Horizon Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1986

280 N.L.R.B. 1174 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Horizon Foods, Inc. and United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, Local 1550, chartered by
United Food & Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner.
Cases 13-CA-24710, 13-CA-24749, 13-CA-
24777,13-RC-16425, and 13-RC-16566
30 June 1986
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 26 February 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and
a brief in response to the Respondent's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified. 2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Horizon Foods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c).
"(c) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Csr. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
The General Counsel excepts to the judge's failure to include a vi sita-
torial clause in the recommended Order A visitatonal clause authorizes
the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discovery from the Re-
spondent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the supervi-
sion of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing this Order. Under
the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to include such a
clause . Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel's request
We find it unnecessary to rely on Alphonso Hayden's testimony in de-
termining the Respondent's motive or animus.
a The judge recommended that the Board issue a narrow cease-and-
desist order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from violating
the Act "in any like or related manner ." However, as urged in the Gen-
eral Counsel's cross-exceptions, we find the Respondent's conduct in this
case egregious enough to warrant the issuance of a broad cease-and-desist
order. Accordingly, we shall substitute the broad injunctive language, re-
quiring the Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Act "in any
other manner," for the provisions recommended by the judge. See Hick-
mott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees about their union activities; threaten our
employees with cuts in hours, layoffs, firings, close-
downs, and other reprisals if they support United
Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1550,
chartered by United Food & Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC; solicit em-
ployee grievances, promise our employees wage in-
creases, and, at the same time, threaten them with
reprisals; ask our employees to spy on the union
activities of their coworkers and report this infor-
mation to us; and create the impression that union
activities of our employees are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
United Food & Commercial Workers Union, or
any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging employees because of their union and
protected concerted activities, or by in any like or
related manner discriminating against our employ-
ees with respect to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Leethaniel Hibbler, Stanton Bald-
win, Deleria Rogers, and Christine Williams imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed and
WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from their dis-
charge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
HORIZON FOODS, INC.
Arley Eggertsen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Narcisse Brown, Esq., for the Employer.
Jairus Gilden, Esq., for the Union.
280 NLRB No. 127
HORIZON FOODS
DECISION
FRANK H . ITKIN , Administrative Law Judge . Unfair
labor practice charges were filed by the Union in the
above cases on December 14 and 20, 1984, and on Janu-
ary 4 and 16 , 1985 . A consolidated complaint issued on
January 30 , 1985. The complaint alleged , inter alia, that
Respondent Employer had violated Section 8 (a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercively in-
terrogating employees ; promising employees benefits;
threatening employees with reprisals; soliciting employ-
ees to report on protected union activities ; creating the
impression of surveillance; soliciting employee griev-
ances; and terminating and refusing to recall or reinstate
employees Deleria Rogers , Christine Williams, Stanton
Baldwin, and Leethaniel Hibbler . Respondent Employer
denied that it had violated the Act as alleged . Thereafter,
on February 1, 1985, the Board 's Regional Director for
Region 13 issued a supplemental decision on pending ob-
jections in a related representation proceeding involving
the same parties (Cases 13-RC- 16425 and 13-RC-16566).
The Regional Director noted that the objections filed by
the Union in the representation case essentially track the
above unfair labor practice allegations (Cases 13-CA-
24710, 13-CA-24749, and 13-CA-24777) and, therefore,
ordered the unfair labor practice and representation pro-
ceedings consolidated for hearing and decision . Subse-
quently , on October 28, 29 , and 30, 1985 , hearings were
held on the issues raised in Chicago , Illinois . And, on the
entire record , including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, I make the following'
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Introduction; Background
Respondent Employer is admittedly an employer en-
gaged in commerce and Charging Party Union is admit-
tedly a labor organization as alleged . The Employer op-
erates retail food stores in Chicago. During early 1984,
the Union initiated an organizational campaign at the
Employer's three stores in Chicago.2 On March 19, 1984,
the Union filed a representation petition in Case 13-RC-
16425, seeking to represent the Employer's full-time and
regular part-time store employees. (G.C. Exh. 2.) The
Union, at the same time, filed unfair labor practice
charges against the Employer, alleging, inter alia, the un-
lawful discharges of store employees. (G.C. Exh. 3.) Ad-
ditional charges were filed later. (G.C. Exhs. 4, 5, and 6.)
The representation proceeding was held in abeyance
pending resolution of the unfair labor practice charges.
(G.C. Exh. 7.) On May 1, 1984, the Regional Director
issued a complaint predicated upon the foregoing
charges, alleging 8(a)(1) and (3) violations of the Act.
(G.C. Exh. 8.) On August 6, 1984, the Regional Director
approved a settlement agreement pertaining to the above
i The General Counsel has withdrawn allegations of 8(a)(3) and (4)
violations pertaining to employee Vernita Shanks because of her failure
to appear at the hearings . Further , the Union, by letter dated December
17, 1985, has withdrawn its Objection 7, stating- "With regard to all out-
standing objections, Local 1550 will rely on the evidence and brief of
the General Counsel.
2 The three facilities were the East 79th Street store, the South State
Street store; and the South Cottage Grove store
1175
charges and complaint . The agreement contains a nonad-
mission clause . (G.C. Exh. 9.) On October 30, 1984, the
unfair labor practice proceedings were closed on compli-
ance. (G.C. Exh. 10.)3
B. Respondent Purchases a New Store; the Union
Resumes its Campaign; the Employer Opposes the
Union
Jerry Gesiaknowski, an organizer for the Union, testi-
fied that "while the representation cases were being held
in abeyance" during the summer of 1984, "we still con-
tinued to try to keep in contact with the employees."
Gesiaknowski discovered that the Employer had sold its
East 79th Street store and opened a "new store" on East
95th Street. The Union then solicited authorization cards
from the employees at the "new store" (G.C. Exhs. 14-
17) and "filed another petition amending the RC petition
to include that [new] store with the other two" (G.C.
Exh. 11). This petition, in Case 13-RC-16566, was filed
on October 25, 1984. (Ibid.) A hearing was held before
the Board on the petition on November 9, 1984-the
"main issue . . . was a question of whether there was
enough authorization cards . . . with the three stores in-
volved." The Regional Director, on December 7, 1984,
issued a decision and direction of election for the three
stores' "full time and regular part time employees" (G.C.
Exh. 12, Cases 13-RC-16245 and 13-RC-16566).4
The Employer, in opposing the Union's organizational
effort, resorted to the following conduct. Thus, Anthony
Rice testified that he started working at the Employer's
95th Street store in the spring of 1984; that District Man-
ager Gerry Stricher and Floor Manager or Supervisor
Reynolds Hendricks met with him in the store office
about November 1984; and that, in the office
Stricher asked me [Rice] how long have you been
working for us, and I said not too long. And he said
has anybody come to you to fill out a Union card.
And I said no. And he said, because [Company
president] Issa [Tadros] and us, we don't want any
Union in the store. . . . He said that Issa will close
the doors . . . all of us would be out of a job if he
closes the doors.
a As the General Counsel restates in her brief (Br. 2-3 ), the pleadings
and documents in the earlier unfair labor practice proceedings were of-
fered and received into evidence here solely for background purposes
The General Counsel does not seek to reopen the earlier proceedings.
Further, Alfonso Hayden , a discrirmnatee in the settled unfair labor
practice cases, testified in the instant proceeding with respect to earlier
conduct and statements by the Employer solely as background evidence
in determining motive or animus here (Tr 56-60). Hayden testified that
he was discharged by the Employer on March 17, 1984; that he and co-
worker Udell Hamilton were "primarily responsible in trying to organize
the employees", and that , following his discharge, he was told by Com-
pany President Isla Tadros that employee "Udell had told him [Tadros]
how I [Hayden] had masterminded everything . how the meetings
were held at my house . . bow he had fired a couple more people . .
there is no way a Union could win . . he could get 100 people off the
street to vote no against the Union ." and "I had stuck my neck out
too far and I did not cover my ass ." Hayden also recalled that a manager
of Respondent Employer later " hassled" him while he was attempting to
make a delivery as "an independent distributor" to one of Respondent's
stores
4 The election was held on January 10, 1985 . See G.C Exh. 1(1)
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition , Rice recalled receiving a copy of General
Counsel 's Exhibit 13 with his paycheck. General Coun-
sel's Exhibit 13, dated December 10, 1984, states in part:
As we have stated at the store meeting, we do not
want the Union and will not continue to operate
with any Union.
Rice, as he further testified, had attended a store meeting
conducted by President Tadros about November 24,
1984 . Tadros "was asking questions about complaints
about the store." Rice spoke up and asked for "more
hours." Another employee asked "about the pay."
Tadros then asked employee Leethaniel Hibbler "if he
had anything to say ." Rice recalled that , at some point
during this meeting , Tadros "got mad" at Hibbler and
other complaining employees ; Tadros admonished the
employees that
he was going to put all of them in the store togeth-
er and give them 40 hours a week and see if they
can run everything . . . if you cannot run every-
thing within this week or two I give you ... you
are fired.
Then, Tadros added:
No, I will do better than that, I will just give you
all a week to find another job . . . no, better than
that, just get out of my store you are all fired ... .
Tadros, according to Rice, made the above statements to
Hibbler and two or three other employees.
Rice next recalled the following conversation with
Store Manager Mussa Eldoa (Salami) shortly prior to the
representation election:
Mussa . . . said . . . you know we do not want a
Union in the store . I said yes. And he said , because
Issa is trying to pay off bills and if we have a Union
he cannot pay off bills and meet Union demands.
He asked me how I was voting . I told him I was
voting no for the Union , because I wanted to keep
my job with them. Then he said . . . to ask the
other employees and see who is voting for a Union.
And he said , let me know . He said he would take
care of me personally.
Eldoa then stated to Rice: "Issa and [Manager] Tom
[Cronin] do not have anything to do with this, this is be-
tween me and you."5
5 On cross-examination, Rice explained that during the store meeting
of employees referred to above , Tadros "had asked about conditions in
the store"; that Rice had requested "more hours", that employee Hibbler
"was asking about more money and too many bosses"; that another em-
ployee had "asked the same thing that Hibbler was talking about and that
was money ... more money, raises ", that Tadros had "said that we will
be getting raises"; that Tadros also had "told" three employees-Hibbler
and two others-"they were fired ' ; that Tadros and Hibbler, during the
meeting, had engaged in a "loud" discussion or argument; that Hibbler
had requested "a security guard in the parking lot because people would
be getting hurt after dark . to protect them when they leave the
store"; and that Tadros had replied - "Once you step out the door you are
11on your own ....
Stanton Baldwin testified that he started working for
the Employer at the 95th Street store about March 1984;
that he signed a union authorization card during Septem-
ber 1984; that he attended a union meeting during early
November 1984 with six to eight coworkers; and that he
was called into the manager 's office about November 21,
1984, where he had the following conversation:
... Stricher ... asked me [Baldwin] did I want a
Union, was I for a Union. . . . And I told him
yes. . . . Stricher said if we vote for the Union, did
I know that Issa was going to close the store down.
The Union is not for us, it is for themselves. That if
we get a Union the store is going to be closed
down.
Stricher added: "Look at A & P and National Stores,
they went out of business because of a Union." Stricher
then warned: "We were both going to be out of a job if
the Union comes in ." Baldwin responded : "That was a
chance I had to take."
Baldwin, as he further testified , later attended a store
meeting about November 24, 1984. Baldwin recalled this
meeting, as follows:
Well, first he [Tadros] asked us if we had any
questions about the store. What did we dislike about
the store. Several people said something and then
he got into an argument with Leethaniel [Hibbler]
and they got to arguing about several things. He
asked us what we disliked about the store. I did not
hear too many people say anything because they
were afraid. So then he said , "Do not you assholes
have fucking nothing to say about the store?" Then
he called several people names. Then several , people
answered to him . Then he said, "You all think a
fucking Union is going to come in and run my fuck-
ing store, but you are all full of shit . This is a free
country, why do you think I am here. I run my
store the way I want to run it because it is my fuck-
ing business."
Then he asked me how many hours I was getting
and then he told-to cut his fucking hours . Then he
asked Leethaniel, and had Leethaniel's hours cut.
Then when I walked up to him and asked him why
he was cutting my hours, because I was for the
Union, and then he said, "Leave my fucking store."
Baldwin telephoned Tadros on several occasions after
the above meeting, and
asked him [Tadros] why he was laying me off; I
have been there longer than any other employees
... he just kept saying business was slow.6
s On cross-examination , Baldwin explained that, during the above store
meeting, Leethamel Hibbler had complained "that there were too many
bosses in the store"; that Tadros had "told [Hibbler] that he was going to
make him manager"; that some employees "started to laugh"-"they
were laughing about what him and Hibbler were talking about"; and that
Tadros "got upset about it and so he started cursing, using foul lan-
guage-he was upset."
HORIZON FOODS
Leethaniel Nibbler testified that he started working for
the Employer at the 95th Street store about July 1984 as
a "bagger"; that he signed a union authorization card
during September 1984; that he also attended a union
meeting with six or seven coworkers; and that he was
later "called into the office" where he had the following
conversation with Manager Stricher:
Gerry [Stricher] was trying to start the meeting off
by saying, was I familiar with the Union. I an-
swered not really. He said that a Union was no
good for the store because they were just starting
out and they had to lay off people and cut people's
hours.
Stricher then cited "A & P"-they "had a Union and see
what happened to them-they had to close down."
Stricher warned
they would lay off some people and cut hours;
[they] might close down the store.
Hibbler attended the store meeting about November
24, 1984. He recalled:
[Tadros] started the meeting off by saying did
any of the employees at 95th Street have any com-
plaints . Everyone was like quiet. And he said does
not anybody give him any complaints that the
whole store was fired. He started off with one of
the employees, to my knowledge Joseph, he asked
Joseph what was his complaint. And Joseph said
that he was not getting enough pay. Then he point-
ed at another employee and asked Stan [Baldwin]
what was his complaint. Stan said he was not get-
ting enough hours or pay. . . . Mostly all the em-
ployees he pointed to had the same question. He
came to me and he said, "Come on Lee, I know
you have some complaints." I told him that my
complaint was that I was not getting paid for the
three jobs, and he said, "That is a lot of bullshit."
And he said that do not anybody here give him
some serious answers that the whole store was
fired. Then he said, he pointed back to the individ-
uals he pointed to and said, "You complain about
the hours and pay," he called upon Reynolds the
next manager that was there, and he said , "I tell
you what, you give him six hours and give the
other individuals that answered his questions 12
hours." He said cannot no damn Union or president
make him hire us back.
Hibbler repeatedly telephoned the store for work follow-
ing the above meeting . He was told "that business was
kind of slow" and later informed that he had been
"fired."7
' On cross-exam nation, Nibbler explained that Tadros "was not
joking" when he said, during the above meeting, that "if nobody had any
complaints everybody was fired"; "no one was laughing at the time",
"everyone was afraid .. of being fired"; and
the last response he gave us was that we were all complaining about
the hours and the pay, so, he called upon his manager and told him
to cut our hours-the ones that gave him his complaint.
1177
Phaedra Mason was employed by Respondent as a
cashier at the 115th Street store during July 1984. She
was later transferred to the 95th Street store where she
worked until February 2, 1985 . Mason testified that Dis-
trict Manager Stricher had the following meeting with
her at the 115th (South State) Street store during late
November 1984:
They called me into the office. . . . Gerry
[Stricher] told me, he said that Management there
did not want a Union. He asked me if I signed a
Union card, and I told him no. He told me ... did
I hear about about what happened at that the 79th
Street store, and I told him no. Then ... he told
me that if the Union got in that they would have to
lay off employees and they would put their wives in
the place of us, because their wives were not for the
Union. . . . He told me [with reference to the 79th
Street store] that there was a paper going around
for a party, but it was actually for a Union. He told
me that if anything came around, do not sign it.
Mason observed, at the time, that other store employees
were also "called in to meet Mr. Stricher."
Shortly prior to the scheduled representation election
(January 10, 1985), Mason was working at the 95th
Street store. Mussa Eldoa was the store manager. About
January 4, Eldoa had the following conversation with
Mason at the store service desk, in the presence of a co-
worker,
He [Eldoa] asked me [Mason] if I was going to be
there . . . for the election . . . the Union election.
He handed me a piece of paper and it said ballot,
yes, no. "No box" was marked no. He said you are
going to mark no. He asked me, he said, "What are
you going to mark?" I said no. And that was the
end of the conversation.
Mason acknowledged that she had been dismissed by the
Employer on February 2, 1985, and then told by man-
agement that she "could not return until [she] repaid
what was taken from [her] drawer."
Victor Alexander worked at the Employer's 79th
Street store until July 1984. He was transferred to the
95th Street store where he worked until November 1984.
He was again transferred to the 115th Street store where
he worked until January 1985. Alexander testified that he
signed a union authorization card on September 5, 1984,
at the 95th Street store. Later, in November, Manager
Stricher "called" Alexander into the office for a meeting
Hibbler acknowledged that "words [were] exchanged" and "there were
some obscenities." Hibbler, however , denied using "obscenities." Nibbler
also recalled that one employee had complained that the store managers
speak in their native language in the store. "Issa responded that is none of
your damn business." Finally , Hibbler noted:
He [Tadros] told the ones that gave him a complaint , to his manager,
to cut their hours, and he said , better yet, he pointed to the ones that
gave him a complaint, that you are fired ....
Hibbler initially "thought [he] was laid off', however, he ultimately
"called Mussa [Eldon, a store manager,] to verify was I just lard off or
was I fired", and Eldoa "told me I was fired . . so, I picked up my
check."
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and, in the presence of Grocery Manager Reynolds Hen-
dricks, they had the following discussion:
Gerry Stricher called me in and he ... said that I
hear they are trying to bring a Union into the
stores . He stated that he had been checking the
files, that I [Alexander] was the only one around
when the Union first was before me at 79th. He said
... according to that ... he assumed that I was
the one that started passing the cards out. I told him
I did not know what he was talking about.
Stricher told Alexander "about Jewel's and A & P, how
they went out of business and that the Union did not
help them." Stricher said that he could "understand
why" Alexander "might want the Union because [he]
had a family." Stricher asked Alexander "how much"
money he was making , agreed that Alexander was "un-
derpaid," and then said that "he was going to look into
that for" Alexander . Stricher, at the same time , asked Al-
exander "how would [he] vote." Alexander replied: "I
was going to vote whatever way I think would benefit
me and my family."
Later that same day, as Alexander further testified, Al-
exander spoke with Company President Tadros . Alexan-
der was informed by an assistant store manager "that
they had a guy in the office and they were asking about
me [Alexander], about who was starting a Union ." Alex-
ander promptly "walked into the office" and had the fol-
lowing conversation:
I [Alexander] asked ... why is everybody want to
ask some questions about me. And Issa [Tadros]
told me something about I was being evaluated. I
said , I do not understand, how am I being evaluat-
ed, you are asking the employees, you are not
asking the managers . He told me he would talk to
me [later] so I left.
Tadros later met with Alexander . Alexander explained:
He [Tadros] pulled me in the back room ... he
said that he found out that I got the cards signed
... he said that Alphonso and Udell ... I think
they were much tougher than you. He said, "I took
care of them ... I am also going to take care of
you." He asked me if I heard anything again. I said
no, I have not heard anything about the Union.
Tadros cautioned Alexander : "While I [Alexander] was
employed by Horizon ... he [Tadros] looked out for
me ... he also got my wife working there ."Finally, Al-
exander agreed to "let him [Tadros] know" when he
heard "something" about the Union.
Alexander also attended the 95th Street store meeting,
with his coworkers, about November 24, 1984. He re-
called how Tadros had "asked us did we have any ideas
on how we could better the business at the store. People
were giving complaints instead . Issa [Tadros] got
aroused. He started using profanities towards some of the
employees . After he used the profanities he was asking
[the complaining employees] how many hours they were
working a week ... he told Reynolds to cut them down
to the minimum ... he told Lee [Nibbler] to take two
weeks off and see if he could find another job out there
... he told us all to leave the store ." Alexander further
recalled:
It was a lot of profanity ... he [Tadros] told us to
get the fuck out of the store, so we all left.
Alexander explained that when Tadros had said "to cut
their hours," there was an "uproar," and
we spoke up. You [Tadros] told us to speak up and
then when we speak up you want to treat us like
this here.... Roderick, Stan [Baldwin] and Lee
[Nibbler] were the main three that were talking.
Deleria Rogers started working for Respondent in
March 1984 as a cashier. She worked at the 115th Street
store until June 1984, and was then transferred to the
95th Street store. She was terminated about November
23, 1984. Rogers testified that she signed a union authori-
zation card in September 1984. She also attended a union
meeting with six or seven coworkers. On November 21,
1984, she was "balled into a meeting" at the 95th Street
store. Present were Reynolds Hendricks and Gerry
Stricher. She recalled:
Gerry Stricher ... asked me was I a part of the
Union. I said I was not interested in the Union, did
not know anything about a Union.... Reynolds
said that I was part of the Union because he had a
list [with] names on it . On the list my name was on
it. It was underlined and it had a check by it. He
said you are a part of the Union because your name
is right here on the list.... I asked him where he
got the paper from, and he said, sources.
On that same day, November 21, Tadros confirmed
that Rogers was "going to be transferred" to the Cottage
Grove store because they "needed help." A few days
later, about November 23, Rogers telephoned Tadros "to
talk to him about why I was being transferred." Rogers
had been informed by an employee at the Cottage Grove
store that "they did not need any help over there."
Tadros then told Rogers to "come down to his office"
about 6:30 p.m. "to meet with him." Tadros had also ar-
ranged to meet with another employee, Christine Wil-
liams, that same evening.
Later that evening, November 23, both Rogers and
Williams went to Tadros' office. They each met separate-
ly with Tadros. Rogers testified:
Well, Issa asked me if I had any problems in the
store. I told him no, I did not. He said , well I have
problems in my store and he wanted them solved.
Then he asked me if I knew anything about a
Union. I told him no. Then he told me that I was
going to be laid off for a week until he got his
problems solved in the store . He was asking me
how did me and Chris [Williams] become friends,
and about did I see anybody passing any groceries,
or was there any funny business in the store. And I
told him, not that I know of.
HORIZON FOODS
Thereafter, Rogers repeatedly telephoned Tadros for
work and Tadros said that "he would still have to lay
me off." Rogers, however, observed four or five new
cashiers working at the 95th Street store.8
Christine Williams worked at the 95th Street store as a
cashier. She too was questioned by Manager Stricher in
the store office about November 23, 1984. Williams testi-
fied:
He [Stricher] asked if I knew about the Union, and
I told him yes . . . he then told me that he would
advise me not to go for the Union because they
would be forced to close the store down.
Williams was instructed on that same day to meet with
Company President Tadros after work. However, before
attending this meeting, she had the following encounter
with Relief Manager Jimmie Ottoman:
I was getting off in 15 minutes. Five I punched out,
went to the lockers to get my coat. Jimmie and
Jemma [an office worker] were in there talking in
their native tongue. Jimmie turned around and said
something that was funny to me. And I turned
around and laughed. I said, "You are probably all
talking about us anyway." He [Jimmie] got upset.
He said, "You are not shit, you are nothing." So, I
said , "You are not shit." He said, "Get out here, I
do not want to see you back in the store again. And
if Mussa [Eldoa] let's you come back into this store
that is entirely up to him. When you go over to his
office today you tell him." I said, "I am not telling
him anything. If you want Issa [Tadros] to know,
you have to tell him that yourself."
Williams and Rogers were both scheduled to meet
with Tadros that evening. Williams recalled her meeting
and later events, as follows:
s Rogers further testified that about Christmas time , she had contacted
the store on 79th Street, which Tadros "used to own." She asked for
work and was told that Tadros "would have to give [her] a recommenda-
tion to work over there ." She again telephoned Tadros and "asked him"
for a recommendation . He said that "he would " Rogers was to work at
this store for a few weeks-"it was around Christmas time and they
needed a little extra help." On cross-examination , counsel for Respondent
questioned Rogers about "some difficulty" at the 79th Street store. As
noted above, this 79th Street store previously had been sold by Respond-
ent Employer. Counsel for Respondent asserted that "Ms. Rogers had a
$400 shortage while in the employ of the other store [79th Street] and
she was arrested and charged with theft. My client [Respondent] learned
of this [and] he did not invite her to come back because, if she was a
thief at one store, he did not want her working at his store" (Tr. 173-
174). This was, assertedly , the Employer's "reason" for refusing to rehire
or recall Rogers (Tr. 174). Rogers, when further questioned about her in-
terim employment at the 79th Street store , explained that she was only
given a half-hour break for a 10- to 12-hour workday and "they," the
owner, "constantly watched" her. Consequently, she quit She explained
to the employer that "because of the half an hour break . . and that I
was only going to be over there a couple of weeks . ," that "was not
going to do me any good " Later that same day, when Rogers returned
home, she was arrested by the police. Rogers testified-
They took me down to the police station and went to Court. I had
to pay $100 bond. They took my fingerprints ... then they gave me
a Court date. So, I went to Court, then, at Court, the man who owns
the store, his wife and a couple of other of his people came to Court
The [Judge] said he was throwing the case out.
She denied knowing "anything about the money " The owner of the 79th
Street store did not testify here . See Tr 269-270, 310-311.
1179
He [Tadros] asked if I had anything to tell him. I
told him no. He asked me if I had any secrets to
tell. I told him no. He then said , "Come on Chris I
told you, you can talk to me. You know, talk to
Issa, you know talk to me not like I am the boss,
but as you are talking to one of your friends." I
said, "Okay." I answered all the questions that he
was asking me. So, he asked me about the incident
with Jimmie and I told him as I said at first.
So, after that he then began pacing the floor.
Jacking his slacks up around his waist , asking me do
you know how I got to where I am at now. I told
him no . I worked hard for what I have . I taught
myself. I do not care about anything or anybody.
The only person I cared about, they're gone now.
He asked me how did Deleria [Rogers] and I
become friends. I told him by working together. He
told me did I know that employees that became
friends that one of them did something wrong that
the both of them would get in trouble for. I then
said no.
He then asked me if my car was running yet. I
said no. He told me, he said, "I tell you what, I will
give you a week off." I said , "Why, I do not want a
week off." He said he was going to make prepara-
tions for me to have transportation for me to get
back and forth to the 115th Street store. I said
okay. I was then told to call him a week later. A
week later would have been December 1st, I re-
member because it was my birthday . I called him
that day. He told me to call him back. When I
called him back the secretary said he was not in. I
called him two days later, it was December 3rd on
Monday. When I called him then he told me he had
no room for me, he did not need me anymore, plus
the business was slow.
Gerry Stricher is district manager for Respondent Em-
ployer. He testified that he conducted "interviews" of
employees at the 95th Street store during November
1984; that he had a "list of employees" with him during
these interviews and would "x" their "names off"; and
that these interviews were part of an "evaluation pro-
gram." Elsewhere, Stricher claimed that "a couple of
people had come to me and asked me what I knew about
the Union" and, therefore, "in my conversations ... I
explained to them what I knew about unions." Stricher
generally denied coercively interrogating or threatening
employees or engaging in the related conduct attributed
to him by the employees in their testimony . He claimed:
"I did not say anything good about [the Union] and I did
not say anything bad about it." When asked if he could
"recall any specifics ," he asserted at one point:
No, because I had talked to almost each one [and]
each one had a different problem ... to tell you
the truth I really could not tell you exactly ... I
really could not tell you.
Stricher, however, admittedly asked employees: "Do you
know anything about the Union" or "Did you hear
about any Union?" He admittedly spoke to the employ-
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees about unionized employers who "had to go out of
business." And, Stricher acknowledged that some "inter-
viewed" employees "voiced an opinion" on "how they
felt, whether they were for or against the Union."
Stricher nevertheless insisted that Rogers and Williams,
alleged discriminatees in this proceeding , "did not give
me any" statement as to their "feelings" and he denied
"knowing" of their union "feelings." He similarly denied
"any knowledge" of the "Union sympathies " of Baldwin
and Hibbler, also discriminatees in this proceeding.
Stricher also attended a meeting of employees called at
the 95th Street store on November 24, 1984. He claimed
that this meeting was called because "we were having
problems with the stores"; we were "losing money";
there were "employee pilferages"; and the "employees
were not courteous." This meeting, assertedly, did not
"have anything to do with the Union." However, Tadros
"wanted to know exactly what everybody's problems
were"; "it was open for discussion "; and then the meet-
ing "did not turn to things that could be corrected"-"it
turned into more or less the protection [the employees]
wanted." Stricher, when pressed for specifics, such as,
"who said that," responded : "I am sorry but I do not re-
member who exactly said that." Stricher generally re-
called that "it started to get to be like a shouting match"
and Tadros became "upset ." Employees Stanton Baldwin
and Leethaniel Hibbler , according to Stricher , "were the
ones that kept mouthing off'-they "wanted more
money." Stricher testified:
Q. Did Issa [Tadros] either lay off or cut the
hours of these individuals , do you have any recol-
lection of that?
A. No, because it was a very, very heated, all of
a sudden it got not to the point of business. It got to
be a personal thing.
Stricher heard "obscenities" at this meeting and, as he
recalled , "I believe it got to both sides."9
Issa Tadros, president and owner of Respondent, testi-
fied that he held "monthly" meetings with his store em-
ployees to solve any problems ; that he attended such a
meeting on November 24, 1984, at the 95th Street store;
that he then asked the employees, "if they have any
problems, to discuss it with me"; that employee Leethan-
iel Hibbler "suggested that I should have protection" for
employees "on the way home" because he had been
"jumped outside"; that "I suggested we all have the
same problems ... I cannot be a security guard for
you"; that Hibbler "got loud mouth ... he was cussing
bad words"; and that "I said get the fuck out of here."
Tadros recalled that some other employees then "com-
plained" that "management people" speak in their ethnic
or native tongue, and "I [Tadros] did not appreciate that,
so I told them to get the fuck out of here too." Tadros
a Elsewhere in his testimony, Stricher could not remember whether
anybody was told at the November 24 meeting that "their hours were
cut." When asked if employees "were told that they were laid off," he
claimed , inter alia, that he "was not aware of what happened ." He did
not hear "everything that was said ." However, Stricher, in his prehearing
affidavit, had stated:
Tadros was talking to four or five employees and I heard him say he
was going to lay him off.
asserted that employee Baldwin "was the one that was
bringing up" the subject of speaking in a foreign or
"funny" language, and Tadros said to Baldwin: "Get the
fuck out of my store ." Elsewhere, Tadros testified:
"They [the employees] kept on arguing with me and I
just said to my manager, to cut their hours." Finally,
Tadros claimed that he did not mention the Union at this
November meeting-the Union's campaign had nothing
"to do with this meeting."
Tadros next testified that he met with employees
Rogers and Williams in his office during November 1984
..to give Deleria Rogers a couple of weeks off' and to
lay off Christine Williams. Tadros claimed that Rogers
was "pretty good and she was accurate. [Rogers] and
Christine Williams were friends , which did not bother
[Tadros] much." Tadros recalled that he previously had
told Rogers "that I [Tadros] was going to lay her off for
two weeks, then transfer her to the 85th Street store ...
[and] she never gave me any problem as far as being
transferred." Tadros also claimed that he previously had
told Williams that "her problem was with Jimmie ... it
was so bad it got out of hand ... even customers heard
about it." Tadros, assertedly, told both Rogers and Wil-
liams at his meeting with them during November:
It does not make a difference, you could become
friends, you could do whatever you want, but inside
the store you cannot show that much [friendship],
because customers will pay attention and it will hurt
our business.
Elsewhere, Tadros testified that he told Williams
during his meeting with her in November that he "would
have a hard time solving" her "big problem" with
"Jimmie ." He then added: "I really had nothing against"
Williams-"I think she is a good employee, but the prob-
lem with Jimmie got so personal." Tadros explained that
this "problem with Jimmie referred to" the fact that Wil-
liams refused to perform "normal duty" assignments.
However, Tadros told Williams, "to call in a week or so
... I will try to find a solution. . . " Tadros also told
Williams: "as far as I am concerned I have a hard time
replacing her ... I am laying her off ... if you need a
good recommendation , I will give you one ." Williams, in
fact, did telephone Tadros after this November meeting,
however, he then told her that he "could not find a solu-
tion." Elsewhere, Tadros claimed:
I told [Williams] to keep in touch with me the next
couple of days ... but she never called again ...
it was so hard to get in touch with her because she
was never home.
As for Rogers, Tadros claimed that Rogers "called me
a week later and [he] told her by next week I will defi-
nitely transfer her to 85th Street" store. Then, Tadros
claimed, Rogers asked for a recommendation to work at
the 79th Street store, which Tadros had sold to Bill
Hadad . Tadros gave her "a good recommendation."
Later, he was told by Hadad that Rogers "was short
... about $400"; they "arrested her"; they "went to
court"; "she asked for a continuance"; they "went the
HORIZON FOODS
second time and then they just did not bother with it."
Rogers, assertedly , never asked Tadros "for her job back
after that." Tadros added: "I would not want to call
her" when "she was short of money" at Hadad 's store.
Finally, Tadros claimed that he had asked Hadad to tes-
tify here and Hadad had agreed ; however, Hadad could
not testify because, assertedly , "his wife has never re-
turned home , so he has been looking for her."
On cross-examination , it was stipulated that Tadros'
prehearing affidavit does not reflect an "argument be-
tween Hibbler and Tadros , and Baldwin and Tadros" "or
any reference to him telling them to get the fuck out of
his store." The affidavit states:
After the meeting , I [Tadros] laid off Stanton Bald-
win and Leethaniel Hibbler. I do not have any
reason for picking out two of them for lay off.
Further, Tadros acknowledged training two or three
.,new girls" at the 95th Street store after laying off
Rogers and Williams.
I credit the testimony of Hayden, Gesiaknowski, Rice,
Baldwin , Hibbler, Mason , Alexander, Rogers, and Wil-
liams as detailed supra . They impressed me as credible
and trustworthy witnesses . Their testimony is in large
part mutually corroborative of Respondent Employer's
pattern of coercive and discriminatory conduct in oppos-
ing the Union's organizational effort. Their testimony is
also substantiated in significant part by admissions of
Tadros and Stricher. On the other hand, I do not credit
the testimony of Tadros and Stricher insofar as that testi-
mony conflicts with the testimony of the former wit-
nesses . The testimony of Tadros and Stricher was at
times unclear, vague , incomplete , contradictory, and eva-
sive . In sum, on this entire record, I am persuaded that
the testimony of Hayden, Gesiaknowski, Rice, Baldwin,
Hibbler, Mason, Alexander, Rogers, and Williams consti-
tutes a more complete , reasonable , and trustworthy ac-
count of this pertinent sequence of events.
Discussion
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guaran-
tees employees "the right to self-organization, to form,
join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,"
as well as "the right to refrain from any or all such ac-
tivities." Section 8(a)(l) makes it an unfair labor practice
"to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of" their Section 7 rights. Section 8(a)(3) forbids
"discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encour-
age or discourage membership in any labor organiza-
tion."
The credited evidence of record, as recited above,
makes it clear that Respondent Employer-in resisting
the Union's renewed organizational drive at its stores-
embarked upon a widespread campaign of proscribed in-
terference, restraint, coercion, and discrimination. The
Union filed its second representation petition on October
25, 1984. A hearing was held before the Board on this
1181
petition on November 9, 1984. Management, in response,
resorted to the following conduct. As employee Rice
credibly testified, District Manager Stricher and Floor
Manager Hendricks quizzed Rice in the store office
whether "anybody came to you to fill out a Union card."
Rice was, at the same time , warned : "We don't want any
Union in the store . . . [Company President Tadros] will
close the doors . . . all of us would be out of a job if he
closes the doors ." Store Manager Eldoa similarly interro-
gated Rice , "how I was voting ." Rice replied : "I told
him I was voting no . . . because I wanted to keep my
job." Then, Eldoa solicited Rice to "ask the other em-
ployees and see who is voting for the Union ." Eldoa
promised Rice : "He would take care of me personally."
Rice, like his coworkers , received a letter from the Em-
ployer stating : "As we have stated at the store meeting,
we do not want the Union and will not continue to oper-
ate with any Union." And, Rice, like his coworkers, at-
tended "the store meeting" where, as discussed below,
employees were summarily fired because , in response to
employer questions, they spoke up and voiced their com-
plaints about their working conditions.
Employee Baldwin credibly recalled that he signed a
union card and was interrogated by District Manager
Stricher in the store office. Baldwin acknowledged to
Stricher that "I want a Union." Stricher warned: "If we
get a Union, the store is going to be closed down." Bald-
win also attended a store meeting presided over by Com-
pany President Tadros. Tadros urged the employees to
speak up about "what did we dislike about the store."
Employees, like Baldwin and Hibbler, spoke up , asking
for, inter alia, more hours , pay raises, security outside the
store, and complained about supervision. Tadros became
upset . He warned the assembled employees : "You all
think a fucking Union is going to come in and run my
fucking store, but you are all full of shit ." Tadros then
started "cutting hours" and ultimately fired employees
Baldwin and Nibbler because they had voiced their com-
plaints at this meeting.
Employee Hibbler , as he credibly testified , signed a
union card and was interrogated by District Manager
Stricher. Hibbler told Stricher that he was "not really fa-
miliar with the Union." Stricher warned: "They would
lay off some store people and cut hours . . . they might
close down the store." Hibbler, as recited above, attend-
ed the store meeting where President Tadros solicited
employee complaints. Hibbler spoke up and was threat-
ened with a cut in hours and then fired. Tadros "said no
damn Union or president make him hire us back." And,
employee Mason was similarly questioned by District
Manager Stricher. Mason was asked if she had signed a
union card ; she said "no"; and she was warned: "if the
Union got in . . . they would have to lay off employees
and they would put their wives in place of us because
their wives were not for the Union." The employee was
admonished: "Do not sign the paper going around .. .
for a Union." The employee was later instructed by
Manager Eldoa, in the presence of a coworker, "to mark
no" on the representation ballot . Eldoa showed employ-
ees a ballot with the no box marked. Eldoa then asked
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mason : "What are you going to Mark?" The employee
replied: "No."
Employee Alexander signed a union card. District
Manager Stricher, during his interrogation of this em-
ployee, stated that "he assumed that [Alexander] was the
one that started passing the cards out." Alexander
claimed that he "did not know what [Stricher] was talk-
ing about." Stricher then agreed that Alexander was un-
derpaid and promised that he was going to look into
that . Stricher, at the same time, asked : "How would [Al-
exander] vote"; the employee replied: "I was going to
vote whatever way I think would benefit me and my
family." Later, Company President Tadros also confront-
ed Alexander, stating : "He [Tadros] found out that I [Al-
exander] got the cards signed." Tadros threatened: "I am
also going to take care of you," referring to previously
discharged union supporters. Tadros cautioned: "While I
[Alexander] was employed by Horizon ... he [Tadros]
looked out for me ... he also got my wife working
there." Then, Tadros asked the employee to let him
know when he heard something about the Union. Alex-
ander agreed that he would let him know . Alexander
also attended the store meeting where Tadros cut hours
and fired employees who, in response to management,
voiced their complaints about working conditions.
Employees Rogers and Williams were both cashiers
and friends working at the Employer's 95th Street store.
Rogers credibly recalled how Stricher and Hendricks in-
terrogated her. She was then accused by management of
being "part of the Union"; they had a "list of names";
her name was on the list; her name was underlined and it
had a check by it; "you are a part of the Union because
your name is right here on the list." Rogers asked,
"where he got the paper from," and management replied:
"Sources." Later, Company President Tadros questioned
both employees Rogers and Williams in his office.
Tadros asked Rogers about "any problems in the store";
if she "knew anything about a Union"; and "how did
[Rogers] and [Williams] become friends?" Rogers was
then laid off and later denied recall. Employee Williams,
during her interrogation by Tadros, was asked if she
"had anything to tell him." She replied: "No." Tadros
asked how she and Rogers became friends. Tadros then
warned: "Employees that become friends ... [when]
one of them did something wrong ... both of them
would get in trouble." She, too, was laid off and denied
recall . Management, in the meantime, hired new cashiers
at this store.
Respondent 's conduct clearly tended to interfere with
employee Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. Employees were systematically and coercive-
ly interrogated about their union activities; they were re-
peatedly threatened with cuts in hours, layoffs, firings,
closedowns, and other reprisals if they supported the
Union; their grievances were solicited by management,
they were promised wage increases and, at the same
time, they were threatened with reprisals; they were
asked to spy on the union activities of their coworkers
and report this information to management ; and they
were led to believe by management that their union ac-
tivities were under surveillance.
Management , at the same time, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1), discriminatorily laid off and fired employ-
ees Hibbler, Baldwin , Rogers, and Williams in an attempt
to defeat the Union. Thus, Company President Tadros
urged the assembled store employees to tell him their
complaints . Hibbler and Baldwin spoke up, complaining
about various conditions of employment. Tadros re-
sponded by deprecating the Union, by threatening to cut
their hours, and then by summarily firing them. In like
vein, management interrogated employee Rogers about
her suspected union activities . Rogers was told by man-
agement that her name was on the list of union support-
ers. Later, Company President Tadros again questioned
Rogers about a union and then laid her off and denied
her recall. Tadros, in like vein, laid off and fired Wil-
liams. Employees Rogers and Williams was both cashiers
and friends. Tadros explained, "Employees that become
friends [when] one of them did something wrong ...
both would get in trouble."
The Employer's conduct was clearly aimed at defeat-
ing employee Section 7 rights, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent Employer argues
that "many of the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
are simply without a semblance of supportive testimo-
ny." (Br. 11.) The credited evidence of record, detailed
above, amply supports these allegations.10 Respondent
Employer argues that the "overwhelming thrust of all
the evidence is that Hibbler and Baldwin were laid off
because of arguments , heated by references to Tadros'
antecedents, and fanned by the laughter of bystanders."
(Br. 16.) The credited evidence is to the contrary.
Indeed, Company President Tadros, by his obscene and
crude conduct, provoked arguments at his November 24
meeting. Employees Hibbler and Baldwin were fired at
this meeting because they spoke up, in response to man-
agement's inquiries , and voiced their complaints about
terms and conditions of employment . Tadros, in an at-
tempt to defeat the Union and because of this concerted
employee conduct, deprecated the Union and fired the
two employees. Hibbler and Baldwin did not engage in
any unprotected misconduct at this meeting , as suggested
by Tadros.
Respondent Employer argues that "Rogers was laid
off for a two week period ... and with Tadros' help ob-
tained another job and lost that job under circumstances
which ... made her an unacceptable risk" and, further,
that Williams had problems." (Br. 16-17.) The credited
evidence is to the contrary. Tadros regarded both
Rogers and Williams as good employees. Rogers and
Williams were both coercively interrogated by manage-
ment . Rogers was suspected of union activities . Williams
and Rogers were friends . Tadros made clear to Williams:
"Employees that become friends ... [when] one of
them did something wrong ... both of them would get
in trouble." Rogers and Williams were fired by Tadros at
the same time in order to discourage employee union ac-
10 Respondent cites variations between testimony and allegations in the
consolidated complaint A reading of this record shows that the van-
ations, principally pertaining to dates, are inconsequential . Further, the
8(a)(l) violations found were fully litigated by all parties to this proceed-
ing
HORIZON FOODS
tivities . I reject as pretextual management 's incredible,
unsubstantiated , shifting , and inconsistent reasons for ter-
minating these two employees.
The Union, in its objections to the January 10, 1985
Board-conducted representation election, cites the above
conduct as reason for requiring a new election. I find
that the Employer, by the above acts of interference, re-
straint , coercion, and discrimination during the critical
preelection period, prevented the holding of a fair and
free election.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce,
as alleged.
2. The Union is a labor organization, as alleged.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by coercively interrogating employees about their
union activities ; by threatening employees with cuts in
hours, layoffs , firings , closedowns, and other reprisals if
they supported the Union; by soliciting employee griev-
ances, promising them wage increases , and, at the same
time, threatening them with reprisals ; by asking employ-
ees to spy on the union activities of their coworkers and
report this information to management ; by creating the
impression that employee union activities were under
surveillance ; and by discriminatorily firing employees
Hibbler , Baldwin , Rogers, and Williams because of their
union and protected concerted activities.
4. The Union's objections in the consolidated represen-
tation case , involving the above unlawful conduct, are
sustained . The January 10, 1985 election should be set
aside and a new election held.
5. The unfair labor practices found above affect com-
merce as alleged.
REMEDY
Respondent Employer will be directed to cease and
desist from engaging in the conduct found unlawful, and
like or related conduct, and to post the attached notice
at its Chicago stores . Further, to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act, Respondent Employer will also
be directed to offer employees Hibbler, Baldwin, Rogers,
and Williams immediate and full reinstatement to their
old jobs or, in the event such jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent jobs, and make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
their discharges, by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to that which they would have earned but for their
discharges to the date of offers of reinstatement, less
their net earnings during this period, to be computed in
the amount described in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest to be computed as set forth in
Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).11
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed12
11 See, generally , his Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall , as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
1183
ORDER
The Respondent, Horizon Foods, Inc., Chicago, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about their
union activities ; threatening employees with cuts in
hours, layoffs, firings, closedowns and other reprisals if
they support the Union (United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, Local 1550, Chartered By United Food
& Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC); soliciting employee grievances, promising em-
ployees wage increases and, at the same time , threatening
them with reprisals ; asking employees to spy on the
union activities of their coworkers and report this infor-
mation to management ; and creating the impression that
employee union activities are under surveillance.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any
other labor organization , by discriminatorily discharging
employees because of their union and protected concert-
ed activities, or by in any like or related manner dis-
criminating against its employees with respect to their
hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions
of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer employees Hibbler, Baldwin, Rogers, and
Williams immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other ben-
efits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
this decision.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its facilities in Chicago, Illinois, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."13 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
18 If 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- on January 10, 1985, in Cases 13-RC-16425 and 13-RC-
spondent has taken to comply. 16566 be set aside and a new election held.