Ross Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1939

11 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of Ross PACKING COMPANY, a CORPORATION and
UNITED CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF
AMERICA, YAKIMA VALL1Y LOCAL No. 1
Case No. C-96.-Decided March 4, 1939
Fruit Dehydrating and Packing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Co-
ercion: charges sustained as to: surveillance of union activities by supervisory
employees ; procuring of informer to report on union activities ; anti-union
statements by president and supervisory employees; threat to close down
plant if employees joined union ; charges dismissed as to alleged assembling of
pickhandle brigade, invasion of union meeting, threats of violence to union
organizers , arrangement of working schedule to conflict with union meetings,
and interference through medium of farmers ' organizations-Discramtination:
discharge ; charges of , sustained as to two employees , dismissed as to one-
Reinstatement Ordered: two discharged employees-Back Pay awarded; two
discharged employees, from date of discharge to date of offer of reinstatement.
Mr. Patrick H. Walker and Mr. William A. Babcock, for the
Board.
Bonsted d Nichoson, by Mr. DeForrest H. Bonsted, and Mr. F. C.
Palmer, Jr., of Yakima, Wash., for the respondent.
Mr. William Stix, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the United Cannery, Agricultural,
Packing & Allied Workers of America, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint and
notice of hearing dated February 5, 1938, against Ross Packing
Company, Selah, Washington, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent discharged and has since refused to
reinstate three employees because they joined and assisted the Union;
11 N. L . R. B., No. 76.
'934
ItOSS PACKING COMPAN Y ITT AL. 935
that the respondent threatened to shut down its plant if the em-
ployees joined the Union; that the respondent threatened violence
to union organizers and members and through an organization of
farmers of which it is a member denounced and threatened violence
to union organizers; that the respondent employed informers; and
that the respondent otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the
Act.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
on the respondent and the Union. Thereafter the respondent filed
an answer to the complaint in which it admitted certain allegations
contained therein but denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor
practices and that it was engaged in interstate commerce.'
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Yakima, Washington,
on February 28, March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, 1938, before Charles A.
Wood, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all parties.
At the close of the Board's case counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety or, alternatively, as to each
of the separate allegations of unfair labor practices. The motion
was denied. The Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 10, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in some but not all of the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from those unfair labor practices. The Trial Examiner rec-
ommended dismissal of the complaint as to the remainder of the
alleged unfair labor practices. The respondent was advised in the
Intermediate Report that it had 10 days from the date of its receipt
to request the privilege of filing briefs or presenting oral argument
before the Board. On October 20, 1938, the respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, but made no request for oral argu-
ment. We have considered the respondent's exceptions but, save for
those exceptions which are consistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, we find them to be without merit.
1 During the hearing the respondent moved to strike from paragraph II of its answer
the clause : "that he neglected the performance of said job and as a result of said neglect
on one or more occasions caused considerable quantity of respondent 's product to become
spoiled and unmarketable ." This motion was granted.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the entire record in the case , the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ross Packing Company, a Washington corporation with its main
office and one of its plants at Selah, Washington, is engaged in the
business of dehydrating, packing, and distributing apples and other
fruit products. The respondent operates a second plant at Fayette,
Idaho.
The apples processed by the respondent come chiefly from the State
of Washington, but some of them and a substantial portion of the
chemicals, fuel, cartons, and other materials used by the respondent
come from outside the State. More than 99 per cent of the respond-
ent's product is sold to customers outside the State of Washington,
over half of it being sold through brokers to customers in foreign coun-
tries. During October, November, and December the respondent ships
the equivalent of three carloads of fruit a week by railroad and truck;
production and shipments are lower from January to March; and for
the balance of the year the plant does not operate. About 250 people
are employed at the Selah plant during the peak season but after
January the force is cut to approximately 190.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Yakima Valley Local No. 1 is a labor organization chartered on
July 28, 1937, by United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied
Workers of America, an affiliate of the Committee for Industrial
Organization. It admits to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union began its campaign to organize the respondent's em-
ployees shortly before the opening of the Selah plant for the season
on September 12, 1937. The first meetings were held by the Union
in conjunction with the Workers' Alliance, an organization of W. P. A.
and unemployed workers. After September 28, the Union began in-
dependently to hold organization meetings, meetings for special groups
of employees, and membership meetings. The early meetings of the
Union were attended by from 100 to 200 people but after the middle
of October the attendance dropped to 50 or 75. Mimeographed cir-
culars were distributed from the time the campaign started until early
November, but principally during the first half of October. The
union organizers, Gordon Lobb and William H. Wood, were aided
ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 937
by a committee of the respondent's employees consisting of Marvin
Howard, Mrs. Yrsa Clark, Marion Rhynard, Leon Rhynard, and Ted
France, the first two being complainants in this case. Most of the
membership applications obtained by the Union were signed during
the early days of the drive.
The respondent was not indifferent to the progress of the organiza-
tion campaign. Ralph B. Vertner, superintendent of the plant, testi-
fied that he and other supervisory employees were supposed "to keep
(their) eyes open" for the first sign of a successful union campaign.
There is substantial evidence that they did.
Marion Rhynard, who was employed in the packing department,
testified that on a date which he believed to be September 28, and
the day of the first union meeting, he heard Vertner ask Sig Apple-
gate, the day foreman of the drying department, what he had found
out, and that Applegate responded that:
he had been out inquiring around and they were talking
of holding a meeting in Selah that night for the benefit of
organizing the Ross Packing Company and the warehouses in
Selah.
Applegate denied having had this conversation. Vertner did not
recall it, but, in view of his admission that he was keeping his eyes
open for union activity, we believe Rhynard and find that Vertner
had this colloquy with Applegate.
On October 1, according to Marvin Howard, Wolfe, the packing-
room foreman, asked him how the C. I. O. was progressing and told
him that he hoped none of the employees of the Ross plant would be
so foolish as. to accept membership in it because it would mean that
the plant would have to close down. Wolfe did not testify and we
find that he made the statement attributed to him by Howard.
Covie Rodgers, a laborer not in the respondent's employ, testified
that on October 9 he was present during a conversation between
B. D. Page, the night superintendent, and Hiram Sartin,2 in which
Sartin was instructed by Page to find out all that he could about the
C. I. O. Sartin said he would "attend the meeting and give the
line-up" to Page, who, in turn, assured Sartin that he would let him
have a job. Sartin was not called to testify. Page admitted that he
had frequently talked with Sartin, but denied that they had ever
discussed unions. Since the Trial Examiner noted that Rodgers' de-
meanor was convincing and since the respondent was admittedly
watchful for incipient union activities, we find that the above-
described conversation took place.
2 Sartin had been employed by the respondent during the 1936-37 season and was
reemployed on November 29, 1937.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent's superintendent, Vertner, admitted, and we find
accordingly, that on a Sunday, probably in October,3 he had parked
his car across the street from the home of Douglas Ayers, husband of
Lillian Ayers, a complainant herein, for a half-hour and had watched
an outdoor union meeting being held there "to see . . . what was
going on."
On October 15, C. C. Ross, president and manager of the respondent,
made a speech to employees in the preparation department. Mrs.
Ayers testified that Ross, after mentioning a union meeting which
he thought most of his listeners would attend, declared among other
things that the wages which the respondent was paying were as high
as market conditions permitted and that the Union would make many
promises which it would not fulfill. This testimony concerning the
speech was corroborated by witnesses for the respondent. One of
them, however, asserted that Ross had not spoken of promises which
the Union would make, but since that statement is consonant with the
respondent's patent distrust of the Union, as revealed by the record,
and since Ross, though available, was not called by the respondent to
testify concerning the speech, we believe and find that this remark
was made. The reference to current wages, the allegation that many
promises made by the Union would be illusory, and the indication
that Ross was aware of union activity could not but have given to
the respondent's employees the impression that, in their employer's
opinion, they would gain nothing from self-organization. The effect
of the speech, therefore, was to discourage membership in the Union.
Mrs. Eva Rhoades, the forelady in the preparation department, had
several conversations with Mrs. Yrsa Clark which revealed curiosity
about and hostility towards the Union. Shortly after the discharge
of Mrs. Ayers on October 16 4 Clark asked Rhoades the cause for
the discharge. According to Clark, Rhoades answered that Ayers had
been "doing a lot of unnecessary talking about the Union and things
which should not concern her" and that the respondent did not need
workers who thought more of the Union than of their jobs. Clark
also testified that in November she had on request brought Rhoades a
recently distributed union circular and that Rhoades later told her
that she had read it and given it to Vertner. Rhoades testified that
she had once asked Clark whether she belonged to the Union because
she was curious to find out. She denied; however, having had the
October conversation and said that she had never seen the circular
mentioned by Clark. Because Vertner did not deny having received
the circular, because-as we have noted-he testified that the super-
8 From other evidence it appears that the meeting took place on October 3 or 10, and
we so find.
4 See infra, p 940,
ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 939
visory employees were supposed to be on the alert for union activi-
ties, and because Rhoades admittedly tried to ascertain whether Clark
belonged to the Union , we believe Clark's testimony and find that the
October and November conversations did occur.
To summarize , the evidence establishes that the respondent has
deliberately and repeatedly interfered with the self -organization of
its employees . Ross, the president and general manager, made a
speech to the employees with the intent and effect of discouraging
them from joining the Union. Vertner, the superintendent , admit-
tedly was vigilant for union activities and consistently with that
objective had observed a union meeting. Page, the night superin-
tendent, procured an ex-employee , Sartin, to act as an informer con-
cerning union activities. Applegate , a foreman , made inquiries about
the Union . Vertner, Wolfe, and Rhoades by their conversations
with employees revealed the respondent 's hostility toward the Union.
We find that the respondent has by these acts interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by the Act.
The evidence fails to sustain , and we shall accordingly dismiss,
the allegations of the complaint that the respondent deliberately ar-
ranged its operating schedule so that overtime work conflicted with
union meetings , and that the respondent threatened violence to union
organizers and members.
B. Interference by farmers' groups
The record contains a great deal of testimony concerning the
formation, purposes, and activities of four farmers' organizations-
the Farmers Protective Association of the United States, the Farmers
Protective Association of Yakima County, and their successors, the
United Farmers of Washington and the Associated Farmers of
Yakima County. The first of these organizations, at its inception
in March 1937, was designed to secure tariff legislation favorable
to the farmer, but by May it had espoused the additional object of
protecting farmers from organized labor. This was the dominant
purpose of the other three bodies, all of which were formed during
1937.
Ross and Le Van, secretary-treasurer of the respondent, as indi-
viduals joined the Farmers Protective Association of the United
States before it had manifested an anti-labor policy. There is hear-
say evidence that subsequently the respondent contributed $75 or
$100 to that Association. At a meeting of farmers in October, which
was attended by Ross and Page, there was some discussion of form-
ing a "pick handle brigade" to drive union organizers out of Selah
and Ross declared that union activity made him nervous.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although these organizations were hostile to labor unions, the
evidence does not establish that the respondent was connected with
or accountable for any of their anti-union activities. On the basis
of the entire record we do not find that the respondent, through the
organizations of farmers, interfered with, restrained, or coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the
Act.
C. The discharges
Mrs. Lillian Ayers. Mrs. Ayers had been employed by the re-
spondent for three seasons as a peeler and trimmer. She joined the
Union on October 13. We have previously noted that Vertner on
October 3 or 10 observed a union meeting held at her house.5 On
October 14, Ayers complained to Rhoades that she had sore muscles
and Rhoades ordered some medicine for her. On Saturday, October
16, she failed to come to work or to report her absence and when she
came to the plant on the following Monday she found that her posi-
tion had been filled.
Ayers said that she failed to come to work on October 16 because
she was ill, that Rhoades knew of her illness, and that she was not
aware of a plant rule requiring absentees to report. While admit-
ting that she had reported her absence on previous occasions when
it was convenient to do so, she recalled two times in the spring
of 1936 when she had been absent without reporting and had never-
theless been taken back to work. Another employee, Clark, also in-
volved in this case, testified that she had received no punishment for
remaining away 3 or 4 days in November 1937 without reporting.
We have previously found that Rhoades told Clark that Ayers had
been discharged because she was "doing a lot of unnecessary talking
about the Union and things which should not concern her." s
Following her discharge, Ayers, as well as representatives of the
Union acting on her behalf, complained to Ross, who said that he
would investigate the circumstances, that he did not see why she
might not have her job back, and that she would be returned to
work at the first opportunity. Subsequently Ross told Vertner to
take Ayers back if he could. Approximately 20 persons not pre-
viously employed by the respondent were hired after Ayers' dis-
charge. Vertner stated that Ayers had twice come to seek reem-
ployment, but said there were no vacancies at the times she applied.
Rhoades said that she had temporarily replaced Ayers on Satur-
day morning when she was absent without having reported the cause
and that later in the day, when Vertner noticed that another person
G Supra, p 938, footnote 3.
0 Supra, p. 938.
ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 941
was working at Ayers' machine, she explained to him that someone
had seen Ayers on the street near Selah. Vertner said he concluded
that Ayers was not sick and instructed Rhoades to fill the place
permanently. Vertner, who asserted he had not known of Ayers'
union membership until he heard that union organizers had pro-
tested to Ross about the discharge, admitted, however, that he had
observed the union meeting at the Ayers' house. He denied having
known at that time whom the house belonged to, but in view of
the small size of the community and his curiosity about union mat-
ters we believe and find that he knew or immediately took steps to
ascertain whose house it was.
There is no evidence that the respondent had strictly enforced its
rule requiring absentees to report. On the contrary, we find that in
some instances violations of the rule were overlooked. Despite in-
structions from Ross, Vertner made no effort to reinstate Ayers,
though there were opportunities to do so. We find that Ayers was
discharged and that the respondent failed to reinstate her because
of her membership and activity in the Union.
Mrs. Ayers' earnings averaged approximately $13 a week during
the month she was employed in the fall of 1937. From the date of her
discharge to the time of the hearing she had received $4 from other
employment.
Marvin Howard. Howard had been employed by the respondent
since the season of 1932--33, but he had quit before the end of the
season in April 1936 and April 1937. He was employed in the white
room where the dried apples are cured and sorted prior to packing.
On October 1, Wolfe, the foreman of the packing department, asked
Howard how the C. I. O. was getting along and said he hoped the
employees would not be foolish enough to join because in that case
the plant would have to close down.7 On October 20, Howard had
an argument with Applegate, foreman of the kiln room. On October
21, Vertner came to Howard and said that he was at a loss to under-
stand the attitude that hen was taking toward "fermenting," telling
him to confine himself to his department and not to be "mixing
around with the employees." Vertner explained that "ferment" was
synonymous with "agitate." On November 24 Howard was placed on
an 8-hour instead of a 12-hour shift in order to make room, according
to Vertner, for a worker who had been on another job. On November
27 Page, the night superintendent, accused Howard of having told
other employees that his pay had been increased. Howard said,
"That is all a lie," and Page answered that he had heard of it from
several sources. Two days later, on November 29, Howard asked Page
7 See supra, p. 937.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
why he did not confront him with the people from whom he had
received the information. That evening Page and Avery Lovejoy,
night foreman of the drying department, came into the curing room.
Howard said to Page, "Who you got there? Is this one of these
parties that have been bringing the lies to you ?" Page said, "No,"
and asked Howard whether he was not satisfied, advising him that,
if he could not get along with the other employees, the best thing to
do was to "quit like a man." Howard asked if Page was trying to
discharge him and Page said that if that was his interpretation he
could leave. Page testified on one day of the hearing that he dis-
charged Howard for insubordination and because, despite complaints,
Howard-continued to pile apples in such a way that the hardest work
fell to the man who relieved him on the next shift. On the following
day he testified that he would not have discharged Howard except
for what happened on November 29 and that by "insubordination"
he had meant "not doing his work properly."
Howard joined the Union on September 28, was a member of the
plant organizational committee, and had written and distributed cir-
culars. Union meetings had been held at his home. Prior to his
quarrel with Applegate there had never been any complaint about
his work serious enough to report to Vertner and Vertner told Howard
on October 21 that his criticism did not refer to that incident. It is
obvious from the conversations of Wolfe and Vertner with Howard
that the respondent was aware of Howard's union membership and
activities, even though Vertner denied knowing that Howard was a
union member. Page was not able coherently to state why he had dis-
charged Howard. We find that Howard was discharged because of his
union membership and activity.
Howard earned approximately $26 a weeks during the fall of 1937,
and from the time of his discharge to the date of the hearing he
earned a total of $25 from other employment.
Mrs. Yrsa Clark. The respondent gives first preference in hiring
to employees who have an uninterrupted record of employment and
secondary preference to employees who have previously been employed
by it. For part of the season the respondent operates a day and a
night shift. When it becomes necessary to have a night shift and the
respondent hires additional workers for that purpose, they are ap-
portioned equally between the day and the night crew and half of
the day workers already employed are transferred to the night shift.
Clark had worked for the respondent for three seasons but had quit
in order to take other employment before the end of the 1936-7 season,
thereby losing her primary seniority. On September 12, she applied
to Rhoades for a job and was told that, while the list of applicants
s During the time that he worked on a 12-hour shift his earnings averaged about $27
a week.
ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 943
had not been checked over, she would probably be given work.
Rhoades testified that she told Clark she would have to be laid off
when the night crew was discontinued. Clark denied this, although
she admitted that Rhoades had told her the night crew would be dis-
continued in December. The night crew worked regularly from Sep-
tember 30, when Clark was given a position on the day shift, to
December 9, when she was laid off along with 46 other employees.
Lola Harvey testified that in December Clark was working faster
than usual and, when asked why, gave as a reason that she was going
to "make" as many boxes as she could because she would be laid off
when the night crew was disbanded. We find, despite Clark's denial,
that she made this statement. On December 9 two or three persons
who had not worked for the respondent prior to the 1937-8 season
were retained and Clark complained about this to Vertner. Sub-
sequently the night crew worked from time to time and 20 new
employees were taken on for occasional work.
Clark joined the Union on November 5, was a member of the plant
organizational committee, and had talked about the Union in the
plant. We have already set forth several conversations between
Rhoades and Clark about the Union."
Despite Rhoades' apparent knowledge that Clark belonged to the
Union, it is our conclusion that Clark was laid off on December 9
in pursuance of the conditions set by Rhoades when she was hired.
Even though the respondent on December 9 admittedly retained and
thereafter gave occasional work to new employees, there is no evi-
dence that Clark was entitled to preference over the 46 persons laid
off with her, and consequently we cannot say that she should have
been retained on December 9 or subsequently given occasional work.
We find that Clark was not laid off or discharged because of her
union membership or activity.
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 de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The respondent will be required to cease and desist from the unfair
labor practices described above. The respondent will also be ordered
0 See supra, p 938.
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to reinstate Mrs. Lillian Ayers and Marvin Howard to their former
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of their respective discharges by payment to each
of them of a sum equal to the amount he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings 10 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied `Yorkers of
America, Yakima Valley Local No. 1, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Mrs. Lillian Ayers and Marvin Howard and
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (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.
5. The respondent, by laying off Mrs. Yrsa Clark, has not engaged
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Ross Packing Company, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
10 By net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N . L. R. B. 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects
are not considered as earnings but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 945
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Cannery, Agricultural,
Packing & Allied Workers of America, Yakima Valley Local No. 1, or
in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any
of its employees because of membership in United Cannery, Agri-
cultural, Packing & Allied Workers of America, Yakima Valley Local
No. 1, or in any other labor organization, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment because of membership in any
labor organization;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Mrs. Lillian Ayers and to Marvin Howard immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole said Mrs. Lillian Ayers and Marvin Howard
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their respec-
tive discharges by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages during the period
from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during said period, deducting, however,
from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies
received by said employee during said period for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects,
and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal
agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief
projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
at Selah, Washington, notices to its employees stating that the re-
spondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid ;
(d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed with respect to the following allegations contained therein:
That the respondent caused the assembling of a pickhandle brigade
for the purpose of assaulting union organizers; that the respondent,
through an organization of farmers, caused a group of armed men
to invade a union meeting, threatened union organizers, and ordered
them to leave Yakima Valley; that the respondent threatened vio-
lence to union organizers and members; that the respondent deliber-
ately arranged its working schedule so that employees could not
attend union meetings; and that the respondent discharged and re-
fused to reinstate Mrs. Yrsa Clark because of her union membership
and activities.