Mrs. Baird's Bread - Fort Worth

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 199 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

MRS. BAIRD'S BREAD
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., d/b/a Mrs. Baird's
Bread-Fort Worth and Mrs. Baird's Cake and Bak-
ery and Confectionery Workers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111 . Case 16-
CA-4965
June 15, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On March 27, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein?
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as herein
modified and hereby orders that Respondent, Mrs.
Baird's Bakeries, Inc., d/b/a Mrs. Baird's Bread-
Fort Worth and Mrs. Baird's Cake, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or-
der, as herein modified:
Delete the words "places of business located at Fort
Worth, Texas," in the first sentence of subparagraph
2(a) of the recommended Order and replace them
with the words "cake plant located at 7301 South
Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas."
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of 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, 1951). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 As the violations found herein all occurred at the cake plant, we shall
limit the notice posting requirement to that plant
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
199
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Fort Worth, Texas, on January 23 and 24,
1973, pursuant to a charge filed on October 20, 1972,' by the
Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 1112 (herein referred to as the
Union), and a complaint issued on December 8.
The complaint alleged that Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc.,
d/b/a Mrs. Baird's Bread-Fort Worth and Mrs. Baird's
Cake 3 (herein referred to as the Respondent), violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein referred to as the Act), by interrogating its
employees concerning their union memberships, activities,
and desires and those of other employees; threatened its
employees with loss of retirement benefits and plant closure
because of their union activities; threatened an employee he
would not have been hired or given a wage increase had it
been known he favored the Union; and by discriminatorily
discharging and refusing to reinstate employee Joe Wil-
liams, Jr., because of his union or concerted activities.4
Respondent in its answer filed on December 14 denied
having violated the Act.
The issues involved are whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by unlawfully interrogat-
ing and threatening its employees; and whether Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Joe Williams, Jr. and denied
him reinstatement because of his union or concerted activi-
ties.
The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent, and the
Charging Party, I hereby make the following:5
i All the dates referred to are in 1972, unless otherwise stated.
2 The pleadings were amended at the hearing to reflect the correct name
of the Union
l The pleadings were amended at the hearing to reflect the correct name
of the Respondent
The complaint was amended at the hearing withdrawing an allegation
that Plant Superintendent Bob Goodson had unlawfully threatened an em-
ployee with loss of privileges
s Respondent subsequent to the close of the hearing filed a motion opposed
by General Counsel seeking to have admitted into evidence a decision issued
by an appeals referee of the Texas employment commission pertaining to the
discharge of the alleged discriminatee Joe Williams, Jr The decision previ-
ously offered at the hearing was rejected on the grounds it was not a final
decision Respondent now contends, relying upon a subsequent document
issued by the Texas employment commission wherein it found the appeal
from the appeals referee's decision was untimely filed, the decision is now
final and should be considered In view of my decision herein pertaining to
Williams' discharge, I do not find it necessary to rule upon Respondent's
motion
204 NLRB No. 41
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., a Texas corporation, operates
various plants in the State of Texas where it is engaged in
the manufacture and distribution of bread and related prod-
ucts. During the 12-month period preceding December 8,
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., purchased raw materials valued
in excess of $50,000 which were delivered directly to its
Teas plant from suppliers located outside the State of Tex-
as. The only two plants involved in this proceeding are
operated under the name of Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc.,
d/b/a Mrs . Baird's Bread-Fort Worth and Mrs. Baird's
Cake, and have their offices and are located at Fort Worth,
Texas. The cake plant is located at 7301 South Freeway and
the bread plant at 1701 Summit.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits , and I find, that the Bakery and Con-
fectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local
No. I11, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interrogation and Threats
General Counsel presented several witnesses employed at
the cake plant who testified to certain unlawful conduct
engaged in by Respondent's Production Superintendent
David Drake, General Manager M. A. Wolloch, and De-
partment Head Ralph Smalling, who were all admitted
agents and supervisors of Respondent.
Cloteial Beasley testified about October 26 Production
Superintendent Drake after telling her he wanted to talk to
her about the Union asked her why they felt they needed a
union . When she replied for job security and dignity his
response was he couldn't understand why everytime some-
thing happened they would jump up and say it was because
they were black whereupon she gave him an example. Drake
stated he could feel there was a strong feeling for the Union
and knew it wasn't because of the benefits but something
else. When Beasley agreed informing him she and other
employees were for the Union, Drake stated he knew that
before they would let the Union in they would close the
place down and open up somewhere else. Beasley also stat-
ed Drake discussed the Company's benefits mentioning
some of the things the Company was doing for them without
a union.
Production Superintendent Drake testified as a result of
rumors in the plant concerning the Company's benefits and
two of its supervisors he talked to approximately 40 employ-
ees including Beasley. Drake's version was he told her he
did not want to discuss the Union but only asked her about
her views concerning the discontentment with management,
whereupon she brought up the dignity of the black people.
Drake denied making any statement about closing the
plant.
I credit Beasley's version of the conversation rather than
Drake's and find that Drake coercively interrogated Beasley
concerning her reasons for wanting a union and threatened
her with closing the plant before letting in the Union.
James Newman testified, about October 21, Department
Head Ralph Smalling mentioned he had seen Newman's
name on a letter 6 and told him he should find out more
about the Union before he put his name on something.
About October 23, Smalling mentioned another company,
Taystee Bread, was going out of business because they were
pushing the union. Neither of these conversations was al-
leged in the complaint or contended by General Counsel to
be violative of the Act.
Newman testified on November 1, while performing his
work, Department Head Smalling after watching him for 5
or 10 minutes asked him if he thought the equipment he was
washing was clean, whereupon, he replied it was. Smalling
then accused him of being a disgrace to his race. When he
asked Smalling the reason Smalling replied if he had known
Newman was for the Union he wouldn't have given him his
35-cent raise I or he wouldn't have hired him. Later that day
Newman was asked by Smalling to read and sign a list of
work rules which he had previously seen and was told if he
failed to follow the rules he would be subject to dismissal.
Under cross-examination Newman admitted the equipment
which he had told Smalling was clean really wasn't clean
and Smalling had previously gotten on him before about it.
Smalling testified on several occasions he had instructed
Newman to wash the buckets, pans, and pots with soap, hot
water, and a brush; however, Newman instead of following
his instructions would just spray the equipment with a water
hose. On the occasion in question after watching Newman
clean some equipment without attempting to take the small
pieces out of the inside and clean them with soap and water
he asked Newman if the equipment was clean. Newman
replied, "Well, no not really." Smalling stated he told New-
man the quality of his work and his attitude towards his
work was a complete disgrace and it was going to have to
stop. Smalling told Newman the way he continually diso-
beyed orders made him wish he hadn't given him a raise or
even hired him. Smalling denied he had mentioned anything
about race or the Union.
According to Smalling , about January 17 Newman ac-
knowledged to him the word "union" had not been men-
tioned in their earlier conversation.
I credit Smalling's version of the conversations rather
than Newman's and find Smalling did not threaten New-
man because he favored the Union.
Three employees, Cloteial Beasley, Lee Langston, Sr.,
and Paul Scrutchins testified about threats made to them by
General Manager Wolloch concerning their retirement ben-
ef its.
Beasley testified that about the latter part of November
General Manager Wolloch discussed the Company's retire-
ment plan with her showing her how much she and other
6 The Union had sent the Respondent a letter, which was received on
October 17, containing the names of 28 employees , including Newman's
name , who were members of and active in behalf of the Union.
7 Smalling had previously given Newman a 35-cent-an- hour raise
MRS. BAIRD'S BREAD 201
employees had accumulated. Afterwards, Wolloch told her
that was what the Company had given her without a union
and asked if she thought if the Union got in the Company
was just going to hand it over to them. Wolloch immediately
answered his own question by stating they would not. Un-
der cross-examination Beasley acknowledged Wolloch had
told her he didn't want to talk about the Union because they
could say it was against the law.
Lee Langston, Sr., testified about October 18 General
Manager Wolloch told him he didn't want to talk to him
about the damn Union because he had seen his name on the
list .8 Wollach then showed Langston his retirement benefits
including how much money he had put into it and men-
tioned his social security. Afterwards Wolloch pointed to
Langston's retirement and stated he hadn't paid anything
for it and he wouldn't get it if he went union.
Paul Scrutchins testified that, about the first part of No-
vember, General Manager Wolloch told him he wanted to
talk to him about the Union. Wolloch showed him his retire-
ment benefits in which $14,000 or $16,000 had accumulated
and told him if the Union came in he would lose it. Scrutch-
ins under cross-examination acknowledged Wolloch began
the conversation by stating he didn't want to talk about the
Union.
General Manager Wolloch testified that in November
after hearing rumors around the plant concerning the
Company's retirement plan 9 he talked to most of the em-
ployees who were eligible for the plan, individually about
their benefits. On a prior occasion some years earlier Wol-
loch had also discussed the retirement benefits with the
employees. Wolloch stated, prior to talking to each employ-
ee, he informed them he did not want to talk to them about
the Union but only about the benefits they had under the
Company's retirement plan. While talking to the employees
Wolloch utilized a computer printout sheet showing the
employment date of each employee; the eligibility date for
benefits under the plan; the amounts of their life insurance;
how much social security they would have at retirement;
and how much they would receive under the retirement plan
if they continued making the same amount of money. Wol-
loch stated a number of employees asked various questions
about the Union which he attempted to answer. His re-
sponse to these employees, including Beasley, Langston,
and Scrutchins who asked if the Company went union
would they lose their benefits which he had told them they
had, was they were asking him something he just couldn't
tell them the answer to and he imagined those things were
negotiated but he couldn't tell them because he didn't know.
Wolloch stated he told the employees the Union didn't get
their benefits for them but the Company had given them the
benefits of its own free will. Wolloch denied telling the
employees they would lose their benefits if they became or
remained members of the Union.
I credit the testimonies of Langston and Scrutchins who
impressed me as credible witnesses and find that General
8 Langston's name was included on the list of names which the Union had
sent to the Respondent, discussed supra
9The employees are eligible for participation in the retirement plan after
they have been employed for 4 years. However, they do not have a vested
interest in the plan's benefits until after 20 years
Manager Wolloch threatened them with the loss of their
retirement benefits if they became union members or select-
ed the Union as their bargaining representative. While Wol-
loch informed the employees he did not want to discuss the
Union, by his own admission he admitted doing so when
questions were asked. Insofar as Wolloch's statements to
Beasley are concerned I find they are too ambiguous to
constitute a threat she would lose her retirement benefits.
B. Williams' Termination
Joe Williams, Jr., the alleged discriminatee, had been em-
ployed by the Respondent for approximately 5-1/2 years at
the time he was terminated on October 18. When terminat-
ed he was working as an icing mixer at the cake plant, under
the supervision of Production Foreman Sam Reese. His
duties included determining the amount of icing to be used
and mixing the icing.
Williams served as an observer for the Union in an elec-
tion held about October 1970 involving Respondent's
plants. His most recent union activities which began about
the latter part of September consisted of attending union
meetings held in September and October and soliciting ap-
proximately six employees to sign union authorization
cards. Williams' name was also included on the list of 28
names which the Union had submitted to the Respondent
discussed, supra, listing employees who were members of
and active in behalf of the Union. This letter as previously
noted was received by Respondent on October 17, the day
prior to Williams' discharge.
Williams was involved in a traffic incident in December
1971 resulting in his being charged with driving while intoxi-
cated, driving without an operator's license, and improper
lane use. As a result of these citations he was required on
three separate occasions to take time off from work to ap-
pear in court. The first occasion occurred about September
and the second occasion on or about October 3 or 4.
On both occasions mentioned, Williams, on the day be-
fore he was scheduled to appear in court,had requested
permission to be off from work which was granted. Respon-
dent as a result of the advance notice was able to find
replacements for him. One time he was off work for an hour
and 10 or 15 minutes and the other time he was permitted
to take the entire day off.
The last occasion Williams requested permission to be off
work occurred on the day of his discharge. Williams, who
had been off work the previous day, testified he had re-
ceived a message that evening he had to appear at court the
following day. He made no attempt to contact the Respon-
dent that day but reported to work on October 18 at 5 a.m.
his regular time. About 8:45 a.m. he told Production Fore-
man Reese he was suppose to be in court. When Reese
inquired if it was open he informed him it was but he wasn't
suppose to be there until 9:30 a.m. Although Williams had
observed Reese at the plant as early as 6:30 a.m. he had
delayed requesting Reese's permission to be off work in
order to borrow an automobile from another employee.
Reese informed him they were going to take a break after
they finished running fruit cups and after Williams volun-
teered he had a bowl of icing already made and another
bowl ready to be mixed Reese told him to punch out for
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lunch 10 and take care of his ticket in court. Williams denied
he was told to return at a certain time.
Williams punched out at 8:50 a .m., drove in heavy traffic
to the municipal court located approximately 7 or 8 miles
distance from the plant and after a 15-minute wait made
arrangements to pay the traffic violation, then returned di-
rectly to the plant and punched in at 9:55 a.m. Williams
testified after he had returned to work Reese informed him
he had been gone too long and he had already called in
another icing man. Reese got his timecard and gave it to
Production Manager Greenwood who informed Williams
he would get his check ready.
Production Foreman Reese's version of his conversations
with Williams were Williams told him he had to pay a ticket
and had to be there by 9:30 a.m. When Williams pursuant
to his inquiry informed him the court was open and it would
take about 30 minutes to pay the ticket, he suggested Wil-
liams go ahead and take his lunch break but instructed him
he would have to be back in 30 minutes because there was
no one there to take his place . Reese inquired whether Wil-
liams had enough icing to start because they had a break
coming up and one bowl would be enough to last through
Williams' lunch break. Reese denied Williams had left an-
other bowl ready to mix. According to Reese he was not
aware at the time Williams actually had to appear in court
in order to pay the ticket.
Reese testified while Williams was gone they ran out of
icing which caused the line to shut down for about 15 min-
utes resulting in approximately 26 other employees who
worked on the line being put out of work temporarily.
Reese , who was unable to obtain a replacement for Wil-
liams , had to mix the icing himself although he had not
mixed icing in several years and continued to do so until
Williams' replacement arrived at 1:30 p.m. According to
Reese while mixing the icing and being unable to attend to
his supervisory duties the wrapping crew missed their break
and the bun cooler experienced a mechanical failure.
Reese testified after Williams had returned to work he
mentioned these incidents to Williams 11 and upon asking
Williams where he had been Williams replied he had been
tied up. Williams acknowledged he understood he was sup-
pose to be back in 30 minutes but stated he couldn't make
it. Reese stated he informed Williams he had repeatedly run
out of icing, was not doing his job, and he would have to
go. Reese testified his reasons for discharging Williams were
for repeatedly running out of icing and for disobeying his
instructions on that occasion . Reese further testified he was
aware Williams had previously been given a final notice for
tardiness and he took Williams' record into account when
making his decision to terminate him.
I credit Reese's versions of his conversations with Wil-
liams rather than those of Williams who did not impress me
as a credible witness. For example, Williams on his direct
examination testified the occasion on October 18 when he
had requested permission to be off work was no different
than the previous occasion . However under cross-examina-
tion Williams acknowledged on each of the previous occa-
10 The employees have a 30-minute lunch period.
11 The record does not establish exactly what time Williams was dis-
charged.
sions when he had requested permission to be off from work
he had made his requests the day before which allowed
Respondent time to find a replacement rather than waiting
until the very last minute as in the instant case.
Further, I do not find persuasive Williams' contention
that Reese, in effect, had given him authorization, carte
blanche, to take as much time as he needed. Williams' own
testimony established he was only told to take his lunch
break, which was 30 minutes, and he admitted he did not
have enough icing to last an hour. Without prior notice by
Williams, as on the previous occasions when he had request-
ed time off from work, to allow Respondent the opportunity
to arrange for a replacement in the instant case, thereby
resulting in Reese having to mix the icing himself thus ne-
glecting his supervisory duties, I find Reese's version more
plausible.
Moreover, prior to his discharge Williams had been
warned on a number of occasions about running out of
icing . Production Superintendent Drake while acting as
Williams' supervisor testified on two occasions which oc-
curred the early part of September and on September 16 he
had talked to Williams about running out of icing. On the
latter occasion Williams was given a blue slip worded as
follows: "Due to your inefficency [sic] on mixing icing, you
are being given final warning that your job will be terminat-
ed if you do not meet job standards." Williams admitted
being issued the blue slip and that on two occasions Drake
had instructed him not to run out of icing any more because
it stopped the line. According to Williams both warnings by
Drake occurred prior to any recent union activity.
Drake, whose testimony was corroborated by Reese, tes-
tified he had instructed Reese that he had placed Williams
on probation for 20 working days and if his performance
didn't improve Williams was to be replaced.)
Production Foreman Reese testified without contradic-
tion which I credit that, after he began supervising Williams
in August 1972, Williams repeatedly ran out of icing once
or twice a week stopping the line. Reese spoke with him on
those occasions and on the Saturday preceding his dis-
charge that Wednesday he had given Williams an oral warn-
ing for having run out of icing.
Williams' record also contained three final warnings for
excessive tardiness, two of which were dated January 10 and
February 21, 1971, and the third warning was undated. In
addition Williams was given a final warning for excessive
absenteeism or tardiness dated February 28, 1972.
The record disclosed employees were not automatically
discharged for similar infractions after having received a
final warning but the matter was within the discretion of
their supervisors.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
General Counsel contends, while Respondent denies, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating and threatening its employees and
by discriminatonly discharging and denying reinstatement
to Joe Williams, Jr.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
12 The probationary period ended October 14.
MRS. BAIRD'S BREAD 203
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part "It shall
be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by discrimi-
nation in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment to encourage or discour-
age membership in any labor organization......
Based upon my findings, supra, Production Supennten-
dent Drake coercively interrogated Cloteial Beasley con-
cerning her reasons for wanting a union and threatened her
with closing the plant before letting in the Union; and Gen-
eral Manager Wolloch threatened Lee Langston, Sr. and
Paul Scrutching with loss of their retirement benefits if they
became union members or selected the Union as their bar-
gaining representative. I hereby find such conduct inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced Cloteial Beasley, Lee
Langston, Sr., and Paul Scrutchins in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The remaining issue is whether Williams was discharged
and denied reinstatement for discriminatory reasons under
the Act or for cause as asserted by Respondent.
It is the General Counsel's burden to prove an employer
has been discriminatorily discharged. If an employee's dis-
charge is motivated by antiunion design such discharge is
violative of the Act even though the employee has per-
formed misdeeds which would warrant his dismissal . Frosty
Morn Meats, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 296 F.2d 617, 620 (C.A. 5,
1961).
Absent direct evidence a discriminatory motive may be
inferred. Since Williams had previously served as an observ-
er for the Union in an election and his name was included
among those names of employees active in the Union con-
tained in the Union's letter, which was received by Respon-
dent the day preceding Williams' discharge, Respondent
had knowledge of or at least reason to believe Williams was
active in the Union. While Respondent's knowledge of Wil-
liams' union activities, the timing of his discharge in relation
to the receipt of the Union's letter informing Respondent of
his activities, and the Section 8(a)(1) violations herein found
which established Respondent' s union animus 13 are all fac-
tors to be considered in determining whether Williams, dis-
charge and denial of reinstatement were discriminatorily
motivated, having considered such factors in light of the
evidence and circumstances surrounding Williams' dis-
charge, I am not persuaded the evidence is sufficient to
prove Williams' discharge or denial of reinstatement was
for discriminatory reasons under the Act. Prior to his dis-
charge and preceding the advent of the most recent union
activities, Williams had been warned he would be terminat-
ed if he continued to run out of icing which caused the line
to shut down, putting other employees out of work. Despite
repeated warnings he continued to run out of icing includ-
ing the day of his discharge when he further disobeyed
13 General Counsel has requested that official nonce be taken of the deci-
sion in Mrs Baird's Bread, Dallas, 171 NLRB 135, enfd 420 F 2d 484 (C.A.
5, 1969), for the purpose of establishing Respondent' s union animus Inas-
much as the case cited involved a plant located in Dallas, Texas, and is
operated under a different name, I do not find a sufficient foundation has
been established for considering such decision
Reese's instructions thereby causing Reese, who was unable
to find a replacement for Williams, to neglect his own duties
while having to make the icing himself. These factors and
Williams' work record, which was considered by Reese in
his decision to terminate Williams, substantiate Reese's rea-
sons for the discharge.
Under these circumstances I find that the General Coun-
sel has failed to provide by a preponderance of the evidence
as is his burden that Williams was discriminatorily dis-
charged and denied reinstatement in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., d/b/a Mrs. Baird's
Bread-Fort Worth and Mrs. Baird's Cake, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating an employee concerning
her reasons for wanting a union, threatening an employee
with closing the plant before letting in the Union; threaten-
ing employees with loss of their retirement benefits if they
become union members or select the Union as their bar-
gaining representative, Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging and refusing to reinstate Joe Wil-
liams, Jr.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER 14 APPENDIX
Mrs. Baird 's Bakeries , Inc., d/b/a Mrs . Baird's Bread-
Fort Worth and Mrs. Baird 's Cake, its officers , agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employ-
ees by coercively interrogating the employees concerning
their reasons for wanting a union ; threatening employees
with closing the plant before letting in the Union; and
threatening employees with loss of their retirement benefits
if they become union members or select the Union as their
bargaining representative.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist the Bakery
and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-
CIO, Local No. 111, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , or to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its places of business located at Fort Worth,
Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15
Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, be posted imme-
diately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically
found herein.
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their reasons for wanting a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closing the
plant before letting in the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of their
retirement benefits should they become union mem-
bers or select the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
MRS BAIRD 'S BAKERIES, INC.,
D/B/A MRS BAIRD'S BREAD-
FORT WORTH AND MRS BAIRD'S
CAKE
(Employer)
Dated By
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
15 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room
8A24, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 817-334-2921.