Jones Sausage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1403 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1403
Jones Sausage Company and Jones Abattoir Company and Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-1012. September 18, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 19, 1957, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding find-
ing that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondents had not violated the Act in certain
other respects and recommended that the complaint to that extent
be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondents' re-
quest for oral argument is denied as the record, exceptions, and brief
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Jones Sausage
Company and Jones Abattoir Company, of Garner, North Carolina,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of their employees, by discriminatorily laying off any of
their employees because of their union membership or activities, or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except
to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Interrogating their employees concerning their attendance at
union meetings, and their membership in, and activities on behalf of,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
1 Pursuant to provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [ Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins].
118 NLRB No. 188.
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act; threatening to reduce the work force, to withdraw a
Christmas bonus and other economic benefits, or to close their plant, in
the event the Union was successful in organizing the Respondents'
employees; or threatening to close their plant before they would deal
with the Union.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive barganing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmitive action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Lena Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Lena Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents'
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of
,the intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to determine the amounts of back pay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at their plant in Garner, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents' representa-
tives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
a In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1405
. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order as to what steps
the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by laying off Ruby L. Justice,
Viola Adams, Nellie Cain (now known as Nellie Cain Stroup),
Mamie Gregory, and Geraldine Williams Griffis.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discrimi-
natorily laying off any of our employees because of their union
membership or activities or by discriminating in any other man-
ner against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent
permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their at-
tendance at union meetings and their membership in, and activi-
ties on behalf of, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; nor will we
threaten to reduce our work force, or to withdraw a Christmas
bonus and other economic benefits, or to close our plant, in the
event the Union is successful in organizing our employees; nor
will we threaten to close our plant before we will deal with the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Lena Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Lena Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
JONES ABATTOIR COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint , issued upon amended charges filed by Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO (herein called the Union),
asserts that Jones Sausage Company and Jones Abattoir Company (herein called
the Respondents ) have committed , and are committing , unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6)
and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136).
The complaint alleges that the Jones Sausage Company and the Jones Abattoir
Company "is . . . a North Carolina corporation . . . engaged in the slaughtering
of cattle and hogs and the manufacture of meat products " at Garner, North Caro-
lina, and that the annual value of the cattle and hogs purchased and received by
this "Respondent" from outside the State of North Carolina is in excess of $500,000.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint as amended at the hearing
alleges:
(1) That, from approximately January 28 to February 17, 1956, "the Respondent,"
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, interfered with, restrained , and coerced
"its" employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, by soliciting
an employee to report concerning "the union activities or desires" of the employees;
by interrogating employees concerning their "union membership activities and
desires"; by threatening a shutdown of the plant "if the Union came in"; by giving
employees the impression that their union activities were under surveillance; and
by threatening employees with discharge and deprivation of economic and other
benefits if they joined or retained union membership or engaged in the Union's
activities.
(2) That "the Respondent ," in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of
the Act, discharged or laid off seven named employees from approximately Febru-
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1407
ary 14 to 17, 1956,1 and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate these employees,
because they were members of, and active on behalf of, the Union and engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection.
The Respondents filed separate answers to the complaint. In its answer, the
Respondent Sausage Company asserts that it is engaged in the manufacture of
meat products, but denies that it slaughters cattle and hogs, or that it purchases cattle
and hogs from outside the State of North Carolina of an annual value in excess of
$500,000. The Respondent Sausage Company also denies in its answer that it com-
mitted the acts of unfair labor practice alleged by the complaint, and further asserts
in substance that it laid off the employees named in the complaint because of lack
of work and the use of newly acquired machines.
In its answer, the Respondent Abattoir Company asserts that it is engaged in the
slaughtering of cattle and hogs at Garner, North Carolina, and admits that it
annually purchases and procures from out-of-State sources cattle and hogs of a value
in excess of $500,000. The Respondent Abattoir Company, however, in substance
denies that it committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and further asserts that the employees named in the complaint are employees, or
former employees, of the Respondent Sausage Company and are not employees of
the Respondent Abattoir Company.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on October
30 and 31 and November 1, 1956, before the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondents appeared
by counsel and the Union by its representatives, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues. After the evidence was all in, counsel for the Respondents
moved on behalf of each of them that the allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
The Trial Examiner reserved ruling and now disposes of the various branches of the
Respondents' motions in accordance with the conclusions reached, and the recom-
mendations made, in this Intermediate Report. Before the hearing concluded, the
General Counsel submitted oral argument on the issues but the Respondents and the
Union waived their right to do so. Since the conclusion of the hearing the Trial
Examiner has received a brief from counsel for the Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents Jones Sausage Company and Jones Abattoir Company are North
Carolina corporations engaged in business at Garner, North Carolina. The Sausage
'Company manufactures meat products and, in the course of its business, receives
shipments from out-of-State sources of an annual value of $340,184. It makes all
of its sales within the State of North Carolina. The Abattoir Company slaughters
cattle and hogs and annually receives shipments of hogs and cattle from points
outside the State of North Carolina of a value of more than $500,000.
One of the broad issues in the case is whether, as the General Counsel contends
and the Respondents deny, these two companies should be held to be a single em-
ployer for the purpose of determining the Board's jurisdiction and their responsibility
for any unfair labor practices which the evidence in the present record may establish.
The same basic issue was raised and decided by the Board adversely to the Respond-
ents in a representation proceeding upon the Union's petition in Case No. 11-RC-834 2
By stipulation of the parties, the exhibits and transcript of the testimony taken in
this representation case have been incorporated in, and have thereby become a part
of, the record in the present case. No other evidence was offered in the present
case as to the businesses of the Respondents and the manner in which they are
conducted.
Although the General Counsel and the Union contend that the decision of the
Board in the representation case is, in effect, res judicata on the present issue, the
Trial Examiner has read and considered the exhibits and transcript from that case
1 Willie Mae Hinton, Geraldine Williams Griffis, and Ruby L. Justice on February 14;
Lena Mae Farrior on February 15; and Viola Adams, Nellie Cain, and Mamie Gregory on
February 17. The additional names of employees Julia S. Smith and Amanda Johnson
were struck from the complaint during the hearing, on the motion of the General Counsel.
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and notes that the findings made by the Board in the decision therein, were based
upon uncontradicted evidence. He therefore finds upon the basis of this evidence,
as did the Board, that:
Jones Sausage Company, herein called the Sausage Company, is engaged in
the manufacture of meat products and Jones Abattoir Company, herein called
the Abattoir Company, is engaged in slaughtering cattle and hogs. The vice
president and secretary-treasurer of the Sausage Company who are president
and vice president, respectively, of the Abattoir Company, own all but one
share of stock of the latter. The Sausage Company purchases approximately
90% of the production of the Abattoir Company. Both companies are
under one roof, have a common general manager and plant manager, and use
the same office staff. Employees of both companies enjoy similar vacation and
hospitalization plans and employees of the Sausage Company perform main-
tenance, repair, and porter work for the Abattoir Company... .
Upon the basis of these facts, the Board, in its decision of the representation case,
reached the following conclusion as a matter of law:
. In view of the control of the 2 companies, the physical proximity and
related nature of their operations, and the interchange of employee services,
we find that the Sausage Company and the Abattoir Company constitute a single
employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. F. Hilgemeier &
Bro., Inc., 108 NLRB 352; Oregon Frozen Foods Company et al., 108 NLRB
1668.
Under the circumstances, the Trial Examiner now concludes, upon the basis of
the undisputed facts and the applicable legal principles, that the Respondents Jones
Sausage Company and Jones Abattoir Company are for the purposes of-the present
proceeding a single employer. In view of the nature of their combined business
operations, the Trial Examiner further finds that they are an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Beginning its organization of the Respondents' employees in the middle of January
1956, the Union held 4 meetings at the home of various employees, followed by a
larger meeting of 25 or 30 employees at the Elks' Club in Raleigh on Sunday,
February 12. Uncontradicted evidence shows, and the Trial Examiner finds, that
all seven of the employees named in the amended complaint (i. e., Willie Mae Hinton,
Geraldine Williams Griffis, Ruby L. Justice, Lena Mae Farrior, Viola Adams, Nellie
Cain Stroup,3 and Mamie Gregory) attended the Elks' Club meeting, and in varying
degrees also took part in the early organizational activities. Thus, it appears
that the first contacts made by the Union's organizers were with Lena Mae Farrior,
who was employed in the sausage kitchen, and with Viola Adams, one of the packing-
room employees. Farrior and Adams, and also.employees Griffis and Justice, spoke
to other employees at the plant and secured a number of union membership applica-
tions, including those of packingroom employees Nellie Cain Stroup and Willie Mae
Hinton. The first union meeting, attended by 9 or 10 employees, was held at Farrior's
home in January and the second meeting was held later in the month at Griffis'
home. Finally, the record shows that Farnor and Griffis attended all the meetings;
that Justice and Hinton each attended only one meeting in addition to the Elks' Club
meeting; and that Adams, Stroup, and Gregory attended only the Elks' Club meeting.
It is clear from the evidence that, before the end of January, the orgnizational
activities of the Union and of the employees became at least generally known to,
and were unfavorably regarded by, the Respondents' officials. Thus, it is undisputed
that, on or about January 23, Garland Jones, vice president and general manager
of the Sausage Company and president of the Abattoir Company, referred to the
Union's organizational campaign in a conversation with Farrior. And, according
to the credited testimony of Earl Jones (Garland Jones' brother who was secretary-
treasurer and business manager of the Sausage Company and vice president of the
Abattoir Company), the two Joneses and other directors of the Respondents talked
3 Referred to as Nellie Cain in the complaint which was issued before her marriage.
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1409
about the organizational rumors and their conclusion was that, "Our policy was that
we did not look upon the union favorably because we did not think one would be
necessary as far as we would be concerned and [we] did not see where it would be
a help to the employees."
It was against this background that Garland Jones and 2 of the supervisors made
a number of statements to employees about the Union, and that, from February 1
to 17, 1956, the Respondents laid off 20 employees, including the 7 employees named
in the amended complaint. In addition to the question of whether these seven
employees were selected for layoff because of their union activities, one of the issues
in the case is whether (as the General Counsel contends) the entire layoff was planned
and executed by the Respondents for the purpose of discouraging the employees'
support of, and adherence to, the Union, or whether (as the Respondents contend
and Earl and Garland Jones testified) the layoff was an economic measure prompted
by a decline in the Sausage Company's receipts and finally decided upon by Garland
Jones in January 1956, when the December profit and loss statement disclosed an
actual net loss.
B. Statements to employees by Garland Jones and the supervisors
1. Garland Jones' conversation with Lena Farrior on or about January 23, 1956
According to Garland Jones' testimony, upon his receipt of the December profit-
and-loss statement in January 1956 while he was at home recuperating from an
operation, he decided that, in order to return to a profitable operation of the business,
the Sausage Company should direct its supervisors to reduce the number of employees.
and rely upon several laborsaving machines, 1 of which had already been installed
and was in use, and 2 more of which had just been ordered; and that if the super-
visors could not effect the desired savings in this manner, the Sausage Company
should eliminate their jobs and return to the earlier practice (abandoned in 1947)
of running the business under Garland Jones' direct supervision, with the assistance
of Lena Mae Farrior, whose position may roughly be described as a "lead-woman" 4
in the sausage kitchen. Sometime in January, therefore, according to the credited
testimony of Garland Jones and also that of Packingroom Supervisor Thurman
Bagwell and Sausage Room Supervisor Harold Lattam, Garland Jones had the
supervisors visit him at his home and told them that unless they reduced their
staffs, he would discharge them and run the business without them.
At the same time (i. e., on or about January 23), Garland Jones also called
Farrior to his home and in the course of their conversation, admittedly discussed
the "rumors" that the Union was organizing the employees. Jones testified that, in
accordance with the purpose of his having Farrior visit him, the principal portion
of the conversation was devoted to a consideration of the possibility of Jones' running
the plant without supervisors, but with Farrior's assistance in the sausage kitchen;
that Jones had then referred to the "rumor about the Union" and showed Farrior
a piece of paper or cardboard which had been handed to him by an employee whose
name he could not remember; that the paper or cardboard bore an illegibly written
name purporting to be that of the Union's organizer; that Farrior said that the
Union's organizer had visited her at her home and that she, proudly showing him
"the two stub checks she got for a bonus" from the Company, had told the organizer
that "she was not interested in [the Union] noway at all"; and that Jones and
Farrior thereupon laughed about the whole matter.
Farrior gave a different version of the conversation on this occasion. In her
testimony she omitted any mention of a discussion of the possibility of her assisting
Jones in his direct supervision of the employees. According to her, the entire con-
versation concerned the Union. Thus, she testified that Jones asked her whether
she had heard anything about the Union, and, if so, "what did they say"; that, upon
Farrior's telling him "as near as [she] could," Jones told her "We don't want this
stuff, we don't need it. . . [W]e are one big happy family. . . . I am just doing
the people a favor, and if they want a union they can get it. . . . I can do without
it. . I can put 2 machines in which I have already 2 in storage, and all I have
to do is put them in and those machines would do at least the work of 4 or 5 people";
that Jones also said that he had the name of the union organizer, although, when
he pulled a paper from his pocket and attempted to read the name on it, it appeared
that neither he nor Farrior could pronounce the name; that Jones asked her how
much bonus she had received from the Company and who would pay it to her "if
4A summary of the evidence relating to Farrior's work and functions which justifies
this description, is set forth in discussing Farrior's layoff in section III, C, below.
%450553-58-vol. 118-90
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union came in"; and that Jones finally asked her "to keep in touch with the
Union organizers . . . and let him know . their whereabouts."
In spite of Garland Jones' version of the substance of this conversation and his
general denial that he had ever made statements of the type attributed to him by
Farrior, the Trial Examiner credits Farrior's testimony as to this conversation and
specifically finds that, on or about January 23, 1956, Garland Jones threatened a
reduction in staff and a withdrawal of the usual Christmas bonus, if the Union suc-
ceeded in organizing the employees, and also asked Farrior to keep him informed
of the movements of the Union's organizers. The Trial Examiner further finds
that, by these statements of Jones, the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, and committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).
2. Garland Jones' speech to the employees on February 7
After becoming well enough to return to the plant, Garland Jones called 'a group
of employees together in the sausage kitchen on February 7 and made a short speech
to them. Employees Lena Mae Farrior and Geraldine Williams Griffis testified that
Jones said that he guessed they had all heard the rumors about the Union; that he
had nothing against the Union and even (according to Griffis) that he "knew it
was a good thing"; that if the employees wanted a Union, they should join; that
they should consider, however, who it was who took care of them when they were
sick and who signed their Christmas checks; that if they wanted anything, they
could always reach him, whether he was at home or on the golf course, and he
would come to speak with them; and that, "You are all my boys and girls, I love
you all and I hope you all love me." 5 But Jones testified merely that he "told
[the employees] that they could join the Union . [that he] did not have any-
thing against the Union, . . [and that he] made it plain [that he] did not have
anything against the Union." And Supervisor Bagwell, the only other witness who
referred to the speech, testified simply that Jones said "that it was not any difference
to him whether they was in the Union or non-union, that was their own individual
affair."
Upon this state of the evidence, the Trial Examiner credits the testimony of
Farrior and Griffis and finds that Jones made the remarks they attributed to him.
Furthermore, the Trial Examiner concludes that notwithstanding Jones' statements
to the effect that he had nothing against the Union and that the employees should
join if they wanted to do so, Jones' additional statements that they should consider
the care and the Christmas bonus checks they were receiving from the Company
constituted a threat that these benefits might be withdrawn by the Respondents if the
Union's organizational efforts were successful. This appraisal of Jones' remarks
as amounting to such a threat is based not only upon the net meaning clearly con-
veyed by the entire speech, but also upon the additional fact that Jones had already
made such a threat to Farrior (who was again in his audience on February 7) and
had coupled it with the threat to use machines to displace some of the employees.
Thus, Jones' remarks suggesting that the Company might stop taking care of sick
employees and paying a Christmas bonus cannot be regarded as expressing a
mere "prediction of possible future events beyond the control of the Respondent[s]
which the Board in the past has held to be protected under Section 8 (c) of the
Act as a mere expression of opinion." 6 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that
Garland Jones' speech to the employees on February 7, 1956, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their organizational rights
under Section 7 of the Act and constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
3. Garland Jones' statements to Farrior on February 14
There is evidence of one more incident involving Garland Jones. Farrior testi-
fied that on February 14, the day before she was laid off, Jones called her into his
office and told her that he knew all about what was going on; that he did not want
"that Union" in the plant; that it was not coming in; that he would not allow any-
body to come in and tell him what to do and what not to do; that, before he did,
he would close the plant; and, when Farrior admitted attending the Union's meeting
at the Elks' Club the preceding Sunday, that she should "go home and pray and
let me know what you think about it." In his testimony, Jones denied that on
5 This particular quotation is taken from Farrier's testimony. Griffis' testimony attrib-
utes to Jones a similarly worded expression of Jones' regard for the employees.
e Glenn Koennecke d/b/a Sunset Lumber Products, 113 NLRB 1172, 1173, and cases
therein cited.
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1411
February 14, or at any time, he threatened Farrior or any other employee that he
would close down the plant's operations if the Union came in.
The Trial Examiner credits Farrior's testimony and finds that by Jones' threat
to close down the plant if the Union were successful, the Respondents committed an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Supervisor Bagwell's statements to employees
A number of the women employees in the packingroom testified that at various
times from the beginning of February through February 17, their supervisor, Thur-
man Bagwell, told them in substance that the Respondents would close the plant
if the Union were successful, and that he knew who were members of the Union
,or attended the meetings at the employees' homes or the Elks' Club, even though
in answer to his questions the girls had lied to him.
In his testimony, Bagwell admitted having told employees that if they wanted
to see him about the Union, he would tell them what little he knew about it. But
he further testified that all his conversations with employees about the Union were
the result of their coming to him and either telling him who they thought were "in
the Union" or asking him questions; that, in talking with these employees, he told
them that it made no difference to him whether they were in the Union or not and
that Union and nonunion employees could work side by side; that, to the question
of some of the women as to whether he thought the plant would close, he said that he
did not know; and that, to the further question as to what the Union could do for
the employees, his answer was also that he did not know but that the Union might
ask for more than the Company would grant and "then . . . the plant would close
and you would have no job." In addition, Bagwell denied generally that he ques-
tioned employees about union membership, activities, or "desires"; that he knew
who was in the Union and who was not; or that, on the occasions as to which the
employees testified, he made any threat that Jones Sausage Company would close
down operations if the Union came in.
Upon consideration of the conflicts between this testimony of Bagwell and that
of the employees, the Trial Examiner credits the employees' testimony, and finds that:
(1) As employee Viola Adams testified, Bagwell told the packingroom employees
in the first week in February "that Mr. Jones would not work with the Union, that
he was going to close down first."
(2) As employees Viola Adams and Nellie Cain Stroup testified, Bagwell told
the packingroom employees a few days after the meeting at the Elks' Club on
February 12,7 that they should not think they were "pulling a fast one" because he
knew the names of the people who attended the union meetings.
(3) As employee Willie Mae Hinton testified, Hinton asked employee Jake
Jones late in the afternoon of February 13 where he had been all day because she
had not seen him; that Bagwell, who was standing nearby, told her that Jones
had been to a union meeting; that Hinton asked why she and the other employees
had not been told about it, so that they too might have attended; that Bagwell said
that she should have gone to the meeting at the Elks' Club the preceding day, and
then asked her whether she had gone; that, when she denied having attended this
meeting, Bagwell said that she should deny it because "he knew everybody that
attended the meeting because he had somebody there who knew about it." 8
(4) As employee Hinton also testified, Bagwell asked her on the morning of
February 14 whether she had joined the Union; and that, upon Hinton's denial,
Bagwell told her that she "should not say that because he had questioned about
14 different girls that day and that they told him a different or the same lie."
(5) As Hinton also testified, Bagwell told her and employee Janie Muidrow
on the afternoon of February 14 that some of the girls were about to be laid off
because the Union required them to work 5 days a week (instead of the current
4 days per week) and to turn out a certain quota of work; that the girls probably
expected to strike but that if the Union had a picket line, Jones would not let
them come on the property; that he knew about their secret meetings at some
of the girls' houses; and that "before the Union came in and [told] them what
to do, they would close the plant down and send everybody home."
4 According to Stroup, this incident occurred on February 13; according to Adams, it was
on February 17.
8 As to this incident, Bagwell testified that he had let Jones off that day to take his
wife to the doctor or to attend to some other personal business, and Jones had then come
back to clean up a machine ; that Hinton asked Bagwell "Where has Jake been all day?"
and that Bagwell told her, "Well, I reckon he has been off to attend to his Union business."
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(6) On February 14, as employee Ruby Justice testified, Bagwell told a group,
of the employees that he was going to have to lay some girls off; that "this was.
the South, and not the North and . . . [that] there was no union coming in there
[to] tell Jones how to run their place"; that it was 1 big family and was going to
stay that way; and finally that he had questioned 13 girls that day and all of
them told different stories about the Union.
The Trial Examiner concludes that, by Supervisor Bagwell's thus questioning.
Hinton concerning her union membership and attendance at the union meetings.
and telling the employees that he had questioned others as well, by his informing
employees that he had somebody at their meetings and knew which employees.
were members of the Union and had attended the Union's meetings, and by his,
statements that the plant would be closed before the Respondent would "work
with the Union," the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced the.
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and thereby
committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).
5. Abattoir Supervisor Perry's conversations with employee Floyd Hobby
Both Abattoir Supervisor E. M. Perry and Floyd Hobby, whose employment
in the abattoir was terminated on February 15, 1956, testified in substance, and
the undersigned finds, that following the Union's meeting at the Elks' Club on
February 12, Perry asked Hobby what he thought about the Union and whether
he had attended the meeting. Under the circumstances of the present case,9
the Trial Examiner concludes that by this interrogation of employee Hobby, then
Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in their exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7- of the Act and thereby committed an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).
Hobby further testified that about a week or two before February 13, Perry
told the abattoir employees that "he did not want no union and said before the
Union come in he'd take all us off...." But in their testimony, Perry and abattoir
employees Ervin Crocker, Ralph Crocker, Burkett Butts, and Ezechial Daniels
(before whom Hobby said Perry's statement was made) denied that Perry made
such a statement. The Trial Examiner credits these denials and accordingly finds
that Perry did not make the statement attributed to him by Hobby on this occasion.
C. The discrimination
From February 3 to 17, 1956, the Respondents laid off 20 employees for "lack
of work." Three of the twenty employees laid off were abattoir employees; 12 were
packingroom employees on the payroll for the Sausage Company; and the remaining
5 were sausage kitchen employees, also on the Sausage Company's payroll.
The amended complaint alleges that 5 10 of the 12 packingroom employees laid
off, and 211 of the 5 sausage kitchen employees laid off, were laid off because of
their union membership or activities.12 The Respondents assert that all 20 of the
persons laid off in February 1956, were laid off because of a slump in the Respondents'
business. The General Counsel disputes this general explanation of the February
layoffs and contends, in substance, not only that the seven employees specifically
named in the amended complaint were discriminatorily selected for layoff because
of their union activities, but also that the entire series of February layoffs was
executed by the Respondents for the purpose of discouraging their employees'
support of the Union and not to effect an economy in their business operations.
1. The general reason for the February series of layoffs
The Respondents' general explanation for the February- layoffs is based upon the
Sausage Company's records and a composite of the mutually supplementary and
consistent testimony given by Earl and Garland Jones, by Supervisor Lattam of
the sausage kitchen, and by Supervisor Bagwell. of the packingroom. In brief,
this testimony' was to the effect that the Sausage Company's profits had seriously
° Particularly the findings hereinafter made that the Respondents discriminatorily dis-
charged employees Farrior and Hinton in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. See
Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
10 Nellie Cain Stroup, Ruby Justice, Willie Mae Hinton, Viola Adams, and Mamie
Gregory.
11 Geraldine Williams Griffis and Lena Mae Farrior.
1' For the general employment history of the employees in the packingroom and the
sausage kitchen, see Appendixes A and B.
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1413
fallen off beginning with October 1955 although the number of its employees had
increased ; that Earl and Garland Jones had therefore conferred early in January
1956, concerning the advisability of cutting the number of employees ; that, upon
his receipt of the December 1955 profit and loss statement which showed a net loss
for that month , Garland Jones notified Lattam and Bagwell in January 1956 that, to
attain profitable operation of their departments , they should lay off a sufficient
number of their employees and rely upon the laborsaving machines which have
.already been mentioned , 13 or otherwise they would lose their own jobs; and , finally,
that Lattam and Bagwell thereupon made their own determinations as to the num-
ber and identity of the persons to be laid off, and notified the employees whom they
had selected.
The Sausage Company's records support this line of testimony by the Respondents'
witnesses . They show not only that there had been a considerable decline in the
Sausage Company 's profits for October, November , and December , 1955, when com-
pared with the figures for the corresponding months in the previous year, but
that in December 1955 there was actually a net loss of almost $ 10,000.14 Further-
more, the employment records show that the number of the Sausage Company's
employees had increased from 98 on February 2, 1955, to 127 on October 5, 1955,
and had remained at about this level through the critical period up to February 1,
1956, when the number was still 124.15
The General Counsel 's countercontention that the Respondents effected the entire
February series of layoffs for the purpose of discouraging their employees ' support
,of the Union , is based principally upon the facts that the Respondents knew about,
and were admittedly unfriendly to, the Union's attempts to organize the employees,
and that the layoffs took place during the Union's organizational drive and while
Garland Jones and Supervisor Bagwell were making the antiunion statements and
threats of shutdown which have already been discussed . For an additional argu-
ment, the General Counsel points out that between March 1 and October 3, 1956,
the Respondents rehired 6 of the employees they had laid off in February 16 and
also hired 12 other employees . 17 According to the General Counsel these rehires
.and new hires rebut the Respondents' contention that they laid off the 20 employees
in February in order to economize through the reduction of their working staff.
An examination of the rest of the record reveals the shortcomings as well as the
strength of the General Counsel 's argument . Actually the only facts shown by the
record which are at all favorable to the conclusion urged by the General Counsel,
are the Respondents ' strong antagonism for the Union and unionization , and the
occurrence of the layoffs at the same time as the Union 's organizational campaign
and the Respondents' antiunion statements and threats to the employees . Contrary
to the General Counsel 's argument, the full facts as to the rehires and hires after
'3 See section I, B, 1, above.
14 The relevant figures shown by the profit-and -loss statements are the following :
1954 1955
October---------------------------- $41, 661. 20 (profit) $21, 696. 83 (profit)
November-------------------------- 35, 265. 08 (profit) 26, 066. 83 (profit)
December-------------------------- 18, 365. 25 (profit) -9,757. 53 (loss)
15 The records show that the following numbers of persons were employed by the Sausage
Company on the following dates :
February 3, 1954----------- --------------------------------------------- 121
October 6, 1954-----------------------------------
---------------------- 152
February 2, 1955------------------------------------------------------- 98
October 5 , 1955 --------------------------------------------------------- 127
February 1,1956--------------------------------------------------------- 124
10 The employees thus rehired for the packingroom were Sally Johnson on April 12,
Lillie M. Rook on June 14, Janie Muldrow on July 12, and Amanda Johnson on August 16.
(See Appendix A.)
The employees rehired for the sausage kitchen were Jewel Willis on March 12 and
Connie Petit on April 2 . ( Petit had been laid off as an abattoir employee on February 3.
As to Willis, see Appendix B.)
17 The employees thus hired for the packingroom ( with the dates of their hire when-
ever shown by the record) were Connie Tart, Herbert Mangum , Anita Howell, Geneva
Williams ( in March ), Lennie Jenkins ( in April ), Hargus Hoover (in June ), Bernice
Upham ( in June or July), and Harry Fowler ( in August).
The 'employees hired for the sausage kitchen were Pinner Foster (near the end of
March ), Bernice McCoy Myatt ( on April 23 ), Delores Myatt Rand ( on August 13), and
Bernice Brown ( in September).
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
March 1 support, rather than disprove, the Respondents' explanation that the
February layoffs were prompted by a desire to economize. For, according to the
uncontradicted evidence concerning them, the post-February rehires and hires were
so spread out over the 6-month period 18 that they resulted merely in the replace-
ment of departing employees and the consequent maintenance of the approximate
postlayoff employment level. Therefore it is apparent that they did not effect such
a rapid restoration of the prelayoff number of employees as would indicate that the
Respondents' motive for the layoffs was the discouragement of unionization instead
of economy in their own operations. Finally, as to a majority of the 20 employees
laid off in February, there is no showing in the record that they had any connection
with the Union or its activities, and neither the record nor the arguments of the
General Counsel supply any suggestion as to why these particular employees were
included in the layoff or why the Respondents should lay off such a large number
as 20, unless the general reason for there being a layoff at all was the Re-
spondents' desire to economize through a reduction in the number of their employees.
From the foregoing analysis, it appears that a resolution of the conflicting con-
tentions as to the general reason for the February series of layoffs involves a
choice between circumstantial and direct evidence. On the one hand, there is the
evidence which clearly establishes the Respondents' strong antiunion attitude and
their contemporaneous antiunion statements and threats of a shutdown of the plant
if the Union were successful in its organizational campaign. From this evidence,
if it were the only evidence in the case, it would be permissible to draw the inference
that the February layoffs were effected by the Respondents in order to discourage
the employees from joining or otherwise assisting the Union. But squarely opposed
to any such inference is the direct evidence of the Respondents' witnesses, cor-
roborated by the Sausage Company's records, that the February layoffs were an
economic measure to which the Respondents resorted because of a decline in their
business. Notwithstanding the Respondents' opposition to the unionization of their
employees and their other acts of interference with the employees' organizational
activities, the Trial Examiner believes that the Respondents' evidence as to the
general reason for the February layoffs is plausible and credible, and therefore
finds, that the Respondents' general reason for the February series of layoffs was
to economize through a general reduction in their working staff. Consequently,
if there were any violation of the Act in the course of the February layoffs, it
occurred in the Respondents' selection of the particular persons laid off.
, 2. The selection of the persons laid off
As has already been noted, Supervisors Bagwell and Lattam testified that they
decided who would be laid off in their respective departments, and then laid them
off. Both supervisors further testified, and the Trial Examiner credits their testi-
mony, that there was no existing practice or custom of laying off employees in the
inverse order of seniority, nor was there any practice of recalling laid-off employees
when jobs again became available. According to the further credible testimony
of both supervisors, a laid-off employee was rehired only upon application at a
time when a job was available. Accordingly, Bagwell told all the employees whom
he laid off in February (except perhaps Willie Mae Hinton, for a reason hereinafter
discussed) that they should keep in touch with him.
With respect to his selection of the packingroom employees whom he laid off,
Bagwell testified, in substance, that although seniority was not the controlling factor,
he first checked with the office to find out whom he had hired last and then, with
this information in mind as only one factor, he made his selection from all the
employees in his department upon his consideration of, and his judgment with
respect to, the continuity as well as the length of their services, the regularity of
their attendance, their ability to perform one or more tasks in the department, and
a comparison of their general conduct as employees. According to Bagwell, it
was his judgment upon these matters which led him to lay off the 12 employees in
his department, including the following 5 employees named in the amended com-
plaint: Willie Mae Hinton and Ruby Justice on February 14 and Viola Adams,
Nellie Cain Stroup, and Mamie Gregory on February 17. (See Appendix A.)
Supervisor Lattam testified, in substance, that he effected the 5 layoffs in the
sausage kitchen by eliminating I stuffing table at which I man and 2 women worked,
by laying off a male employee in the grinding room, and also by laying off Lena
Mae Farrior whose salary was 10 cents an hour more than that of the next highest
paid group of employees. Lattam further testified that the stuffing table which
2B See the two preceding footnotes.
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1415
he had eliminated was an extra, temporary table with a crew of only 3 employees
whereas the other 2 permanent tables had crews of 6 or 7 each; that, of the 3
employees at the temporary table, he laid off Willie Mouzzon (the man) and
Geraldine Williams Griffis (the only one of the 3 named in the amended complaint),
but transferred the third employee, Jessie Mae Thorpe, to 1 of the permanent tables
from which he laid off employee Jewel Willis (who was not named in the amended
complaint); and finally, that he retained Thorpe and laid off Griffis (whom he
described as less efficient than the other girls at the stuffing tables), because Thorpe
was "an older, more experienced employee . . . was expecting a child very soon,
and [Lattam] wanted to let her work as long as she could so she could get her
hospitalization." It will be recalled that of the 5 sausage kitchen employees who
were thus laid off by Lattam, only 2 are named in the amended complaint as
discriminatees, i. e., Lena Mae Farrior and Geraldine Williams Griffis.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the evidence does not show that the Respond-
ents discriminatorily laid off Ruby Justice, Viola Adams, Nellie.Cain Stroup, Mamie
Gregory, or Geraldine Williams Griffis. According to their respective supervisors,
the selection of these five people for layoff was based upon their supervisors'
decision that they were the ones who could best be spared on a comparison to their
performance and attendance records with those of the employees retained. To
meet this explanation, the General Counsel submitted testimony by these employees
that there had been no criticism of their work. He offered no evidence, however,
which has any bearing upon the supervisors' comparison of their abilities and steadi-
ness at work with those of the employees who were retained, and since this was
the issue-rather than whether laid-off employees' performances had merely been
satisfactory and had therefore evoked no criticism for the Respondents-the super-
visors' testimony on this critical point is credited. Furthermore, none of the five
laid-off employees now under consideration had been singled out for individual
attention by the Respondents in their attempts to discourage unionization (as were
Lena Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton), nor were any of them so active in, or
so prominently identified with, the Union's organizational campaign as to suggest
that they were chosen for layoff for this reason rather than because of the Respond-
ents' judgment that they were the employees to be laid off because they could best
be spared. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner has concluded that the Respondents'
explanations for the selections of Ruby Justice, Viola Adams, Nellie Cain Stroup,
Mamie Gregory, and Geraldine Williams Griffis are credible; and that the Respond-
ents did not discriminatorily lay off any of these five employees. The Trial Examiner
will recommend the dismissal of the amended complaint so far as it alleges that these
particular five employees were laid off and refused reinstatement in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
The cases of Lena Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton are quite different. Farrior
was one of the oldest employees in the plant, had been relied upon by the Respond-
ents as the natural work-leader of the girls in her department , and was also the
leader of the Union's organizational campaign among the employees. Hinton,
although not active in soliciting members for the Union, was obviously an outspoken
union adherent as is shown by the Jake Jones incident involving her and Bagwell,
her supervisor. Moreover, immediately before their layoffs and apparently for
the foregoing reasons, both Farrior and Hinton (unlike the other laid-off employees)
were singled out for individual attention by the Respondents in their attempt to
discourage the unionization of their employees.19 In short, the record furnishes
ample reason for believing that both Farrior and Hinton were selected for layoff
by the Respondents because of their support of the Union, unless, upon examination,
the testimony given by the Respondents' witnesses as to other reasons for these two
particular layoffs should appear to be credible.
Lena Mae Farrior
Farrior had been employed at the plant by the previous owner from whom the
Sausage Company bought the business and began its own operations on February
2, 1947. She worked continuously for the Sausage Company in the sausage kitchen
from that date until her layoff on February 14, 1956. Until her layoff, she had been
responsible for the operation of 4 sausage linking machines by 4 girl employees.
She set the machines, checked their operation, "fixed the machine in case it broke
down," and decided whether the product was satisfactory or whether it had to be
"reworked." In addition, she relieved the other girls at their various jobs in the
department during their rest periods. Finally, Supervisor Lattam gave her instruc-
tions as to what the girls in the department should do and she passed them on to the
19 See section III, B, above.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
girls and saw to it that the instructions were followed. The Respondents' high
regard for Farrior as the key employee in the sausage kitchen is demonstrated not
only by their reliance upon her to perform these various functions, but also by
Garland Jones' testimony that, a few weeks before her layoff, he seriously considered
the possibility of running the department directly through her and called her to his
home to discuss the matter. Because of her responsibility for the operations of the
linking machines and her relationship to the other girl employees, Garland Jones
referred to Farrior in his testimony as a "supervisor," and Supervisor Lattam spoke
of her job with respect to the linking machines as "supervision," although the parties
were careful to stipulate, and the Trial Examiner accordingly finds, that Farrior
was not a "supervisor" within the meaning of the Act.
The Respondents rely upon testimony given by Lattam and Garland Jones as show-
ing that the decision to include Farrior in the February layoff was made by Lattam,
who was not otherwise involved by the testimony of any of the witnesses in the
Respondents' interference with the employees' organizational activities; that Garland
Jones, whose antiunion statements and threats have been discussed, was therefore
not involved in the decision; and finally, that the reason that Lattam laid off Farrior
was to economize by eliminating the wages of the highest paid female employee in
the department. Thus, Lattam testified that he selected Farrior as. one of the
employees to be laid off because, although her work was good, her wage rate of $1.15
was 10 cents more than that of any of the other girls in the department. According
to the testimony of both Lattam and Garland Jones, Lattam made this decision
without consulting Jones but did consult Jones with specific reference to Farrior
before she was laid off, and Jones did not interfere. According to Lattam's further
testimony, he took over Farrior's "supervision" and some of her manual operations
after she was laid off, but later transferred the manual operations to other employees.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, Lattam's and Jones' testimony does not
support the conclusions urged by the Respondents. In view of the Respondents' pro-
fessed high regard for Farrior and their unusual reliance upon her as a key employee,
it is incredible that, in. order to save 10 cents per hour, they would lay her off
rather than 1 or even 2 of the other girls in the department. Moreover, it is clear even
from Lattam's and Jones' testimony, that the decision to lay off Farrior was actually
made by Garland Jones, and not by Lattam, since Lattam procured Jones' approval
before he notified Farrior of her layoff, although he laid off the other four employees
in the department without telling Jones who they were. Furthermore, Garland Jones'
approval of Farrior's layoff was given on February 14, the very day on which Jones,
in the second of his conversations with Farrior about the Union. had told Farrior
that he would close the plant before he would let the Union come in and then, upon
learning from Farrior that she had attended the Union's meeting at the Elks' Club
the previous Sunday, had hold her that "she should go home and pray and let me
know what you think about it."
Upon the foregoing consideration of Lattam's and Jones' testimony in connection
with the other evidence in the case, the Trial Examiner rejects the Respondents' con-
tention that Farrior was laid off in order to economize through the elimination of
her high wage rate, and finds instead that the real reason for her layoff was her
stubbornness in continuing her union activity in spite of Garland Jones' attempts to
discourage and intimidate her and to enlist her aid in the surveillance of the Union's
organizers. According, the Trial Examiner finds that, by laying off Farrior on
February 14, 1956 and failing thereafter to reinstate her, the Respondents dis-
criminated against her in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union and committing an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Willie Mae Hinton
Supervisor Bagwell testified that he included Willie Mae Hinton in the February
layoff and, upon her applying for a job 2 weeks or so later, also refused her reinstate-
ment, because in December 1955 she had falsified her timecard by adding hours
which she had not worked. According to Bagwell, Hinton had promised him in
December that she would not repeat her offense, and, out of consideration for her
father whom he knew, Bagwell did not discharge her but told her, "Well, I will work
you until the time to lay off" but that then she would be laid off because he had no
confidence in her. Bagwell further testified that, in view of this December incident,
he did not tell Hinton when he laid her off (as he did the other people whom he laid
off) that she should keep in touch with him and if he needed somebody, he would
give her a job. Bagwell did not testify, however, whether he mentioned the December
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1417
incident to Hinton either when he laid her off or when he rejected her application for
reinstatement , although he did testify that on her layoff slip he had noted merely
"lack of work" as the reason for her layoff , because (he explained ) he did not want
to make it difficult for her to get another job.
With respect to these matters , Hinton testified that there had been no criticism
of her work ; that , when Bagwell laid her off, he told her he would call the laid-off
employees back to work as soon as business picked up; and that, in later rejecting
her application to return to work, he told her that they did not then need additional
help. Bagwell 's explanation for Hinton 's layoff must , of course , also be weighed in
the light of the findings already made upon the evidence , that Bagwell had told a
number of the employees that Jones would close the plant before he would "work
with the Union ," and that , in questioning Hinton individually and other employees
in groups , he had told them that they should not deny their attendance at the Union's
meetings because he knew all about their "secret meetings ," and (in his conversation.
with Hinton the day before her layoff ) "he knew everybody that attended the [Elks
Club] meeting because he had somebody there who knew about it."
Upon consideration of all this pertinent evidence , the Trial Examiner finds in
accordance with Bagwell's testimony that Hinton had in fact falsified her timecard
in December 1955. There still remains the question , however, whether she was
selected for layoff in February 1956 because of the December incident , as Bagwell
testified , or because of her apparent union activity , as is so strongly indicated by the
evidence of Bagwell 's antiunion statements and threats to the employees and, espe-
cially, his interrogation of Hinton individually in his three conversations with her
immediately before he laid her off. Upon this critical point , the Trial Examiner
does not find Bagwell's testimony to be persuasive nor, therefore , to be sufficient
to overcome the evidence that his layoff of Hinton was actually based upon her
union activity . For his testimony that he gave notice to Hinton in December that
she would be laid off when "the time for layoff came ," is inconsistent with both his
own testimony and that of Garland Jones that the Respondents did not consider
making any layoff until about the middle of January 1956. Then , too, Bagwell's
apparent omission of any reminder to Hinton of the December incident when he laid
her off and then refused her reinstatement in February , also indicates that the time-
card incident was not actually the reason he selected her for layoff and refused to
reinstate her.
Upon the foregoing considerations , the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondents
laid off Willie Mae Hinton on February 14, 1956, and have since refused to reinstate
her, because of her union activity , thereby discriminating against her in regard to her
hire and tenure of employment , discouraging membership in the Union , and com-
mitting an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondents set forth in section I, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, the Trial Examiner
will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Trial Examiner has found that the Respondents discriminatorily laid off Lena
Mae Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton on February 14, 1956, and have since failed
to reinstate either of them. The Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondents
offer each of them immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position , and make her whole ( in accordance with the formula set out in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289) for any loss of pay which she may have
suffered by reason of the Respondents ' discrimination against her, by payment to
her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as
wages from February 14, 1956, to the date of the Respondents ' offer of reinstate-
ment , less her net earnings during said period . It will also be recommended that
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondents, upon reasonable request, make available to the Board and its agents
all payroll and other records pertinent to an analysis of the amount due as back pay.
Since the Trial Examiner has also found that the Respondents did not discriminate
.against any of the other employees named in the amended complaint, he will recom-
mend a dismissal of the amended complaint so far as it alleges that the Respondents
discriminated against Ruby L. Justice, Viola Adams, Nellie Cain (now known as
Nellie Cain Stroup), Mamie Gregory, and Geraldine Williams Griffis.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lena Mae
Farrior and Willie Mae Hinton, thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated
.Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, the Respondents
have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the above unfair labor practices and by otherwise interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
-of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in , and are engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
-commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondents did not commit unfair labor practices in laying off Ruby L.
.Justice, Viola Adams, Nellie Cain (now known as Nellie Cain Stroup), Mamie
-Gregory, or Geraldine Williams Griffis.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYEES ON PACKINGROOM PAYROLL ON FEBRUARY 1, 1956
(WITH DATES OF ORIGINAL HIRE AND OTHER INFORMATION)
*Mettie Lee Wilder_________ 1-13-56, laid off 2-1-56
Coddie Tart_____________ 9-8-55
Mary Katherine Brown__ __ 9-7-55
**Nellie Cain Stroup________ 1-13-55, laid off 2-17-56
Paul Brooks, Jr---------- 1-12-55
Bessie Tomlinson--------- 11-5-54
Gertrude Banks___________ 11-5-54
*Amanda Johnson___ ______ 10-22-54, laid off 2-14-56, rehired 8-16-56
*Julia Smith______________ 10-11-54, laid off 2-14-56
*Janie Muldrow___________ 10-6-54, laid off 2-14-56, rehired 7-12-56
Jackie J. Johns____________ 9-30-54
Bessie Dunn_ ____________ 9-22-54
Edna L. Avery___________ 9-22-54
Corina Smith_____________ 9-22-54
**Ruby Justice____________ 9-22-54, laid off 2-14-56
David W. Jones__________ 9-9-54
'**Willie Mae Hinton________ 9-8-54, laid off 2-14-56
*Sally Johnson____________ 9-2-53, laid off 2-14-56, rehired 4-12-56
Emma Doris Wright------- 6-25-53
Ruby Fowler_____________ 3-25-53
Rosa Hales______________ 11-5-52
Jean Ballard_____________ 10-27-52
Shirley Jones____________ 10-15-52
*Lillie M. Rook___________ 10-8-52, laid off 2-3-56, rehired 6-14-56
Joyce Knott-------------- 6-2-52
Lillie Mae Jenkins________ 9-10-51
*Virgie Gower____________ 9-5-51, quit 9-7-55, rehired 9-1-56 , laid off
2-3-56
See footnotes at end of table.
JONES SAUSAGE COMPANY 1419
Eloise Whitaker Green_____ 8-27-51
Frances Gill_____________ 8-17-51
Etta Lassiter_____________ 6-5-51
Sallie Wright------------- 2-6-51
Grace Avery _____________ 2-1-51
Elsie Height_____________ 1-31-51
Della Mae Leach_________ 9-20-50
**Viola Adams_____________ 7-13-50, quit 12-7-51, rehired 5-26-52, laid off
2-17-56
**Mamie Gregory__________ 7-13-50, quit 11-25-53, rehired 11-4-54, laid off
2-17-56
Pensacola McLamb_______ 4-8-50
Evelyn Gist Lee__________ 9-3-49
Bessie Jones_____________ 8-6-49
Daisy Graham___________ 8-5-48
Susie Bumpers___________ 5-21-48
Mamie Yancey___________ 4-24-48
*Laid off in February 1956 but not named in amended complaint as having been dis-
criminatorily laid off.
**Laid off in February 1956 and named in amended complaint as having been discrim-
inatorily laid off.
APPENDIX B
EMPLOYEES ON SAUSAGE KITCHEN PAYROLL ON FEBRUARY 1, 1956
(WITH DATES OF ORIGINAL HIRE AND OTHER INFORMATION)
*Willie Mouzzon__________ 12-6-55, laid off 2-15-56
Annie Person____________ 11-1-55
Ronia Miles_____________ 9-5-55
Almetta Davis------------ 8-31-55
*Jewel Willis------------- 8-24-55, laid off 2-3-56, rehired 3-12-56
Elisha Stroud____________ 8-8-55
Clara Lee Hinton_________ 4-4-55
Carl H. Smith____________ 2-7-55
Fannie Hinton____________ 9-17-54
Betty Pair_______________ 9-17-54
Lillie Griffis------------- 8-14-54
*James D. Williams-------- 7-8-54, laid off 2-14-56
Daisy Ellis______________ 10-15-53
Lee Ernest Justice_________ 8-26-53
"Geraldine Williams Griffis- 8-25-53, laid off 2-14-56
Clifton A. Johnson-------- 8-6-53
Alfred Johns_____________ 6-1-53
Lawrence Wright--------- 5-18-53
Jessie Mae Thorpe________ 11-17-52
Moses White, Jr.--------- 9-10-51
Bertha Denton___________ 3-6-51
Frank Chavis____________ 2-1-51
Mary Barbour___________ 6-5-50
Eugene Johns____________ 5-7-50
Jennie P. Lee_____________ 4-20-50
Edward Hicks, Jr.--------- 9-3-49
Martha Avery____________ May 1948, quit and rehired 2-1-51
William Johns____________ 3-27-48
Lula Mae Seawell________ 2-2-48
**Lena Mae Farrior________ 2-28-47, laid off 2-14-56
Joseph D. Myatt__________ 2-28-47
Melvin Davis------------ 2-28-47
*Laid off in February 1956 but not named in amended complaint as having been dis-
criminatorily laid off.
**Laid off in February 1956 and named in amended complaint as having been discrim-
inatorily laid off.