Southern Fruit Distributors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 376 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This rigid application of the premature-extension doctrine in a
case completely barren of any indication of disaffection towards the
established union serves to discourage normal employer-employee col-
lective bargaining during the term of an existing contract. It evis-
cerates a labor organization's bargaining power by removing its abil-
ity to offer extended contract protection in return for concessions from
the Employer. It disrupts stable industrial relations by fastening
upon them a device like a valve, by which the negotiating process is
turned on and off at such intervals and in such a manner as to com-
pel an incumbent labor organization periodically to strive to get all
that it can while the getting is good, at the same time reminding all
rivals that this is the appropriate time to commence any contemplated
raiding activities.
In the case of Se f toga Fibre Can Coi pany,l this Board recently
recognized the fact that the premature-extension doctrine is essen-
tially a discretionary principle, and that a contract executed in good
faith before a rival claim was made or petition filed does not neces-
sarily lose its contract-bar validity merely because at the time it was
made an earlier agreement was still in existence. I believe that the
facts in the case before us come within this principle. To find that a
question concerning representation exists in this case ignores the real-
ities and the rationale of the Board's contract-bar and premature-ex-
tension doctrines, and the direction of an election in the face of the
parties' contract made in good faith goes against the purpose of the
Act to encourage collective bargaining and foster industrial stability.
8 Footnote 2, supra
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS , INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR. Case No. 10-CA-1666. July 26, 1954
Decision and Order
On March 18, 1954, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the
Respondent 's exceptions and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
109 NLRB No. 72.
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 377
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the-hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southern Fruit Distribu-
tors, Inc., Orlando, Florida, its officers, agents, successorsy and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the American Federation of
Labor or any other organization of its employees by discriminatorily
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening to discharge its employees if they engage in union
or concerted activities, or in any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
American Federation of Labor or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Claudia Grantham and to each of the 76 employees
named in Appendix A attached to the Intermediate Report, immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges, and make each of them whole in the manner set forth in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled, "The Remedy."
2 As we agree with the Trial Examiner 's findings that the two spontaneous work
stoppages , referred to in the Intermediate Report as the Hubler and Grantham incidents,
were protected , concerted activity, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Ex-
aminer's further finding that, "even assuming , as is not the case , that such work stoppages
were illegal or sit-down strikes , Respondent had waived and condoned any participation by
the employees in those stoppages by settling the disputes by mutual agreement between the
employees and the Respondent."
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
(c) Post at its plant in Orlando, Florida, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix B." 3
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by Respondent upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that the notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent violated the Act by discriminatorily terminating the
employee status of Frances Zimmerman and by refusing to reinstate
Doris Adams, Irma Cantrell, Marvin W. Lewis, Eugene Stringer,
Lillian Weyand, Lila Fomby, and Annie Seigler, be, and it hereby is
dismissed.
3 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner," in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order " In the event
that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be
substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been duly filed by Southern Fruit
Distributors, 'Inc. (hereinafter called Respondent), a hearing involving allegations
of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, was held in Orlando, Florida, from July 27 to
July 30, 1953, inclusive, before the Trial Examiner. In substance, the complaint
alleges and the answer denies that: (1) On or about February 4, 1953, certain named
employees of Respondent engaged in a strike, (2) on or about February 5, 1953,
said employees abandoned the strike and unconditionally applied for reinstatement;
(3) Respondent failed and refused to reinstate such employees because they had
engaged in the strike; (4) on or about February 10, 1953, Respondent discharged
Claudia Grantham and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate her because of her
union and concerted activities; (5) on or about February 10, 1953, Respondent
terminated the employee status of Frances Zimmerman because of her husband's
membership in and activities on behalf of American Federation of Labor (herein-
after called the Union), in order to discourage membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union; and (6) by such acts of discrimination and by threatening to discharge
its employees if they engaged in activity on behalf of the Union or concerted ac-
tivities, 'Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 379
issues, to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs and proposed 'findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent
argued orally, and a brief from Respondent has been received and considered. At
the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, his unopposed motion to strike
the name of Maude Braziel from the complaint as one of the alleged discriminatees
was granted.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. 1HE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Florida corporation with its principal office and place of business
at Orlando , Florida, where it is engaged in the business of processing , selling, and
distributing citrus fruits and citrus products . Respondent annually sells and ships,
from its Orlando plant, finished products valued at more than $100,000 to customers
located outside the State of Florida. Respondent admitted, and I find, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Labor is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
All of the events pertinent hereto occurred during the months of January and
February 1953. Respondent's Orlando plant is composed generally of a sectionizing
department, a peeling department, a warehouse, feedmill, canning plant, and a boiler-
room. The peelers and sectionizers are compensated on a piece-work basis. The
fruit is peeled in the peeling department, and subsequently sectionized in the see-
tionizing department. Prior to the strike and the alleged discrimination, all of the
peelers were men and all of the sectionizers were women. In addition to the actual
sectionizing of fruit, there were additional functions performed in the sectionizing
department by other employees, some of whom were men. Most of the employees
involved in this case are either sectionizers or peelers, although there were 7 em-
ployees from the feed mill and 10 from the warehouse who also participated in the
strike. Sometime before January 16, when the Board-conducted election was held,
the Union began its organizational campaign among Respondent 's employees.
During this time, Respondent, through its officials, made it clear to the employees
that Respondent was opposed to the Union. The record reveals that both before
and after the election several threats were made by Respondent's supervisors to
the employees concerning their union activities . These incidents are not alleged
as unfair labor practices in the complaint, and were offered by the General Counsel
only as background evidence. The record reveals that prior to the election both
Hutchinson , superintendent of the peeling and sectionizing departments , and Mrs.
Tew, forelady of the sectionizing department, interrogated certain employees about
their union activities and made threats concerning them. The Union received a
majority of the votes at the election. However, shortly after the election, Respondent
filed a protest with the Regional Director concerning the election, and accordingly
the Union was not certified by the Board until April 21, 1953. After the election,
certain of Respondent 's officials continued to engage in threats to various employees
concerning their union activities. A number of the employees testified that imme-
diately after the election their various supervisors became much more strict con-
cerning the work and output than they had been theretofore, and were constantly
criticizing the employees about their work, although they were doing as well as they
could and had in no way changed their work performance after the election. There
is evidence in the record that the fruit available to Respondent during this period
was not of the best quality and was poorer than it had been in other years. Never-
theless, Respondent was insisting that the employees turn out what is referred to in
the record as grade A, or the best quality, pack. On the first working day after
the election, Hutchinson assembled the peelers and told them that they had now
gotten what they wanted, the Union, and that from then on, things were going to
be different; that they had had a gravy train and that in the future the fruit would
have to be peeled as clean as a pane of glass and they would be required to produce
a grade A pack. He also told them they had been getting away with "murder" and
that that would be changed from then on. This was substantially admitted by
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hutchinson . He admitted calling the peelers together on the first working day
after the election and making a speech to them in which he told them that they
would have to peel the fruit better than they had been. He admitted telling them
that the Company was determined to pack grade A fruit only, that they had elected
the Union and now had what they wanted, and that everyone must make the best
of it. He denied referring to a pane of glass, but said that he held up one piece of
fruit poorly peeled and another piece well peeled , and told the peelers they would
have to peel all of the fruit well. Austin Caruso, president of Respondent , admitted
that it was no secret that Respondent did not want the Union, and that it had so
advised its supervisors and had informed them that they had a right to discuss the
Union with the employees , but that they were not to make any threats to them
concerning it. Both Caruso and Hutchinson admitted that Respondent had a lot
of poor fruit that season and that it was a bad year for the fruit. In spite of these
admitted facts, Respondent shortly after the election changed its pack to a larger
size can and insisted upon the production of a grade A pack exclusively, because
there was little or no market for a grade B pack in the large size cans. Caruso also
admitted that after the election a lot of the employees complained that Respondent
was discriminating against them, and that the employees knew that Respondent was
opposed to the Union and had campaigned against it . As previously noted, none of
the foregoing facts were alleged as unfair labor practices and were offered only as
background evidence.
On or about January 21 or 22, an incident occurred at the plant concerning June
Hubler, one of the sectionizers . Prior to this incident , the employees who were
members of the Union had appointed a committee to handle grievances with Re-
spondent , including , among others , Bryant, Langston and Jack Taylor, who were
among the leaders of the Union. Mrs. Taylor and Miss King were also active lead-
ers among the union employees in the sectionizing department . Around 10 a. m.
Hubler came to Mrs. Lanier and King crying and said that she had been fired by
Hutchinson . Lanier and King spoke to Hutchinson about it and he advised them
that Hubler had not been fired. They told Hubler to take it up with the commit-
tee appointed by the Union. She proceeded to the peeling department . At that time
the peelers were out on a break or rest period. It is undisputed in the record that
these rest periods occurred periodically during the working day. An areaway or
alley ran adjacent to the peeling department and separated it from the cafeteria, and
the peelers and many other employees congregated in this alley during break and
lunch periods. The peelers were congregated there when Hubler came up to them
with her complaint . She advised them that she had been discharged and did not
know why, and they asked her if she wanted them to take it up with Respondent.
She told them that she did. Several members of the committee including Bryant
and Langston sought out Hutchinson and met him in the alley. They discussed the
discharge and Hutchinson advised them that he had not discharged Hubler , but in-
stead had reprimanded her for spending too much time in the restroom neglecting
her work and had threatened to discharge her if she repeated the offense . While the
discussion between Hutchinson and the committee was going on, the break period
ended at approximately 10:15 a. m. The peelers did not return to work but re-
mained in the alley until the matter was settled . While there is some dispute as to
the facts leading up to Hubler's reprimand , it is apparent from the record that she
was not actually discharged , but had been reprimanded and was under the mistaken
impression that she had been discharged when she reported her grievance to the
committee . The record reveals that substantially all of the sectionizers continued
to work during this incident . Several of them may have been present in the alley,
possibly the committee members to whom Hubler first complained . While Hutch-
inson testified that a group of 10 or 12 sectionizers came into the alley during the
incident , all of the witnesses for the General Counsel denied this . In addition, Tew,
Respondent 's forelady of the sectionizers and a witness for Respondent , testified
that none of the sectionizers left their work during the Hubler incident except King
and Lanier . It is undisputed in the record that the discussion with Hutchinson con-
tinued for approximately 15 minutes after the break period ended . The matter was
settled to the satisfaction of everyone and Hubler and all of the other employees in-
cluding the peelers returned to work. All of the evidence indicates that the dura-
tion of the work stoppage by the peelers during the discussion between the commit-
tee and Hutchinson was approximately 15 minutes . Hutchinson himself said it did
not last more than 20 minutes . Tew testified that the entire incident including the
break period lasted about 30 minutes, which is the same as the testimony of the other
witnesses . The record reveals that the grievance was settled to the satisfaction of
everybody, including Respondent.
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 381
Sometime after the Hubler incident, possibly later the same day or the following
day, Hutchinson appointed a committee among the employees to process any
grievances the employees might have with Respondent in the future, in order that a
large number of the employees would not cease work when such disputes arose.
Hutchinson himself selected this committee and advised the employees that he would
meet with it whenever they had a grievance, and that its purpose was to prevent gath-
erings of larger groups in connection with such grievances. By coincident, the com-
mittee appointed by Hutchinson was substantially the same as the committee earlier
selected by the Union, and the record reveals that the employees had no dissatisfac-
tion with the membership of the committee selected by Hutchinson.
Either the same day the committee was appointed by Hutchinson or within a few
days thereafter, the Grantham incident occurred. Mrs. Grantham was employed
as an inspector in the sectionizing department. Hutchinson complained to her about
the quality of her work, contending that she was not doing enough inspecting and not
rejecting enough work. Thereafter about 9.30 a. m. Graham criticized one of
the sectionizers for some bad fruit which Grantham found while inspecting. An
argument ensued between the two employees. Shortly thereafter the criticized em-
ployee complained to Hutchinson that Grantham was threatening to have her fired if
Grantham found any more bad work. Hutchinson advised the criticized employee
to forget about the incident and continue working, but shortly thereafter took the
matter up with Grantham and criticized her for making such a statement to an em-
ployee. Grantham denied that she had made any such statement to the criticized
employee. Grantham said that she had threatened to bring the bad work to
Hutchinson if she found any more, and had not threatened either to bring the em-
ployee to Hutchinson or have her fired. Hutchinson replied that another employee
working next to the criticized employee had heard the conversation and would corrob-
orate the criticized employee. Grantham suggested that he call both employees and
she would confront them but Hutchinson said, "No, let's forget about it and return
to work." Instead of doing so, Grantham returned to the criticized employee and
complained to her about what she had told Hutchinson. A serious argument be-
tween the two ensued and Tew, the forelady, appeared on the scene. Grantham was
upset by the incident and retired to the restroom crying.
Sometime thereafter she was advised by Tew that Hutchinson wanted to see her
about the matter. Hutchinson had sent for Grantham after he learned of the second
argument between the two employees. A conference among the concerned em-
ployees and Tew, Hutchinson, and John Walsh, Respondent's vice president in charge
of production, took place. At this conference the criticized employee and the em-
ployee who heard the conversation accused Grantham of making certain statements.
Grantham denied having made them and insisted that her version of what she said to
the employee was correct. In effect, each accused the other of lying. Hutchinson
told Grantham that if any such thing happened again he would fire her. Grantham
complained that if she was going to receive such treatment she might as well resign
because any employee could always say such things about her. Hutchinson told
her that she could quit if she wanted to, but in any event that if it happened again
she would be fired. Grantham complained that she could not work under such
conditions. Hutchinson told her to make her own decision.
Grantham then decided that she would take her grievance to the committee, in
particular Jack Taylor. Apparently this was some time between 11 and 11:30 a. m.
Grantham came into the peeling room crying and told some of the peelers who
were members of the committee either that she had been mistreated or that she
had been fired. Some of them understood her to claim she had been fired, while
others testified that she said that she could not stand the treatment she had been
receiving. In any event, she informed them that she had a grievance against Re-
spondent. At the time she made the complaint the peelers were working. This
was about 11:30 a. m. Shortly thereafter the peelers had their luncheon break,
which normally lasted for one-half hour, but on occasions was longer. The record
reveals that the peelers sometimes went to lunch in two shifts, from 11:45 to 12:15
and 12.15 to 12:45, and sometimes went to lunch all at the same time. The evi-
dence in the record establishes that on this day all of the peelers were sent to lunch
at the same time During this luncheon break, apparently some of the sectionizers
also had their luncheon break. During it Bryant discussed the grievance with
Grantham and asked her if she wished the committee to take it up with Hutchinson.
She advised them that she did and accordingly Bryant got the committee together
and went to discuss the grievance with Hutchinson.
The discussion took place in the alley, which was crowded with all of the peelers
and a sizeable number of the sectionizers. Apparently the discussion proceeded
for some time with various groups talking back and forth and no progress being
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made. Both Walsh and Caruso entered into the discussion and were talking to
various groups of employees about the Grantham matter. While this was going on,
the luncheon period ended and the employees who were gathered in the alley did not
return to work and apparently did not intend to do so until the Grantham grievance
was settled . Although Respondent at various points contended that this work stop-
page lasted for several hours, the record reveals that the employees other than the
committee returned to work after the luncheon break in from 15 minutes to 11/z
hours at the most . This is established not only by the testimony of the employees
called by the General Counsel , but also by the officials of Respondent who testified
concerning it. Observing that no progress was being made with such a large group
discussing the matter , Hutchinson suggested to Bryant and Taylor that the committee
come to his office and discuss the grievance with Respondent 's officials , and that
She other employees return to work.
It is undisputed in the record that Bryant told all of the other employees to return
to work because Respondent 's officials were going to discuss the grievance with the
committee , and that after having been so told by Bryant , all of the employees
returned to work except the committee previously chosen by Hutchinson to process
grievances with Respondent . Bryant said that the employees returned to work and
that the conference with Respondent in Hutchinson 's office began about 20 or 30
minutes after the luncheon break ended . Langston , who was not a member of the
committee chosen by Hutchinson , testified that the employees all returned to work
about 15 or 20 minutes after the end of the luncheon period, at the time Bryant told
them to and when the committee was going up the stairs to Hutchinson 's office.
Langston testified that all of the peelers had a luncheon break at the same time on that
day because the fruit had piled up and Elliott, the foreman of the peeling depart-
ment, had told them all to take their luncheon period at the same time. Grantham
said that the meeting took place a short time after the end of the luncheon period.
Caruso, Respondent's president , testified that he went home for lunch from noon
to 1 p . m., that when he returned to the plant the group of peelers and sectionizers
were gathered in the alley discussing the incident , and that he talked to some of
them at that time about it He confirmed the fact that Bryant told the employees
to return to work when the committee went to meet with Respondent 's officials, and
that the employees did so. He stated that the meeting in Hutchinson's office took
place about 15 minutes after he came into the alley , which was about 1 p. m
Hutchinson said that the group of peelers and sectionizers were congregated in
the alley discussing the Grantham matter until nearly 1 p. m He stated that they
thought she had been fired and that he did not straighten them out on that point
because there were too many talking . He also confirmed the fact that after Respond-
ent agreed to meet with the committee and discuss the grievance Bryant told the
other employees to return to work and they did so He said that this was about
12:45 or 1 p. m Walsh also testified that all of the employees except the grievance
committee returned to work when Respondent 's officials went to the meeting with
the grievance committee He thought that the meeting with the committee began
about noon , but this does not accord with the recollection of all of the other witnesses,
including those called by Respondent . Tew, forelady of the sectionizing department,
said that only a few of the sectionizers joined the discussion in the alley and that it
lasted about 30 minutes , after which the meeting in the office took place . Austin, a
sectionizer , called by Respondent , said that the luncheon period of the sectionizers
began about 11 30 that day. Elliott , foreman of the peelers , confirmed the fact
that if there was plenty of fruit on the belt all of the peelers went to lunch at 11 -45,
and that quite frequently after the election he had to shut down the belt because it
was overloaded with fruit . He did not confirm or deny that all of the peelers went
to lunch at the same time on this occasion. Taylor said that the employees returned
to work about 10 minutes after the luncheon period ended , after Respondent had
suggested the office meeting with the grievance committee and Bryant and he had
advised all of the employees to return to work because the committee would handle
the matter with Respondent.
The meeting with Respondent was attended by Caruso, Walsh, Hutchinson, Tew,
Grantham , the criticized employee , the employee who heard the discussion between
her and Grantham , and the committee originally selected by Hutchinson , including
among others Bryant and Taylor. At this meeting Grantham 's grievance was dis-
cussed, and it is clear from the testimony of Respondent 's officials that she did not
claim to have been fired but contended that she could not work under the conditions
that existed , and the big issue was whether or not she or the criticized employee had
lied about their conversation . During the meeting Caruso advised the committee
that in the future when the employees had a grievance the committee should take
it up with Respondent instead of all of the employees or a large number of them
engaging in a work stoppage , and the committee agreed that this would be a good
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 383
procedure to follow. After considerable discussion pro and con on the merits of
the Grantham grievance, the matter was settled, and everybody returned to work
including Grantham. The record reveals that the grievance was settled to the satis-
faction of all concerned , including the employees ' committee and Respondent.
On February 3, Mr. and Mrs. Baer, who had been employed by Respondent as a
peeler and sectionizer respectively and had left their employment about a week
before, returned to the plant and asked Hutchinson for jobs. Hutchinson rehired
Baer as a peeler, but turned down Mrs Baer because he did not need a sectionizer,
Mrs. Baer remained on the premises of the plant that day. The next morning, Feb-
ruary 4, Hutchinson observed that Mrs Baer was again at the plant and talking to
some of the other sectionizers. He took this matter up with Mr. Baer and asked
him to take Mrs. Baer home. An argument ensued between Hutchinson and Baer
and the upshot of it was that Hutchinson fired Baer. This occurred shortly after
7 a. in Baer thereafter complained to Bryant and Taylor that Hutchinson had fired
him without cause. As in the other instances, Bryant asked Baer if he wanted the
committee to take up the grievance with Hutchinson, and Baer replied that he did.
Bryant and Taylor assembled the members of the committee appointed by Hutchinson
and they went to his office to see him. He was not there. They were looking
for him when they met Walsh in the alley adjacent to the peeling department. Walsh
asked them what the trouble was and they told him. Walsh replied that he was not
familiar with the facts of the Baer discharge, and that they should take it up with
Hutchinson. Some discussion took place between the committee and Walsh. While
this was going on, Hutchinson came along the alley and saw the committee and
Walsh engaged in conversation. He walked tip to the men and told them either to=
get back to work or to get out of the plant. Bryant testified that they told Hutchin-
son that the committee wanted to talk to him about something and that he replied
that he had no time for talk and they should either work or get out. Bryant then
asked him if that was the way things stood and Hutchinson said, "Yes." Bryant saw
Taylor speak to Hutchinson but did not hear what was said between them. Taylor
said that after Hutchinson made the above statement, Taylor spoke to him and re-
minded him that according to his own instructions the committee was supposed to
meet with him on such matters Taylor testified that Hutchinson replied that he
was not interested in any committee or union and that they should either get to work
or get out
Walsh testified that around 7.30 a. in. the small group of employees composing
the committee came to him and spoke to him about Baer's discharge . Walsh said
that he advised the committee that he was not familiar with the facts and that they
should take it up with Hutchinson. According to Walsh, after some discussion be-
tween them he told the employees to return to work or leave the plant. He confirmed'
that while they were talking Hutchinson came along and told all of the committee to,
return to work, that there was fruit on the belt to be peeled. Hutchinson testified
that after he discharged Baer, pursuant to Respondent's practice of immediately giving
discharged employees their pay he got Baer's timecard and took it to the office to get
his check. The office did not open until 8 a. in. Hutchinson returned to the plant
area sometime after 8 a. m .-apparently about 8:20 a. in. While proceeding through
the alley he saw the committee appointed by him talking to Walsh As he ap-
proached, he heard them discussing something about the Union. Hutchinson said
that he saw that the belt was loaded with fruit so he told the employees of that fact and
that they should return to work. According to Hutchinson, he then left to seek the.
Baers. All of the witnesses agreed that the committee returned to work after
Hutchinson told them to do so. Hutchinson testified that he was not asked and
never refused to discuss the Baer discharge with the committee or any member of it.
This conflicts with the testimony of the members of the committee, and in effect with
the facts admitted by Walsh Walsh admitted that the committee was attempting
to take up the Baer discharge with him and that he told them to take it up with.
Hutchinson, who knew the facts. Yet when Hutchinson appeared on the scene
while the committee was discussing the matter with Walsh, who was Hutchinson's,
superior, Walsh made no comment when Hutchinson ordered the committee to return,
to work or get out of the plant, and in fact testified that he himself had, told the•
committee the same thing. In view of Respondent's admitted desire to have its com-
mittee of the employees take up grievances with Respondent, Walsh's actions upon this,
occasion are difficult to understand.
A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me and I
find that Bryant and Taylor asked Hutchinson to discuss the grievance with the: com-
mittee, and that Hutchinson refused to do so and ordered them to return to work.
Walsh admitted that the committee was attempting to take up the Baer grievance
with him and that he advised them to take it up with Hutchinson. In the light of
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these undisputed facts, it seems incredible that the committee would not have taken
up the Baer discharge with Hutchinson. Hutchinson's version of the conversation
conflicts with the established facts, as admitted by other witnesses of Respondent.
The committee returned to work and advised the other peelers what had happened.
Thereupon a discussion ensued among the peelers to the effect that if Respondent
was going to discharge the members of the Union one by one and refuse to meet with
the committee it had appointed to discuss such matters, it would be better to go out
on strike to protect their position . Accordingly, the peelers agreed among them-
selves that they would engage in a strike. In order to prevent spoilage and waste of
the fruit, Bryant notified Elliott, the foreman of the peelers, that they were going
to strike in 10 minutes. This was done so that Elliott could stop the fruit belt and
thus prevent fruit from spilling on the floor after the peelers left their work. There-
after Bryant went to the sectionizing department and informed King, one of the lead-
ers of the Union, that the peelers were going to strike because Respondent refused
to meet and discuss the grievance with the committee, and that those sectionizers who
wished to join the strike should do so when Bryant returned to the entrance of the sec-
tionizing department and gave them the signal. Bryant returned to the peeling de-
partment. He waited 12 minutes and Elliott had not shut off the fruit belt, so
Bryant gave him an additional 10 minutes. In the meantime, Tew had learned of the
impending strike and advised Hutchinson of it when he came into the sectionizing
department. Hutchinson advised her to tell the various sectionizers that they could
remain at work if they wanted to, that there was plenty of work, and that they did
not have to go out on strike with the others. At the end of the second 10-minute
period of notice Bryant went to the entranceway of the sectionizing department and
waved to the sectionizers to come out with the peelers on strike. At about the same
time several peelers were dispatched to the other departments of the plant, the ware-
house, the canning department, and the teedmill, to advise the employees in those de-
partments of the strike. After the signal was given, a number of the sectionizers
started to leave their work and department to join the strike. The strike began about
8:25 or 8.30 a. m., according to all of the witnesses including those called by Re-
spondent . As the sectionizers left their department, they climbed over some steps
necessary to traverse in order to get outside Hutchinson stationed himself at these
steps. As each sectionizer approached him, he told her to go back to work or she
would be fired. A number of the witnesses called by the General Counsel stated that
Hutchinson in effect told each sectionizer to return to work or she would be dis-
charged. Hutchinson admitted that he stationed himself at the place indicated,
but said that he told each employee that she did not have to join the strike, that it
was not necessary to leave the plant, and that she should return to work. He denied
threatening any of them with discharge if they did not return to work and went out
on strike. He admitted that a number of them turned back and returned to work
after he made his statement to them as they were about to leave. In fact, he testified
that if he had not been there a great many more of them would have joined the
strike. Tew said that she did not hear what Hutchinson said to the employees as they
approached the steps on their way out.
There were approximately 121 sectionizers employed in the department and the
record reveals that 38 of them left the department and went out on strike. As the
employees left their various places of work they gathered in the alley adjacent to the
peeling department. Some engaged in securing their clothes and personal posses-
sions, others their lunches and all were congregating in the alley from various parts
of the plant . While they were assembling and gathering there, Caruso, Walsh, and
Hutchinson engaged in conversations with some of them. It is undisputed in the rec-
ord that all of them left the premises of Respondent within about 15 or 20 minutes of
the beginning of the strike. They marched out of the gate at approximately 8:45
a. m. Caruso was told about the strike, and according to his own testimony, was
worried about whether there would be enough employees left in the warehouse de-
partment to prevent spoilage of the fruit. He proceeded to that department and
discovered that only a few of those employees were joining the strike. He then went
into the alley and engaged in a discussion with King and Ruth Taylor. Some of
Respondent's witnesses said that Hutchinson told the employees either to check out
or get off the premises , apparently in reference to the testimony concerning his threat
to discharge the sectionizers if they participated in the strike, but Hutchinson him-
self refuted that when he testified that practically all of the employees checked out
before they left their departments. There was some discussion between Mrs. Taylor
and Caruso about her work card. In addition to the timecards which the employees
checked out and which established the time worked, because they were on piece
work they also had work cards which showed the number of pieces of fruit they had
completed. Mrs. Taylor, because the employees normally turned in their work
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 385
cards in the afternoon , refused to turn in her work card at that time. Caruso told her
that she would either have to turn in her work card or get off the premises. Caruso
made no statement to that effect to either Bryant or Taylor, who Respondent
knew were the leaders of the employees. Caruso apparently had no discussion with
Bryant or Taylor while the employees were assembled in the alley. In the course
of his discussion with Mrs. Taylor , he finally informed her that if the employees did
not get out he would have to call the sheriff . This statement was not heard by either
Bryant, Taylor, or any of the peelers, who were the leaders of the strike.
Caruso , who impressed me as by far the most frank and candid witness called by
Respondent, testified that when he learned about the strike he originally intended to
meet with the committee about the grievance and let the rest of the employees work,
but that after he had returned from the warehouse to the plant, Sal Caruso, superin-
tendent of the warehouse , came to him and advised him that the employees in the
warehouse were getting restless and that if some action was not taken quickly, Re-
spondent might lose them and they might join the other strikers . Caruso frankly
admitted that he then decided he had better get the striking employees out immedi-
ately before he lost the rest of the employees. It was at that point that he had the dis-
cussion with Mrs. Taylor about geting out or calling the sheriff. Apparently at about
this time Bryant received a phone call in the plant cafeteria , and shortly thereafter
all of the striking employees marched out of the plant and off the premises . Bryant
testified that he looked at his watch when the strike began, that it was then 8:25 a. in.,
and that he again checked it when they marched through the gate and it was then
8:45 a. in. Substantially all of the other witnesses , including those called by
Respondent , corroborated this fact . Hutchinson testified that at no time before
the employees walked out was Respondent given an opportunity to discuss their
grievance with them , which is of course directly refuted not only by the testimony
of the members of the committee appointed by Hutchinson but also by Walsh,
Respondent 's vice president and Hutchinson's superior. Hutchinson admitted that
the last employee to leave the plant on strike was Kenneth Hastings , a checker in
the peeling department , who left about 8:50 a. in. Hastings testified that he con-
tinued working for a few minutes on the belt after the peelers had left the department
checking the fruit peeled by them and that he was the last striker to leave the
premises and go out the gate. He testified that it took him only 15 minutes to clean
up the work after the peelers had left the department.
On the afternoon of February 4, a committee of five of the striking employees re-
turned to the plant Jo discuss the dispute with Respondent . The members of this
committee were Bryant , Taylor, Langston , King, and Lanier. They met with Re-
spondent around 2 p. in. Present for Respondent were Caruso , Walsh, Hutchinson,
counsel for Respondent , and 1 or 2 other officials. No discussion of grievances took
place at this meeting , which only lasted for about 15 minutes . Bryant acted as
spokesman for the employees . When the committee observed that Respondent's
attorney was present representing it and taking notes, they were unwilling to proceed
with the meeting without having a representative of their own , and asked Caruso if
they could have such a representative. They were advised by Respondent that they
could and asked whom they wanted. When Bryant told Respondent's officials that
they wanted Frank E'Dalgo, an organizer of the Union, Respondent's officials in-
formed the committee that they could not have E'Dalgo as their representative be-
cause Respondent had refused to recognize the Union and had filed a protest concern-
ing the election , and felt that to permit E'Dalgo to represent the employees at such
a meeting would amount to recognition of the Union. It was undisputed by all of
the witnesses that there was no discussion at this meeting concerning the cause of
the strike , the Baer discharge , or any other matter except the issue of a representative
for the employees . When the committee was advised that they could not have
E'Dalgo as their representative the meeting ended and the employees left the office.
No arrangement was made for a future meeting . Shortly after the employees left
the plant, Arvin Teston, Respondent's guard at the gate, advised Caruso that he over-
heard Bryant make a statement to the other four members of the committee as they
walked out of the gate. Teston said that he told Caruso that he heard Bryant say to
the others that they were going to get their jobs back and that when they came out
again they would bring out the rest of the employees until the plant was shut down.
Caruso testified that shortly after the meeting with the committee, Teston came to
him and told him that he had heard Bryant say, in a conversation with the others
as they walked out the gate, that when they got their jobs back they were goine to
take all the rest of the employees out on strike with them the next time. Bryant de-
nied that he made any such statement or that any such conversation took place when
the committee was leaving the plant or at any other time. He was corroborated as to
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this by Langston, Lanier, and King, all members of the committee who were with him
at the time.
After the meeting of the committee with Respondent's officials, the striking em-
ployees had a meeting at the local union hall. E'Dalgo advised them to return to
work and to do so unconditionally The employees authorized Taylor to act for
them and to make a telephone call to Respondent submitting such offer. Taylor
called Caruso that same afternoon and offered on behalf of all the strikers to return
to work unconditionally. Bryant corroborated this and said that the call was made
in his presence. Caruso admitted that he received a telephone call from Taylor the
afternoon of the strike. Caruso said that he could not recall whether Taylor asked
if the strikers could come back to work at that time. He admitted that Taylor at some
time called and asked him if the strikers could return to work and that it might have
been on that occasion but that he was not sure. Caruso said that he told Taylor that
he would let him know and that he did this because he did not want to talk much to
the employees without consulting his attorney. Caruso also testified that he talked to
Taylor only once on the phone. Caruso described the sequence of events after the
strike as the meeting on the afternoon of the strike, then the call from Taylor, and
the next morning the second meeting with the committee It is apparent from his
testimony, as well as that of Taylor and Bryant, that the oral offer to return uncon-
ditionally was made on the afternoon of February 4. Caruso also admitted that
Taylor advised him that he was calling on behalf of all the employees who went out
on strike.
The next morning, February 5, the committee of the strikers returned to the plant
to see Respondent's officials. They were advised that a meeting would be held at
11 a. in. The committee was composed of the same five employees, except Clark had
replaced Langston. At 11 a. in. the committee met with Respondent's officials, who
were substantially the same as those at the meeting of the day before, including
Caruso, Walsh, Hutchinson, and counsel for Respondent. At this meeting, Taylor
acted as principal spokesman for the employees. He immediately advised the offi-
cials of the company that the strikers wished to return to work unconditionally and
were ready to forget whatever grievances or disputes they had. All of the witnesses
agreed that this meeting lasted about ll/_, hours. The employees were not given any
reply to their request to return to work unconditionally, but were advised that the
officials of Respondent wished to meet with its board of directors and would let them
know later. There was considerable discussion at this meeting with the committee
about the employees' grievances, which discussion was initiated by Respondent
Counsel for Respondent contended to the committee that the employees were strik-
ing to secure a contract, but each of them denied the strike was for any such purpose.
Apparently, in view of the fact that the employees were then willing to return to work
unconditionally, Respondent wanted to know why they had gone out on strike in
the first place. Taylor replied that they had gone out on strike in order to secure
better conditions and treatment than they had been receiving since the election. Tay-
lor testified that Hutchinson asked them why they had not discussed the grievance
with him before striking, and that Taylor replied to Hutchinson that he had refused
to meet with them and that they could not force anyone to do anything when he
would not hear them. Taylor said that he told Hutchinson that he knew that they
had tried to meet with him there in the alley but that he had ignored the committee
and in effect violated his own proposal that the committee selected by him meet
with Respondent when the employees had a grievance. This testimony was not de-
nied by Hutchinson or any of Respondent's officials in substance, Caruso corrobo-
rated the testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel about this meeting. The
meeting lasted until about 12.30 p in. Thereafter the officials of Respondent held a
luncheon meeting to decide Respondent's answer to the employees' request to return
to work unconditionally. On the same day, some time either before or after the
meeting of the committee with Respondent's officials, the committee sent Respondent
a telegram on behalf of all of the striking employees advising Respondent that they
wished to return to work unconditionally. This telegram was received by Caruso
and admitted in evidence as an exhibit.
At the luncheon meeting of Respondent's officials, they decided that the striking
employees could not return to work and should be refused reinstatement to their
jobs, because, upon advice of counsel for Respondent, the employees had engaged
in a series of illegal sitdown strikes and work stoppages, and because of the state-
ment Bryant allegedly made the day before to the rest of the striking committee as
they walked out of the gate, to the effect that they should return to work and get
their jobs back and when they engaged in another strike they should try to get all
of the employees to join it and shut down the plant. Counsel for Respondent and
some of Respondent's witnesses contended that the employees had engaged in a
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 387
protracted series of work stoppages, but the record reveals, and it was stipulated by
the parties, that the only work stoppages involved in this case were those at the time
of the Hubler and Grantham incidents and the strike of February 4. Respondent,
instead of communicating to the employees its decision not to permit them to re-
turn to work, advised the gate guard to tell them whenever they came to the plant
that they could not return to work. The phraseology used apparently was not that
they were fired but that they could not return to work. Caruso said that this decision
was reached because of the previous work stoppages, the fact that the grievances were
not authentic, the illegal strike, and Bryant's statement reported to Caruso by the
guard. Caruso stated that counsel for Respondent had advised him that the work
stoppages were illegal and constituted sitdown strikes Because Respondent had
advised the committee that it would let them know the answer to their request around
2 or 3 p. m , the committee returned to the plant then expecting to meet with Re-
spondent, but they were informed by the guard that the strikers had been ruled out
and could not return to work. Thereafter when various employees made individual
applications for work to Respondent in each case they were advised that they could
not return to work because they had engaged in the strike. Teston, the gate guard,
testified that he was instructed by Respondent's officials to advise the employees that
they could no longer return to work and not to let anyone in who had gone out on
strike on February 4 Walsh confirmed the fact that counsel for Respondent ad-
vised its officials at the luncheon meeting that they could fire the employees because
they had engaged in an illegal strike. Although it is undisputed in the record that
the luncheon meeting of Respondent's officials took place on February 5, 2 days
thereafter on February 7, Caruso by letter replied to Taylor's telegram, offering on
behalf of all the strikers to return to work unconditionally, advising him that if he
would furnish Respondent with a list of all striking employees, Respondent would
take their request under consideration. The conflict between this letter and the
decision reached on February 5 was not explained in the record
On February 6, Grantham, who was absent the day of the strike, came to the
plant for her paycheck. She was advised by Hutchinson that she could return to
work because she had not participated in the strike, but refused to do so until the
others were given back their jobs. At Hutchinson's request, she signed a written
statement to that effect. On February 10, she asked Hutchinson to reemploy her
and he refused to do so. On February 10, Mrs. Zimmerman, a former employee of
Respondent who had left her job on December 7, 1952, because of illness and an
operation, returned to the plant and sought employment. She was refused employ-
ment because she had in the meantime been replaced. On February 4, no new em-
ployees were hired by Respondent. On the morning of February 5, before the
committee met for the second time with the officials of Respondent, Hutchinson
hired either 3, 4, or 5 new peelers. However, this hieing took place after the oral
offer by Taylor on behalf of all of the striking employees on the afternoon of Feb-
ruary 4 to return to work unconditionally. On February 11, the striking employees'
committee by letter replied to Respondent's letter of February 7, reiterating their
offer to return to work unconditionally and furnishing to Respondent pursuant to
its request a list of the names of the employees who went out on strike. None of
the striking employees had been reinstated by Respondent at the time of the hearing.
B The threat by Hutchinson to discharge the employees who engaged in union or
concerted activities
As previously noted, the only independent allegation of a violation of Section 8
(a) (1) in the complaint was that on February 4, Hutchinson threatened to dis-
charge employees if they engaged in union and concerted activities. This incident
has been discussed in the foregoing chronology of events, and is the occasion when
the sectionizers started to leave their depai tment on strike, and Hutchinson stationed
himself at the steps and spoke to each employee as she approached him. Six of the
striking employees testified that as the sectionizers approached Hutchinson he told
them to return to their spindles, and if they did not and went out on strike, they
would be fired. These six were Bryant, Langston, Wise, King, Boatwright, and Mrs.
Hastings. While their testimony varied somewhat as to the exact words used by
Hutchinson, in substance they all testified that he told each sectionizer to go back
to work and that if she did not do so and left the plant on strike she was fired Allen,
another striking sectionizer called by General Counsel, testified that Hutchinson told
the sectionizers as they went over the stairs that if they wanted to work to go back
to their spindles and if not to get off Respondent's property. Mrs. Taylor, who later
engaged in the discussion in the alley with Caruso about turning in her work card,
334511-:ii-cot 109-2b
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said that she heard Hutchinson say to the sectionizers as they left to go back to work
or to check out. From a preponderance of the testimony in the entire record, it is
clear that such a statement was made by Caruso after the employees were gathered
in the alley . Hastings , the checker in the peeling department , who has previously
been identified as the last striking employee to leave the plant because he stayed be-
hind to complete the fruit on the peeling belt, testified that as he finished his work
after the others had left, Hutchinson came up and spoke to him. Hastings told
Hutchinson that he was going out to find out what it was all about . Hastings said
Hutchinson replied that if Hastings wanted to stay there would be plenty of work
but that if he went out he was through . Zimmerman , an employee in the warehouse,
testified that Sal Caruso, superintendent of the warehouse , spoke to him as he was
walking out on strike and asked him if he knew that if he did not come back he
would lose his job. Zimmerman replied that he did not know that it was like that,
but if it was he would lose his job because he belonged to the Union . Caruso
testified that while the employees were congregating in the alley he and some of the
supervisors told them either to go back to work or to check out. Hutchinson ad-
mitted stationing himself at the head of the stairway over which the sectionizers
crossed to leave the department and speaking to each of them as they approached.
He said he asked them if they knew why they were leaving and 95 percent of them
said they did not. He further stated that he then told them that if they wanted to
work to go back to their spindles, that there was pleny of work to be done. He
denied telling them that if they did not do so they would be fired . He admitted
that a great many of them turned back and returned to their spindles , and that if
he had not been there a great percentage of them would have gone out on strike.
He also testified that practically every one of the strikers clocked out. He further
stated that later in the alleyway he told a number of employees if they were not
going to work to clock out and turn in their work cards. Inasmuch as most of the
employees , according to Hutchinson 's own statement , had clocked out, it is difficult
to understand the various statements made to them in the alley to clock out or return
to work. The testimony of Hastings and Zimmerman referred to above was not
denied. A preponderance of credible evidence in the entire record convinces me
a,d I find that Hutchinson threatened the striking employees with discharge if they
did not return to work and refrain from striking , and that thereby Respondent inter-
fered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in violation of the Act.
C. The discriminatory refusal to reinstate the striking employees
As previously found , all of the striking employees asked to return to work uncon-
ditionally upon three separate occasions . On the afternoon of February 4, the day
of the strike , Taylor on behalf of all of the striking employees asked that they be
permitted to return to work unconditionally in a telephone conversation with Caruso.
At the meeting of the committee with the officials of Respondent on the morning of
February 5 , Taylor again on behalf of all the striking employees unconditionally
offered to return to work. Either before or after this meeting, but in any event on
February 5, Taylor on behalf of all of the striking employees by telegram advised
Respondent that they wished to return to their jobs unconditionally . There is no
dispute in the record that on each of these occasions the employees advised Respond-
ent that they were willing to return to work unconditionally and to abandon what-
ever grievances they might have had. The record reveals that at the meeting of
Respondent 's officials on February 5 immediately after the meeting with the com-
mittee of the striking employees , Respondent decided not to reinstate any of the
striking employees and that from then on they were no longer employees of Re-
spondent . The record further reveals that this decision was based upon the advice
of Respondent's counsel that the striking employees could be discharged because
they had engaged in a series of illegal or sitdown strikes and because the statement,
alleged to have been made by Bryant when the committee was leaving the plant
after its first meeting with Respondent on February 4, established that the striking
employees did not in fact intend to return to work unconditionally and that their
offer to return to work was not unconditional.
Respondent has obviously proceeded on mistaken conclusions of law. There is
nothing about the work stoppages in connection with the Hubler and Grantham
grievances or the strike of February 4 which in any way constituted illegal or sitdown
strikes. In each case the employees clearly engaged in concerted activity protected
by Section 7 of the Act. Counsel for Respondent at various times during the hearing
contended that the three work stoppages were not because of the grievances con-
cerning the respective discharges or threats of discharge , but were caused , alterna-
tively , by the employees' desire to compel Respondent to recognize the Union, to
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 389
compel Respondent to increase wages, or to compel Respondent to enter into a con-
tract with the Union. There is no evidence in the record to support such contentions
and apparently they existed only as theories of counsel. In his brief, counsel for
Respondent has abandoned them and now contends that the three work stoppages
were to compel Respondent to abandon its protest to the election. As with the
other contentions, there is nothing in the record to support such a theory. In each
incident the facts reveal that the employees had, or at least thought they had, a real
.grievance. In both the Hubler and Grantham incidents, the affected employee com-
plained that she was either fired or threatened with discharge. The outcome of each
.grievance demonstrates the invalidity of counsel's contention. In both cases, as soon
as the grievance concerning the purported discharge of the individual was settled, the
-dispute ended and everyone returned to work. Counsel's theory is contrary to all
of the established facts. As to Respondent's contention that the work stoppages were
sitdown strikes, such a conclusion is contrary to established law on the subject.'
There is no evidence that the employees unlawfully seized Respondent's property,
or upon demand refused to yield possession of such property. The facts in the
Hubler case have been found. All told that the work stoppage lasted about 15
minutes, included only a small number of employees, and was settled by mutual
agreement between the parties. The Grantham stoppage lasted from 15 minutes to
1 Y2 hours at the most, and as soon as Respondent agreed to meet with the com-
mittee about the grievance, all of the employees except the committee returned to
work. This matter was also settled by mutual agreement between the parties. In
neither case was there any illegal seizure of Respondent's property, nor demand or
refusal to return such property or premises to Respondent. By no stretch of any
legal theories with which I am familiar could either incident be construed as an
illegal or sitdown strike. A careful analysis of the record reveals that Respondent
equated any interference with its production with illegal concerted activity. On
several occasions Caruso testified that because the work stoppages and strike of
February 4 interfered with Respondent's production, Respondent could not tolerate
them. Caruso admitted that on February 4 when he learned of the strike he intended
to negotiate the grievance with the committee, but when he ascertained that a sub-
stantial number of the employees had not joined the strike, and that further delay
might result in their joining it, he refused to negotiate and instead requested the
strikers to leave the plant immediately. His testimony reveals that he was most con-
cerned about production, and that his belief that the strikers were engaged in an
illegal activity both then and during the previous work stoppages was based upon the
interference to production. This is also demonstrated by his reaction to the report
of the statement alleged to have been made by Bryant. This statement indicated,
at least to Caruso, that the employees might subsequently engage in a more suc-
cessful strike which would close the plant and thus greatly and effectively interfere
with production. He frankly testified that this was one of the principal reasons
why he decided not to reinstate any of the strikers. It is of course self-evident that
work stoppages, strikes, and in fact many forms of concerted activity necessarily
interfere with production. Neverthless, such concerted activities are protected by
Section 7 of the Act. If work stoppages and strikes were to be construed as illegal
because they interfered with production, every strike and many forms of concerted
activity would be illegal, because to some degree they necessarily interfere with
production. To equate interference with production with illegality would in effect
nullify the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and eliminate the guaranteed right of
employees to engage in concerted activities. As with many of Respondent's other
theories, it is apparent that its position was a mistaken conclusion as to the law.
With respect to the Hubler and Grantham work stoppages, even assuming, as
is not the case, that such work stoppages were illegal or sitdown strikes, Respondent
had waived and condoned any participation by the employees in those stoppages by
settling the disputes by mutual agreement beween the employees and Respondent.
In both cases, the work stoppages occurred because of a grievance which the em.
ployees had. After discussion of the grievance, a settlement satisfactory to both
sides was reached, and in consideration thereof the employees returned to work.
Respondent's officials, as well as the General Counsel's witnesses, testified that in
both cases the matter was settled to the satisfaction of everyone and the dispute
terminated. Even if the work stoppages involved some conduct which might have
peen illegal or unprotected, to permit Respondent to repudiate settlement agree-
ments entered into and arrived at between the parties and to take punitive action
based upon concerted activities which were terminated as a result of an agreement
1 See Southern Oxygen Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 894, and N. L it. B v Southern Stlk
Mills, Inc., 209 F. 2d 155 (C. A 6), and cases cited in both.
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reached with Respondent, would certainly be contrary to the purpose of the Act
to eliminate industrial strife and encourage collective bargaining. The policy of
the Act is to encourage the settlement of labor disputes. To permit parties to
repudiate such settlements at will and take action contrary to such settlements
would not only violate such policy, but would be contrary to the general principles of
contract law. The undisputed and admitted fact that Respondent was willing to
and did employ all those who did not participate in the strike of February 4,
irrespective of their participation in the Hubler and Grantham work stoppages, also
establishes that Respondent had waived and condoned any such participation.
As in the Hubler and Grantham work stoppages, the strike of February 4 did not
constitute an illegal sitdown strike or a seizure of Respondent's premises and a
refusal to return them upon demand. It is undisputed in the record that the strike
occurred because of the discharge of Baer and Respondent's refusal to discuss this
grievance with t4 e employees' committee, even though such committee had been
appointed by Respondent for that purpose. When it is considered that Respondent's,
employees were newly organized, were not familiar with union procedures and
practices generally and had no union representative or official in the plant because
of Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union, that the strike occurred spontane-
ously as the result of the discharge of one of the employees, and that employees from
various departments of Respondent's plant took part in the strike, the period of time
of 15 or 20 minutes from the commencement of the strike to the leaving of the
premises by the striking employees does not seem unreasonable The strike began.
around 8.25 a. m., and the employees in the various departments other than the
peeling department who were unaware of the dispute had to be notified that the
employees were going to engage in concerted activities because of the dispute. As
the record shows, various peelers were dispatched by the leaders to the various de-
partments of the plant in order to advise the employees that a strike was impending
That the employees did not intend to seize Respondent's plant and unlawfully refuse
to vacate it is demonstrated by their good faith in notifying the foreman of the
peeling department of the impending strike, and twice giving him a period of time
within which to shut down the belt in order to prevent the spoilage of fruit. This.
is certainly inconsistent with Respondent's theory of an illegal seizure and unlawful
refusal to vacate the premises. As a matter of fact, no demand or request to vacate
the premises was ever made to any of the leaders of the employees or of the strike.
The only evidence in this respect is that Caruso, in a conversation with Mrs. Taylor
overheard by Mrs. King, told her that if the employees did not get out he would
have to call the sheriff This was 10 or 15 minutes after the strike began. The
employees were busy collecting their personal belongings, their clothing, and their
lunches and were gathering in the alley adjacent to the peeling department from
various points in the plant. Caruso frankly admitted that the reason he made this
statement to Mrs. Taylor was because he was concerned that additional employees
might join the strikers if they did not immediately leave the premises, and thereby
interfere with production to a greater extent than was already the case. It is un-
disputed in the record that this message was never conveyed to Bryant or Taylor,
whom Respondent knew to be the leaders of the employees and of the strike.
Within a few minutes after the employees gathered in the alleyway and Caruso
had made his statement to Mrs. Taylor, all of them marched out of the gate together.
The testimony of both the witnesses for Respondent and for the General Counsel
indicates that this was approximately 8:45 a. in. Under the circumstances, the em-
ployees seem to have used reasonable dispatch in assembling and going out on strike.
There is nothing in the record which would establish under existing principles of
law that the concerted activity of February 4 constituted either an illegal or a
sitdown strike as contended by Respondent.` Respondent admitted that one of the
principal reasons it refused to reinstate the employees was because they engaged in
the strike of February 4, which I find to be a concerted activity protected by Section
7 of the Act.
In addition to the work stoppages which have been found to be protected con-
certed activities, Respondent's other reason for refusing to reinstate the striking
employees upon their unconditional offer to return was because of the alleged state-
ment by Bryant reported to Caruso by Teston, the guard at,the gate. Four of the
members of the committee who met with Respondent's officials on that occasion and
left the plant together, including Bryant, denied that any such statement was made
by Bryant or anyone else The only witness to the contiary was Teston. A pre-
ponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me, and I find,
2Southern Oxyqen Company, Inr, and N. L R B v. Southern Silk Mills, Inc., supra.
'SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 391
that Bryant or any other member of the committee did not make such a statement.
However, even assuming arguendo that the statement was made, it would have no
,effect upon Respondent's refusal to reinstate the employees, and again constitutes
a mistaken conclusion of law by Respondent Respondent's position apparently
is that because of the statement allegedly made by Bryant the striking employees
were not in good faith and in fact unconditionally offering to return to work. Of
(course it is well established that economic strikers must offer to return to work
unconditionally before an employer is required to reinstate them. The alleged
statement was to the effect that the employees when they returned to work might
subsequently engage in another strike, which might be more successful and be
joined by more or all of the employees, and thereby shut down the plant and halt
production Even if the statement had been made, it constitutes no more than an
expression of the employees' right to engage in concerted activities. The uncondi-
tional nature of the offer to return to work has reference to the abandonment by the
employees of any demands or grievances which they may have. It of course does
not mean, and cannot be construed to mean, that they must abandon their rights
guaranteed by the Act. Respondent's position apparently is a theory that striking
employees must waive their future right to engage in concerted activities as guaran-
teed by the Act in order to be entitled to reinstatement. The mere statement of the
proposition demonstrates its invalidity. The employees' right to engage in con-
certed activity and to strike in the future if the occasion arose is a right guaranteed
by the Act, which cannot constitute a condition which they must waive before they
are entitled to reinstatement. The record reveals that the employees advised Re-
spondent that they were abandoning their grievances and disputes, were willing
to forget 'the past, and wished to return to work unconditionally. Even if they had
expressly stated to Respondent that they reserved the right to engage in concerted
activities as guaranteed by the Act, this clearly would not constitute a condition
based upon which Respondent could refuse to reinstate them. Respondent's con-
cern about interference to production by its employees' concerted activities is again
'demonstrated in this situation Because the employees might in the future engage
in a more successful strike which would completely interfere with production, Re-
spondent refused to reinstate them and in effect discharged them for that reason
.Caruso again frankly admitted that this was the principal reason why he reached
the decision that he would not then or ever reinstate the striking employees, and
had not done so to the time of the hearing. To conclude that Respondent could
refuse to reinstate striking employees because they reserved the right in the future
to engage in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act would subvert
the principles of the Act and render the guarantees therein meaningless. A pre-
ponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me and I find
that Respondent refused to reinstate the striking employees because they had engaged
in protected concerted activities, and because they might in the future again engage
in such concerted activities
The complaint alleged that Respondent discriminatorily failed and refused to rein-
state 84 employees named in Appendix A thereof. At the conclusion of the General
Counsel's case-in-chief, his unopposed motion to strike from the complaint the name
of Maude Braziel, the 11th name set forth on Appendix A, was granted. With respect
to her and 5 other employees named in Appendix A, namely, Doris Adams, Irma
Cantrell, Marvin W. Lewis, Eugene Stringer, and Lillian Weyand, there is no sub-
stantial evidence in the record that they were among the striking employees, and
accordingly no finding is made that Respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate
them. In addition, the evidence in the record reveals that Lila Fomby and Annie
Seigler did not participate in the strike and Fomby voluntarily left Respondent's
'employment to move to Tallahassee, Florida. Accordingly, no finding of discrimi-
nation with respect to them is made. With respect to the remaining 76 employees,
whose names are set forth in Appendix A attached hereto and made a part here-
of, the record reveals that they participated in the strike on February 4 and were
refused reinstatement by Respondent. Respondent's counsel contends in his brief
that only employees who testified are established in the record as having participated
in the strike and been refused reinstatement. This is contrary to the evidence in the
record. On February 11, in response to Respondent's letter of February 7 request-
ing Taylor to furnish Respondent with a list of the striking employees, Taylor by
letter supplied the names of the striking employees and on their behalf requested
reinstatement and offered to return to work unconditionally. It has previously been
found that he also made such offers on behalf of all of the strikers on February 4 and
again on February 5. This letter was received in evidence and includes thereon all
of the employees set forth in Appendix A. It is of course a well-established princi-
ple of law that all 76 of the striking employees need not testify. Their testimony
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would unduly lengthen the hearing and the record and at best be merely cumulative
of evidence already received . The letter of February 11 on behalf of the striking
employees is prima facie evidence in the record of the employees who participated
in the strike . In addition thereto Respondent 's own records as kept by Hutchinson
confirm and corroborate which sectionizers and peelers participated in the strike and
were refused reinstatement . These records were produced by Hutchinson upon
cross-examination and were received in evidence as exhibits . General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 5 is the list of sectionizers prepared by Hutchinson and includes thereon
the names of all sectionizers who stayed in the plant on February 4, and all section-
izers who went out on strike on February 4. It lists by name 38 sectionizers as
having "left" or gone out on strike on February 4, and includes all of the sectionizers
set forth in Appendix A plus one who was not named in the complaint . On the same
exhibit, Respondent 's superintendent listed the names of the peelers who went out
on strike on February 4. There are 19 peelers named, which includes all of the
peelers set forth in Appendix A plus 1 who was not named in the complaint. This
is an admission by Respondent that the 37 sectionizers and 18 peelers set forth in
Appendix A participated in the strike on February 4. It is undisputed that they were
refused reinstatement . In addition to the 37 sectionizers and 18 peelers, making a
total of 55 striking employees , 18 other employees who went out on strike and were
refused reinstatement were 7 from the feedmill , 10 from the warehouse , and Ken-
neth Hastings , all of whose names are also set forth in Appendix A. Hastings, while
not on Hutchinson 's list, testified , and it is undisputed as well as admitted , that he
participated in the strike . General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 4, another list kept by
Hutchinson concerning the strike , named all of the sectionizers who were absent
on the day of the strike for various reasons and hence were not discharged by Re-
spondent . However, three of them, according to the exhibit and Hutchinson 's testi-
mony, chose to join the strike the day after and were also admittedly refused rein-
statement by Respondent because they did so. They are named thereon as Jo Utley,
Lillian Dye , and Helen Mackey. These 3 bring the total of striking employees re-
fused reinstatement to the 76 listed in Appendix A. Hutchinson was not in charge
of the feedmill or warehouse , and accordingly did not maintain lists of the striking
employees working in those departments . His records reveal , however , without nam-
ing them, that 5 employees from the feedmill and 9 employees from the warehouse
took part in the strike . The evidence adduced by the General Counsel reveals that
7 employees from the feedmill and 10 from the warehouse took part in the strike, 3
more than admitted by Hutchinson 's records . The seven participating employees
from the feedmill listed in Appendix A are Anderson , Brooks, Henderson , James,
J. L. Johnson , Parker, and Raniey. The 10 participating employees from the ware-
house listed in Appendix A are Bullard , Ford , Hunter, Keaton , Maynard, McNeil,
Harvey Stringer , Theron Stringer , Washington , and Wilbur Zimmerman. With re-
spect to the above-named feedmill and warehouse employees, the General Counsel
met the burden of proof by producing affirmative evidence , a written list supplied to-
Respondent during the course of the strike , that these employees were participants in
the strike. Having done so, if Respondent contended that these employees were not
participants in the strike the burden of going forward shifted to Respondent after the
General Counsel adduced written proof that they were participants in the strike.
Respondent, in possession of the plant records and knowing who remained at the
plant and did not join the strike , could readily have disproven that any of these
employees had actually participated in the strike and been refused reinstatement, as
it did in the cases of Annie Seigler and Lila Fomby . Having failed to do so, the
proof stands undisputed in the record that the 7 feedmill employees and 10 ware-
house employees were participants in the strike and as such were refused reinstate-
ment. As to the 58 sectionizers and peelers , the General Counsel's proof was cor-
roborated by Respondent 's own records produced by Hutchinson . No finding of dis-
crimination with respect to the additional sectionizer and peeler who participated in
the strike according to Respondent 's record is made because they were not named in
the complaint.
A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me and I
find that Respondent failed and refused to reinstate the 76 striking employees named
in Appendix A because of their concerted activities , including the strike of February
4, and because Respondent believed that they intended in the future to engage in con-
certed activity , thereby discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, discouraging membership in the Union , and interfering with, re-
straining , and coercing its employees in violation of the Act.
The strike was, at least in its inception , an economic strike. It is well -established
that economic strikers who unconditionally offer to return to work are not entitled
to reinstatement if their positions have been filled by permanent replacement. Re-
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 393
spondent contended that a few of the positions had been filled because some peelers
were hired on the morning of February 5. The only evidence in this respect is that at
one point in his testimony Hutchinson said that he had hired 3 or 4 peelers on the
morning of February 5, before the strikers ' committee met for the second time with
Respondent 's officials . Subsequently he changed this figure to five peelers. There
is no other proof in the record concerning replacements by Respondent and it is un-
disputed that no replacements were hired on February 4. Having previously found,
based upon the testimony of Taylor and Bryant in substance corroborated by Caruso,
that the striking employees unconditionally offered to return to work on the afternoon
of February 4, the replacements on February 5 are immaterial and cannot bar any
of the employees from reinstatement . Of course , even if the first unconditional offer
to return to work had been made on February 5, only 3, 4, or 5 peelers, as the case
may be, would have been barred from reinstatement by having been replaced.
D. The discriminatory refusal to reinstate Grantham
As previously found, Grantham was absent from the plant on February 4 when
the strike occurred. She returned to the plant on February 6 to pick up her check, at
which time Hutchinson informed her that she could return to work. She advised
Hutchinson that because she was a member of the Union, and would have partici-
pated in the strike if she had been there, she felt that she should receive no different
treatment than the others, and told Hutchinson that she would not return to work until
Respondent took back the striking employees. At that time the striking employees
had offered to return to work unconditionally, and on February 5 had been informed
by Respondent that it would not reinstate any of them At Hutchinson's request,
Grantham signed a written statement indicating why she would not return to work,
which is a part of General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4 received in evidence. It reads
as follows: "Out until other girls are given their jobs back. Claudia Grantham."
When Grantham refused to return to work unless and until Respondent took back
the other striking employees, she in effect became an unfair labor practice striker.
According to Hutchinson, Grantham did not refuse the job on Friday when she came
in to get her check, but instead returned on Monday and at that time signed the state-
ment at his request after advising him that she would not return to work until
Respondent reinstated the other striking employees. Whichever day it occurred, it is
undisputed that Grantham's reason for not returning to work was Respondent's
refusal to reinstate the striking employees . Grantham was employed as an inspec-
tor in the sectionizing department, and according to Hutchinson on Monday, February
9, he needed an inspector in the department and offered to reinstate or to retain
Grantham. Grantham's testimony was to the effect that she refused to return to
work on Friday, and that she signed the statement at that time. In any event some-
time the next week, on or about February 10, Grantham learned from some fellow
employees that Hutchinson needed an inspector . Apparently having changed her
mind about not returning to work, she contacted Hutchinson and asked him if she
could return to work. He told her that he had two good inspectors but that she
could come in the following day at 8 a. in . The next morning at 6 a. in., Hutchinson
called her and told her not to bother to come in. Later the same day Grantham
called Hutchinson back and asked him if he meant that she should not come in just
that day or at all and he told her that he had talked to the officials of the Company
and had been told not to take her back permanently . It is undisputed in the record
that Grantham unconditionally offered to return to work when she contacted Hutch-
inson the second time, or the time following the signing of the statement . The record
reveals that Respondent did have two inspectors employed at the time Grantham
asked to return to work unconditionally , and that it had mainained only two in-
spectors for a considerable period of time preceding the strike. According to Hutch-
inson, when Grantham offered to return to work unconditionally he told her to come
in the next day and he would let her know if he could use her. He testified that
in the meantime he had hired another inspector and did not need one. He also said
that he told Respondent 's officials that he did not need Grantham , and that since
she had joined the others who were out on strike it was Respondent 's decision not to
hire her. He corroborated her testimony that he called her early the next morning
before 8 a . m., and told her not to come in, and that she contacted him later the same
day and that he then advised her that he had meant that she was out permanently
and not just that day. While, as indicated above, there is some evidence in the record
based upon Hutchinson 's admission that Respondent refused to reinstate Grantham
because she had joined the strike , there is also evidence in the record that Grantham's
position had been filled . However, inasmuch as she was an unfair labor practice
striker , it is unnecessary to resolve the foregoing conflict. It is well established
that an unfair labor practice striker is entitled to reinstatement upon his uncondi-
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional offer to return to work, whether or not his or her position has been filled.
Accordingly I find that Respondent refused to reinstate or employ Grantham on or
about February 10, 1953, because of her union membership and concerted activities,
thereby discriminating against her in regard to her hire and tenure of employment,
discouraging membership in the Union , and interfering with, restraining , and coercing
its employees in violation of the Act.
E. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Frances Zimmerman
The complaint also alleged that Mrs. Zimmerman , who had been employed by
Respondent in its warehouse department with her husband , was discharged in order
to discourage membership and activities in the Union , and because her husband was
a steward in the Union and engaged in the strike of February 4. The record reveals
that Mrs. Zimmerman last worked for Respondent on December 7, 1952, when she
left her employment because of an illness and operation which confined her to a
hospital for a considerable period of time. She returned to the plant on February
11. According to her testimony she was under the impression that she had re-
mained an employee of Respondent during the interval she was absent because of
illness. However , in attempting to borrow some money from a loan company, she
bad been informed by that company that Respondent had advised it that Mrs. Zim-
merman was no longer in the employ of Respondent . Mrs. Zimmerman went to the
plant on February 11 and spoke to Mr Nivens, who was not a supervisor or man-
aging official of Respondent . He was employed in the office . According to Mrs.
Zimmerman , he informed her that she no longer had a job with Respondent be-
cause of her husband 's union activity , and that her job had been filled by another
employee hired in the meantime . It is undisputed in the record that Mrs. Zimmer-
inan 's place was taken by another employee who had been hired during her extended
absence and that she had no right to reinstatement . It is also undisputed that Nivens
was only an office employee and a general worker and was possessed of no supervisory
authority . On cross-examination , Mrs. Zimmerman 's testimony changed somewhat
and a careful analysis of it leads me to conclude that she was advised that the reason
Respondent would not reinstate her was because her job had been filled . It was un-
disputed in the record that she had not contacted Respondent during the long period
of time she was out sick . Whatever Nivens may have said to her, it is undisputed
that he did not have supervisory authority and was not authorized to make such
decisions concerning Mrs. Zimmerman . I am satisfied that the General Counsel
has failed to sustain the burden of proof with respect to this allegation of the com-
plaint, and accordingly find that Respondent did not refuse to hire or did not dis-
charge Mrs . Zimmerman in order to discourage membership in the Union or because
of her husband's activities therein.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act . It has been found that Respondent
discriminatorily refused to reinstate Grantham and the 76 striking employees named
in Appendix A. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer Grantham and
the 76 employees named in Appendix A immediate and full reinstatement to his or
her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges , and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have
earned as wages from February 4, 1953, in the case of the 76 employees named in
Appendix A, and from February 10, 1953, in the case of Grantham , to the date of
the offer of reinstatement , less his or her net earnings during such period.' The
back pay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board and Respondent
upon request shall make available to the Board payroll and other records to facil-
itate the checking of the amount due .'
The character and scope of the unfair labor practices engaged in indicate an in-
tent to defeat self-organization of the employees . I shall therefore recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. '
3 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440
4 F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
5 May Department 'Stores v. N L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 395
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several States, and tend t
to lead 'to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce
2. American Federation of Labor is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Grantham and the em-
ployees listed in Appendix A, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practice, as alleged in the com-
plaint, of discharging Zimmerman because of her or her husband's union or con-
certed activities.
[Recommendations omitted from publication 7
Allen, Dora Belle
Amerson, Alma
Barrett, Tim
Boatwright, Aline
Canine, Joy
Christian, Gladys
Cox, Ruby
Crews, Betty J.
Davis, Mamie
Davis, Monette
Davenport, Christine
Dreysse, Gertrude
Eldridge, Mavis
Hamby, Anna Mae
Hastings, Margaret
Hays, Lora Bell
Hubler, June
Hunt, ,Ruth
King, Marguerite
Bennett, James H.
Boroughs, John
Boroughs , Woodsie
Bragg, George
Bryant, William J.
Cagle, Billie Joe
Cagle, Shelby
Clark, Charles
Clark, Theodore
Appendix A
SECTIONIZERS
Kuhn, Birdie
Lanier, Lillian
Miller, Alma Doris
Nicholson, Mary
Poole, Margaret
Pope, Emma Irene
Powell, Dorothy
Robinson, Wilhelmina
Sims, Fannie
Stanford, Mary
Talbert, Lillian
Tanner, Lela
Taylor, Ruth
Turpin, Agnes
Tyler, Lillie
Wilkerson, Anna Lee
Williams, Jannie
Wise, Jeanette
PEELERS
Cox, Junior
Cox, Willie
Davis, Dwain
Dye, Ned, Jr.
Jones, Verbon
Langston , Raymond
Smith, Lester
Smith, W. H.
Taylor, J. C.
SECTIONIZERS WHO JOINED THE STRIKE
Dye, Lillian Utley, Josephine
Mackey, Helen
:396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bullard, William
Ford, Robert
Hunter, Ralph H.
Keaton, Joel
McNeil, Ernest
Anderson, Charles
Brooks, Curtis Lee
Henderson, Alvin
James, Eddie
Hastings , Kenneth W
WAREHOUSE
FEEDMILL
Maynard, F. C.
Stringer, Harvey
Stringer , Theron
Washington, R. C.
Zimmerman , Wilbur
Johnson, Jimmie Lee
Parker, Fred
Raniey, Charles
SECTIONIZING OTHERS
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a trial examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in American Federation of Labor, or
any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of our employees or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition- of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge for engaging in con-
certed or union activities, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
,coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist American Federation of Labor or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as a>othorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Allen, Dora Belle
Amerson, Alma
Barrett, Tim
Boatwright, Aline
Canine, Joy
Christian, Gladys
Cox, Ruby
Crews, Betty J.
Davis, Mamie
Davis, Monette
Davenport, Christine
Dreysse, Gertrude
Dye, Lillian
Eldridge, Mavis
Hamby, Anna Mae
Hastings, Margaret
Hays, Lora Bell
Hubler, June
Hunt, Ruth
King, Marguerite
Kuhn, Birdie
Lanier, Lillian
Mackey, Helen
Miller, Alma Doris
Nicholson, Mary
Poole, Margaret
Pope, Emma Irene
Powell, Dorothy
Robinson, Wilhelmina
Sims, Fannie
Stanford, Mary
Talbert, Lillian
Tanner, Lela
Taylor, Ruth
Turpin, Agnes
Tyler, Lillie
Utley, Josephine
Wilkerson, Anna Lee
Williams, Jannie
Wise, Jeanette
Bennett, James H.
Boroughs, John
Boroughs, Woodsie
Bragg, George
Bryant, William J.
Cagle, Billie Joe
GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. 397
Cagle, Shelby McNeil , Ernest
Clark, Charles Maynard, F. C.
Clark, Theodore Stringer , Harvey
Cox, Junior Stringer , Theron
Cox, Willie Washington, R. C.
Davis, Dwain Zimmerman , Wilbur
Dye, Ned , Jr. Anderson , Charles
Jones, Verbon Brooks, Curtis Lee
Langston , Raymond Henderson, Alvin
Smith , Lester James, Eddie
Smith , W. H. Johnson , Jimmie Lee
Taylor , J. C. Parker, Fred
Bullard, William Raniey , Charles
Ford , Robert Hastings , Kenneth W.
Hunter, Ralph H. Grantham , Claudia
Keaton, Joel
All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members in good standing of the above -named Union or any other labor
organization , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. and HARRY F. ALEXAN-
DER and WALTER WANDSCHNEIDER. Cases Nos. 19-CA--893 and
19-CA-893-1. July 26,1954
Decision and Order
On February 4, 1954, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent' s execu-
tion of the contract with the Union granting preference in employ-
ment to union members, and its practice thereunder of requiring clear-
ance from the Union's discriminatorily operated hiring hall, were un-
lawful. However, we do not adopt his recommendation that the entire
contract be set aside. As there was no violation of Section 8 (a) (2)
109 NLRB No. 62.