Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 444 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Latchaw and Wieland, it will be recommended that the Respondent
offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions,5 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as a result
of the discrimination, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
amount each would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date he is
Offered reinstatement, less his net earnings 6 to be computed on a quarterly basis
in. the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289,,291-294. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the
back-pay liability for any other such period. It will also be recommended that the
Respondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records
to facilitate the` clhecking of the amount of back pay due. -
As the unfairlabor practices committed by the Respondent were of a,character
striking at the toots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act and disclose a
propensity on its part to continue, although- not necessarily by the same stratagems
and devices, to defeat self-organization of its employees, it will also be recommended
that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in, any manner
upon the employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lloyd
Latchaw and Elton Wieland, thereby discouraging membership in United Steel-
workers of America,. CIO, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor -practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the discharges and by threatening reduced earnings, withdrawal of privileges
and less sympathetic treatment, and by prophesying discriminatory treatment, of
union sympathizers, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
5 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
6 Crossett Dumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498.
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries , Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers
Local Union No. 47, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1597. October 17,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
'On April 19, 1955, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election in the above-entitled proceeding,' an election by secret bal-
Not reported In printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
114 NLRB No. 83.
MRS. BAIRD 'S BAKERIES,'INC. 445-
lot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, among the employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate. Upon the conclusion of the election, a
tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of ap-
proximately 96 eligible voters, all cast ballots, of which 45 were for,
and 51 were against, the Petitioner.
On April 26, 1955, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the elec-
tion. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Re-
gional Director investigated the objections and on June 13, 1955, issued
and duly served upon the parties his report on objections in which he'
found that certain of the Employer's conduct raised substantial and
material issues with respect to the election and recommended that the
election be set aside. Thereafter, the Employer timely filed exceptions
to the Regional Director's report.
Among its objections, the Petitioner alleged that the Employer had
made a free election impossible by requiring each employee working
in Fort Worth individually to come to the office of either Vernon Baird
or the sales manager where they were advised that as soon as the Pe-
titioner was out of the picture the employees would be given a raise.
The Regional Director found that almost all eligible voters were in-
terviewed ' by the Employer's manager, assistant manager, and sales
manager after the date of the Board's Decision and immediately prior
to the election. The employees based in Fort Worth were interviewed
individually either by the manager or assistant manager in one of
the company offices with no one else in attendance. The drivers located-
out, of town were interviewed individually by the assistant manager or
sales manager at the employees' homes and on their routes. During
these interviews, the management officials generally disparaged the
Petitioner, expressed the thought that if the employees went on strike
the Employer would see to it that its product was delivered, and said
that if the Petitioner became the employees' representative, the Em-
ployer's expansion program would be limited and there would be a
restriction in the drivers' sales, and further that the Employer did not
have to sign a contract with them. In its exceptions, the Employer has
not challenged the Regional Director's finding of the individual in-
terviews about the forthcoming election, but only his findings, stated
above, as to what its supervisors told the employees during these in-
terviews.
In the Economic Machinery case,' the Board said :
... the technique of calling the employees into the Employer's
office individually to urge them to reject the union is, in itself,
conduct calculated to interfere with their free choice in the elec-
tion. This is so, regardless of the noncoercive tenor of an em-
ployer's actual remarks.
2 Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB 947.
446 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, the Board set aside an election because of these indi-
vidual interviews. Recently, in Oregon Frozen Foods Company,'
the Board reiterated the continued applicability of that doctrine. Al-
though in the present case employees were interviewed individually.
in their homes and on their routes as well as in company offices, the
effect upon' employees was the same. We find that by the aforesaid in-
dividual interviews conducted by the Employer's top management per-
sonnel, the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice
in the selection of a bargaining representative' We shall, therefore,
order that the election be set aside and direct that a new election be held.
[The Board ordered the election held on April 19, 1955, set aside.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
A Oregon Frozen Foods Company and Ore -Ida Potato Products, Inc, 113 NLRB 881.
4 Mall Tool Company. 112 NLRB 1313 , is distinguished on its facts . In view of our
decision to set aside the election upon the ground stated above , we find it unnecessary
to consider the Petitioner 's other objections
Sardis Luggage , Company and United Furniture Workers of
America, CIO. Case No. 32-CA-376. October 18, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 21,1955, Trial Examiner Henry S. Salim issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief; the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board 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 briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
l The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced against
it. We have carefully examined the entire record and find nothing to support such
an allegation.
2 The Intermediate Report contains several minor Inadvertences none of which affects
the Trial Examiner's ultimate findings or our concurrence therein Included in such
inadvertences are several references to Glover Jackson's discriminatory "discharge"
rather than to the -Respondent 's discriminatory refusal to recall him , as alleged in the
`complaint. - -
114NLRB No 90.