H. J. Daniels Poultry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matte of H. J. DANIELS AND BLANCHE DANIELS, CO-PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS AS H. J. DANIELS POULTRY Co. and UNITED PACKING-
HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 18-C-1092.-Decided January 31, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 28, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the re-
spondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. No request for oral argument before the Board was made by
any of the parties, and none was held.
The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions
and modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the respondents
have engaged in a course of conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the
Act. With respect to Daniels' speech to his employees on September 15,
the respondents have excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to refer
specifically to the fact that during the speech Daniels stated that the
employees had the right to join any union they wanted. We have
considered this statement and Daniels' other protestations of neu-
trality and find that they were insufficient to counteract the coercive
nature and effect of Daniels' other remarks. We are convinced that
the inferences drawn by the Trial Examiner concerning these remarks
are correct and agree that these statements, considered in their en-
tirety and in connection with the respondents' other unfair labor prac-
tices, constituted an integral part of a coercive course of conduct.
65 N. L. R. B., No. 119.
689
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion, and we find, that
the respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of, and contributed support'to, Our Agreement Committee
in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act. In so concluding, however,
we do not concur in or rely upon the Trial Examiner's finding that the
respondents "obligated all employees to join and support" the Com-
mittee.' Although it is plain that the conduct of the respondents
and their agents in forming, controlling, and supporting the Com-
mittee violated Section 8 (2) and was largely responsible for the ad-
herence of the employees to this organization, we are of the opinion
that the evidence falls short of establishing that the respondents re-
quired all employees to join and support the Committee. In these
circumstances, and upon the entire record, we shall not order the re-
spondents to reimburse their employees for initiation fees paid to the
Committee. Nor do we regard it as necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act that the respondents be required to reimburse employees for
attorney fees paid for services in organizing the Committee. We there-
fore shall not adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation in these
respects. Since, however, we find that respondents dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Committee
and contributed support to it, we shall order them to cease and desist
therefrom. Ordinarily such a finding would require the issuance of an
order of disestablishment ; but such an order is unnecessary here since
it is clear that the Committee has been dissolved by a vote of its mem-
bers. This voluntary dissolution of the Committee, however, has
no effect upon the respondents' commission of unfair labor practices
with respect to the Committee. The fact,that the Committee is no
longer in existence is relevant only to the question of whether the
respondents should be required to disestablish it. Since a possibility
exists that it may be revived, however, in order to prevent a recurrence
of the unfair labor practices, we shall, in addition to our cease and
desist order, order the respondents to withhold recognition from-the
Committee as bargaining agent of any of their employees should it
return to active existence, and so notify their employees.2
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharge of Charles
Newland was in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Although it
appears that Newland was not an entirely satisfactory employee, we
find that respondents did not discharge him for his derelictions of duty,
but, as found by the Trial Examiner, in order to discourage member-
ship and activity in the Union. In so finding, we rely upon the follow-
' We agiee in all other respects with the Trial Examiner 's findings and conclusions
concerning the Committee.
2 Matter of Carter Carburetor Corporation , 39 N. L. R. B. 1269, 1282, enf 'd 131 F. (2d)
927 (C. C. A 8) ; Matter of Elizabeth Arden, Inc., 45 N. L R. B. 936, 949,_enf (1 139 F. (2d)
488 (C . C. A. 2).
i, . 1
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 691
ing circumstances : (a) Newland had signed a union membership card
and was in possession of the blank cards intended for use in soliciting
memberships among the respondents' employees; (b) the respondents
had knowledge of Newland's possession of the membership cards and
were apprehensive that Newland was active in the union campaign, as
shown by Daniels' inquiry of Renfrow concerning Newland's posses-
sion of the cards 3 days before Newland's discharge, and by Fouts'
further inquiry of Renfrow after Newland's discharge concerning
Newland's disposition of the cards; (c) in the face of such evidence,
Daniels claimed at the hearing, in an apparent effort to show that
Newland's discharge was unrelated to union membership or activity,
that he had no knowledge of any union activity on Newland's part;
(d) 2 days before Newland's discharge, Daniels had warned Mrs.
Petersen of the reprisal awaiting union adherents; (e) Fouts disclosed
to Newland, shortly after the latter's discharge, that he had received
orders to discharge Newland 2 or 3 days before, thus demonstrating
that the discharge was motivated by considerations other than New-
land's refusal to perform, the work assigned to him the morning of
the discharge;' (f) the respondents retained Newland in their employ
for 2 months notwithstanding his derelictions and did not discharge
him until shortly after the start of the Union's organizational effort;'
and (g) the respondents unmistakably displayed their antipathy to
the union, as evidenced by their other unfair labor practices.
4. We, like the Trial Examiner, have found that the respondents
discriminatorily discharged Charles Newland, Clara Stout, and Olive
Furne in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In accordance with
our usual practice in remedying such unfair labor practices and in
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respond-
ents to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges,5 and to make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered, by payment to each of a sum of money
a we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the transfer of Newland on the day
of his discharge from his weighing job to the chicken pulling job was unsatisfactorily ex-
plained by the respondents or that Newland ' s complaint about his transfer was such as
to excuse his refusal to perform the work to which he was assigned . Accordingly, we at-
tach no importance to the said transfer or Newland ' s complaint about it in concluding
that Newland 's discharge was violative of the Act. As set forth above, however, the
evidence shows that the discharge was motivated by considerations other than Newland's
refusal to perform the chicken pulling job.
Owe do not concur in the Trial Examiner 's finding that Newland ' s unsatisfactory char-
acteristics were known to the respondents when they re-emploved him in June 1944,
since there is no testimony that Newland had displayed such ' characteristics during his
previous term of employment from December 1943 to March 1944.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Daniels' offer of re -employment to Stout was
made on the discriminatory condition that she return to work immediately . Upon the
entire record we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to order the respondents
to offer Stout reinstatement in the manner set forth above. As recommended by the
Trial Examiner, however, we shall not award Stout back pay for the 2-week period be-
ginning October 23, 1944.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
equal to the amount each normally would have earned as wages from
the date of the respondents' discrimination against each of them to the
date of the offer of reinstatement , less the net earnings 6 of each during
such period, subject to the following qualifications: The record shows
that the operations performed by Stout and Furne during their
employment by the respondents are seasonal in nature. Accordingly,
it is possible that such work may not be available at the time the
respondents' offer of reinstatement is made. In that event, the offer
of reinstatement to these employees shall become effective at such time
as the operations performed by them next are resumed by the respond-
ents. In making Stout and Furne whole, we shall not award them
back pay for the periods in which they normally would not have
worked in the respondents' plant; nor shall we deduct as earnings any
monies earned elsewhere by them during such periods.7
5. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we shall order the
respondents to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found
and, for the following reasons, from in any manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the 'rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. Shortly after the respondents' em-
ployees sought to organize as members of the Union, the respondents
engaged in various extensive acts and practices violative of the Act.
These illegal activities, which included the discriminatory discharges
of three employees, conduct which "goes to the very heart of the Act," 8
disclose a purpose to defeat self-organization and its objects and an
attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act. Because of the
respondents' unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related
to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their
commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondents'
conduct in the past.9 The preventive purpose of the Act will be
thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. Therefore,
in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to mini-
mize strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and
6 See footnote 60 of the Intermediate Repoit for the definition of "net earnings" This
term does not include earnings for other work which the discriminatorily discharged em-
ployees had peifoimed while employed by the respondents Matter of Link -Belt Go,
12 N. L. R B. 854 , 872, 882, enf'd 311 U . S. 584; Matter of R. K. Johnson and 0. F. Sharp,
et al , 41 N L. R B. 263, 285.
' See Matter of John IF. Campbell , Inc., 58 N. L . R. B. 1153.
8N. L R. B. v . Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F ( 2d) 532 , 536 (C. C. A 4) ;
see also N . L R B. v . Automotive Maintenance Machinery Company, 116 F (2d) 360, 353
(C. C. A. 7 ), where the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed. "No
more effective form of intimidation nor one more violative of the N. L R . Act can be
conceived than discharge of an employee because lie joined a union . . .
9 See N L R B . v Express Publishing Company , 312 U. S . 426; May Department Stores
Co v. N. L. R B , 66 S. Ct 203.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 693
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, H. J. Daniels and Blanche
Daniels, doing business as H. J. Daniels Poultry Co., Dow,City, Iowa,
and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Our
Agreement Committee of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co., or with the for-
mation and administration of any other labor organization, and from
contributing support to Our Agreement Committee of H. J. Daniels
Poultry Co., or to any other labor organization ;
(b) Discouraging membership in United Packinghouse Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organization, or
in any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate'any of their employees or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment;
(c) 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 the United Packinghouse
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Withhold all recognition from Our Agreement Committee
of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co., or any successor thereto, as the repre-
sentative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Offer to Charles Newland, Clara Stout, and Olive Furne im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, in the manner set forth in our Decision;
(c) Make whole Charles Newland, Clara Stout, and Olive Furne
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ents' discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount which each normally would have
earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against each of
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less the
net earnings of each during such period, in the manner set forth in
our Decision ;
(d) Post at their plant at Dow City, Iowa, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondents' representative, be posted
by the respondents immediately following receipt thereof, and main-
tained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respond-
ents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 recognize Our Agreement Committee of H.
J. Daniels Poultry Co., or any successor thereto as the representa-
tive of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
or other support to it.
WE WILL OFFER to the' employees named below immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Charles Newland
Olive Furne
Clara Stout
WE WILL NOT in any 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 United Packinghouse Work-
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 695
ers of America, C. I. 0. or any other labor organization, to. bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to
become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organiza-
tion. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment against any em-
ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such
labor organization.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO.,
Employer.
Dated ------------------ By -------------------- -------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Clarence A. Meter, for the Board.
A. C. R. Swenson, of Omaha, Nebr, and Floyd E. Page, of Denison, Iowa, for
the Respondents.
John Davidehik, of Sioux City, Iowa, for the Union..
STATEMENT Or THE CASE
The National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its com-
plaint dated November 22, 1944, against H J. Daniels and Blanche Daniels, co-
partners, doing business as H. J Daniels Poultry Co., herein called Respondents.
The complaint alleges that the Respondents had engaged in, and were engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2). and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act; and that
it was issued on charges made by United Packinghouse Workers of America, af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
Respondents, and upon the Union. and upon Our Agreement Committee of H. J.
Daniels Poultry Co, herein called the Committee, which the complaint alleged
was dominated by the Respondents.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance alleges
that the Respondents: (1) discouraged membership in the Union by discharging
Charles Newland on September 9, 1944, and Clara Stout and Olive Furne on
September 14, 1944; (2) dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of the Committee, and compelled their employees to become mem-
bers therein; (3) restrained, coerced, and interfered with their employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, beginning about Sep-
tember 1, 1944, until the date of the complaint, (a) by the aforesaid discourage-
ment of union membership and the domination of the Committee, and, (b)
by questioning employees and prospective employees about their union activities
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and affiliations, (c) by disparaging and manifesting disapproval of the Union.
(d) by warning and dissuading their employees from joining and becoming active,
in the Union, (e) and by engaging in surveillance of employees suspected of
participating in activities of the Union.
The respondents filed an answer to the complaint on December 4, 1944, denying
generally and specifically the commission of any of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Denison, Iowa, on December 7,
8, and 9, 1944, before Melton Boyd, the undersigned Trial Examiner designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondents were represented
by counsel, and the Union by its representative. No formal appearance, either
by pleading or counsel, was made in behalf of the Committee, although its last
officers were present as witnesses at the hearing. All parties participated in
the hearing, and each was afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to be heard on matters in issue. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the Board's counsel moved to conform the plead-
ings to the proof with respect to formal matters,' and without objection this
motion was granted The parties waived oral argument, but reserved the privi-
lege of filing briefs with the Trial Examiner. Briefs have been received from
counsel for the Board and for the Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, husband and wife, are partners operating a poultry dressing
plant, wholesale egg business, and hatchery in Dow City, Iowa. Sales and deliv-
eries in connection with the egg and hatchery business are local, and comprise
a small part of the total operations and annual income. The major part of the
business is in dressing poultry; the sale and delivery of such poultry exceeds
$100,000.00 per year in shipments to places outside of Iowa.
The Respondents concede that they are engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
Ir. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization in whose activities Respondents'
employees participated for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the Re-
spondents.
Our Agreement Committee of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co., an unaffiliated organ-
ization, at the times material herein was a labor organization admitting to
membership Respondents' employees and existing for the purpose of representing
them in bargaining collectively with the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Inception of Union
Respondents' plant is the only industrial enterprise in Dow City, a village
of about 600 population located 10 miles from Denison, Iowa. Its operations
vary with marketing factors, and the complement of its employees varies from
8 to 50 accordingly During the poultry-dressing season, which extends
from June to December, the normal complement in that phase of the business
This motion applies with particularity to amend the complaint to allege the discharge
of Charles Newland on September 1, 1944, instead of September 9th
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 697
is about 30 persons . During that season most of the employees work in the
basement room of the plant where poultry is killed, scalded, mechanically rough
plucked, pinned by hand on the pinning line, graded, and prepared for shipment.
One or two others work on the floor above, where incoming live poultry is re-
ceived and kept in the poultry room until delivered to the basement for dressing.
Others work as truck drivers, in collecting live poultry out through the country-
side and in doing other necessary hauling
During 1944 and prior thereto, the Union had a local chartered in Denison
among employees of a branch plant of Armour & Company of Chicago Working
at the Armour plant were some people from Dow City, including a few who had
worked for Respondents during the poultry dressing season. All were members
of the local union in Denison, as required by the closed-shop provision of the
collective bargaining agreement between that company and the local union.
In the latter part of August, 1944, officers and members of the local union in
Denison undertook to establish a local in Dow City among Respondents' employ-
ees One evening the secretary and other members went to Dow City to solicit
memberships . Knowing Emma Petersen of Dow City as a former member of the
Denison local , they first talked with her husband, Hans Petersen. On inquiring
whom they might solicit and with whom they might leave blank membership
cards , Petersen suggested Robert Hansen and some others of Respondents' em-
ployees. They found Hansen, his wife, and some other employees, left the cards
with Hansen, and discussed with all the probable benefits of union representation
in Respondents' plant. Present at that time was Charles Newland who, with
Hansen, was persuaded to support the union movement. Later that evening
Hansen and Newland each signed a card, which each retained and together they
endeavored to contact the night man at the plant to induce him to sign one.
Finding H. J Daniels at the plant when they went there, they did not attempt
further to solicit the night man. Hansen took home the remainder of the cards.
On the following morning he turned them over to Newland, saying lie did not
want to solicit any members! Describing this incident, Newland said, "we both
kind of decided to drop the thing then, and they [the cards] just laid around "
About a week later he gave the remaining cards to Emma Petersen, his sister-
in-law.
Emma Petersen in 1942 and 1943 had been employed by Respondents during
the poultry dressing season. In January 1944 she found employment at the
Armour plant in Denison, where she joined the Union and worked until the end
of July when she quit to attend to fall housework. A sixteen-year-old son, Bob,
desired to apply to the Respondents for after-school employment, as he had done
during the preceding year. On August 30th with his mother's permission he
made application, and to enhance the likelihood of his employment lie submitted
at the same time his mother's application Respondents sent word to Mrs
Petersen that Daniels wanted to talk with her before accepting her application.
Mrs. Petersen went to the plant that evening and talked with Daniels. Daniels
told her that he and his wife had built their business by themselves, that he did not
want anyone telling them what to do, and that lie had heard propaganda about
Armour plant employees getting fifty cents an hour. Mrs. Petersen told him it
was tine, that she had received that wage at the Armour plant Daniels then
said, according to Mrs Petersen, "Well, anyone that has anything to do with the
union down there is going to be fired." Mrs Petersen, admitting she was a mem-
ber of that union, responded, "Mr. Daniels, I don't know the first thing about
2 Hansen, whom the Trial Examiner credits, explained his action by saying "Because
I am not-don ' t know anything about a union , and I didn 't figure it was my place to
begin one I decided not to have anything to do with taking any active part in signing
anyone up with the union 11
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
starting a union. I didn't go to any of their meetings or anything else." Daniels
then asked her if her husband, Hans Petersen, was "pretty strong for the union."
Mrs Petersen told him that her husband's interest was limited to the fact that
she had been a member at the Armour plant, where the employees had been
benefited by union representation. She then asked Daniels whether she would be
given a job, and Daniels told her she could go to work on the following morning'
However, because of not having completed the home work she had planned and
pending advice from her physician, she did not return to take the job.
B. Discharge of Charles Newland
Charles Newland previously had had employment in the Respondents' plant,
from December 1943 to March 1944. His last assigned job during this period
was that of weighing live poultry, and delivering it to the killing room below.
This operation required him to wheel a crate or "battery" of poultry from the
poultry room to the scale, ascertain the gross weight of the poultry and the bat-
tery, deliver it downstairs by elevator, secure the return of empty batteries and
ascertain their tare weight to determine the net weight of the poultry delivered,
then clean the batteries and return them to storage.
When re-employed late in June, Newland was assigned again to the poultry
weighing job.4 When slack work permitted, he was directed at times to attend to
the feeding in the poultry room and to other odd jobs on that floor, and ocasionally
assisted in the killing room below. When there he assisted the poultry killer,
Herman Schmidt. When killing operations were heavy, Schmidt, who alone
did the killing and also attended the boiler, was relieved of the additional oper-
ation of pulling wing and tail feathers. This operation, which followed the kill-
ing operation, required considerable muscular effort. Various male employees-
were assigned for short periods to this task. During June, July, and August,
however, James Heffernan was usually assigned to it when assistance was re-
quired'
Schmidt also supervised the work on the pinning line, and admittedly was the
killing room foreman. Glen Fouts was the general plant foreman, with authority
over Schmidt, and was the immediate supervisor of Newland when working as
poultry weigher. Pouts was directly accountable to the partners, Mr. and Mrs.
Daniels, and to their niece, Lorraine Brasel, who was the assistant manager.'
Newland's conduct, in signing a union card in the latter part of August and
deciding to "drop the thing" on the following day, is related above. On that
day or the next, at the plant, Newland asked employee Raymond Taylor if he
was "interested in signing a union card," at which time Taylor offered to do so.
Newland did not have the cards with him, and in view of his irresolution about
the matter did not endeavor later to get the card signed. A day or so there-
after, in a conversation in front of a garage in Denison, Daniels asked one of
3 Daniels, while admitting he had such a conversation with Mrs. Petersen , denied the
remark that he would fire anyone who had anything to do with the Union. Emma Peter-
sen in all other testimony is corroborated, while Daniels in many parts of his testimony
is discredited In view of other conduct and assertions of Daniels, the Trial Examiner
credits Airs Petersen 's testimony in full, and discredits Daniels ' denial.
4IIis fitness for this job is indicated in the credible testimony of Renfrew , unrefuted,
who said, ". . . and one day a battery came down that wasn't weighed, and Mr. Daniels
told me that when Chuck [ Newland] comes back they wouldn ' t have to worry about
that any more."
'Newland stated , "I had never been told to do it. I had been clown there and helped
when I was down there ". The evidence indicates Schmidt was also relieved at times by
plant manager Fouts and truck driver Renfrow
"Brasel is referred to as the "executive secretary", but Daniels described her duties as
being in full authority in the absence of both partners.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO . 699
his truck-drivers, Robert Renfrow,7 what Newland was going to do with the
cards. Renfrow testified, "I told him Chuck [Newland] had sent them back." B
Renfrow told Newland in the plant of this conversation, and immediately after
talking about the incident Plant Foreman Fonts joined them. Fouts made no
inquiry concerning the matter, but Newland remarked to Fonts that he yet had
the cards. In what appeared to be a bantering conversation, Newland said the
employees were "going to start a union" which, according to Newland, prompted
Fouts to laugh and speak casually concerning it.°
At about eight o'clock on the morning of September 1st, Fouts directed New-
land to go down to the killing loom and assist Schmidt in pulling wing and tail
feathers, saying that Heffernan would do the work upstairs Newland complied
and worked there until the time of the morning recess period, at about ten
o'clock. After recess, and without any comment to Schmidt, Newland returned
to his former work of weighing poultry. At that time Fouts was out of the
plant, but returned about eleven thirty. Finding Newland at his former work,
Fouts asked what had occurred. Newland said he wouldn't work at pulling
feathers, and complained that the work caused the recurrance of a "chicken
rash" on his arms.10 Fouts directed him to draw his pay, and discharged him.
Later in the day Newland met Fouts who told him that he had had orders to
fire Newland two or three days before, but "hadn't got around to it.""
Respondents stated that Newland's discharge was prompted by his refusal
to do the assigned work, and his accumulated poor work record. They testified
to unasserted dereliction two or three weeks before his discharge, when New-
land refused to help a truck-driver, Roy Gum, unload a truck-load of crated
chickens. Gum arrived with this load at about 5:30 in the afternoon, thirty
minutes before the killing room operations stop. He asked Newland to help
him unload, which Newland refused. Gum parked the truck in the shade of
the building, went to supper, and unloaded after supper with the help of the
night man. It was unusual for the Collecting trucks to return before six in
the evening. There was a loss of poultry, due to smothering in hot weather.
Newland explained his refusal because of the necessity of attending to weigh-
er's duties at that time, when the delivery of poultry to the killing room must
be gauged to the number required to keep the line operating until quitting time,
and tare weight ascertained for each battery delivered. Gum, an experienced
poultry trucker, testified he was not reprimanded for this incident. On the
following morning Daniels questioned Newland about it, made no remark about
his explanation, although Daniels apparently was displeased by what had
happened.
Daniels said that Newland failed to follow his instructions concerning the
placing of weight cards on the batteries, notwithstanding the repetition of these
7 Renfrow is a brother-in-law of Newland.
8 Daniels testified to substantially the same facts Previously Newland had told Ren-
frow lie intended to "send them back", although at that time Renfrow did not know
definitely what Newland had done with the cards.
° As fixed by Newland's testimony, this occurred 3 days before his discharge
1° Newland testified his arms began to itch while pulling feathers, and that he had con-
tracted this rash 2 weeks before, when he was treated for it by a doctor employed by
Respondents' insurer. Schmidt stated that Newland made no complaint of any kind while
working with him that morning Fouts, while not specifically denying that Newland al-
luded to the chicken rash, quoted Newland as saying that he wouldn't do that "damn
job." Heffernan testified that Newland on this occasion told him he would not pull wing
and tail feathers, quoting him as saying "it was too dirty a job for anyone." Newland
testified it was the "worst job" in the plant.
71 Fouts did not deny this remark, and Respondents offered no evidence in refutation or
explanation of such order. Newland in response to Fouts' remark, asked if considera-
tions for the Union prompted the order, which Fouts denied
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instructions three times. He also said he told Fouts to direct Newland to
gather together and tie up empty feed bags that accumulated in the poultry
room, which Newland failed to do. There was evidence that Pouts passed this
instruction on to Newland, but none that he criticized him for failure to attend
to it. Considerable evidence was introduced that Newland idled on the job,
between deliveries of batteries to the killing room. The system followed in this
respect indicates there was some lost time in this operation. There is no evi-
dence that Newland was criticized by Fouts or Daniels for these asserted dere-
lictions, and he testified that he was not criticized for them" Daniels testified
it was not his policy to admonish employees, but to discharge them if unsatis-
factory"
About a week after Newlaud's discharge, when working with Renfrow, Fouts
asked him if he knew what Newland had done with the union cards, whether he
had given them to Mrs. Brady, Newland's sister, who also was en employee, to
distribute. Renfrow told Fouts he did hot know what had been done with the
cards, but did not think Mrs. Brady would be inclined to distribute them if given
to her. Fouts asked Renfrow to find out if she had them, but Renfrow refused
with the excuse that he had to leave Dow City op a delivery trip."
C7 Further union activity
In the first week in September, Charles Furne, an Armour plant employee and
union advocate,l" went to Dow City in an effort to make arrangements for a
union meeting there He talked with several of Respondents' employees," but
found none of them inclined to take the initiative in such matter.
On Monday, September 11th, Furne again went to Dow City and then saw Hans
Petersen and his wife, arranging with Petersen to provide a bus to haul Respond-
ents ' employees to a union meeting to be held in Denison on Friday, September
15th.
That same evening Newland and his wife and Hansen and his wife were
visiting with Emma Petersen at her home near the edge of Dow City. Just
before their arrival Mrs. Petersen observed Mrs. Blanche Daniels and Lorraine
Brasel drive slowly by her house in the Daniels car, driven by Brasel, and within
a few minutes return and pass again After het guests at rived at 7: 30, Mrs.
Daniels and Brasel continued to pass repeatedly" and slowly, back and forth,
turning at the corner intersection where Petersen's house stood so as to pass
both the front and side of the house. About nine o'clock, after dark, the car
was stopped on the side street opposite Petersen's garage and its lights were
turned off. Exercised by this, Mrs. Petersen went into her side yard to see what
was transpiring. Meanwhile Newland entered his car, and drove it around so as
12 Newland admitted the following conversation with killing room foreman Schmidt :
"He said, 'Can you take a lunt'>' and I said 'Yes' He said 'they don't like to see you
sitting on those steps ' . . . I said 'You know I have to wait until you get through so
I can talk to you.' And he said, 'Yes, I know it, but the rest of them don't.' "
13 Daniels ' action in connection with the loss of poultry , and his admitted criticisms
of other employees, discredits this stated policy. On the day of Newland's discharge.
Daniels was out of town until late in the afternoon, and said he then learned about New-
land's discharge
14 Fouts made no denial of this incident The Trial Examiner, as noted above, found
Renfrow to be an honest witness and credits his testimony in this respect This in-
cident, it is noted is contemporaneous with the activity of Charles Furne, related next
16 Furne's mother, Olive Furne, had been an Armour employee and was reemployed by
Respondents on September 6th Full details relating to her employment are recounted
later.
36 Among those with whom he talked were two girls, one of whom was Daniels' niece
14 Brasel's testimony confirms this Mrs Petersen testified that her young son counted
its passing 17 times prior to nine o'clock.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 701
tb throw his headlight beams on the Daniels car. Thereupon, it started up
and left 18
Newland then drove to the filling station where Hans Petersen worked, and
informed him about his occurrence. Petersen then accompanied Newland in a
search for the Daniels car, and found it parked in front of Weed's home, Peter-
sen's employer. Mrs. Daniels had stopped there to talk with Mr. Weeds, who
,was, called to the Daniels' car and at this time was being told by Mrs. Daniels,
according to Brasel, "that she thought there was someone in his employ that
was causing trouble, or something like that . . . And she thought that he
should do something for the benefit of -, I don't know just exactly what was
said now." Petersen and Newland drove up abreast of Daniels' car, stopped, and
Petersen went over to the Daniels car. Addressing Mrs. Daniels seated on the
opposite side, he asked her what she wanted and why she was driving past his
home repeatedly This enraged her, and she got out of her car, went around to
where Petersen was standing, grabbed at him twice and, as he was withdrawing,
shoved the car door against him. There is no evidence of any aggressive act by
him, although Brasel states that at this point Petersen said to Mrs. Daniels,
"God damn you, if you wasn't a woman " 39 Newland and Petersen thereupon
drove off. Later in the evening, Brasel and Mrs Daniels again drove back and
torth past the Petersen home, seven times as counted by Petersen d0
On the following morning Fouts went to Robert Hansen where be was working
,in the plant and said to him, "I know you have a Union card signed up. If you
want to keep on working don't have nothing to do with the union " Later in the
morning Fouts told Mary IIan,,en, an employee who is Hansen's mother, if
Robert wanted to keep his job he would have to forget the union -'
On that same day, Charles Furne, the Armour plant employee, again returned
to Dow City and left with Hans Petersen some handbills 22 advertising the union
meeting for Friday evening, September 15th, to which Respondents' employees
were invited. During the noon hour, Furne went to Clara Stout's home where
11 Brasel's testimony confirms this.
14 Petersen states he has no recollection of having used any profane language The
Trial Examiner believes and finds, under all the circumstances, Petersen did damn Mrs
Daniels in some such language
=0 Brasel substantially corroborates this in her testimony
21 Fouts denied making this statement to Hansen, after which Mrs Hansen testified
as above. Fouts did not deny his conversation with Mrs. Hansen. The Trial Examiner
finds both.Hansen and his mother honest witnesses, crediting their testimony and rejecting
Fonts' denial.
1' A verbating copy of the handbill is as follows
You need the Union - The union needs you
ATTENTION
To all employee's of H. J Daniel's that are interested in bettei wages, job security,
payed vacations, and allaround better working conditions are invited to attend a
meeting at the C. I. 0. Hall at Denison Friday Sept. 15 at 8 00
Meet at Hans Petcisen's not later than 7.45.
Free transportation for all.
C I 0. representatives will answer your questions
COME OUT TO THIS MEETING
LEARN YOUR RIGHTS
UNITE AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
Do you want to continue living in fear of a labor hating boss
Section 7A of the Wagner Act, (winch is the law of the land) states that any worker
can join any union of his or her choice with out fear of being fired or discriminated
against.
Armour's Local 124 , U P W. A C I 0.
Denison, Iowa
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,a number of pinning line employees were eating their lunch.' In addition to
Mrs. Stout , there was present Furne's mother , Olive Furne , and three or four
other women . Furne asked if they were interested in having a union, but it
was discussed only briefly since the women were ready to go back to work.
D. Discharge of Clara Stout and Olive Furne
On Thursday morning, September 14th, Emma Petersen sent with her son
to Clara Stout's home one of the handbills which announced the union meeting
for September 15th. That same morning she gave the remaining handbills to
her other son, instructing him to distribute them in the employees' cars parked
along the street of the village.
On Thursday afternoon, Hans Petersen was arrested on three charges made
in behalf of Mrs. Daniels," alleging he had engaged in "threatening to commit
a public offense", in "assault" on Mrs. Daniels, and in using publicly "profane
and blasphemous" language. He was required to appear at the sheriff 's office
in Denison , in the presence of a magistrate and the county attorney 25 The
county attorney proposed the dismissal of the first two charges, if Petersen would
plead guilty to the last. Petersen did so, was assessed costs, with further penalty
suspended on the condition he be on good behavior. According to Petersen, the
county attorney specified that good behavior would require him to refrain from
having any C. I. O. meetings at his house .26
At noon Thursday, when Mrs. Furne and the other out-of-town ladies went to
Mrs. Stout's home to eat their lunch, Mrs. Stout gave Mrs Furne the handbill
left at her home on that morning. Mrs. Furne read it through, then laid it on
the dining room table where the other employees could read it.
After lunch, when leaving her home to return to work, Mrs Stout was called
to the edge of her yard where it adjoins the Daniels' residence propel ty, by Mrs.
Daniels.' According to Mrs. Stout, whom the Trial Examiner found to be an
honest witness, Mrs Daniels said to her "You are interested in your job, aren't
you? . . . You aren't looking for trouble, are you?" and made some further
reference to Mrs. Stout being "so interested in the union " Mrs Stout responded
by saying she was not looking for any trouble, that she didn't know anything
about the union, and didn't want to be involved in any union controversies's
She went on to the plant, and there told Mrs. Furne of the occurrence. That
afternoon Mrs. Daniels was at the plant, and in the pinning room. On leaving
the plant that evening Mrs. Stout was called to the office and notified by Daniels
23 During the preceding week or 10 days, Mrs Stout had invited the out -of-town women
employees to eat their lunch in the dining room of her home , a block from the plant,
there being no other inviting place available to them.
24 The colloquy in the sheriff ' s office, as told by Petersen , indicates that Daniels filed
the charges.
23 The county attorney then acting was Floyd E Page, who appeared at the hearing
as one of Respondents ' counsel Daniels testified that on that particular date Page was
not representing him in any matter, although admitting that Page was his counsel both
before and after that event
26 No evidence was offered to refute this, although testimony disclosed at least two other
persons were present Petersen insisted this statement was made by Page , when Page
at the hearing pointedly cross -examined him.
"Mrs. Daniels was not called as a witness in the case , nor was any request made to
take her deposition . Daniels testified she was confined in bed with a serious heart all-
ment Ruth Jane Coats , Daniels ' niece who was called as a witness by Respondents,
although present when this occurred , gave no testimony concerning it. Mrs. Furne con-
firmed that, Mrs. Daniels called Mrs Stout to talk with her in the yard
28 Mrs. Stout stated in her testimony " I never was in favor of the union because I
didn ' t know much about it."
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 703
of her discharge. At that time she said to him "1 wasn't the tault of it," to which
he said he hoped she was not, and if she was not she might get her job back 2U
The same evening, when leaving the plant, Mrs Furne was notified of her dis-
charge. In order to catch her bus which took her to her home, she did not try
to see Daniels then, but returned to Dow City haler in the evening and went to
his home He refused to talk with her there. On the following morning, Mrs.
Furne went to Daniels' office and asked why she was discharged Daniels said
they were cutting down production, and added "We are having so much trouble
at the plant now, we might have to shut down entirely We are not even sending
out any trucks today".' Airs. Furne asked hun to enter the cause for her dis-
charge on the release he gave her, but he refused with the starement "You have
a good, clear release there."
Before leaving home that morning. when Daniels went to his garage which is
between his house and that of Mrs. Stout. Mrs. Stout met him there and asked
him why she had been discharged Daniels declared, "I am not talking" and
added that Mrs. Stout was having people at her home whom lie did not like"
and said "I am going to have the county attorney and the sheriff come down." 32
Respondents explained that the discharge of Mrs. Stout and Airs Furne was
occasioned by their disruption of work on the pinning line, in that Airs Stout
disregarded standing instructions when she volunteered to lake from inexperi-
enced pinners fowls that were difficult to pin, and Mrs Furne disrupted the work
of the line by excessive talking on the job 33 Daniels admitted Mrs Stout was a
good worker,34 and stated Mrs. Furne had been a good worker during the 1943
season but did not prove satisfactory during the eight days employed in Septem-
ber 1944.36
21 Daniels testified , without contradicting Mrs Stout ' s testimony , " I told her we
wouldn ' t be able to use her for some time, and she wanted to know why , and I don't
believe that I even told her why."
"In this statement Daniels assigns a reason for not sending out trucks which he dis-
credits' in his testimony where he explained that he ordered the drivers to remain at the
plant to attend a meeting called by him, later described herein.
3' The only person living with Mrs Stout was an epileptic son. whom she supported.
At that date a daughter and son-in-law were visiting her Aside from these members
of her family , who presumably were frequent visitors , only the out -of-town employees and
Chailes Furne had gone recently to her home . Mrs. Stout is 63 years old
82 Daniels admits her inquiry and his response of not talking , but denies the remainder
of the statement He testified she made the same inquiry at his home the evening before,
at which time lie made a conciliatory explanation to Mrs Stout. Mrs Stout denies this
prior conversation If conciliatory the evening before , his admittedly abrupt manner on
the following morning is singular In view of Petersen ' s arrest on the preceding day,
at Respondent ' s instance , such inordinate threat is conceivable . The Trial Examiner
believes and finds Daniels made the statement substantially as stated by Mrs. Stout, and
that lie made no conciliatory explanation to her on the preceding evening . As noted
above, lie had refused to discuss with Airs . Furne her discharge on that evening.
33 There is no disclosure of what she talked about
34 Mrs Stout entered Respondents ' employ on the pinning line in October 1943, where
she continued working through the 1943 "season " after which she ceased working until
'June 1944 , except for a few days in April when she returned to work She explained her
fingers were toughened by her work , and knowing that sore hands of inexperienced pinners
made it difficult for them to do good work with certain fowls she would sometimes exchange
fowls with then. Poultry moved automatically along the pinning line suspended from
an endless chain, and pinners moved with the fowl that each received in his order on
the line
36 Mrs Furne entered Respondents ' employ on the pinning line In September 1943,
where she continued working through the 1943 "season ," when she received six weekly
awards for pinning an average of 250 chickens per day In January, Mrs Furne entered
the employ of Armour & Company at its Denison plant She was employed there on
June 8th when she received a postal card from Respondents offering her employment in the
1944 "season " Before leaving Armour's employ , Respondents again renewed their offer
of employment to her Shortly before being reemployed she talked with Daniels , explain-
679100-46-vol 65-46
704 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Daniels testified he personally had observed Mrs. Stout "disturbing and dis-
rupting the line,-but not because she wasn't a good worker. In taking birds
that another pinner should take on through , she kept disrupting the line." He
said he had observed this practice from thee time Respondents began taking on
inexperienced employees during that season He said both Foreman Schmidt and
Ruth Jane Coats, his niece who lived with him and worked on the pinning line,"
had complained of Mrs. Stout's practice. There was no evidence that Mrs
Stout's occasional actions in this respect retarded production. where the pinning
operations kept pace with the automatic movement of the line, Foreman Schmidt
testified be saw Mrs. Stout exchange fowls on the pinning line "a few times". He
never ci iticized her, and in only one instance suggested to her that she not do
that. He mule no explanation of what had occurred in that instance. In prac-
tice, she would sometimes instruct now eniplov ees on the work methods, as was
done by two other employees.`
With reference to Mrs. Furne. Daniels testified " . I noticed that this year
she did not keep up her work, didn't attempt to keep up bet work ; and as
-1 had observed at different tunes, instead of following her bird on through and
Liking care of the bird she was working on, she would hang onto the bird or hold
the bird, and be conversing with people on the line while working A person can't
go ahead and look one way and be pinning a bird that is going the other way."
He said he observed this several times Without explaining in what respect
it did so. he said it greatly reduced her pioduction " He stated he said nothing
to her about it, following his policy of giving no w.unnig against such derelic-
tions."' He said he had a report coniplauung about Mrs. Furne's behavior, but
did not specify who made the repoi t
Foreman Schmidt testified that lie had seen Mis Furne talking with other
pinners while at work "quite a few times," and recalled one instance when she
and other women were gathered together in conversation at one end of the build-
ing when all were supposed to be at work Schmidt did not criticize them for
doing that, although he stated that at times lie did admonish employees for
talking on the job 40 Schmidt stn ted lie i epos ted to Fouts that the pruners were
doing 'too much visiting" but did not mention the name of Mrs. Furne or any
other person.
Plant Foreman Fouts testified lie observed Mrs. Stout exchanging fowls with
other employees in some five different instances in the course of three weeks
before her discharge,' that he discussed it with Foreman Schmidt, and reported
his observations to Daniels who made little, if any comment, and did not appear
to be concerned about it. With reference to Mrs. Furne, Fouts stated he had not
observed her in her work but had been informed by Schmidt of her "visiting
ing she ii.s delayed in returning to work for him because she had not been able to make
airangeinents for transportation between the plan and her home in the nearby village
of Anon The Respondents made these arrangements for her.
'z Schundt said his discussions about pinning line operations were with Fouts. Coats
testified she did not woik on the pimmng.line during the first half of September , and did
not observe either His Stout or His Furne at work As noted above, however, Coats
ii ns present when , at noon , .Mrs. Daniels questioned Mrs Stout about her interest in the
Union.
,'Schmidt testified , "Mrs. Hansen helped her some , and Mrs Igou helped some "
'" No is ork r ecoid was introduced to support this bare statement , nor to support the
general statement that the plant production was clown Obviously, the latter could be
assigned to numerous causes alone or in combination
30 Daniels discredits himself in this statement of policy , when later lie testified "I had
called a few people a time or two In fact, I remember one lady that I told her she
ought to have a zipper on her mouth "
40 At no place does Schmidt testify to having reprimanded M rs Furne, and at one place
in his testimony he said her "visiting " was "little more than the lest of them
41 At no place does Fouts testify to having reprimanded \Iis Stout.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 705
on the line", " and reported this to Daniels. Fouts said he did not know in
advance that Mrs. Stout or Mrs. Furne were to be discharged.'
E. Formation and dissolution of "Our Agreement Committee"
On the morning of September 15, Daniels called all his employees into a meet-
ing, and talked to them for about 30 minutes. He alluded to the matter of Peter-
sen's arrest on the preceding day and to the discharges of Mrs Stout and Mrs.
Furne on the preceding evening, not mentioning any names however. In this
connection one employee then remarked to Daniels that one of the discharged
women did not know "what it was all about," to which Daniels responded by say-
ing that woman would have her job back when things were "straightened out."'
He talked to them about "interference" on the pinning line, a lack of cooper-
ation among them, the possibility of the plant closing if operations continued to
be unsatisfactory and a rejected shipment of dressed poultry." He read the hand-
bill distributed on the preceding day, asked them whether they thought he was
a "labor hating boss" referred to in it, and told them they had the right to
attend the union meeting if they wanted to do so He stated he thought unions
were a good thing "if run right," and paid tribute to the independent Brother-
hood of Railway Trainmen for its meritorious service to the railroad industry.
He made no specific mention of the C. 1 0, but remarked he thought it would
be a fine thing if the employees would form an organization 46 of their dwn by
which they would not be paying out their wages to "thugs." He told them if they
desired to form such an organization, they should secure the services of an
attorney to advise them and lie would pay the attorney fee."
12 2 As found above, Schmidt said he made no report on Mrs Furne or any particular
person When cross-examined, Fonts could not recall what Schmidt said to him or what
he said to Schmidt when reporting on Mrs . Furne.
49 Fouts is fully discredited in this testimony by his earlier unsworn statement made
on October 11, 1944, before issuance of the complaint in this case, which was then written
out by a Field Examiner of the Board and signed by Fouts, wherein he stated "Mr. and
Mrs Daniels knew that there had been a C. I. 0. man at Mrs. Stout's one noon before she
was laid off I knew there was something going on but I said nothing to Daniels But
I knew from what he said from time to time that he knew Then he came and said he
had better get rid of Mrs. Furne and Mrs Stout." Fouts admitted having made a state-
ment to the Field Examiner, and his signature thereon, said he did not remember the
quoted portion being in the statement and did not remember the occurrence of the stated
facts Louts admitted he read the written statement before signing it, that in general it
was accurate The Trial Examiner believes and finds that Fouts then stated the sub-
stance of the quoted portion to the Field Examiner, and adopted the language of the
entire written statement when lie signed it. The written statement was offered in evidence
to impeach Fouts, by discrediting him in testifying he had no recollection of the quoted
statement being made to him, and in testifying he did not give `the Field Examiner such
a statement. It was received and is considered for that limited purpose, and is not
considered in proof of anything stated therein
94 The employees understood and Daniels testified this referred to Mrs Stout
4' Daniels testified the shipment was rejected because of improper giading and faulty
head-wrapping. There is no indication this was due to any dereliction of pinning line
employees In connection with the "lack of harmony," Brasel disclosed sonic employees
had been unwilling to "come back at night and help" when there was a manpower short-
age She said the "interference" arose in July
46 Daniels' testimony that lie suggested the formation of only a grievance committee, not
proposing the formation of a company union, if such distinction were significant, is dis-
credited by another part of his testimony when in response to Mrs Hansen's inquiry what
to call it, he told her, "Well, the thing I believe I would call it right now is 'God Save
America' " Even if made as a facetious suggestion , it is apparent that Daniels understood
the organization was to be more than a committee of his employees to present grievances
to him
41 The Trial Examiner credits Mrs. Mary Hansen and Robert Hansen who testified to
this, and discredits Daniels ' denial that he made such offer.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That afternoon , Foreman Fouts and Schmidt , planned the formation of such
an organization. Schmidt then called Mrs Mary Hansen and Elsie Igou off
the pinning line and asked them to accompany him to Daniels' office to talk
about forming this organization. After a short discussion in which Daniels
-expressed his approval, he drafted and Lorraine Brasel typed a petition for cir-
culation among the employees. Later in the afternoon, on their working time,48
.Mrs. Hansen and Igou solicited and secured the signature of each employee on
the petition. On the following day, after consulting with Schmidt and truck-
driver Gum, Fouts ordered the printing of membership cards of "Our Agreement
Committee of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co." The three of them employed an attor-
ney to prepare a proposed constitution and bylaws, to be presented to employees
in a meeting which they called for the following Tuesday evening, September 19.
This meeting was held as planned, attended by the attorney. He read the form
of the constitution and bylaws to the assembled employees which they adopted
with certain inclusions that were then agreed upon."U Officers were elected,
including Plant Foreman Fouts as president, Foreman Schmidt as vice presi-
dent, and Mrs. Hansen as secretary -treasurer , as well as five grievance com-
mitteemen. An initiation fee of $1.00, as provided in the constitution, was col-
lected from the employees present, and ultimately from all of them. The terms
of,a proposed bargaining agreement with Respondents were discussed in gen-
eral which, in keeping with purposes agreed upon at the meeting, were to include
a clause requiring all persons then and thereafter employed .to join the organ-
ization `°
About a week later, the officers of the Committee together with the grievance
committee members, met in executive session to discuss the proposed agreement,
which had been received in draft form from their attorney. Schmidt pointed out
to the others that Daniels would not agree to some clauses embodied in the draft,
-which prompted them to hold the matter in abeyance. About the first of October,
Daniels asked to see the agreement. Fouts called the available officers together,
at which time they showed Daniels the agreement. He said he objected to certain
portions. Other than the criticisms of the draft by Schmidt and Daniels, there
is no evidence that negotiations for a bargaining agreement began. Meanwhile,
Mrs. Hansen had collected a tctal of $43.00 in initiation fees, but no monthly
dues. In keeping with her understanding of the Committee's policy, she requested
each new employee to sign the organizing petition as the means of enrolling them
in the Committee , and collected their initiation fees. One employee, Mrs. Henry
Brady, who was working when the Committee was formally organized, on the
following day relused to join and pay her initiation fee until Fouts insisted that
she do so and Daniels gave her the dollar which she paid as the fee. On December
4, 1944, the employees met at noon time at the plant and voted to dissolve the
Committee.b' On that day, truck-driver Gum paid the Committee' s attorney
$37 00 for his services, and according to their unrebutted testimony, Gum, Fouts,
and Schmidt agreed to bear this expense personally in equal portions. Mrs.
Hansen was directed by the membership of the Committee in its meeting of
dissolution to return $1 to each person who had paid his fee, and at the time
of the hearing she had repaid all but five.
48 Respondents attribute no loss of production to this non-productive activity.
"° The observations of Attorney Norelius, called as a witness, are confirmed by the in-
struments themselves , indicating their adoption on September 19. Fouts' testimony and
Respondents ' contentions that the Committee was never formally organized , is discredited.
60 The draft of the contract , subsequently prepared by the attorney , included the provi-
sion "Employer shall employ none but members of Committee . . . shall require . . . the
current working card . "
61 December 4 fell on Monday , and the hearing in this case opened on Thursday , Decem-
ber 7. Also on Monday, the Respondents ' attorney interviewed the employees, and a
shorthand report was made of the questions and answeis
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO.
F. Offer of re-employment to Mrs. Stout
707
The discharge of Mrs. Stout, and the remark to her by Daniels of having the
county attorney and sheriff investigate her activities, became known to the towns-
people of Dow City and prompted some intercession in her behalf.62 On October
23rd, Daniels stopped at Mrs. Stout 's home and said ". . . Mr. Fishal and Mr.
Frederickson [neighbors who were the Justice of the Peace and Constable, re-
spectively] informed me that you had cried to them and told them you wanted
to come back to work . . . Your job is open for you, and we would be glad
to have you." Mrs Stout, who is credited as accurate, stated he did not directly
invite her to return. She told Daniels she could not return to the plant for "two
weeks"" and he said it would be "too late then " without further explanation,
although admitting there would be work then.
The evidence indicates that pinners were being employed to fill vacancies
throughout the "season " following Mrs. Stout 's discharge , and discloses Respond-
ents' practice of tolerating delays when experienced pinners took a few days in
attending to personal business before re-entering employment. Daniels stated
that Mrs. Stout took a day or so off occasionally during her last period of
employment.
G. Findings in conclusion
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Daniels' conversation with Emma Petersen on August 30th was a clear warning
of reprisal to anyone who would support the Union. Likewise, his attempted
inquest through Renfrow, and that of Fouts, concerning Newland's disposal of
the union cards, was a further indication to the employees that their activity
was under Respondents' surveillance This surveillance was dramatically em-
phasized in the conduct of Mrs Daniels and Brasel, in watchfully patrolling the
home of Mrs. Petersen on September 11th, and again when Mrs. Daniels ques-
tioned Mrs. Stout about her interest in her job after the union organizer went
to her home. Although Mr. and Mrs. Petersen are not empwyees of Respond-
ents, they were known to Respondents to be actively interested in the Union.
The surveillance of their home, the effort of Mrs Daniels to protest Petersen's
union support to his employer, and the filing of criminal charges against Petersen
by Daniels for conduct which Mrs Daniels provoked, reveals Respondents'
purpose to curb what they believed to be a spreading interest in the Union, and
to serve as further warning to Respondents' employees Daniels did not permit
the significance of this episode to escape when on the folowing morning he made
pointed allusion to the arrest of Petersen. In like manner, he then made capital
of the discharge of Mrs. Stout and Mrs Furne, when through his speech he
related their discharge to his obvious opposition to the Union. His remarks in
his speech, while protesting his neutrality, were patently an instruction to his
employees of what he wanted them to do in forming an organization of his
choice. With the pointed reminder of reprisals for conduct that had not met
with favor, and an indication the plant would be closed unless they co-operated,
Respondents' employees were obedient to Daniels' wish and to the leadership of
foremen Fouts and Schmidt. Fouts likewise, through his admonition to Robert
53 Daniels acknowledged this by the tenor of his answer to a question concerning it
"I don't know anybody in particular, excepting two of them that said Mrs Stout had
cried to them because she was laid off . . "
53 Although not disclosing it to Daniels , she had planned and did go to her daughter's
home to assist in some fall farm work. Mrs . Stout considered this offer of employment
as it was stated , that Daniels offered her re-employment reluctantly and only upon the
intercession of Mrs . Stout's neighbors.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hansen and to Hansen's mother, aligned himself with Daniels' purpose to keep
the employees .out of the Union.
By these warnings, the inquisitorial investigation of what was done with the
cards, the acts of surveillance, the attempted degradation of a citizen engaged
in legitimate union activity, the reprisals against employees who were believed
to support the Union, the manifest disapproval of the union movement, and the
threat of closing the plant unless employees co-operated according to Daniels'
expectation, the Respondents did engage in a persistent course of conduct to
restrain their employees, and to interfere with them, in exercising their rights
to form, join, or support a labor organization of their own choosing
2. Domination and support of Committee
Daniels' speech to his employees, as found above induced his employees to
form the kind of organization which he recommended. Fouts and Schmidt, the
foremen, planned and executed the formalities of creating the Committee, using
the services of ordinary employees in doing so. Originating it, they continued
to guide and control it, and obliged all employees to join and support it. Although
constituted to do so, and recognized as such by Respondents when Daniels pro-
posed the revision of the drafted contract, it never functioned as a bargaining
agency and was dissolved on December 4, 1944 6'
By forming it, controlling its policies and functions, and obliging membership
therein, Respondents dominated and supported Our Agreement Committee of
H. J. Daniels Poultry Co., and interfered with its administration and with the
rights of its employees in such matters.
3. Disciimination to discourage union membership
Newland had indicated his intention to join the Union when he signed his
card, but kept it and was irresolute in taking further action when his fellow-
worker decided to do nothing further. There is no evidence that Respondents
induced this change of purpose on Newland's part. Daniels' inquiry of Renfrow
concerning the car( k in Newland's possession, however, discloses the Respondents'
apprehension that Newland was participating in the union campaign. Later on
that same day, Newland told Fouts he still had the cards and the employees were
going to have a union in the plant. This statement which occurred three days
before Newland's discharge and was volunteered by him in a bantering manner
did not lessen Respondents' apprehension concerning Newland's purposes. If his
irresolution was known to them, his failure to settle the course of action against
the Union was also known. It was at this critical time, as revealed in Fouts'
i emark which followed Newland's discharge, that the Respondents decided to
discharge him and to await an occasion to do so The apprehension concern-
ing Newland was revealed again after his discharge, when Fonts questioned
Renfrow about Newland's disposition of the cards. When on August 30, Daniels
required Emina Petersen to disclose her interest and activity in the Union, lie
again betrayed his apprehension and their gave warning of the reprisal awaiting
Union adherents. Fouts disclosed that the decision to discharge Newland was
not his alone, and was motivated by considerations other than the latter' s refusal
to do his assigned work.J6 The respondents knew this work in itself was dis-
54 Respondents have not disavowed their responsibility for it, nor apprised their em-
ployees they would refuse to deal with it if revived
55 Respondents offered no explanation for the transfer, and the Board did not develop
clearly its significance when considered with the admissions of Newland that he oc-
casionally peiformed this task There is no indication whether the assignment on that
morning was a permanent transfer.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 709
agreeable. They knew that Newland's complaint about the recurrence of the
chicken rash, which made that work more disagreeable, was plausible in view of
his earlier infection. Significantly, Newland was taken from the weighing job,
which he customarily attended, when assigned to the feather pulling job which
Heffernan usually did. Heffernan was assigned the weigher's job at that time,
but was returned to the feather pulling job on the next day These irregular
transfers on that day were unexplained by the Respondents, and their customary
practices were resumed after Newland's discharge. Although the evidence indi-
cates that occasionally any male employee might be assigned the feather pulling
job, it does not indicate that a man who was'busy in his customary work would
be taken from that and assigned to this task The evidence discloses that the
Respondents found Newland to be indolent and lacking initiative in doing more
than his customary work. These characteristics were known to the Respondents
when they re-employed Newland, and tolerated in his employment. On Septem-
ber 1st, they constituted only a pretext for his discharge, and his refusal to do
his assigned work presented the awaited opportunity and excuse" The Re-
spondents were motivated in discharging him by their determination to discour-
age membership and activity in the Union. In view of his former term of em-
ployment, during the period other than the poultry dressing season, the discrimi-
nation against Newland deprived him of regular full-time employment.
Mrs. Daniels pointed to the reason for Mrs. Stout's subsequent discharge. when
at noon of that day she questioned Mrs. Stout about her interest in the Union.
The same reason was revealed by Daniels on the following morning, when he
threatened the degradation of a public investigation because he disapproved of
people who came to her home-obviously alluding to persons related to the cause -
of her discharge, persons who were interested in the Union.' He affirmed this
too, when he expressed the hope that she was not at fault in this respect His
announcement that he would re-employ her was in keeping with his estimate of
her responsibility in the matter The dereliction attributed to her by Respondents
is not supported by credible evidence, and is found to be a fabricated excuse.
Daniels knew Mrs Furne had belonged to the Union by reason of her previous
employment at the Armour plant, and he had ample opportunity to observe her
son's activity in his effort to organize Respondents' employees. Daniels' remark
to Mrs Stout, about having people at her home whom he (lid not like, is mean-
ingful only.with reference to Mrs. Fume's son, since Daniels' tolerance for Mrs.
Stout's family and his own employees who went there for lunch can be presumed
When confronted by Mrs Furne's inquiry, he first refused to talk with her
concerning the reason for her discharge, and on the following morning refused
to put clown in writing that which he then stated as his reason. No credible evi-
dence 69 was adduced to support his assertion of a loss of production. He later
se
The Trial Examiner discredits Respondents' supporting reasons that (a) he arbitrarily
refused to help unload Gum's truckload of poultry, (b) neglected to replace the weight
cards, and (c) neglected to tie ill) feedbags. With reference to the unloading episode,
Newland apparently had a justifiable reason for not assisting at that time His ex-
planation to Daniels was apparently satisfactory, although Daniels' displeasure with the
incident was manifest and was made known to Fouts, With ieference to the weight
cards and to the bags, Newland's indifference to these instructions was countenanced, prob-
ably with unexpressed disapproval and tolerance because of the admitted manpower short-
age in the area
5' Mrs Stout's statement that he may have referred to her daughter is speculative, and
her impression does not foreclose another finding made upon consideration of all the
evidence
as Inherent inconsistencies within their testimony, and contradictions among them, require
the Trial Examiner to give credit to the testimony of Daniels, Fouts, and Brasel only
where they are corroborated. Schmidt, who is found credible in specific details, appeared
to accommodate his testimony to Respondents' contentions in some general statements
that were unconvincing
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assigned as a reason her alleged disruption of work by "visiting" on the job. This,
too, is discredited by the evidence , and as in the case of Mrs . Stout, is found to
be a fabricated excuse.
Respondents are found to have discharged Mrs. Stout and Mrs. Furne as a
means of forestalling the spread of sentiment for the Union, and of expelling
a source of its support , to discourage membership in the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE ins1I11DY
Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
With respect to those unfair labor practices which require afirmative action
to correct, in the discriminatory discharge of Charles Newland, Clara Stout,
and Olive Furne, it will be recommended that Respondent's reinstate Newland
to his former or substantially equivalent full-time position, and Mrs Stout"'
and Mrs. Furne each to her former or substantially equivalent position at the
beginning of Respondents' next poultry dressing season, all without prejudice
-to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that Respondents make
whole Newland, Mrs Stout, and Mrs. Furne for any loss of pay each may have
suffered by reason of such discrimination, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount each normally would have earned as wages from
the date of discrimination against each of them, to the date of Respondents'
offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings 00 of each during such period 0i
With respect to the domination and administration of Our Agreement Com-
mittee of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co, formally dissolved on December 4, 1944, no
"The Trial Examiner finds that Daniels' offer of ie employment to Mrs Stout, made
on October 23, 1944, was made on the discriminatory condition that she return to work im-
mediately , in contrast to Respondents' customary praetu e of permitting experienced em-
ployees to attend to personal business before reentering employment , and that Daniels
foreclosed Mrs. Stout ' s readiness to return to work 2 weeks later by his arrogant as-
sertion that the job would not then be open to her . The evidence indicates that Mrs Stout
found such other work . of a domestic nature, as was available to her By reason of the
discriminatory condition that attended the offer of reemployment, stated then and in-
dicated thereafter the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondents offer to Mrs.
Stout reinstatement unconditionally In computing back pay , however, none should be
found due her for a 2-week period beginning October 23rd.
10 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondents which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590 , 8 N L R B 440 Monies received
for work performed upon Federal, State. county, municipal, or other work-irlief p'olects
shall be considered as eainings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R. B . 311 U S. 7.
ai The back pay to Mrs Stout and Mrs Furne shall be measured by their denial, of
employment during poultry dressing seasons, and only their net earnings during such pe-
riod shall be deducted. Cf. John TV Campbell Inc ., 5S N. L It. B. 1153 The net earn-
ings to be deducted from back pay to Mrs Stout shall not include those earnings she re-
ceived for other work done while employed by Respondents, such as for her 'employment
as church janitress.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO. 711
order of disestablishment now appears necessary , although notice to the employ-
ees that it will not again be recognized is appropriate and will be recommended,
and it will be further recommended that Respondents reimburse any 'present
or former employees for initiation fees paid in that organization, who have
not been fully reimbursed from its funds , and that Respondents reimburse any
employees who personally bore the expense of attorney fees paid for service in
organizing the Committee in view of Respondents' promise to reimburse such
expense '
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. United Packinghouse Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. Our Agreement Committee of H. J . Daniels Poultry Co., unaffiliated, was
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Our Agreement Committee of H. J . Daniels Poultry Co., until its dissolution
on December 4, 1944, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 2) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Charles New-
land, Clara Stout, and Olive Furne to discourage membership in United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. By restraining and interfering with the exercise of the rights of their
employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , directly and in consequence of
violations of Sections 8 (2) and 8 (3) of the Act, the Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the un-
dersigned recommends that the Respondents , H J. Daniels and Blanche Dan-
iels, doing business as H. J . Daniels Poultry Co ., and their agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation and administration of any
labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing Our Agreement Committee of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co.,
or any successor thereto, as the representative of their employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining ;
(c) Discouraging membership in United Packinghouse Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor
organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire , tenure , or any term
or condition of their employment;
(d) Restraining , coercing , or interfering with their employees in any man-
ner in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist
ez See Baltimore Transit Co v. N. L. It. B , 140 F ( 2d) 51 (C. C A 4), cert denied 321
U S. 795 , Vsrginia Electric it Power Co v N L R B , 319 U. S. 533
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Packinghouse Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify their employees that Our Agreement Committee of H. J. Daniels
Co., or any successor thereto, will not be recognized for purposes of collective
bargaining ;
(b) Reimburse any of its former or present employees who have not been
reimbursed heretofore, for initiation fees paid to Our Agreement Committee of
H. J Daniels Co., and for attorney fees paid for services rendered forming that
organization ;
(c) Offer to Charles Newland, Clara Stout, and Olive Furne unconditional and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, in the
manner set forth above ;
(d) Make whole Charles Newland, Clara Stout, and Olive Furne for any loss
of pay which they may have suffered or hereafter may suffer by reason of the
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth above;
(e) Post at its plant at Dow City, Iowa, copies of the notice attached hereto
(marked exhibit "A"). Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, after being signed by the Respondents' rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon the receipt
thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid. '
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944-
any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington,
D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon.
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
Dated February 28, 1945.
MELTON BOYD,
Trial Examiner.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO.
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
713
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to corm labor organizations,
to join or assist
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Charles Newland
Olive Furne
Clara Stout
We will not recognize Our Agreement Committee of H. J. Daniels
Poultry Co., or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or con(lition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
H. J. DANIELS POULTRY CO.,
Employer
Dated---------------- By--------------------------------- --------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the selective service act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.