktime;
threatening its employees with reprisals for supporting
the Union; threatening to change an employee's job to
prevent its employees from engaging in union activities;
threatening its employees that they could no longer bring
their grievances directly to management if they select
the Union as their bargaining representative; threatening
to take away its employees' extra bathroom break if they
select the Union as their bargaining representative;
threatening its employees with loss of benefits if they
select the Union as their bargaining representative;
threatening its employees that a scheduled wage increase
is being withheld because of its employees' union activi-
ties; soliciting grievances from its employees in order to
persuade its employees from engaging in union activities;
and threatening its employees with loss of their pension
plan if they select the Union as their bargaining represen-
tative.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its Dalton, Georgia, plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 2 s Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b)Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2s In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about
their activities on behalf of Southeast Council,
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, or
any other labor organization.
CONAGRA, INC. 619
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveil-
lance of our employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from com-
piling a list of employees because of our employees'
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employ-
ees because of our employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that it
would be futile for our employees to select South-
east Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, or any other labor organization, as
their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from dis-
cussing the Union during nonwork time.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with repri-
sals for supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to change an employee's
job to prevent our employees from engaging in
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that they
can no longer bring their grievances directly to
management if they select the Union as their bar-
gaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to take away our employ-
ees' extra bathroom break if they select the Union
as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss
of benefits if they select the Union as their bargain-
ing representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that a
scheduled wage increase is being withheld because
of the employees' union organizing campaign.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our em-
ployees in order to persuade our employees from
engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss
of their pension plan if they select the Union as
their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
CONAGRA, INC.
CONAGRA, INC.