Highland Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1981

255 N.L.R.B. 1118 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Highland Foods, Inc. and Vickelda Industrial Corpo-
ration and Local 5, Butchers, Food Handlers,
Allied and Miscellaneous Workers Union, affili-
ated with United Food & Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 3-
CA-9335
April 20, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 26, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Highland
Foods, Inc. and Vickelda Industrial Corporation,
Highland, New York, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951\. We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her find-
ings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law
Judge: This case was heard in Poughkeepsie, New York,
on March 5 and 6, 1980. The original charge was served
on the Respondent on September 21, and the amended
charge was served October 1, 1979. The complaint was
issued October 19, 1979 and was thereafter amended.
The Respondent duly answered the complaint and the
amendments to the complaint.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
isolating Richard Rosenquist from the other employees
because of his organizational activities, by threatening to
close the plant and discharge employees if they did not
refrain from union activities, and by promising benefits if
employees would refrain from such activities; and wheth-
er or not the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act by laying off Richard Rosenquist because of his or-
255 NLRB No. 146
ganizational activities. For the reasons stated below, I
conclude that the Respondent violated the Act substan-
tially as alleged in the complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES2
A. Introduction
The Respondent is engaged in machine packaging of
food products such as ketchup and sugar in paper or
metal packets of various sizes. Elda Gutierrez is vice
president of Highland Foods, Inc., and president of
Vickelda Industrial Corporation, owning shares in both.
She directly supervises the approximately 20 operators,
most of whom are women, of the production machines
which measure and package the food. Dennis Borrello is
part owner of Vickelda, and is machinist, head mechanic,
and in charge of maintenance and the three or four men
employees who are the machinist, mechanic, printer, and
warehouseman. Charlotte Quinn is the one-person office
force, and Dianne Altieri is in charge of quality control
and relays production orders from Gutierrez to the ma-
chine operators, calls breaktime, and operates a produc-
tion machine. The plant is not organized, and no griev-
ance procedure is in effect.
The Respondent hired Richard Rosenquist in early
1978. He was a friend of Borrello who had been his su-
pervisor when both were previously employed by an-
other company where Borrello knew Rosenquist was a
member of the Union. Rosenquist was assigned chiefly to
work in the Respondent's machine shop as a machinist,
building machines and parts for use on the production
floor. In addition, he spent about 10 percent of his time
as a mechanic, making relatively minor repairs to ma-
chines and performing nonskilled duties on the produc-
tion floor;3 he also performed printing work for about 2
months in the spring or summer of 1979 after the printer
quit, and he received a compliment from Gutierrez for
this work.
In May 1979 Rosenquist demanded a $1-an-hour wage
increase. Gutierrez approved 75 cents, telling him he
might earn the rest by overtime if available, because,
both Gutierrez and Borrello testified, Rosenquist was
valuable to them as a machinist and Gutierrez testified
they did not want to lose him.
For 2 or 3 weeks beginning in mid-July 1979, Rosen-
quist sounded out the Respondent's employees, speaking
to about 10 of them about their attitudes toward union-
No issue was presented with regard to jurisdiction or labor organiza-
tion status. I find, based on the allegations of the complaint and the ad-
missions of the answer, that the Respondent is a single integrated business
enterprise and meets the jurisdictional standards of the National Labor
Relations Board; and that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
2 Except where specifically discussed, the facts are substantially undis-
puted.
a Based primarily on the testimony of Dianne Altieri, as I cannot
credit Rosenquist's testimony that he spent more, or Borrello's that Ro-
senquist spent less, time on machinery repair. The weight of the evidence
establishes, contrary to Rosenquist's testimony, that he was not a fully
qualified mechanic or printer, and that he drove a truck on only one oc-
casion for the Respondent
HIGHLAND FOODS, INC. 1119
ization, and Borrello acknowledged that he heard gossip
that Rosenquist "was trying to get people together" for a
union.
Rosenquist made an appointment to meet two repre-
sentatives of the Union on August 8 at a diner some dis-
tance from the plant. By coincidence Borrello came into
the diner, spoke with one of the union representatives
who mistook him for Rosenquist, and on his way out in-
formed Rosenquist that the union representative was
waiting to see him inside the place. Upon his return to
the plant, Borrello recounted the incident to Gutierrez.
B. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. The complaint alleges in effect that on August 8,
1979, the Respondent isolated Richard Rosenquist from
other employees to discourage union activity.
About half an hour after Rosenquist returned from
lunch on August 8, the day he met the union representa-
tives at the diner, to the knowledge of Borrello and Gu-
tierrez, Borrello went into the machine shop and told
Rosenquist to stay in the machine shop and not go out
on the production floor where he had no business going;
Borrello also told Altieri to instruct the production em-
ployees to stay out of the machine shop and, if they
needed tools, they were to stop at the door and ask Ro-
senquist for them. Altieri did as she was told.
Until this time, Rosenquist occasionally went onto the
production floor for various reasons, and employees
came into the shop frequently to get tools for Borrello
and Altieri.
Borrello and Altieri testified that although this rule
had been announced on previous occasions it had not
been, and still is not, observed or enforced. Borrello tes-
tified he restricted Rosenquist to the machine shop be-
cause his only job was that of machinist and that was
where his machinist work was and it was uneconomic to
use Rosenquist, at his high wage rate, to perform un-
skilled work such as carrying rolls of paper into the pro-
duction area and dumping sugar into a hopper. He re-
stricted access to the machine shop by production em-
ployees because, he said, employees failed to return tools
they carried out of the shop and Rosenquist had com-
plained about it, and because it took Borrello a long time
to find a tool an employee had left in the warehouse. Al-
tieri added that employees were beginning to use the ma-
chine shop, which had a back door, as an exit from the
plant instead of going out through the office area.
Altieri's justification for the announcement, or rean-
nouncement, of this rule at this time-to prevent employ-
ees from using the shop area as a plant exit-is discount-
ed as it was not she but Borrello who initiated the an-
nouncement and he did not give this as a reason. Nor
does the other reason advanced by Borrello and support-
ed by Altieri, missing tools, seem to be valid. Thus, I
cannot credit Borrello that an employee was responsible
for mislaying the tool it took him so long to find inas-
much as the record shows that employees went into the
shop for tools when dispatched by Borrello and Altieri.
It follows that it was Borrello and Altieri who used the
tools and if they were not returned it must have been be-
cause Borrello and Altieri failed to return them or to
give them to employees for return. If tools were missing,
therefore, it presumably was because of the negligence of
Borrello and Altieri and not of the employees. Accord-
ingly, although requiring employees to stop at the door
of the shop and ask Rosenquist for tools might have re-
sulted in Rosenquist's knowing who took them, it would
not have cured the problem of not having them returned.
Moreover, although Borrello's explanation that it was
not economical to employ Rosenquist at unskilled duties
makes a certain amount of sense, his flat restriction on
Rosenquist's movements seemed to apply also to his me-
chanic work on the floor which, though perhaps infre-
quent, was an economical use of Rosenquist's time. It is
also significant that Borrello completely failed to account
for the timing of this proclaimed restriction.
As the reasons advanced by the Respondent are with-
out merit, and in view of the timing of the announce-
ment within an hour or so of the confirmation of Borrel-
lo's information that Rosenquist was attempting to orga-
nize the employees, the evidence that the rule had previ-
ously been unobserved and unenforced, and the union
animus revealed by both Borrello and Gutierrez herein-
after described, I find, notwithstanding Borrello's knowl-
edge that Rosenquist had been a member of the Union at
his prior place of employment, that Borrello's purpose in
making this announcement was to isolate Rosenquist
from the other employees, and thus interfere with em-
ployees' organizational activities. Even though the Re-
spondent apparently did not follow up with any enforce-
ment, I find that the announcement in itself tended to in-
hibit the employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act, and I conclude that the announced
isolation of Rosenquist from the other employees violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, substantially as alleged in
the complaint.4
2. The complaint alleges that on August 10 President
Gutierrez threatened employees with plant closure and
discharge if they did not refrain from engaging in union
activity.
On August 10, the union representatives distributed
campaign literature at the plant gate. Donna Reuther, a
packer in the Respondent's employ, testified that at about
4 p.m. that day she heard Gutierrez say that:
Unions had ruined [her country] Cuba and . . . it
was her right as an American citizen, not to have a
Union in her place. She would rather close her
doors and move to another town, than to have a
Union in her plant.
Gutierrez admitted making these remarks, her defense
being as she recalled she was angry and upset at the time
because she had just seen Rosenquist place a union pam-
phlet in her car and not being familiar with American
labor laws she did not know it was unlawful to say such
a thing.
I am willing to believe Gutierrez' testimony and to
accept her counsel's argument that she is sorry she made
the remark. However, anger, ignorance of the law, and
regret are not really relevant. The test is whether the
4 Cf. Stein Seal Company, 237 NLRB 996 (1978): S. S. Kresge Company,
229 NLRH 10, 17 (1977).
HIGHLAND FOODS, INC.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remark can reasonably be said to have restrained and co-
erced her employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.5 Both the Supreme Court
e and the
Board 7 have held that a threat to close a plant does re-
strain and coerce employees.
I conclude that President Gutierrez' statement of
August 10 violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
3. The complaint alleges that on August 21, 1979,
President Gutierrez promised to improve hospitalization
and other benefits if employees refrained from union ac-
tivity, solicited grievances with an implied promise to
remedy them, and set up a grievance committee in order
to induce employees to refrain from union activity.
On August 21, some of the employees informed Gu-
tierrez they wished to attend a meeting with the union
representatives; she ordered the machine shut down 15
or 20 minutes early and urged all to attend the meeting.
At the meeting, held in a nearby restaurant, the union
representatives discussed hospitalization, life insurance,
and other benefits offered by the Union, and the griev-
ance procedure which would be proposed. The discus-
sion was fully reported to President Gutierrez.
The next day, August 22, Gutierrez joined a group of
employees in the lunch area during breaktime and told
them it was true she did not have a good health plan but
she would try to improve it; she had been trying to get a
better plan for a long time; and if the employees would
contribute $11 a month instead of giving that amount to
the Union, she would contribute the same amount, and
obtain better coverage. s It was then suggested by one or
more of the employees that they elect a committee to
take employee problems to Gutierrez and Borrello, and
Gutierrez told them it would be all right.
9
With regard to the medical plan, the record establishes
that Gutierrez had sought to improve the plan in effect
at the plant since January 1979, obtaining quotations
from various insurance companies, and discussing the
quotations with employees known to be interested be-
cause they were covered by the present plan.
t 0
Even though it is clear that Gutierrez encouraged the
employees to attend the union meeting of August 21, and
even though, to the employees' knowledge, she had been
searching for an improved medical-insurance plan, her
statement to them on August 22 was plainly prompted
Florida Steel Corporation, 224 NLRB 45 (1976).
6 N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co.. Inc., et al., 395 U.S. 575, 611, fn. 31
(1969); Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing
Company, et al., 380 U.S. 265, fn. 20 (1965).
7 Plastic Film Products Corp., 238 NLRB 135, 137 (1978).
8 Based on the credited testimony of employee Donna Reuther, sub-
stantially admitted by Gutierrez.
9 Based on the credited testimony of Sheila Garcia. I do not credit
Reuther's unsupported testimony that it was Gutierrez who suggested the
shop committee. Nor can I accept Gutierrez' testimony that she did not
understand the shop-committee suggestion, in view of Altieri's testimony
that Gutierrez told the employees they could not elect Altieri because
"she's working for me and that wouldn't be fair to you .. "thereby re-
vealing a certain sophistication in the matter.
'1 Based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Gutierrez, em-
ployee Elizabeth Peters, and Dianne Altieri. The General Counsel admits
the Respondent provided medical coverage, and I discredit Donna
Reuther's testimony that the Respondent had no medical-insurance plan
at the time. The Respondent obtained an improved medical-insurance
plan in February 1980 for the employees and the Respondent continued
evenly to divide the cost of the premiums.
by the union representatives' description of their plan
and put to the employees in terms suggesting that im-
provement in the company plan was contingent upon the
employees' forgoing unionization and the dues obliga-
tions associated therewith. In other words, the reason-
able inference to be drawn by the employees was that
the Respondent would improve its medical-insurance
plan if the employees would abandon the Union and use
the money they would have otherwise paid in dues to
the Union to pay their share of the premiums for the
new plan. Where, as here, such a promise is made with
the intent of influencing employees' attitudes toward
unionization, it constitutes interference with employees'
rights under Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, inasmuch
as there had been no grievance procedure in effect at the
plant and as the proposal to elect a committee stemmed
from the union representatives' presentation of the day
before, Gutierrez' agreement to the election of what
amounted to a grievance committee was clearly impelled
by a desire to induce the employees to forsake the Union
in exchange for an improvement in working condi-
tions. 12
Accordingly, I conclude that on August 22 the Re-
spondent promised to improve medical insurance and to
set up a grievance committee in order to induce employ-
ees to refrain from engaging in union activity, and there-
by violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The complaint alleges that in early December 1979
Dennis Borrello impliedly threatened employees with
plant closure if they selected the Union to represent
them.
Richard Rosenquist testified, in support of this allega-
tion, that on or about December 1, after he had been re-
called to work at the plant, he had a conversation in the
shop with Borrello during which Borrello "mentioned
that Unions are destroying the country and that a Union
would put a small business, like this, under." Borrello's
memory of this conversation was admittedly dim and, as
he could not flatly deny this testimony, I credit it.
Although Rosenquist acknowledged he has been a
friend of Borrello's for a long time and had many con-
versations with him over the years, the Board has indi-
cated that a remark by supervision to an employee is "no
less coercive merely because it comes from a friend."
13
Similarly, although Rosenquist testified he did not con-
sider Borrello's statement a direct threat, as stated above
the test is whether the remark would reasonably restrain
and coerce employees. It is well established that an em-
ployer can make a prediction as to the precise effect he
believes unionization will have on his company, but, if he
does, his prediction must be carefully phrased on the
basis of objective fact to convey his belief as to demon-
strably probable consequences beyond his control or to
convey a management decision already arrived at to
close the plant in case of unionization.1
4 I find that Bor-
rello's remark failed to meet this test and conclude that it
II N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 .U.S. 405 (1964); Viele &
Sons, Inc., 227 NLRB 1940, 1944 (1977).
12 See First Data Resources. Inc.. 241 NLRB 713, 722-723 (1979).
13 See Cagle's Inc., 234 NLRB 1148, 1150 (1978).
14 N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc.. supra at 617.
HIGHLAND FOODS, INC. 1121
therefore constituted an implied threat to close the plant
in the event of unionization, and violated Section
8(a)(1).15
C. Violation of Section 8(a)(3)
The complaint alleges that the Respondent laid off
Richard Rosenquist on August 9, 1979, because of his
union activities. The Respondent contends the layoff was
economically motivated.
When Rosenquist reported for work on the morning of
August 9, Borrello took him into the office and informed
him, without any prior warning, that Borrello and Gu-
tierrez had decided the evening before that there was not
enough work for him and they had to lay him off.
Borrello testified that he and Gutierrez had discussed
for months the possbility of laying Rosenquist off "if we
didn't get busy." They discussed it again in mid or late
July, he said. Borrello spoke of a big job the Company
hoped for falling through but he could not remember
when this happened. He did say that when the Company
had lost a big customer the preceding December he
"went on unemployment myself... just so I could hold
[Rosenquist] there," but he decided he would never do
that again because, "if you're nice you get-it just
doesn't pay to be nice." This time, after stretching things
out as much as they could, he and Gutierrez decided on
the evening of August 8, that they would let Rosenquist
go because they would not be building any more ma-
chines and he himself would make any parts that were
needed.
Gutierrez made no reference to the loss of any big job,
but she said that in June she and Borrello had discussed
the fact that they had built no machines since December
and that business was slow. She decided to lay Rosen-
quist off, she said, about 10 days after she laid off her
own sister whom she employed at the plant, because Ro-
senquist was unhappy, he complained about his wages
and about people stealing tools from the shop, he came
late to work, and he and Borrello complained about each
other; she also said Rosenquist's wages were high and
she did not have the money to pay him, and other em-
ployees were more essential.
The salient feature of this testimony is the failure of
either management witness to account for the timing of
the layoff. Borrello could not date the loss of the big job
he referred to and Gutierrez did not even mention that.
Both were vague about business being poor, and no doc-
umentary evidence was offered. In addition, they
claimed to have discussed the possibility of layoff in the
past, but never mentioned it to Rosenquist. Moreover, al-
though management described Rosenquist as a valuable
employee, no consideration seems to have been given to
the possibility of keeping him on the payroll on a part-
time basis, making the parts Borrello was required to
make, continuing his share of the machine repair work in
which there apparently was no diminution, and doing the
printing work, instead of hiring a completely inexperi-
enced new employee. Gutierrez' criticisms of Rosen-
quist's conduct on the job were not corroborated by
1' N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co.. Inc., supra; The Stride Rite Corpora-
tion, 228 NLRB 224, 234 (1977).
Borrello as reasons for the layoff, and were not, in any
event, relevant to the Respondent's economic defense to
this allegation. 16
As against this, the General Counsel has directly relat-
ed the timing of the layoff to the day after management
learned of Rosenquist's meeting with union representa-
tives, thereby confirming their information that he was
attempting to organize the employees. Moreover, the Re-
spondent's union animus was clearly revealed by the im-
mediately preceding announcement of the isolation of
Rosenquist and the shortly following threat to close the
plant rather than have a union represent its employees.
This conduct was followed, less than 2 weeks later, by
unlawful promises of benefits to induce employees to
abandon the Union, and several months afterwards by
another threat to close the plant. The hostility thus dem-
onstrated makes clear that Borrello, in his testimony re-
lating to the layoff "it just doesn't pay to be nice," had
Rosenquist's union activity in mind.
Therefore, as the economic reasons advanced by the
Respondent are not supported by substantial credible evi-
dence, and in view of the timing of the layoff shortly
after the Respondent confirmed its knowledge of Rosen-
quist's organizing activities, and its hostility to unionism
revealed by the other unfair labor practices found, I find
that, even though President Gutierrez may not have
been aware of its illegality, Rosenquist's layoff was an-
other weapon used in the Respondent's fight against the
unionization of its employees. I conclude that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily laid off Richard Rosenquist on
August 9, 1979, to discourage union activity, in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
II. REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(aXl1) and
(3) of the Act, I recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom, and from infringing in like or relat-
ed manner on its employees' exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act. I also recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to take certain affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have
found that Richard Rosenquist was discriminatorily dis-
charged on August 9, 1979. As the record shows that
Rosenquist was fully reinstated on November 1, 1979, 1
find it unnecessary to include a reinstatement recommen-
dation. I do, however, recommend that he be made
whole for any loss of earnings suffered between the date
of his layoff and the date of his reinstatement. Interest
shall be paid on all backpay in accordance with Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
1' I find no support for the Respondent's cause in the fact that Rosen-
quist told the Unemployment Compensation Commission he was laid off
for lack of work. Employees commonly, if not invariably, repeat, in their
claims for unemployment compensation, the reasons given to them by
their employers for their layoffs. Nor is it significant, in determining the
cause of layoff, that the Respondent recalled Rosenquist to work on No-
vember 1, 1979, after the charge was filed in this case.
HIGHLAND FOODS, INC.
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, Highland Foods, Inc. and Vickelda
Industrial Corporation, Highland, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Laying off or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees to discourage membership in, or support of,
Local 5, Butchers, Food Handlers, Allied and Miscella-
neous Workers Union, affiliated with United Food &
Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC, or any other union.
(b) Announcing the isolation of employees for the pur-
pose of interfering with union activity, threatening to
close the plant if employees do not refrain from union
activity, or promising benefits to induce employees to re-
frain from union activity.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Richard Rosenquist for earnings lost
by reason of the discrimination against him, between
August 9 and November 1, 1979, with interest, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Highland, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 8 Copies of the
l? In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
A' 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
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of
Region 3, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by said Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT lay off or otherwise discriminate
against any employee to discourage membership in
or support of Local 5, Butchers, Food Handlers,
Allied and Miscellaneous Workers Union, affiliated
with United Food & Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT announce the isolation of employ-
ees for the purpose of interfering with union activi-
ty, threaten to close the plant if employees do not
refrain from union activity, or promise benefits to
induce employees to refrain from union activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make whole Richard Rosenquist for
the lost earnings suffered by him between August 9,
1979, when he was discriminatorily laid off, and
November 1, 1979, when he was reinstated, with in-
terest.
HIGHLAND FOODS, INC. AND VICKELDA
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION