United Growers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 549 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of UNITED GROWERS, INC. and CANNERY WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL 23104
Case No. 19-C-1274.-Decided November 27, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 14, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and that it
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report annexed hereto, and that the complaint be dis-
missed as to the remaining allegations. Thereafter, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief;,
the Union filed no exceptions or brief. No request for oral argument
before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any of the parties,
and none was held. The Board has considered 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by
the respondent and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the additions noted below :
1. The Trial Examiner has found in effect, and we agree, that the
respondent, by requiring Dollis Williams and Leota Sipe to accept
work on the night shift, discriminated against them, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that the respondent's treatment of these employees, espe-
cially its refusal to reinstate them to day work, was motivated by their
union membership, we attach much significance to the following cir-
cumstances, among others : Of the employees involved in the original
inter-line transfer, only Williams and Sipe protested their transfer to
the night shift and requested reinstatement to the day shift for reasons
which normally warranted favorable action by the respondent in ac-
cordanee.with its then existing practice. The respondent's failure to
59 N. L R. B., No. 108.
549
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
give any convincing explanation for its treatment of these employees,
is especially revealing in view of the fact that they admittedly were
satisfactory workers and that on the day shift there were available
jobs to which they could have been assigned.' It also appears that
Williams and Sipe were the two most prominent members ofthe Union
and that the respondent had manifested an anti-union animus, as found
by the Trial Examiner; Further indicative of anti-union motivation
with respect-to the treatment of Williams and Sipe, is the testimony
of Maxwell Williams, the husband of one of the discriminatees, which
does not appear in the Intermediate Report. The record shows that
on the day following the effective date of the proposed transfer, Mr.
Williams asked Foreman Barnes, who had arranged the shift manipu-
lation described in the Intermediate Report, why Mrs. Williams and
Sipe were transferred to night work. According to Mr. Williams,
Barnes stated that the "trouble" at the plant was caused by Mrs. Wil-
liams' union activity and not by her work. Barnes admitted having