Shreveport Packing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1972

196 N.L.R.B. 498 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shreveport Packing Corporation and its successor
Shreveport Packing Company , Inc. and Amalgam-
ated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO and International Union of Dis-
trict 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United
States and Canada , Party to the Contract . Case 15-
CA-4130
April 21, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On December 14, 1971, Trial Examiner Robert E.
Mullin issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, International Union of District 50,
Allied and Technical Workers of the United States
and Canada, Party to the Contract, filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.]
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondents, Shreveport Packing Corporation and
its successor Shreveport Packing Company, Inc.,
Shreveport, Louisiana, their officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
1 The Board issued today, in Cases 15-RC-4622 and 15-RC-4632, a sep-
arate Decision , Order, and Direction of Second Election adopting, pro forma,
in the absence of exceptions , the Regional Director's Report and Recommen-
dation setting aside the election and directing a second election
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E . MULLIN, Trial Examiner : The trial in this case
was held on September 22, 1971, in Shreveport , Louisiana,
pursuant to charges duly filed and served ,] and a complaint
1 The original charge was filed on May 21, 1971; an amended charge was
filed on July 13, 1971
and notice of hearing issued on August 17, 1971. The Re-
spondents filed an answer and an amended answer, wherein
they conceded certain facts with respect to their business
operations but denied all allegations that they had commit-
ted any unfair labor practices.
At the trial all parties were represented by counsel. All
were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs.
All counsel waived oral argument and, on October 27 and
28, 1971, submitted able and comprehensive briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs,
and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examin-
er makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Respondent Shreveport Packing Corporation, here-
in called Packing Corporation, a Louisiana corporation
with its principal office and place of business in Shreveport,
Louisiana, was until May 31, 1971, engaged in the slaugh-
tering and processing of meat products at its plant in
Shreveport.
The Shreveport Packing Company, Inc., herein called
Packing Company, a Kansas corporation with its principal
office in Arkansas City, Kansas, is now, and has been since
about May 31, 1971, engaged in the slaughtering and pro-
cessing of meat products at the aforesaid plant in Shreve-
port, the only facility involved herein.
On or about May 31, 1971, Packing Company purchased
from Packing Corporation the physical assets and other
trade assets of Packing Corporation, including the slaugh-
tering and processing plant referred to above. Since about
May 31, 1971, Packing Corporation ceased to operate said
meat processing plant, and subsequent thereto Packing
Company has operated said plant and has engaged in sub-
stantially the same business operations. In so doing, it has
employed substantially the same employees and supervisors
as had been employed by the Packing Corporation.
During the 12 months prior to May 31, 1971, a represent-
ative period, the Packing Corporation purchased goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Louisiana, and during the same period
sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $500,000 from
the Shreveport plant directly to points outside Louisiana.
During the approximately 4-month period from May 31,
1971, until the trial of the instant case, Packing Company
purchased and received goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
Louisiana.
Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes, and
the Trial Examiner finds, that Shreveport Packing Compa-
ny, Inc., is a successor of Shreveport Packing Corporation
and that both have been engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act at all times material herein. Hereinafter,
where the term "Respondent" or "Respondent Employer"
appears it will indicate the two Respondent corporations
collectively, whereas "Packing Corporation" or "Packing
Company' will be used when necessary to refer to one or
the other of the respective corporate entities.
It THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The International Union of District 50, Allied and Tech-
nical Workers of the United States and Canada (herein
196 NLRB No. 78
SHREVEPORT PACKING CORP. 499
called District 50), and Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO (herein
called Amalgamated, or Meat Cutters), are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2('5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Sequence of Events
In March and April 1971, organizational campaigns were
initiated among the employees of the Respondent by Dis-
trict 50 and the Meat Cutters. Prior to that time the latter
union had made several unsuccessful attempts to organize
the Respondent's employees. An earlier campaign had re-
sulted in a Board Decision and Order wherein the Respon-
dent was found to have engaged in numerous violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) during the course of an organization-
al drive conducted by the Meat Cutters in 1962. Shreveport
Packin Corporation, 141 NLRB 1255, enfd. 339 F.2d 878
(C.A. 5).
On April 6, 1971,2 Amalgamated filed a representation
petition with the Regional Office, Case 15-RC-4622. On
April 12, District 50 filed a representation petition to secure
an election for the same unit of employees sought by the
Meat Cutters, Case 15-RC-4632. Thereafter both unions
engaged in an intensive organizational campaign. Early in
May the Respondent secured a temporary restraining order
from a Louisiana State Court enjoining organizers from
either union from coming on the
j
premises.
On May 12, District 50 won an election conducted by the
Regional Office.3 On or about May 21, the Meat Cutters
filed objections to the election, but these were rejected by
the Regional Director on the ground that they were tardy
and not timely filed.4 As noted earlier, on May 21 and on
July 13 Amalgamated filed the original and the amended
unfair labor practice charges upon which the complaint in
the instant case issued.
On July 16, the Regional Director issued a Report and
Recommendation on the representation issue in Cases 15-
RC-4622 and 4632. In this report the Regional Director
irecommended to the Board that there be no certification
until a final disposition had been made of the unfair labor
practice charges in the present proceeding. He further rec-
ommended that, in the event the unfair labor practice
charges were sustained, the election be set aside and a sec-
ond election be directed at such time as the effects of the
unfair labor practices had been dissipated. Conversely, he
recommended that District 50 be certified if the aforesaid
charges were dismissed.
B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2); The
Evidence; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
in Connection Therewith
which was adduced at the trial we will now turn.
For several years, Leslie Cowley was the president of the
Respondent Packing Corporation, the entity which owned
and controlled the meat packing plant that is the site of the
present dispute. From the evidence in the record it also
appears that Cowley was the dominant, if not the sole,
stockholder in that company. As of May 31, 1971, Cowley
sold the assets of Packing Corporation, including the meat
processing facility here involved, to the Respondent Pack-
ing Company. Thereafter, Cowley became chairman of the
board for Packing Company, his wife was issued stock
therein and he was given a mortgage on all the assets of the
new corporation. The transition from the old corporation to
the new company did not affect either the supervisory hier-
archy or the workforce, both of which remained the same.
As found earlier herein, the Respondent concedes that
Packing Company is the successor of Packing Corporation.
At all times material herein, the superintendent of the
Respondent's operations was Dutch Mowry and his fore-
man was Charles Reid. The Respondent conceded that both
had supervisory status within the meaning of the Act.
Juanita Roy,5 an employee with the Company for about
3 years, testified that, when reporting for work one morning
about 2 weeks before the election, she saw a man at the
timeclock who was passing out union cards. Roy testified
that she declined to accept the card proffered by the solic-
itor at the timeclock 6 According to Roy, shortly thereafter
she inquired of Charles Reid, her foreman, as to the identity
of the solicitor and whom he represented. Roy testified that
her foreman thereupon explained that the cards were for
District 50, that the new company that was coming in 7
recognized District 50 and that while "You don't have to
sign . . . it is to your benefit that you do."8 Roy was a
credible witness. Reid was never called to the stand. In
consequence, Roy's account of this exchange stands uncon-
tradicted. Since it was credible, the Trial Examiner con-
cludes that the conversation occurred substantially as she
testified.
Sadie Lee Williams, an employee who had been with the
Company about 2 years, testified that about a week before
the election she and Verdel Thomas, another employee,
were called into the superintendent's office for a conversa-
tion with Mowry. According to Williams, Mowry told them
that he wanted to speak to them about the two unions that
were trying to get in the plant. Williams testified that Mow-
ry described one of them as having been trying to organize
the employees for a long while, but that the Company had
fought it off and that the other union was "in with the man
what is supposed to buy the packing house."9 Williams fur-
ther testified that when Thomas questioned Mowry as to
which union was favored by the new owner of the packing
house, Mowry told them that it was the one that was solic-
iting in the plant at that very time. According to Williams,
at that moment a solicitor for District 50 was on the rem-
The General Counsel alleges that by various acts and ises. Williams testified that in this same conversation Mow-
conduct throughout the period from April through June ry told them that the Company had been fighting the Meat
1971, the Respondent rendered unlawful aid, assistance, Cutters for a long while and that if that union won the
and su port to District 50, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) election "Mr. Cowley wasn't going to sign ... [a] contract
and (2) of the Act. These allegations are denied in their ... [he] was going to close the damn plant down." According
entirety by the Respondent and District 50. To the evidence to Williams, Mowry concluded the conversation by telling
2 All dates hereinafter are for the year 1971, unless specifically noted
otherwise
3 Out of approximately 79 eligible voters there were 66 valid votes cast
District 50 received 38 votes, and the Meat Cutters received 28 There were
no votes cast against the participating labor organizations There was one
challenged ballot.
4Sec 102 .69(a) of the Board's Rules requires that objections, to be timely,
must be filed within 5 days after the election.
15 Mrs Roy had married shortly before the trial and was also known in the
record by her earlier name, i .e, Juanita Ezernack
6 Roy testified that earlier, at her own home, she had signed a card for the
Meat Cutters
7 At this time there were rumors in the plant that a new company was about
to take over management of the plant.
8 The quotation is from Roy's testimony.
9 The quotation is from Williams' testimony
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them that he was only trying to do the employees a favor
by circulating this information since he himself had no wor-
ries in the event of a plant closure as he was eligible for a
social security pension . Williams was a credible witness and
her testimony was uncontradicted . It is the conclusion of the
Trial Examiner that her testimony was a credible account
of the conversation she had with Mowry in the
superintendent's office.
Robert Bell, an employee in the loading or shipping de-
partment at the time of the election , testified that prior to
the election Mowr? initiated several conversations with him
as to Respondents preferences in the contest . Bell was a
young man who had started working for the Respondent
while he was only 14 years of ape and still in school. At the
time of the trial he was in the military service , having enlist-
ed in the United States Marine Corps during the summer of
1971.
According to Bell , one morning about a month before the
election , Mowry stopped him at the timeclock and ques-
tioned him as to how "things look out front ," the latter
being a plant term used to describe the shipping department
where Bell worked along with about 25 other employees.
Bell testified that after he gave a noncommittal response,
Mowry told him that District 50 was the union that Mr.
Cowley wanted in the plant and that "if the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters get in , he will close the plant down and we will
all be out of a,job ." According to Bell , Mowry concluded
their conversation by asking that he talk with his coworkers
and get them to "go the right way; vote District 50 ...." 10
Bell testified that about a week later Mowry asked that
he report to the superintendent 's office and that , after he
arrived there , Mowry again brought up the subject of the
organizational campaign . According to Bell ,
s
told
him at this time that Mr. Cowley wanted District 50 in the
plant and that he was opposed to the Amalgamated because
about 6 years earlier the Amalgamated had won an election
at the plant and that the negotiations which followed had
resulted in "a lot of harsh words ." ' 1 Bell testified that Mow-
ry concluded their conversation with the declaration that
Mr. Cowley still did not want the Amalgamated in the plant
and that if it did get in, the plant would be closed- pand
everyone would be out of a job.
According to Bell , about a week before the election Mow-
ry stopped him again to inquire as to "how things [were]
looking out front?" and that on this occasion he told the
superintendent that it "looks like District 50's got it."
Shortl before the election Cowley mailed a letter to all
the employees on the subject of the forthcoming representa-
tion contest and in this letter he expressed the hope that
neither union would win . Bell testified that shortly after
receiving this letter Mowry again asked him "how was
things looking out front" and that on this occasion he told
the superintendent that he was bewildered by the letter from
Cowley that urged him to vote for no union whereas Mow-
ery had been urging the employees to support District 50.
According to Bell , Mowry told him to disregard the letter,
that Cowley , in fact, wanted District 50 to win and that if,
instead , the Meat Cutters won, "Mr . Cowley was going to
close the plant down and we would all be out of a job. '+12
Bell was a credible witness whose testimony withstood a
searching cross-examination by counsel for the Employer
and for District 50 . It is the conclusion of the Trial Examin-
er that his testimony was credible and that it constituted a
10 The quotations in this paragraph are from the testimony of Bell
11 The quotation is from Bell's testimony
12 The quotations in this paragraph are from Bell 's testimony
substantially accurate version of his various conversations
with Mowry.13
Mrs. Roy and Virginia Prudhomme, another employee,
testified that about 2 to 3 weeks before the election they saw
a notice in the women's dressing room which referred to the
organizational contest between the Amalgamated and Dis-
trict 50 and also to the rumors then current that a possible
sale of the plant was in the offing. According to both of
these witnesses , the notice stated that the plant would close
if the Meat Cutters won the election. Both witnesses testi-
fied that this notice was on the wall for only a short while.
Neither had a clear recollection of its entire contents. Mrs.
Roy thought that it was on company stationery, but she did
not recall having seen a signature . Prudhomme thought that
it was signed by Mr. Cowley.
Mr. Cowley denied having posted any such notice as that
described by Roy and Prudhomme. He testified that during
the period in question he had written a notice to scotch
rumors that a major packer was about to purchase his busi-
ness and that he had ordered that this notice be posted in
the plant. However, neither Roy nor Prudhomme could
recall having seen the type of notice to which Cowley
referred.
Roy and Prudhomme were credible witnesses , but their
testimony as to the note which they saw one morning on the
wall of their dressing room was not enough, by itself, to
establish that only the Company could have been instru-
mental in posting it. Obviously, it could have been placed
there by an employee partisan of District 50, or someone
else. Consequently, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examin-
er that the General Counsel, in this instance, did not estab-
lish that the Respondent was responsible for publicizing the
contents of the notice about which Roy and Prudhomme
testified.
There was testimony that during the course of the election
campaign the proponents of District 50 were able to circu-
late freely among employees during working hours and that
notices of organizational meetings for District 50 were post-
ed in the plant restrooms. Thus, Louis Mayhorn, an employ-
ee of the Respondent for many years and the employee who
was elected president of District 50's local union, testified
that during the early part of April, employees LeRoy Haw-
kins, Henry Lee Johnson, and Augusta Luce passed out
cards in the plant not only during break periods,but during
working time as well . According to Mayhorn, much of this
solicitation was in areas of the plant where none of these
employees normally worked. Mayhorn conceded that he
did not witness any of this organizational activity while
supervisors were present, but he also testified that none of
the employee solicitors for District 50 made any effort to
conceal the fact that they had union cards for employees to
sign and that they were endeavoring to secure as many
13 Mowry died shortly before the trial in this case Counsel for the Respon-
dent stated that death was due to terminal cancer The death of one who
might have been a principal witness unquestionably placed the Respondent
at a grave disadvantage For this reason the Trial Examiner has subjected the
testimony of Williams and Bell to the closest scrutiny , and has carefully
reviewed the transcript in the light of their conduct and appearance on the
witness stand. Notwithstanding some lack of clarity, especially in the testimo-
ny of Williams, both impressed the Trial Examiner as being honest and truthful,
a conclusion that is based on their demeanor and forthrightness on direct exam-
ination and throughout an extended and skillful cross- examination Their
testimony as to conversations had with the decedent was admissible
Wigmore, Evidence, Vol V, § 1456. Vol Vi, § 1766, 1769-72 (3rd ed, and
1970 Pocket Supplement), Linde Air Products Company, 86 NLRB 1333,
1336, Reynolds Wire Company, 26 NLRB 662, 666, enfd. 121 F.2d 627 (C A.
7), see also . Hileman v Northwest Engineering Co, 346 F 2d 668 , 669-670
(C A 7), Central Rent-a-Car v. Franklin Mutual Ins Co, 289 N .W 261, 291
Mich 578; Prudential Ins Co v Saxe, 134 F.2d 16, 31 (C.A D C.), cert
denied 63 S Ct 1033
SHREVEPORT PACKING CORP.
signed cards as possible from employees at the plant and
during working hours.
Mayhorn also testified that, during the preelection pen-
od, notices of District 50 meetings for the employees were
posted in the plant restrooms. According to`Mayhorn, dur-
ing the course of approximately 1 month prior to the elec-
tion, three different notices of union meetings were so
posted. He testified that each notice remained posted for 3
to 4 days and that a notice which was posted on May 7 was
one which he signed as president of the local. The latter
notice was an announcement as to a meeting set for May
11, at which time District 50 promised the employees it
would review the contract demands it proposed to make on
the Respondent. According to Mayhorn, the meeting in
question was held on the day before the election, as sched-
uled, and District 50's contract proposals were discussed.
Mayhorn conceded that the supervisors did not normally go
into the men's restroom. On the other hand, in view of the
fact that the Respondent's plant was small,14 and the further
fact that each of three different notices remained posted for
several days, it seems most unlikely that Respondent's su-
pervision could have been unaware of them.
A few days after the election, District 50 requested that
the Respondent begin negotiations for a collective-bargain-
ing agreement. A. W. Hammons, regional director for Dis-
trict 50, testified that immediately after the 5-day period for
filing objections to the election had expired, his union re-
Ruested that the Company begin bargaining. A contract was
signed on May 28, to be effective on May 31, 1971, and for
3 years thereater. According to Hammons, the execution of
the agreement was preceded by three or four bargaining
sessions spread over a 7- to 8-day period. The contract
provided for numerous benefits that included a 75-cent-an-
hour wage increase,15 a guarantee of overtime after 40
hours, shift premiums, a guarantee that seniority earned
with the Packing Corporation could be carried over to em-
ployment with Packing Company, a grievance and arbitra-
tion procedure, guaranteed vacations, paid holidays, leaves
of absence, and numerous other benefits which the employ-
ees had not had previously. The contract also provided for
a union shop and checkoff.
The union-security and checkoff provision of the new
agreement provided that all employees in the unit were
required to become members of District 50 no later than the
30th day following its effective date. As noted above, the
latter date was May 31. There was evidence, however, that
District 50 did not wait until the lapse of the 30 days, and
that on June 9, District 50, with the assistance of
Respondent's supervisory officials, at the plant and during
working hours, conducted a drive to secure dues-checkof
authorizations from all employees in the unit. Thus, May-
horn credibly testified that on June 9, Superintendent Mow-
ry told him to meet Hammons in the superintendent's office
and that, when he did so, Hammons directed him to get the
employees to sign the checkoff cards that day. According to
Mayhorn, thereafter he went among the employees and had
them report to the superintendents office for signing the
cards. Mayhorn testifed that thereafter about 20 of the
employees came to the office and signed these cards, where-
as he himself secured another 30 signatures from other em-
ployees whom he contacted that day at their work stations.
There was also testimony that on, this occasion Foreman
14 As noted earlier, there- were only 67 employees who cast votes in the
election.
15 This was to be spread over the 3-year term of the contract. Hammons
testified that at the time the agreement was signed a majority of the employ-
ees in the unit were making $1 .60 an hour.
501
Charles Reid sought to persuade the employees that they
were required to sign checkoff authorizations immediately.
Thus , employee Juanita Roy testified , credibly and without
contradiction , that on June 9, when Mayhorn was urgin g
the employees to sign checkoff cards , Foreman Reid vol-
unteered to find out for her whether it would be necessary
to sign after she told him that she did not want to pay the
dues . Mrs. Roy testified that a short while later Reid re-
turned to her work station and told her that she had no
alternative but to sign the checkoff card.16
Mr. Hammons testified as to the inde pendent character
of District 50 and he denied knowledge of-any alleged assist-
ance given his union by the Respondent during the course
of the election campaign . The independence of District 50
and its militance as a labor organization are well known.
That, however, is not relevant to the issue as to whether, on
the record in this case , the Respondent afforded assistance
to District 50 in the contest between that union and the
Meat Cutters . It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that
the evidence presented herein fully supports the allegations
of the General Counsel and the Charging Party that the
Respondent , in a variety of ways , made clear to the employ-
ees its desire that they vote for District 50, that this conduct
constituted restraint and coercion of the employees within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act , and that it further
constituted illegal interference within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(2).
Upon the foregoing findings , the Trial Examiner con-
cludes that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
by the following acts and conduct:
(1) Foreman Reid 's conversation with employee Roy
about 2 weeks before the election wherein he told her that
the new company which was taking over the plant would
recognize District 50 and that it would be to her "benefit"
that she sign an authorization card for that union.
(2) Superintendent Mowry 's conversations with employee
Bell during the month before the election wherein he ques-
tioned Bell repeatedly about the union sympathies of his
coworkers , urged Bell to vote for District 50 and to enlist the
support of his fellow employees for that union, and threat-
ened Bell that if the Amalgamated won the election the
plant would close with resultant unemployment for all the
rank-and-file employees.
(3) Superintendent Mowry 's conversation with employees
Williams and Thomas about a week before the election,
wherein Mowry told those employees that the Respondent
had been fighting the Meat utters for a long while, that
District 50 was "in with the man [that] is supposed to buy
the packing house ," and that if the Meat Cutters won the
election "Mr. Cowley wasn 't going to sign ... [a] contract
[with the Amalgamated] ... [he] was going to close the damn
plant down."
It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the forego-
ing conduct on the part of Mowry and Reid constituted
such flagrant interference with the employees ' free choice as
to vitiate the results of the election held on May 12, 1971.
For that reason the Respondent was not thereafter free to
recognize District 50 as the bargaining agent for its employ-
ees, hurriedly to begin negotiating with that union, and,
within a matter of days, execute a collective -bargaining con-
tract which contained a union -security provision . It is like-
wise the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that since District
50 won the election with the unlawful assistance of the
Respondent, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and
16 Notwithstanding this advice from her foreman, Mrs. Roy did not sign
the checkoff card either that day or later. Also, it should be noted in connec-
tion with this issue that all counsel stipulated at the trial that the Company
never collected any dues pursuant to these checkoff authorizations.
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(I) not only by having provided that assistance during gut
period when a representation question was pending, but
further violated those same sections of the Act: (1) by recog-
nizing District 50 as the majority representative for its em-
ployees; (2) by executing a collective-bargaining agreement
with District 50 which contained a union-security clause
that, on the facts in this case, was per se coercive; and (3)
by thereafter allowing District 50 free rein in the plant on
June 9, 1971, to secure checkoff authorizations from the
employees during worktime.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The unions here involved are labor organizations with-
in the meaning of the Act.
3. By unlawful assistance, support, and interference on
behalf of District 50 the Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing, and by other acts and conduct inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercin employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that the Respon-
dent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act, unlawfully assisted, and contributed
support to, District 50, the effects of this interference, as
well as the Employer's continued recognition of that union
as the bargaining agent of the employees, constitute a con-
tinuing obstacle to the free exercise by the employees of
their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing. Further,
having found that the Respondent executed an agreement
containing unlawful union-secunty provisions, the terms of
which have frustrated self-organization and defeated genu-
ine collective bargaining by the employees, the Trial Exam-
iner will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to
withdraw recognition from District 50 as the representative
of its employees and that the Respondent cease giving effect
to the agreement dated May 28, 1971, or to any modifica-
tion, extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or any sub-
stitutes therefor, unless and until District 50 shall have
demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status
pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the employ-
ees. Nothing contained herein, however, should be taken to
require the Respondent to vary those wage, hour, and other
substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves, if any, which the latter has established in the
performance of this agreement.17
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
" Since the General Counsel conceded that, in fact, the Respondent with-
held no union dues from the wages of its employees, the Trial Examiner will
not recommend the inclusion in the order of the conventional provision
requinng an employer to refund dues so withheld
the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 18
The Respondents, Shreveport Packing Corporation and
its successor Shreveport Packing Company, Inc., their offi-
cers, successors, agents, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to District 50, or to
any other labor organization.
(b) Recognizing District 50, or any successor thereto, as
the exclusive representative of their employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, unless and until said labor
organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority
representative status among said employees in a Board-
conducted election.
(c) Giving effect to the agreement with District 50 entered
into on May 28, 1971, or to any extension, renewal, or
modification thereof, between the Respondents and the said
union which may now be in force.
(d) Giving effect to any checkoff cards authorizing the
deduction of periodic dues from wages for remittance to the
aforesaid Union, prior to the date of compliance with this
recommended Order.
(e) Threatening employees with discharge, layoff, or re-
prisals if they become, or remain, members of any union
other than District 50.
(f) Coercively or otherwise unlawfully interrogating em-
ployees as to their union activities.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form,join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the purpose of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from District 50,
or any successor labor organization, as the representative of
their employees, unless and until said organization shall
have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative sta-
tus in a Board-conducted election.
(b) Post at the plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, conies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix.19 Copies Iof the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Employer to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.20
is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
19 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 "
20 in the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
SHREVEPORT PACKING CORP.
the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreement dated May
28, 1971 , with District 50, or to any extension , renewal,
modification , or supplement thereto, unless and until
the labor organization shall have demonstrated its ex-
clusive representative status among our employees in a
Board-conducted election.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from
District 50, or any successor thereto, unless and until
it shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status among our employees in a Board-con-
ducted election.
WE WILL NOT contribute financial or other support to
any labor organization or, in any other manner, inter-
fere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their statutory rights.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff cards, here-
tofore executed by our employees , authorizing deduc-
tions from their wages for remittance to the aforesaid
union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other reprisals if they become , or remain , members of
any union.
503
WE WILL NOT coercively or otherwise unlawfully inter-
rogate employees as to their union activities or about
the union activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization , to form , join , or assist any labor
organization , to bar am collectively through represent-
atives of their own ohoosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid, or to refrain from any and all such
activities , except to the extent that this right may be
affected by agreements in conformity with Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION
and its successor
SHREVEPORT PACKING COMPANY, 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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office. T 6024 Federal Building (Loyola),
701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Tele-
phone 504-527-6361.