George Noroian Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1127 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1127
We find, therefore, that he is a supervisor and he will be excluded.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that
the following units of employees at the Employer's St. Louis, Mis-
souri, plant are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All employees of the pressroom and lithography room, includ-
ing all pressmen, learners, feeders, layout men, platemen, opaquers,
paste-up girls, and the lead man in the lithographic room,12 but exclud-
ing the lead man in the pressroom, all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All employees in the second floor finishing department, includ-
ing John Rich '13 but excluding the lead man in the department, all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections 14 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
P2 The Petitioner and the Employer agree that this employee is not a supervisor.
'e At the hearing , Bookbinders contended , contrary to the Employer , that John Rich
should be excluded from the proposed unit. Rich's principal duties are in connection with
the automatic gluing machine on the first floor . He prepares materials to be fed into the
machine and helps to remove finished boxes from the machine when it is in operation.
Whenever there is no work of this type to be done, he goes to the second floor where he
piles and arranges stock near the finishing department and performs various odd jobs
within the department . Approximately 30 percent of his time is spent in the finishing
department on the second floor. It appears that whether working on the automatic gluing
machine or on the second floor , this employee usually works with other employees of the
finishing department . We find that his interests are closely allied with the other employees
of the finishing department and will include him in the unit.
?+ The International intervened at the hearing and moved that its name be placed on
the ballot in place of the joint Petitioners. The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board for decision . As neither of the joint Petitioners objected thereto , this motion
will be granted.
GEORGE NOROIAN AND ARCHIE NOROIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-
PARTNERS D/B/A GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY and CANNERY FOOD
PROCESSORS, COTTON WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL
No. 97, AFL. Case No. 20-CA-616. December 19,1952
Decision and Order
On May 22, 1952, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondents did not engage in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents
101 NLRB No. 183.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the addition noted below.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the Respondents George Noroian and
Archie Noroian, individually and as co-partners, doing business as
George Noroian Company, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Instructing employees to report the union activity of other
employees; threatening employees with reprisals for, or promising
them benefits to refrain from, engaging in union activities protected
by the Act, and attempting to prevent, and interfering with the dis-
tribution of union cards at or near the entrance to company property,
or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Cannery Food Processors, Cotton
Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 97, AFL, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
P Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Members Houston , Murdock, and Styles].
The record amply supports the Trial Examiner 's finding that George Noroian, one of
the Respondents , attempted to prevent and interfered with the distribution of union-
authorization cards by Crosswhite at or near the entrance to company property. Thus,
the record contains the following evidence , in addition to that detailed in the Interme-
diate Report, to support this finding. Crosswhite testified that immediately following his
discharge he stationed himself at the entrance to the plant premises and during the rest
of the day passed out union cards to the employees coming out of the plant ; that the next
morning he resumed the distribution of cards to Respondents ' employees and continued
to do so for some time. Crosswhite also testified that on the day after his discharge
George Noroian asked him what he was doing at the plant entrance ; that he replied that
he was handing out union cards; and that George Noroian "bemeaned [ him] several
times for . . . working for the Union ." Crosswhite's testimony was in part corroborated
by other witnesses. One of them, Superintendent Neely, testified that 2 or 3 days after
Crosswhite 's discharge Crosswhite "was out in the parking lot, peddling his cards" ; that
he and George Noroian went out to Crosswhite and that George Noroian told Crosswhite
to "move on, to get out of there, that he did not want him on his property ." Finally,
George Noroian himself admitted that "[he] was aware that [Crosswhite ] was passing out
Union cards" at the times he asked Crosswhite to get off his property , that Crosswhite
had told him so. We find , that after his discharge and for some time thereafter, Cross-
white stationed himself at or near the entrance to the plant and distributed union cards
to the Respondents ' employees , and that George Noroian was aware of Crosswhite's
activities on the several occasions that he ordered Crosswhite off the Respondents'
property.
GEORGE NORIAN COMPANY 1129
of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or
to refrain f corn any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as permitted by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Permit employees, representatives, members, or any other per-
sons acting on behalf of said Union to distribute union-authorization
cards or literature at or near the gate or other means of ingress to
and egress from Respondents' property at all times reasonably neces-
sary for said purpose.
(b) Post at its plant at Dinuba, California, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents,
or their duly authorized representative, be posted by them imme-
diately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
Respondents have taken to comply therewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that Re-
spondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
Clarence B. Crosswhite and George S. Hawkins, in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and to the extent that it
alleges that Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees by any acts or conduct other than those found herein,
be dismissed.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case is before the Board upon the complaint of the General Counsel,
Issued November 2, 1951, against George Norolan and Archie Noroian, in-
dividually and as copartners , doing business as George Noroian Company, herein
s This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3 thereof
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," and substituting in lieu thereof
the words "A Decision and. Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant
to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called Respondents. Pursuant to notice , hearing was held on January 8, 9, and
February 12, 1952, at Fresno, California, at which all parties were represented
by counsel or a representative, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce relevant and material evi-
dence, argue orally, and file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions of law.
The General Counsel and Respondents' counsel argued orally on the record.
No briefs or proposed findings and conclusions have been tiled.
Copies of the charge and amended charge were duly served on Respondents ;
copies of the complaint, accompanied by a copy of the amended charge, and
notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondents and the Union.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act,'
since July 16, 1951, by engaging in various acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion, specifically, threats of reprisal and physical violence, surveillance of
union activities, and vilification and disparagement of the Union ; and by dis-
criminatorily discharging Clarence B. Crosswhite on or about July 16, 1951, and
George S. Hawkins on or about July 21, 1951, to discourage membership in said
Union.
Respondents' answer admits the allegations concerning the nature and extent
of their business, but denies generally the substantive allegations of the com-
plaint. Further answering, Respondents say that the employees involved are
agricultural employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3), as amended, and
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and, therefore, not sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
George Noroian and Archie Noroian, copartners doing business as George
Norolan Company, are engaged at Dinuba, California, in the business of canning
fruits and manufacturing candied fruits. During the calendar year ending
December 31, 1950, the Respondents sold canned fruits and candied fruits,
valued in excess of $400,000, of which approximately 50 percent was sold and
shipped from their place of business to points outside the State of California.
During the year 1951, slightly less than 50 percent of the fruit canned or proc-
essed was grown on Respondents ' orchards on which the cannery is located ; the
remainder consisted of fruit purchased from other growers. In the processing
of fresh fruit, the product is converted from its natural state and hermetically
sealed in cans. Candied fruit is manufactured by means of a secret process in
which the fruit is converted to a product similar to glaced fruit. In another
operation, edible portions of overripe fruit are salvaged, processed, and canned
for use as pie filling.
The cannery is located about a mile from the heart of Dinuba, and employees
are recruited from Dinuba, Fresno, and other surrounding towns in the valley.
Although the packing shed is operated throughout the year, the peach canning
season usually runs from the end of June to about the end of August, reaching
its peak about the middle of August, with a total complement of about 400 or
500 employees. Although Respondents contend that there is some interchange,
often daily, between employees on the "ranch," of whom as many as 40 or 50
' National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136).
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1131
have been employed at times, and the packing shed employees, separate pay-
rolls are maintained for each of these categories of employees. Ranch em-
ployees are under the separate supervision of a ranch foreman , who has no
authority over the cannery or packing shed employees. The latter are under the
supervision of a plant superintendent , whose authority over ranch employees
is limited to those making deliveries to the plant.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, the undersigned finds,
contrary to Respondents ' contention , that the cannery or packing shed employees
are not agricultural laborers within the meaning of the Act, and that Respondents
are, and at all times material herein have been, engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act'
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Cannery Food Processors, Cotton Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local
No. 97, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondents have been the subject of a prior unfair labor practice proceeding,
commenced by complaint issued April 14, 1950, based upon activities in which
they were alleged to have engaged in August 1949, when the Union engaged in
an earlier attempt to organize Respondents' employees. After hearing, Trial
Examiner Herman Marx issued his Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, in which he dismissed certain allegations of the complaint, but found that
Respondents had violated the Act in other respects by interrogating employees
concerning their union affiliation and activities, threatening to lay off, discharge,
or refuse to hire employees, and to blacklist them with other employers because
of their union affiliation or activities, and by discriminatorily discharging certain
employees to discourage membership in the Union. No exceptions were filed to
the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order and, on December 7, 1950,
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Act, the Board adopted the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner and entered its own
order accordingly. On November 28, 1951, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit entered a decree enforcing the Board's Order.'
The Union's efforts to achieve status as exclusive bargaining representative
of Respondents' employees have been unsuccessful , despite the fact that, accord-
ing to secretary-Treasurer William Fowler, the Union had secured about 180
signed authorization cards during the 1951 season , about 100 at the time of the
filing of the charge herein, among a group of Respondents' employees which Fow-
ler estimated to number between 175 and 190 at the time.
e See Imperial Garden Growers, 91 NLRB 1034. See also , George Noroian and Archie
Noroian , individually and as co-partners, d/b/a George Noroian Company , Case No.
20-CA-287 ( not reported), involving Respondents herein . In their answer in that case,
Respondents similarly asserted that their employees were agricultural laborers , and, hence,
exempt from the Act. The Trial Examiner there decided the issue adversely to Respond-
ents , and, no exceptions having been filed , the Board adopted the Intermediate Report
and Recommended Order , and entered its order accordingly. The Board' s order was
subsequently enforced by the court. N. L. R. B. V. George Noroian and Archie Noroian,
individually and as co-partners, d/b/a George Noroian Company, 193 F. 2d 172 (C. A. 9),
29 LRRM 2201. No evidence was adduced in the instant proceeding to warrant a different
conclusion.
' N. L. R. B. v. George Noroian , et al., individually and as co-partners d b/a George
)loroian Company, supra.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On the morning of July 17, 1951, as the female employees were returning from
their rest period, Floorlady Ola Trice, in charge of female production employees
at the cannery, and an admitted supervisor, engaged Edna Taylor and Ethel
Boatman' in a conversation in which she said that she understood that "some-
one" was distributing union cards and "talking Union" in the plant, and in-
structed Taylor and Boatman to furnish her with the names and addresses of
any employees whom they discovered engaging in such activity.'
There is no evidence that Taylor or Boatman carried out Trice's instructions.
Nevertheless, Trice's conduct in directing these employees to attempt to ascer-
tain, and report to her, who among Respondents' employees was distributing
union cards and "talking Union," even though they may have made no effort
to comply, constituted interference with the employees' right to self-organiza-
tion, "for the information sought could have been used by the Respondent[s]
for no other purpose but such interference. The fact that the [Respondents']
attempt did not succeed does not excuse the violation. The test is whether
[Respondents] engaged in conduct reasonably calculated or tending to inter-
fere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act."' Inasmuch, how-
ever, as the record fails to establish that Taylor or Boatman actually carried
* The status of Taylor and Boatman is in dispute, the General Counsel contending that
they are supervisors, Respondents maintaining that they are not. There are five canning
lines or belts at the plant, each of which is under the immediate supervision of a "fore-
lady," the designation used by Ivory Phillips, one of these five women, in her testimony.
The duties of these women consist of instructing and training women under their imme-
diate direction in the method of canning fruit, while performing the same operation them-
selves They punch the time cards of the women employed on their belts, and have
authority to transfer them to other operations on the line if they do not perform satisfac-
torily the job to which they have been assigned . These "foreladies" have no authority,
however, to hire, discharge, promote, grant time off, or effectively recommend such action,
or responsibly direct such employees, except in a routine manner. All such authority,
with respect to female help, is lodged in Floorlady Ola Trice, under the general supervision
of Respondent Archie Noroian. The "foreladies" are paid at an hourly rate of $1, the
generally prevailing rate for employees on the lines being 90 cents an hour. Taylor and
Boatman were employed as such "foreladies." Respondents assert that these "foreladies"
were permitted to vote in the Board-conducted election held sometime before the instant
proceeding. To the extent that it may be material to the issues herein, the undersigned
finds that these "foreladies" are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
This finding is based on the credible testimony of Nelda Lynch, a former employee and
union member , who had voluntarily left Respondents' employ on July 28, 1951, because
of an infected thumb. On the occasion in question, Lynch was returning to her station
when she overheard the conversation about which she testified. Although Trice, Taylor,
and Boatman all denied the statements attributed by Lynch to Trice, their denials were
unconvincing and appeared to be prompted by a sense of loyalty to their Employers rather
than a desire to furnish the facts. On the other hand, the undersigned has not overlooked
the possibility of bias or interest which Lynch may have had because of her union mem-
bership. Since Lynch was undoubtedly aware that she was probably jeopardizing her
prospects for future employment with Respondents by testifying, notwithstanding the
protection afforded by the Act, it is improbable that she would have been willing to testify
unless the conversation had actually taken place. Moreover, the statements attributed by
her to Trice are consistent with the pattern of interrogation, threats of blacklisting, and
general opposition to the organization of their employees, in which Respondents were found
to have engaged in the earlier proceeding, as well as with their subsequent conduct, later
discussed.
a Dixie Shirt Company, Inc., 79 NLRB 1271; Palmer Manufacturing Corporation, 94
NLRB 1477.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1133
out Trice's instruction, there is no basis for a finding that the Respondents en-
gaged in actual surveillance, as alleged in the complaint?
On or about July 18, 1951, according to Lynch's testimony, some 125 female
employees were congregated outside the plant near Archie Noroian's house wait-
ing to go to work 8 George Noroian arrived in his car and told the employees
that he wanted to talk to them. He began by stating that although "the fruit
was bad,"' he wanted to afford them as much work as possible. He spoke of
providing them with drinking fountains, clean rest rooms, and regular rest
periods, and then mentioned that he knew the Union was "trying to get in
again," though he failed to see why, since the employees had "voted it down last
year." During his remarks, he observed that the "Commissioner"-an ap-
parent reference to a field examiner of the Board-had expressed sympathy with
his position, but, Noroian said, "I know he was a liar, damn liar." He told the
employees that it would cost them $25 to join the Union, that the Union would
deprive them of all their privileges, and that they would have no voice in their
affairs Finally, he stated, according to Lynch, that he would close the plant
before he would deal with the Union 10
On about July 21, Lynch continued, the women were once again congregated
outside the plant near Archie Noroian's house, waiting to start work." George
Noroian came out of Archie's house and again addressed the group. Referring
to the difficulty he was having "getting the fruit in," he said that if they
would "stick to him," they would have work, that "they were going places,"
and pointed out that Respondents' cannery operated for a longer season than
any other in the area. He informed them that he had the complete backing of
a San Francisco bank, and assured them that there would be no more "trouble
about bouncing checks." He then asked the employees if they would prefer to
receive a raise then, with only 6 or 7 hours' work a day, or to continue at 90
cents an hour, with a guarantee of 12 hours' work. When the women declared
their preference for 12 hours' work, Noroian suggested a vote. An overwhelm-
'It may be noted that an employer's conduct in fosterine an impression among his
employees that he is engaging in surveillance of their union or concerted activities is no
less intimidatory than actual surveillance, and constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of the Act Knickerbocker Plastic Co, Inc, 96 NLRB 586,
28 LRRM 1570 ; Roxboro Cotton Mills , 97 NLRB 1359, 29 LRRM 1249.
8 Archie Noroian, one of the copartners, and a sister of George Noroian, resided in a
house located on company property.
9It is not clear what was meant by this remark-whether it referred to the quality of
the fruit, the state of the market, or business conditions generally.
^" According to Lynch, Norolan made this speech at about 7 a in., before the employees
started work for the day. Noroian, however, denied that he made any speech in the early
morning hours during the interval involved, although he admitted addressing the employees
outside the plant on two occasions, presently discussed, within a week of the date fixed
by Lynch. Both these speeches, according to him, were given during the noon luncheon
period, and the employees were paid for the time so consumed. Noroian denied that he
had uttered any threat, in either of his speeches, or, for that matter, at any other time,
to close the plant rather than deal with the Union. His denial , however, is not credited,
despite the attempted corroboration by Floorlady Trice, whose testimony was unconvincing,
suggesting an intent to absolve her Employer of any wrongdoing rather than to furnish
an impartial account of what had occurred Moreover, the threat attributed to Noroian
is consistent with Respondents' attitude of opposition to, and interference with, the
organizational activities of their employees, in which they were found to have engaged
in the earlier Board proceeding. The undersigned credits Lynch's testimony regarding
the statements made by Noroian in the talks to the employees concerning which she
testified. Although she was apparently mistaken as to the time of day this speech, and
the following one, were given, the undersigned finds that this did not adversely affect her
testimony.
11 Lynch placed the time as about 8 :40 a. in. The preponderance of the evidence,
however, indicates that this occurred during the noon luncheon period.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ing majority indicated their preference for the latter proposal . Noroian then
commented , "See. We don 't have to have anybody come in here and beat us
over the head to tell us what to do. If the Union had been in here it would
have taken three weeks to decide that, and it took us exactly three minutes."
On about July 25, Lynch testified , a group of women were having their lunch
in front of Archie Noroian 's house . George Noroian drove up with a Blue
Cross representative , whom he introduced to the employees . Noroian announced
that he was providing them with medical insurance , and added "Nobody is
knocking us over the head to do this either . We are doing this of our own
free will . I want you kids to have the best around here , and so we are bringing
in this insurance for you ." Suddenly , however, he checked himself and, turn-
ing to the Blue Cross representative , asked whether the insurance covered
seasonal employees . Noroian was told that it did not , and the matter was
apparently dropped.
Although Noroian denied that he had ever given a talk to his employees in
the morning before work , he testified that within a few days after July 20, 1951,
at noon, as the women were returning from lunch , he instructed Floorlady Trice
to "check the girls in," and have them report to the platform outside the
cannery. When they had assembled he asked them to express their preference
between working an 8-hour day , with two shifts, and a 12-hour day with one
shift , pointing out that , while the Company might be able to grant them an
increase in hourly rate on an 8-hour day , it would not be able to afford them
12 hours work at the increased rate , because it would be obliged to pay them
overtime at the rate of time -and-a-half for time worked in excess of 8 hours.
On the other hand, he explained , if they were willing to work at the existing rate,
the Company would afford them 12 hours work a day , paying them time-and-a-
half after 8 hours. In this way , he stated , they would be receiving more money
than they would if they were working 8 hours a day with an increase in hourly
rate. When the women expressed their preference for the latter proposal, he
suggested that they take a vote , and by a voice vote the proposal for the 12-
hour day was unanimously approved"
Noroian then told the women that some of them had been asking him "about
Unions," and explained that they were free to appoint a bargaining representa-
tive, but that this would mean that they would be hiring someone to deal with
him on their behalf concerning rates of pay, working conditions , and the like,
which they could accomplish by dealing with him directly . He said , according
to his testimony , that he had no objection to their appointing such representative,
and that if they wanted a union , he would not interfere with their wishes. He
volunteered , however, that he would never consent to a closed shop, that he was
opposed to it in principle , but assured them that there would be no discrimina-
tion against any of them for joining or refusing to join a union. Finally, he
told them not to be intimidated by him or anyone else-that the choice was
theirs , and that their right to work for the Company would not be affected by
their membership or nonmembership in the Union.
Before concluding his talk, he told the women that "efficiency in the plant [had I
left something to be desired ," and that because "we had had such a poor start
for the season ," he intended to utilize the coming workweek as the "work
incentive week," on which to establish the basic wage rate for the ensuing season.
The rate , he told them , would be determined by the average wage scale being
v The male employees were presumably not invited to listen to this talk because , accord-
ing to Norolan , he took it for granted that the men could stand a 12 -hour day, and he
wanted to impress upon the women the arduousness of a 12 -hour day , and ascertain
whether they would be willing to undertake it.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1135
paid in the industry, based on a published report of cost and production figures
for the canning industry in California.
Some 3 or 4 days later, Norolan testified, he gave another speech to the female
employees under substantially similar circumstances. Stating that employees
had reported to him that they had heard rumors that they might lose their jobs
if they did not join the Union then, and that if they delayed joining, they would
be required to pay higher membership fees, he undertook to allay their fears.
He said that he believed that the Union could no more discriminate against
them in regard to membership fees than the Company could discriminate against
them because of membership in the Union. Except for these two speeches,
Noroian denied that he addressed the employees on any other occasion during
the period in question.
In testifying concerning the two speeches he admittedly made, Noroian omitted
any reference to backing the Company had obtained from a San Francisco bank,
or to any difficulties with regard to "bouncing checks," as Lynch testified. Nor
did he deny the statement attributed to him by Lynch regarding his comments
about the field examiner who had visited him at the plant. The same is true
with respect to the failure to deny the incident regarding the offer of the Blue
Cross insurance, which was withdrawn almost immediately afterward. Although
perhaps not significant in itself, Lynch's credible and undenied testimony con-
cerning these remarks by Noroian lends plausibility and verisimilitude to her
testimony as a whole. Except for the fact that she was apparently mistaken
as to the time of day Noroian made two of his speeches, her testimony in all
other respects impressed the undersigned as accurate, credible, and convincing.
It is doubtless true that Noroian made the statements in his speeches to the
employees substantially as he testified. His statements regarding unions and
the absence of any need for a union in the plant, and his views on the closed
shop, were clearly protected under the Act as "views, argument, or opinion."
Had he been content to let matters rest there, he would not have transgressed
the Act. However, when he threatened to close the plant rather than deal with
the Union, he went beyond the permissible limits of free speech which the Act
ensures. In addition, it has been seen that Noroian offered the employees the
choice between a wage increase ( in an undisclosed amount) for an 8-hour day,
with no overtime, and the existing rate of pay for a 12-hour day, with time-
and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 8 hours" While the proposal accepted
by the employees entailed no increase in hourly rate, it did result in an increase
in their gross earnings. Thus, it is clear that this proposal or offer was tanta-
mount to a promise of benefit to the employees, and that Noroian, in offering it,
and the employees, in accepting it, so regarded it. Moreover, it should be noted
that implicit in this proposal was the threat that if the employees, by designating
a bargaining agent, succeeded in securing an increase in hourly rate, they would
be deprived of overtime work. On the other hand, the alternative proposal
of an increase in hourly rate, for an 8-hour day, was, by the same token, tanta-
mount to a promise of benefit. The question is whether, in making these pro-
posals, Norolan was doing so with the intention, understanding, or expectation
that the employees would renounce or forego their right to be represented by a
bargaining agent.
,13 Asked whether he had told the employees what the increased hourly rate would be for
the 8-hour day, Noroian testified, "well, we didn't get into that, but I did indicate that
even if they were getting $1 an hour (the existing rate then being 90 cents), that would
be but eight hours; $8 against $12 00. I hadn't gotten down to the fine points of what
we could afford to pay on an eight-hour basis."
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no evidence that Noroian made these proposals upon the express con-
dition that the employees renounce, or refrain from designating, the Union as
bargaining representative. On the other hand, the record discloses no assurances
by Noroian that the proposals were offered without regard to the employees'
decision regarding the selection of a bargaining representative. His announce-
ment that employees were free to join or refrain from joining a union without
fear of being deprived of their jobs, could hardly serve as assurance that the
benefits proposed would be forthcoming irrespective of whether they designated
the Union as their bargaining agent.
In the context of the speech, in which the proposals were made, the back-
ground of opposition to the organizational activities of the employees, the threat
to close the plant, and the antiunion conduct in which Respondents were found
to have engaged in the prior proceedings, the inference is justified that Noroian
made the offer with the expectation that the employees would abandon any
thought of selecting the Union as their bargaining agent, and that the employees
so construed his offer. Noroian's purpose in making the offer is epitomized by his
remarks, after the employees had been polled as to their preference, "See. We
don't have to have anybody come in here and beat us over the head and tell
us what to do. If the Union had been in here it would have taken three weeks
to decide that, and it took us exactly three minutes.""
It follows that, since the statements made by Noroian in his speeches con-
tained both a threat of reprisal and a promise of benefit, they are deprived
of their character as mere expression of views, arguments, or opinion, and are
violative of the Act.
The undersigned, therefore, finds, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire
record, that, by Floorlady Trice's conduct in instructing employees Taylor and
Boatman to report on the union activities of Respondents' employees ; by George
Noroian's threat to close the plant if the Union became the bargaining agent of
their employees ; by said Noroian's implied threat to deprive the employees of
overtime, while offering, alternatively, to grant them an hourly wage increase,
all for the purpose of prevailing upon them to refrain from designating the
Union as bargaining agent, Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1).
C Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
Clarence B Crosswhite was employed by Respondents from July 9, 1951, until
July 20, 1951, when his employment was terminated under circumstances later
described. He was first assigned to a job loading empty fruit boxes on trucks
for return to the orchards. On about July 12, he was transferred to a job inside
the cannery, "setting up" fruit at the belts where the women peeled, cut, and
prepared the fruit for canning. After several days he was again transferred,
this time to the cleanup job, which entailed removing accumulations of over-
ripe fruit, skins, and other waste resulting from the canning operation.
Crosswhite had been a member of the Union since 1945. On about July 12,
William Fowler, secretary-treasurer and business agent of the Union, furnished
Crosswhite with a supply of union-authorization cards for distribution among
Respondents' employees. Crosswhite solicited employees to sign cards before
work, during the noon hour, and after working hours. He distributed cards at
the entrance to the plant property on El Monte Way, some 75 or 100 yards
"These remarks could hardly have constituted "views , arguments , or opinion," since
they were an integral part of other unprotected remarks made at the time.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1137
from the cannery. He also furnished a supply of authorization cards to Steve
Talley, an employee who "set up" fruit, and George Hawkins, another employee,
who, like Crosswhite, is alleged herein to have been discriminatorily discharged.
Crosswhite and Business Agent Fowler met almost daily after July 12, op-
posite the entrance to the plant property, during the noon hour, at the latter's
office, in the evening, or in uptown Dinuba, when Crosswhite would turn over
signed cards he had procured. During the noon hour, Crosswhite also sometimes
visited a drive-in restaurant, about a half-mile from the cannery, which was
frequented by employees of the Company, and solicited employees to sign author-
ization cards. In all, Crosswhite succeeded in obtaining some 55 or 65 signed
cards, which he turned over to Fowler 16
During the same period, according to Crosswhite, he asked Floorlady Ola Trice
whether she had signed a union-authorization card. She told him that she had
not. Asked why, she replied, according to Crosswhite, that she could not sign
one because she could not "afford" to.16
On July 20, Crosswhite started work at 9 :15 a. in. According to him, he had
caught up on his regular chores, cleaning up the overripe fruit and waste prod-
uct from the canning operation, and, while waiting for more empty refuse
boxes, went over to help Talley who was setting up fruit for the women on the
line. He was talking to Talley, while filling partially empty boxes of peaches,
when Foreman Charles F. Sweeney approached him with the remark, "That
is enough of that kind of talk." Crosswhite asked, "What kind of talk:"
Sweeney then accused him of "talking Union to these boys." Crosswhite ad-
mitted to Sweeney that he had been doing so. The following is Crosswhite's
version of the exchange which followed :
Sweeney: We ain't gonna have no part of that.
Crosswhite : Well, I don't reckon that you would, but you done had part
of it.
Sweeney : Oh, you mess around with me, I will give you your time.
Crosswhite : When you do, you are going to give to it to me in full.
Sweeney: Never mind, you will get it in full. Come go with me.
Crosswhite : Well, I am ready to go if you have got my money.
Sweeney : You will get it.
Crosswhite accompanied Sweeney to the office, and on the way, according
to Crosswhite, Sweeney told him that Archie Noroian had instructed him to
fire anyone who had anything to do with the Union-that "she wasn't going to
have it." Sweeney stopped to punch Crosswhite's time card, took it into the
office, and, according to Crosswhite, tossed it on George Noroian's desk, stating
that he had discharged Crosswhite "for talking Union out there to these boys."
Crosswhite testified that Noroian told him to wait outside, and that he would
"get [his] time." Crosswhite left the office and, about 30 minutes later, Sweeney
brought him two checks, one for the preceding week, and the other for the cur-
rent week. With that Noroian came out of the office and ordered Crosswhite
off the company property.
When Crosswhite reached his car, he examined his checks and discovered
that he had been underpaid by 10 hours. He returned to the outer office and
called this to the attention of the bookkeeper, who rectified the error. While
there, according to Crosswhite, he encountered Noroian, who told him, "I thought
P Crosswhite himself placed the figure at 75 or 80 . The findings as to the lesser number
are based on Fowler's somewhat more conservative estimate.
19 Although Trice denied that Crosswhite had solicited her to sign a union card, her
denial is not credited.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I told you to get off my property and stay off." Crosswhite explained about
the discrepancy in his pay checks. Again Noroian ordered him off the property.
Crosswhite's duties on the cleanup detail consisted of putting out empty boxes
at the conveyor belts before operations began each day, so that the women
working on the line could dispose of the rubbish and debris which resulted
from the peeling and cutting operations. At one end of belts numbers 1 and 2,
sweeps or chutes were attached in such a way as to discharge refuse and debris
from the belts . It was part of Crosswhite's duty to provide empty containers
at these points to receive the debris. In addition, it was his job to see that
similar receptacles were provided at stations along the belts, into which the
women could deposit the waste.17 It was also Crosswhite's job to empty these
boxes or containers as they became filled to prevent overflowing of debris into
the aisles between the belts, and to see that boxes were available at all times
for this purpose. At the end of the day, Crosswhite was required to remove
all the boxes from the cannery floor, so that the night cleanup crew could "hose
down" the floor.
On the morning in question, according to Foreman Sweeney, he had observed
that, although boxes had been placed at the sweeps on belts numbers 1 and 2,
none had been provided on the lines where the women were stationed. He went
looking for Crosswhite, and found him talking to Talley near belt number 1;
Sweeney asked Crosswhite what he was doing away from his job, and ordered
him back to work. According to Sweeney, Orosswhite remarked that there
was no need for him to "get so rough about it," and told Sweeney that he had
had "a hell of a lot better job [before he had accepted the one with Respondents]
which he could go to." Sweeney retorted, "Well, now, if you don't start doing
your job, that is the job you are going to have to go to," adding that if Cross-
white did not "get on the ball," Sweeney would take him down to the office
and "give [him his] time." According to Sweeney, Crosswhite said, "Well, if
you pay me off, you'll pay me off in full." Sweeney countered, "Well, if you
get paid off, that is the way it will be-in full." Crosswhite rejoined, "Well,
write it out." With that, Sweeney took Crosswhite to the office, stopping en
route to punch Crosswhite' s card.
Sweeney denied that he had accused Crosswhite of "talking union" with
Talley, or that he had made any mention of union activities at the time. Al-
though Talley corroborated Crosswhite's testimony that Sweeney had made the
accusation, the lackadaisical and indifferent manner of his testifying did not
inspire credence. Moreover, the testimony of Crosswhite and Talley, attribut-
ing the statement to Sweeney, impressed the undersigned as too contrived to
be credible. In any event, even assuming that Sweeney did accuse Crosswhite
of "talking union" at the time, this does not, of itself, establish a discriminatory
motive in regard to Crosswhite's discharge.
Although Sweeney failed to deny categorically that he had told Crosswhite
that Archie Noroian had instructed him to discharge any union adherents,
Sweeney's testimony as a whole convinces the undersigned that such a denial
was intended. The undersigned finds that Sweeney did, in effect, deny the
statement which Crosswhite attributed to him on this occasion. On the basis
of his observation of the witnesses involved, an appraisal of their testimony,
and consideration of the realities of the situation, the undersigned regards it
highly improbable that Sweeney would have made such a damaging admission
17 According to Superintendent Virgil E. Neely, the Company employed during its peak
operation as many as 20 to 25 women on each belt (the women working on both sides of
the belts), consisting of cutters, ekinners , and canners . Most of the refuse, according to
Neely, resulted from the skinning operation. There were 3 or 4 skinners at each belt.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1139
under the circumstances revealed by this record. The statement which Cross-
white attributed to Sweeney on this occasion, as in other instances in which
he sought to attribute remarks of similar import to Sweeney, gave evidence of
having been contrived to fortify Crosswhite's claim of discrimination. On the
,basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, the undersigned finds that Sweeney
did not make the statement ascribed to him by Crosswhite on this occasion.
Crosswhite's further testimony, that he accompanied Sweeney into Noroian's
office and heard Sweeney state that he had discharged Crosswhite for "talking
union," is on the same plane as the testimony just discussed. Sweeney denied
that Crosswhite had accompanied him into Noroian's office. As a matter of fact,
Sweeney testified that he turned Crosswhite's time card over to the bookkeeper,
and that he himself did not see Noroian until later, when he presented the
checks to him for signature. Noroian testified that he never met Crosswhite
until his encounter with him outside the plant, discussed later, after Crosswhite's
discharge.
It is undisputed that Sweeney had complete authority to discharge Crosswhite
without consultation with Noroian, or even Superintendent Neely. There would,
therefore , appear to have been no reason for Sweeney to bring Crosswhite into
Noroian 's office, since , having already discharged Crosswhite, all that remained
to be done was to have his pay computed, and the pay checks issued, something
the bookkeeper could have done herself. Crosswhite admitted that he waited
outside in the plant for 30 minutes before Sweeney brought him his checks.
This is consistent with Sweeney's testimony that, after instructing Crosswhite
to wait outside, he left his time card with the bookkeeper in the outer office
so that she could make up his time, and that Sweeney himself did not see
Noroian until he brought him the pay checks to sign.
On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, the undersigned
concludes that Crosswhite did not go into Noroian's office with Sweeney, on the
occasion in question, and that he could not, therefore, have overheard Sweeney
make the statement to Norolan that he had discharged Crosswhite for "talking
union" to the men in the plant.
The record fairly establishes that Respondents were aware, prior to Cross-
white's discharge, that he had been actively engaged in soliciting membership in
the Union among the employees. The record discloses that he did so openly and
overtly, with no attempt at concealment, outside the plant as employees arrived
for work, during lunch period, after working hours, and, in some instances,
during working time. He turned over signed authorization cards to Business
Agent Fowler in the vicinity of the plant entrance, apparently in full view of
employees and others in the immediate area . Sweeney's testimony that he
never knew that Crosswhite had been distributing union cards is rejected.
Moreover, it has been found that Crosswhite had solicited Floorlady Trice to
sign a union card. It would be wholly unrealistic to believe that this informa-
tion did not reach Sweeney, or that it was not communicated to management.
Furthermore, in view of the comparatively small size and isolated location of the
plant, the relatively small complement of employees, and the circumstances re-
garding the Union's earlier attempts to organize, it would be unreasonable to
conclude that Respondents did not learn of Crosswhite's activities in recruiting
membership for the Union. The undersigned, therefore, finds that Respondents
were fully aware of Crosswhite's union activities prior to his discharge.18
Ps For the purpose of establishing knowledge by Respondents of union activity and, pre-
sumably, Crosswhite 's participation therein, the General Counsel offered evidence that
on or about July 15 , 1951 , Business Agent Fowler, while accompanied by Crosswhite and
Talley , solicited Ivory Phillips to sign a union card at the drive-in restaurant frequented
242305-53-73
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is also evident from the record, here, as well as the conduct in which they
were found to have engaged in the prior proceeding, that, despite their prot-
estations of neutrality, Respondents were opposed to the self-organizational
activities of their employees. This factor, however, is not in itself determinative
of whether, in discharging Crosswhite, Respondents were motivated in whole
or substantial part by his union activity, rather than by legitimate considerations.
It is undisputed that, on the morning in question, Crosswhite was away from
his job, ostensibly helping Talley "set up" fruit. Admittedly, this was no part
of Crosswhite's duties. Admittedly, too, he had been instructed by Sweeney to
remain at his own job. That Crosswhite and Talley may have been discussing
union matters at the time is, of course, no justification for Crosswhite's neglect
of his own duties.
Although Crosswhite maintained that he had finished his tasks at the time
he was helping Talley, the preponderance of the credible evidence does not
support him. Sweeney testified credibly that he was prompted to look for Cross-
white when, after a routine inspection, he observed that there were no boxes
available along the belts where the women were customarily stationed. Sweeney
further testified that on two previous occasions, between the time Crosswhite
was first assigned to the cleanup job, and the date of his discharge, Crosswhite
had failed to complete his work before leaving for the day. On the first occasion,
Crosswhite came to Sweeney at 4:30 or 5 o'clock, when the women had finished
their work for the day, and asked him to punch him out. Sweeeny asked him if
he had finished cleaning up. Crosswhite assured him that he had, and Sweeney
punched him out. Later, Sweeney discovered accumulations of rubbish and
debris on both sides of belt number 5.
Next day, Sweeney again came to him toward the end of the day, and asked
Sweeney to punch him out. Sweeney reprimanded him for having left his work
undone the day before. "Now, listen," he told him, "You have messed me up
one time already in punching you out, and then I find you have not got the
job done. Now, are you sure that the job is done now?" Crosswhite assured
him that it was, and Sweeney punched him out. On inspection, Sweeney found
that Crosswhite had, in fact, completed his work. The following day, when
Crosswhite went to Sweeney to be punched out, Sweeney again asked him if he
"was all cleaned up." On Crosswhite's assurance that he was, Sweeney punched
him out. Later, Sweeney found an accumulation of garbage or debris between
belts numbers 4 and 519
In addition, Sweeney testified that he had received a number of complaints
from Floorlady Trice and "Foreladies" Ivory Phillips and Lala Phillips, who
supervised the cutting of fruit, that Crosswhite was not "getting the stuff
moved," that the peels and debris were overflowing the boxes onto the floor. A
personal inspection by Sweeeny confirmed this. Sweeney reprimanded Cross-
white for his derelictions at least three times, told him that he knew what the
by employees of the Company. Phillips declined Asked at the hearing whether she had
reported the incident to the Company, she testified that, although she "could have men-
tioned it" to Floorlady Trice, she was unable to recall that she had done so, but that she
did not mention it to either of Respondents. Since, as has already been found, Phillips
was not a supervisor, knowledge which she acquired of union activities is not imputable
to Respondents Cf Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, 70 NLRB 41. In reaching the
conclusion that Respondents were aware of the union activities, and of Crosswhite's
participation therein, prior to his discharge, the undersigned has, therefore, not relied
on this evidence.
r19 Although Crosswhite denied these incidents , his denial was unconvincing and is not
credited Asked on rebuttal if he had left slop between belts numbers 4 and 5, he replied,
"If I did, I didn't know it."
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1141
job entailed , and said , "Let's get it done." Crosswhite replied , according to
Sweeney , "I'm doing it . I'll get it done." Ivory Phillips also testified that on
a number of occasions , Crosswhite had failed to supply empty boxes at her
station and that she found it necessary to procure them herself. According
to Lala Phillips , rubbish and debris overflowed the boxes occasionally, and it
was necessary to ask Sweeney to have the boxes removed. Both women test!-
fled that they complained to Sweeney, who promised that the condition would
be remedied . Once, according to Lala Phillips , Sweeney went looking for Cross-
white and brought him back with him.
Crosswhite denied that he had neglected his work , testifying that he per-
formed his duties competently and efficiently . He further testified that he had
never been reprimanded by Sweeney but, on the contrary , that Sweeney had
commended him for the manner in which he performed his work. Talley's
attempt to corroborate Crosswhite in this respect was no more convincing than
his testimony in other respects.
The undersigned is convinced, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire
record, that Crosswhite was not performing his duties on the cleanup job
properly or efficiently , and that, as a result of his neglect , accumulations of
debris overflowed the boxes , creating an unsanitary and hazardous condition.
The record also establishes that he had been reprimanded by his foreman on
several occasions , and that, although conditions were somewhat ameliorated
thereafter , he lapsed into his attitude of neglect.
It will be recalled, too , that Sweeney had twice changed Crosswhite 's assign-
ments within a period of several days, once , from loading empty boxes for return
to the orchards to the job of setting up fruit for the women on the cannery
belts, and, again , from the latter job to the cleanup job. Superintendent Neely
and Foreman Sweeney both testified that this was done because his work had
not been satisfactory on either of the former jobs , and that, in accordance with
company policy , they changed his job rather than resort to discharge . Cross-
white, on the other hand , denied that he had been reassigned because his work
had been unsatisfactory , testifying that this was done for the accommodation
of the company.
In connection with the job of setting up fruit, Sweeney testified that Cross-
white was slow, that he "just wasn 't putting it out ," that the women, who were
working at piecework rates, would call for fruit , but that Crosswhite would not
deliver it fast enough to keep up with their demands. Sweeney could not recall
whether he had discussed this with Crosswhite , but testified that he had reported
it to Superintendent Neely and , after discussing it with him, transferred Cross-
white to the cleanup detail . On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire
record , the undersigned finds that Crosswhite was transferred to his later jobs
because he had not been performing satisfactorily in his previous assignments.
Respondents ' willingness to experiment with Crosswhite on other jobs after he
had rendered unsatisfactory service in earlier jobs is a factor to be considered
in determining whether he was later discharged for discriminatory reasons.
Nothwithstanding that Crosswhite had provided Respondents with sufficient
grounds for discharge , it is apparent from Sweeney 's attitude when he first
approached Crosswhite , that he had no fixed intention of discharging him.
Sweeney 's evident purpose was to order Crosswhite back to his job. The re-
mark Crosswhite attributed to Sweeney , "That is enough of that kind of talk,"
may reasonably be construed as a reprimand to Crosswhite for being away
from his job. What followed suggests that the incident would have ended
with a reprimand had not Crosswhite , in effect, defied Sweeney to discharge him.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sweeney, mindful of Crosswhite's earlier derelictions and his neglect of duty
that morning, accepted the challenge.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, the undersigned finds that
Crosswhite was discharged because of his unsatisfactory work performance
and dereliction of his duties, hence, for cause, rather than because of his union
or concerted activities. While the case is not completely free from doubt,
the undersigned is not satisfied that the burden of proving that Respondents have
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Crosswhite to
discourage membership in the Union, has been sustained by the fair preponder-
ance of the evidence.
It is true that the record as a whole fairly establishes that Respondents
were opposed to the self-organizational activities of their employees ; that
Respondents had interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the
exercise of the right to engage in such activities ; had threatened their employees
with reprisals and offered them benefits to refrain from exercising such right.
The existence of discrminatory motive, alone, however, does not establish that
Respondents discharged Crosswhite to discourage membership in the Union
rather than for legitimate grounds. Indeed, it may be assumed that Respond-
ents welcomed the opportunity which Crosswhite had provided to eliminate an
ardent union adherent. However, it is axiomatic that neither Crosswhite's
union membership and activities, nor Respondents' antiunion attitude, afforded
him immunity from the consequences of his unsatisfactory work performance
and dereliction of duty. It will, therefore, be recommended that the allegation
that Respondents discharged Clarence B. Crosswhite because of his union
activities to discourage membership in the Union, be dismissed.
George S. Hwtvkimas, the other employee alleged herein to have been discrmina-
torily discharged, did not testify, the General Counsel representing that, at
the time of the hearing , Hawkins was residing in Arkansas.
According to Foreman Sweeney, Hawkins had been working for the company
4 or 5 days, setting up fruit, when he was discharged on July 21, 1951, for being
too slow and failing to follow orders. Superintendent Neely testified that
Sweeney had reported to him that Hawkins had been "arbitrary and lazy," though
apparently without specifying in what respects. Sweeney testified that he had
warned Hawkins twice that if he did not "get on the ball," he would be dis-
charged. At the time of Hawkins' discharge, he told him, "I have warned you
twice now that if you did not get on the ball and get the job done that you were
through. Now, I am fed up. I have had enough of it. This is it. Come on
down to the office and I will get your time for you." According to Sweeney,
Hawkins made no reply. Sweeney took him to the office, procured his pay check,
and terminated his employment.
Talley testified, however, that Hawkins had been working on the cleanup job,
"pulling slop," and that on the morning of his discharge, Hawkins had engaged
him in a momentary conversation, when Foreman Sweeney approached them
and asked Hawkins "what the hell he were [sic] doing standing around and
talking," adding, "If you don't go around there and go to work, I will carry you
to the office and get your damn time." According to Talley, Sweeney and Haw-
kins disappeared behind the belt, and he heard no more of the conversation.
That was the last day, Talley testified, that Hawkins worked for the Company.
The similarity between Talley's testimony with respect to Hawkins and the
evidence regarding the events immediately preceding Crosswhite's discharge is
readily apparent. It will be noted, however, that Talley made no claim in his
testimony regarding the conversation between Sweeney and Hawkins that Swee-
ney had made any reference to "union talk." It will be observed, too, that, ac-
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1143
cording to Talley, Hawkins had then been employed on the "slop" job, whereas,
according to Sweeney, who, as foreman, was doubtless better informed as to
Hawkins' duties, the latter had been employed setting up fruit. This leads to
the conclusion that Talley had apparently confused the circumstances sur-
rounding Crosswhite's discharge with those of Hawkins. Even on the basis of
Talley's testimony, however, it is evident that Sweeney had merely reprimanded
Hawkins for being away from his job, and no claim of discrimination can be
supported on the basis of Talley's testimony regarding this incident.
Shortly afterward, at about 10 o'clock that morning, Hawkins met Crosswhite
and Willis Martin, who were distributing union cards outside the entrance to
the plant Y° The men learned that Hawkins had been discharged . Soon after-
ward, as Foreman Sweeney drove out of the plant, Crosswhite urged Hawkins to
stop Sweeney and ask him why he had been discharged. Hawkins did not do so
then but when Sweeney returned, Hawkins stopped him and asked him the reason
for his discharge. According to Crosswhite, Sweeney told Hawkins that he had
been "talking Union to the boys there, and he had been warned and told to fire
any part of them for talking Union there at the cannery," adding, "If I had to
do it again, I would do it over." Hawkins, according to Crosswhite, remarked,
"That is what I thought," and Sweeney continued into the plant.
According to Sweeney , Hawkins asked him in rather strong language why he
had discharged him. Sweeney replied, "Just because you weren't doing your
job." Hawkins then remarked , "You're not ------ me" . . ., because I joined
the Union-that is the reason." Sweeney replied, according to him, "No it
doesn't make any difference to me whether you belong to the Union or don't be-
long, or what the score is anyway. I have nothing to do with that at all. As
long as you do your job, everything is all right. You weren't doing yours, and
anybody else that don't do their's [sic] they will be in the same boat that you
are." Hawkins rejoined, according to Sweeney, "You ain't kidding me, you dirty
son-of-a-bitch. I know what the score was."
Although Martin purported to corroborate Crosswhite's testimony regarding
this encounter, the testimony of both these men was unconvincing, and, as in
the case of similar remarks attributed to Sweeney, appeared to have been con-
trived to furnish a basis for a finding of discrimination. Crosswhite had already
been discharged by Sweeney, and his motive in testifying as he did is readily ap-
parent. The attempted corroboration by Martin is equally understandable.
The undersigned finds it difficult to believe that Sweeney was so naive as to make
the damaging admission attributed to him , in the presence of three witnesses, two
of whom he had only recently discharged. Sweeney's version of his conversa-
tion with Hawkins, in which the latter attempted, by means of self-serving state-
ments, to elicit from Sweeney an admission that he had discharged Hawkins
for discriminatory reasons , impressed the undersigned as more plausible , credi-
ble, and convincing. Sweeney's testimony is, therefore, credited.
In denying the statements attributed to him by Crosswhite and Martin,
Sweeney denied that he had stated to Hawkins that Respondents intended to
discharge every employee who joined the Union, and that he had been instructed
by Archie Noroian or any management representative to discriminate against
union members . The undersigned credits these denials.
There is, moreover , serious doubt that Respondents were aware, at the time
of Hawkins' discharge, of his activity on behalf of the Union. Business Agent
Fowler testified that he had supplied Hawkins with union -authorization cards
a° Martin , who had been employed by Respondents for 3 or 4 days shortly before, had
apparently quit his employment voluntarily.
22 Obscenity deleted.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about a week after furnishing Crosswhite with such cards, and that Hawkins
returned some 10 or 15 signed cards to him. Crosswhite, too, testified that he
had given Hawkins 12 or 15 cards the first or second day after the latter came
to work for the Company. According to Crosswhite, Hawkins turned over to
him 8 or 9 signed cards within a day after receiving them from him. Hawkins,
Crosswhite testified, delivered these cards to him privately, or tossed them
covertly into Crosswhite's car. Thus, the circumstances relating to Hawkins'
solicitation are insufficient to justify an inference that Respondents had knowl-
edge of his union activity.
On the basis of the foregoing, and on the entire record, the undersigned finds
that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proving that Hawkins
was discharged because of his union or concerted activities, rather than for cause,
and will, therefore, recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
D. Other alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint also alleges that, since on or about July 16, 1951, Respondents
have "threatened employees with physical violence if they did not cease handing
out Union application cards." This allegation relates presumably to several
episodes which arose out of Crosswhite's activities in distributing authorization
cards, and picketing at the entrance to the plant property.
Leaving the plant after his discharge, Crosswhite stationed himself at the
entrance to the driveway leading to the company parking lot, which he located
in his testimony as "on the road" outside the entrance gate." Soon afterward
(the record does not reveal the exact date), Crosswhite began to picket at the
driveway entrance, and continued to do so until the end of the season, late in
August or early in September.
According to Noroian, his first encounter with Crosswhite occurred at noon
of the day of his discharge, as Noroian was leaving for lunch" Norolan asked
Crosswhite what he was doing there. Crosswhite related the circumstances of
his discharge, admitting, according to Noroian, that he had been at fault and
expressing the wish that he had his job back. Noroian offered him some consola-
tion, but told him that he would not interfere with Sweeney's decision.
On his return from lunch, Noroian observed that Crosswhite was still there,
and that his car, which he had previously noticed had been "parked peculiarly,"
was still in the same place, in a "hazardous" position, too close to the "newly-
constructed highway." Noroian asked him what he was doing there. Cross-
white said that he was waiting to drive some of the women home. Norolan told
him that the women probably would not be through work until 3 p. in., and sug-
gested, with unwanted solicitude, that he wait for them in the city park where
he could escape the heat. Crosswhite apparently declined the invitation.
In the days which followed, Crosswhite continued to picket outside the plant
at the driveway entrance. According to Crosswhite, Norolan "bemeaned" him
for "working for the Union," and regularly ordered him off the property whenever
Norolan had occasion to drive in or out of the plant. On a number of occasions,
Crosswhite testified, Noroian attempted to run him down with his car, forcing
27 As the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the fence enclosing the parking
lot and the gate in the driveway were not actually erected until several days later, it is
apparent that Crosswhite was mistaken about the existence of a gate at the time It is
obvious that he intended to refer to the driveway entrance at which the gate was later
erected.
= Norolan , it will be recalled , testified that he had not known Crosswhite while be was
an employee of the Company.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1145
him to jump out of the way. On at least one occasion, according to Crosswhite,
Noroian actually ran over his foot.24
Tension between the men rose steadily, as Noroian insisted that Crosswhite
was trespassing on company property, and Crosswhite maintained that he was
on the public right-of-way. In this setting, Norolan declared at one time, accord-
ing to Crosswhite, "I run the Union out last year and I'm not going to have no
more of the God damn Union this year." Crosswhite observed, "You might be
mistaken. You don't know." To this, Noroian retorted that he would shut the
plant down before he would have a union. Crosswhite rejoined, "You might get
a chance to shut it down then." 3'
Crosswhite further testified that, during the next few days, Noroian, or em-
ployees under his direction , threatened him with physical violence. The exact
sequence of the events is not too clear , and is of no particular consequence. On
one of these occasions, according to Crosswhite , he was assaulted with a revolver.
The facts are substantially as follows. Noroian testified that he had instructed
James Brown, the day watchman, at least twice, to order Crosswhite away from
the company property. On the day in question, Noroian observed that Cross-
white was still on what Noroian contended was company property. He com-
plained to Superintendent Neely, and the two men approached Crosswhite, up-
braided him for trespassing on company property , and ordered him to leave.
Crosswhite denied that he was on company property. According to Noroian,
Crosswhite made some threatening remarks, and Noroian sent for Brown. When
he arrived, Noroian reprimanded him for not having carried out his instructions.
After making an uncomplimentary reference to Crosswhite, Brown stated that
Crosswhite had promised to leave, but had failed to keep his promise, and that
he was "tired of fooling with him."
Crosswhite, who had been trying to crank his Model A Ford, removed the
crank and advanced toward Brown, crank in hand. With that, Brown drew
his .38 caliber revolver from his holster, pushed it into Crosswhite's back, and
ordered him to drop it, saying, "I'll kill you in a minute." Crosswhite, undaunted,
remarked, "No, you won't. A man that will pull a gun, not smoking, won't use
it." When Brown threatened to take him downtown and have him locked up,
Crosswhite defied him to do so. Brown ordered Crosswhite to start his car and
leave . Noroian, Neely , and Brown then left , and Crosswhite left soon afterward
to get his supper.
When he returned about a half hour later, he found that some law officers
had arrived. Noroian, who had meanwhile returned, asked them to arrest
Crosswhite, but they declined. Crosswhite explained to Deputy Sheriff Hulsey
that Brown had threatened to shoot him unless he left the property, and that
Crosswhite then procured the crank from his car with which to defend himself.
Hulsey advised Crosswhite to file a complaint with the local judge. Although
Crosswhite testified that the officers had threatened to arrest Noroian if they
"[heard] any more of this," Hulsey denied that any such remark was made
in his presence. His denial is credited.
24 Deputy Sheriff Hulsey testified that while he was on El Monte Way near the plant
property, Crosswhite complained to him that Noroian had attempted to run over him the
day before , and offered to show him the tire marks made by Noroian 's car in support of
his claim . Hulsey concluded that the lapse of 24 hours since the alleged occurrence
rendered the evidence of the tire marks valueless and took no action.
25 Although Noroian denied making the statements attributed to him . by Crosswhite on
this occasion , they are consistent with similar remarks attributed to him by Nelda Lynch
in his speech to the employees , discussed earlier. Furthermore , they are consistent with
the pattern of opposition to the employees ' right of self-determination, as found in the
earlier, as well as the instant , proceeding. The undersigned finds that Norolan made the
remarks substantially as testified to by Crosswhite.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of these facts , it is reasonable to infer that , when Crosswhite
approached the men ," crank in hand , Brown justifiably concluded that Cross-
white intended to use it as a weapon against him. Brown 's act in drawing his
revolver , under these circumstances , was therefore not unreasonable . Whether
Crosswhite intended to use the crank or not , Brown's apprehension that he
might do so , in view of the heated remarks that had led up to the incident, was
warranted . This episode, therefore, can hardly furnish a basis for a finding that
Respondents , through Brown 's action , threatened Crosswhite with violence if
he did not cease distributing union cards.
Another incident to which Crosswhite testified occurred under the following
circumstances . According to Crosswhite , while he was picketing at his usual sta-
tion , Noroian drove his car out of the driveway in such a way as to force Cross-
white to jump out of the way to avoid being run down . Crosswhite , who had
provided himself with a camera , took a photograph of Noroian 's car at that in-
stant. Thereupon , Crosswhite testified , Noroian got out of his car and leveling
a .38 caliber revolver at him , threatened to "gut-shoot" him.
Noroian denied that he had deliberately attempted to run Crosswhite down,
on this or any other occasion , testifying instead , that Crosswhite habitually
jumped in front of his car whenever he drove out of the plant property. As for
drawing a revolver on the particular occasion , Noroian denied that he had such a
weapon on his person or in the car , or that he had owned such a peapon at the
time.
According to Noroian 's version of the incident , as he drove up to the gate,
Crosswhite appeared to be taking his picture . Noroian rolled his window down
and told him that the girls had been complaining that Crosswhite was taking
their pictures . Thereupon , without making reply , Crosswhite reached behind
him, brought out a bayonet " and brandished it at Noroian , cursing, and threat-
ening to kill him . Noroian immediately put his car into reverse and backed up
about 50 feet to the plant . As he reached there, Noroian noticed two boys leaving
work . He called to them and asked if they had seen Crosswhite draw a bayonet.
They said they had not . At Noroian 's request , they accompanied him to where
Crosswhite was standing . In their presence , Noroian accused Crosswhite of
threatening him with the bayonet , and asked the boys to search for it in Cross-
white 's car . Crosswhite , then and there, admitted that he had drawn the bayonet,
but accused Noroian of having drawn a gun first . Although Noroian character-
ized the charge as absurd , he insisted that the boys search his car for such a
weapon . They complied with his request, but found no weapon in Noroian's
car. They then searched Crosswhite's car and produced the bayonet, which
they left on the bumper of Crosswhite 's car. Noroian then returned to his office
and telephoned the law officers.
When Deputy Sheriff Floyd Hulsey arrived , soon afterward , Noroian related
what had occurred , and asked to have Crosswhite arrested . Hulsey informed
Noroian that the alleged offense constituted a mere misdemeanor , and that since
he had not witnessed the incident , he could not make an arrest . He advised
Noroian to apply to the district attorney for a complaint . At Noroian 's request,
he agreed , however, to ask Crosswhite to surrender the bayonet , and asked
Crosswhite whether he had threatened Noroian with a bayonet . Crosswhite
admitted that he had, but said that he had done so only after Noroian had
O° Crosswhite testified that Foreman Sweeney was also present on this occasion. Sweeney
denied that he was there. His denial is credited , and it is found that Crosswhite was
mistaken.
"Crosswhite testified that the bayonet was a Civil War relic, which had belonged to
his grandfather . Re had been using it, he testified , to dig a hole in which to set an
umbrella as protection against the sun, while he picketed.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1147
"pulled a gun" on him . Hulsey questioned Noroian about this, and the latter
denied that he even had a gun , and invited him to search his car. Hulsey de-
clined , saying that he did not think it necessary. He took the bayonet away with
him, but returned it to Crosswhite several days later.
Although Crosswhite admitted, under cross-examination, that he had wielded
the bayonet during the incident in question, he made no mention of this in his
direct testimony, leaving the impression that Noroian had drawn a revolver and
threatened to "gut-shoot" him, apparently without provocation. Crosswhite's
failure to mention the bayonet, until pressed to do so on cross-examination,
reflects adversely on his testimony concerning the entire episode. Furthermore,
Noroian 's denial that he had a revolver in his possession at the time, the evidence
regarding the search of Noroian's car by the two boys almost immediately
afterward, which revealed no sign of a weapon, and Deputy Sheriff Hulsey's
testimony that , although he made no search, he was satisfied that Noroian had
no weapon in his possession , convinced the undersigned that Crosswhite's testi-
mony as to this episode is unreliable. Crosswhite's insistence that the expression
"gut-shoot," was actually used by Noroian, when he is alleged to have threatened
him, casts further doubt on his testimony. While suited to Crosswhite's own
manner of speech, the expression struck an incongruous note when attributed
to Noroian.
The undersigned is impelled to conclude, on the basis of the foregoing, and the
entire record, that Crosswhite was the victim of an overactive imagination or
of wishful thinking, when he asserted, at the time of the incident, and in his
testimony at the hearing, that Noroian had threatened him with a gun on the
occasion in question.
There can be no doubt of the intense hostility which existed between Noroian
and Crosswhite as shown by their various encounters. On Crosswhite's part,
it was undoubtedly engendered by the fact that he felt that he had been unlaw-
fully discharged. This, in turn, fortified his determination to pursue his union
activity outside the plant. On his part, Noroian testified, he was concerned only
with the fact that Crosswhite was trespassing on company property. Since,
according to Noroian, Crosswhite was no longer an employee of the Company,
Noroian regarded that Crosswhite had no right to be there. With due allow-
ance for the mutual antagonism between these men, and their unyielding determi-
nation to assert to the fullest what they believed to be their respective rights, it
is evident that Noroian's hostility stemmed in substantial part, at least, from his
opposition to the self-organization of employees, and his intention to prevent
Crosswhite from distributing union cards at the entrance to the plant property.
The preponderance of the evidence, however, fails to support the allegation
that Respondents resorted to physical violence to accomplish this end.
The undersigned regards it unnecessary to make any finding as to whether
the situs at which Crosswhite engaged in the distribution of union cards was,
as Noroian contended, private property of the Company, or, as Crosswhite main-
tained, part of the public highway. This controversy stemmed from the fact
that Noroian claimed to own a 15-foot strip between the edge of the public
highway and a line of highline or telephone poles, admittedly on company prop-
erty. Although Noroian had negotiated with the county for the sale of this strip,
the transaction he testified had never been consummated. The record is incon-
clusive as to this issue, and the undersigned regards it unnecessary to resolve it
in deciding the issues here. For, even if it be assumed that Crosswhite was
actually on company property while distributing union cards, this, alone, would
affor" Respondents no justification for interfering with his union activities.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It should be noted that Respondents did not then, and do not now, rely, in
justification of Norolan's conduct, on the existence of any company rule pro-
hibiting the distribution of union or other literature on company property but,
instead, stand on what they maintain to be a superior property right. Even
if such a rule had been shown to exist, moreover, it would have afforded no
justification for such prohibition with respect to union literature in the circum-
stances revealed by this record. The evidence establishes that Respondents'
plant is located in a relatively isolated area about a mile from the city of
Dinuba ; that their employees reside in widely separated areas throughout the
valley ; and that the only effective means of communication between the Union
and these employees is at or near the entrance to the company property.
As the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held, "It is not
every interference with property rights that is within the Fifth Amendment
and . . . Inconvenience or even some dislocation of property rights, may be
necessary in order to safeguard the right to collective bargaining." The Board
has frequently applied this principle in decisions involving varying sets of cir-
cumstances, where it has held that the employer's right to control his property
does not permit him to deny access to his property to persons whose presence is
necessary there to enable the employees effectively to exercise their right to
self-organization and collective bargaining, and in those decisions which have
reached the courts, the Board's position has been sustained. Similarly, the
Board has held that, while it was "within the province of an employer to pro-
mulgate and enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation during working hours,"
it was "not within the province of an employer to promulgate and enforce a rule
prohibiting union solicitation by an employee outside of working hours, although
on company property," the latter restriction being deemed an "unreasonable
impediment to the exercise of the right to self-organization." 28
It is, therefore, found that by Noroian's conduct in attempting to prevent
or interfere with the distribution of union cards at or near the entrance to com-
pany property, Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Act, thereby violating
Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
One further incident may be mentioned in conclusion. On about July 27,
1951, Business Agent Fowler, accompanied by Emery Mitchell, president of the
Union, called at the plant and attempted to see George Noroian. The receptionist
told them that he was on the phone, and asked who was calling. They identi-
fied themselves by name. She went into Noroian's private office, and, returning
presently, told them that Noroian was busy and did not care to see them. Mitchell
asked her whether Noroian was refusing to bargain with them. She said that
he had not said so. Fowler then requested that she inform Noroian that they
represented a majority of the employees, and wanted to discuss collective bar-
gaining with him. She left, and returned soon afterward with Superintendent
Neely.
He asked them if there was anything he could do. Fowler repeated that they
represented a majority of the employees and wanted to talk to Noroian. Neely
then stated, according to Fowler's undenied testimony, that Noroian was not
interested in seeing them, that he had nothing to say to them, and had instructed
him to tell them to "get their 29 off his property."
21 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R. B. and N. L. R. B. v. Le Tourneau Company
of Georgia, 324 U. S. 793, 803, quoting, with approval , 54 NLRB 1259-60; see also,
Caldwell Furniture Company , 97 NLRB 1501 , and cases cited.
w Obscenity deleted.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1149
Although the original charge, filed August 6, 1951, alleged a refusal to bargain
on or about July 25, 1951, the complaint contained no such allegation. As a
matter of fact, Fowler conceded that, as a result of a card check made by a
field examiner of the Board late in August, it was determined that the Union
did not represent a majority. Evidence of the incident described above was
offered solely to establish further interference, restraint, or coercion by Respond-
ents. Although the remarks are some measure of the extent of Respondents'
hostility to the Union, and of their opposition to the right of self-organization
of their employees, they were made to union organizers, outside the presence
of rank-and-file employees" It may be argued that Neely 's remarks were un-
doubtedly conveyed by the union representatives to the rank-and-file employees
but, under all the circumstances, the undersigned concludes that the remarks
did not constitute interference with, restraint, or coercion of the employees in
their right of self-organization.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondents described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flaw of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices. It will, therefore, be recommended that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, which the undersigned finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It is apparent from the entire record, and the illegal activities in which
Respondents have engaged, that there is danger of the commission in the
future by said Respondents of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act. In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
and to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will also be recommended that
Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
of employees guaranteed by the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by a valid agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Cannery Food Processors, Cotton Warehousemen and Helpers Union,
Local No. 97, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By instructing employees to report the union activity of other employees ;
threatening their employees with reprisals for, and by promising them benefits
to refrain from, engaging in union activities protected by the Act, and by
attempting to prevent, and by interfering with the distribution of union cards
*0 The undersigned has not overlooked the presence of the receptionist on the occasion
in question , and the possible effect of Neely's remarks on her, but concludes, in the
absence of evidence as to her exact status, that these factors are not determinative of
the issue.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at or near the entrance to company property, thereby interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondents have not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Clarence B. Crosswhite and George S. Hawkins to discourage
membership in a labor organization, and have not, except to the extent found
above, otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to report the union activity of other
employees ; threaten our employees with reprisals for, or promise them
benefits to refrain from, engaging in union activities protected by the Act,
and we will not prevent or interfere with the distribution of union cards or
literature at or near the entrance to company property.
WE wILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist CANNERY FOOD PROCESSORS, COTTON WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 97, AFL, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL permit employees, representatives, members, or any other persons
acting on behalf of said union to distribute union-authorization cards or
literature at or near the gate or other means of ingress to and egress from
Respondents' property at all times reasonably necessary for said purpose.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of CANNERY FOOD
PROCESSORS, COTTON WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL. No. 97, AFL, or
any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in, or activity on behalf of, any labor organiza-
tion, or the absence of any such membership or activity.
GEORGE NOROIAN AND ARCHIE NOROIAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND As CO-PARTNERS,
d/b/a GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY
Employer.
Dated ----------------- By ------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.