Tom Clamon Foods

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 573 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

TOM CLAMON FOODS
G & C Packing Co., Inc. d/b/a Tom Clamon Foods
and Denise M. Benge and Rosalba Garcia and
Isabel Diaz. Cases 16-CA-14003, 16-CA-
14119, and 16-CA-14231
May 18, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND
OVIA r
On January 30, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings, 2
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, G & C
Packing Co., Inc. d/b/a Tom Clamon Foods, Pal-
estine, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the ,fudge's credibility find-
ings. The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions ' unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
2 In sec. II, par 5 of the judge 's decision , the judge misspelled Fermin
Urbina's name.
In sec. II, par. 6, the judge madvertently stated that on cross-examina-
tion Isabel Diaz testified that in July L989 she and Rosalba Garcia were
willing to return to their old jobs and for the same money. This testimo-
ny occurred on direct examination and concerned a May 1989 request for
reinstatement . There is no allegation that the May denial of reinstatement
was unlawful . On direct examination , Diaz further testified that in July
she and Garcia presented themselves to Hood and asked for a job. Hood
replied that the Respondent was no longer taking applications for em-
ployment. We agree with the judge that Diaz and Garcia were unfair
labor practice strikers and that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by
refusing to reinstate them after their July 1989 unconditional offer to
return to work.
3 The judge inadvertently failed to indicate that backpay shall be cal-
culated in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950).
Ronald Hooks, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Tracy Crawford, Esq., of Tyler, Texas, for the Respond-
ent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
573
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard before me on November 28, 1989, at
Palestine, Texas. The hearing was held pursuant to a
second order consolidating cases and amendment to a
consolidated complaint as amended at the hearing. The
complaint in Case 16-CA-14003 is based on an original
charge filed by Charging Party Denise M. Benge, an in-
dividual on April 19, 1989, and amended by her on May
26, 1989. The complaint in Case 16-CA-14119 is based
on a charge filed by Charging Party Rosalba Garcia, an
individual, on July 20, 1989. The complaint in Case 16-
CA-14231 is based on a charge filed by Charging Party
Isabel Diaz, an individual on September 26, 1989. The
consolidated complaint alleges that G & C Packing Co.
d/b/a Tom Clamon Foods (the Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act) by on or about April 6, 1989, transferring Charging
Party Benge from the ' meat patties department where she
was employed by Respondent to the steaks department, a
more onerous and less desirable position because she
complained concertedly with other employees to Re-
spondent regarding the wages and working conditions at
Respondent's Palestine, Texas facility, and by terminat-
ing the employment of Charging Party Benge and refus-
ing to reinstate her because she ceased work concertedly
with other employees and engaged in a strike. The com-
plaint further alleges 'that the strike was caused and pro-
longed by the unfair labor practices of Respondent. The
complaint further alleges that on or about July 11, 1989,
Charging Parties Garcia and Diaz who had engaged in
the strike made an unconditional offer to return to their
former or 'substantially equivalent positions of employ-
ment but that Respondent failed and refused to reinstate
them to their former or substantially equivalent positions
of employment and that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act thereby. Respondent by its answer of
September 15, 1989, as amended at the hearing, has as-
serted as a defense that the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and has denied
the commission of any violations of the Act.
On the entire record in this proceeding, including my
observations of the witnesses who testified herein, and
after due consideration of the, briefs filed by the General
Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The business of Respondent
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that the Respondent was, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein, a Texas corporation with an office and place
of business located at Palestine, Texas, where it is en-
gaged in the processing of meat products, that during the
12-month period prior to the filing of the complaint, Re-
spondent, in the course and conduct of its business oper-
298 NLRB No. 77
574 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ations, sold and shipped directly to customers outside the
State of Texas goods valued in excess of $50,000 and that
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent operates a meat processing plant and
employs a number of Hispanic workers, some of whom
speak little or no English as well as a number of Cauca-
sian workers. Charging Party Benge, a Caucasian, was
employed by Respondent in August 1988 and worked in
the meat patties room of the production department in-
specting and packing meat patties as they came out of a
machine used to make the patties. On occasion she and
other employees in the patties area were directed on a
rotating bases by Foreman Valentine Guerrero to assist
in the steaks room by packing stew meat. The patties
room and the steak room are separated by the grinding
room. Benge testified that she wore heavy under cloth-
ing and snow boots at her job because of the cool tem-
peratures in which she was required to work in her job.
She further testified that the steaks room was consider-
ably colder than the patties room. Her testimony in this
regard was corroborated by Valentine Guerrero who tes-
tified that during her 5-year tenure she was not aware of
any employee having volunteered to transfer from the
patties room to the steaks room. During her tenure of
employment Benge had complained to management on
several occasions concerning the working conditions of
her job and what she perceived to be conflicting instruc-
tions as to whether to pack the patties when they had
pieces of meat missing as a result of imperfections in the
machinery. She had also complained to management on
an occasion concerning the decision by a photographer
for another company who was photographing a picture
of two employees working with the patty machine for a
commercial or advertisement of the machines owned by
the other company, when the photographer refused to
include a Hispanic employee who had been selected by
Respondent's management to be photographed along
with Benge and insisted on the substitution of a Cauca-
sian employee for the Hispanic employee for the photo-
graph with the comment that brown people did not pho-
tograph well. Benge and several other Caucasian em-
ployees also approached management in early March
1989, and complained about their wages. A week later
the management gave Benge and the' other employees a
raise. Benge who was a relatively new employee and
who was earning a wage of $3.50 per hour received a
25-cent-per-hour raise. These employees were told by
management not to tell other employees about their
raise. Foreman Valentine Guerrero learned of the raise
and questioned Benge about it and Benge confirmed that
she and the other Caucasian employees had received the
raises. Guerrero expressed her dissatisfaction to Benge
and her concern that the Hispanic employees who had
been employed by Respondent for several years had
been discriminated against as they had not received
raises as had the newer Caucasian employees. Guerrero
asked Owner Thomas Clamon to meet with the employ-
ees on that afternoon and he agreed and met with them
at 3 p.m. which was the normal breaktime for the patty
room employees whom Guerrero supervised.
Guerrero testified that she opened the meeting by tell-
ing Clamon that the employees were concerned about
wages and other conditions of employment. Benge testi-
fied that she told Clamon she thought it was unfair that
the newer Caucasian employees, including herself, had
received raises while the more senior Hispanic employ-
ees had not. Benge also spoke out about the discrimina-
tion against the Hispanic employee who had not been in-
cluded in the photograph. Benge also spoke out about
the working conditions in the patty room as she believed
she had been given conflicting orders as some members
of Respondent's management had told the employees not
to pack defectively formed patties whereas other man-
agement members told the employees to pack them.
Benge also complained that some of the meat had an un-
pleasant odor and stated that she wanted to be proud of
the place where she worked but that she was not proud
of working at the Respondent's place of business. Other
employees also spoke out at the meeting concerning
working conditions, wages, and alleged discrimination
against Hispanics . However, according to Benge and
Guerrero and employees Billy Ray Whitehead, Beatrice
Urbina, and Isabel Diaz, Benge was the most outspoken
of the employees.
Benge further testified that at the end of the following
day (April 6) she was told by Respondent's operations
manager, Dennis Hood, that she was being transferred to
steaks. Earlier that afternoon Hood had told Guerrero
that Benge was causing problems. Benge testified she
protested this transfer and told him she would not go as
she had not asked to be transferred and had done noth-
ing wrong. She explained at the hearing she did not want
to be transferred to the steaks department because it was
considerably colder in this department and she was sensi-
tive to the cold and sometimes wore lined snow boots in
addition to her other winter clothing. She testified that
Hood told her it was an upper management decision and
she did not have a choice. After this meeting Benge
went outside and sat on a picnic bench with two co-
workers and Hood approached and told her she had
been taking care of the girls and now he would do it.
Benge called Supervisor Guerrero at her home that
evening and told her that she was being transferred to
the steaks department against her will. Guerrero said she
would speak with Respondent's management about it.
Guerrero testified she spoke with Operations Manager
Dennis Hood shortly after her arrival at work on April 7
about 7 a.m. for the start of the shift and that Hood told
her that Benge had been transferred because they did not
want to fire her and Hood refused to rescind the trans-
fer. Hood told her there was nothing he could do be-
cause the transfer had been ordered by "higher ups."
Guerrero testified that as a result of this refusal to re-
scind the transfer and her general dissatisfaction with
being in the middle between the employees and manage-
ment as a result of management promises concerning
raises and other matters which were not kept, she told
Hood she was quitting.
TOM CLAMON FOODS 575
Guerrero thereafter stuck her head in the lunchroom
where Benge and several other employees had been
gathered discussing Benge's transfer prior to the start of
the shift and announced "I'm out of here" according to
the testimony of Benge. Shortly thereafter Benge and the
other employees left in the lunchroom began to walk
out. Benge testified she walked out because of her unfair
transfer and she thought it was not fair to have Guerrero
walk out because of her problem. Other employees in-
cluding Billy Ray Whitehead and Miguel Zamora who
were in the grinding room walked out also. Whitehead
and Zamora testified they walked out because of the way
management was treating Benge. Beatrice Urbina testi-
fied she was in the breakrooin with other employees
who were aware that Guerrero was attempting to have
Benge's transfer rescinded - and that Guerrero then en-
tered and said she was walking out. The employees then
questioned Hood who also appeared concerning the
reason for Benge's transfer and he told them to go to
work or to walk out also and they then walked out.
Isabel Diaz corroborated the testimony of Beatrice
Urbina. Firmine Urbina testified he walked out because
Valentine Guerrero had left. He was aware of Guerre-
ro's intention to speak on behalf of Benge.
Benge, Whitehead, Beatrice Urbina, and Diaz testified
Dennis Hood waived the employees timecards at the em-
ployees who were gathered on Respondent's parking lot
and told them Respondent would give them a second
chance if they returned to work now except for Benge
who was fired and that if they did not wish to return to
work they should get off of Respondent's premises. The
employees left and have not since returned to work with
the exception of Charging Parties Rosalba Garcia and
Isabel Diaz who according to the unrebutted testimony
of Diaz presented themselves to Respondent's operations
manager , Dennis Hood, in July 1989 and inquired about
returning to work but were told by Hood that Respond-
ent had filled their jobs and was no longer taking appli-
cations for work. On cross-examination Diaz testified and
commented that she and Garcia had been willing to
return to their old jobs and for the same money. I do not
regard these comments as other than gratuitous com-
ments at the hearing and do not find that she was testify-
ing that she had actually attached any conditions to her
return to work. Rather, I find that Hood's comments to
Garcia and Diaz were broad rejections out of hand of
the return to work by Garcia and Diaz. It is undisputed
that the Respondent had not reinstated Benge , Garcia, or
Diaz as of the date' of the hearbig.
The Respondent presented its owner and chief execu-
tive, Thomas Clamon, who testified that he had readily
agreed to the meeting of April 5, 1989, as requested by
Foreman Guerrero and had attempted to answer the em-
ployees' questions as best he could. Clamon's testimony
downplayed the role of Benge as a spokesman for the
employees or as the most outspoken of the employees at
the meeting although he conceded that she had raised
the various issues as testified to by her on direct. He con-
tended, however, that employee Diaz was as outspoken
as Benge on the subject of pay. With regard to the
merits of the grievances presented at the meeting
Clamon testified that the Respondent was not favoring
Caucasian over Hispanic employees, but rather that the
Hispanic employees who had been there for a substantial
period of time were already at the top plateau for pack-
ers of approximately $4 per hour whereas the junior em-
ployees such as Benge who had received the raise in
April remained at less than $4 an hour even after receiv-
ing the 25-cent-per-hour raise. This was borne out by the
testimony of Benge. Clamon also testified that the slight
to the Hispanic female employee who was left out of the
photograph was made by a representative of another
company over which he had no control and that a
member of Respondent' s management had originally sug-
gested the Hispanic employee for the photograph.
Clamon also testified that he had numerous discussions
with Benge in the past at her request wherein she raised
complaints with him about the alleged discrimination in
the photograph incident, the need for a raise and her dis-
satisfaction with the way the patty making machine
worked and with the quality of the meat. Clamon ex-
plained that the hamburger patty business has changed
and that whereas formerly a uniform patty was in
demand, the public now prefers a rougher cut patty
which looks more natural. He also testified that the ma-
chine is imperfect and that although he did not want pat-
ties packed which were missing chunks of meat, the
rough cut patties were not defective and should have
been packed. He also testified that Benge had previously
complained about the smell of patties which were made
from beef mixed with beef hearts which is a custom
made product desired by certain customers and clearly
marked as such in the packing and which is wholesome.
He also testified concerning an incident wherein he had
observed Benge turning over each patty and inspecting it
on both sides and setting most of them aside because of
the rough cut and at which time he had told supervision
to tell her to stop slowing down production. He also tes-
tified that Benge had been previously warned for slow-
ing down production. Clamon further testified that at the
meeting of April 5, he told Benge that if she did not like
her employer, as she had indicated dissatisfaction, she
should go to work elsewhere. After the meeting Clamon
told his supervisor, Dennis Hood, to transfer Benge to
the steaks department. He testified that he made this de-
cision, after the meeting , in order to transfer Benge to a
job here she would not have to contend with the pat-
ties about which she had complained and also because
the steak room did not require the speed of the patty
room and he thought she would be better suited for the
steak room as a result. He denied having made the
change because Benge had spoken up on behalf of the
other ' employees. The Respondent also called Respond-
ent's operations manager, Dennis Hood, who testified
that he had told Benge of her transfer to the steak room
on April 6 as directed by Clamon and that Benge had
not complained about the steak room having been too
cold. ``
Analysis
I find that the General Counsel has established a prima
facie case that the transfer of Benge to the steak room
was motivated by Respondent's dissatisfaction with her
576 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
having engaged in protected concerted activities on
behalf of herself and her fellow employees when she
voiced her concerns and complained concerning the al-
leged discrimination being practiced by Respondent
against its Hispanic employees with regard to wages and
the photograph incident and concerning the terms and
conditions of employment of herself and her fellow em-
ployees concerning the operation of the patty room and
the quality of meat therein.
Initially it should be noted that I credit Clamon' s testi-
mony that the Hispanic employees had not received
raises because they were already earning substantially
higher wages than the junior Caucasian employees who
received the raises in March 1989. I also credit Clamon's
testimony concerning the slight practiced by the photog-
rapher of an outside company and that Respondent had
not been responsible for this slight but had not made any
efforts to change the decision by the photographer as he
was not an agent of Respondent. I also found credible
Clamon's explanation concerning the meat patty process
and the quality of the meat packed by Respondent. How-
ever, I fmd that the transfer of Benge was directly the
result of Clamon's dissatisfaction with Benge's having
spoken out on behalf of her fellow employees concerning
their wages, and working conditions. Whether or not
Benge's beliefs concerning the alleged discrimination in
wages against Hispanic employees and the slight against
a Hispanic employee and the working conditions and
quality of the product were well founded, is not the issue
here in determining whether her activities in speaking
out were protected concerted activities. I find based on
all of the evidence that Benge did emerge as the chief
spokesman on behalf of the employees concerning wages
and terms and conditions of employment which are
clearly protected activities. I further find that Clamon's
displeasure with her role as spokesman was evident in his
comment to her at the meeting that she should work
elsewhere if she were so dissatisfied. I further fmd that
Clamon's response of transferring Benge to the steaks
room was discriminatorily motivated and retaliatory for
her role as spokesman. I further find that the evidence
supports a finding that the steaks room as testified to by
Benge was colder than the patties room and thus more
onerous working conditions were imposed on Benge by
her transfer notwithstanding the testimony of Clamon
that the temperatures in the two rooms were the same.
Although Respondent had the right under its unilaterally
promulgated policy manual to make such a transfer, its
decision to do so in this instance was discriminatorily
motivated and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I also fmd that the walkout by the employees stemmed
at least in large part from the employees dissatisfaction
with Respondent's transfer of Benge to the steaks room
and was thus an unfair labor practice strike. Both Billy
Ray Whitehead and Miguel Zamora testified without re-
buttal and I credit their testimony that they walked out
over the treatment of Benge by Respondent and that
other employees had also done so. Although there were
other reasons given by employees for the walkout such
as general dissatisfaction with the way Respondent was
treating its employees, I fmd that the central reason for
the walkout was the discrimination against Benge. I ac-
cordingly find that the walkout was an unfair labor prac-
tice strike. I also find that Respondent's discharge of
Benge for her engagement in the walkout violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Pope Maintenance Corp., 228
NLRB 326, 342 (1977); International Business Systems,
258 NLRB 181 (1981), and Woman Care, Inc., 246
NLRB 753, 757 (1959), relied on by the General Coun-
sel. I accordingly also find that Respondent's refusal to
return Isabel Diaz and Rosalba Garcia to their former
positions in July was also violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as they were unfair labor practice strikers and
were entitled to full reinstatement upon their application
therefor.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent G & C Packing Co., Inc. d/b/a Tom
Clamon Foods is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the transfer of its employee Denise M. Benge because of
her engagement in protected concerted activities.
3. The walkout engaged in by the employees on April
7, 1989, was an unfair labor practice strike.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
when it discharged Denise Benge because of her partici-
pation in an unfair labor practice strike.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
when it refused to reinstate its employees Isabel Diaz
and Rosalba Garcia upon their application therefore in
July 1989 because of their engagement in an unfair labor
practice strike.
6. The above unfair labor practices have the effect of
burdening commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, it shall be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative actions,
including the posting of an appropriate notice, designed
to effectuate the purposes of the Act. It shall also be or-
dered to rescind its transfer and discharge of Denise M.
Benge, offer her full reinstatement to her former position
or, if her former position no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, expunge from its files any ref-
erence to the unlawful transfer and discharge and advise
her in writing that said unlawful transfer and discharge
will not be used in any adverse manner against her in the
future and it shall also be ordered to make Benge whole
for any loss of wages or benefits sustained by her since
April 7, 1989, with interest, as computed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),' and full resto-
ration of all seniority rights and privileges.
1 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short term Federal
rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to
26 U.S.C. § 6621 Interest accrued before January 1, 1987 (the effective
date of the amendment), shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977).
TOM CLAMON FOODS 577
Respondent shall also be ordered to offer full reinstate-
ment in writing to employees Rosalba Garcia and Isabel
Diaz to their former positions or if their former positions
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and
it shall also be ordered to make them whole for any loss
of wages and benefits sustained by them since July 1989
at the time of their unconditional offer to return to work,
with interest as computed in New Horizons, supra, and
full restoration of all seniority rights and privileges.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
ORDER
The Respondent, G & C Packing Co., Inc. d/b/a Tom
Clamon Foods, Palestine, Texas, it officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Transferring its employees to more onerous and
less desirable positions because of their engagement in
protected concerted activities.
(b) Discharging its employees because of their engage-
ment in protected concerted activities by engaging in an
unfair labor practice strike.
(c) Refusing to reinstate its employees upon their ap-
plication therefore because of their engagement in an
unfair labor practice strike.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind its unlawful transfer and discharge of em-
ployee Denise M. Benge, offer her full reinstatement to
her former position or to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, if her former position no longer exists, and make
her whole for all loss of wages and benefits sustained by
her with interest and full restoration of all seniority
rights and privileges as set out. in the remedy.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
transfer and discharge and notify Denise M. Benge in
writing that this has been done and that the transfer and
discharge will not be used against her in any way.
(c) Offer full reinstatement to employees Rosalba
Garcia and Isabel Diaz in writing as of the date of their
offer to return to work in July 1989 to their former posi-
tions or to substantially equivalent positions if their
former positions no longer exist and make them whole
for all loss of wages and benefits sustained by them with
interest and full restoration of all seniority rights and
privileges as set out in the remedy.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its facility in Palestine, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60,
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from ' the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
2 If 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 Nation-
al 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post ans abide by the notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their ownchoice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted
activities
WE WILL NOT transfer you to more onerous and less
desirable jobs because of your engagement in protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge you because of your engage-
ment in an unfair labor practice strike.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate you upon your offer
to return to work because of your engagement in an
unfair labor practice strike.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Denise M. Benge immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position in the meat patties
department, or, if that position no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to her se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed and WE WILL notify Denise M. Benge in writing
578 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that we have removed from our files any reference to
her transfer and discharge and that the transfer and dis-
charge will not be used against her in any way . WE WILL
make Denise M . Benge whole for all loss of wages and
benefits sustained by her by reason of our unlawful trans-
fer and discharge of her with interest.
WE WILL offer Rosalba Garcia and Isabel Diaz imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former positions in
writing or , if those positions no longer exist , to substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of
wages and other benefits with interest resulting from our
refusal to reinstate them upon their offer to return to
work in July 1989 following their engagement in an
unfair labor practice strike.
G & C PACKING CO., INC . D/B/A TOM
CLAMON FOODS