Earthgrains Baking Cos.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 24 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 24
Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sara Lee Baking Group Inc., d/b/a
Redding French Bakery and Bakery, Confec-
tionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers In-
ternational Union, Local 85, AFL–CIO. Case
20–CA–30575
May 16, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On February 24, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Bur-
ton Litvack issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Earthgrains Baking Compa-
nies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sara Lee Baking
Group Inc., d/b/a Redding French Bakery, Redding, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.

Shelley Brenner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Timothy A. Davis, Esq. (Constangy, Brooks, & Smith), of Kan-
sas City, Missouri, for the Respondent.
Felix de La Torre, Esq. (Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger, &
Rosenfeld), of Oakland, California, for the Charging Party.

DECISION
BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge. The unfair
labor practice charge, in the above-captioned matter, was filed
by Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers
International Union, Local 85, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Charging
Party), on March 11, 2002.1 After an investigation, on May 28,

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of the allegation
that the Respondent violated the Act by promising to implement wage
increases the next day if employees voted against the Union.
1 Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred during calendar year
2002.
the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board (the Board), issued a complaint, alleging that
Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidi-
ary of Sara Lee Baking Group, Inc., d/b/a Redding French Bak-
ery (the Respondent), had engaged in, and continues to engage
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Counsel for Re-
spondent timely filed an answer, denying the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices. As scheduled, a trial, before the
above-named administrative law judge, was held in Redding,
California, on August 13 and October 2, 2002. During the hear-
ing, all parties were given the opportunity to examine and to
cross-examine witnesses, to offer into the record all relevant
documentary evidence, to argue legal positions orally, and to
file posthearing briefs. The latter documents were filed by
counsel for the General Counsel and by counsel for Respon-
dent, and each has been carefully considered. Accordingly,
based upon the entire record, including the posthearing briefs
and my observation of the testimonial credibility of the several
witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, the Respondent, a State of Delaware
corporation, with offices and places of business in the State of
California and in other States in the United States of America,
including a facility in Redding, California, has been engaged in
the business of the production and wholesale distribution of
bakery products. During the calendar year ending December
31, 2001, Respondent, in the normal course and conduct of its
above-described business operations, purchased and received at
its facilities located in the State of California, goods and mate-
rials, valued in excess of $50,000, directly from suppliers lo-
cated outside the State of California. Respondent admits that, at
all times material, it has been an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admits that, at all times material, the Charging
Party has been a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent engaged in
acts and conduct, violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
telling employees that it was delaying their regularly scheduled
wage increase because of the Charging Party and by telling
employees that, if they voted “no” in a representation election,
it would go ahead with wage increases the very next day. Re-
spondent denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor
practices.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The record establishes that, in December 1999, Earthgrains
Baking Companies, located in St. Louis, Missouri, purchased
339 NLRB No. 4
EARTHGRAINS BAKING COS. 25
Redding French Bakery, located in Redding, California (the
Redding facility); that, in August 2001, the former and Sara
Lee Baking Group, Inc. entered into an agreement to merge
their respective business operations; that the merger was subse-
quently consummated; and that, at its Redding facility, Re-
spondent produces and distributes specialty bread products. At
all times material, Catherine Savage2 has been the plant man-
ager of the Redding facility; and Respondent employs ap-
proximately 44 production, sanitation, maintenance, shipping
and receiving, and warehouse employees at the facility. The
record further establishes that, on June 13, 2001, the Charging
Party filed a representation petition, in Case 20–RC–17679,
seeking to represent Respondent’s above-described employees;
that, on July 26, 2001, the Board conducted an election among
the employees, with 21 votes cast in favor of representation by
the Charging Party, 20 votes cast against representation, and 3
challenged ballots; that both parties filed objections to the con-
duct of the election; and that, as part of a settlement of a con-
current unfair labor practice charge, both parties withdrew their
objections and agreed to a rerun election to be conducted on
March 14, 2002. Finally, the parties stipulated that Respondent
establishes a pay scale for each voting unit job classification at
its Redding facility, with each employee receiving a scheduled
wage adjustment until he reaches the top of his wage scale; that
Respondent periodically evaluates the wage scales to determine
if increases are necessary in order for it to remain competitive;
that, in 2000, the wage scales were increased on March 1; and
that, in 2001, new wage scales became effective on April 1, and
again in October.
Catherine Savage testified that, during the preelection period,
she held four meetings with groups of voting unit employees—
two at which she alone addressed the assembled employees and
two at which she appeared “only for introductory purposes.”3
As to those meetings at which she alone spoke to Respondent’s
employees, “one was the kick-off speech, which was the first
week of February, and the other was about the 16th, 17th of
February.” As to the latter, although not entirely clear in the
record, it appears that she actually held a series of meetings
with different groups of employees on those dates, at each mak-
ing the identical presentation “from a written script.” Michael
Dodd, an engineer’s assistant for Respondent, testified that
Floyd Brown, a maintenance mechanic, first informed him of
the Charging Party’s organizing campaign, that he became a
supporter of it, and that he attended four group meetings, con-
ducted by management representatives, prior to the scheduled
date for the election. Specifically, he recalled a meeting, which
between 6 and 15 employees, including Brown and him, at-
tended, conducted by Savage in a conference room at the plant

2 In the complaint and in the first volume of the transcript of the trial,
Savage’s first name begins with a “K”; however, it appears with a “C”
in the second volume of the transcript with her testimony. Presumably,
the court reporter noted the correct spelling of her name before she
began testifying. Accordingly, I shall spell her first name with a C.
Respondent admitted her status as a supervisor and agent within the
meaning of Sec. 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
3 One appearance was with Steve Waltz, an individual who partici-
pates in collective bargaining for Respondent, and the other was with
Mike Knowles, the president of Respondent’s frozen dough division.
in February. “[C]athy Savage spoke. . . . She read out a state-
ment, a short statement that sounded [like] a legal statement.
The company wasn’t allowed to promise wage increases, bene-
fits, promotions . . . during an election campaign because it
would be seen as a bribe to influence the election. And she said
let’s discuss this . . . placed her hands behind her back and said
that the [Charging Party] has my hands tied. . . . [T]his time of
year we usually have pay raises, but the [Charging Party’s]
preventing this. And she also said that if we went ahead and
voted for the [Charging Party] . . . it would be at least [12]
months before we got a negotiated contract, and if we voted for
the company, things could go ahead as usual.”4 During cross-
examination, Dodd could not recall Savage saying that Respon-
dent had not yet decided on what the wage increase would be
for that year.
Two other employees gave similar testimony to that of
Dodd. Michael Rech, who has been a production worker for
Respondent since October 1997,5 testified that he was aware
that the representation election was scheduled for March 14,
and that, between early February and the above date, he at-
tended seven or eight group meetings, conducted by “various
people from corporate and Cathy Savage.” Specifically, Rech
recalled a meeting, which he attended along with six other pro-
duction employees (Tom Ferris, Echan Saelee, Sue Saelee, Ben
Boras, Matt Mangrum, and Warrian Chao), conducted by Sav-
age, “in the middle of the election campaign.” According to
Rech, Savage said, “[T]hat she had to be really careful on say-
ing what she was going to say. She didn’t want any charges
filed against her.” At that point, a coworker accused Rech of
having a tape recorder with him, an accusation which the latter
denied. Savage continued, saying, “[T]hat we were due for
raises. . . . And the [Charging Party’s] campaign was prevent-
ing it. And if we were given raises . . . the [Charging Party] will
file charges on her for giving us raises.” Also, “she said, I can
give you a raise tomorrow, and the [Charging Party] can’t.”
Rech added that, when Savage said the Charging Party had
prevented their raises, “she [stood] up and kind of put her hands
together behind her back kike they were tied” and said, “. . . my
hands are tied behind my back.” Prior to the scheduled date, the
representation election was canceled, and, according to Rech,
on March 12, Savage spoke to a group of six to eight employ-
ees, including Rech, in a conference room about the cancella-
tion. He recalled Savage telling the employees “that the com-
pany had won. The [Charging Party] packed up [its]bags and
left. And usually when they file charges like this at the last
minute . . . the [Charging Party] knows they’re going to lose. . .
. Now, I can proceed to give you guys raises.” During cross-
examination, Rech denied hearing Savage say she could not
make any promises on wages and benefits and could not recall
Savage saying corporate had not yet decided on what their
wage increase would be or when to give it. Further, he could
not recall Savage speaking from prepared notes.
4 Dodd inferred Savage to be saying that Respondent could move
very quickly without a union’s interference.
5 During cross-examination, Rech admitted having become a super-
visor at one time, but from which position he was subsequently de-
moted

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 26
Also, Floyd Brown, who has worked off and on for Respon-
dent since 1998 in various positions, testified that, between
early February and March 14, management representatives
spoke to him “several times” about the [Charging Party] and
that one such occasion was a group meeting on “I think . . . the
17th of February, right around there,” a Sunday. The meeting
was held in a conference room with “half a dozen” employees,
including Mike Rech, Echan _____, Sue _____, and him, at-
tending, and Savage spoke to the employees. According to
Brown, she was “. . . discussing pay raises . . . and she stated
that there was no chance for her to give a pay raise because her
. . . hands were tied behind because of the union activity at that
time. And it would be unlawful for her to . . . offer a raise . . .
And also that if . . . we were to vote for the [Charging Party]
and [the latter] won, it would take months to get a . . . contract.
And . . . if we voted for the Company . . . she would put in for
the raise the next day for us.” Brown added that Savage made
her comments while reading from a “list” and that, when she
made her hands-tied-behind-her-back comment, she accompa-
nied her words by a “gesture” with her hands. Brown further
testified that the March 14 election subsequently was canceled
and that Savage told this to the same assembled group of em-
ployees. She termed the Charging Party’s cancellation of the
election a “victory” for Respondent and said the former had
“packed up their gear and left town.” Also, she said, “[W]e can
proceed with the raise since the [Charging Party] pulled out.”
During cross-examination, Brown changed his testimony, say-
ing he did not think Rech attended the February 17 meeting.6
Further, as to what Savage said, Brown initially recalled, “she
stated that . . . due the union activity . . . her hands were tied
behind her back as far as us getting a raise . . . because it would
be considered a bribe if a raise was given to us” but, later,
changed her testimony, stating, “[S]he said we couldn’t get a
raise because of the union activity . . . the pending election and
all.” Finally, after again stating the February meeting occurred
on a Sunday, February 17, Brown was impeached by his pre-
trial affidavit wherein he stated that he had not worked over the
weekend of February 16 and 17. Moreover, Brown’s timecard
for the payroll period, which includes the foregoing weekend,
discloses that he did not work on either Saturday, February 16,
Sunday, February 17, or Monday, February 18, a holiday. Then,
during redirect examination, questioned by me as to whether he
was certain the February meeting, which he attended occurred
on February 17, Brown averred, “I can’t say it was exactly on
that date. . . . might have been the day before or after,” but “I’ll
say it was Sunday, but . . . I’m not that sure.” Finally, the par-
ties stipulated that, on March 26, Respondent approved a $0.65-
wage increase for voting unit employees, with the raise to be-
come effective on April 1.
As stated above, according to Catherine Savage, she met
with and spoke to groups of voting unit employees on two sepa-
rate occasions—during the first week of February and over the

6 Brown subsequently again changed his testimony, stating that, if he
put in his notes that Rech did, in fact, attend the February meeting, his
notes were correct.
weekend of February 16, 17, and 18.7 At each of the meetings
at which she was the sole speaker, “I gave a presentation from a
written script.” The first was a “kick-off speech,” and Savage
denied discussing wages or potential wage increases at that
time. However, during Savage’s second set of group meetings,
her speech, which she received from Respondent’s corporate
office and read to the assembled employees in its entirety, con-
tained a paragraph concerning a delay in the employees’ antici-
pated 2002-wage increase and Respondent’s justification for
delaying in granting it during the pendency of the NLRB elec-
tion.8 Savage conceded reading the portion, concerning the
delayed wage increase, but denied putting the paper down and
placing her hands behind her back, saying her hands were tied
and, because of the Union, she could not give a wage increase,
or saying, if the employees voted no, she could give a wage
increase tomorrow. During cross-examination, while denying
that she ever interjected her own comments while reading the
February 16 through 18 speech,9 Savage said that, after reading
each paragraph, her practice was to ask for employees’ ques-
tions, “[a]nd then I can answer them one at a time.” Specifically
as to the paragraph regarding the delay in the employees’ ex-
pected 2002-wage increase, which, she conceded, was a subject
of concern to the voting unit employees throughout February,10
Savage admitted that employees did ask questions on that sub-
ject—“They asked again [about] . . . getting a wage increase
again at this time of the year,” and “what I said was that the
only thing I can say to you in answer to your question is to read
this portion again. That is all I can say to your question.” Fi-
7 Savage was inconsistent on the dates of her second meeting with
voting unit employees. Initially, she stated these occurred on February
16 and 17 (Saturday and Sunday) and later, in response to a leading
question by Respondent’s counsel, she added that she also spoke to
employees on Monday, February 18, a holiday.
8 This portion of Savage’s speech reads as follows:
Normally around this time of year we start discussing wages
and increases for the next year. Many of you have asked me ques-
tions about if and when wage increases will occur. Unfortunately,
I don’t have answers yet because of the Sara Lee acquisition and
wanting to get their input and because we were planning for the
trial we expected to have. Now that we are in the election period
the law prohibits us from providing any new wage increases or
even promising to give any new wage increases. This could be
considered a bribe and would invalidate the election. Please be
patient but we will honor the law. I know you want better answers
and I will do my best to get you better answers as the process con-
tinues. The bottom line is, if Redding French wins, wage adjust-
ments will be evaluated in the normal course of business. If the
Union wins, we would bargain in good faith about wages. Other
than those facts, I cannot say anything more about pay or benefit
increases. Just like you have seen . . . at the London bakery, nego-
tiations can last for months and even years and sometimes a con-
tract is never reached. Other than those facts, I cannot say any-
thing more about pay or benefit changes. I simply don’t want to
do anything that would allow this union to file an unfair labor
practice and block your election on March 14.
9 While noting Savage’s denial, I also note that, at least, the section
of the speech, entitled “Redding French Progress,” required extempora-
neous elaboration from Savage.
10 Savage testified that February “was an area of time that [employ-
ees] normally would get a wage increase.”

EARTHGRAINS BAKING COS. 27
nally, Savage’s veracity was called into question by her testi-
mony regarding Respondent’s offer of its Exhibit 4, a purported
attendance sheet for an employee meeting on February 16, into
the record. Respondent’s plant manager testified at length con-
cerning the creation of the document, ostensibly completed by a
human resources employee on February 19 based upon atten-
dance records kept by supervisors. Savage asserted that the
putative form, utilized by the human resources employee, was
“our standard employee list” at the time. However, the prof-
fered exhibit contained a notation, “Revised 3/26/02,” on the
bottom, and, as obviously, the document could not have been in
existence on the asserted date, the exhibit was rejected.
Aychoy Saechao, who, in February and March 2002 was a
college student, utilized by Respondent as an interpreter for its
Mien-speaking voting unit employees and who, at the time of
the trial, was a human resources safety manager at the Redding
facility, testified that he normally had interpreted during week-
ends (Friday through Monday) and that he had done so for
Catherine Savage on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, February
16 through 18.11 He testified that Savage “. . . used a text, as a
written text,” and she would read several sentences and wait for
his translations. According to Saechao, what Savage said about
the employees’ wage increase was what she read from the pre-
pared text, and “. . . I interpreted verbatim. . . . just because I
didn’t want to invalidate the election because of my part.”
Saechao added that employees did ask questions about wages
and that Savage “said that due to the sensitivity of the wage
increases, she didn’t want to invalidate the election process. So
she would read back . . . what was . . . in the paperwork.” Later,
during cross-examination, he changed his answer, stating that,
when employees asked about their own step wage increases,
Savage would “. . . answer directly to them. Yes, you’ll get
those . . . because you’re scheduled to get a wage adjustment as
you work along. And then questions like, are we going to get a
wage increase next year? . . . she’ll read over the . . . paper that
she had in front of her again.” Asked at what point Savage en-
tertained questions, Saechao said, “[Q]uestions may have come
up sporadically during the speech. She went over a point . . .
people might have raised their hands to ask a question. But,
usually, she would deliver the speech and then she’d open up
for questions.” Finally, while failing to deny that, at any point
during her speech, Savage gestured with her hands behind her
back, Saechao did deny interpreting Savage saying her hands
were tied behind her back because of the Charging Party, or, if
employees voted no, she would give them a raise tomorrow.
B. Legal Analysis
As the parties recognize, whether I conclude that Respondent
committed violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in
the complaint, is wholly dependent upon my assessment of the
credibility of the several witnesses. In this regard, having
viewed the witnesses and considered the record as a whole, I
have reservations regarding the credibility of each. Thus, I be-

11 Based upon Saechao’s testimony, counsel for the General Counsel
speculates that Floyd Brown attended a group meeting on Friday, Feb-
ruary 15, at which Savage spoke. However, I note that Brown himself
testified that he attended a meeting on Sunday or the day before or the
day after—not 2 days before.
lieve two individuals, Floyd Brown and Catherine Savage,
clearly fabricated portions of their respective testimony. Brown
gave contradictory testimony, regarding what Savage assertedly
told the assembled employees as to why Respondent could not
give them wage increases; his testimony regarding having at-
tended one of the group meetings on February 16, 17, and 18,
during which Savage spoke to the assembled employees, was
impeached by his pretrial affidavit and his timecard for the
period, which included those dates and which establishes that
Brown did not work on any of the above dates; and his asser-
tion that Michael Rech attended the same meeting was not cor-
roborated by the latter. As to Savage, given the revision date on
the bottom of the document, her testimony, in support of Re-
spondent’s proffered Exhibit 4, an attendance sheet purportedly
prepared on February 19, that a human resources employee
used an existing form, was demonstrably meretricious. Given
what I perceive as their prevarications and my impressions that
each was a disingenuous witness, I have little confidence in the
veracity of the respective testimony of Brown or Savage. Con-
cerning the remaining three witnesses, while Achy Saechao did
not appear to be a guileful witness, I note that he directly con-
tradicted Savage as to the point in her speech she entertained
questions from employees and was inconsistent and contra-
dicted Savage as to the breadth of the latter’s responses to em-
ployees, who questioned her about step increases in pay. Next,
inasmuch as Michael Dodd testified that Brown attended the
same group meeting with Savage, which he attended, testimony
not corroborated by Brown, Dodd either dissembled in order to
bolster the credibility of Brown or was honestly mistaken.12
Finally, while Michael Rech asserted he could not recall Sav-
age reading from a prepared text during the group meeting,
which he attended, testimony at odds with the overwhelming
record evidence, he was the only witness, whose demeanor
appeared to be that of an entirely candid witness and whose
testimony appeared to be veracious and trustworthy, I shall rely
upon his version of events, as corroborated by Dodd, over that
of Saechao, who was not nearly as impressive a witness as
Rech. Accordingly, based upon my credibility resolutions and
the record as a whole, I find that, in 2000, voting unit employ-
ees received a wage increase on March 1, and in 2001, they
received pay raises on April 1 and October 1; that, during the
weekend of February 16 through 18, Catherine Savage met
with groups of voting unit employees at Respondent’s Redding
facility; and that, during the meetings, she read from a prepared
text. I further find that, either elaborating during her reading of
the speech section concerning anticipated wage increases13 or
responding to employees’ questions about a wage increase after
she completed the prepared speech, Savage stood, placed her
hands behind her back, and said that, while they (the voting unit
employees) were due for pay raises, “my hands are tied behind
my back” and “the [Charging Party’s] campaign was prevent-
12 I am particularly concerned about the similarity of Floyd Brown’s
testimony to that of Dodd and Rech and believe that the fact of the
former’s coterminous account may be attributable to sources other than
his presence at group meetings at which Savage spoke.
13 Given that one section of the prepared speech actually required her
elaboration, it is not unreasonable to believe that Savage decided to
elaborate on the subject of raises.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 28
ing it. And if we were given raises . . . the [Charging Party] will
file charges on her for giving . . . raises.”14
The Board law is quite clear that, in the midst of an on-going
union organizing or election campaign, an employer must pro-
ceed with an expected wage or benefit adjustment as if the or-
ganizing or election campaign had not been in progress. Grouse
Mountain Lodge, 333 NLRB 1322, 1324 (2001); America’s
Best Quality Coatings Corp., 313 NLRB 470, 484 (1993); At-
lantic Forest Products, 282 NLRB 855, 858 (1987). Neverthe-
less, the Board has recognized an exception to this rule—an
employer may postpone the implementation of such a wage or
benefit adjustment if it makes clear to its employees that the
granting of the adjustment is not dependent upon the result of
the union organizing campaign and that the “sole purpose” of
the postponement is to avoid the appearance of influencing
employees in their decision to support the union or influencing
the election’s outcome. Grouse Mountain Lodge, supra; KMST-
TV, Channel 46, 302 NLRB 381, 382 (1991). In making such
an announcement, however, an employer acts in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by attributing its failure to implement
the expected wage or benefit adjustment to the presence of the
union or by disparaging or undermining the union by creating
the impression it impeded the granting of the adjustment. Twin
City Concrete, 317 NLRB 1313, 1318 (1995); Atlantic Forest
Products, supra. Herein, during her cross-examination, Savage
conceded that, during February, as they “normally” had re-
ceived wage increases at that time of year, voting unit employ-
ees inquired as to when they would be receiving their wage
increase in 2002, and one subject of her speech to the groups of
employees was Respondent’s explanation as to why the antici-
pated “new” wage increases would not be given during the
election campaign. In this regard, while Savage may have read
from the text that the granting of a raise at that time “could be
considered a bribe . . . ,” she eviscerated the exculpatory effect
of this language by gesturing with her hands behind her back
and commenting that her hands were tied behind her back and
the Charging Party was “preventing” the wage increase and
that, if a raise was given, the Charging Party would immedi-
ately file an unfair labor practice charge. Put another way, in
unmistakable language, Savage did exactly what the law pro-
hibits; she placed the onus upon the Charging Party by attribut-
ing the employees’ not receiving their anticipated wage in-
crease directly to it.”15 Accordingly, by her extemporaneous
gesture and comments, Savage’s conduct became patently
unlawful, and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Earthgrains Co., 336 NLRB 1119 (2001); Grouse

14 Given my belief that Floyd Brown dissembled, I specifically do
not find that Savage also promised that, if employees voted against the
Charging Party, she would implement wage increases the next day.
Accordingly, I recommend that par. 6(b) of the complaint be dismissed.
15 Savage’s conduct immediately after the Charging Party filed the
instant unfair labor charge, which blocked the scheduled March 14
election, constitutes a virtual admission of the unfair labor practice.
Thus, Savage met with voting unit employees on March 12, and said
that Respondent won and “the Union packed up their bags and left”
because it “knows they’re going to lose” and that “now, I can proceed
to give you guys raises.”
Mountain Lodge, supra; Centre Engineering, Inc., 253 NLRB
419, 421 (1980).
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. The Charging Party is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By informing its employees that an anticipated wage in-
crease had been delayed because of the Charging Party, Re-
spondent engaged in acts and conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Unless specified above, Respondent engaged in no other
unfair labor practices.
5. Respondent’s above-described unfair labor practice is an
unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having concluded that Respondent engaged in a serious un-
fair labor practice, violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and de-
sist from such acts and to take certain affirmative actions de-
signed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. In this
regard, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to post a
notice, delineating to its employees its unlawful conduct.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
record as a whole, I issue the following recommended.16
ORDER
The Respondent, Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Sara Lee Baking Group, Inc., d/b/a
Redding French Bakery, Redding, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Informing its employees that an anticipated wage in-
crease had been delayed because of the Charging Party.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Redding, California, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

EARTHGRAINS BAKING COS. 29
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since on or about February 16, 2002;
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties

WE WILL NOT inform our employees that we have delayed an
anticipated wage increase because of Bakery, Confectionary,
Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local
85, AFL–CIO.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.

EARTHGRAINS BAKING COMPANIES, INC., A
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF SARA LEE
BAKING GROUP INC., D/B/A REDDING FRENCH
BAKERY