Hickmott Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1357 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

HICKMOTT
Hickmott Damian Rodriguez Enrwisrle,'
iud union, No. 750, International Brother- emedy whenever res~ondents were found to have
Id ofTamtrrs, Cb.UfleUrs, W.rebaemen and
llelrn of md Dmim Rodrlw. cases dis-
:2-CA-643
8(a)(3) 8(b)(2)
On October 30, 1978. Administrative Law Judge
Earldean Robbins be more appropriate.
this
WZtrehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Help- manner" order ef-
Jnion, 750, Brotherhood of Team-
sters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of nor will it less
~ m e r i c a Union), filed excep- under the ~ c t . 8(aX3)
tions Counsel 8(b)(2) rnnduct-or, indeed, 8(a)(I) discharges-such
consid- order and could thus form a basis for a contempt
!he htation. subsequent illegal violative ofa dif-
e:rceptions ferent section of the would engender further or-
n of Adminis- ders against a respondent, again tailored to the ofi
trativc: ~ a w ~udge to her r e ~ ~ n m e n d e d fens, and the result well
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's order to be issued to remedy the same would not net-
concli~sion essaily mean that a broad order could not be issued
and (]MA) the National Labor Relations if, respondent committed only a single disciminatory
Act, as amended, by causing Hickmott Foods* Inca discharge. Where Such violations of the Act are
(hereiriafier the discriminate prov& and it can be further shown that a respondent,
agains: either to or concurrently with the discfimi-
Sectio1\ 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. However, we natory discharge, engaged in other wvere conduct
Union's violative of, for example, Section 8(a)(1) or
I
8(bMl)(A),
wruld repeat and egregious violators of the. Act
"in any manner restraining Or would be subjaf to (he traditional Board rmedy for ees Hickmott conduct which requires broad injunctive relief$
rights and bargain eollectivel~ With respect to the instant dispute we h d , based r~cfrain on the foregoing and the facts as found by the Ad- plied.) In our opinion, as below, such an Law Judge, that the broad injunctive
der Union
employees' 'N.LR.B. v. Entwis~le Mamfacwing Conlp4ny, 120 F.2d Cir.
1941), (1940). Compare, e.g., N.LRB. W. Mays, statutory rights. each Inc., F.2d 1170, (2d Cir. 1975); Trice Pr&t~ Corpomtion v.
a.lalyzed N.LR.B., 489 F.M (2d a. 1973): SMCW d C-, ~nc. , ".
the violations committed by a respondent so that the N.LR.8.. 437 F.2d 1127,1136(5th 1971); N.LR.8. Thr Atlm-
Pact# Conpay, Inc.. F.2d 1173, 1175 1%9);
N.L.R.B. Trampr~ation, Inc., F.2d 1%3); - N.LRB. Amprx Corpomlion F.2d 82,86-87 Cir. N.LR.B.
The Thonpson iYd&i&e, Inc.. F.2d 807. 810-81 1 1%2):
Decision Order. appears the the N.LR. B. Standrrrd Fobn'mting F.2d (8th
%ring ew XI Cir. I%I); her to Rican Dydock & Termi~ l r . Inc., LR.B..
bankruptcy praading. F.2d 1960).
N.L.R.B. #. Express hbiuhing C q n y , 'See. e.&. Florid0 Cocporation
NLR13
FOODS 1357
The Board, relying on has until now
Cannery, Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers regularly included the broad order provision as a
Foods, lnc. and
committed violations which went "to the very heart
of the Act," and we have routinely considered
charging or causing the discharge of an employee in
violation of Sections or to be such a
violation. However, we have carefully reconsidered
June 21, 1979 our policy regarding remedial orders with respect to
discriminatory discharges. In so doing, we have
DECISION AND ORDER reached the conclusion that automatic adoption of
broad orders in every discharge case is not warranted,
but rather that a narrow order, responsive to the par-
ticular actions of a violator of the Act, would usually
V. S. issued the attached Decision
in proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Cannery, The issuance of the narrow "in any like or related
will not, in our opinion, frustrate
ers 1 International fective enforcement of the Board's remedial orders,
provide effective protection of rights
(hereinafter called the If there is a repetition of or
and a supporting brief,and the General
filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has
ered record and the attached Decision in light of
the and briefs and has decided to affirm
the lings, findings,and conclusions the

and
adopt might be a broad order.
Order, as modified herein. Further, closer scrutiny of violations in relation to the
that Respondent Union violated Section
and 32-CB-136
would certainly be within the scope of the narrow
a nonmember of the Union in violation of

find

merit i n the exception1 to the breadth of the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order a broader order may be warranted. Thus,
that require the Union to cease and desist from
&-
of Foods, Inc., in the exercise of their
or to from such activities." (Emphasis sup-
explained
order is warranted o n '~when a respondent is shown miniis
s
s
tr
u
a
e
t
d
iv
the
e
is not warranted herein.to have a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged
in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to
demonstrate a general disregard for the 532 (4th
enfg. 23 NLRB 1058 v. J.
518 1171
will be to determine the nature and extent of 347,354
Cir. v. Great
Tea 406 (5th Cir.Board may tailor an appropriate order? tic and v. Bowman 314 497 (5th Cir.
v. 442 (7th 1971);
Employer did not file exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's v. Ramo 305 (7th Cir.
and recommended pleadings that at v. Metal Company, 297 365. 367
time of the h
It from
Marine v. N. 284
212, 216 (D.C. Cir.
3 12 U.S. 426 (1941).
in this the Employer was involved in a chapter
Steel 223 NLRB 174 (1976).
No. 177 242
8(b)(2)
here.5
IO(c)
Inc.,
I ,
"(b)
B,I,
Administralive
lo also
E(a)(3) ( 1 )
Sec. B(bW2) (IKA).
Hick-
Damian
WILL
Inc.,
4ct, no-
lice
Ijoard
POSTED
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1358
The record herein is devoid of any facts which require The Act gives all employees these rights:
a broader remedy. Insofar as the record shows. the
Union engaged in this single violation of Section
in securing the discriminatory discharge.
Therefore, only a narrow order is necessary at this
time to remedy the violation
Accordingly, we will modify the Administrative
Law Judge's recommended Order herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge. as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that Respondent Hickmott
Foods, Antioch, California, its officers, agents,
successors. and assigns, and Respondent Cannery.
Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Help-
ers Union, No. 750, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Oakland, California, its officers agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, as so modified:
1 . Substitute the following for paragraph A. (b):
In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees of Hickmott Foods, Inc., in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph (b):
"(b) In any like or related-manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
3. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
To engage in self-organization
T o form. join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
T o refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that restrains or
coerces employees with respect to these rights.
WE W ILL NOT cause or attempt to cause
mott Foods, Inc., to unlawfully discriminate
against Rodriguez. or any other em-
ployee, by ( I ) denying them their proper senior-
ity because they are not our members: (2) remov-
ing them from their jobs because they are not
our members; (3) posting their jobs for bidding
by employees who are our members even though
they have not vacated such jobs; and (4) replac-
ing them in their jobs with employees who are
our members.
WE NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees of Hickmott Foods,
Inc.. in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
WE WILL notify Hickmott Foods, and
Damain Rodriguez, in writing. that we have no
objection to the placement of Rodriguez on the
seniority list based on his total past service with
Hickmott, or to his reinstatement to his job.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Hickmott
Foods. Inc.. make Damian Rodriguez whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of the unlawful discrimination against
him, plus interest.
'The Law Judge recommended that a broad order issue
against Respondent Employer. Although Respondent Employer failed to file
exceptions this recommended Order, we will narrow the Order
against it, inasmuch as the and violation is based on the same
conduct found to violate and
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS

POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

An Agency of the United States Government

After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give

evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has

found that we violated the National Labor Relations

as amended, and has ordered us to post this

and we intend to carry out the Order of' the
and abide by the following:
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act. as amended, and has ordered us to post this no-
tice and we intend to carry out the Order of the
Board and abide by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
T~ bargain collectively through represents- con-
8(a)(l) 8(b)(l)(A)
To act together for bargaining Or
To refrain from any or all of these things. unlawfullv
(1)
iemoved replaced
8(a)(3)
2(2), (6),
11. ORGANlZATlON
2(5)
111. PRACTlCES
E~RLDEAN ROBBINS,
Thi~
September
32-(:B-136
l I,
Hiclmott Respon-
den1
herhood
Helpers
'
XI proceeding Bank-
Nptcv
terms
1,
HICKMOTT FOODS 1359
To engage in self organization
To form, join, or help unions
tives of their choosing
other mutual aid or protection
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with
or restrains or coerces employees with respect to
these rights.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discriminate against
Damian Rodriguez, or any other employee, by
denying them their proper seniority because
they are not members of Teamsters Local No.
750; (2) removing them from their jobs because
they are not members of Teamsters Local No.
750; (3) posting their jobs for bidding by em-
ployee-members of Teamsters Local No. 750,
even though they have not vacated such jobs;
and (4) replacing them in their jobs with em-
ployee-members of Teamsters Local No. 750.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Darnian Rodriguez immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to any rights and
privileges he previously enjoyed, and reinstate
him to a seniority status based on his total past
service with us.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Teamsters
Local No. 750 make Damian Rodriguez whole
for any loss he may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him, plus interest.
DECISION
Local 750. A first amended charge was filed by Rodriguez
in Case 32-CB-136 and served on Respondent Union on
February 23, 1978. An Order consolidating cases and a
solidated complaint which alleges violations of Section
and (3) and Section and (2) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, issued on March
13, 1978. The principal issue herein is whether Respondent
Union caused Hickmott to deny Rodriguez his
seniority rights, him from his job, and
him with an employee member of Respondent Union in
violation of Section of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
briefs filed by the parties, 1 make the following:
Hickmott, a California corporation with its principal of-
fice located in Antioch, California, and places of business
located in Pittsburg, California and Antioch, California, is
engaged in the commercial canning and nonretail sale of
tomatoes. During the 12-month period preceding the issu-
ance of the consolidated complaint herein, Hickmott, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, sold goods or
services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers or busi-
ness enterprises within the State of California, which cus-
tomers or business enterprises themselves meet one of the
Board's jurisdictional standards other than the indirect in-
flow or indirect outflow standard.
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find
that Hickmott is, and at all times material herein has been,
an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section and
(7) of the Act.
LABOR
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find
that Local 750 is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
of the Act.
THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
V. S. Administrative Law Judge:
case was heard before me in Oakland, California, on
14, 1978. The charges in Cases 32-CA-643 and
were filed by Damian Rodriguez on January
1978, and copies thereof were served respectively on
Foods, Inc., herein called Hickmott or
Employer,' and on Cannery, Warehousemen, Food
Processors, Drivers and Helpers Union, 750, International
Bror of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
of America, herein called Respondent Union or
Hickmott made no appearance at the hearing herein. Hickmott is pres-
ently a debtor in possession in a chapter under the
Act.
For a number of years Hickmott has been party to or
covered by an industry collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween California Processors, Inc., and the Teamsters Cali-
fornia State Council of Cannery and Food Processing
Unions, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers at its Antioch facility.
The last such agreement is effective by its from July
1, 1976, to June 30, 1979. Cannery, Warehousemen, Food
Processors, Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 678,
herein called Local 678, administered the collective-bar-
gaining agreement as to Hickmott employees until about
October 1977. Effective October 1977, Local 678 was
merged into Cannery Local 750, and since that time Can-
nery Local 750 has administered the collective-bargaining
agreement as to Hickmott.
~
i
agree-
em- con-
con-
did.2
19773
rep-
as-
Cagle,
7501 agreement."4
Cagle
1.
Newport,
collec-
se- I j
ap-
represen-
Rodriguez was laid off in a seasonal layoffon October 28.
phoned him and informed him of the posting. Rodriguez
either Local 750 or Hickmott, Rodriguezv job was posted of Newport to
filled.5 when he would be recalled. Newport said that Rodriguez I
SECTION
seniority list
in each plant. Seniority will be attained after an em- told
creditably working at ~ i ~ k ~ ~ t t . ~ l ~ ~ i ~told him to speak
1968, to
h l 6 7 8 agreement. un-
'All dates hereinafter unkss San-
tntified that by "member of the ~lle~tive-bargaining a reement" what Smith had told him. He further told Sanchez that
local
5The first p e m n to s ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ l l y the akcd to be transferred he had been the only
ahort su-fully bid on the job would look
scvcral rec-
assignments time
herein warehouse Pittsburg Newpon
employas reflect
?
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployee has worked thirty (30) working days dating
ment has required, as a condition of employment, that
For a number of years the collective-bargaining
from the employee's hire date within two (2)
ployees become and remain members of the Union. Team- secutive calendar years. Subject to the approval of
sters Local 315 represents the truckdrivers at Hickmott and the U.S. District Court, all employees shall have
apparently also has a union-security provision in its their seniority adjusted to the employee's earliest se-
niority date. Until and unless such approval is ob-
tained, the current seniority order as modified by the
Conciliation and Settlement Agreement shall apply.
his foreman that he was to join Teamsters Local 315, which B. Order of Seniority. The order of seniority shall be
he He has maintained his membership in Teamsters on the day that the employee attains the thirtieth
Local 315 since that time. (30th) work day. When an employee has worked

In October
when Local 750 began servicing the thirty (30) days as provided above. the employee's
Hickmott plant. Frances Cagle, and Local 750 business name shall be added to the seniority list.
resentative assigned thereto, began to receive various com-
plaints and grievances from unit employees as to matters
which had not been resolved by Local 678. Among these
was a complaint that Rodriguez was not in the production D. Effective Date for Seniority. Until an employee's
unit represented by Local 750, that he had no seniority name appears on the seniority list, the employee
under the contract, and that the job he was holding should shall not be entitled to seniority privileges. Job
be in the unit and should be posted. According to signment, layoff and recall may be made without
she conferred with Freddy Sanchez, secretary-treasurer of regard to hiring dates until such time as an employee
Local 750, and sought instructions as to what should be gains seniority listing.
done concerning Rodriguez. Sanchez told her that Rodri-
guez' job should be posted "because he was not a member
of the [Local collective-bargaining

Thereafter, sometime in October,
and Sanchez met H. Job Posting.
with Tony Morici, Hickmott owner; Dee Smith. Hickmott All jobs permanently vacated by fourteen hundred
plant manager; and Charles Hickmott personnel (1400) hour seniority employees and temporary job
manager. At this meeting Sanchez informed the Hickmott openings, that the company requires to be filled, for
representatives that Hickmott was in violation of the non-seasonal assignments of four (4) or more weeks'
tive-bargaining agreement because Rodriguez had no duration will be posted on the plant bulletin board
niority in the plant yet he was performing a job covered for three (3) working days . . . .
under the contract. The company representatives admitted 2. Only applications made within the specified posting
that the job was a Local 750 job. They checked the 1977 period by seniority employees will be considered.
seniority list. Rodriguez did not appear on the list. Sanchez 3. The company will consider all employees who
said that the job would have to be posted under the job ply although consideration need not be limited to
posting procedures of the contract. The Hickmott this group if there are no qualified applicants.
tatives agreed to post the job. It is unclear whether Rodri-
guez was on layoff status at the time of this conversation. At the time of the posting Rodriguez was on vacation in
Mexico. His brother, also an employee at Hickmott, tele-
On November 15, without any notification to Rodriquez by
returned later that month and inquired as
and later The contract provisions upon which Local
750 relies are: would have to talk to Smith, which he did. Smith told him t
that there was a jurisdictional problem, and that Rodriguez
IX would have to change Unions if he wanted to work. Smith
said that there was nothing he could do, Rodriguez would
SENIORITY have to talk to someone from Local 315 and from Local
750.6
Rodriguez then spoke to Dick Fleming, business repre-
sentative for Local 315. He
A. The Seniority List. There shall be one
Fleming that Smith had
told him he would have to change Unions if he wanted to
Rodriguez testified that he wanted to join Cannery Local 678.
and that he attempted to do so in but his application was refused. The Sanchez.record docs not indicate why he was instructed to join Local 315. His job
appears to be covered by the Rodriguez then went to Sanchez. According to the
will be in 1977 d otherwise indicated. denied testimony of Rodriguez, which I credit, he told
chezshe meant member of 750, paying d u n to Local 750.

bid on
mechanic since 1965. Sanchez ap-job
peared surprised, said he have to over some after a period of time. The next person t~
was determined by Hickmott to be unqualified after weeks. The
ord does not reveal subsequent to this job. At the of the
hearing Respondent was operating its in with This is a composite of the testimonies of and Rodriguez which
probably six but was not engaged in production. I find more accurately what was said.
-- - - - - - - - - -- -
HlCKMOTT
homc.
talkei
ht:
1 am writing Ibis find Some way to 'Ie a griev- Further belying Local 75us contention that it was mere]y
ilnce for Damian Rodrigues. I do know Ihat there seeking to enforce the contract in a nondiscriminatory
was Lo- is the manner in which this problem was approached.
678. On May 4' 1977' from Local 678 agreed
to Iransfer Damian from 315 678' For
l
S:ince over Lo-
tal678. classi- of
Fcation.
11,:t tion mem- I
l'anel. bership
have you On Ihe was in your
and you were On am get lhe was i n jeopardy, or to notify him that he had certain
r~gh t under the union-security provision of the Local 750 ' .
%!niOrity and his job back at Hickmolt Foods because contract. In fact, Rodriguez' attempt to join Local 750 was ;, '
15.
and Ihe Company Representatives On May 47 Cagle I
Ihen to Sanchez again. to cause Rodriguez to be replaced in his job because Rodri-
Sanchcz Cagle. guez was not a member of Local 750 and thereby violated
Rodril;uez had a friend Cagle for him.7 Section 8(bXIXA) and (2) of the Act, I further find that
testifie3 ,in,, H~~~~~~~ had knowledge of these circumstances, its
acquiescence in Local 750's demands was violative of
was about what was going On, but because Rodriguez tion 8(a)(l) and of the Act. &key Wagon Drivers
was nc't a member of lhe Local 750 "collective-bargaining
agreerrent," they had to move on this. Bustos asked. chaufeurs, ~~~~h~~~~~~~ and ~~l~~~~ of A~~~~~~ (orom
750 a grievance for Rodriguez because he weal Baking Company), 2 14 N LRB 89 1 1); Barton
had be en displaced from his job?" C a b replied, "Well, he ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ , L I ~ . , 2 13 NLRB 640 (1 974): lnlernarional union of
is not a member of Our collective-bargaining agreement, Operaling Engineers, Local Union 18, el a/. (S, J . Groves &
s T. -DC,
lnc., 203 NLRB 1141 (19,3), enfd. 504 ~ . 2 d 294 (5th cir.
1974).
alsc~
CONCLUS~ON~
2(2),
If tht! Employer and the Union agreed that the Rodri- Local
jot) collec- of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. BY causing and attempting to cause Hickmott to
union membership. Damian
the same 10
the unit. To deny of 750,
that job is
8@)(2)
reje:t merely at- 8(bXI)(A)
temptin$: the 4. By
--
7 bdrig I=' ia
.
documents, and that he would telephone Rodriguez at
Sanchez did telephone Rodriguez. at which time he told
Rodriguez that i t would be impossible for him to change his
membership from Local 315 to Local 750. Later, Sanchez
to Fleming again. Fleming gave him a copy of a
letter he had sent to Sanchez and told Rodriguez that was
all could do. The letter. dated January 3. 1978, states:
letter
a jurisdictional dispute between our Local and
some unknown reason this did not take place.
then, Local 750, your Local, has taken
Now Damian is a member without any
I would like some way to file a grievance and
Mr. Damian Rodriguez have his day before the
'
answer. I feel this man is entitled to some kind of
a a Agreement was reached between Local 3 Local
1977. Everybody agreed to this.
Thank you very much.

Rodriguez

was not available, but he was referred to
that Rodriguez' friend, Bustos, said that he felt that
Rodriguez had not gotten a fair chance. Cagle said that she
"Then
and he not paying dues to us. So I cannot file a grievance.
I do not have that kind of authority." She then suggested
that he speak to Sanchez. She further testified that possibly
she suggested that he contact Local 315. Rodriguez has
had no further contact with representatives from either Lo-
cal 750 or Local 3 15.
Conclusion
guez classification was covered by the Local 750
tive-bargaining agreement, then Rodriguez was a member
of the bargaining unit regardless cf his
As such, Local 750 was obligated to treat him in
manner as it treated other members of
him his actual seniority in the performance of
clearly disparate treatment.
Local 750's contention that it was
to enforce the contract. Cagle testified that in
English
limited.
FOODS 1361
administration of the contract there have been situations
where an employee was incorrectly left off the seniority list,
or where an employee was placed on the list but with an
incorrect seniority date. In those circumstances, the matter
is discussed with the Company, personnel files are con-
sulted, and the seniority list is corrected. Thus the contract
seniority provisions have not been interpreted as requiring
the rigid, mechanical application suggested by Local 750's
position.
man-
ner
Sanchez never inquired as to the length of time Rodriguez
had held this job, and he never made any attempt to discuss
with anyone from Local 678 the circumstances surrounding
the previous failure to insist that this job be considered as
part the unit. This persisted even after Fleming's letter
which indicated that the parties had reached some resolu-
of this matter in May under which Rodriguez'
was to be transferred from Local 315 to Local 678.
No attempt was made to determine why this alleged agree-
ment had not been effected, to notify Rodriguez that his job
obliga-
tions . .
Furthermore, admits that Local 750 engaged in
this conduct because Rodriguez was not a member of the
Union. However, even in the absence of such admission, I
find that in the circumstances herein, Local 750 attempted
, .
Set-
(3) &
Salesmen Local 484, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
(197
Sons Company), 227 NLRB 1477 (1977); I.M.E.
F LAW
1. Hickmott is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. 750 is a labor organization within the meaning
deny
Rodriguez his proper seniority, to remove him
from his job, post his job for bidding by employee mem-
bers Local and to replace Rodriguez in his job by an
employee member of Local 750, Local 750 has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
and of the Act.
denying Damian Rodriguez his proper seniority,
removing him from his job, posting his job for bidding by
employee members of Local 750, and replacing him in his
I
DEClSlONS
8(a)(3)
2(6)
backpay
W.
1950), Corporarion,
(1 977).8
I q c )
"ee, Isis & (1962).
Sec.
Sec.
its
object~ons
A."I0
Anti-
och,
1.
Damian
lo
Pursuant
Court
OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1362
job by an employee member of Local 750, Respondent
Hickmott has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section and (I) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act.
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondents
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purpose of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent Hickmott has unlawfully
deprived Damian Rodriguez of his proper seniority, has re-
moved him from his job, and has replaced him with an
employee member of Respondent Local 750, and that Re-
spondent Local 750 caused such unlawful discrimination, I
shall recommend that Respondent Hickmott offer Rodri-
guez immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to any rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed; that he be reinstated to a seniority status
based on his total past service with Hickmott; and that
Respondent Local 750 withdraw any objection thereto. I
shall further recommend that Respondents jointly and sev-
erally make Rodriguez whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered by him by reason of the discrimination against him.
The obligations shall be computed in the manner
set forth in F. Woolworrh Company, 90 NLRB 289
and Florida Steel 231 NLRB 651
Upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of
law upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
A. Respondent Local 750, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall: I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing and attempting to cause Hickmott Foods,
Inc., to unlawfully discriminate against Damian Rodriguez
or any other employee by denying them their proper senior-
ity because they are not members of Local 750; removing
them from their jobs because they are not members of Lo-
cal 750; posting their jobs for bidding by employee mem-
bers of Local 750, even though they have not vacated such
jobs; and replacing them in their jobs with employee mem-
bers of Local 750.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees of Hickmott Foods, Inc., in the exercise of their Section
7 rights to organize and bargain collectively or to refrain
from such activities.
generally. Plumbing Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and bccorne
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all thereto shall bc deemed
waived for all purposes.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Notify Respondent Hickmott and Damian Rodri-
guez, in writing, that it has no objection to the placement of
Rodriguez on the seniority list based on his total past ser-
vice with Hickmott nor to his reinstatement to his job.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Hickmott
make Damian Rodriguez whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post a t its business office, meeting halls, or other
places where it customarily posts notices, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 32, shall, after being duly signed by a n authorized
representative of Respondent Union, be posted by Respon-
dent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Additional
copies of said Appendix A shall be duly signed by an au-
thorized representative of Respondent Union and furnished
to the said Regional Director for transmission to Respon-
dent Hickmott for posting by Respondent Hickmott in ac-
cordance with the Order directed to Respondent Hickmott
above.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Employer, Hickmott Foods, Inc.,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully discriminating against Rodri-
guez or any other employee by denying them their proper
seniority because they are not members of Local 750; re-
moving them from their jobs because they are not members
of Local 750; posting their jobs for bidding by employee
members of Local 750, even though they have not vacated
such jobs; and replacing them in their jobs with employee
members of Local 750.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights to organize and bargain collectively or to refrain
from such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Damian Rodriguez immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
any rights and privileges previously enjoyed and reinstate
him to a seniority status based on his total past service with
Hickmott.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 750
make Damian Rodriguez whole for any loss he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted to a Judg-
ment of the United States of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
manner
"Tk
(4:)
Boz
backpay
((I)
B.""
I' 10,
gional Regon
Hickmott
HICKMOTT FOODS 1363
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
e Remedy."
Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
rd or its agents for examination and copying all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
Post at its facility in Antioch, California, copies of
the attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix
Copies of Appendix A, on forms provided by the Re-
-
See fn. supra.
Director for 32, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent Local 750 Union
and copies of Appendix B, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent Hickmott shall be
posted by Respondent Hickmott immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.