Mrs. Baird's Bread

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

MRS. BAIRD 'S BREAD , DALLAS
Mrs. Baird 's Bread, Dallas and American Bakery
and Confectionery Workers' International Union,
AFL-CIO , Local 111. Case 16-CA-3060
April 30, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
On January 24, 1968, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Ex-
aminer also found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices
and recommended dismissal of those allegations of
the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's excep-
tions and supporting brief , and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Mrs. Baird 's Bread,
Dallas, of Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, succes-
sors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
' The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings. It
is the Board 's established policy, however , not to overrule a Trial Ex-
aminer 's resolution with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case
here , the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544,
enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
The following citation in fn 4 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision is cor-
rected to read - Federal Envelope Company, Division of Nationwide Papers
Incorporated, 147 NLRB 1030, 1036
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
135
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed on July 24, 1967,' by American Bakery
and Confectionery Workers' International Union,
AFL-CIO, Local 111 (herein called the Union or
the Charging Party), the complaint herein issued on
October 13. The complaint alleged that Mrs.
Baird's Bread, Dallas (herein called the Company
or Respondent), in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(herein called the Act), had interrogated em-
ployees concerning their union activities and had
warned employees that there would never be a
union at the Company. The Company was alleged
to have violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by assigning L. T. Mason to a less agreeable job and
decreasing his rate of pay because of his union ac-
tivities. Respondent denied all of the material al-
legations of the complaint.
All parties participated in the hearing in Dallas,
Texas, on December 4 and 5, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present
oral argument, and to file briefs. Oral argument was
waived and briefs were filed by Respondent and the
General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, my reading of
the briefs, and from my observation of the wit-
nesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and
I find, that Mrs. Baird's Bread, Dallas, is a Texas
corporation with its principal office and place of
business in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of bread and related
products. During a representative 12-month period,
Respondent purchased, transferred, and delivered
to its plant raw materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were transported to said plant
directly from suppliers located in States of the
United States other than the State of Texas.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
meets the Board's standards for asserting jurisdic-
tion.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Bakery and Confectionery Workers'
International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 111 , is, and
I Unless otherwise noted all dates herein were in 1967
171 NLRB No. 26
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has been at all times material herein, a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent manufactures bread and related
products in its Dallas plant . The plant production
and maintenance employees are part of a multiem-
ployer unit of bakeries in Dallas and are covered by
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
At the time of the events herein , Respondent's
transport employees, who take its products from
the plant to various points in Texas, were not
represented by a labor organization.
L. T. Mason was hired by the Company on May
15, 1966, as a transport driver . His earnings as a
driver were between $128 and $138 per week.
Prior to coming to work for the Respondent, Mason
had many years of experience as an automotive
mechanic.
In June 1966 Mason embarked on his effort to
help the Union organize Respondent' s transport
employees. That month Mason met with the trans-
port employees and thereafter obtained authoriza-
tion cards from the Union. Mason returned the
signed cards to the Union and he testified for the
Union at the hearing on its petition for a Board-
conducted representation election. After the elec-
tion, at which he was an observer for the Union,
Mason testified for the Union at a hearing on a
challenged ballot. The ruling on that challen&e
resulted in the Union failing to obtain a majority in
the 1966 election.
In June 1967 Mason again solicited authorization
cards for the Union from the transport department
employees. On July 13 the Union filed its petition
for election. After a hearing on August 11, the Re-
gional Director's Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued on September 1. The Union won the
election held on September 25 and its certification
issued on October 3. The parties held their first
bargaining session on November 7 and after four
meetings reached agreement on November 29.
B. Interrogation and Warning
On July 16, while on his regular delivery run,
Mason heard noises coming from the transmission
of the tractor. Mason called the plant and spoke to
J. D. Thompson, the night duty mechanic, who ad-
vised that the transmission be looked at by a local
mechanic. Mason did as instructed, the local
mechanic added grease to the transmission, and
Mason went on with his duties.'
Mason testified that the following morning at the
plant C. V. Guynes, who at that time supervised the
transport drivers, asked about a report that Mason
was again distributing union cards. Mason con-
firmed the rumor. Guynes then said that Mason's
efforts would do no good. The Company had
"whipped" the Union before and would do it again,
Guynes said, and would spend a million dollars be-
fore permitting a union in the transport depart-
ment.
Several days later Guynes again queried Mason,
this time about the Union's petition for election.
When Mason confirmed that the Union had filed,
Guynes repeated his earlier statement that the
Company would not have a union in the transport
department. Further, Guynes expressed his belief
that Mason was deeply involved in the Union's cam-
paign.' Mason admitted that he was.
Guynes denied that he had ever discussed union
authorization cards with Mason or that he had ever
mentioned how much money Respondent would
spend to prevent unionization of the transport
drivers. There were no witnesses to these conversa-
tions other than Mason and Guynes. On their
demeanor alone while testifying before me, I would
credit Mason's testimony that these conversations
did in fact occur. Moreover, testimony corroborat-
ing other aspects of his testimony attested to
Mason's accuracy and veracity. I find that Guynes
interrogated Mason about his activities on behalf of
the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. However, I find Guynes' statement that
Respondent would spend a million dollars to defeat
the Union to be puffing. Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
C. The Demotion of L. T. Mason
1. The events of July 21
On Friday, July 21, when Mason reported for
work he was accosted by fellow driver Pat Thomp-
son who asked why Mason had been assigned to
tractor #503, Thompson's regular Friday night
equipment. This was the first Mason knew that he
would not be driving his regularly assigned rig.
Later, Transport Department Supervisor Guynes
confirmed that Mason's regular truck had been
taken out of service and that Mason would drive
#503 that night.
Mason started to pull tractor #503 and the at-
tached trailer away from the dock to clear the rear
doors for closing and found that the transmission
'
Wayne Rose, head of Respondent's sales department which includes
the transport drivers, testified that in deciding to transfer Mason to the
shipping department, the act which is the basis of the instant charge of dis-
crimination, he did not consider any mechanical difficulties which Mason
encountered before July 21 Accordingly, this incident on July 16 is impor-
tant only because it enabled Mason, who was otherwise unable to connect
events with dates, to place the time of his conversations with Guynes
s Guynes' expression of belief that Mason was deeply involved in the
Union's campaign " was of such a character as to create an impression
of surveillance " Plasticotd Company, 168 NLRB 135, fn 3
MRS. BAIRD 'S BREAD , DALLAS
would not hold in first gear. Mason informed
Guynes of the situation and the latter told Mason to
go ahead and drive the truck. As Mason pulled
away in first gear the transmission was making a
grinding noise . At this point Mason asked Guynes
to ride on the running board and listen to the trans-
mission . With Guynes on the running board Mason
drove #503 in first gear , not shifting gears. Guynes
said he could hear nothing wrong and for Mason to
go ahead with his run.
Mason then drove some 60 to 70 feet and
discovered that the transmission would not hold in
second gear . At this point Mason went back to the
plant and asked J. D. Thompson, the night duty
mechanic, to check the transmission on #503. At
the garage door, mechanic Thompson and Mason
met Guynes, and Mason told his supervisor that the
transmission was jumping out of gear and that he
didn't believe that #503 could make the trip.
Guynes told mechanic Thompson that there was no
point in checking #503 because the transmission in
that tractor was faulty. Guynes instructed Mason to
drive #503 as far as he could, then to call in and
they would bring him another tractor. Guynes
replied affirmatively when Mason asked if he would
be in the clear if the transmission was torn up in at-
tempting to drive that night.4
Mason then pulled away from the plant in #503
onto an expressway. As he shifted the gears he
heard a grinding noise . The transmission would not
hold in the first three speeds, and Mason was only
able to drive in second or third gear by holding the
transmission in those gears . After driving about half
a mile in fourth gear, the only speed which would
hold, Mason pulled off the expressway, onto the
service road, to call Guynes at the plant. Mason left
the truck in neutral with the motor running. Guynes
left the plant, and drove to where Mason had
parked #503 and with difficulty drove about 100
yards on an overpass to the other side of the ex-
pressway. Thereafter, Guynes went back to the
plant and returned with mechanic Thompson and
tractor #486 which was substituted for #503, and
Mason continued on with his run. Mechanic
Thompson drove #503 back to the plant where he
told Walker that only one gear in the transmission
was working.'
I Guynes added to this version of the conversation at the garage door
that , when Mason had expressed a fear that the transmission would be torn
up, Guynes had said that if he wished to do so he could damage a truck
while driving only a short distance Mason replied that he could do so as
well. In crediting Mason 's testimony rather than Guynes ' I find that Guynes
knew that the transmission in #503 was faulty, had prevented an inspection
of the transmission by the mechanic, and had told Mason to drive #503 as
far as he could without fear of reprisal if he further damaged the equip-
ment . In so finding I rely on the corroborating testimony of employee Jona
Walker as well as the more credible appearance of Mason as against that of
Guynes . Walker , the plant doorkeeper who watches over the coming and
going of trucks , testified that the conversation between Mason and Guynes
occurred as set forth above Respondent 's counsel , over objection, sought
to attack Walker's testimony by establishing prounion bias on Walker's
part . While counsel was insisting on his right to ask if Walker had signed a
union card , Walker cut in saying, "Of course, I think I know what you are
getting at . I ain't for either side ." Walker was an intelligent witness who was
137
Later that night Guynes told Lloyd Stevens,
Respondent 's fleet superintendent in charge of all
garage equipment and the fleet of trucks, that
Mason "tore the transmission up" in #503.
2. The events of July 22 and 23
Wayne Rose, whose duties as sales manager in-
cluded control of the transport department,
testified that on Saturday, July 22, he was told by
Stevens that there had been a breakdown of #503
tractor, the transmission having been torn up, and
that in Stevens' opinion the damage had been done
deliberately. In Stevens' words at the hearing, "I re-
ported to him that I was of the opinion that the
transmission was willfully torn up, in other words,
mistreated. "
Stevens examined the disassembled transmission.
He testified that he had never before seen the type
of damage that was present in the transmission
from tractor #503 and had never before been
called upon to determine the cause for such
damage. None the less, Stevens testified, "... I be-
lieve and I know that the transmission would not
come apart like that unless it was mistreated."
Rose called Guynes into his office and asked for
a statement on the events surrounding the damage
of the transmission from #503 tractor. Guynes
testified that while he had looked at the disassem-
bled transmission that morning he had not made
too careful an examination. Guynes did recall that
several of the gears had been stripped, i.e., the
teeth of the gears had been knocked off. In testify-
ing about his report to Rose, Guynes could not re-
call telling his superior that Mason had deliberately
damaged the transmission.
The following day, at Rose's direction, Guynes
told Mason not to report for work that evening but
to come instead to Rose's office Monday morning
for a meeting with the sales manager.
3. The events of July 24
On Monday, July 24, Mason reported as directed
to Rose's office. There Mason dictated a statement
of the events leading to the damage to the transmis-
sion. Thereafter, Rose informed Mason that, since
knowingly testifying against the interest of his Employer Federal Envelope
Company, Division of Nationwide Papers Incorporated, 147 NLRB 1130,
1 136 Driver Pat Thompson was normally assigned to tractor #503 Driver
Thompson testified that he had driven #503 on July 20 and had placed the
rig at the loading dock on July 21 but had not experienced difficulty with
the transmission It later developed that the transmission in #503 showed
the results of power shifting over a period of time, the type of improper
driving technique which caused the damage for which Respondent claims
to have demoted Mason Thompson, the driver regularly assigned to #503,
thus becomes less than a disinterested witness I do not credit his testimony.
s In recounting the events of July 21 I have relied in the main on the
testimony of Mason, whom I credit His statement that he had left #503 in
neutral with the engine running when he had gone to call Guynes was of-
fered during his rebuttal testimony In large part my decision herein turns
on that statement of fact After Mason offered this testimony in rebuttal,
Respondent did not recall Guynes to controvert Mason Accordingly, this
statement stands uncontradicted on the record
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he found the facts to support a finding that the
damage to the transmission had been deliberate,
the Company could not afford to trust Mason driv-
ing a transport tractor and he was assigning Mason
to the shipping department at the starting rate of
$90.64 per week. As noted, in deciding to transfer
Mason from transport driver to the shipping depart-
ment, Rose did not consider any mechanical dif-
ficulties Mason may have had before the July 21 in-
cident with tractor #503.
Since this transfer to the shipping department,
Mason has been directed on a number of occasions
to drive city vans to make deliveries in the Dallas
area . One such delivery was to Grand Prairie, Tex-
as, over 10 miles from the plant. In addition, Mason
has moved transport trucks in the plant garage and
loading area.
4. The condition of #503
Some days after Rose demoted Mason, J. W. Bar-
ry, a long-time employee of the Chevrolet Division
of the General Motors Corporation with experience
in determining causation of motor equipment
failure, at Respondent's request examined a truck
transmission and miscellaneous parts from a second
transmission . Barry discovered that the rear main
shaft bearing had totally disintegrated. Barry
testified that destruction of the rear bearing was
caused by a power shift, when the driver shifts
gears while maintaining a high engine revolution
per minute. Through the gears, torque, a turning or
twisting force, is obtained. In a power shift the shift
of gears is faster than normal, the clutch is released
in a faster than normal manner, and the resulting
increased torque is delivered to the main shaft of
the transmission like a piece of wire being twisted.
When this happens to a piece of wire, Barry ex-
plained, the middle of the wire rises if an end is not
released. However, the main shaft of the transmis-
sion is some 10 inches long and about 1-3/4 inches
in diameter and will not twist like a piece of wire.
As a result of a power shift the bearing supporting
the transmission at the rear gives way in a buckling
effect. Barry testified that damage resulting from a
power shift is considered to be driver failure and a
claim for such damages would be disallowed. One
power shift could have caused the damage
described by Barry.
In addition to the disintegration of the rear bear-
ing, Barry found that the synchronizing cones
which serve to slow down the gears in the shifting
process had been damaged by power shifting over a
period of time.
' A number of past and present employees of Respondent testified as to
occasions on which they had damaged company transport equipment
without reprisal to them Maxie Campbell had fallen asleep at the wheel of
his tractor trailer and though the rig turned over and was a total loss he was
not disciplined Billy Beaumont had burned out the bearing in the transmis-
sion of the tractor he was driving and on another occasion the motor in his
truck had blown up In neither case was Beaumont disciplined by Respon-
Barry testified that there was no damage to the
gears other than normal wear. He further stated
that either the worn synchronizing cones or a bear-
ing failure before the actual damage could have
caused noise when #503 was driven.
After the rear bearing in the transmission had
disintegrated, Barry testified, it would have been
impossible to shift gears. Had the damaged truck
been stopped in gear it could have been driven
thereafter in that gear but it could not have been
shifted out of that gear. In Barry's opinion, had the
tractor, pulling a trailer loaded with bread, been
stopped in fourth gear, if sufficient engine rpm
were obtained and the clutch (which Barry did not
examine ) had been in good shape, the tractor
would possibly have been able to pull such a load
unless it sought to go up an incline.
Barry found that the miscellaneous parts which
he had been asked to examine were worn out and
unserviceable. These parts were the synchronizing
rings from the third and fourth gears.
Lloyd Stevens, Respondent's fleet superinten-
dent, testified that the transmission which Barry ex-
amined had come from tractor #503 and the
separate synchronizing rings had been taken from
the transmission in tractor #486, Mason's regularly
assigned equipment before July 21.
Stevens agreed with Barry that the gears could
not have been shifted after the damage to the trans-
mission rear bearing. However, Stevens testified
that he had not found abnormal wear in the
synchronizing cones which Barry had said showed
the signs of power shifting over a period of time.
5. Conclusions and findings
I have heretofore found that on July 21 Guynes
knew that the transmission in tractor #503 was
faulty, had prevented mechanic Thompson from in-
specting the transmission, and had assured Mason
he would be in the clear if in following Guynes' or-
ders to drive #503 there was further damage to the
transmission.' Additionally, I do not credit Guynes'
assertion that he heard no noise coming from #503
on July 21. The transmission noise which Mason
called to Guynes' attention should have alerted
Respondent's supervisor to the onset of trouble.
Despite this warning Guynes told Mason to drive
#503 as far as he could. This evidence negates a
finding that the damage which followed was
deliberately caused by Mason.
As indicated above, I find determinative of the is-
sues herein Mason's uncontradicted testimony that
he had left the engine in #503 running and the
dent Finally, Robert Mathis testified that while driving a diesel tractor the
crankshaft had twisted as a result of which the engine block was completely
demolished Again, Mathis was not disciplined Respondent distinguishes
Mason 's situation from that of these other employees by the absence of
willfulness on the part of the other drivers However, nothing in the record
supports a finding that Mason willfully damaged #503, if indeed he was at
the wheel when the rear bearing was destroyed
MRS. BAIRD 'S BREAD , DALLAS
transmission in neutral when he had gone to
telephone Guynes on the night of July 21. Barry,
Respondent's expert witness, testified that once the
rear bearing on the transmission had gone it would
have been impossible to shift gears on the rig.
Stevens, Respondent's fleet superintendent, con-
curred in this expert opinion. However, it was
Guynes' testimony that he drove #503 after
responding to Mason's call and that thereafter the
mechanic drove the tractor back to the plant. Had
Mason done the damage attributed to him by the
Company it would have been impossible for Guynes
to have thereafter shifted from neutral to a forward
speed in the tractor. Thus, the credited evidence
does not support Respondent's defense that Mason
had willfully damaged the transmission in tractor
#503 and was not to be trusted with transport equip-
ment . Having thus disposed of any valid ground for
Mason's demotion which might be drawn from the
record, I am not faced by the "ever present enig-
ma" raised by the necessity of balancing evidence
of discrimination against proffered proof of
discipline for cause. Furniture Designs, Inc., 160
NLRB 1576.
I find that the facts compel a finding of violation
in Mason's demotion. Mason was the leader of the
union movement. It was Mason who first met with
the men in 1966, solicited authorization cards for
the Union, testified for the Union at the hearing on
its representation petition, and was its observer at
the election. Mason as well appeared for the Union
at the hearing on the challenged ballot which was
determinative of the 1966 election. Again in 1967
Mason solicited the authorization cards which were
the basis for the Union's demand for recognition.
Guynes had questioned Mason about his renewed
activity for the Union. Thus, Mason's union activity
was outstanding and well known to Respondent.
Among the factors I have considered in reaching
my conclusion herein is the disparate nature of the
treatment afforded Mason for the damage to #503'
as against the total lack of discipline imposed on
other drivers who had damaged transport equip-
ment , in one instance leading to total destruction of
a tractor, trailer, and the load of bread. It cannot be
said that Respondent entertained on July 24 a
good-faith belief that Mason had willfully damaged
#503. Guynes did not tell Rose that the rear bear-
ing had been deliberately torn up. Stevens had
never seen such damage before; he had never be-
fore been required to determine the cause of such
equipment failure; and the reliability of his ex-
amination of the transmission is suspect because of
his failure to see the deterioration of the
synchronizing cones caused by power shifting
which took place before Mason had been assigned
to the tractor. Finally, Barry's examination of the
transmission was made after Mason had been as-
' Rose testified that he took into account only the damage to #503 in
deciding to demote Mason to the shipping department
' While I do not find that Guynes' statement that Respondent would
139
signed to the shipping department and it was his
opinion that power shifting was not uncommon
among truckdrivers. I find that Respondent seized
upon the damage to tractor #503 on July 21 as a
pretext to demote and cut the wages of Mason, the
Union's leader in the transport drivers unit.8
N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26,
33-34; N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., Inc., 389
U.S. 375.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with the in-
terstate operations of Respondent described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
serveral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully
demoted and reduced the wages of L. T. Mason, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
reinstate him to his former or a substantially
equivalent position of employment, without preju-
dice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and to make him whole for loss of earnings suffered
as a result of Respondent 's unlawful conduct.
Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest added thereto in the manner set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Mrs. Baird's Bread, Dallas, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. American Bakery and Confectionery Work-
ers' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 111, is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By engaging in certain described conduct
referred to hereinabove, in section 111, B, hereof,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and
spend a million dollars to defeat the Union violated Section 8 (a)(1), it does
demonstrate the Company's determination to prevent organization of the
transport drivers
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct described in sec-
tion III, C, hereof, Respondent discriminated
against L. T. Mason, in regard to the terms and
conditions of his employment, in order to
discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not committed other un-
fair labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps it has taken to comply
therewith.10
IT IS FURTHER ORDER that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices
not found herein.
0 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order"
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Mrs. Baird's Bread, Dallas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union
activity and sympathy or in any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or
any other labor organization, by discriminating
against employees in regard to the terms and condi-
tions of their employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to L. T. Mason immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suf-
fered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against him as set forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board and its agents , for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze and com-
pute the amount of backpay due and all other rights
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Dallas, Texas, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of
the said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by other material.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question employees about
their union sympathy or union activity or the
union activity and sympathy of other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees
from joining and supporting American Bakery
and Confectionery Workers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local 111, or any other
union , by demoting any of our employees or by
cutting their wages.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with the rights of our employees
under the law to engage in union activity or
refrain therefrom, or force them to give up any
of their rights under the law.
WE WILL offer back to L. T. Mason his job
as a transport driver and give him backpay
from the day he was reassigned to the shipping
department.
All of our employees are free to become or
remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining,
members of American Bakery and Confectionery
Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local
Ill.
MRS. BAIRD 'S BREAD,
DALLAS
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
MRS. BAIRD'S BREAD, DALLAS 141
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu - communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
tive days from the date of posting and must not be Office, Room 8A24 Federal Office Building, 819
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material . Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone
If employees have any question concerning this 334-2931.
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may