Glover Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 547 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

GLOVER PACKING CO. 547
Glover Packing Company and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Lo-
cal 391 , AFL-CIO. Case 28-CA-2160
June 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY
(d) Granting its employees economic benefits with-
out first giving notice, and an opportunity to bargain,
to the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work-
men of North America, Local 391, AFL-CIO, as cer-
tified bargaining representative of its employees.
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Ex-
aminer's notice.
APPENDIX
On March 29, 1971, Trial Examiner Martin S. Ben-
nett issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an answer-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions,
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby or-
ders that Respondent, Glover Packing Company, Ros-
well, New Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following sentence for section 1(d)
of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order:
The Trial Examiner, in the "Order" section of his Decision, recom-
mended, inter aha, that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
granting its employees economic benefits at a time when a labor orgamza-
tion is seeking to represent them. As the Charging Party was certified by the
Board on June 22, 1970, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, we have modified
the recommended Order to reflect this fact
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against
employees because they have presented grievances
or engaged in protected concerted activities under
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make whole John Clements for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of our discrimination
against him.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from and completely disestablish Improve-
ment Committee of Glover Packing Company, or
any successor thereto, as the representative of any
of our employees for the purpose of dealing with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work.
WE WILL NOT create a labor organization to
avoid bargaining with a labor organization duly
selected by our employees.
WE WILL NOT grant our employees economic
benefits without first giving notice, and an oppor-
tunity to bargain, to the Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Lo-
cal 391, AFL-CIO, as the certified bargaining
representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act.
GLOVER PACKING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
191 NLRB No. 102
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 7011 Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse,
500 Gold Avenue, P.O. Box 2146, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87101, Telephone 505-843-2555.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S. BENNETT, Trial Examiner: This matter was
heard at Roswell, New Mexico, on January 12 and 13, 1971.
The complaint, issued October 16, subsequently amended
and based upon charges filed August 18 and September 2,
1970, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, Local 391, AFL-CIO, herein the Union,
alleges that Respondent, Glover Packing Company has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act. Briefs have been submitted
by the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Glover Packing Company is a New Mexico corporation
maintaining its principal office and place of business at Ros-
well, New Mexico, where it operates a packing house, pro-
cesses meat and sells meat and meat byproducts valued in
excess of $500,000 per annum . Respondent also purchases,
transports, and receives livestock and packaged meat valued
in excess of $50,000 per annum directly from States of the
United States other than the State of New Mexico. I find that
the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, its Local 391 , herein the Union, and
Improvement Committee of Glover Packing Company are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
act.'
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the Issues
The General Counsel attacks certain conduct by Respond-
ent which took place in the context of a representation case
and an earlier unfair labor practice hearing . An election was
conducted in Case 28-RC-1966 on November 7, 1969, in a
unit of Respondent's production and maintenance em-
ployees, including truckdrivers and shipping clerks, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees , guards, watchmen, and
supervisors. A majority of the electorate voted in favor of
representation by the International.
Respondent filed timely objections on November 17, 1969,
to conduct allegedly affecting the election and, on March 6,
1970, the Regional Director for Region 28 issued a report
recommending that said objections be overruled and that the
International be duly certified. On March 30, 1970, Respond-
ent filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director 's report.
The conduct attacked herein took place largely after the issu-
ance of said report. On June 12, 1970, the Board issued its
decision adopting the Regional Director 's findings, conclu-
I The various names of the last labor organization and its genesis are
discussed below.
sions, and recommendations and certified the International as
bargaining representative of the employees in the above-
described unit.
Administrative notice is also taken of the decision in Glover
Packing Company, 187 NLRB No . 64, wherein the Board on
December 24, 1970, concluded that Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by refusing on and after June 22, 1970, to
bargain with the International for the same unit. Respondent
in essence attacked in that proceeding, as well as here, the
validity of the June 12, 1970 , certification of the Union. At
issue herein is the alleged creation of an independent labor
organization , the discharge of employee J. W. Clements,
threats to Clements upon his rehire, the granting of a wage
increase , and individual bargaining with female employees.
B. Formation of the Independent
The evidence herein is largely stipulated and there is little
dispute. President Homer Glover of Respondent decided on
or about May 1, 1970, to form an employee committee. Ac-
cording to Glover, Respondent had encountered problems
with the quality of its products and he desired to ascertain the
views of the rank-and-file employees in an effort to improve
same. As Glover put it, he had not achieved meaningful
communication with his foremen in this area . While the evi-
dence is not in great detail, the record discloses the following
and, more particularly , that this committee became more
than a conduit of employee views on quality control of the
product.
On or about May 15, Glover directed Plant Superintendent
J. D. Tays to instruct the respective foremen that the em-
ployees of each department were to select representatives to
meet with management concerning this problem . This was
duly accomplished during working hours without loss of pay.
The record discloses the following as to the actual selection
of the committee. Supervisor George Mendoza of the packing
department told the employees therein , according to the un-
controverted testimony of employee Gail Pope which I credit,
that there was to be an election to select members for a
committee to make the plant a "better place to work." By a
show of hands , Pope and two others were elected, in the
presence of Mendoza, as the representatives of the depart-
ment.
Similarly , Supervisor Frank Jiminez of the shipping de-
partment told the employees therein on or about May 15,
according to the uncontroverted testimony of Raul Estrada,
which I credit , that one of them was to be elected to attend
a meeting with President Glover . Ballots were distributed by
an assistant foreman and counted . Estrada was elected and
the assistant foreman turned in the results of the election to
Jiminez . Supervisor Bobby Long of the pork room told em-
ployee John Clements , according to the uncontroverted tes-
timony of the latter which I credit, that President Glover was
forming a committee to hear "gripes" and that the depart-
ment was to choose a representative. Clements was duly
elected , all this in the presence of Supervisor Long.'
Likewise, Ernesto Armendariz of the fabricating room un-
controvertedly testified, and I find, that Foreman Bob Coker
told the department on or about May 15 that President
Glover was appointing a committee and wanted them to
choose a representative . Armendariz was one of two candi-
According to Glover, he instructed Tays to tell the foremen that they
were not to be present during the balloting. He later discovered that Tays
had not carried out these instructions to the letter. There was never an
expression to rank and file employees that Tays had exceeded his mandate
and Respondent is accountable therefor while Long did not vote, he was
present when the choice was made of Clements.
GLOVER PACKING CO. 549
dates and was elected by a show of hands in the presence of
Foreman Coker.
Respondent has directed attention to the fact that the com-
position of the unit exceeded or contained representatives for
more departments than those included in the large unit duly
certified by the Board. Obviously, this would not be a signifi-
cant factor in determining whether Respondent engaged in
unlawful conduct in the creation of the Independent. Be that
as it may, Rachel Newman of the billing department uncon-
trovertedly testified, and I find, that Head Bookkeeper Roy
Knight informed the members of that department that they
were to select a representative. By voice vote, Newman was
chosen in the presence of Foreman Dan Fondy. She was not
advised as to the purpose of the committee.
Another noncertified unit employee was similarly selected.
Ada Batho is one of eight clerks in the payroll department
under Knight. Knight announced to them that they were to
select a representative and Batho was selected with no man-
agement representatives present. A consideration of what
took place at the first meeting of this committee with manage-
ment on May 28, described below, sheds considerable light on
its alleged status as a labor organization and the purpose of
its creation.
According to Glover, he told the 12 to 15 employee repre-
sentatives that they were there to discuss problems Respond-
ent was encountering with its products, but they were free to
speak up and he would be "glad to listen to anything they
wanted to bring up." As will appear, topics other than quality
of the product were raised and discussed.
Glover announced at the outset that he did not wish to
discuss wages.' Representatives Gail Pope and Ernesto Ar-
mendariz testified in substantial agreement, and I find, that
Glover announced that he considered this to be an improve-
ment committee to improve the plant and working conditions
and to improve relations between employees and himself. The
two clerical nonunit employees, Rachel Newman and Ada
Batho, similarly testified on behalf of Respondent that Glover
told them they were to discuss their problems department by
department.
Glover then turned to each representative and asked an
expression of views; there is little conflict in the testimony.
Gail Pope of the packing department, as she testified, stated
that her department needed more or better mechanics to keep
their machinery in repair. Glover replied that Respondent
would get to this later. As with the instances discussed below,
he did not state that the topic was beyond the purview of the
meeting.' Pope brought up the case of a discharged female
employee. Glover asked if she was familiar with the facts and
stated that he intended to speak with the woman because
there apparently had been a misunderstanding.
Jimmy Pope, the son of the former and also a delegate,
pointed out that shipping department personnel were not
receiving sufficient hours but could get in their time by per-
forming tasks in other departments. It was suggested that this
could be done for others similarly affected. Glover responded
that this was a good idea. Raul Estrada of the shipping de-
partment testified, and I find, that Glover asked him how his
department was performing. Estrada complained that their
' John Clements, a delegate to the meeting whose discharge is discussed
below, had told Glover earlier that day that Respondent would lose some
of its top butchers if wages were not increased. Glover replied that Respond-
ent was working on this and asked that Clements not bring up the topic at
the meeting that afternoon. Clements had been asked by members of his
department to raise the topic of wages when a meeting was held.
Except when Clements later raised the topic of wages.
hours had been cut due to the use of new conveyors; Gail
Pope corroborated Estrada herein.
There was corroborative testimony by a number of wit-
nesses as to the participation of committeeman John Cle-
ments who was manifestly more outspoken than the others.
Clements testified, and I find, that there was an employee in
the kitchen who told Clements that he was a qualified com-
puter operator; that he allegedly had sought such work from
Head Bookkeeper Roy Knight; and that Knight merely kept
telling the man, unnamed herein, to return at a later date.
Clements opined that Knight was giving the man "the run
around." This angered Glover who told Clements not to
discuss matters he was not familiar with. According to
Glover, he said he would look into this. Clements' interest
was bottomed upon an alleged error in his check by the
incumbent operator.
There were other exchanges between the two. Clements
and Glover agree that this topic came up several times during
the meeting although they differ as to which kept returning
to it. I agree with Glover that Clements did so because of the
format where Glover was seeking expressions from the rank
and file.
On one occasion, Clements made reference to some people
who were receiving on-the-job training, pointing out that this
created additional work for the older employees who were
dissatisfied with this arrangement. Glover responded that the
older employees would have to get along with this other
group. Clements and Glover agree that at one point Clements
raised the topic of wages. Gail Pope agrees with Clements,
and I find, that Glover, a man of spirit, stated that Clements
"griped" too much. Clements responded that this was the fact
and it usually was about wages. Glover in turn said that even
a $4 wage rate would not satisfy Clements, adding that the
meeting was not about raises. According to Glover, Clements
kept coming back to the topic of a new man for the computer,
and, in this context, again made an oblique reference to
wages; Glover was unwilling to discuss wages on this occa-
sion because of the pending representation case.
At one point, apparently earlier in the meeting, Glover
suggested that the group have a name, and proposed, accord-
ing to Pope, "best efforts committee." According to Armen-
dariz Glover suggested that they be called the "Improvement
Committee." As Newman testified, Glover suggested that
they choose a name, none was forthcoming and Glover sug-
gested "Better Efforts Committee." Batho recalled that
Glover suggested the choice of "Best Efforts Committee" for
the near term.' Glover adjourned the meeting and it was
apparent that he was angry; as will appear below, he dis-
charged Clements about 1 hour later.
In sum, Respondent created this committee and directed
the selection of its members. At its initial meeting, he en-
dowed it with a name. Granted, Respondent may have had
motives relating to improvement of its product, but it is mani-
fest that the committee was brought into existence, met with
Respondent during working hours and existed, in part at
least, to deal with Respondent concerning hours of employ-
ment, working conditions and general grievances. This is
demonstrated by the fact that Respondent listened without
objection to a number of grievances and complaints in this
precise area on May 28.
The creation of the committee at a time when Respondent's
objections to the recommendation of the Regional Director
for certification of the Union were pending before the Board
warrants the conclusion that this was done in an effort to
displace the Union as the collective-bargaining representative
' All these described in the complaint as "Improvement Committee of
Glover Packing Company."
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the employees. I find that by the foregoing Respondent has
dominated and interfered with the formation and administra-
tion of a labor organization within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. See 'N..L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon
Company,, 360,,U S. 203:. American President Lines v.
NL.R.B., 340 F.2d 490 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. Chardon Tele-
phone Co., 323 F.2d 563 (C.A. 6); Tuscarora Plastics Co., 167
NLRB 1059; and Illinois Marble Co., 167`NLRB 1011. I
further find, as urged by the General Counsel,ithat the crea-
tion of the Independent and subsequent bargaining with itin
the context of seeking a second election and rejection of. the
Union, was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
C. The Discharge and Rehire of John Clements'
About 1 hour after the meeting on the afternoon of May
28, according to Clements, he was summoned to the front
office . Present was an impressive array of management, in-
cluding Glover, Plant Superintendent Tays, Secretary-
Treasurer William Wingfield and about four other super-
visors.
Glover told Clements, according to the latter and I so find,
that he had checked on.the boy in the kitchen and had ascer-
tained that he was not qualified on computers. He reminded
Clements that he had asked him that morning not to bring
up the topic of wages at the afternoon meeting and that
Clements had disobeyed him. Using rather explicit profanity,
Glover called Clements a "trouble-maker" who had wanted
a union and suggested he go to the Union for pay raises.
Clements protested the use of the profanity and Glover re-
sponded that he would talk to him as he chose. Glover then
stated that Clements was, discharged and directed Tays,to
fetch his check. Tays did so and I find that Clements was
discharged on the spot.
Glover in essence admitted the incident, although he dis-
puted some of the profanity. His admitted reason was that
Clements had brought up the topic of wages, at the May 28
meeting, contrary to Glover's express wish, and had needled
him at the meeting on the proposed assignment of the kitchen
man to' the computer.
On the morning,of June 8, in response to a wire, from
Respondent, Clements returned to work. Shortly thereafter,
he was summoned to the office of Glover. They exchanged
greetings and Glover then stated, according to Clements, that
he was to go back to work. He was to do his job and not talk
to anyone and they would thus get along well "Otherwise, we
will part company immediately."_ Glover admitted telling
Clements upon his return to keep his mouth shut and not to
cause any trouble, else they would part ways again. He added
that he had in mind Clements' talking during working hours.
However, Clements' talking, on this recrod, took place in the
context of protected concerted activity at the May 28 meeting
where he stated his views in response to management's re-
quest and there is no evidence that the cause of his discharge
was anything other than his participation in that meeting. I
so find. Furthermore, his conduct does not remotely amount
b Although Respondent in its answer did not dispute that Clements was
a rank-and-file employee, it attempted to show that he was a supervisor or
assistant foreman The record shows only that he filled in for Foreman Long
of his department when the latter was on vacation or ill, earning $2.25 an
hour or $90 for a 40-hour week as contrasted with Long's salary of $190 a
week Clements punches a timeclock unlike Long, and there is no evidence
that he ever recommended the hinng or firing of employees or has responsi-
bly directed them. At best, he most sporadically assumed the duties of a
foreman The evidence preponderates that he was not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act See N.L.R.B. v Magnesium Casting Company, 427
F 2d 114 (C.A. 1) affd February 23, 1971.
to gross misconduct or offensive insubordination so as to
warrant this major discipline.
To sum up, I find on a clear preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent discharged Clements on May 28, 1970, be-
cause of his engaging in protected concerted activities,
namely, discussing working conditions with his employer,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, I find that although
Respondent adequately,t6lled4its backpay liability,,on June 8,
Glover's statement to Clements upon his rehire was clearly
a mandate not to present grievances or protest concerning
working conditions upon penalty of discharge. This, too, I
find was violative -of his Section 7 rights and was therefore
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
D. The Wage Raise8
The General Counsel has contended that Respondent
granted a general wage increase in June 1970 and that this
was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The record
discloses that Respondent has no set policy concerning the
granting of wage increases . There is no plan or system as to
the granting of regular periodic wage increases except for the
granting of a raise to employees who have served a 90-day
probationary period. In March 1963 Respondent granted a
general wage increase; some 3%years later, it granted another
in September 1967. The increase under consideration herein
was granted on June 1, 1970, 4 days after the May 28 meeting
described above and was applied also the nonunit exclusions.
Although the evidence is not the fullest, the General Counsel
directs attention to the following:
(1) There is evidence that the 1963 and 1967 increases were
disclosed to the employees initially when their paychecks
reflected them. The 1970 increase was announced to the em-
ployees on that date by various supervisors.
(2) Secretary-Treasurer Wingfield of Respondent testified
that although Respondent's fiscal year ends at the end of
April, this is not a factor in the granting of increases. Around
the middle of April, management commenced discussions
concerning the possibilities of an increase; ultimately, a deci-
sion was reached late in May to grant the increase on June
1.
(3) This ties in with the formation'of the Independent in
May and the initial' meeting on May 28 between Respondent
and the Independent.
(4) The raise was granted after the Regional Director, on
March 6, 1970, recommended the International be certified,
and Respondent's exceptions to that recommendation seek-
ing another election were pending before the Board as of June
1.
(5) On the face of Glover's testimony that he was unwilling
to discuss wages at the May 28 meeting because of the pend-
ency of the election campaign, Respondent then proceeded to
do much more and unilaterally granted the increases on June
' While it could be argued that the discharge was also violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, I deem this a redundant finding productive of an identical
remedy and do not pass thereon Also, I see no basis for the General
Counsel's further contention that Clements' discharge was also violative of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
8 Respondent has admitted and I find that all hourly paid production and
maintenance personnel including truckdrivers and shipping clerks, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act While Respondent has challenged the
validity of the November 1969 election, I deem the Board's decision in Case
187 NLRB 164, described above, to be res adjudicata and dispositive of the
issue I find that at all times material herein the Union has been and now
is the representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate
unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
GLOVER PACKING CO. 551
1. Aversion to discussion of the topic on May 28, followed by
the granting of the increases on June 1, simply do not recon-
cile with each other.
(6) Further evidence and motivation is shown in Glover's
talk with Clements when he was discharged on May 28. This
was the occasion when he told Clements as an ostensible
union advocate to go to the Union for "those raises." As the
General Counsel points out, Respondent thereby connected
the raise-to _the Union. The inference is warranted that the
1970,raise was. conneeted,to ythe creation of the Independent
as a substitute for the Uiiion. Significantly, Respondent ig-
nored the Union and did not advise it of the raise.
I am persuaded on this record that the extensive 1970 raise,
unexplained by any company policy on periodic increases,
reflects an intent to avoid collective bargaining and to subvert
the second election Respondent was seeking. I find that by
granting the June 1, 1970, increases Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act. See Montgomery Ward and Co., 187
NLRB No. 126.9
E. Alleged Individual Bargaining With Female Employees
Respondent's male and female employees generally work
overtime. The 1969 session of the legislature of the State of
New Mexico in House Bill 216 directed that female em-
ployees with certain exceptions not material herein not work
more than 8 hours or 40 hours a week unless they had signed
an agreement with their respective employers to do so. This
also provides that time and one-half would be paid for all
hours over 40 in 1 week.
Respondent discovered that it had been derelict in obtain-
ing signatures from the affected female employees. Secretary-
Treasurer Wingfield testified that upon advice of company
counsel he attempted to procure them and in most cases
succeeded in doing so. The General Counsel argues that by
contacting these employees individually on August 31, 1970,
and thereafter, subsequent to the certification of the Union,
Respondent has bypassed the Union and has bargained in-
dividually with the electorate.10
I fail to see the logic of this position. New Mexico passed
a statute imposing certain obligations upon employers. Re-
spondent attempted to comply with this legislation with some
success. I analogize this to a case where an employer increases
minimum wages in order to comply with the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. I do not believe that an employer
is derelict in his bargaining obligations to a labor organization
when he complies with other statutory requirements. I shall
therefore recommend the dismissal of this obligation.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Glover Packing Company dis-
charged John Clements on May 8, 1970, because of his pro-
tected concerted activities. I shall therefore recommend that
Respondent make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of his discharge, by payment of a sum of money
equal to that he normally would have earned from said date
to the date of his reinstatement, less net earnings during such
period, with backpay and interest thereon computed in the
manner prescribed by the Board in F W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
I shall further recommend that Respondent, Glover Pack-
ing Company withdraw-and withhold all" recognition=from-
and completely disestablish Improvement Committee of
Glover Packing Company, or any successor thereto, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing in grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or conditions of work, provided that
nothing herein is intended to require Respondent to vary or
abandon any wage raises it has granted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Glover Packing Company is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, its Local 391, and Improvement
Committee of Glover Packing Company are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging John Clements on May 28, 1970, Glover
Packing Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By dominating and interfering with the formation and
administration of Improvement Committee of Glover Pack-
ing Company, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
5. By granting its employees economic benefits at a time
when a labor organization was seeking to represent them,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. All hourly paid production and maintenance employees
at its Roswell plant, including truckdrivers and shipping
clerks, but excluding office clericals, guards, and supervisors
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
7. The Union has been at all times material herein and now
is the exclusive representative of the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
8. By creating and dominating a labor organization in an
effort to displace another labor organization duly selected by
its employees, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. Respondent has not bargained unilaterally with em-
ployees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:"
' Nothing herein or in the recommended Order below is intended to
require Respondent to alter or rescind these wage increases.
'° Eva Vasquez testified that Wingfield stated that they could be replaced
if they did not agree to work more than 40 hours, but she also testified he
said that if they signed he would not get into trouble with the Labor Board
or something "to keep us out of trouble." The testimony of Wingfield, as
indicated, has been credited.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Respondent , Glover Packing Company , Roswell, New
Mexico, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation and ad-
ministration of Improvement Committee of Glover Packing
Company, or any other labor organization of its employees,
or contributing financial or other support thereto.
(b) Dominating or interfering with the formation and ad-
ministration of a labor organization in order to avoid bargain-
ing with a labor organization duly designated by its em-
ployees.
(c) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because they have presented grievances or engaged in
protected concerted activities under Section 7 of the Act.
(d) Granting its employees economic benefits at a time
when a labor organization is seeking to represent them.
(e) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole John Clements for any loss of pay or
benefits he may have suffered as a result of his discharge in
the manner set forth above in the preceding section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Withdraw and withhold recognition from and com-
pletely disestablish Improvement Committee of Glover Pack-
ing Company, or any successor thereto, as the representative
of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with respect
to grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment , or conditions of work."
(c) Preserve and make available to the National Labor
Relations Board and its agents , upon request, for examination
and copying, all payroll records , social security payment
records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant at Roswell , New Mexico , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28,
after being duly signed by Respondent , shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notice is not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the not specifically found.
1z This is not intended in any manner to restrict Respondent from confer-
ring with employees concerning quality control.
" In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
'" In the event this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "