IBP, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

IBP, INC. 863
IBP, Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, Local 700 a/w United Food and Com-
mercial Workers International Union, AFL–
CIO. Case 25–CA–25304
March 14, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS HURTGEN
AND BRAME
On February 5, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Bruce
D. Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the
Respondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, IBP, Inc., Logansport, Indi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.

Miriam C. Delgado, Esq. and Julia Hamilton, Esq., for the
General Counsel.
Howard L. Bernstein, Esq. and Steven M. Bierig, Esq. (Katten
Muchin & Zavis), of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent-
Employer.
Connie Dominguez Shaw, of Indianapolis, Indiana, for the
Charging Party.

DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Logansport, Indiana, before me on October 17
and 18 and November 19, 1997,1 pursuant to a complaint and
notice of hearing (the complaint) issued by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 25 of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board) on July 31. The complaint, based upon an original
charge filed on April 16, and an amended charge on May 30, by
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 700 a/w
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
AFL–CIO, CLC (the Charging Party or the Union), alleges that
IBP, Inc. (the Respondent or IBP) has engaged in certain viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act).

1 There were no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by selectively and disparately applying its
rule that permits only IBP-issued stickers on hardhats.
The General Counsel argues that, contrary to the judge, Elizabeth
Mendoza did not testify that, when the employees returned to the plant
seeking their jobs back, they told her they had earlier “quit” at that
time. The overwhelming weight of the credited evidence, however,
indicates that the employees used the word “quit” at numerous other
relevant times, and we affirm the judge’s findings in this regard and the
conclusions that flow from those findings.
The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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 Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
1 All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged 14
employees because of their protected concerted activities,2
engaged in independent violations of Secion 8(a)(1) of the Act
including the enforcement of a rule that permits only IBP-
issued stickers on hardhats selectively and disparately by apply-
ing the rule against employees who wore union stickers while
permitting employees to wear other non-IBP-issued stickers on
their hardhats,3 and coercive interrogation.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent,4 I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation engaged in the slaughter of
hogs and the sale and distribution of pork products, with an
office and place of business in Logansport, Indiana, where it
annually sold and shipped from its facility goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Indi-
ana. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
IBP operates 22 fresh meat packing plants across the coun-
try. The Logansport facility has operated without a union since
its opening in October 1995. To date, no union has filed a peti-
tion to represent the subject employees.
2 Guadalupe Barron, Jose Antonio Funez, Ever Garcia, Fernando
Grimaldo, Francisco Miguel Francisco, Tomas Francisco, Siriaco Perez
Escalante Domingo, Juan Antonio Pina, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Francisco
Rojo Cuevas, Oscar Sanchez, Pascual Jimenez Santiago, Luis Sosa, and
Guadalupe Navarro. At the inception of the hearing, the General Coun-
sel withdrew the name of Guadalupe Navarro. Thus, the complaint
now alleges that 13 employees were discharged by the Respondent. No
adverse inference is taken that five of the above employees did not
testify in the subject hearing.
3 The Respondent amended its answer at the hearing to now admit
this allegation which is alleged in par. 5(g) of the complaint. Thus, I
find that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by selectively
and disparately applying its rule of “No other identification of any kind
is allowed on hard hats except for IBP-issued stickers” against employ-
ees who wore union stickers while permitting employees to wear other
non IBP-issued stickers on their hard hats. See Northeast Industrial
Service Co., 320 NLRB 977 (1996).
4 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the transcript,
dated January 8, 1998, is granted and received in evidence as GC Exh.
45.
330 NLRB No. 133
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 864
At all material times, the key supervisory personnel in this
case are Dan Paquin, plant manager, Rex Hofer, plant person-
nel manager, and Lonny Jepsen, corporate labor relations man-
ager from Dakota City, Nebraska.
Due to the difficult and arduous nature of the slaughter busi-
ness, the Respondent has experienced in excess of 3700 em-
ployees voluntary quitting their employment. Specifically, 992
employees voluntarily quit their employment between October
1, 1996, and May 31. The normal procedure when an em-
ployee voluntary quits his/her employment is to turn in the IBP-
issued equipment to the supply room, where it is checked off by
the supply room official, and an equipment clearance card is
given to the employee. Additionally, the employee identifica-
tion card is turned in and an exit interview form is provided that
an employee can fill out if they choose to do so. Lastly, a ter-
mination report is filled out by the personnel department and
while the employee does not sign the report, Respondent offi-
cials including Hofer execute the document.
B. Facts
On February 25, Respondent announced a change in its wage
rates. New employee starting wages were increased from $7 to
$8 an hour while incumbent employee wages were increased
approximately 40 cents an hour. In order to inform employees,
the Respondent posted the information throughout the facility
and held individual department meetings. During the hide de-
partment 705 meeting on February 25, the employees through
spokesperson Juan Pina, informed Dan Paquin that they were
dissatisfied with the size of the raise. Pina said it was not fair
for new employees to get a larger raise and the incumbent em-
ployees wanted the same $1-an-hour increase.
On February 27, a number of employees in the hide depart-
ment asked their supervisor, Randy Story, to meet with them
and discuss the wage increase. Story told the employees that he
did not have any say in this area but promised to talk to his
supervisors, Assistant Plant Superintendent Dennis Hamm and
Plant Manager Paquin, to schedule a meeting and discuss it.
On the same day, Paquin and Plant Personnel Manager Rex
Hofer attended a meeting in another department and were told
by a number of employees that the raise was unfair since in-
cumbent employees were scheduled to receive an increase less
than new employees.
On February 28, approximately 14 hide department employ-
ees arrived at the plant around 6:30 a.m. and went directly to
the cafeteria since their shift was not scheduled to begin until
7:30 a.m. The employees began to discuss the wage increase
among themselves and while they were talking, Elizabeth Men-
doza (Elizabeth), an IBP orientation trainer and interpreter,
joined the conversation about the wage increase. The employ-
ees apprised Elizabeth that they were interested in having a
meeting with Paquin and Hamm to discuss the issue and re-
quested that she serve as interpreter.5 Shortly thereafter, a
meeting was scheduled and took place in Hamm’s office with
the 14 employees, Elizabeth, Paquin, and Hamm in attendance.
Several employees told Paquin and Hamm that the raise was
unfair for incumbent employees and if they did not get a full
$1-per-hour wage increase, they were all going to quit and find

5 The 13 employees primarily speak Spanish and whenever extensive
discussions take place concerning work-related issues, an English in-
terpreter is always used by Respondent.
work elsewhere.6 During the meeting, a number of employees
also said that they could get a better job at Indiana Packers that
paid a higher hourly wage rate. During the discussion, which
lasted about an hour, Paquin repeatedly explained the business
reasons for the wage structure and informed the employees that
the wage increase was part of the new salary structure for the
entire plant. He also compared the wage structure of IBP with
that of Indiana Packers and showed the employees on a black
board that they would be better off remaining at the Respon-
dent.
In response, the employees reiterated that if they did not get
a full $1 increase, they would quit their jobs. Paquin told the
employees not to do anything hasty and said that if they went
back to work, he would try and telephone corporate headquar-
ters and they could discuss the matter later. Since the employ-
ees were unwilling to return to work, Paquin requested that they
wait in the cafeteria while he decided what to do.
The meeting ended but employee Oscar Sanchez remained
and told Paquin and Elizabeth that he did not want to quit his
job and he would try to talk his coworkers out of quitting their
jobs. A number of the employees stopped at their lockers to
change clothes and pick up personal belongings before going to
the cafeteria, while others proceeded directly to the cafeteria.
The employees continued to discuss the wage raise among
themselves until Elizabeth arrived in the cafeteria. She told the
employees to stop being stubborn and to go back to work and
think about the matter. Employee Ever Garcia said that if the
employees did not get a $1-an-hour raise, they will quit.
Shortly thereafter, Hofer arrived in the cafeteria and with
Elizabeth serving as interpreter, told the employees that he
could not do anything about the raise, and urged the employees
to go back to work. Several of the employees stated that they
were not going to go back to work until the matter was re-
solved. During this period, a coworker by the name of Corrales
stopped by and said that a number of people downstairs were
also upset about the raise. Elizabeth told Hofer in English what
the employee said in Spanish. Hofer left the cafeteria and re-
turned shortly thereafter with approximately six supervisors.
He told the employees that if they were not going to return to
work and intended to quit, they should proceed directly to the
knife room and turn in their equipment. Someone in the group
of employees said, “let’s go,” and Hofer and the other supervi-
sors escorted the employees to the knife room and waited while
they turned in their equipment and removed remaining personal
items from the lockers. While the employees were in the knife
room, Elizabeth asked them if they really wanted to quit their
jobs and urged them not to quit. The employees said it was
their right to quit and they intended to do so. One employee,
Felipe Martin, asked Elizabeth if he could return to work. She
told Paquin, who asked Martin whether he wanted to quit his
job? Martin replied no, and Paquin permitted him to return to
work. Paquin credibly testified, however, that after several
employees finished checking in their equipment, he requested
Hofer to take them to the personnel office to fill out their exit
paperwork, but the employees refused and said, “We came as a
group and we will go as a group.” After all the employees
turned in their equipment, they were escorted out of the plant
and off the premises by the supervisors.
6 I specifically credit the testimony of Felipe Martin, Elizabeth,
Hamm, and Paquin to this effect. This matter will be addressed more
thoroughly later in the decision.
IBP, INC. 865
Around 2 p.m. on February 28, approximately half of the
employees returned to the plant. They asked to speak with
Elizabeth and when she arrived at the front gate the employees
told her that they wanted their jobs back. According to Eliza-
beth, the employees also told her that they made a big mistake
when they quit their jobs earlier that day and they were too
proud and did not want to admit their mistake. Elizabeth told
the employees that she would inform the personnel director that
they wanted their jobs back and requested that they wait at the
front gate while she checked with IBP officials. Elizabeth re-
turned to the front gate a short while later and obtained the
employees names and telephone numbers. She informed the
employees that the personnel director was in a meeting but that
he would contact the employees and let them know whether
they could get their jobs back.
Personnel Director Hofer telephoned employee Luis Sosa at
home on March 1, and told him to get his coworkers together
and come to the plant on March 3, to discuss whether they
could get their jobs back.
The majority of the employees returned to the plant on
March 3, and were met at the plant entrance by Elizabeth and
Corporate Labor Relations Official Lonny Jepsen, who intro-
duced himself to the employees.7 Each of the employees was
told by Elizabeth that they would be admitted into the plant one
by one to attend individual meetings with management offi-
cials. Approximately eight individual meetings took place with
the employee, Elizabeth, and Respondent Representatives Jep-
sen, Paquin, and Hofer in attendance. Jepsen did the majority
of the talking, but did not use a prepared list of questions during
the individual meetings. For example, employee Jose Antonio
Funez testified that Jepsen asked him if there was someone who
was leading the employees to quit their jobs? He also asked
how the people at the plant treated the employees and if they
treated them badly? He then asked Funez if the employees
wanted their jobs back? Employee Juan Antonio Pina testified
that Jepsen asked him if there was a leader and he wanted to
know how everything happened. Jepsen also asked him if he
wanted his job back, and Pina said yes. Employee Jose Luis
Rodriguez testified that Jepsen asked him what department he
worked in, the type of work he did, and whether he wanted his
job back? Elizabeth credibly testified that the word “quit” was
used in each of the individual meetings and not one employee
disagreed that they quit their jobs on February 28. At the
conclusion of the individual meetings, Jepsen informed all of
the employees who were waiting in an adjacent training room
that they would be notified as to whether they could get their
jobs back when they picked up their paychecks at the plant on
March 6. After the employees left the plant, Jepsen along with
Paquin and Hofer made the initial determination that the em-
ployees voluntarily quit their jobs. Jepsen returned to corporate
headquarters and had additional discussions with high-level

7 Jepsen informed Hofer on March 1, that he wanted to meet with the
employees on March 3, and would travel to Logansport on Monday
morning for this purpose. Employee Guadalupe Barron did not return
with the other employees on either February 28 or March 3. Rather, he
went to the plant alone on March 4, found Elizabeth and requested that
she schedule a meeting with Hofer as he needed his job back. A meet-
ing did occur, and Hofer told Barron that he would have to talk with
other supervisors about whether he could get his job back. During the
meeting, Hofer asked Barron who was the person who organized the
event and how did the people quit. Barron replied that “he should not
look for one person, that we all did this voluntarily.”
respondent officials concerning the issue. Because the deciding
official was unavailable until early March 6, the final decision
that the employees quit their jobs and were not eligible for rein-
statement, was not made or communicated to Hofer until the
morning of March 6.
When the employees returned on March 6, to pick up their
paychecks, Hofer told them that the Respondent determined
that they had voluntarily quit their jobs. Hofer credibly testi-
fied that IBP’s established rehire policy prohibits for a period
of 6 months the rehire of an employee who has voluntarily quit
or resigned.8
The evidence establishes that none of the employees applied
for unemployment compensation with the State of Indiana.9
Additionally, three of the employees applied for work at Indi-
ana Packers Corporation in early March 1997. One employee
stated that the reason he left IBP was to go to Texas, a second
employee stated it was to assist sick family members in Mex-
ico, and the third employee did not give a reason for leaving
IBP (R. Exhs. 1, 2, and 3). None of these employees stated that
they were “fired” or “terminated” from IBP.
C. Analysis
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 5 of the complaint
that the Respondent discharged and refused to reinstate its em-
ployees because they concertedly complained about the amount
of their wage increase and by engaging in a work stoppage over
this issue. Likewise, the General Counsel asserts that about
March 4, the Respondent interrogated its employees about their
protected concerted activities. The Respondent takes the posi-
tion that the subject employees voluntarily quit their jobs when
they were informed that they would not receive the same wage
increase as new employees. The Respondent argues that the
individual employee meetings that took place on March 3, were
held for the sole purpose of investigating the facts surrounding
the issue of why the employees refused to return to work, and
no coercive interrogation occurred at the meetings. It was after
these meetings that the Respondent conclusively determined
that the employees voluntarily quit their jobs because the an-
nounced wage increase for incumbent employees was smaller
than the new employee wage increase.
The Board has held that Section 7 protects “concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.” No union need be involved, any activity by a
single employee may be protected if it seeks to initiate, induce
or prepare for group action. Prill (Meyers Industries) v. NLRB,
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205
(1988). This protection specifically includes discussions about
wages between two or more employees. Trayco of S.C., 297
NLRB 630, 633 (1990).
Contrary to the position advanced by the General Counsel, I
find that the subject employees were not discharged for engag-
ing in protected concerted activities when they complained
about the amount of their wage increase or for engaging in a
8 The evidence establishes that employees Sosa and Funez applied
for reinstatement after March 6, however, both of their applications
were date stamped within the 6-month period and under the Respon-
dent’s rehire policy were legitimately not acted upon.
9 I credit Union Representative Connie Shaw’s testimony that it is
shameful for Mexican men to apply for unemployment compensation
and she never suggested that the subject employees apply because of
this reason. Despite this conclusion, I do not find that it is dispositive
in reaching my decision in this case.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 866
work stoppage over this issue. Rather, I find that the employ-
ees voluntarily quit their jobs. Likewise, I find that the March
3 individual meetings were investigatory in nature in order to
uncover the facts surrounding the reasons the employees re-
fused to return to work on February 28, and were not violative
of the Act.
I reach this conclusion for the following reasons. It is spe-
cifically noted that Felipe Martin initially participated in the
employee group meetings held on February 27 and 28, and
fully supported the position of his coworkers that the an-
nounced $1-an-hour wage increase for new employees was
unfair because it was more than incumbent employees were
scheduled to receive. He continued to support the group deci-
sion until the employees were turning in their equipment at the
knife room on February 28, and then abruptly changed his
mind. In this regard, he separated from the group and told
Elizabeth that he did not want to quit his job. This information
was communicated to Paquin, who asked Martin if he wanted
to quit his job and after Martin said no, he was told to put his
equipment back on and return to work. I find Martin’s testi-
mony concerning the events of February 28, to be sincere and
trustworthy unlike the majority of his coworkers.10 Indeed,
Martin credibly testified that during the February 28 meeting in
Hamm’s office the employees, through spokesperson Juan Pina,
told Paquin that they were going to quit their jobs if they did
not get a pay raise. Likewise, Martin credibly testified that
while the employees were in the cafeteria after the February 28
meeting in Hamm’s office, they told Elizabeth that they could
find higher paying jobs at Indiana Packers, and if the Respon-
dent would not give the incumbent employees a $1-an-hour
wage increase, they would quit their jobs. While the majority
of the other discriminatee’s that testified during the hearing
denied that they ever told Elizabeth or other Respondent offi-
cials that they quit their jobs or could find work elsewhere,
employee Guadalupe Barron testified that he told Paquin in one
of the employee meetings that he could get a better job else-
where and that one of his coworkers told Paquin that he could
get a better job at Indiana Packers. In this later respect, I find
that Barron’s testimony is consistent with that of Martin and
also find that Martin’s testimony is fully consistent with that of
Elizabeth, Paquin, Hofer, and Hamm, all of whom testified that
in their presence and on a number of occasions, different em-
ployees said that if they did not get the same $1-an-hour wage
increase as new employees, they would quit their jobs.
Accordingly, based on the forgoing and particularly noting
the credible testimony of employees Martin and Barron, I find
that the subject employees were not discharged on February 28
for concertedly complaining to Respondent regarding the
amount of their wage increase or by engaging in a work stop-
page. Rather, I find that the employees voluntary quit their jobs
when they learned that the Respondent would not grant them
the same wage increase as announced for new employees.
Since the General Counsel cannot establish that IBP took any
adverse action against the subject employees because they en-
gaged in protected concerted activities, I find that the Respon-
dent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and recommend
that paragraphs 5(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the complaint be

10 I also credit Martin’s testimony that coworker Juan Pina told him
after the subject hearing adjourned on October 17, to watch what he
said. Although Pina was in attendance at the reconvened hearing on
November 19, the General Counsel did not recall him to rebut this
testimony.
dismissed. See Manno Electric Co., 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12
(1996). Moreover, I find that IBP did not refuse to rehire the
13 former employees after they voluntarily quit their employ-
ment in an effort to discriminate against them because they
engaged in protected concerted activity. Under the test articu-
lated in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1990), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), while the
General Counsel can establish that the employees engaged in
protected activity, and IBP refused to reinstate them, it cannot
establish that the employees were not reinstated because of
their protected concerted activity. Rather, the employees were
not rehired because they voluntarily resigned their employment.
Thus, the evidence persuasively shows that IBP would have
taken the same action, even in the absence of the employees
protected activity. Lastly, I do not find as suggested by the
General Counsel that the subject employees were constructively
discharged. Rather, as held by the Board in Comfort Inn, 301
NLRB 714 (1991), no unlawful discharge was found because
there was no evidence that the employer had given the employ-
ees the ultimatum between the exercise of Section 7 rights and
continued employment; instead, the employees in that case, as
in the present case, themselves announced to the employer that
they were going to quit and left the premises.
Likewise, I do not find that the Respondent violated the Act
when on March 3, it held individual meetings with employees
to discern what took place on February 28. In this regard, I
conclude that these meetings were held for the sole purpose of
determining whether the employees voluntarily quit their jobs
and was in response to the employee’s request for a meeting to
discuss getting their jobs back. Indeed, I find the employee’s
testimony concerning these meetings and the questions Jepsen
asked were not coercive. The evidence establishes that Jepsen
made a special trip to the plant on March 3, because corporate
headquarters was concerned that a positive initiative of a wage
increase was apparently perceived by some employees in a
negative fashion, and to determine whether local plant man-
agement officials handled the matter appropriately. After Jep-
sen asked the employees a number of legitimate questions dur-
ing the investigatory meetings to elicit information regarding
the reasons for the employees’ resignations and the effective-
ness of the new wage structure, he discerned that the employees
understood their actions and voluntarily quit their jobs. Ac-
cordingly, both local plant management and corporate head-
quarters determined that the employees voluntarily quit their
positions and were not entitled to reinstatement. In the absence
of coercion or questioning of employees in a threatening man-
ner, the Board has not found violations of the Act. Firefighters,
297 NLRB 865, 871 (1990), and Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB
185 (1992).
Based on the forgoing, I conclude that the Respondent did
not coercively interrogate its employees during the individual
meetings held on March 3, and recommend that paragraph 5(h)
of the complaint be dismissed.
In regard to paragraph 5(g) of the complaint, based on Re-
spondent’s admission that it selectively and disparately en-
forced its rule set forth in paragraph 5(f) of the complaint by
applying it against employees who wore union stickers while
permitting employees to wear other non-IBP-issued stickers on
their hardhats, I find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
IBP, INC. 867
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by selectively and dis-
parately applying its rule that permits only IBP-issued stickers
on hard hats against employees who wore union stickers while
permitting employees to wear other non IBP-issued stickers on
their hardhats.
4. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging
its employees for concertedly complaining about the amount of
their wage increase and by engaging in a work stoppage over
the wage increase or by interrogating its employees about their
protected concerted activities.
5. The unfair labor practices described above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
The Respondent, IBP, Inc., Logansport, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from selectively and disparately apply-
ing its rule that permits only IBP-issued stickers on hardhats
against employees who wore union stickers while permitting
employees to wear other non IBP-issued stickers on their hard-
hats.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Logansport, Indiana, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
12 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 Na-
by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since February 28, 1997.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

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 enforce our rule that permits only IBP-issued
stickers on hard hats selectively and disparately by applying the
rule against employees who wore union stickers while permit-
ting employees to wear other non-IBP-issued stickers on their
hardhats.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
IBP, INC.

tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”