Ridge Growers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, said organization is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
RIDGE GROWERS , INCORPORATED and AMERICAN FEDER ATION OF LABOR.
Corse No. 10-CA-1189. December 3, 1992
Decision and Order
On March 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best 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 Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the easel and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.3
I Pursuant to the 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 [ Members Houston , Murdock, and Styles].
2 The request by the Respondent for oral argument is denied, because the record , excep-
tions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
3 We assert jurisdiction herein on the basis of the Respondent 's direct out -of-State ship-
ment annually of goods valued at $25 ,000 or more . Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618 ; cf. Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
We agree with the Trial Examiner 's finding that the 30 -day layoff of Mary Hodge was
actually an outright discriminatory discharge , and that Hodge was, therefore , not obligated
to apply for reinstatement at the end of 30 days . Hodge, along with four other employees,
had been designated for discharge by the Respondent because of their union activities.
The four other employees were, as we have found, either . discriminatoiny discharged, or
discriminatorily refused reemployment the following season. Moreover , these unfair labor
practices and the other unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent reveal an
attitude on the part of the Respondent of complete opposition to the organizational efforts
of its employees . Under such circumstances , we find that the Respondent had no intention
of rehiring Hodge at the end of 30 days , but rather intended, and therefore effected, a
permanent discharge . We shall , therefore , order the Respondent to offer reinstatement
to Hodge with unabated back pay as hereinafter provided . See N. L. R. B. v . Red Rock
Co., et at., 187 F. 2d 76 ( C. A. 5), enforcing as modified 84 NLRB 521; 341 U. S. 950, cert.
denied.
We find no merit in the Respondent 's contention that the Trial Examiner was biased
because he resolved every material conflict of evidence in favor of the General Counsel
and against the Respondent . N. L. R. B. v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 337 U . S. 656 , reversing
and remanding 167 F . 2d 126 (C. A. 6).
101 NLRB No. 148,
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED
Order
745
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Ridge Growers, Incorporated, Lake Wales,
Florida, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization, by discrimination in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees, or any term or
condition of employment whatsoever.
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist and remain a member of the American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities 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 agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as au-
thorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer severally to General J. Sellers, Frances Clifford, Verna
Mae McMillan, Mary Hodge, Lorene Fowler, and Catherine Mixon
immediate and full reinstatement and/or reemployment, as the case
may be, in his or her former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges; and
make each of them whole in the manner set forth in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time and piecework cards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze and compute back pay
and other rights of reinstatement and/or reemployment, as required
by the Order herein.
(c) Post at its plant in Lake Wales, Florida, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
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 "Pur-
suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta,
Georgia, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to join or assist AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to General J. Sellers, Frances Clifford, Verna
Mae McMillan, Mary Hodge, Lorene Fowler, and Catherine,
Mixon immediate and full reinstatement and/or reemployment
in their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination.
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any terns
or condition of employment because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED,
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.
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
747
By reason of a charge filed on January 16, 1951, and a first amended charge
filed on April 16, 1951, by American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein sep-
arately designated as General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated September
26, 1951, and an amendment to the complaint dated November 23, 1951, alleging
that Ridge Growers, Incorporated, herein called the Respondent, engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8 (a) (1) and (3) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Motion by the Respondent
to strike the amendment to the complaint was denied'
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleges
in substance that the Respondent, because of their membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union, and because they engage in concerted activities with
other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection, (1) increased workloads of its employees and assigned to them
more arduous work ; (2) discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate
its employees, General J. Sellers, Frances Clifford, Verna Mae McMillan, and
Mary Hodge; and (3) discriminatorily failed and refused to employ Lorene
Fowler and Catherine Mixon for the 1951-52 season'
The Respondent filed an answer admitting pertinent allegations of the com-
plaint with respect to commerce, but denied having engaged in any unfair labor
practices. The Respondent avers that it discharged General J. Sellers, Frances
Clifford, and Verna Mae McMillan because said employees severally violated
company rules and regulations, and caused disturbances which unreasonably
impeded and obstructed the operation of Respondent's packing house, to wit:
(a) General J. Sellers left the job in the middle of the day without permission,
and failed to return, although fruit was in the packing house and required
immediate handling in order to prevent spoilage and monetary loss to Respond-
ent; (b) Frances Clifford walked off the job in the middle of the day without
permission, and failed to return, although fruit was in the packing house and
required immediate handling in order to prevent spoilage and monetary loss to
Respondent; and (c) Verna Mae McMillan got into an argument and a fight with
another employee on the premises of the packing house, whereupon both employ-
ees so engaged were discharged.
The Respondent alleges that it did not discharge Mary Hodge, but laid her
off for 30 days because she engaged in a heated argument on the aforesaid
premises and caused such a disturbance that the operation of Respondent's
business was unreasonably impeded and obstructed; and that said employee
neither returned to the job at the expiration of her suspension nor at any time
applied for reinstatement.
1 Cathey Lumber Co., 86 NLRB 157, 24 LRRM 1608; N. L. R. B. v. We8tem Boot & Shoe
Co., 190 F. 2d 12 (C. A. 5) , National Licorice Co v. Labor Board, 309 U S. 350, 368. The
amendment to the complaint merely elaborated the charge and first amended charge with
particularity by including alleged subsequent unfair labor practices pertinently related
thereto.
2 Paragraph 9 of the complaint was withdrawn and stricken upon motion of the General
Counsel.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to Lorene Fowler and Catherine Mixon the Respondent denies all
allegations in the amendment to the complaint, and avers that said amendment
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Pursuant to notice to all the parties, a hearing was conducted at Lake Wales,
Florida, on December 4, 5, and 6, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Re-
spondent were represented by counsel, and a representative of the Union was
present. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
involved.
At the close of the hearing all parties were instructed as to their right to file
written briefs and to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Written briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent,
and the Respondent also submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law; all of which have been given due consideration. Oral argument was waived
by counsel and representatives of all parties. Motion of counsel for the General
Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to minor details such
as dates, places, spelling of names, typographical errors, etc., was allowed with-
out objection
Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of the witnesses, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ridge Growers, Incorporated, is a corporation organized and existing by virtue
of the laws of Florida, and at all times material herein has maintained its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Lake Wales. Florida, where it operates a
packing house and is engaged in the packing and sale of citrus fruits. In the
course and conduct of its business operations during the past representative year,
the Respondent purchased raw materials and supplies within the State of
Florida consisting chiefly of citrus fruits and boxes valued in excess of $500,000.
During the same period it distributed packed citrus fruits valued in excess of
$700,000, more than 90 percent of which in value were sold out-of-State to custom-
ers and shipped to points outside the State of Florida. It is admitted by the
Respondent that it is engaged in interstate commerce.
Because the Respondent is engaged in an enterprise producing and handling
goods valued at $25,000 or more per annum destined for out-of -State shipment,
I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act'
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Labor is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act .' This was admitted by the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Seasonal operations of Respondent
In the State of Florida the packing of citrus fruits is a seasonal industry.
The respondent corporation was organized and chartered in 1943. Since that
time it has operated a packing house at Lake Wales, Florida, beginning each
8 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., Limited , 91 NLRB 618.
4 N. L. it. B. v. Western Boot d Shoe Co., 190 F. 2d 12 (C. A. 5).
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED 749
year in the latter part of September and continuing until the following month
of June. The packing season, therefore, extends over a period of 8 to 10 months.
Since its inception, William W. Laird has been president and general manager
of Ridge Growers, Incorporated. He directs and controls the entire business,
but devotes his time primarily to matters of finance, procurement of raw ma-
terials (fruit) and supplies, buying and shipping, sales and distribution, con-
tracts with customers, and markets. He maintains an office in a separate build-
ing at the packing plant, and transacts much of his business over the telephone.
He employs a picking crew of 35 to 40 employees under the supervision of a
field foreman, who keep the packing house supplied with citrus fruits for proces-
sing and distribution.
Sole responsibility for operation of the packing house is delegated to a house
foreman with complete authority to hire and fire employees and carry on the
packing operations and other functions incident thereto, including the promul-
gation of company rules for employees. The house foreman employs from 30
to 35 people at the packing house, including a fruit receiver designated as a
subordinate supervisor who directs and controls the activities of employees
engaged in unloading and trucking fruit. Both the house foreman and the fruit
receiver are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Gregory White was continuously employed by the Respondent from the or-
ganization of its business in 1943 until November 25, 1950, when he resigned.
For 5 or 6 years immediately preceding his resignation, White was engaged
as house foreman at the packing house. J. H. Danley has been the packing
house foreman since November 28, 1950. J. M. (Monk) Griffin was engaged as
fruit receiver throughout the 1950-51 packing season. The record indicates that
the Respondent employs women, exclusively, to pack fruit. At the beginning
of each season the house foreman revises his list of fruit packers, and cus-
tomarily reemploys those who satisfactorily completed the prior season, when
available.
The fruit packers work in aisles alongside rows of bins into which the citrus
fruit is dropped from a moving belt conveyor according to size. The fruit is
sized by means of adjustable rollers, which guide the various sizes into separate
bins from which the packers fill the bags and boxes by hand. Whenever sizes
are mixed in the bins, it is called "running the fruit high," and slows down the
work of the packers. It is then more difficult to pack the fruit in uniform
layers and causes excessive bulge in the sides of the box. Such procedure is con-
trary to law and practice, although a limited degree of tolerance necessarily
exists. Government inspectors usually require correction by adjustment of the
sizing rollers when the situation arises. It is not advantageous to the owners
of the packing house to run the fruit high. Because of the slowdown in their
work, it reduces the piecework earnings of the fruit packers. The Respondent
packs fruit both in bruce boxes and in net bags. In the case of boxes, the
fruit packer is at all times required to stamp the size on each box with a rubber
stamp.'
"Topping the fruit," i. e., placing the best looking fruit on the top layer in the
box with the blossom end up, is a customary practice, particularly in the case of
special orders and holiday packs. A preponderance of the evidence shows that
the Respondent enforced this rule only on special occasions. Topping the fruit
5 At the request and in the presence of counsel for all parties, the Trial Examiner visited
the premises of the Respondent, inspected both the exterior and interior surroundings, and
viewed the packing house and its equipment and employees in operation at approximately
1 :30 p. m. on December 5, 1951.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in boxes is an additional operation, and tends to reduce piecework earnings of
the fruit packers.
It is also customary practice for fruit packers to use a rubber stamp showing
the packer's number, and thereby identify the packer of each individual box; but
a preponderance of the evidence herein shows that for a number of years this
practice had not been enforced at the Respondent's packing house. The packers'
stamps had not been issued during the 1950-51 season prior to November. En-
forcement of the aforesaid practices was a responsibility of the packing house
foreman.
B. Organizational activities of employees
Prior to the 1950-51 season all fruit packing in boxes and bags was completed
by hand, including the tieing of the bag. About November 1, 1950, the Respond-
ent completed the installation of a bag chain conveyor system which tied the
bags and transported them directly to a place of loading on cars or trucks. It
thereupon reduced the piecework rate of wages to the fruit packers from 13 cents
to 9 cents per 16 bags. Thereupon, the fruit packers en masse complained to
Mr. Laird that their take-home pay had been reduced. Verna Mae McMillan and
Catherine Mixon acted as spokeswomen for the group of 10 fruit packers. It is
not clear whether earnings were restored when the fruit packers were trained
in the use of the chain conveyor, but the Respondent contended that such was
the case. Upon refusal of the Respondent to increase the piecework rate for use
of the chain conveyor, all of the fruit packers and a few other employees joined
the Union on November 16, 1950, at a meeting held at the home of Frances
Clifford. Approximately 15 employees attended this meeting and joined the
Union, including General J. Sellers, Frances Clifford, Verna Mae McMillan, Mary
Hodge, Lorene Fowler, Catherine Mixon, Bernice Brackin, Ailine Proveau, Fannie
C. Harrison, and Vera Griffin. The two last named were residents of Babson
Park, Florida. Vera Griffin is the wife of J. M. Griffin and a sister of Bernice
Brackin. Verna Mae McMillan and Mary Hodge are sisters. On Friday, Novem-
ber 17, 1950, General J. Sellers and Lorene Fowler distributed union membership
cards to other employees at the packing house. On Monday morning, November
20, 1950, Lorene Fowler distributed union buttons outside the packing house, and
practically all the union members wore the buttons on the job that day. Lorene
Fowler and Catherine Mixon continued to wear union buttons until the close of
the season. A second union meeting was held on Friday night, November 25,
1950, at the home of Verna Mae McMillan, but there were only 8 or 9 present.
Bernice Brackin, Ailine Proveau, Fannie C. Harrison, and Vera Griffin did not
attend. From their own testimony it appears that before that time they had
repudiated their membership in the Union. A representation election was con-
ducted under the auspices of the Board on January 4, 1951, and the Union was
defeated.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On Saturday morning, November 18, 1950, William W. Laird, president and
general manager of the Respondent, received a letter from the Union requesting
recognition as exclusive representative of its employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. Thereupon he called the house foreman, Gregory White, to
his office, and gave him certain instructions. There is a serious conflict in the
testimony of Laird and White concerning the nature of these instructions. Hav-
ing observed the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, and in light of sub-
sequent events and corroborating testimony, I am constrained to credit White's
testimony, and discredit the testimony of Laird to the extent of the conflict.
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED 751
White is not employed by the Respondent at this time, is not a member of the
Union, and is apparently a disinterested witness.
Gregory White credibly testified in substance that on Saturday before Thanks-
giving 1950, Mr. Laird called him to the office and showed him the letter from the
Union. Laird said, "You know what that means, don't you. That will mean
that they will tell us what to do instead of us telling them what to do." When
White started out the door, Laird remarked "The best thing to do is to find out
which ones belong to it and work them out." Later in the morning, Laird again
called White to his office, showed him a list of five names (Mary Hodge, Verna
Mae McMillan, Catherine Mixon, Lorene Fowler, and Frances Clifford), and said
"We will fire them-I will write their time up this afternoon-I will give you
the checks-you can let them go at 8 o'clock Monday morning, and you can hire
5 more packers to come in at nine and start work." That afternoon Mr. Laird
approached White at the store, and said "We better not do that-I have been to
Bartow and seen my attorney ; he says we might get in trouble."
White credibly testified that on the following Monday (November 20, 1950),
he was again called to the office, and Laird told him "to make it hard on the
packers, make them use their packers' stamps, run the fruit up so high it would
make it hard to pack, so they would have to quit-mix the sizes, run the 76 s
back into the 200 s-top the fruit off, put the good fruit all on top and turn the
blossom end up." Thereupon, White called the employees together and gave
them the aforesaid instructions. For the first time the employees were required
to top the fruit, except in the case of occasional special orders ; and it was the
first time the house foreman had been required to "run the fruit high." On the
same day the house foreman (White) established a new rule and instructed the
group of packers not to leave the packing house at any time without first obtain-
ing specific permission from him. On Friday of the same week (November 25,
1950) White required the fruit packers to get out their packers' stamps and use
them. For the past two seasons they had not been required to use them, but the
stamps had been accessible in a box under some paper bins in the paper room.
Again he gave the packers instructions about topping the fruit, telling them it was
his last orders to them. Then he went to Mr. Laird's office, turned in his keys,
and resigned. On the preceding day (Thanksgiving Day), Laird had reprimanded
White about a rumor that he was being friendly with and showing partiality
to some of the lady packers in the packing house beyond his line of duty.'
The testimony of White with respect to his increasing the workload of
the fruit packers by "running the fruit high," "topping the fruit," using the
packers' stamps, and requiring them to get specific permission from him before
leaving the packing house for any purpose was corroborated by the testimony
of Frances Clifford, Verna Mae McMillan, Mary Hodge, Catherine Mixon, Lorene
Fowler, and to some extent by Fannie C. Harrison, Ailine Proveau, and Bernice
Brackin.
D. Discriminatory discharge of General J. Sellers
General J. Sellers was first employed by the Respondent as a fruit trucker
in the packing house in September at the beginning of the 1950-51 season.
He attended the first organizational meeting of employees and joined the
Union on November 16, 1950, at the home of Frances Clifford. On November
17, 1950, he distributed union membership cards to employees at the packing
house. On Saturday, November 18, 1950, Sellers worked until noon and then,
" Laird also denied having given White any instructions whatever about firing employees
or increasing their workload ; and testified that he instructed White not to interfere with
the organizational activities
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with permission of his subordinate supervisor , J. M. (Monk ) Griffin, took
leave for the remainder of the day and went to Frostproof, Florida, to transact
personal business concerning a stove he had purchased . Griffin admitted
having given him permission to be absent from his' work that afternoon. In
the past , Griffin had customarily excused employees from work without con-
sulting the house foreman.
House Foreman White credibly testified that General Manager Laird called
him to his office about noon on Saturday, November 18, 1950, and inquired
whether he knew that Sellers had left his job. Laird said, "He has gone to
Auburndale to see the union man-you go bring me his time card , and I will
figure up his time and write out his check, and you can give it to him-and
let him go." Thereupon, White secured the time card, gave it to Laird ;
and he (Laird) figured up the time, wrote out the check, and gave it to White.
On Monday morning, November 20, 1950, Sellers reported to work as usual,
and White handed him the check. Sellers explained that Griffin had given
him permission to leave on Saturday, so they went into the office to discuss
the matter. White explained to Sellers that he had received orders to give
him his check. White verified with Griffin that Sellers had permission to leave
his work on Saturday, and together they went in to see Mr. Laird. White
asked who was supposed to do the hiring and firing and letting off and Laird
said , "Nobody is supposed to leave this house unless they ask you." There-
upon, General J. Sellers was discharged.
In his testimony, William W. Laird denied having any conversation what-
ever with White on Saturday concerning the absence of General J. Sellers from
his work, and disclaimed any knowledge concerning the circumstances of his
discharge. To justify the discharge of Sellers the Respondent introduced
considerable testimony to show that this employee was drunk on his job on
an occasion some weeks prior to his discharge, and that the house foreman
(White) threatened to discharge him if another such incident occurred. The
house foreman disclaimed any such statement or knowledge of the occurrence.
Sellers' discharge, therefore, may not be attributed to that incident. On the
contrary the Respondent specifically alleged in its answer that Sellers was
discharged because he left the job in the middle of the day without permis-
sion, and failed to return, although fruit was in the packing house and re-
quired immediate handling in order to prevent spoilage and monetary loss to
Respondent. William W. Laird also admitted signing a sworn affidavit before
a field examiner of the Board in which he stated that Sellers was discharged
because he left his job Saturday at noon, and failed to return.
E. Discriminatory discharge of Frances Clifford
Frances Clifford was one of the senior employees of the Respondent in point
of service. She had worked as a fruit packer in the packing house for ap-
proximately 8 years. The first union meeting was held at her home on No-
vember 16, 1950, and she became a member at that time. Thereafter she wore
a union button until discharged on December 9, 1950. She also attended the
second union meeting at the home of Verna Mae McMillan on the night of
November 25, 1950. By reason of a conversation with Fannie C. Harrison and
Ailine Proveau, she called Mr. Laird by telephone on the night of December 2,
1950, and inquired whether there was danger of her and her son, Preston K.
Pickles, losing their jobs on account of her activities on behalf of the Union
Laird denied having made any statement that he was going to get rid of her,
and told her to vote as she damned pleased. He said that it was out of his
jurisdiction, and was in the hands of the Government.
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED 753
On the morning of December 9, 1950 , Frances Clifford went to work feel-
ing sick and nervous . She had been told by Ailine Proveau that there was
going to be serious trouble in the packing house. She discussed the situation
with her son, Preston K. Pickles , and he advised her to go home if she was
sick.
Preston K. Pickles credibly testified that he found House Foreman Danley in
the middle aisle checking the sizes-setting grape fruit-and told him his mother
ought to go home because she was ill . Danley said , "Yes, tell her to take
a day off , that we only have a few grape fruit to run and we will all be
off in a few minutes ." Pickles told his mother that he had obtained permis-
sion for her to leave, and she was taken home by Bernice Brackin in her car
"tolerably" early on Saturday morning. About 1% hours later , J. H. Danley
approached Preston K. Pickles and said "Here is a check for your mother."
He made no explanation , but it was a blue check denoting discharge. At the
same time Danley delivered blue checks to Verna Mae McMillan and Ailine
Proveau because of an incident that had in the meantime occurred between
these two women in the packing house . Pickles called his mother by telephone
about 11 a. m . and told her that she had been discharged.
House Foreman Danley denied having given permission for Frances Clif-
ford to leave the packing house. He testified that sometime during the after-
noon he observed her absence , and without investigation or inquiry counted
her tickets, figured up the time, and wrote the discharge check without dis-
cussing the matter with General Manager Laird . Mr. Laird disclaimed any
knowledge of the discharge , but recalled in his testimony that Danley came
into the office and asked the bookkeeper to make up her time, saying that
she had left the job without permission and he was discharging her. Laird
said nothing and took no action about it. Approximately 1 week later, after
consultation with a representative of the Union , Mrs. Clifford went to the
packing house in company with Verna Mae McMillan to see the house fore-
man, and applied for reinstatement . Danley refused to consider her rein-
statement, although he admitted that he never had any trouble with Mrs. Clif-
ford about her work or anything else, and that everything had been satis-
factory up to that time. Mrs. Clifford denied making statements to anyone
that she was quitting her job when she left the packing house.
F. Discriminatory 4tischarge of Verna Mae McMillan
Verna Mae McMillan was first employed by the Respondent as a fruit packer
in November 1949, and worked throughout the 1949-50 season. She was reem-
ployed at the beginning of the 1950-51 season. Mrs. McMillan acted as one of
the spokeswomen for the group of fruit packers who complained en masse to
General Manager Laird in the early part of November 1950 about the reduction
of wages when the chain conveyor was installed in the packing house. She
attended the first organizational meeting and joined the Union on November
16, 1950, at the home of Frances Clifford. She wore a union button to work on
Monday, November 20, 1950, and continued to wear it thereafter until the day
of her discharge . The second union meeting was held at her home on Friday,
November 25, 1950. Only eight or nine employees attended this meeting, and
the record discloses that several of the fruit packers, including Ailine Proveau,
Fannie C. Harrison, Vera Griffin, and Bernice Brackin, had discontinued wear-
ing union buttons and were opposed to the Union at that time and thereafter.
Dissension had arisen among the fruit packers concerning the Union. Some
of the dissenters were from Babson Park. Vera Griffin (wife of a subordinate
supervisor, J. M. Griffin) told McMillan that she was through with the Union.
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear from the record that bitter feelings and arguments developed between
the two opposing groups. Ailine Proveau stopped riding to work in the car
with Verna Mae McMillan , Mary Hodge, Lorene Fowler, and Catherine Mixon
because of derogatory remarks about her friends from Babson Park allegedly
made by Verna Mae McMillan, and told Vera Griffin about the remarks.
Having learned that Ailine Proveau had told some of the Babson Park people
that she had made slanderous remarks concerning them, Verna Mae McMillan
approached Proveau in the packing house during working hours on Saturday,
December 9, 1950 , and demanded a retraction . A retraction was refused and
the lie was passed between them . Thereupon , the two women grappled with
each other . House Foreman Danley came up and separated them before any
serious conflict occurred. Without an investigation or determination as to who
was the aggressor , the house foreman forthwith discharged both McMillan and
Proveau for fighting. Shortly after the Board election in January 1951 Vera
Griffin went to the home of Ailine Proveau and told her that she could get her
job back if she would ask for it. Then Ailine Proveau went to see Danley
and after some apologies concerning her conduct was reinstated in her job.
Verna Mae McMillan was never offered reinstatement , although she had called
General Manager Laird by telephone on the night of her discharge , and re-
quested a hearing and investigation of the circumstances of her dismissal. At
that time Laird said, "You nor Ailine Proveau will neither ever work for me
again ." When she suggested going to his office, Laird told her that she would
get the same answer , and hung up the receiver . Danley also remarked in her
presence that "I never rehire someone I fire."
Failure and refusal of the Respondent to consider the reinstatement of Verna
Mae McMillan in conjunction with the reinstatement of Ailine Proveau is
persuasive evidence that she was discriminatorily discharged by the Respondent
because of her membership in and continued activities on behalf of the Union.
Danley reinstated Proveau after consultation with General Manager Laird
about it.
G. Discriminatory discharge of Mary Hodge
Mary Hodge is a sister of Verna Mae McMillan, who was discharged by House
Foreman Danley on December 9, 1950. Mrs. Hodge attended the first organiza-
tional meeting and joined the Union at the home of Frances Clifford on Novem-
ber 16,1950. She commenced wearing a union button to work on Monday, Novem-
ber 20, 1950, and continued to wear it until she was laid off. She also attended
the second union meeting at the home of Verna Mae McMillan on November
25, 1950, and was an active worker for the Union throughout the organizational
campaign.
At approximately 11: 30 o'clock on the morning of February 6, 1951, machinery
at the packing house broke down, and all the fruit packers were dismissed until
I p. m. that day, while repairs were made. Shortly before operations were
resumed, Mary Hodge returned to the packing house in her automobile in
company with Lorene Fowler and Catherine Mixon. When she parked the
car near the packing house, another group of employees consisting of Bernice
Brackin, Vera Griffin, Ailine Proveau, and Mett Whidden came out on the plat-
form. Bernice Brackin called Hodge from the car, and met her on the railroad
siding leading to and alongside the platform. Brackin accosted Hodge about
some remarks she had made, but no trouble or disorder occurred between them.
They talked with each other in an ordinary tone of voice on the railroad track
and walked together towards an entrance to the packing house. Others present
in the immediate vicinity saw that they were arguing about something, but
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED 755
the conversation could not be distinguished a few feet away. House Foreman
Danley saw the two women from inside the packing house and reached the
conclusion that they were engaged in an argument. The machinery in the
plant was not in operation, and the lunch hour had not expired. All of the
women went inside the building preparatory to resuming their work. J. H.
Danley testified that he inquired of both Brackin and Hodge concerning their
argument, and neither would give him any information. He made no inquiry
or investigation otherwise about it, and had heard none of their conversation
himself. Then he laid off Mary Hodge for a period of 30 days, because he
believed that she was the aggressor, but took no action whatever with respect
to Bernice Brackin. Mary Hodge then went home and has never been recalled
to work or offered reinstatement in her job. The facts and circumstances
surrounding this layoff convinces me that Mary Hodge was dismissed because
of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and was the equiva-
lent of a discriminatory discharge, although it is contended by Respondent
that she failed to apply for reinstatement at the end of 30 days or at any time
thereafter. Mary Hodge testified that she remained at home for 2 months
without employment waiting for recall by the Respondent ; that she then
obtained another job; but that she has been available at all times, and is still
available for reinstatement in her job at the packing house.
H. Discriminatory refusal to reemploy Lorene Fowler
Lorene Fowler was employed by the Respondent as a fruit packer for three
successive seasons prior to her application for reemployment for the 1951-52
season. She attended the first organizational meeting and joined the Union
at the home of Frances Clifford on November 16, 1950. At that meeting she
issued receipts to all present for membership dues. Thereafter on November
17, 1950, she distributed union membership cards to other employees at the
packing house, and distributed union buttons to union members prior to going
to work on Monday, November 20, 1950. She wore a union button herself on
that Monday and thereafter on the job to the end of the season. She also attended
the second union meeting at the home of Verna Mae McMillan on November
25, 1950. She also acted as an observer for the Union at the Board election
on January 4, 1951, in which the Union was defeated. Her work as an employee
was never criticized by the Respondent.
A few days prior to the opening in September of the 1951-52 season, Lorene
Fowler called House Foreman Danley by telephone and inquired whether he
was ready for her to go to work. Danley replied, "Well, Lorene, I will tell
you-you are just not on the list to work this season. I am sorry, but it is just
one of those things that happen."
1. Discriminatory refusal to reemploy Catherine Mixon
Catherine Mixon was employed as a fruit packer for two successive seasons
prior to her application for reemployment for the 1951-52 season. She was
one of the spokeswomen for the fruit packers en masse that interviewed General
Manager Laird concerning a reduction in piecework rates when the chain con-
veyor was installed about November 1, 1950. She attended the first organ-
izational meeting and joined the Union at the home of Frances Clifford in
November 1950. Beginning on Monday, November 20, 1950, she wore a union
button throughout the season. She also attended the second union meeting at
the home of Verna Mae McMillan on November 25, 1950. The Respondent never
complained that her work was not satisfactory.
242305-53--49
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In September 1951, a few days prior to the opening of the 1951-52 season,
Catherine Mixon called House Foreman Danley by telephone and inquired
if he was getting ready to go to work. Then she asked whether the list of
employees for the coming season had been made out, and was informed that it
had not . She said , "Will I be on that list?" Danley said, "Well, I don't know.
Is this Catherine Mixon? Well, I will tell you, Catherine, I will call you one
day next week." Thereafter, he never called her.
Concluding Findings
According to the testimony of President and General Manager William W.
Laird the house foreman had complete charge of all hiring and firing of em-
ployees within the packing house. It was his duty to have an efficient opera-
tion in the house, see that the fruit was properly graded, packed, and loaded
in the cars according to orders. The general manager never interfered with
the exercise of those duties and responsibilities in hiring and firing employees
in any way whatsoever, but kept in close daily contact with respect to matters
pertaining to the operation of the plant.
The installation of a bag chain conveyor in the packing house accompanied
by a reduction in piecework rates for packing the citrus fruit in bags fomented
dissatisfaction among the women fruit packers, and resulted in all of them
joining the Union. All of these fruit packers wore union buttons at work on
Monday, November 20, 1950. House Foreman Gregory White immediately in-
creased the workload of the women fruit packers by "running the fruit high,"
required "topping of the fruit" in all boxes, and issued an order that no one
leave the packing house without specific permission from him. Four days later,
he required the use of packers' stamps on all boxes. All of these requirements
were unusual in that full-time enforcement of such rules had not existed in the
past, although the "topping of fruit" and use of the packers' stamp was re-
quired on special occasions. I find from a preponderance of the evidence that
the announcement and enforcement of the foregoing requirements was a re-
taliation by the Respondent against its employees because of their member-
ship in and activities on behalf of a labor organization. The Respondent there-
by interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On Monday, November 20, 1950, House Foreman White discharged General J.
Sellers (a fruit trucker) for the alleged reason that he left the packing house
on the preceding Saturday afternoon without permission, although it was ad-
mitted that he received permission to do so by his immediate supervisor, J. M.
(Monk) Griffin, in accordance with past practices. There being no other satis-
factory explanation for the action taken, I find from a preponderance of the
evidence that the Respondent thereby discriminated in regard to hire or tenure
of employment of its employee, General J. Sellers, to discourage membership
in a labor organization.
Although General Manager Laird vigorously denied the statements of House
Foreman White that be designated for discharge the following employees because
of their union activities, action taken by the succeeding house foreman (J H.
Danley) effectively corroborates White's testimony.
Frances Clifford, an employee with 8 years of satisfactory service, was sur-
reptitiously discharged on December 9, 1950, without a hearing during her ab-
sence from the packing house on account of illness The very nature of this
discharge indicates a motive on the part of the house foreman other than the
infraction of a rule against leaving the packing house without permission. I
find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent thereby discrim-
RIDGE GROWERS, INCORPORATED 757
mated in the hire or tenure of employment of Frances Clifford to discourage
membership in a labor organization.
Verna Mae McMillan, an outspoken adherent of the Union and otherwise satis-
factory employee, was discharged without investigation on December 9, 1950,
for the alleged reason of engaging in an altercation with Ailine Proveau, who
had openly repudiated her affiliation with the Union. Proveau was also dis-
charged, but was reinstated in the following month upon notice from the wife of
a supervisor that her job was again available for the asking. In the meanwhile,
the Respondent ignored a request of McMillan that the fairness of her discharge
be investigated and that she be given a hearing. I find from a preponderance of
the evidence that the Respondent thereby discriminated in the hire or tenure
of employment of Verna Mae McMillan to discourage membership in a labor
organization.
Mary Hodge, a satisfactory employee and faithful adherent of the Union, was
laid off by House Foreman Danley on February 6, 1951, for the alleged reason
of causing confusion by engaging in an argument with Bernice Brackin, a turn-
coat from the Union. Brackin initiated a frivolous argumentative conversa-
tion outside the packing house during the lunch hour, which disturbed no one,
but was viewed by several persons including Danley. Although all witnesses
considered it a frivolous incident, House Foreman Danley laid off Hodge for 30
days, but took no action with respect to Brackin, who was the sister-in-law of
Supervisor J. M. (Monk) Griffin. Hodge was the sister of Verna Mae McMillan,
who was discharged in December 1950. Although Danley specified a layoff of
30 days, this employee was never recalled to work. I find from a preponderance
of the evidence that the layoff of Mary Hodge was tantamount to discharge, and
that the Respondent thereby discriminated in the hire or tenure of her employ-
ment to discourage membership in a labor organization. Under the circum-
stances it was incumbent upon the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the
laid-off employee, and not her obligation to apply for it at the end of 30 days.'
At the close of the 1950-51 season three of the five packers marked for dis-
charge had actually been dismissed. Lorene Fowler and Catherine Mixon com-
pleted the season with no complaints from the Respondent. In September 1951
both of these women applied for reemployment for the 1951-52 season. The
house foreman reemployed every fruit packer that satisfactorily finished the pre-
ceding season except Lorene Fowler and Catherine Mixon, and no satisfactory
reason appears for his failure to include them on his list. They were replaced
by two new employees without prior service with the Respondent.
I find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent failed and
refused to reemploy Lorene Fowler and Catherine Mixon for the 1951-52 season
because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. It thereby
discriminated in their hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in
a labor organization.
In making the foregoing findings, I discredit the testimony of J. H. Danley
with respect to his motivation in ridding the Respondent of the five fruit packers,
Frances Clifford, Verna Mae McMillan, Mary Hodge, Lorene Fowler, and
Catherine Mixon.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
7 The Red Rock Company, et al., 84 NLRB 521.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent, because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union, imposed additional duties and unusual re-
quirements upon the fruit packers in its packing house, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and otherwise interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from the conduct herein found to be a violation of the Act. Further
finding from the past conduct of the Respondent, and the nature of the unfair
labor practices herein revealed, likelihood that such practices may be continued
in the future, it will also be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act .8
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged General J.
Sellers, Frances Clifford, Verna Mae McMillan, Mary Hodge and discriminatorily
refused to reemploy Lorene Fowler and Catherine Mixon because of their mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of a labor organization, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent offer to said employees immediate and full rein-
statement and/or reemployment, as the case may be, in his or her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position ° without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and that Respondent make each of them whole for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by the pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equivalent to that which each would
have earned as wages since the date of discharge, layoff, or refusal to reemploy
found herein to the date when the offer of reinstatement or reemployment is
made, less net earnings, ° in each case to be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. 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 its payroll and other necessary records to facilitate the
computation of back pay herein awarded.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. American Federation of Labor is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Re-
spondent.
2. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by increasing the workload of female employees
(fruit packers) in its packing house and imposing unusual additional require-
ments affecting their working conditions.
s May Department Stores v . N. L. R. B., 326 U . S. 376.
The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
10 Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY -759
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its
employees , General J. Sellers , Frances Clifford , Verna Mae McMillan, Mary
Hodge, Lorene Fowler , and Catherine Mixon to discourage membership in a
labor organization , thereby discouraging membership in the American Federa-
tion of Labor, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (3) 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY , SOUTHERN KRAFT DIVISION' and
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, LOCAL UNION 659, AFL , PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 15-RC-
697 and 15-RC-698. December 3, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Keenan, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks two separate units, craft in character, limited to
the Employer's Bastrop, Louisiana, plant. The Employer and the
Joint Intervenors 2 contend, however, on the basis of a Board decision
discussed below, as well as other grounds, that only a division-wide
unit, embracing employees at all of the Employer's nine Southern
Kraft Division mills, is appropriate.
The Board, on May 15, 1951, issued a decision relating to another
of the Employer's Southern Kraft Division mills at Georgetown,
South Carolina, in which it held that single plant units were proper
The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
The International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL; the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL ; and the International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers , AFL (referred to as the Joint Intervenors herein).
101 NLRB No. 141.