Stanford Seed Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 1064 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stanford Seed Co. and Market, Produce, Warehouse,
Frozen Food, Cannery Workers, Drivers and Help-
ers, Local 558, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America. Cases 3-CA-8749
and 3-RC-7332
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENEI.I.O
AND TRUESDALE
On July 13, 1979, Administrative Law Judge James
L. Rose issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
We find, for the reasons given by the Administrative Law Judge, that
Respondent's explanations for discharging Paul Landwehr were completely
pretextual. Accordingly, as the sole cause of Landwehr's discharge was his
union activity, we disavow the Administrative Law Judge's later statement
that the termination was motivated merely "in substantial part" by that
activity.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent's argument
that Walter Frenzel's ballot was improperly challenged lacks merit but only
because any such contention should have been raised through an objection
to the conduct of the election. Respondent did not file such an objection. In
any event, as the record shows and Administrative Law Judge found Frenzel
should not have been included in the unit because he was a supervisor within
the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
2 In par. (g) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge
provided that Respondent shall cease and desist from "in any other manner"
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. However, it is the Board's
policy that such an order is warranted only where a respondent is shown to
have a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egregious or
widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the em-
ployees' fundamental statutory rights. See Hickmorr Food. Inc., 242 NLRB
1357 (1979). We find that the broad injunctive Order issued against Respon-
dent is not warranted in this case, and we will modify the Administrative
Law Judge's recommended Order and notice accordingly.
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Stanford
Seed Co., Buffalo, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph I(g):
"(g) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regional Director
for Region 3, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations
of the Board, shall, within 10 days of this Decision
and Order, open and count the ballot of Paul Land-
wehr and prepare and cause to be served on the par-
ties a revised tally of the ballots, including therein the
count of the above-mentioned ballot and issue the
appropriate certification.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELAI'ONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees because of their interest
in or activity on behalf of Market, Produce.
Warehouse, Frozen Food, Cannery Workers,
Drivers and Helpers. Local 558, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL. NOT threaten our employees with
plant closure or other reprisals because of their
interest in or activity on behalf of the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees be-
cause of their interest in or activity on behalf of
the above-named Union, or any other labor or-
ganization.
WE WILL NOT create among our employees the
impression that we have engaged in surveillance
of their activity protected by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits to
vote against the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization in an election con-
ducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT withhold wage increases from
our employees because of their interest in or ac-
tivity on behalf of the above-named Union, or
any other labor organization.
245 NLRB No. 136
1064
STANFORD SEED CO.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Paul Landwehr full and imme-
diate reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position of employment, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make him whole for any losses he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him, including granting the 10-cent-
per-hour wage increase he was denied, with in-
terest.
STANFORD SEED CO.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard before me in Buffalo, New York, on May 3 and
4, 1979. The General Counsel's complaint alleges that Re-
spondent discharged Paul Landwehr on October 17, 1978,'
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §151, et seq., and com-
mitted other violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Re-
spondent generally denied that it has engaged in any
activity violative of the Act and affirmatively contends that
Landwehr was discharged for cause.
Additionally before me for decision is the status of Wal-
ter Frenzel, who cast a ballot in the November 17 election2
that was challenged on grounds that he is a supervisor. Re-
spondent contends that Frenzel is a rank-and-file employee
and that, in any event, because his ballot was improperly
challenged his vote should be counted without litigating his
status.
Upon the record as a whole, including my observation of
the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a New York corporation engaged in the
warehousing and wholesale distribution of seed and related
products at several facilities including the one involved here
at Buffalo, New York. In the course and conduct of its
business Respondent annually sells and distributes to points
directly outside the State of New York goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits and I find
that at all times material herein it has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
I All dates are in 1978. unless otherwise indicated.
2 Case 3-RC 7332.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVEI)
Market, Produce, Warehouse. Frozen Food, Cannery
Workers, Drivers and Helpers, Local 588, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (herein the Union), is
admitted to be and I find is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE AI.EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
Paul Landwehr lives about three-quarters of a block from
Respondent's warehouse. In mid-September he sought ajob
with Respondent and in connection with this was inter-
viewed by Raymond Kleppe. the warehouse foreman. After
some discussion Kleppe determined to hire Landwehr even
though he had had inquiries for jobs from a number of
other individuals. One of the reasons Kleppe gave for hiring
Landwehr in preference to others was the fact that he lived
very close to the warehouse and would thus be able to get
to work even in bad weather. Landwehr commenced his
employment on September 19. During the employment in-
terview, according to Landwehr but denied by Kleppe,
Kleppe said that the Company "was nonunion and they
didn't want no union in there."
Shortly after Landwehr started the men at the warehouse
began discussing the possibility of getting a union. To this
end Landwehr contacted the secretary-treasurer of the
Union and met with him the next day. Landwehr was given
authorization cards, which he took with him to work and
passed out while at work. (Landwehr has no evidence that
any management representative saw him pass out the
cards.) When he received the cards back from the employ-
ees, he returned them to the Union.
Shortly thereafter, on October 4, the Union filed a repre-
sentation petition, of which Respondent was notified by
telephone and also by mail on October 6.
On the day before his discharge Landwehr was sent by
Kleppe to work with Frenzel in the lawn seed department,
which is basically an assembly line process by which var-
ious types and mixtures of seed are packaged in various size
containers as they proceed along a conveyor belt. Land-
wehr was unable to do this work to the satisfaction of Fren-
zel. Landwehr told Kleppe that he did not want to work on
the seed job any more. Frenzel told Kleppe that he did not
want Landwehr back.
In any event, the next day Landwehr was assigned to
help unload a boxcar. During the morning, according to his
testimony, he became ill. As usual he went home for lunch
at noon. He determined at that time that he was too sick to
return to work and called Kleppe to tell him so. Upon ad-
vising Kleppe that he would not return that day but would
be back the next day Kleppe said that was just fine, he
would have Landwehr's check ready-that Landwehr was
through. The reasons Kleppe gave Landwehr, basically the
reasons to which he testified, were that Landwehr had been
absent and late for work too man), times, and that he could
not "get along with people."
Landwehr returned to Respondent's warehouse that af-
ternoon to seek an audience with the Company's president,
1065
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James Billings, concerning this matter. He met with Bill-
ings, but Billings told Landwehr that inasmuch as Kleppe
has total control over the hiring and firing of the warehouse
personnel he was not going to overrule Kleppe's decision.
In early October Kleppe reneged on his promise to Land-
wehr and refused to give a 10-cent-an-hour raise. Kleppe
said at the time that to give the raise would be illegal.
It is also alleged that Kleppe interrogated employees
Robert Walters and Wilbert Taylor concerning the union
activity, promised Walters benefits if he were to vote
against the Union, threatened Taylor with plant closure
should the Union come in, and finally on the day of the
election indicated to Walters that he knew how Walters had
voted.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
1. The discharge of Paul Landwehr
While Respondent is perfectly at liberty to discharge an
employee for no reason or a bad one, where the reason
advanced is out of "proportion to the behavior involved
and in contrast with the employer's response to similar be-
havior when engaged in by employees who have not been
involved in union activity," then further inquiry into Re-
spondent's motive is necessary.' Thus, the paramount issue
here is Kleppe's motive when he determined to discharge
Landwehr.
As is often the situation in these matters there is no direct
evidence of motive other than Kleppe's self-serving state-
ments that he discharged Landwehr solely for cause. As
self-serving statements need not be accepted without ques-
tion, so also evidence of motive can be established by cir-
cumstantial evidence and inferences are permitted.'
Here the principal reason advanced by Kleppe for dis-
charging Landwehr was the fact that he had been late on a
number of occasions during his short tenure of employ-
ment, had been warned three times of this, and had been
told that if he were late again he would be discharged.
While Respondent would certainly be justified in discharg-
ing employees for tardiness, even those late only I to 5
minutes, I find on the record as a whole that in fact Respon-
dent has tolerated tardiness. While Landwehr was late 8 of
the 21 days he was employed, other employees had similar
records and were not discharged. Thus, Lorrenzo Green
was late 18 of 44 days in a survey period from August 1
through October 31. Robert Walters was late 8 of 49 days.
David Baronz was late 4 of 29 days. William Smith was late
9 of 42 days. James Barone was late 6 of 19 days. William
Kennedy was late 21 of 56 days, and Wilbert Taylor was
late 13 of 64 days. Almost all other employees were late on
occasion. Tardiness, if not desired by Respondent, certainly
was condoned before the organizational campaign began.
Kleppe testified that when an employee did not show up
on time for work he would have to call a temporary em-
ployee. Then if the regular employee in fact came to work
Respondent would have more people than necessary to per-
3 American Thread Company, Sevier Plant, 242 NLRB 27 (1979).
4 Sec Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v. N. L. R. B.,
362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966).
form the work. This was the business justification advanced
by Kleppe for requiring strict adherence to the starting
time. However, the tardiness of Landwehr and the others
was only a few minutes. Nevertheless, Kleppe testified that
often he would call for temporary employees within a few
minutes of the 7:30 a.m. starting-a claim I simply do not
believe. Indeed, Kleppe changed his testimony on this sub-
ject, and no corroborating evidence concerning calling in
temporary help was offered.
Additionally, Respondent keeps the timeclock set 3 min-
utes ahead, so that employees who clock out according to
the timeclock at 5 p.m. are actually clocking out 3 minutes
early to facilitate catching the bus. Landwehr was not ad-
vised of that fact until at least the second or third time he
was late.
In addition to the tardiness, Kleppe testified that he told
Landwehr that he could not get along with people, presum-
ably meaning Frenzel, and that he was absent too much.
Kleppe then amplified on his reasons for discharging Land-
wehr to include that Landwehr griped about doing some
jobs, particularly including moving gravel, and the day of
the discharge was the second time that Landwehr had left
work when a boxcar needed unloading.
Given the high rate of tardiness, the unpersuasiveness of
Kleppe's assertion why he could not tolerate lateness of I
minute or 2, as well as the fact that Respondent's records
show Landwehr missed only 2 half days I conclude that the
reasons for discharging Landwehr were seized upon to hide
Kleppe's true motive. The other reasons advanced by
Kleppe were at best vague and after the fact, which implies
that they also were pretextual.
While there is no direct evidence that Landwehr was ob-
served passing out the authorization cards at the ware-
house, given the small size of the plant an inference that
Landwehr's union activity was known can been drawn. In
addition, shortly after the petition was filed Kleppe interro-
gated Wilbert Taylor, asking him who was responsible for
organizing the Union. It was during either this conversation
or one later that Kleppe told Taylor he felt that Landwehr
was the one responsible.
Kleppe denies the substance of these conversations with
Taylor. Based upon their relative demeanor I am persuaded
that Taylor's version is more accurate than Kleppe's. Tay-
lor generally was a more straightforward and credible wit-
ness. In addition, I note that Taylor is no longer an em-
ployee of Respondent and does not have any stake in the
outcome of this litigation, whereas Kleppe does. Respon-
dent contends that Taylor is not believable because at the
time that he quit he sought sick leave to which Respondent
did not feel he was entitled, which resulted in a verbal alter-
cation between Taylor and Kleppe. In this respect it is in-
ferred by Respondent that Taylor was trying to cheat the
Company. But such is not necessarily the case, given the
fact that, apparently, terminated employees are entitled to
some kind of prorated pay for accrued sick leave. Neverthe-
less, while this event no doubt took place I do not believe
that it forms a basis for discrediting Taylor who, as indi-
cated, I found to be a reliable witness.
Given Landwehr's activity as the principal inplant orga-
nizer on behalf of the Union, the inference that this was
known to Kleppe, and Kleppe's statement to Taylor that he
1066
STANFORD
felt such to be the case I conclude that when Kleppe deter-
mined to discharge Landwehr on October 18 he was moti-
vated in substantial part by Landwehr's union activity and
not by the reasons he advanced subsequently. I accordingly
conclude that Kleppe's discharge of Landwehr was viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. The 8(a)(1) violations
It is noted that all of the 8(a)(l) violations alleged con-
cern various acts of Kleppe during the course of the organi-
zational campaign.'
Kleppe categorically denied that he made any of the
statements attributed to him and denied specifically each of
the events testified to by the General Counsel's witnesses.
As stated above, I generally found Kleppe not to be a credi-
ble witness, and I specifically discredit his denials and
credit the testimonies of the General Counsel's witnesses.
Thus, specifically I find that after Landwehr was em-
ployed and before any union activity he was told that he
would get a wage increase. Then 2 days before his discharge
Kleppe told Landwehr that he was in fact doing a good job.
but that he could not give Landwehr a raise at that time
because of the union activity. To do so, stated Kleppe,
would make it seem like he was trying to buy Landwehr's
vote. That he had promised Landwehr a wage increase
shortly after he was hired and then did not give it following
the advent of the union activity is not denied by Kleppe. To
advise an employee that he is being denied a promised wage
increase because of union activity is a violation of Section
8(aXI) of the Act. Pacific Southwest Airlines, 201 NLRB
647 (1973). Further, although Kleppe may have been told
that he could not give wage increases during the period
preceding the election, his announcement to Landwehr did
not contain the assurances required to avoid the obvious
impact in denying a previously promised wage increase.
Sometime following the filing of the representation peti-
tion Kleppe "pulled me (Robert Walters) aside and asked
me who started the union...." I credit Walters testimony
over Kleppe's denial and conclude that such was interroga-
tion and violative of Section 8(a)(1).
A few days prior to the election Kleppe said to Walters,
"I can't tell you anything about this union thing. He said, if
you take care of me, I'll take care of you." While this
phrase could be ambiguous, and Klepp testified that he has
often used this expression both before the advent of the
union activity and subsequent to the election, I conclude
that in the context of having earlier interrogated Walters
and having discharged Landwehr this phrase implies a
promise of a benefit should Walters vote against the Union.
As such I find it to be violative of Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
Finally, on the day of the election Kleppe told Walters
that he knew Walters had voted "yes for the Union," indi-
cating that somehow, in spite of the fact that it was a secret-
ballot election, Kleppe through surveillance had such
knowledge. During the course of this discussion Kleppe
told Walters too that he "would be the first one to leave,"
presumably in the event of a layoff. Although Walters' tes-
5 The one allegation of interrogation involving Frenzel was not established
by any evidence.
1067
timony is somewhat vague, I nevertheless believe it to be
credible and find that in substance Kleppe made the state-
ments attributed to him. I conclude that Kleppe both cre-
ated the impression of surveillance of an employee's pro-
tected activity and made an implied threat should a
majority of employees vote to have the Union represent
them. Both are violations of Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
As noted above, following the filing of the petition
Kleppe approached Taylor and asked him who was respon-
sible for organizing for the Union, soliciting Taylor to let
him know if he found out anything. On another occasion
about I week later Kleppe told Taylor that he did not see
why the fellows would want a union and went on to ob-
serve, "what would prevent Mr. Billings from putting a
padlock on the door and moving his operation somewhere
else." "Kleppe also said that overtime would no longer be
available and "everything will be run more or less on a tight
ship." It was during this discussion that Kleppe told Taylor
that he suspected Landwehr of being responsible for the
organizing of the Union.
By these comments to Taylor, Kleppe interrogated an
employee concerning the union activity of employees and
threatened plant closure. I conclude that Kleppe thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR L.ABOR PRA('TICES UPON
COMM ERCE
The unfair labor practices found are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce and the free flow of commerce and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of
the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
activity violative of the Act, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act,
including offering Paul Landwehr reinstatement to his for-
mer job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position of employment without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and benefits and make him whole
for any losses he may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him, the backpay calculation to include
the 10-cent-per-hour increase he was denied and otherwise
in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. 'Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as pro-
vided for in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). 6
VI. THE CHALLENGES
Having concluded that Paul Landwehr was discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)3) of the Act. I conclude that he
' See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NL.RB 716 (1962). The
General Counsel has asked that interest be awarded at the rate of 9 percent
per annum. Inasmuch as the matter of whether and to what extent to in-
crease the interest rate in backpay awards is now pending before the Board,
no recommendation will be made concerning it.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was entitled to vote in the election on November 17, and
accordingly the challenge to his ballot should be overruled
and his vote counted.
I further conclude that Walter Frenzel was a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2( 1) of the Act, and accord-
ingly the challenge to his ballot should be sustained.
Respondent contends that the challenge to Walter Fren-
zel's ballot should be overruled because it was challenged
pursuant to an improper procedure adopted by the Board
agent conducting the election.
Frenzel's name was included on the list of employees eli-
gible to vote submitted by Respondent, and the Petitioner
did not choose to have an election observer. Frenzel ap-
peared to vote shortly after Landwehr voted by challenge,
and Landwehr informed the Board agent that Frenzel was
a supervisor. As this time the Board agent could have re-
quired Frenzel to vote by challenge. See Laubenstein &
Portz, Inc., 226 NLRB 804 (1976); Section 102.69 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. But
she did not. Instead, she appointed Landwehr the union
observer so that he could make the challenge.
Even if such a procedure was not appropriate, that issue
would properly have been the subject of objections to the
conduct of the election. There were none.
Since the Board agent had the authority to challenge
Frenzel's ballot, Respondent is scarcely prejudiced if an in-
direct rather than a direct method was used, particularly
since Respondent did not raise the issue in the time pre-
scribed by the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Basically, Respondent contends that Frenzel and Walter
Kroener, who are designated crew chiefs, are not supervi-
sors but are simply leadmen who have some additional au-
thority by virtue of their long tenure. Frenzel was hired on
April 1, 1946, and Kroener in October 1953.
Inasmuch as the work that Kroener does is not at all
similar to that to which Frenzel is normally assigned, his
lack of authority is not particularly relevant to Frenzel's
status.
Frenzel is in charge of the lawn seed department which,
while located in the warehouse building, is apart from the
general area where the other warehouse employees work.
During the lawn seed season, from October to March,
Frenzel has two employees working with him. These three
then make up a team which operates the assembly line. The
first employee unfolds boxes, tapes the bottoms, and puts
them on the conveyor belt. The box then goes under a hop-
per, which automatically drops the appropriate amount of
seed into the box. Frenzel normally operates the next sta-
tion where the box is sealed. At the third station the box is
stenciled, taken off the conveyor belt, and stacked on a
hand truck. Frenzel directs the work of the other two em-
ployees and tells them which job to do on the assembly line
as well as cleanup work. He also picks up the order sheets,
makes the determination of how the machinery should be
set, and determines the extent to which the bins must be
cleaned before any given operation.
While much of the work done in the lawn seed depart-
ment is routine, on balance I conclude that Frenzel does in
fact responsibly direct the other two employees, whom he
refers to as "my men." Although the principal supervisor of
the warehouse operation is Kleppe, given that the lawn seed
department is separate from the basic warehouse it is not
unreasonable that Respondent would have a second super-
visor over that operation. Indeed, Respondent's president
and attorney felt that the status of Frenzel was sufficiently
close to and have brought him into a meeting following the
filing of the petition to instruct him on what supervisors can
and cannot do in an organizational campaign.
On the facts of this case, while it appears that Frenzel is
a very low level supervisor, I believe that he responsibly
directs other employees during a substantial portion of each
calendar year. I therefore conclude that in fact he does have
authority set forth in Section 2(11) of the Act and must for
purposes of this case be considered a supervisor.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this matter I hereby make the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER7
The Respondent, Stanford Seed Co., Buffalo, New York,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because of their interest in or activity on behalf of
the Union.
(b) Threatening employees with plant closure or other
reprisals because of their interest in or activities on behalf
of the Union.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their interest in
or activity on behalf of the Union.
(d) Creating the impression of surveillance of employees'
protected activity.
(e) Promising employees benefits if they would not vote
for the Union.
(f) Withholding from employees wage increases because
of their interest in or activity on behalf of the Union.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in their exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Paul Landwehr immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position of employment without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suf-
fered as the result of the discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in "The Remedy" section above.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its premises in Buffalo, New York, copies of
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1068
STANFORD SEED CO.
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 3, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director. in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order. what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ballot of Paul Landwehr
in Case 3-RC-7332 be opened and counted, and that the
Regional Director for Region 3 issue a revised tally of bal-
lots.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should the revised tally of
ballots show that a majority of votes has been cast for the
Union then the Regional Director for Region 3 shall issue a
Certification of Representative.
1069