Riviana Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 122 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Riviana Foods, Inc. and Rice Workers Local 300,
Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-3668
and 15-RC-4213
December 10, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On August 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey
issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceedings,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action , as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner ' s Decision . He further found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended dismissal as to them . The Trial
Examiner also found merit in certain of the Union's
objections to the election in Case 15-RC-4213, and
recommended that the election be set aside and a new
election conducted . Thereafter, the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases 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 exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings , ' conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner , as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as herein modified,
and hereby orders that the Respondent, Riviana
Foods, Inc., Abbeville, Louisiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
modified below.
It is further ordered that the election conducted
herein on September 24 and 25, 1969, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of second election2 omitted from
publication.]
i Although the Trial Examiner in his Decision , sec. II, C, first para.,
notes that Leon Derveloy , the Respondent's plant manager , held meetings
with groups of employees in the plant on company time , that at one of
these meetings employee Joe Stelly was present and Derveloy displayed a
union card and commented to Stelly that he (Stelly ) had signed one of
these cards , and that at another of these meetings , which employee Rosa
Mae Stelly attended , Derveloy again displayed a union card and remarked
to the group of employees that signing the card "will get you into trouble,"
he nevertheless failed to make any findings that Derveloy's conduct was
violative of the Act We find merit in the General Counsel 's exceptions to
the Trial Examiner 's failure to so find Derveloy 's comment to Joe Stelly at
the meeting attended by him constituted coercive interrogation and created
the impression of surveillance , and his remark to the group of employees
that signing a union card "will get you into trouble " constituted an
unlawful threat Accordingly, we find that the Respondent , through the
aforesaid conduct by Derveloy , violated Section 8(ax1) of the Act
In view of our adoption of the Section 8 (a)(1) violations found by the
Trial Examiner , the additional violations found above, and the Trial
Examiner's recommendation to set aside the election in Case l5-RC-4213
and to conduct a new election , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
Trial Examiner 's findings with respect to a speech delivered on July 11,
1969, to assembled employees by Franklin Godchaux III, a Respondent
executive and major stockholder , and also the display of six posters by
Leon Derveloy , and alleged statements by him in connection with the
posters , at meetings with groups of employees . Even were we to find such
conduct unlawful , as urged by the General Counsel , such findings , if made,
would merely be cumulative and would not materially add to the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order and Remedy , which we have adopted
2 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N LR B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S
759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility hst,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days
after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional
Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties
to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE F. FREY, Trial Examiner: The issues in this
consolidated case , which was tried before me at Abbeville,
Louisiana, on February 25 and 26, 1970, are (1) whether or
not Respondent, Riviana Foods, Inc., at various times in
July through September 24, 1969, questioned employees
about their membership in and activities for the above-
named Union, threatened them with discharge and other
reprisals for their union activities , and gave them the
impression of surveillance of their union activities, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, el seq. (herein called
the Act), ' and (2) whether certain instances of the above
conduct by officials of Respondent , as well as speeches
made and other written propaganda issued by them,
amounted to threats and coercion of employees which
created an atmosphere of fear before a Board -conducted
i These issues arose on a complaint issued January 21, 1970, by General
Counsel of the Board through its Regional Director for Region 15 (after
Board investigation of a charge filed by the Union on October 9, 1969), as
187 NLRB No. 14
RIVIANA FOODS, INC
election and made a free choice at the election impossible,
requiring that it be set aside.2
At close of the trial, I reserved decision on Respondent's
motion to dismiss the complaint on the merits in Case
15-CA-3668; that motion is now denied in part and
granted in part on the basis of the findings and conclusions
set forth below. At close of trial all parties waived oral
argument , but General Counsel and Respondent have filed
written briefs which have been carefully considered in
preparation of this Decision.
On the entire record in the case and from my observation
of all witnesses and their demeanor on the stand, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND STATUS OF
THE UNION
Respondent is a Delaware corporation authorized to do
business in the State of Louisiana. It operates a plant in
Abbeville, Louisiana, the only one involved herein, where it
processes, packages, and ships rice. In the year 1969
Respondent had a direct inflow of goods and materials to
the Abbeville plant valued in excess of $50,000, and in the
same period it had a direct outflow of goods and products
from that plant valued in excess of $50,000. I find that
Respondent is, and at all material times herein, has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
The above-named Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
If. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union's Campaign
In June 1969, the Union began a campaign to organize
workers at the Abbeville plant, holding a meeting for
workers on July 7, which was well publicized by letters sent
July 5 to workers including at least two supervisors, which
those officials brought to the attention of Respondent when
received. On July 13 the Union formed an organizing
committee of six plant workers which included Otis J. Stelly
(herein called Joe Stelly), and formally notified Respondent
on July 17 of the formation of the committee and its
composition. Thereafter some committee members and
Working Foreman Raymond Stelly, a cousin of Joe,
actively and openly solicited employees in the plant to sign
union authorization cards. On July 18, the Union filed its
petition for election in Case 15-RC-4213, and from July 20
amended at the trial, and answer of Respondent admitting jurisdiction but
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices All parties
participated fully in the trial through counsel
2 The issues in the representation case anse on objections filed by the
Union on September 30, 1969, to conduct affecting the results of the
election , which had been held on September 24 and 25, 1969, and was lost
by the Union The Regional Director issued his decision on the objections
on January 16, 1970, overruling some but directing a hearing before a Trial
Examiner on objections l(b), 6, 7, and 8, and by order of February 6, 1970,
consolidated the representation case with Case 15-CA-3668 for trial
3 Vallot was known to both as a local farmer who was also a local
official for a Federal agency
4 1 find this discussion from credited testimony of Sicily, as
123
onward up to the election, the Union sent a series of letters
and propaganda leaflets to workers, several of which were
signed by Raymond Stelly and other committee members.
In the same period Respondent actively campaigned
against the Union by distributing propaganda literature to
workers, and having officials deliver formal speeches to
workers and conduct a series of informal discussions with
groups of employees, as noted hereafter. The main thrust of
its arguments was that it did not want the Union in its mill,
hoped it would not get in, and that its advent would not
benefit the workers for various reasons. The specific and
general impact and effect of these speeches and discussions
on workers before the election comprise some of the issues
involved in both cases.
B. Alleged Coercion and Discrimination
The following officials and supervisory personnel at
Abbeville, all admitted supervisors within the meaning of
the Act, were involved in the events found hereafter: Plant
Manager Leon Derveloy, Packaging Superintendent Floyd
Broussard, Shipping Superintendent Larry Jones, Working
Foreman Ferdinand Stelly, Maurice M. Mortenson,
assistant to the senior vice president in charge of industrial
relations, and Franklin Godchaux, III, a company
executive and major stockholder.
On an unidentified date late in July, Derveloy had a
private talk with Joe Stelly in Broussard's office in the
plant. Derveloy showed Joe a union card, and asked if he
signed it. Joe said he did. Derveloy commented that he not
only signed up for the Union but for "Peter Vallot 's gang,"
and asked why he did it.3 Joe replied that he did not sign up
with that "gang" but only joined the Union for better
security, life insurance , and pay. He asked Derveloy if he
could support a family on less than $70 a week. Derveloy
admitted he could not, and then said that if Joe was looking
for more money, "you can get yourself ajob elsewhere."4
On a date in July, after employee Earl Ursin returned to
work from a stay in a hospital, Derveloy called him into his
office and asked if Ursin had attended a meeting of workers
on July 11 at which Franklin Godchaux had made a speech.
Ursin said he had not, as he had just been discharged from
the hospital. Derveloy then asked what he thought about
the Union, and Ursin replied that it was not bad, for he had
been in a union once before, that some were good and some
were bad. Derveloy said he wanted Ursin to know that the
Company and he were against the Union, and hoped it did
not get into the mill.5
In the week of September 15 Derveloy and Mortenson
conducted a series of about 15 group meetings with
employees in Derveloy's office in the plant. The employees
corroborated in part by admissions of Derveloy, whose denial of only
certain parts of the discussion, in light of his other active attempts to
influence workers against the Union as found below, lead me to discredit
his denials of the interrogation
5 1 find this conversation from credible testimony of Ursm, who was no
longer working for Respondent when he testified I do not credit
categorical denials of the interrogation by Derveloy because he did not
deny the whole conversation , only saying he could not recall such a
discussion His plain statement of opposition to the Union as stated by
Ursin is consistent with Respondent 's admitted campaign against the
Union, as shown by admission of Derveloy , Broussard , Mortenson, and
speeches of Godchaux noted hereafter
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were sent in groups of 10 to 14 by their supervisors who
checked off their names as they went to the office. When
Superintendent Floyd Broussard told Rosa Mae Stelly to
go to Derveloy's office she asked if she had to punch out
before going to the meeting , and that she did not want to,
he told her not to punch out because then she could not
punch back in, that the meeting was on company time, so
that she did not have to punch out 6
On an unidentified date in the first or second week of
September , Joe Stelly called Broussard aside in the plant
warehouse to ask whether Broussard could rehire his son-
in-law , John Deal, a high school student who had quit his
job about a week or 10 days before . Broussard replied that
he could not hire him then , as he was filled up. He then told
Stelly that he favored the mill in the coming election, that it
would be better for the workers to do the same as they
could probably get "better help from the mill ." He then
reminded Stelly that he had helped out Stelly a lot in the
past by hiring members of his family , and would be glad to
do so in the future , but if the Union should win the election,
he did not know if he could rehire Deal, as he did not know
if the Union would permit it . Stelly replied "that is all
right."
In the week of September 8 or 15 , Broussard talked to
about 40-50 workers individually at the request of Derveloy
to explain the reasons why Respondent did not favor a
union in the plant . He told each that Respondent was
against the Union, did not feel that the Union would be
good for the workers or the Company , that the workers
would get better help from the Company than the Union,
and that if they voted for the Union , they would only "hurt
themselves " because the Union would get their money.
After he talked thus to Claude Pellissier, Broussard said he
wanted to know how the workers felt, and asked him if he
was for the Union or the Company. Pellissier replied he was
for the Company . Broussard said that was fine. When he
called in Raymond Stelly , Broussard told him at the outset
the reasons for the discussion , and said he knew Raymond
favored the Union , not the Company , because he had seen
his signature on a union letter to the workers , but would tell
him the company position , anyway, at the request of
Derveloy . He said he understood that Stelly was going to
union meetings , and Stelly admitted he was. Broussard
asked what he thought about the Union , what it
guaranteed . Stelly said he thought it was a "good deal" for
the workers , it would get them better pay raises . Broussard
said the Company could not afford to pay 12 cents an hour
more than the present rate . He said the Union could
promise the workers nothing but a strike, and asked where
Stelly would get money to support his family if the Union
called a strike . Stelly said he would do his best to get
money , and if the strike lasted too long , he would get
another job . Broussard recalled that a union had tried to
6 I find this conversation from a composite of credited testimony of
Rosa Mae Sicily and Broussard I do not credit testimony of Stelly to the
effect that Broussard threatened her with immediate discharge if she did
not attend the meeting because his explanation that she need not punch
out to go to the meeting appears reasonable and was not denied by Stelly,
and her testimony is generally less impressive on other events for reasons
noted hereafter.
7 1 find the above facts from credited and mutually corroborative
testimony of Rosa Mae Stelly, Joe Stelly, Raymond Stelly , Pellissier, and
organize the plant 20 years ago , but failed and called a
strike and most of the workers who went on strike were
replaced . When he stated the company position to Rosa
Mae Stelly , and asked if she had any questions , she asked if
everyone must vote in the election , and he replied "No, you
are not forced to vote , but you should vote , and if you are
for the Union , you should vote for the Union." 7
Late on Friday , September 19, Broussard came to the
machine of Rosa Mae Stelly and said he had heard she did
not want to vote . She replied "You heard right ." He said "if
you do not vote you are against the company" and "you
can consider yourself unemployed after the election ." Early
on Monday , September 22, Broussard called her to his
office and accused her of deliberately staying in the ladies'
room on Friday for 20 minutes while other workers
attended a meeting in Derveloy 's office. They had an
argument about it during which Broussard called in the
foremen who had reported this to him . During the
discussion, Broussard explained he had to call her in then
because talk to employees was prohibited in the 24 hours
before the election . He again mentioned her reluctance to
vote and said she did not have to vote but should. She
replied "Don 't push me , let me make up my own mind." He
repeated that she did not have to vote but should , that "if
Melody and Ray Stelly are the only ones who vote, the
Union will win ," and that "everybody has to vote." She
repeated "leave me alone, get off my back, let me make up
my own mind, what is the Statue of Liberty standing there
for?" She also reminded him that he had said she would not
have a job after the election , and asked "why don't you fire
me now?" He replied "I can't, that is a lie, I do not have the
right to fire you." He then said "You will vote," and she
repeated "Don't push me, if you push me to vote and I
cannot make up my own mind , I will mark my ballot both
`yes' and `no.' " Later that day Mrs . Stelly met Mortenson
at her machine where he asked if she had any more
questions after her group meeting (where she had asked
about company benefits ). She said she had just talked to
Broussard and did not like the way he talked to her, as he
had said she "had" to vote . Mortenson replied that
Broussard should not have said this , as the Company could
not order anyone to vote , but it would like to have everyone
vote , and hoped a majority of workers would do so, so that
it would be a "good" election . He said he would talk to
Broussard about his remarks and have him apologize if he
said improper things . She repeated she would not vote, and
Mortenson said he hoped that she would , and vote for the
Company .8
On an unidentified date a week or more before the
election , employee Leroy Jones told his supervisor,
Shipping Superintendent Larry Jones , that "the time is
getting close," obviously referring to the approaching
election . Larry said , yes, and asked Leroy what he thought
Broussard Testimony of any of these witnesses at vanance therewith is not
credited.
a The above events are found from credited testimony of Rosa Mae
Stelly and Mortenson , as corroborated in part by testimony of Broussard.
Testimony of the latter at vanance therewith is not credited, in light of his
admitted talks with workers to try to influence them against the Union,
and his failure to give his version of the full discussion with Mrs Stelly
where he denied certain portions of her testimony.
RIVIANA FOODS, INC.
about it. Leroy hesitated, so Larry said he could feel free to
talk. Leroy then replied, "some say it is good, some say
not." Several days later, Larry asked Leroy if he had signed
a union card. Leroy said, no. Larry said all those who did
sign would have to pay over $70 (to the Union), and once
they signed they could do nothing about it.9
On the night of September 23, Foreman Ferdinand Stelly,
Jr., a cousin of Joe Stelly and known in the plant as "COP,"
visited the home of Joe and Rosa Mae Stelly with his
mother, and stayed about 3 hours. At first COP returned a
TV table to the Stellys which he had borrowed years before,
and they had coffee and watched TV for a while. Later
Rosa Mae mentioned the election and asked COP "what
are we going to do about it." He indicated he could not
vote, it was up to the workers, but he thought it would be
better if they voted "for the mill" because it was better than
the Union. He asked the Stellys what they thought about it,
and whether they were "for the mill," indicating that
Derveloy and Broussard had asked him to come to their
home to find out what they thought about it, and how they
would vote. Rosa Mae replied "I will tell you the same thing
I told Floyd Broussard, I wish you all would leave me
alone." COP said "we are dust concerned, I just wanted to
find out how you were." She said she was for the Company,
but wanted to be left alone. Joe commented that about 60
percent of the packaging department workers favored the
Union,, Rosa Mae agreed, and added that two workers
named Dionne were once for the Company but switched
when Broussard would not transfer their son-in-law. COP
asked her if she signed a union card, and she said she did
not, but that out of 11 women in her shift in packaging, only
4 did riot sign cards, the rest were for the Union. Joe added
that he, had signed one, but "how could she sign it when she
tore it up and threw it away after Mitchell (the union agent)
gave it to her?" 10 Rosa Mae told COP to tell Derveloy and
Broussard to "keep Murphy Swire off my back," that Swire
had asked her three times to sign a petition against the
Union, and she refused and threatened to strike him when
he bothered her with it. Joe then told her "Mae, you talk
too much," which she denied. COP told both he knew "how
you stand" and wished he had known it earlier that day to
tell Broussard when the latter said he did not know what
was going on in the packaging department, that he could
not find "how you were."
On the morning of September 24, Rosa Mae Stelly called
Broussard to her machine as he passed by and accused him
of sending COP to her home the night before, and said she
had not told COP anything other than what she had told
Broussard before. He denied sending COP to her home. She
9 Although Larry categorically denied both discussions , claiming it was
useless to talk to Leroy because he knew the latter was a good friend of a
union committee member, I still credit the testimony of Leroy stating the
above facts , for Larry admitted he was against the Union and actively
talked against it in discussions with workers , and in light of Respondent's
aggressive antiunion campaign I consider it more likely than not that Larry
both questioned Leroy about his union activities and views and talked
against the Union, as found above
10 Rosa Mae had signed a union card on July 13, but did not date it,
and when the union agent brought it to her on the 20th to fill in the date,
she took it from him and tore it up and did not attend union meetings after
that
125
told him to "stop lying to us , you know that it is probably
30 to 1." He admitted there was talk about that , and said he
had heard she was the "strongest one for the mill.""
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by the following conduct in the course of the above events:
1. Derveloy's interrogation of Joe Stelly in July about
signing a union card , and the reason therefor , and after
learning that he joined for better security and pay, his
suggestion that he get a job elsewhere if he wanted more
money . The latter remark amounted to a thinly veiled
threat that Respondent was no longer interested in his
employment if he joined the Union to change his pay or
working conditions . The coercion in the remark is all the
more inferable ( 1) because it came from the top plant
official to an employee of 23 years ' service whose
appointment to the union organizing committee was
specifically made known to Respondent by the Union's
letter of July 14, and was well known otherwise throughout
the plant , and (2) when Joe rather apologized to Derveloy
about his position on the committee in a talk later in July,
stating he hoped Derveloy was not "hurt" by it and did not
feel badly toward Joe, Derveloy replied that he could do as
he pleased and Respondent would not interfere with his
union activities as long as it did not affect plant operation,
but that "if you are looking for forgiveness , I am not in a
position to give It to you." 12
2. Derveloy's private interrogation of Ursin in July
about his union sentiments.
3. Broussard's interrogation of Pellissier and Raymond
Stelly in September about their union sentiments and
attendance at union meetings , and his statement to Stelly
that he understood the latter attended union meetings,
which was calculated to give Stelly the impression that his
union activities were under surveillance by Respondent.
4. Broussard's remark to Rosa Mae Stelly on September
19 that he heard she did not want to vote , which gave the
impression of surveillance of her activities, and his direct
and coercive threat of unemployment after the election if
she did not vote, thus indicating she was against the
Company . The coercion inherent in this remark is not
dissipated by his belated admission to her on September 22
that he should not have said that , and had no right to
discharge her.
5. Larry Jones' interrogation of Leroy Jones in
September just before the election about his union
sentiments and whether he signed a union card.
6. Interrogation by Ferdinand Stelly of Rosa Mae and
Joe Stelly on September 23 about their attitude toward the
11 The facts above are found from credited testimony of the three
Stellys and Broussard , which is mutually corroborative to some extent I do
not credit other testimony of any of these witnesses which conflicts with
these findings In particular I do not credit testimony of Rosa Mae Stelly
that in their September 24 talk Broussard asked her how Mr and Mrs.
Lloyd DeMarcy would vote. Broussard categorically denied this question
and her alleged reply , explaining that he already knew from earlier remarks
of DeMarcy himself that the latter would vote against the Union , and since
this circumstantial explanation appears plausible and was not denied by
the DeMarcys , I credit Broussard 's denial in this instance
IZ This conversation is found from credited testimony of Joe and
Derveloy
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, whether they would vote for or against it, and
whether Rosa Mae Stelly signed a union card.13
7. Broussard's comment to Rosa Mae Stelly on
September 24 that he heard she was the "strongest one for
the mill," which indicated Respondent was maintaining
some sort of surveillance on workers' sentiments pro or con
the Union right up to the last minute before the election.
C. The Group Meetings
The meetings of Derveloy and Mortenson with groups of
employees were held in Derveloy's office in the plant on
company time, and varied from 45 minutes to 1- 1/2 hours
in length, depending on the number of questions asked by
workers and discussion thereon. In each meeting the
procedure and discussion was substantially the same:
Derveloy introduced Mortenson and stated that their
purpose was to discuss the company side of the union issue,
to tell them the truth about unions because the Union had
been telling them lies, and that employees were free to ask
questions at any time. Mortenson then passed among the
employees and explained union contracts involving other
mills of Respondent and other employers, to show
misrepresentations made by the Union about wages in such
plants . He explained at length the difficulties employees in
them had experienced in canceling their memberships in
those unions after signing union authorization cards. On
the latter point, both officials displayed two forms of union
authorization cards which had been distributed by the
Union in the campaign, and Mortenson told them signing
of the cards made the signer a "potential" member of the
Union, and it was like "giving a blank check to the Union,"
for it advised the Company to deduct union dues and any
other sums the Union asked for from the worker's
paycheck. Mortenson distributed a letter from a union
agent directing Respondent to deduct a special assessment
for a strike fund from employee pay at the Memphis plant.
Some workers asked how they could get their cards back,
and both officials explained that workers could not
withdraw from the Union except in a limited 10-day period
near the anniversary date of their cards, so that they must
know that date before they could withdraw; Mortenson
displayed letters from workers in a Houston, Texas, mill,
and a union letter involving an Austin, Texas, mill, to show
the difficulties of withdrawal from the Union. In displaying
the union cards at the meeting attended by Joe Stelly,
Derveloy commented to Joe that he had signed one of
them, and Joe replied that he signed the short one, not the
longer one . In the meeting attended by Rosa Mae Stelly,
Derveloy held one of the cards, said this was what they had
signed, and that signing it "will get you in trouble," that the
union people were not interested in the workers, but only
wanted their money; Mortenson then followed with his
explanation of the effect of the card as a "blank check" and
the difficulties workers had run into in trying to get their
signed cards back and withdraw from a union. At the
request of various employees, both officials explained the
13 In appraising conflicting testimony of COP, Rosa Mae and Joe as to
the reason and purpose of COP's visit, I credit the latter Stellys and find
that , whatever social contacts they had had elsewhere in recent months,
COP suddenly used the return of a TV table he had on loan for about 5
years as the excuse for a lengthy visit in which he deliberately probed for
terms "closed shop" and "union shop" and other aspects of
union operation.
Derveloy then said that workers had reported the union
agents had told them that Respondent would have no
problems in reopening any of its closed plants quickly, and
that he had some pictures to show them which would refute
those statements and show that other plants had been
closed only for economic reasons. He then displayed six
large posters, each with one or more photos of a rice null of
Respondent in another city, with photos in three instances
showing the null in operation and then after shutdown with
partial dismantling and demolition. Each poster stated in
large black block lettering, "This was the Riviana Rice Mill
(and packaging plant, in some instances) at (name of city
and state). It closed down in (date)." In showing each poster,
Derveloy quickly read off the printing on the poster and
then made a further explanation about the mill, as follows:
Carlisle, Arkansas: This plant closed because of uneco-
nonuc operation and in order to achieve some centraliza-
tion of function. It had a union.
Rayne, Louisiana: In showing this poster with one photo
of the null in operation and four showing it in various
stages of disrepair or demolition after shutdown, Derveloy
said that it closed for economic reasons when its operations
were moved to Abbeville. The photos showed its deteriora-
tion and that it could not be reopened in a hurry, and then
only at great cost. It did not have a union when it shut
down.
Eunice, Louisiana: This mill closed due to high cost of
operation, after merger of Respondent with another
company. It had grown from a small plant to its size shown
on one photo, but was greatly outmoded in 1965 and was
being torn down. The other four photos showed that it
could not be rebuilt to modern standards except at great
cost, particularly the installation of a whole new dryer unit.
When shut down, the mill did not have a union.
Crowley, Louisiana: The poster showed that Crowley had
been known as the "Rice Capital of America" before 1957.
Derveloy pointed out from one photo how extensive the
plant was, but the picture after shutdown showed only a
dryer still standing in which Respondent only stored rice. It
was shut down for uneconomic operation, and could not be
modernized except at great expense. A union had won an
election there in 1954, but at the time of shutdown in 1957
that union did not have a contract covering the plant.
El Campo, Texas: This had been a rice and bulk wheat
processing plant, but Respondent stopped the latter
operation when the Federal Government withdrew from
nulling of bulk wheat, and it was not economic to run a rice
milling operation there alone, so the whole plant was closed
about 2 years after the merger. When it closed there was a
union at the plant.
Lake Charles, Louisiana: Derveloy emphasized the poster
wording that at one time this was the largest rice mill, and
only "double mill," in the world. He noted there was no
photo showing it had been torn down, but said most of its
buildings were empty, as Respondent only ran a drying
the intent of the married Stellys about the Union, in a last-minute effort to
find out how they would vote, for the benefit of management ; and this is
consistent with Broussard's admitted attempts to learn the union
sentiments of other workers
RIVIANA FOODS, INC.
operation there, for all other machinery had been taken to
the Abbeville, Memphis, Rayne, and Houston plants when
operations were expanded at those locations. The union at
Abbeville had secured five or six elections at Lake Charles
in 7 years but was defeated each time. When the mill closed
in 1965 there was no union in the plant.
In discussing these plants, Derveloy referred to the
operating Memphis plant saying a majority of workers
there had voted for the Union, but that in other plants a
majority voted against it, and pointed out that if workers
did not want a union, they could stop it only by going to the
polls and voting their convictions; if they did not do so, a
minority of workers could vote the Union in. He also
mentioned the Swift company plant in Jackson, Mississippi,
where the employer had told workers it must be shut down
because of economic factors including high operating costs;
in response the union workers had voted to take a pay cut
to keep that plant open and advised the employer
accordingly, but the union had refused to agree to pay cuts,
insisting on existing contract rates. Mortenson showed the
employees newspaper clippings which outlined these facts.
Derveloy also told the workers that the nce industry in
general had been in bad financial condition for some years
and was getting worse, so that more mills were closing
down each year. He said Crowley, the former nce capital of
the world, once had 32 mills, but only 4 were still running,
and that recently Respondent had heard 3 more were
closing down. Referring to Abbeville, Derveloy told the
workers Respondent would make every effort to keep it
running, although it was becoming harder all the time to
make a profit at plants which were outmoded, and that
where a mill had no profit it had to be closed, and it was
always hard to reopen it. He also said that if a union came
into Abbeville and its wage demands caused wages to go up
until they were so exorbitant that Respondent could not
operate at a profit, then the mill would have to be closed
down.
The facts as to these meetings are found from a
composite of credible testimony of Derveloy, Mortenson,
Leroy Jones, Otis J. Stelly, and Rosa Mae Stelly. I do not
credit conflicting testimony of Jones and both Stellys
tending to show that Derveloy told workers in the meetings
they attended in effect that certain of the six mills had been
shut down deliberately by Respondent "because of the
Union." The specific testimony of these witnesses about the
meeting was limited mainly to placing this single statement
in Derveloy's mouth, and their recollection of only these
words was significantly quite alike, whereas they had very
little recollection of the context of the alleged coercive
remark , particularly the details of Derveloy's explanation
14 General Counsel admits that the form of Derveloy's statements are
not as important as the context in which they were made , in determining
their effect
15 N L R B v Automotive Controls Corporation, 406 F.2d 221, 223, 224
(C.A 10, 1969); NLRB v Brownwood Mfg Co, 363 F 2d 136,138 (C A
5, 1966), Texas Industries, Inc v N LR B, 336 F 2d 128, 131 (C A 5)
General Counsel tries to counter the legitimate aspects of Derveloy's
remarks about mill shutdowns by pointing to a direct promise in a letter of
September 22, 1969, from Respondent to all employees to "raise your pay
and improve your benefits whenever and wherever possible," and
Derveloy's admissions that the Abbeville plant had been giving normal
raises to workers in recent years, with the last one shortly before the
election These facts do not render Derveloy's statement of facts about
127
of the posters and circumstances of the shutdown of the
mills. In light of his clear and impressive testimony
detailing what he said to workers on the subject, I am
convinced that these three witnesses, obviously prounion,
did not recall or were not telling all the facts, but only
giving their general conclusions as to the general nature of
his remarks. Thus, I must conclude that the remarks of
Derveloy, as found above, were well calculated to
emphasize to the employees no more than that in all cases
economic reasons prevailing at those plants, or in the
industry, were the only reasons for the mill shutdowns; his
added references to the existence or nonexistence of a
union at any plant at time of shutdown were clearly
parenthetical remarks, and not directly or indirectly
indicative of any connection between the union's one-time
presence at the plant and its shutdown; in fact, his clear
comment that no union existed at Rayne, Eunice, Crowley,
and Lake Charles at time of shutdown would be more likely
to indicate that unionization was not a factor, than
otherwise. Other circumstances militate against a coercive
effect of the posters and his remarks about them.14 The
display and discussion of the posters took up no more than
10 minutes, or less than a third, of each meeting, according
to Derveloy, Mortenson, and Jones. Only 3 workers out of
nearly 200 who heard the talks were produced to testify to
the alleged coercive remarks, and their testimony was very
limited as noted above. Further, any coercive implications
which might be drawn from the posters or any of
Derveloy's remarks on the subject are weakened by his last
remarks emphasizing that Abbeville would be kept running
if at all possible and would never be shut down unless that
action was forced upon Respondent by economic condi-
tions which might include exorbitant and unprofitable
wage costs forced on it by a union. It is well settled that an
employer does not violate the Act by predicting, even in
blunt and impressive terms, that plant shutdowns may be
one of the dire economic actions forced upon an employer
as a direct consequence of union actions at his plant which
may create bad economic conditions beyond his control.15
General Counsel also argues that the poster depicting the
Lake Charles plant and its shutdown was coercive in that it
plainly warned employees "Don't let it happen to you."
Since Derveloy told workers of repeated unsuccessful union
efforts to organize this plant over 7 years, and said the plant
had shut down after the employees, apparently unionized,
had resisted Respondent's attempt to improve plant
efficiency and profits by automation, over 7 years, it can be
argued that the workers might well infer that the repeated
union efforts to organize the plant, might have been a
factor in the final shutdown, even though the mill had no
other plants and the reasons for their shutdown untrue or indicative of bad
faith or coercion, for they only show that Abbeville fortunately was still
operating at a profit and Respondent was continuing to pass on the
benefits thereof to its employees, and that it hoped to be able to continue
to do so, which is consistent with Derveloy's repeated assurance that,
despite the economic misfortunes which had visited other plants,
Respondent intended to make every effort to continue to operate
Abbeville, even in face of exorbitant union demands The sincerity of
Derveloy's remarks on this subject and the lack of coercion inherent in
them during the campaign and up to the very election itself becomes more
apparent from the Union's letter of September 21 to employees which
emphasized the point that "No plant has been closed by Riviana because
of a Union "
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union when closed. Derveloy testified that the warning
sentence was put in because employees at Lake Charles had
resisted efforts at automation designed to put the plant on
an efficient and paying basis, so that Respondent continued
to lose money there and had to close it, but this explanation
does not make the vague warning coercive, because there is
no proof in the record that he gave this explanation to the
Abbeville employees at the time. Hence, the warning
words, considered in the entire context of his remarks, at
most could only have been calculated to advise employees
not to take any actions which might prevent Abbeville from
continuing to operate profitably and which might force a
shutdown, which is far from a threat, direct or implied, that
Respondent would deliberately shut it down if the Union
organized it. is In light of the above circumstances, I do not
consider the decisions in Ideal Baking Company of
Tennessee, Inc., 143 NLRB 546, 548, or Jackson Packing
Company, 170 NLRB No. 155, apposite on the facts or
controlling, for in the first case a poster with similar
warning words clearly indicated employees' loss of work
might come directly from a strike with violence after a plant
was unionized , and in the second a single poster depicting a
plant before and after shutdown stated clearly that the
latter picture showed it "when the union got in," which is
far different from the posters and accompanying remarks
here.
In sum , even considering the posters and explanation of
them in light of Respondent's admitted aggressive antiun-
ion campaign , and other unfair labor practices found
herein , I do not consider that the posters as such were
intended or even reasonably calculated to warn employees,
or instill in them a fear, that if the Union came into the
plant it would be shut down by deliberate action of
Respondent and they would lose their jobs. I therefore
grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraphs 9 and 10
of the amended complaint insofar as it relates to these
meetings , and will recommend dismissal of the complaint
to that extent.
Specific Speeches by Respondent
On July 11, Franklin Godchaux, III, made a speech to
employees in the plant in which he explained the antiunion
position of Respondent , reciting its experiences with unions
in other plants, discounting the broad promises the Union
made to induce employees to join it, and explaining some of
the financial costs and other consequences of membership
in a union , including the possibilities of strikes and the
financial losses which employees could incur during a
strike. In this connection, he referred to a broad union
campaign about 20 years ago to organize all rice mills in
South Louisiana, which resulted in strikes during which
many strikers at the Abbeville plant were replaced and thus
lost theirjobs; he said the Union did not give up until it had
left "a bad mark on employees, this plant and the
16 I do not consider Derveloy's credibility on this issue affected by his
statement that the warning words had nothing to do with the union issue,
for it is clear that the whole poster and his explanation of it and the others
was designed to impress on the workers that the only thing which might
force Respondent to close Abbeville were bad economic conditions,
whether caused by the employees , the Union, or other forces or conditions
beyond its control
community." He also referred to publicized violence in
connection with more recent strikes in other local plants. In
contrast, he referred to the many benefits workers at
Abbeville received, including yearly pay raises and steady
employment, in periods when other mills laid off workers
during strikes in the rice industry and Gulf ports.
General Counsel contends that the reference to strikes 20
years ago when some employees lost their jobs was a
coercive threat that employees at Abbeville would suffer
the same fate if they joined the Union. I do not consider
this reference reasonably calculated to instill such a fear in
the employees in light of his detailed reference to the
continued operations at Abbeville during strikes at other
mills and in other industries, and Derveloy's later
assurances at group meetings that Respondent would try to
continue the Abbeville operation as long as economically
possible. At most, the reference to the general strike of
years ago was a legitimate statement of the possibility of a
strike as one consequence of union attempts to organize a
plant. I therefore grant Respondent's motion to dismiss
paragraph 10 of the original complaint.
Godchaux also referred to the repeated unsuccessful
attempts by the Union to organize the Lake Charles plant
of Respondent "before it closed," saying the Union had
made the same "big promises" to employees there that it
was now making at Abbeville, and expressed the view that
the good judgment of Abbeville employees would prevent
the Union from getting into Abbeville. General Counsel
argues that Godchaux thus expressly or by implication told
the workers that Lake Charles plant was closed by
Respondent because of the union activities there. I do not
agree. His remarks on this were short, taking up only one
paragraph in a 7-page speech, and do not contain any
wording which would serve to emphasize or even imply that
the Lake Charles shutdown was deliberate because of the
continued union activities. Even if such implication could
reasonably be drawn from his brief remarks about Lake
Charles or the strikes of 20 years ago, the effect thereof was
certainly dissipated by Derveloy's remarks in the group
talks shortly before the election, where he emphasized that
Lake Charles had been shut down solely for economic
reasons at a time when there was no union or union activity
at that plant, and also by his emphatic assurances that
Respondent would make every effort to continue operation
of the Abbeville plant if economically possible, regardless
of union activity.17 I therefore grant Respondent's motion
to dismiss paragraph 10(b) of the amended complaint
dealing with this point.
On August 11 Derveloy delivered a written speech to all
employees assembled in the plant for that purpose. At the
outset, he made it clear, as Godchaux had in his speech,
that Respondent was "1000%" against a union in the plant
and would use every legal means to keep it out. He then
added "We are convinced that the union would not be good
for you or the mill and that it could act to your serious
17 Any implication of coercion in Godchaux ' remarks, or inference that
they were likely to instill in employees a fear of loss of security , benefits or
jobs if they chose the Union, is also negated by the Union 's blunt and
emphatic assurance to employees in its September 21 letter that "The
answer is No plant has been closed by Riviana because of a union ," which
is the very point that Derveloy was trying to make about the future of the
Abbeville plant.
RIVIANA FOODS, INC. 129
harm . We do not want to see you and the mill involved in
union trouble and we intend to fight to keep the union out
in every legal way." He then explained the following
consequences of voting the Union in: The workers would
give up their right to speak and act for themselves about
their jobs and their future, for the Union would control
them and "call the shots" as far as their jobs and
employment at the mill was concerned; hence, the workers
must decide whether to turn "your job and future" over to
paid union officials who had no real interest in them or
Respondent, or continue the past "fine, personal relation-
ship" with the Company. Their job and pay came from the
Company, not the Union, "the union has never given you
anything and never will, your job, your pay and your
benefits always come from the company, no one else."
While the Union could make big promises to the workers
about what it would do for them, it could not guarantee
them anything, "the only thing it can guarantee you is a
strike and that you will have to pay a lot of money to the
Union in dues plus assessments and fees." If the Union won
the election, the Company would not have to carry out any
promises of benefits made by the Union, or agree to its
demands in bargaining or "sign a contract," because the
law did not force the employer to agree to any union
demands; after an election signing of a union contract was
"not automatic." The only action a union could take if the
Company did not agree to its demands would be to "call
you out on strike to try to get the things the Union
promised to get for you," so that the workers would be on
the picket line, "you and your family would suffer and do
without your pay," while the union organizers would still
draw their pay, and their families would not suffer. He then
detailed these consequences of a strike: no pay from any
source or unemployment compensation while on strike; the
strikers could lose their jobs and be replaced by the
Company; this had happened to thousands of workers, and
"the same thing could happen here if the Union got in." He
then expressed the hope that the mill would never have
union trouble or a strike and the trouble that went with it.
Further on, Derveloy suggested that any employees who
were unhappy and wanted to work under union conditions
could go and work in a plant which was unionized, "they
should not stay here and mess things up for everyone else,"
and added "I do not believe the majority of you want to be
constantly worried about strikes, picket lines, and such
union trouble."
In written speeches given on September 22 and 23,
Derveloy repeated the antiunion attitude of the Company
in similar terms to those stated on August 11, including the
views that ( 1) a union in the mill "could lead to serious
trouble for you and the mill," (2) the Union could not
guarantee anything but "a strike and trouble," (3) the
Company would not agree to any union proposals or sign
any contract which it did not consider in the best interest of
the Company and all employees, and it would never yield to
union pressure in the form of a strike, but would operate
during any strike and replace striking employees, and (4)
while Derveloy hoped this would never happen, "I want
you to understand now that this is serious business, that we
are not going to take it lightly , and that no union man is
ever going to take over operation of this mill ." He referred
to the troubles of the rice milling industry, with its history
of shutdowns of mills including five of eight Riviana plants,
and added "This plant will stay open and will continue to
provide jobs for you only so long as it operates successfully.
Union strikes and union troubles here could strangle the
life out of this plant and we could end up with a mill that is
closed down and a mill that provides no jobs and no
earnings and no security for anyone." After disparaging the
Union 's motives in organizing the plant as purely selfish
and financial, Derveloy assured workers that the Company
would continue to operate and increase pay of workers as
long as it could keep its cost of operation "in line," that the
Union could not force it to do more, and that the "Union
could create many more serious problems for you than you
have ever faced before." He ended by explaining the voting
procedure and the importance to workers of using their
right to the secret ballot, with the hope that a majority
would vote against the Union.18
To the extent that the three speeches detailed facts
showing past and probable future consequences of the
advent of a union in mills in the rice industry, it can be said
that the remarks of both officials fall within the limits of
free speech protected by Section 8(c) of the Act, for in this
aspect they tend to predict the "dire consequences that will
follow from a union victory." 19 However, the courts have
also held that such statements retain their statutory
privilege only if they predict "demonstrably probable
consequences beyond (the employer's) control," and "if
there is any implication that an employer may or may not
take action solely on his own initiative for reasons
unrelated to economic necessities and known only to him,
the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on
available facts but a threat of retaliation based on
misrepresentations and coercion, and as such without the
protection of the First Amendment." N.L.R.B. v. Gissel
Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618, 619 ; N.L.R.B. v. Dow
Chemical Company [Dowell Division], 420 F.2d 480 (C.A.
5). When judged by these criteria, in the light of
Respondent's other unfair labor practices found herein, I
must conclude that the speeches of Derveloy (but not the
Godchaux speech) fall outside the protection of Section
8(c).
At the outset, his remark early in the August I 1 speech
that Respondent was "convinced" that the Union "could
act to your serious harm" and in the later speeches that "it
could lead to serious trouble for you and the mill," and his
repeated statements in various forms that advent of the
Union would lead to, or "guarantee," "strikes and union
trouble," and that "this is serious business, that we are not
going to take it lightly," and other similar remarks, bring
the speeches within the interdiction of Board rulings in
Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB 1275, and Block-
Southland Sportswear, Inc., 170 NLRB No. 101, because (1)
it was followed by enumeration of a series of probable and
dire consequences of a union in the plant which would end
up in a strike causing loss of pay and even loss of
employment to striking employees, the same thing that
18 The speeches of Godchaux and Derveloy are stipulated in evidence in
full but I have paraphrased only the important parts and phrases which are
pertinent under the issues raised and adverted to by arguments of counsel
19 Texas Industries, Inc. v N LR B, 336 F.2d 128 (C A 5)
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
happened to many other workers in the rice industry
including other mills of Respondent, (2) he finished with a
blunt suggestion , tantamount to a threat, that the few
workers at Abbeville who wanted to work under union
Conditions should go elsewhere, and that the majority
would not want the "constant worry about strikes, picket
lines, and such union trouble." These consequences of
unionization were thus a clear delineation of the type of
"serious harm" which would probably come to employees
with a union in the plant, giving those words a greater
impact on employees and thus enhancing their probable
coercive effect. The impact was heightened by the earlier
unfair labor practices found above, some of which were
tantamount to threats of loss of employment for workers
who favored the Union. I find by these remarks of Derveloy
on August I I Respondent coerced employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In addition, when Derveloy made it clear in the three
speeches that, in the event of unionization of the plant, the
Company would not accede to the Union's promises, did
not have to accept its demands or sign a contract involving
such demands, and that in that event the Union could only
"guarantee" the workers with a strike and the ensuing
serious consequences outlined above, he was in effect
telling the workers that the Company would at the least
bargain in such a way that an impasse would be reached
which would force the Union to resort to its final economic
weapon, a strike. In the second and third speeches he
emphasized this probable adamant attitude in bargaining
by telling them plainly "we are not going to let any union
come in here and walk all over us or push us around or tell
us what to do, As long as the doors of this mill stay open, we
are going to run it, not the Union." This is but another way
of saying Respondent would probably turn down any union
demands which it did not unilaterally "consider to the best
interest of this company and ill its employees' and also any
contract it did not unilaterally consider "in the best interest
of all," thus preserving for itself the unilateral final decision
on what was best for all, which indicates the very opposite
of open-minded and bona fide bargaining.20 It could only
be clear to the employees from such remarks that if they
voted the Union in, an impasse in bargaining followed by a
strike was inevitable, largely through deliberate action of
Respondent. Hence, these remarks amounted to a threat
that if the Union won, a series of actions in which
Respondent would play a deliberate part would probably
result in loss of pay and employment for employees,
particularly those who went on strike at union orders. In the
second speech he emphasized the probable loss to workers
by the blunt and chilling statement "Union strikes and
union trouble here could strangle the life out of this plant
and we could end up with a mill that is closed down and a
mill that provides no jobs and no warnings and no security
20 This approach is somewhat like that of the employer condemned by
the Board in General Electric Company, 150 NLRB 192 , enfd 418 F.2d 736
(C.A. 2). If such approach is bad- faith bargauung which violates the Act,
indications to employees that an employer will use it if compelled to
bargain with a union of their choice and thereby make a strike inevitable,
is hardly less coercive or violative of the Act.
$1 In various aspects of wording , sequence of remarks , and repetition of
pertinent thoughts and ideas, the speeches here are much like those found
violative of the Act in Wausau Steel Corporation, 160 NLRB 635; Louisburg
for anyone." The coercive impact of these remarks is made
more evident by Derveloy's complete failure to indicate
that a bargaining impasse with no contract, a strike and its
impact on workers, and a shutdown of the mill, in that
inevitable order, might be avoided by fair bargaining by
both sides, with flexible attitudes on proposals and possible
concessions by the Union which might avoid an impasse
and the horrible consequences he outlined. I must therefore
conclude that Derveloy's remarks, in their phrasing, logical
development of the probable actions of the parties,
particularly Respondent, and statement of the dire
consequences to workers , were well calculated to instill in
them a fear that choice of the Union would make strikes
with loss of pay and jobs inevitable, and hammer home in
their minds the conclusion that it would be futile to choose
the Union as bargaining agent because it would bring them
personally nothing but "serious harm," and "create many
more serious problems for you than have ever faced you
before" (stated in second speech). The coercive impact of
these remarks was particularly strong when made by the
top plant official in the last 2 days before the election, and I
do not think the harmful effect was lessened in any way by
the last-minute though emphatic reply of the Union that
"no plant has been closed by Riviana because of a union,"
for this could not reasonably overcome the total thrust of
Derveloy's repeated warning that , regardless of its present
profitable operating status, Abbeville was almost certain to
have a strike and close down if the Union came in. I
therefore find that by the totality of the above remarks,
Respondent further interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of their free choice of bargaining
agent, a right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.21
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
Objection 1(b) to the election deals with interrogation of
employees. As I have found above that Respondent
engaged in coercive interrogation of workers about their
union activities and sentiments at various times in the
campaign up to the election, this objection should be
sustained.
Objections 6 and 8 should be sustained to the extent that
they are based on the following conduct:
(a) Derveloy's coercive suggestions in individual and
general talks to employees that if they were not satisfied
with plant conditions or wanted more money, they should
get jobs in union plants.
(b) Derveloy's coercive warnings in two speeches that if
the Union came into the plant the sequence of events
involved in bargaining, including probable company
refusal of union demands which made a strike called by the
Union inevitable, involving loss of pay and probably loss of
jobs for strikers, all of which demonstrated to employees
Sportswear Co, 173 NLRB No. 101; Crystal Lake Broom Works, 159
NLRB 429; Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association, 163 NLRB 777, and
Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc, 160 NLRB 746.
1 have also considered other aspects of Respondent 's conduct shown in
the record and cited by General Counsel as probative of other portions of
the amended complaint , but I make no findings thereon for , even if such
conduct were found violative of the Act , the effect would merely be
cumulative without materially changing or enlarging the nature and scope
of the remedy recommended hereafter.
RIVIANA FOODS, INC.
the futility of choosing the Union as their bargaining
agent.22
(c) Derveloy's repeated charge in speeches that choice of
the Union would lead to "serious harm" to employees, with
a "guarantee" of strikes and "union trouble ," and resulting
personal loss to employees.
Objection 7 is based on the talks of Derveloy and
Mortenson with groups of employees found above,
particularly the display of posters showing closed mills of
Respondent and other employers , which plants had been
involved at some time in union organizing campaigns, some
successful and others not. I have found that the posters, and
Derveloy 's explanations of the reasons for shutdown of the
mills, were not violative of the Act , even in light of
Respondent 's other unfair labor practices . However, it has
been long settled that conduct which may fall short of
coercion violative of Section 8(a)(l) may still have an effect
on employees to an extent which renders it improbable that
they can exercise a free choice as to a bargaining
representative in a Board election . 23 On this point , General
Counsel makes the argument (actually and perhaps
improperly on the issue whether the election should be set
aside , the Union having filed no brief in the representation
case) that the group talks were part of a pattern of coercion
of employees en masse , started by the Godchaux speech
and culminating in the two Derveloy talks on September 22
and 23 , which violated the Act and also made a free
election impossible . Giving due weight to Respondent's
aggressive antiunion campaign and its other coercive
conduct therein , I still conclude that Derveloy 's detailed
references in the group talks to closed mills and the reasons
for their shutdown in context of other remarks were not
sufficient to create a fear in employees ' minds that union
activity or organization at such mills was the main cause, or
even a cause , of employers ' action in shutting down the
mills. I bear in mind that these campaigns are adversary
proceedings , with both sides speaking bluntly and often in
rough terms , and the utterances of both sides ought not to
receive a narrow or strained construction , because it is
desirable to have stimulating debate with a free flow of
information so that employees get all the facts and can
make an informed choice as to whether a union would
improve or worsen their present position . An employer's
exposition of harsh and perhaps unpleasant and depressing
economic facts but without intimation of threat of
employer reprisal should not readily be considered
destructive of the atmosphere of relative purity in which
Board elections should occur .24 I therefore find that
Objection 7 has no merit and recommend that it be
overruled.
Having found that Objections 1(b), 6, and 8 should be
sustained , I will recommend that the election of September
24 and 25, 1969 , be set aside.
22 See Serv-Au, Inc, 183 NLRB No 32
23 General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126, Excelsior Underwear,
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, 1240; Mallory Plastics Company, 158 NLRB 954,
956
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
131
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act to the extent found above, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(axl) of
the Act.
2. Except as found above, Respondent has not violated
the Act in other respects as alleged in the complaint as
amended.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
limited unfair labor practices violating Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act to the extent found above, I will recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from such conduct and like or
related conduct, and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record in the consolidated cases, I
recommend issuance of an order that Respondent Riviana
Foods, Inc., its officers , agents , successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) In a coercive manner interrogating employees about
their membership in the above-named Union, or reasons
therefor, their union activities or sentiments, or how they
would vote in a Board election.
(b) Giving employees the impression that their union
activities are under surveillance by their employer.
(c) Threatening employees in any way with loss of
employment or other reprisal if they joined the Union, or
failed to attend antiunion talks by company officials, or
failed to vote in a Board election against the Union.
(d) Stating to employees in speeches or otherwise that it
was convinced that a union in the mill would not be good
for employees but would act to their senous harm.
(e) Warning and threatening employees in effect that if a
union came into the mill, employer bargaining with such
union would result in an impasse and no contract, a strike
called by the Union would be inevitable, and employees on
strike would lose pay and their jobs through replacement by
new workers, and indicating directly or indirectly that for
such reasons it would be futile for employees to choose the
Union as their bargaining agent.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of any of
the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
24 Southwire Co v N. LR.B., 383 F .2d 235, 241 (C.A 5); Union Carbide
Corp. v N L R B, 310 F 2d 844 (C.A 6); Capita/ Electric Power Assn., 171
NLRB No. 42; Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U .S. 53, 62.
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at its plant in Abbeville, Louisiana , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said
notice , on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 15, shall , after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent , be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof , and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places , including 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 15, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith 26
Insofar as the amended complaint in Case 15-CA-3668
alleges violations of the Act not specifically found above, it
is hereby dismissed.
I recommend that the election held on September 24 and
25, 1969, in Case 15-RC-1213 be set aside and a new
election held at an appropriate time.
25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 . 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 be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
ss In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
AFTER A TRIAL AT WHICH ALL SIDES HAD THE
CHANCE TO GIVE EVIDENCE, IT HAS BEEN
DECIDED THAT WE, RIVIANA FOODS, INC., VIO-
LATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AND WE HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO POST THIS
NOTICE.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as an
employee , these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form , join , or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative of
your own choosing
To act together with other employees to bargain
collectively or for other mutual aid or protection; and
If you wish, not to do any of these things.
ACCORDINGLY, WE GIVE YOU THESE ASSUR-
ANCES:
We will not question you in a coercive manner about
your membership in Rice Workers Local 300, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America , AFL-CIO , or any other union , or why you
joined it , or about your union activities or sentiments,
or ask you how you intend to vote in a Board election.
We will not make statements to you about your
union membership or activities which would give you
the impression that we are keeping your union activities
under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT make statements to you in speeches or
otherwise which indicate in a coercive manner to you
that we are convinced that a union in the Abbeville
plant would not be good for you but would act to your
serious harm.
We will not make threats or give warnings to you, in
effect, that if a union came into the Abbeville plant our
bargaining with that union would result in an impasse
and no contract, a strike called by the union would be
inevitable , and employees on strike would lose pay and
their jobs through replacement by new workers, and for
such reasons it would be futile for you to choose Rice
Workers Local 300, Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or
any other union , as your bargaining agent.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of any of the
rights guaranteed to you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE ASSURE ALL OF YOU THAT YOU ARE FREE TO
JOIN OR NOT TO JOIN RICE WORKERS LOCAL 300,
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, OR
ANY OTHER UNION, AS YOU SEE FIT IN YOUR
OWN JUDGMENT, WITHOUT ANY INTERFER-
ENCE FROM US IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
Dated By
RIVIANA FOODS, INC.
(Employer)
(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 directed to the Board 's Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.