United Packinghouse Workers, Local 46, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered as a result of our discrimination against him in the manner provided in the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
WE WILL make whole Edwin Flick for any loss of pay he may have suffered
as a result of our discrimination against him in the manner provided in the Trial
Examiner 's Decision.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above -named or any other labor organization.
BERNARDIN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------- --------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service
Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana, Telephone No. Melrose 3-8921.
United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers Union , AFL-CIO,
Local 46, and its agents, Clarke Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray
Edsill , T. F. Mclnteer and Clarence Paige [ Rath Packing Com-
pany] and Samuel W. Berry. Case No. 18-CB-209. June 30,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1965, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications:
We agree with the Trial Examiner and find that since May 29, 1963,
and continuing to August 10, 1964, Respondents have restrained and
coerced employees of Rath Packing Company in the exercise of their
153 NLRB No. 77.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 957
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and did thereby engage in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
In particular the Respondent Union, aided and abetted by various of its
stewards and members and by the individual Respondents, on May 29,
July 3, and September 3, 1963, conducted membership card checks dur-
ing which nonmember employees of Rath Packing Company, includ-
ing Samuel W. Berry, Verna A. Kindschi, Electra McAtee, Bernice L.
Thompson, Rolla Myers, Margaret Terry, and Bill Terry, or members
of their family were harassed and physically assaulted, threatened
with grievous bodily injury or other harm, subjected to various indig-
nities and outbursts of vituperative language, and maliciously impeded
in their access to their places of work-all with the object and for the
purpose of forcing the above-mentioned employees and other employ-
ees of Rath Packing Company to obtain or maintain membership In
the Respondent Union.
Like the Trial Examiner, we also find-considering this item in the
context of the numerous other acts of restraint and coercion aimed at
the same objective, herein found to have been engaged in by Respond-
ents-that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)
through the publication of the "free rider" section in its Official Bulle-
tin, as illustrated by excerpts from the issues of July 23 and 30,
August 6, 20, and 27, September 4, 17, and 24, and October 1 and 29,
1963, which were designed to coerce employees into either joining the
Respondent Union, by the payment of initiation fees, dues, and assess-
ments, or to retain membership in good standing by the payment of
back dues and assessments.
We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that since May 1, 1963,
and continuing on numerous occasions thereafter, the Respondents
restrained and coerced employee Samuel Berry to require him to
become and remain a member in good standing of the Respondent
Union by various forms of harassment including assault, disruption of
his work, threats of grievous bodily harm, and obscene remarks di-
rected to him and his wife and children, culminating on July 13, 1964,
in an assault upon him causing grievous bodily harm which has since
disabled him from further work. We also find that during the same
period, the Respondents similarly harassed, assaulted, threatened, and
abused other employees including Verna Kindschi, Margaret Terry,
Bill Terry, and Larry J. Bedard for the purpose of forcing them into
becoming and/or remaining members of the Respondent Union and
paying initiation fees, dues, or back dues.
By these various acts of the Respondent Union, and its agents,
directed against Berry and other employees of Rath Packing Company
for the purpose and object of restraining and coercing Berry and other
employees to become and remain members in good standing of the
Respondent Union, we find that the Respondent Union, including its
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agents, has restrained and coerced the employees of Rath Packing
Company in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and did thereby engage in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
As the Trial Examiner found, the Respondent Union and the Com-
pany have a multistate agreement which is presently effective until
midnight August 31, 1967. The agreement contains a union-security
provision, valid on its face within the meaning of the Act, with the
following final clause :
If the present laws of the States in which plants covered under
this Master Agreement are located affecting this are changed,
so that it may be lawful, this section shall become effective
immediately.
The plant here involved is located in the State of Iowa, which at the
present time has a controlling right-to-work law. Our order is not to
be construed as prohibiting the Union from lawfully enforcing a union-
security provision as a conditions of employment in Iowa to the extent
that it may hereafter become lawful.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, United Packinghouse, Food
and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local 46, its officers, agents,
and representatives, including Clarke Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray
Edsill, T. F. Mclnteer, and Clarence Paige, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified :
1. Delete 1 (a) through (f) of the cease-and-desist portion of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and substitute therefor the
following: 1
"(a) Cease and desist from conducting any card check, publishing
in its Official Bulletin or in any other publication, handbill, notice, or
any printed or written material, the name of or comments about any
such employee, or engaging in any other similar activity, in a manner
and under circumstances designed to coerce employees of Rath Pack-
ing Company at its Waterloo, Iowa, plant, to join or remain members
in good standing of the Union; or from interrogating, threatening, or
intimidating any such employee or any member of the employee's fam-
ily for the same coercive purpose; or from in any other manner restrain-
ing or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act."
1 The telephone number for Region 18 , appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read: Telephone No. 334-2618.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 959
2. Delete the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth indented para-
graphs in the notice (Appendix) appended to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and substitute therefor the following:
WE WILL NOT conduct any card check, or publish in our Official
Bulletin or in any other publication, handbill, notice, or printed
or written material, the name of or comments about any such
employee, or engage in any other similar activity, in a manner and
under circumstances designed to coerce employees of Rath Packing
Company at its Waterloo, Iowa, plant to join or remain members
in good standing of the Union ; or interrogate, threaten, or intimi-
date any such employee or any member of the employee's family,
for the same coercive purpose; or in any other manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S C., Sec. 151 et seq., herein called the Act.
Samuel W. Berry, an individual, on October 18, 1963, filed a charge and on
August 5, 1964 , filed an amended charge against United Packinghouse , Food and Al-
lied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local 46 (herein sometimes called the Union or Lo-
^cal 46), and its agents, Clarke Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray Edsill, T. F. McInteer,
and Clarence Paige (Local 46 and these individuals herein sometimes called the Re-
spondents), the basis therefor being that Respondent Local 46 and the individual
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (1) of the Act. On August 10, 1964, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 18, issued a complaint and notice of hearing against the Respond-
ent Union and the individual Respondents Knowles, Sulentic, Edsill, McInteer, and
Paige, alleging that the Respondents did engage in and are engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The Respond-
ents filed timely answer to the complaint, effectively denying the alleged violations of
the Act set forth therein, and setting up certain affirmative defenses.
On the issues framed by the complaint and the answer, this case came on to be
heard before Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman at Waterloo, Iowa, on January 7, and
was closed on January 9, 1965. At the hearing, all parties were repiesented by
counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to call and examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to present oral argument, to file proposed findings of fact and
conclusions or both, to present oral argument, and to file briefs Briefs were sub-
mitted on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondents after argument at the
hearing and have been carefully considered.
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the whole record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RATH PACKING COMPANY
Rath Packing Company is a corporation and maintains its principal office and place
of business at Waterloo, Iowa, where it is engaged there and at various other places
in several States of the United States in the processing, packing, sale, and distribution
of meat and related food products During the year immediately preceding the issu-
ance of the complaint herein, Rath Packing Company, in the course and conduct of its
business operations at Waterloo, Iowa, caused to be processed, packed, sold, and
distributed to customers situated outside the State of Iowa, products valued in an
amount in excess of $5 million. During the same year Rath Packing Company
purchased goods and materials used in its business operations from sources situated
outside the State of Iowa in an amount valued in excess of $5 million.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rath Packing Company is now, and has been at all times material herein , engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Packinghouse , Food and Allied Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Local 46, is,
and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The pleadings
The essential allegations of violations of the Act as set forth in the complaint are
as follows:
Since on or about May 29, 1963, and continuing to date, Respondents have
restrained and coerced and are restraining and coercing the employees of Rath
Packing Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
in that they have:
(a) On or about May 29, 1963, and continuing thereafter on or about
July 3 and September 3, 1963, Respondent [Union], by its officers and agents,
Clarke Knowles and Paul Sulentic, aided and abetted by various of its
stewards and members, acting in concert and participation with and at the
direction of the said Knowles and Sulentic, harassed employees of Rath
Packing Company, including Samuel W. Berry, Verna A. Kindschi, Electa
McAtee, Bernice L. Thompson and Rolla Meyers, physically assaulted the
said employees and members of their families, made threats to them of
grievous bodily injury or other harm, subjected them to various indignities
and outbursts of vituperative language and maliciously impeded their access
to their places of work, with the object and for the purpose of causing the
said employees and other employees of Rath Packing Company to obtain
and maintain membership in the Union.
(b) Beginning on or about July 3, 1963, and continuing at various times
thereafter, including but not limited to December 30, 1963, and Febru-
ary 20, February 21, February 22, March 3, March 5, March 6, June 10,
June 12, July 13, July 20 and July 22, 1964, Respondent [Union], by its
officers and/or agents, Clarke Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray Edsill, T. F.
Mclnteer, Clarence Paige and Lyle Taylor, aided and abetted by various of
its other stewards and members acting in concert and participation with and
at the direction of said officers and agents, have harassed Samuel W. Berry,
threatened him and the members of his family with grievous bodily harm or
other injury, physically assaulted and injured the said Berry and subjected
Berry and the members of his family to numerous indignities, abuses and
vituperative statements, with the object and for the purpose of forcing and
requiring the said Berry to obtain and maintain membership in Respondent
Union.
In their answer, the Respondent Union and the individual Respondents deny each
and every allegation contained in the above-quoted paragraph of the complaint. The
answer admits that the original charge dated October 18, 1963, and the amended
charge dated August 5, 1964, were served on Local 46: it admits that a copy of the
amended charge of August 5, 1964, was served on the individual Respondents, it is
specifically denied that service of the charge dated October 18, 1963, has ever at any
time been served upon the individual Respondents nor were such individual Respond-
ents cited as Respondents or otherwise made parties in any respect to the October 18,
1963, charge. By way of affirmative defense, the answer asserts that the charge of
October 18, 1963, was filed solely against Local 46; that such charge was investigated
and thereafter settled by a settlement agreement approved by the Regional Director
on December 16, 1963; that insofar as the complaint alleges unfair labor practices on
the part of Local 46, based on that charge, such matters have been settled and fore-
closed by the settlement agreement, and that there is no basis in fact or law for setting
aside such settlement agreement, and the agreement remains in full foice and effect
As a second affirmative defense, the answer asserts that insofar as the complaint
alleges unfair labor practices on the part of Local 46 based upon either the charge
dated October 18, 1963, or the charge dated August 5, 1964, the complaint was issued
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Act to the extent that complaint is made of alleged
unfair labor practices assertedly occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing and
service upon Local 46 of such charge. A third affirmative defense asserts that the
individual Respondents were not named as Respondents or otherwise parties to the
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 961
charge of October 18, 1963, they were not parties to the aforesaid settlement agree-
ment of December 16, 1963; that insofar as the complaint may allege unfair labor
practices on the part of the individual Respondents based upon the charge of Octo-
ber 18, 1963, such complaint was issued in violation of the Act and is fatally defec-
tive. A fourth affirmative defense asserts that insofar as the complaint alleges unfair
labor practices on the part of the individual Respondents based upon either the charge
dated October 18, 1963, or the charge dated August 5, 1964, such complaint is invalid
for the additional reason that it was issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Act
to the extent that complaint is made of alleged unfair labor practices assertedly occur-
ring more than 6 months prior to the filing and service of such charge on the individual
Respondents.
The affirmative defenses set forth in the answer were renewed by way of objections
to the taking of testimony relevant to the issues, and are discussed in the brief filed
on behalf of the Respondents, wherein counsel urges these defenses as grounds for
dismissal of the complaint. These defenses are without merit
The unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint are based upon unfair labor
practices occurring within the time limitation proviso of Section 10(b), which provides
in part that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring
more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. The charge was filed on Octo-
ber 18, 1963, and therefore the complaint could cover any alleged unfair labor prac-
tices occurring after April 18, 1963. The charge itself asserts the unfair labor
practices to have been committed by "the above-named labor organization, through
its officers and agents . The complaint, issued August 10, 1964, is timely
within the provisions of Section 10(b), and meets the requirements thereof. Kansas
Milling Company v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 413, 415 (C A. 10); Silver Bakery Inc. of
Newton, 150 NLRB 421. The individual Respondents named in the complaint need
not have been named by name in the charge or in the amended charge. An amended
charge is timely under Section 10(b), even though filed more than 6 months after the
occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practices, if it relates to unfair labor practices
inherent in or connected with any original charge timely filed. In Kansas Milling Co.
v. N.L.R.B., supra, the court specifically laid down the rule
So likewise an amended charge will be timely although filed more than six
months after the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practice if it relates to
an unfair labor practice inherent in or connected with the original charge. In
such cases, it will relate back to the filing of the original charge. The doctrine of
relation back in pleading is well recognized in the general law.... It should not
be narrowly applied in a remedial act such as the one before use when the only
purpose of the charge is to set in motion an inquiry by the Board to determine
whether a violation has occurred.
See also N.L.R.B. v. Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 213 F. 2d 208 (C.A. 5); N L.R.B.
v. Gaynor News Company, Inc, 197 F. 2d 719 (C A. 2), affd 347 U S. 17; N.L.R.B.
v. Knight Morley Corp., 251 F. 2d 753 (C.A. 6), cert denied 357 U.S. 927.
This case has proceeded in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, and specifically in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5
and 7 thereof.
Insofar as the settlement agreement of December 16, 1963, may be concerned
herein, the pleadings on their face show that the Regional Director determined to
institute formal proceedings under Section 101.7, Statements of Procedure of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 8, as amended, upon failure of the Respond-
ent Union to perform its obligations under the agreement.' Evidence of conduct
both before and after the making of a settlement agreement may be considered in the
determination of whether or not such settlement agreement has been breached. The
Wallace Corporation v. N L R B., 323 U.S. 248; Southern Coach & Body Company,
Inc., 141 NLRB 80, 81.
Therefore, the affirmative defenses set up in the answer of the Respondent neces-
sarily must fail.
'The settlement agreement by its terms could be, and was, set aside by reason of the
noncompliance of Local 46 with its provisions. That the Union did not comply with the
terms of the settlement agreement, insofar as the notice required to be posted is concerned,
is evident from a letter of the union president to the Assistant Regional Director dated
June 30, 1964, wherein the president states, among other things, that "the rani:-and-file
voted to have the agreement signed, provided that they [the notices] be posted only in
the Union hall."
7 9 6-027-6 6-vo l 153-62
,962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The contract between the Company and Local No. 46
On October 2, 1961, the Company and Local No . 46 entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement , which agreement was extended from time to time and finally
was extended by a memorandum of agreement between the parties which provides,
inter alia , that all provisions of the new master agreement shall take effect as of
September 1, 1964, and shall remain in effect until midnight , August 31, 1967.2 The
contract signed October 2, 1961, provides , under the heading "CHECK-OFF," for
the deduction of regular monthly dues and initiation fees of employees who have on
file with the Company a valid and effective authorization for such deductions. Under
this heading it is also provided that:
The Union shall, on or before the 25th day of each month, furnish the Company
a certified list of additional names of persons who have become members of the
Union during the preceding period .... The Union , its officers , and members
shall not intimidate or coerce employees into joining the Union or continuing
their membership therein.
The memorandum of agreement effective September 1, 1964, provides in part, as to
the Waterloo plant, that.
All present employees who are members of the Union shall, as a condition of
employment , maintain their membership during the period of this agreement by
the regular payment of dues. Any employees not members of the Union shall,
as a condition of employment , join 30 days after the effective date of this provi-
sion and any new employee shall , as a condition of employment , join the Union
30 days after the date of their employment and shall maintain their membership
during the period of the agreement by the regular payment of dues. If the
present laws of the States in which plants covered under this Master Agreement
are located affecting this are changed, so that it may be lawful, this section shall
become effective immediately .3
Another provision of the October 2, 1961, agreement pertinent here appears under
the heading "HOLIDAYS," as follows:
Pay for holidays not worked:
All regular, full-time employees (employees who are regularly scheduled to work
gang time ) shall be paid for 8 hours at their regular rate of pay for each of the
holidays set forth in paragraph 23, provided they report for work and work the
hours as ordered on their last regular scheduled workday preceding the holiday
and their first regular scheduled workday following the holiday . Absences on
such days shall be excused only in case of emergency when a written request is
approved by the Foreman and the Superintendent.
Under the heading "GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE " in the 1961 agreement, it is
provided that a grievance committee of employee representatives shall be designated
by the Union and the management notified thereof . This contract also provides for
the designation of stewards There is a chief steward elected by the Local 46 mem-
bership, 13 division stewards elected by employees in each of the respective divisions,
and departmental stewards , elected by employees in the departments of each division.
The elected officers of Local 46 are the president , the chief steward, the first vice
president , the second vice president , the recording secretary , the financial secretary-
treasurer , first guard , second guard , three trustees , and a first and second board
member. The negotiating committee is comprised of the president , the chief steward,
and three division stewards.
1. Card checks in general
Local 46 is comprised of some 3,500 or more members . In its dealings with the
Company it is, pursuant to the contract, each month supplied with the names of new
employees who are then solicited to join the Union. One method of solicitation has
been through a so-called card check, an organized project by which certain designated
members of the Union have requested employees to exhibit a card evidencing union
membership . If the employee has not been able to produce such a card , he or she
must either become a member or be designated by the Union as a "freerider ." Pres-
2 This memorandum of agreement provides that it 11. . . is made between the Rath
Packing Company ( hereinafter called the Company ) and the United Packing House, Food
and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, on behalf of itself and Local No. 46 at Waterloo ( includ-
ing Hilltop ), Local 722 at Houston , Local 324 at Dallas , Local 685 at Decatur , and Local
136 at Birmingham ( hereinafter called 'Union')."
3 Iowa has a right-to-work law. Code of Iowa , 1958, section 736.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 963
sure in varying degree has been applied by the Union and its membership to enforce
such solicitation. These card checks were carried on periodically since at least the
year 1951, to September 3, 1963.
A "freerider," as defined by Chief Steward Clarke Knowles, is "generally ... an
individual who is simply too cheap to pay his union dues." Knowles said further:
We do have nonunion members at Rath's who don't belong to our union because
they object to unions in principle but who do contribute to charities in the amount
of the union dues or to our building corporation, and we do not consider those
people freeriders.
The card-check method of pressure was also brought into play when a card dis-
played by the employee showed delinquency in payment of dues, whereupon that
employee either paid up the amount of dues in arrears or was designated a freerider.
The General Counsel contends, and I shall find, that Local 46 through certain of
its officers, stewards, and members engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in that in conjunction with card checks and by other
independent acts the Union and its officers and members as agents of the Union
coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Card checks, specifically May 29, July 3, and September 3, 1963
Notwithstanding the fact that the agreement between the Company and the Union
makes no provision for employees to take time from work to engage in card checks,
the Company has, according to Harlan Heise, plant personnel manager, recognized
"a need to make people available for union activity as best our operation will permit,
and this has been a practice with the Company " In this connection, the Union has
notified, and did on May 1963 notify, the Company that it requested permission for
certain named union members to be excused for union activity. The same procedure
was followed for the card check conducted on July 3 and again for the one conducted
on September 3, 1963.
A card-check committee comprised of no less than 176 employees from the 13
departments of the Company were designated on a list furnished to the Company,
which Heise used to work from to excuse employees for the May 29 card check
The Union notified the Company, just before the other two card checks were con-
ducted, of the names of persons they wished excused for the purpose of participating
therein. The evidence shows that division and department stewards also engaged in
the card checks on those 3 days. Over 300 employees acted as stewards for the year
1963, according to a list furnished by the Union, and a similar list for 1964 shows
almost the same number of employees designated as stewards.
As noted above, in the Company-Union agreement is a provision requiring an
-employee to be at work the day before and the day after a regularly scheduled holi-
day in order to receive pay for that holiday. Each one of the three card checks
conducted in 1963 was held on such a day, two before and one after a regularly
scheduled holiday and, because of the way in which each was conducted, a number
of employees were unable to reach their jobs.
Local 46 publishes a weekly sheet called Official Bulletin of Local No. 46, United
Packing House, Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, a number of copies of which
were introduced in evidence herein. Each such copy refers to "freeriders," and names
many of them by name or by nickname or both. In the issue of July 23, 1963, the
following paragraphs appear:
-FREE RIDERS SECTION-
Names of all Free Riders and delinquent members have now been compiled.
They will appear in the coming handbill along with the amount they owe. Any
one who knows he is in this category will have until Tuesday, July 30 to stop in
the Union Office and remedy the situation if he wishes. There are not too many
non-members left, and each week the list grows shorter.
All members are urged to help eliminate it completely by contacting Free-
Riders whom they know, and making attempts to put an end to this disgraceful
situation.
Other issues of the Official Bulletin, later mentioned herein, contain comment and
the names and nicknames of certain so-called freeriders.
In connection with the May 29 check. after Personnel Director Heise received the
list of employees, he checked it over to determine whether or not all those employees
who had company approval to be present at the card check actually were there. In
the case of this and other card checks, according to Heise, the Company would not
"necessarily" know why the employees were requested to be relieved from duty
but that "we had reason to believe that there would be a card check."
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The card checks were conducted in front of the Company 's main office ; it appears
that two stations were used , one in front of the employees ' entrance and one in front
of what is called the Rath Street gate, where the union representatives intercepted
employees coming in to work and lust before any employee reached company
property.
Notwithstanding the testimony of Clarke Knowles and other union officials that
they were unable to obtain seniority lists or lists of new employees from the Com-
pany, it clearly appears that the actual fact is exactly the opposite . The Company
provided seniority lists under the Company-Union contract , as required , and furnished
monthly lists of new employees to the Union . The names of the so-called freeriders
printed in the Bulletin could be and were obtained from the Company without the
coercing by union agents of employees through a card check
Through the medium of motion pictures I viewed a considerable number of inci-
dents which took place during the 1963 card checks , at times when employees were
about to enter the plant to start to work. The scenes were photographed by two
motion picture cameras from a window on one side of the foremen 's locker room.
They were set up some 18 to 20 feet above street level, and trained on action taking
place varying from between 20 and 45 feet away from the camera . The cameras were
operated by Harold Rehholtz, safety director , and E. M. Rossiter , a supervisor in
the industrial engineering department . The shots displayed do not and were not
intended to record continuous activities at the entrance or entrances on each of the
days , they do show continuity in relation to a very considerable number of times
when employees were entering or attempting to enter the plant and were stopped
by other employees , including union stewards , and the actions and motions of the
participants in each scene As the pictures were shown in the hearing room, the
action was stopped from time to time so that particular individuals could be identified
and, during the course of the showing of the film, Rebholtz was able to identify, by
interpolated comment, a number of the participants .4 About 200 feet of film was
run covering the events of May 29, about 600 for July 3, and about 600 for Sep-
tember 3. Bell & Howell cameras were used , one with a 1-inch normal lens and one
with a 3-inch -wide angle lens (telephoto ). As explained by Rebholtz , the cameras
presented a general portrayal , operating intermittently.
In summary , the sequence of events shown , with interpolations of explanation and
identification of individuals by Rebholtz ( contained in the stenographic transcript)
demonstrate organized activity interfering , and in number of cases preventing,
employees' efforts to enter the plant. It is not uncommon to see union representa-
tives with folded arms or out-stretched hands, stopping employees , talking to them,
in some instances shoving or pummeling them, and obviously impeding a person's
effort to continue on his or her way. Among the Union 's stewards and other union
members clearly identifiable from the pictures are Clarke Knowles, Wanda "Jerry"
Thompson , Ray Edsill, Howard Medhaug , Paul Sulentic , Betty North , Eleanor
Medhaug, Timothy Mclnteer , Lyle Taylor , and others Some 30 or 40 persons
comprised the card-check group. Also apparent from the viewing of the films are
4The motion picture films were received in evidence over the objection of counsel for
the Respondent In my opinion , the films are authentic , and were properly proved it
was shown that Rebholtz had had instruction in the operation of the cameras and was
experienced in their use , and that the films were processed by a commercial firm substan-
tially engaged in the development of motion picture films for radio stations and other
customers . The main objection is based on a failure to link with exactness the persons
who had custody of the films during the time the pictures were taken and the time they
were displayed at the hearing It appears that during the times between the actual tak-
ing and the running thereof at this hearing, the films had been in a safe in the Company's
office, accessible to only two officials of the Company ; that they had been run during
the trial of a case arising out of incidents which occurred at the card checks, and had
for some 2 or 3 weeks been in the custody of the clerk of the court . Knowles, who viewed
the films when shown, testified that one scene shown during the court trial , in which em-
ployee Kindschi was pushing and shoving him, did not appear during the course of the
showing at the hearing herein although it did appear when shown in the court proceed-
ing Otherwise there was no criticism of the accuracy of the pictures from Knowles or
Union President Nolting, both of whom were present when the films were shown at the
hearing, or from any other witness Rebholz , who heard Knowles say this , testified that
no such incident had ever been shown at any time For reasons clearly apparent on the
record , I consider Knowles unworthy of belief as to any part of his testimony except as
it might be corroborated by testimony from another , credible witness . From my observa-
tion of the films, together with the testimony of the witnesses, I am convinced that the
films did accurately portray the events they were said to have reproduced.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 965
at least two shots showing employees being escorted by policemen, identified by
name as Gunderson and Clausman. Some of the union stewards wore white top-
coats as a sort of badge of office. Interferences with their efforts to enter the plant
are shown of Terry Maifeld, Electa McAtee, one Mrs. Tillebien, Bernice Thompson,
Verna Kindschi, and others. These pictures show that the employees accosted were
not merely asked a question, but actually were impeded and in some cases jostled
or pushed or struck during the course of their exchange of words with union
representatives.
C. Use of the Official Bulletin to attack "free riders"
The Official Bulletin of Local No. 46 apparently is intended to convey matters of
common interest to employees each week and is made available to them among other
ways of distribution by being placed in a cubical or box near the plant entrances.
Certain issues of the Official Bulletin introduced in evidence here contain sections or
paragraphs devoted to so-called freeriders, excerpts of which are as follows:
From the July 23, 1963, issue.
Concerning one "Free-Rider" in the slice bacon department-Electa McAtee,
better known as "scab Jerry" is still bull headedly refusing to join, although she
gives no reason why. She has not paid dues since at least 1954, so has had
ample time to think up some excuse for not joining.
It is possible she does not belong to the Union because she feels the benefits
are not great enough, perhaps the wages are too small. It is also possible the
people in her employ at her restaurant, motel and ceramic shop are paid a
higher wage.
It might be well for any member of Local 46 who knows of some one wanting
employment at a higher scale than Rath's pay, to apply to these places for work.
They are. Stan's Motel and Jerry's Inn in Raymond. Since "Free-Rider" Jerry
McAtee works the day shift at Rath's anyone interested in talking to the
employees of these places would surely see them there mornings while "Leech
Jerry" is gone.
Rath's would be doing her a favor to fire her-for then she could start working
for herself at a higher wage.-,
From the July 30, 1963, issue:
Due to the amount of time involved in checking the status of all of the Free
Riders in the Rath plant, we are holding the list until we can check each one as
fully as possible. We want to make certain that there aie no errors in the
list when published. A number of departments seem to have more than their
share of Free Riders.
When persons are members of a community and receive the various benefits
to be derived from living there, they pay their dues (taxes). When people
belong to a church group, they make the necessary contributions to keep their
church going. Somehow persons working in the Rath Plant feel that they are
somehow entitled to all benefits obtained by members without paying the cost
of getting them The community, the churches, other organizations as well as
your union has little use for Free Riders. While we can't sell your property for
nonpayment of dues as your community can, or cause you to lose benefits of
membership as your church or other organization would, we want 100 percent
union membership. We will do everything we can to reach this goal.
We will publish as complete a list as possible next week. If you are not a
member in goodstanding-Join Todayi
From the August 20, 1963, issue:
FREE-RIDERS
We list below a couple of Free-Riders you should be interested in reading about.
As space becomes available in bulletins, we'll have write ups on the other free
riders in the plant. We certainly wouldn't want any of them to feel neglected.
CURE MIXING
James Weber
Weber joined the Union in March of 1956, and dropped out in January 1957.
Apparently the cardchecks in 1960 convinced Mr Weber he should be a member
of the Union because he again joined and paid 1 month's dues and another
initiation fee in January of 1960.
'The term "scab" bears an inescapable connotation of opprobriousness and vileness
recognized by all members of modern American Society Caterpillar Tractor Company v.
N L.R.B., 230 F 2d 357, 358-359 (C.A 7).
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As far as we have been able to determine Weber's reason for not being a
member is an economic one. He states that he'll join our union, but doesn't
want to pay the back dues. Weber spends a lot of time and effort so that he
won't have to pay back dues. On days that we have card checks, he usually
comes to work 3 to 4 hours early and then tries to sneak in on an old union card
Weber states that he won't spend a lot of money foolishly just to get an
injunction to protect him from his fellow workers when a dime for a phone
call for the police will do just as good.
Maybe you've right about that Free-Rider Weber, but we wonder how in
the world you get enough gall to face your fellow workers knowing as you do,
that it requires a police escort to get you to work simply because you are too
tight to pay dues, and prefer to be a Leech and Ride Free on the backs of
Local No 46 union members.
We're sure you must feel very proud when you go home and tell your wife
and kids that their father is a free rider at Rath's and is too tight to carry his
fair share of the load.
ROLLA MEYERS
Rolla Meyers was a long standing member until April of this year. We have
had a couple of conversations with Meyers both before and [after] he with-
drew. It seems that Mr. Meyers objects to our Local helping Negroes in the
South to gain the right to vote. He further objects to the Local contributing
to the Saint Frances Hospital building fund.
Personally, we disagree with Mr. Meyers' views, however, I think we can
all agree on this point that he has a perfect right to feel this way, even if we
do think he's wrong. We found out later that there was a great deal more to
Mr. Meyers' objection of what he originally stated.
During this first conversation, however, we pointed out that if Mr. Meyers
was honestly convinced of the rightness of his opinions, then he should have
attended the Rank-and-File meetings and voted accordingly. As a matter of
fact, we stated that as a result of the constitutional requirement, the motion to
donate the money to Saint Frances required a two third vote and had Mr.
Meyers attended the meeting and convinced one or two other members present
there that he was right, the motion would have lost and we would not be
sending any money to Saint Frances.
We tried to point out to Meyers that we felt that every member had an
obligation and a right to attend their Union meetings, if however, they choose
to ignore their obligation and not exercise their right, they really have no one
to blame but themselves if a motion is passed which they object to.
Mr. Meyers expressed what we feel to be his true feelings in a later conversa-
tion with three members of our Local when he stated that the reason he with-
drew was that "would not belong to any organization that gave a dime to help
a Catholic."
In the second place, and more important, we think that its wrong for Mr.
Meyers or anyone else for that matter to be narrow minded and bigoted as Mr.
Meyers appears to be.
It seems rather odd that Meyers has plenty of money to use against his
fellow workers by seeking injunction-but he doesn't have enough to help
prevent human suffering just because that human happens to be black or
happens to have religious beliefs different than Mr. Meyers.
It seems strange how Mr. Meyers can accept benefits fought for, negotiated
by, and gained by a union that he himself does not believe in-especially equal
treatment for and by all when he so readily accepts all benefits he could get
acquired by these same people. In a case such as this, we're better off without
him, and better yet we're better off without the nuisance value and hypocritical
value that his presence presents
From the August 27, 1963, issue.
Free Rider Section
This is a story of a Free-Rider named Sam Berry, or maybe better known
as Chicken Sam. Chicken Sam joined the Union on April 13, 1952 and
dropped out on November R, 1959. for n^ app2rent reason, or at least he didn't
give one. Maybe at that time, he started a savings account9
At the last Card Check, Sam approached the members on the Card Check.
When he was asked for his Union Card, Chicken Sam turned and walked over
to Johnson's Cafe across the street. Later, Chicken Sam appeared on the scene
again. He was hesitant this time, he did not want to go to the door, but he had
some help-Sam had his wife with him. She told him to go in and go to
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 967
work, so she led the way pushing, shoving and kicking. The union members
thought she was a Free-Rider and neglected to let her pass. The Policeman
then escorted her into the Plant and guess where Chicken Sam was, still standing
behind the members who were on the card check. Once again, "the Shepard"
came after her lost little lamb, and this time pushed and shoved and kicked
until Sam was in the door.
Chicken Sam was never approached in the Plant and asked why he did not
belong to the Union. He would give no reply of any kind as to why he didn't
belong. In fact, he wouldn't even talk to the Steward who contacted him.
Moreover, Sam thinks it is funny when someone calls him a Free-Rider. It
actually just shows how much intelligence he really has.
I wonder just how much Chicken Sam and the rest of the free-riders will
laugh when they find out that they will have to take a cut in pay in the next
year. They will probably want to join the Union, but maybe then a Union
won't want Chicken Sam and his clan.
From the issue of September 4, 1963:
Free-Rider
A lot of people have asked where Chicken Sam works. He works in the
Trim department.
If some of you free-riders are wondering when and if your name will be in
the Union bulletin, don't worry too much It will be there.
The story this week is about the "Candy Bar Kid."
Her name is Nellie Hack-or rather from now on as "The Candy Bar Kid."
Nellie paid her dues in December, 1960 for the year of 1950 She has been
asked many times to start paying her dues, but she has neglected to do so.
In this particular case, she cannot say that she doesn't have the money to pay
them. Everyday, she brings in candy bars for some of the gang, and a box or
two for the Foreman. At Christmas time, she gets more generous and buys
the Foreman a nice present. If she wishes to express her desire to be nice to
her fellow workers, it could well be expressed by just carrying her own load
by paying her union dues. I am sure if an accurate account of candy bars
and Christmas gifts were kept, the amount spent would be far exceed the
amount of dues paid per year.
The "Candy Bar Kid" works in the Trim Department on the second shift,
and as 'a rule can be found at the clock about 10 or 15 minutes before her
gang checks out. She usually wears a plastic raincoat whether it rains or not.
I think it would be a good idea if the "Candy Bar Kid" would quit and let
one of our laid off members have the job that she holds down. It seems by
now that she should have enough money saved to retire-there is no doubt
that she is old enough, because she can't even work a full day anymore or she
wouldn't be at the clock so early.
From the September 17, 1963, issue:
Speaking of Free-Riders
Yes, speaking of "Free-Rideis," I hate that name, and I am sure a lot of
people so designated also do, and in their hearts would like to get back into
the Union. We say to do, come on, forget saving face, and maybe a few
paltry pennies, and get back into the movement with us to maintain and raise
our present living standards, and those of the community.
From the September 24, 1963, issue-
Free-Riders Section
RUTH K. LANDSVERK-SLICED BACON
Ruth K. Landsverk joined the Union on July 11, 1954, and paid 6 months
dues and then dropped out.
Ruth has a nickname that she acquired after hitting the chief steward with
a bung gut, but after the contest last week which she won hands down, she has
a new name. She is now "Miss Bacon Rind of '64."
Now, let's see if we can bring you iip-to-date on "Miss Bacon Rind." She
works in Sliced Bacon Department, along with a few other free-riders and by
her working in Sliced Bacon, is no reflection on the union members we have
in that depaitment. Miss Bacon Rind has been asked many times to join the
Union, but she will not do so. She has slipped into the plant during Card
Checks about every way possible and has even ridden into the foreman's parking
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lot with a foreman. The last few times, she just went home on Card Check
days. I guess that she has saved enough money by not paying dues to be able to
take a day or two off.
The reason for not paying her dues is quite obvious. She doesn't like any-
one who is a Union member, at least that is what her actions reveal. By this-
I mean , a few weeks ago, we had a Plant Gate Collection in front of the plant
for a person who is in real need of help. Instead of donating at least a dime,
she swung open the front door and it struck a lady who was on the Collection
Committee and the bucket she had the money in was knocked from her hand,
and the money went flying all over the sidewalk. You can see, it isn't the
Union she dislikes, it is everyone.
Considering tactics such as the few that we've mentioned, it would seem that
a Free-Rider isn't human after all, that they're a separate breed walking around
leeching off of everyone else and I think its time we put a stop to these leeches
living off the rest of the members. I would however, like to congratulate the
Union members in Slice Bacon and the other departments who have to work
by these Free-Riders. It takes a strong stomach to stand these leeches.
Next week, I think it will be the male employees' turn. So all of you Free-
Riders who belong to the male sex watch the bulletin it may be your turn.
From the issue of October 1, 1963:
The Free-Riders that we planned to write about this week will have to wait
until next week, due to the sudden turn of events. So once again, we will have
to talk about Chicken Sam.
I know we described Sam quite well in the past bulletin, but some things
have come up since then that I think the members should know about.
At the last Card Check, Chicken Sam and James P. Weber slipped into the
plant together, but you must know why they were together. Sam's wife made
some phone calls the night prior to the Card Check. She called all the Webers
in the phone book and each one, she asked if they were the Weber who was a
Free-Rider at Rath's. We have other Weber's in the plant who are good union
members, and they resented this very much. When she finally got hold of the
Free-Rider, she asked him if he would go into the plant with her husband
Evidently, she didn't have time to take Sam into work herself. This isn't bad
enough-the vice president was in the plant last week and he made a special
point to talk to Sam. Sam went home and told the wife, so in turn, the wife
went visiting. She went to see the vice president's mother, but stopped at a
couple of homes disturbing people before she found the right house. Upon
arrival at the right house, she started the big scene, which I resent very much I
don't think a person can get much lower than a Free-Rider and a leech who will
send his wife over to a good Union member's home and start pleading. Back
to the story. When she got to the Union member's home, she said she would
like to talk about her husband. She went on to say that he had been a good
man and has been sick and she wanted my mother to talk me out of trying
to get Sam to join. She wants, and by us, I mean each and every dues paying
member to justify the actions of her husband, and the other Free-Riders. Can
you imagine that?
It really makes me sick to think if the Free-Riders in the plant want to talk
about their reason for not paying dues, that they won't talk to the other
people. We have Stewards, and a Union Hall for expressing complaints and
grievances, and not our homes especially when they know the person who could
give them the answers are not there
If Chicken Sam and his wife really desire to discuss this, all they have to do
is stop by and I am sure they will find someone to discuss this with.
My mother is not fully aware of the situation that we have in the plant regard-
ing these Free-Riders. The story she heard was quite shaded, but when she
later learned that during Sam's illness, it was through negotiations by the Union
that Sam received his sick pay and was able to maintain his seniority, and yet
he doesn't want to pay his way; this, she could not understand-the same as we
as Union members cannot understand I wish to add one comment; if I had
been home, Sam's wife would have had a very short stay.
Next week, we will have two new names in this section, so please watch for
your next issue of the bulletin.
The issue of October 8, 1963, does not single out any employee to comment upon as
being a Free-Rider, but is devoted to an explanation of why the Union through its
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 969
Bulletin had previously singled out individuals for comment. The issue of Octo-
ber 29, 1963, is the last bulletin offered in evidence, and under a FREE-RIDERS
heading carries the following.
It has been brought to the attention of the Officers at different membership
meetings that the members would like to see a list of Free-Riders in the hand-
bill and if an entire list is not available, then a partial list would do.
The reason for this is so that everyone will learn who the Free-Riders are.
If you have one in your department, point this person out to other members.
This does not apply to members in your department only, but members in other
departments as well. By doing this, it may eliminate entirely, or at least partially
the number of Free-Riders.
Listed below is a partial list. If there are any corrections, please stop over to
the Union Hall and advise us of same.
H. R. Barchus-badge number 8065-last paid 10-9-55.
S. W. Berry-badge number 9205-last paid 11-8-59.
D. E. Ewoldt-badge number 2651-last paid 11-26-58.
R. Fagerlind-badge number 27311-last paid 10-9-55.
D. Fleshner-badge number 28594-last paid 1-12-58.
V. Gaede-badge number 30153-last paid 10-23-59.
R. L. Gallegher-badge number 30258-last paid 11-13-55.
V. A. Kindschi-badge number 49337-last paid 10-9-55.
C. R. Kolthoff-badge number 50156-last paid 10-12-54.
R. K. Landsverk-badge number 51352-last paid 1-9-55.
E. L. McAtee-badge number 55281-last paid 1-13-59.
D Ohrt-badge number 63972-last paid 9-22-54.
L. Perkins-badge number 69935-last paid 10-15-52.
S. Railsback-badge number 73261-last paid 12-1-53.
C. B. Ricketts-badge number 74593-last paid 1-9-55.
E. Knebel-badge number 49929-last paid 11-28-61.
These printed attacks upon non-dues-paying employees cannot be considered to be
the acts of individual members which the Respondent Union did not either encourage,
condone, or ratify. The card checks and the use of the union bulletin cannot be
separated insofar as custom and usage is concerned in "persuading" employees to
become members of the Union, or to present proof that they were members of the
Union. According to the testimony of Chief Steward Knowles, union officials and
stewards and members do not always know whether a person is a dues-paying mem-
ber of the Union, one of the reasons being that a number of employees choose to
pay their dues directly to the Union rather than through the voluntary checkoff sys-
tem. Knowles would have it believed, as he said, that-
many times we have found it wise to simply stop and talk to them and find out
why they withdrew. Most of the employees who were not union members
belonged at one time or another. They had a grievance or something that they
did not like. I made a request of the Company just Monday to supply us a
list of people who were currently on vacation or on sick leave or pregnancy
leave, and they said they could not supply that information to the Union. And
that is why we have these because we do not have the complete seniority list of
everyone who works there. We know who the union members are, but we do
not know the names of the people who are employees so that we can compare
the two. And the Company up to this point has refused to give us that list.
Further, according to Knowles, the International Union and the Local 46 constitution
or bylaws contain provisions to the effect that an employee may not voluntarily
relinquish his membership in Local 46. Knowles stated that in order to be a mem-
ber in good standing the member must be current; that anyone who is more than 3
months delinquent in payment of dues is not considered a member in good standing
but is still considered a member. (The constitution and bylaws provisions referred
to were not offered in evidence.)
In addition to the use of the card check and the publication of names and com-
ments regarding employees in the Official Bulletin, the Union through its officers,
stewards, and members engaged in many other acts of restraint and coercion, some
of which I shall now discuss. These acts include threats, bodily assaults, profane
and abusive language, and other acts which the Respondents say they are not liable for,
because they were the acts of individual members of the Union and therefore neither
the Union as such nor its officers nor the individuals named as Respondents herein
can be held responsible.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. Other acts in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
1. Samuel W. Berry
Berry, the Charging Party in this case, was first employed on January 29, 1952,
and presently is an employee of the Company. He has not been able to work since
July 13, 1964, by reason of having been pushed down a flight of stairs at the plant
by Paul Sulentic, Clarence Paige, and Timothy F. McInteer. This assault, which
resulted in serious physical injury to Berry, was the culmination of a series of acts
of persecution on the part of the individuals just named and other members of Local
46, the description of which by Berry stands uncontradicted upon the record by any
person said by him to have been involved in any of these incidents. The appel-
lation of "Chicken Sam" used in the Official Bulletin in the excerpts above quoted is
about the only printable and speakable epithet which was applied to him over a
long period of time because of his refusal to rejoin the Union and pay dues.
Berry became a member of the Union shortly after his employment began, drop-
ping out in the year 1959 because, as he testified, "I was getting taxed, abuse, and
they wouldn't adjust my grievance like I wanted." He resumed his union member-
ship after about 2 months, and then again left the Union. Thereafter, day after
day, he was approached by, among others, Sulentic, Paige, McInteer, and Percy Burt,
who attempted, in the way of threats of physical assault, to convince him to resume
membership. After about May 1, 1963, these individuals and others told him
repeatedly "to sign up or they will work on me until I do." On the morning of the
card check on May 29, 1963, he arrived at the plant about 6:10 a m., approached the
front entrance, and was there met by a crowd of some 20 to 30 people. Ray Edsill,
a division steward, asked him for his union card; Berry said nothing, but walked
on into the plant. On the morning of July 3, 1963, he arrived at the front entrance
of the plant about 6:40 a.m. and again observed a crowd of from 20 to 30 people,
including Edsill, Knowles, Sulentic, and Eleanor Medhaug, a member of the card
check committee. Edsill asked him for his card, and as he approached the door he
observed that it was blocked by Eleanor Medhaug; Berry thereupon turned, crossed
the street, and telephoned his wife; Mrs. Berry came to the plant and joined him and
L.ey in turn were joined by a policeman. As Mrs Berry walked up to the door and
started to turn the handle, Mrs. Medhaug pushed her against a number of members
of the Union, someone called "arrest that woman," and the policeman grabbed the
door apparently in an effort to open it to let Berry through. At that time a pocket
was ripped off Berry's overalls; his lunchbox was forced from his hand and thrown
on the ground. With the aid of the policeman present he managed to get in to work.
Between the time of the July 3 card check and October, when Berry filed a charge
with the National Labor Relations Board, he, his wife, and 3-year-old daughter were
threatened and called names of opprobrium. Berry frequently was threatened with
physical assault. Vile appellations were addressed to Berry, his wife, and daughter,
both publicly and privately. On December 24 and 30, Sulentic accosted him, calling
him an utterly vile name, and on the latter date telling him that "you will sign up
when I get through with you." About January 20, 1964, he was again belittled by
Sulentic calling him a freerider and a liar, advising him that the notice the Union
had agreed to post according to its settlement agreement with the Regional Director
would not be posted, and that the National Labor Relations Board would be of no
help to him. On subsequent dates he was told by Sulentic, Burt, and Dave Colvin
that he had better sign up or they would work on him until he did; on February 21
Colvin threatened to beat him up telling him "we ought to get a rope and string you
up." On March 5 he was told by Sulentic to pay $200 back dues and get back into
the Union; on March 6 Sulentic, with Lyle Taylor, a division steward, told him, "I
don't have to pay no attention to them notices" and "you get outside of this plant
and over in that parking lot and I am going to beat you up." Sulentic also threat-
ened him with a grievance procedure requiring that he be off for 3 days. On May 19,
after a week's illness, he returned to the plant, when one Huz Knox, a department
steward, in the piesence of Mclnteer and other employees, called him a scab, and
later, when Berry started toward the locker room, Mclnteer, Knox, one Inders, and
others followed him out of the room and told him he had better be checked out,
meaning that he had "better not be in there working." A whole series of events
show that Berry was threatened with beatings, mutilation in a meatchopper, and
loss of his life, that water and oil were poured on him , that he was jabbed with
sticks and brooms and shovels, shoved, kicked, tripped, and had his clothes ruined.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 971
The harassment to which he was subjected is demonstrated by what happened to
him on only 1 day. In his words:
It started in the morning . The first time I went up to the locker room I had a
cup of coffee in my hand . And as I was going toward the locker room door
Dick Marvin and Harry Fowler was coming out , and they said , "here goes your
free rider ." And I had that cup of coffee in my hand, and they were kind of
crowding in there. All the way in there I kept being pushed, and I lost all of
my coffee out of my cup. So I went and sat down at the row of lockers there
on the bench , and while I was sitting there somebody dumped a glass of water
on my head . So Paige and McInteer was there , and they said , "Let's sweep this
free rider out of here " So they each grabbed brooms and they started sweep-
ing that water that was on the floor on my feet and legs. And then they started
poking my legs and punching my legs. And while they were doing that Ray
Edsill was standing right there by the wall , and Ed Lampman was also standing
there. So I got up to leave, and I started toward the door, and Tim McInteer
started for a scoop shovel , and he started banging the walls and the floor and
everything directly behind me. So I continued down to work ... I got out of
the locker room and got down to work that time ... [later] ... well, I went up
there, and I went to my locker and got me a package of cigarettes out of my
locker And I sat down at the end of the bench to where I could look both
ways because I didn't know what was going to happen . And I got up to leave,
and I started toward the drinking fountain to get a drink And Paige and McIn-
teer came up behind me there, and Tim grabbed a scoop shovel , and he started
scooping water on me . . . and so Clarence Paige grabbed the rag out of my hip
pocket, and he soaks that down, and he throwed that at me . And then Tim
McInteer and Paige said, "Let's throw him in the sink and soak him down some
more ." So Paige grabbed for me, and I tore away from him. And then Tim
spoke up and said, "Let's take that 4 gallon bucket of cigarettes and water and
dump on him ." So I broke away again , and I took off out the door, and I lost
my cap on the way out the door.
After this , he reported to his foreman , Bob Bartz , then went to the front office and
reported the incident to Ray Gillette , personnel manager at the plant, went back to
work and found his mesh glove missing, obtained another one , and then found that-
they had broken my locker open and dumped my thermos bottle and got
rid of my sack of lunch because it wasn't there ... I went down to the commis-
sary to get me a candy bar, just to have something to chew on. So I went up
the steps at the end of the ramp , and I was sitting on the steps. And while I
was sitting there somebody dumped a cup of water down the steps and soaked
my whole back again . . . so there was another fellow and I sitting there, and we
sat there awhile, and pretty soon we started up the ramp . We got up to the top
of the ramp . And there were some doors there that go into the lardroom. And
Paige, Sulentic , and McInteer were waiting inside the lardroom door there. So
Paul Sulentic kind of blocked my way there so I couldn 't go on to work. So I
went back on down the ramp, heading toward the personnel office again. And
I got down to the bottom of the ramp to where the three doors was. And Paul
Sulentic and Tim McInteer went through the center door, and Paige came right
down behind me and rammed me right up against a 50 gallon barrel, and it
throwed me off balance and I finally got myself up on my feet . And they told
me to get back up there to work And then they said , "Let's take him up there "
So they grabbed me and took my arm and slipped around under my shoulders
and what not, trying to get me to go back up to work.
He attempted through one Newman , a member of management , to see if there
was anything that could be done to stop the persecution, and Newman told him,
"No. I'm trying to keep 3500 people working . I can 't do nothing for you " Berry
thereupon took his 3 -week vacation , returning to work on July 6. Each day there-
after he was subjected to soaking by water , threats of physical violence and mutila-
tion, soaking by hot coffee, burning by hot water , and continuous abuse. For exam-
ple he testified:
While I was out there working Paul Sulentic , Paige, and McInteer came up to
me. And then McInteer started-he stood right on my foot so I couldn't work I
pushed him off of me so I could work . And then he grabbed me by the front
of the shirt , tore the buttons right off up to the top of the shirt. And he dou-
bled up his fist at the same time . And then he quit that , and then he went to
work and poked me on the nose as if to say, "that is where I'm going to hit you."
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
So that wasn't enough. He goes around on the other side, and he starts pulling
the skins off just as fast as I was putting them there, and some of them was
landing on the floor. And I couldn't keep up. And so he pulled the truck
away so I couldn't work.
The testimony of Berry which, as I have remarked, is completely undenied, is too
lengthy to detail all of the instances of terrorism practiced against him. At times
he was mistreated so that he was afraid to work for fear of further personal injury
and abuse. For example, Paige told Berry to "remember what I told you. You
are still going to get it" ; he was followed by Paige and Hillman who tripped him
and kicked his ankles; ". . . later that day I was working on the job there . . . and I
was stooped over, pushing that truck, and all at once a 3 gallon bucket of vegetable
oil was dumped right down on top of me, soaking me all up and soaking the floor
all up"; and on July 10:
And at the end of the day, just before it was time to leave, Mclnteer, and Hill-
man and Whitey-I don't know what the rest of his name is-and three other
ones had me over against the wall, talking to me, trying to get me to sign up;
and Tim says, "we want an answer m the morning."
On the morning of July 13, Paige, Mclnteer, and Sulentic delivered an ultimatum
to the effect that they wanted an answer by breaktime. A little later Berry, with
Lawrence Tack, went into the cafeteria and Paige again asked him if he was ready
to sign up and that "we will just give you until breaktime to decide." Berry was
soaked with water twice while he was sitting there; he left the cafeteria; Paige fol-
lowed him and started kicking him on the ankles, saying, "This is it." Berry testified:
In the meantime Mclnteer was standing over there to where he could look up
the ramp. And finally Paul Sulentic came over from the steps and was part
way over there. And I was maneuvered over there And so Paul Sulentic gave
me one big shove, and I hit over against Paige, and Paige doubled up his fist
and socked me one in my back. So I maneuvered myself over toward the wall.
In the meantime Tack came down the steps. So him and I started over toward
the ramp. And one of them grabbed my hat and throwed it in the 50 gallon
barrel. And so I went and grabbed it out of there and started up the ramp and
McInteer was ahead of me, Paige and Sulentic behind me, and they kept trying
to trip me and kick me on the ankles. And that went on all the way up the
ramp, and all the way up around the corner, because I was just maneuvering
back and forth. And as I got around the corner, about three-fourths of the
way up, they worked me over toward the right wall, and the first thing I knew
I was pushed down a flight of steps there, and I landed on my back.
Lawrence Tack, an employee of Rath Packing Company for 18 years, a member
of Local 46 and a steward, corroborated the testimony of Berry in connection with
his being with Berry and Berry having been pushed down the steps. His testimony
in substance is the same as the statement he gave on July 13, 1964, the day on which
this assault occurred:
Clarence Paige, Paul Sulentic, and Tim McInteer followed Sam Berry and
myself over the ramp in the cafeteria. Tim McInteer said "Let's crowd him
over to the steps and push him down." That's all they said. I was behind Sam,
they pushed in ahead of me, then they just gave him a shove and all three pushed
him down the steps.
There were two other men at the landing at the bottom of the steps where he
fell. I went back and counted the steps, and there were 12. He landed on the
bottom. This happened at 8:40 a.m., Monday 7/13/64.
After this assault, Berry saw Company Representatives Howard Rebholz and Ray
Gillette, was sent to a doctor, and later was treated for injuries to his ankle and leg.
Subsequently he was hospitalized, and after traction and therapy treatments, a spinal
test disclosed a ruptured disc and an operation was deemed necessary. Berry was
in the hospital for 7 weeks. At the time of the hearing he was still incapacitated for
work. Edward M. Lampman, an employee of the Company since December 1945,
a member of Local 46, testified concerning the many times he had seen McInteer,
Burt, Sulentic, and Edsill talking to Berry and two instances of harassment of Berry
by these individuals.
Raymond Edsill, a union steward, was the only one of the men other than Burt
who took the lead in persecuting Berry and pressing him to join the Union to testify.
He testified in substance that Berry seemed to get along fairly well with the other
men; that he had observed him in the locker room in card games; that other than
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 973
asking Berry to join the Union he would not say that anyone had "picked on him any
more than any other Union member in there." Edsill said that there was a certain
amount of horseplay that went on in the plant : "In the locker rooms and sometimes
even on the floor. These plastic bags that I have heard reference to at testimony
given by Mr. Berry: He seemed to think he was the only one that ever got hit with
a plastic bag or with a water hose down there." He denied that the "horseplay"
referred to by him was related to whether or not a person was a member of the Union.
Percy Burt, employed for about 26 or 27 years by the Company and a steward for
Local 46, also was called as a witness for the Respondent , relating that he was
acquainted with Berry, that "Sam got along all right in our department " and in answer
to a question : "Did the union members in this department appear to be picking on
him, harassing him in any way, shape , or form?", replied , "I asked them this question
myself and asking them about getting him back in to the Union . I asked him if any-
body in our department mistreated him or picked on him in any respect, and he said
No." Burt said he asked every person who works within the department to join the
Union "Because of our department being just about 100 percent ; in fact, it was 100
percent except for a couple of cases."
The testimony of Edsill and Burt is worthless in evaluating the facts in connection
with the coercion practiced against Berry and other employees whom I shall mention
below.
2. Roll a Myers
Myers has been employed by the Company since June 10, 1941 . He became a
member of Local No. 46 when it was first organized and ceased paying dues or being
a member in May 1963. Sometime during that month , in the lobby of the union hall,
Myers voiced a complaint to Chief Steward Knowles concerning the manner in which
.a vote was conducted on a hospital drive contribution , and also concerning sending
money to the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Council . Myers stated his reasons
for his objections to Knowles ; the result was that Myers ceased paying his dues to the
Union by canceling his authorization for the deduction of dues, with the intent to
again become a member after some 7 months , the approximate time in which it would
take the Union to pay the money pledged and to which Myers had objected. Within
the next week or two, Knowles approached Myers while the latter was at work and
in the presence of Sulentic and Floyd Cox , another union steward , Knowles, accord-
ing to Myers , "came over and looked at the tank , and he said , "Is that water hot?"
When Myers said that hot water was not used in that process , Knowles remarked that
it was too bad, that "If it was hot you would go in the tank ." Myers went on to
relate the rest of the conversation:
And I said, "Why is that?" He said, "Have you reinstated your union member.
ship" "No, I haven't." And he said , "You had better . You have got about
a certain amount of time to do it in or you are not going to be working for the
Rath Company ." And I said, "Just how are you going to go about getting me
away from Rath Packing Company?" And he said , "We have got methods we
,can use." And I said, "So have I got methods I can protect myself." And I
said, "Much of this and I will call the law." And he said , "I have no regard for
the law. It don 't worry me a bit."
After this episode, and apparently on the following day, Knowles and Cox went to
Myers where the latter was at work . Knowles inquired whether Myers had been to
the Union office, and upon receiving a "No" answer , Knowles and Cox restrained
Myers from working until a foreman appeared and ordered Knowles and Cox to go
on out and stay out of the area. It was only then that Myers was able to resume
his work.
During the time the card check was in progress on May 29, 1963, Myers came to
work about 6:10 a m. and saw some 35 to 40 individuals gathered in front of the
main gate. Knowles met him and asked for his union card . Myers displayed a card
showing that his dues were paid in full to June 1. Because Myers had canceled his
checkoff authorization , Knowles at first refused to allow him to pass, but after some
discussion Myers was allowed to enter the plant with a warning that he had better
not attempt to use the card again . On July 3, as Myers approached the gate to report
to work, the card check conducted that day was in progress . When Myers attempted
to enter the plant, Knowles , Sulentic, and Paige blocked him, asking if Myers had
reinstated his membership . Myers replied that he had not, and as a policeman
stepped up and took his right arm , he and the policeman were both blocked. Myers
observed, besides Knowles, Sulentic , and Paige , who resisted his entrance to the plant,
that Edsill and Eleanor Medhaug were in the crowd . As he and the policeman were
attempting to get through the crowd to get to the door, the policeman was held back,
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
someone grabbed Myers' back pocket and tore his trousers and ruined them , Edsill
grabbed his lunch pail from his hand and threw it on the ground , and Eleanor
Medhaug then trampled upon it. Myers obtained access to the plant after about
10 minutes.
As noted, Myers was attacked in the August 20 , 1963, issue of the Official Bulletin.
Myers denied making any statement to the effect that he would not contribute a nickel
to a " Catholic ," stating that he did not mind contributing to a Catholic
hospital "other than the manner in which the contribution was made."
Myers testified , and his testimony stands unrefuted , that Sulentic, Knowles, McIn-
teer, Paige, and Tom Hartman have , since July 3, called him scurrilous names, the
printable ones being labeled a "no-good scab ," "freerider," and "Old Scabby." 6
3. Mrs. Margaret Terry
Mrs. Terry, employed by the Company since October 1944, became a member of
Local 46 shortly after she first was employed by the Company. She dropped her
membership approximately 2 years ago.
On the morning of July 3, 1963, she and her husband, also employed at the plant,
arrived at the main entrance to the plant about 6 a.m. She testified that the following
events then occurred:
Well, my husband and I started to go in. And there was about 35 to 40 or 45
people out in front. And my husband was a little bit ahead of me, and I was
dragging on behind him. And Wanda Thompson was standing out there in front
of me And she grabbed me by my arm. Her thumb nails went down into the
flesh of my arms so far that infection set in. And she said, "how about me sign-
ing you up for the Union?" And I said, "no, I am not signing up for the Union."
And she let go of me then. So then I turned around to see where my husband
was, and I saw that Paul Sulentic had him pushed up against the front door at the
door we go in, and Clarke Knowles was hitting him on the back.
She went on to testify that she and her husband, after about 10 or 15 minutes, man-
aged to get into the plant with the aid of a policeman.
Mrs. Terry left the employment of the Company on June 18, 1964. On that day,
she related, they encountered Mclnteer in front of a tavern, that as they started to
walk by the tavern Mclnteer saw them, came rushing up, and said to Mr. Terry,
"If you come to work tomorrow morning I am going to cut your god damn throat
open."
The Terrys returned to work in October, when they resumed their membership in
the Union. She testified that she and her husband resumed membership during the
first part of November and gave as a reason therefor that "my husband is going to
have to retire some day, and he did not want to leave me in there all alone to fight
the Union by myself." She estimated that she has paid approximately $200 in dues
since rejoining the Union.
4. Clayborne William Terry
Terry first started to work for the Company in 1940 or 1941, when he first joined
the Union, subsequently left his employment to work for the Government, and
returned to Rath in 1943. Subsequently, he resumed membership in the Union and
was a member on July 3, 1963, the date of a card check. On that day he was not
a member in good standing because of failure to pay union dues.
Terry testified that, having heard rumors of a card check to be held on July 3, the
evening before that he sought police protection-"I heard rumors there was to be a
card check the next day and I wanted to be sure that I had protection for my wife
to get in there without getting hurt." He related that on the morning of July 3, a
policeman escorted him toward the door after having been approached by Sulentic
about joining the Union, that as he walked on up toward the door ". . . they kicked
me on the shins and hit me on the back and called me I guess all the names they could
think of." He testified to having been called many names at other times, mostly as
9 it appears that following the July 3, 1963, episode , Myers filed suit for injunction in
the District Court for Blackhawk County, Iowa , against Local 46 and Fred Nolting as
president , Clarke Knowles as chief steward , Paul Sulentic as first vice president , and other
officers of the Union , and that a temporary writ of injunction pending the trial of the
case was issued against Clarke Knowles , individually and as chief steward of the Union,
enjoining and restraining Knowles from stopping the plaintiff or otherwise hindering his
entrance to or egress from the plant and further restraining him from threatening or
harassing Myers.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 975,
he came up the stairs in the plant from the cafeteria. Concerning his wife, he said
that he had ". . . always managed to tell all of them that I was responsible for what
my wife did, I would be responsible for what she did, and to leave her alone."
Regarding the incident related by his wife when they encountered McInteer, he
testified
As we walked out of the plant we went by the beer joint, and somebody, a man,
stepped out and said something in reference to us joining the Union or something
on that order. And I had made it a point and told my wife, "when they speak
to you to keep your mouth shut. Don't talk, and don't say anything back to
anybody." So he says, "if you-" I have two knives that I carry home for my
wife's roast, and I sharpen those knives each night. And I had them in an alu-
minum pouch, hanging on my side. "Oh, so you got knives, have you?" And
I did not say no word to the man. And he said, "If you come in that plant tomor-
row morning, I will cut your throat."
Lavern J. Lantz, an employee and a member of Local 46, testified concerning the
incident outside the tavern where McInteer engaged in a conversation with Terry.
According to Lantz, Terry had his knife with him and pulled it out saying, "I will
get you," threatening McInteer. Lantz said that McInteer started the altercation and,
in regard to the testimony that McInteer threaened to cut Terry's throat, Lantz said,
"If he did I don't remember hearing it. I don't know. I just don't actually know."
Lantz said McInteer during this time was "calling Bill names," including "scab."
Considering all of the violent action , abusive language, and other acts of McInteer
against the personal dignities and rights of other employees, which runs all through
the record in this case, and being dubious concerning the reliability of the testimony
of Lantz, I have no alternative but to accept the testimony of Terry and his version
of the threat he said Mclnteer made to cut his throat
After his return to work after a leave of absence, Terry was further molested,
particularly by Sulentic, being called various names, with frequent reference to
Terry's refusal to join the Union. He complained to a company foreman, who told
Sulentic that his actions were not permissible, and said that Sulentic told the fore-
man "that he was going to and he was going to keep on until I joined the Union,
and what was he going to do about it? What are you going to do about it?, he
said to the man." Coffee grounds were poured into Terry's locker and at another
time all of his belongings in his locker were destroyed. He testified: "In the eve-
ning they squirted ink in this locker. And then during the night they broke the lock
off and destroyed all of my clothing and everything that was in the locker. And 1
think that was the day after we returned there." He testified that Sulentic, knowing
that Terry was a diabetic "and he knew he was breaking my nerves down," continu-
ally approached him on the job, referring to him as a scab, and insisting that he
"sign up today." Sometime in November 1964, Terry requested a friend to approach
Sulentic in order to effect a compromise so that he could sign up with the Union.
He said ". . . that I was sick and tired and I couldn't stand this strain of trying to
protect my wife from the Union any longer, and I wanted to compromise with them
and sign up with the Union." After his friend had communicated with Sulentic,
Terry met Knowles and Sulentic at the union hall to effect a compromise, the figure
of $200 was discussed, and finally Terry, remarking that "now that the matter was
settled," said, "Now, I want you to call off your dogs" and Knowles said, "I will
pass the word along." Mr. and Mrs. Terry were required to pay back dues for the
period they were not in good standing except for an allowance of 1 month allowed
for time in which Terry was off sick.
Terry said that on the day before he testified in this hearing (January 6), he had
an altercation with Percy Burt and one Red Dillavou, which was taken up with a
foreman; that as a consequence Terry filed a grievance procedure against them; that
a conference was held concerning that grievance at which no agreement was reached,
whereupon Terry withdrew from the Union. Terry expressed his determination not
to rejoin the Union until the grievance was adjusted to his satisfaction.
5. Verna Kindschi
Kindschi was first employed by the Company on October 18, 1945, and was
assigned to work in the smoked meat department where several union stewards,
Keith Preis, Gene Medhaug, Howard Medhaug, and Wanda "Jerry" Thompson, and
Executive Board Member Gertrude Augustine also worked. Miss Kindschi was a
member of Local 46 at two different times; since 1955 she has not been a member
in good standing because she has failed to pay dues. Her reason for dropping out
of the Union, as expressed by her, was: "Well, they started taking out $5 a week
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the strike fund; and, being that I wasn 't eligible to receive funds, being that I
was single , I didn't feel that I should have to pay any strike fund ." On September 3,
1963, Kindschi attempted to enter but was prevented from entering the plant at the
card check conducted on that day. As she approached the main gate , Wanda Thomp-
son called, "Here comes another free rider , let's get her," and Knowles then stepped
in front of her with folded arms and began bumping or shoving her back and forth.
Being unable to enter the plant, she crossed the street to a restaurant , called the
police department , and requested help, she was advised that there were supposed
to be three policemen in an unmarked car in front of the plant, so she looked for
them, found two policemen or sheriff 's deputies , and asked them for help . She was
advised to make out a complaint at the police department . She returned home,
conferred with her lawyer, and on a second visit to the police station filed a complaint
against Knowles. Subsequently , she testified , she dropped the charges because she
"was getting phone calls at all hours of the day and night , and it was beginning to
get on my nerves ... Well, the phone would ring . I would get up and answer it,
and I could hear somebody breathing, but by the second time I would say `hello'
they would hang up and not say who it was." She said that she experienced this for
about 3 or 4 weeks but that after the complaint against Knowles was dropped she
received very few such calls. Later , she said , she encountered him in the plant
and he asked her, "What's the matter , free rider? Turn chicken2"
Kindschi was continued to be pressured to join the Union after the card check of
September 3. On the day after she was transferred to the smoked meat department,
stewards and others approached her to urge her to join the Union . On the first
-occasion , Eleanor Medhaug approached her; after the noon hour on that day Keith
Preis and Gene Medhaug offered her a written statement to sign in order to join
the Union ; Kindschi refused to sign that paper ; Preis announced that he would not
pack any of the boxes made by Kindschi, and that he would not have a freerider
working in the smoked meat department . On the same day Kindschi was told by
one of these stewards that if she had not joined the Union by the time the right-to-
work law was repealed , she would be required to pay a $500 fine, a $2 initiation fee
;plus current dues, to be paid within 30 days . Kindschi testified:
And they kept after me , just kept after me constantly . And at that time I
didn't know how much longer I would be working at the plant because I had a
little family trouble. My sister had had a malignant brain tumor operation at
this time, and she wasn't expected to live, and I was pretty upset. And so to
get them off my back I promised them I would go back over to the Union hall
and reinstate my union membership.
Kindschi said she paid a $2 initiation fee that afternoon and an additional $8 in
back dues. She was assessed the total sum of $579.83.
Her name was mentioned in the Official Bulletin, she being referred to as "Big,
-Bad Verna."
6. Larry James Bedard
Bedard was employed by the Company for the period November-December 1964,
in the ham boning and processing department . Lyle Taylor, the division steward,
approached Bedard during the first week of his employment and told him it would
be a good thing if he joined the Union , to which Bedard replied that he would
consider the matter . During the third week of Bedard 's employment , Taylor again
approached him and told him he should join the Union, and in the ensuing conversa-
tion Bedard expressed the belief that he had the freedom of choice to join or refuse
to join, whereupon Taylor said , "Well, if you don't join the Union now I am not
going to sign you up later." A little later Taylor called attention to Bedard by
shouting to a group of employees , "Hey, we have got a free rider over here." Then
some of the employees gathered around Taylor and one M. H. Bolin , when Taylor
remarked to Bolin , "Why don't you let him see what that mesh glove tastes like?" 7
and when Bedard tried to leave the group Bolin stood in front of him to prevent
his leaving . Taylor again called out, "Say, we got a free rider over here," other
.employees gathered around the group, making it impossible for Bedard to leave,
Bolin in the meantime telling him about the benefits he would derive from joining
the Union with Bedard maintaining that he thought he had the right to join when
he wanted to join . Bedard finally agreed that he would join at the end of his 30
days' probationary period and then was asked, "How do we know you are going to
join at the end of 30 days", to which he replied , "If you can 't trust me , how can I
trust you?" Bedard 's foreman, Malloy, approached the group , spoke to Taylor,
7 A mesh glove is fabricated from steel and is worn on the hand to prevent an employee
from injury by cutting when the employee is trimming meat.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 977
and the group dispersed and went back to work. Some 10 or 15 minutes after this
episode, Bedard was washing a cart in a room adjacent to his department, when
Bolin came out and again tried to convince Bedard to join the Union; Bedard refused,
and as the conversation continued, Bolin was joined by other employees, including
Taylor. Bedard tried to leave the location, whereupon Bolin told him, "If you leave,
I'll spray you with this hose." Taylor again asked Bedard if he wanted to "sign up,"
and when Bedard refused, someone else in the group suggested that they throw him
in the cart of hot water. According to Bedard
And then we stood there for a while longer, and they tried-they said if I left
they were going to spray me with this hose. And so a little later-and then I
decided at that time too-I thought I should probably join the Union. So Mr.
Taylor was standing about 20 feet away, talking to another nonunion member,
and I called him over, and I signed up there.
7. Mrs. Electa McAtee
Mrs. McAtee, employed by the Company since 1945 in the sliced bacon depart-
ment, became a member of Local 46 shortly after she started working. She dropped
out in 1952, because of her dissatisfaction with the way in which a complaint she
had filed was handled.
As McAtee approached the main gate on the morning of the card check of July 3,
1963, she was stopped by Eleanor Medhaug, who stood in front of her, while Knowles
and Betty North stepped in behind her, blocking the door and preventing her from
moving. Someone knocked her lunchbox out of her hands; Knowles told her,
"Nobody gets in here without a card," and Medhaug and North stepped on her
feet and kicked her in the ankle. After freeing herself she again tried to get into
the plant but was prevented from doing so. She testified:
So I called the cops in a telephone booth across the street. The cops came down,
and he took me in But when he first came to me he said to walk across the
street and down near the front entrance and then I finally got in. The cop
took me in.
Following the occurrences of July 3, McAtee obtained an injunction against the
Union. Several days after this McAtee met Knowles, Wanda Thompson, the
steward, and another person in the sliced bacon department, when Knowles walked
up to her and said, "I hear you have been looking for me." He then asked McAtee
to join the Union and told her that if she did not join he would put a picket line in
front of her cafe and motel at a place called Raymond. Thereafter, Eleanor Medhaug
frequently met McAtee in the locker room, called her a scab, a leech, and on one
occasion told her she ought to be taken out and shot. The comment which appeared
in the Official Bulletin regarding McAtee has been referred to above.
The Respondents called no witness to answer McAtee's testimony, or explain
or deny it.
8. Mrs. Guy (Bernice) Thompson
Mrs. Thompson has been employed by the Company since 1944, and presently is
employed in the sliced bacon department where Wanda Thompson, a steward, is
employed. Gertrude Augustine, executive board member, also worked in that
department until approximately October 1964. Thompson became a member of
Local 46 in 1944; she dropped out in 1950, resumed the payment of dues in 1960,
and continued paying dues until October 1961, when she dropped out again.
About 3:20 a.m. on September 3, 1963, she was driven to the front entrance of
the plant by her husband who left her there while he drove away to park their
automobile. At that time Gertrude Augustine and Wanda Thompson approached
her saying, "Here comes a free rider. Let's lay for her." They asked why she did
not belong to the Union, she replied it was none of their business. Knowles
approached, the crowd "just kept crowding and shoving you around here and there,"
and Knowles then asked her to give him her name so that he could check and see
how much in back dues she had to pay. She did not answer him. She was sur-
rounded by Knowles and other stewards and union members so that she could not
move ahead, with Knowles standing on her feet. She then left to seek the aid of a
policeman and some 20 to 25 minutes later, with the help of her husband, she was
allowed to enter the plant. That evening Mr. and Mrs. Thompson filed charges with
the police and Knowles subsequently was found guilty on an assault and battery
charge.
796-027-66-vol. 153-63
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After this , Thompson was subjected to abuse and name-calling by Gertrude
Augustine and others. She testified that in November 1964, when she met Knowles
and Wanda Thompson , as she passed them, Knowles remarked , "Here comes a free
rider, but after the first of January she won't be a free rider any longer."
On the evening the charge was filed against Knowles, she received a telephone call
from an individual whose last name, she said, was Thompson, who told her, "I
thought you told me you weren't going to file no charges, you dirty, rotten scab."
Among other telephone calls she received during the next 2 days (until the Thomp-
sons had their telephone number changed) she received one with a voice she identi-
fied as belonging to Gertrude Augustine, describing Thompson with a vile appellation.
Henry Newcomb, an employee of the Company since 1948, and a member in
good standing of Local 46, a personal friend of the Thompsons, testified that he had
occasion to meet and talk with Mrs Thompson from time to time in the plant
and bowled at the same place the Thompsons did. He said that during a time
when the plant was on strike he encountered Sulentic and some of his friends and
others in a tavern; that Sulentic at that time called him a scab lover and ordered
him to leave the tavern. Newcomb replied that it was a public place and he could
stay; one of Sulentic's friends slapped him across the jaw, and at that point the
proprietor "came in and told me I had better leave before something happened."
The import of Newcomb's testimony is to the effect that he was spoken to by Sulentic
and suffered the blow he did because he was known to be a friend of Mrs. Thompson
and her husband.
Concluding Findings
All acts of violence , and threats and invasions of personal rights of employees
testified to by Berry, Myers , Mr. and Mrs. Terry, Miss Kindschi , Larry Bedard,
Electa McAtee, and Mrs . Thompson stand unrefuted on the record . I have viewed
the motion pictures described above, which support the verbal descriptions given con-
cerning the manner in which the card checks were conducted . I have commented
above on the testimony of Percy Burt, concerning his observation of any harassment
or disturbance of any employees including Berry, and such testimony seems to me
to be worthless in the face of all the uncontradicted testimony to opposite effect.
The names of Sulentic , Lyle Taylor, Wanda Thompson, Floyd Cox, Gertrude
Augustine , Keith Preis , Jean Medhaug, Howard Medhaug, Eleanor Medhaug, and
Betty North , none of whom testified , appear throughout the testimony of the individ-
uals who described the abuses and indignities inflicted upon them in the plant and
during the course of card checks. Taylor, the only one of the individuals promi-
nently mentioned as engaging in the acts complained of and named in the complaint,
was the only one of all these persons other than Knowles to testify, and his denials
of any abuse of Berry or anyone else I simply do not believe. I discredit his testi-
mony; it simply is not credible.
I expressly reject the rigument made on behalf of the Respondents that the pur-
pose of the card checks was only to ascertain who was a union member and who
was not, and that the testimony "would appear to be that his is the only sure way
the Union has of knowing who does not belong to the Union." Unless the affairs
of Local 46 are conducted in mob fashion, it surely has records kept in the course
of its ordinary way of functioning and operating as a labor organization , to indicate
who is a member among the employees and who of its members has or has not paid
dues. The effort to defend card checks on the basis of a need to ascertain the extent
of membership is nothing but sham and pretext . Nor can it be said that the many
employees who were assaulted , badgered , coerced, pressed, and pressured by individ-
uals to become union members were so treated by persons who at no time acted with
the knowledge or consent of any officer of Local 46 . The testimony of President
Nolting and Chief Steward Knowles , though they were reluctant witnesses, shows
beyond any doubt that they as well as the executive board , the division stewards, and
all other stewards were well aware that it was union effort and union -sponsored
activity that put into motion and propelled the machinery intended to coerce and
intimidate employees into either joining the Union or continuing the payment of
union dues The Official Bulletin , extracts of which are set forth above, clearly
indicate in several issues that the card check each time was initiated by and encour-
aged by the Union as such and its officers . No other reasonable finding can be
made The documentary evidence , as well as the testimony of Nolting , shows that
the Union did not, and probably never intended to, honor the settlement agreement
entered into with the Regional Director on December 16, 1963. The notices required
were not posted , the Union continued to engage in much of the conduct which it
had agreed to discontinue.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 979
As pointed out above, the defense of the Respondents is based mainly on the
6-month limitation proviso contained in Section 10(b) of the Act, and the conten-
tion that the practices alleged to be violative of the Act shown to have occurred from
February 5 through August 5, 1964, were those of individual union members and
were not authorized or condoned by the Union.
It further is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the General Counsel in this
case has attempted to show that individual persons, both on the plant premises and
off the plant premises, may have had some disputes with some nonunion members;
that the General Counsel says in effect that if a union member has a dispute with a
nonunion member that ipso facto it must be because of membership or nonmember-
ship in the Union, and that the Union itself must be responsible for these acts; and
that such is not the law. The Respondent says further that the Union itself cannot
be held responsible for the activities of all 3,500 members; that the General Counsel
has "even introduced testimony concerning the dispute of the member and a non-
member that took place in a tavern. The Union member was not an officer of the
Union and by this it is the Government's contention that because one was a Union
member and one a nonunion member that the Union was therefore responsible for
the acts of the Union member." It is argued "that the correct place to bring any
acts of violence that may or may not take place between Union members and non-
union members, or for that matter, between two Union members or two nonunion
members, is not before this Board but before the criminal court. If any acts of
violence occur the proper place to bring this out is within the criminal courts and
a trial can be had and punishment meted out if found guilty. It certainly is not the
place to bring them out in a hearing such as this." The summary of facts is inaccurate
and the argument is specious.
A 3,500-membership labor organization is just as responsible for violation of
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act as a 10-member labor organization would be.
In his brief, counsel for the General Counsel has gone to the legislative history of
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act in support of the proposition that in enacting this
provision the Congress was concerned with preventing violence, assaults, threats of
violence and assault, threats of economic reprisal, and similar abuses of employees'
rights which he says have been so prevalent in the conduct of the Respondent in the
instant case . I find his citations to be in point: S. Rep No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st
Sess ., p. 50; Cong. Rec. April 24, 1947, p. 4136; id, May 2, 1947, pp. 4561-4562; id.,
May 2, 1947, p. 4563.
Simply because the unfair labor practices complained of may constitute violations
of state or municipal law, misdemeanors, or felonies, does not mean that the
National Labor Relations Board may not take jurisdiction where the same acts
appear to be unfair labor practices. In N.L.R.B. v. International Woodworkers of
America, AFL-CIO (W. T. Smith Lumber Co.), 243 F. 2d 745, 748 (C.A. 5), the
court said , in part:
As has been pointed out above, respondents do not contest the findings as to
the existence of the threats and violence. It would therefore serve no useful
purpose for these to be detailed here However, we think it appropriate to
answer briefly the contention of respondents which, in effect, amounts to an
argument that the National Labor Relations Board had acted in bad faith
towards groups of employees and that these acts of violence are somehow to be
condoned by reason of that fact. While stating that they do not ask the court
to condone the improper conduct shown by the record, the argument concludes
"we do ask the court to relegate this conduct to the backyard and to view the
legal issue in the case with dispassionate vision." The short answer to this is
that the improper conduct shown by this record is the nub and substance of the
whole case. It is impossible to relegate the acts of violence against fellow
employees, supervisors, and independent contractors to the background when it
is such acts that are forbidden by the statutes as an unfair labor practice. Neither
the Board nor the general counsel contends that it is the function of the Board
to supplant the police power of the states. This of course does not mean that
because a breach of the peace violates the states' criminal statutes, it may not
be noticed by the National Labor Relations Board in performing its statutory
function N L.R.B. v. Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America, CIO.,
supra [233 F. 2d 539]
The acts and conduct of union officers, stewards, and members of the Union acting
as a card check committee and other employees, members of the Union, who par-
ticipated in the acts described herein, are attributable to Local 46. In N.L.R.B. v.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters etc., Local Union No. 55 (The Grauman Com-
pany), 205 F. 2d 515 (C A. 10) the proceeding was before the court on petition of
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board seeking enforcement of its Order requiring the union and a member of a
local union to cease and desist from restraining and coercing employees in the exer-
cise of their right to refrain from joining the union. There, the court said, in part:
The issues presented are whether there is substantial evidence in the record
to sustain the finding of the Board that the acts of Allen in striking with his
fist a non-union employee of The Grauman Company and in making statements
to non-union employees of such company to the effect that they could not work
on a certain construction job ... and whether Allen's blow and statements con-
stituted unfair labor practices under the Act. There is no need to detail the
evidence or to engage in extended discussion of the nature of the acts, conduct,
or statements which constitute unfair labor practices. It is enough to say that
we think the order of the Board is sustained both in fact and in law. Accord-
ingly, an order of enforcement will be entered.
The card check committee, formed to enforce Local 46 policy of coercive solicitation
of union membership, makes Local 46 legally responsible for the conduct of its
members during the course of the card checks and all of its members who took part
therein. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(New Power Wire and Electric Corp. et al.), 144 NLRB 1089, 1091-1092.
The chief steward, the division stewards, and departmental stewards, all acting
either separately or in concert, were agents or representatives of the Union. Local
349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and
Controls), 149 NLRB 430; Local Union 825, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers (Nichols Electric Company), 138 NLRB 540, 542-543; Local 761, International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (General Electric Company), 126
NLRB 123, 124-125, enfd. 287 F. 2d 565; Harry Paul Tmer, d/b/a Seago Construc-
tion Company, 141 NLRB 872; District 65, Retail, Whole & Department Store Union
(Eastern Camera & Photo Corp.), 141 NLRB 991; International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers, 142 NLRB 296, 299.
The Board has long disapproved the practice of a labor organization or its agents to
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. See e.g., United Mine Workers of America, District 31 (F. E. Cleghorn),
95 NLRB 389, enfd. 198 F. 2d 389, cert. denied 344 U.S. 884. Since the decision
in that case, and the enactment of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, the Board has
consistently upheld the principle, as exemplified in Local 542, International Union
of Operating Engineers (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 139 NLRB 1169. In granting the
Board's petition for enforcement of its cease-and-desist order in that case, the Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Local 542, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers v. N.L.R.B., 328 F. 2d 850, 852-853, held:
At the hearing before the Trial Examiner there were six witnesses, five of
them victims of the picketers' conduct, who testified about incidents which
occurred on March 16, 17, 22 and 27, at the entrance to the Company's plant
and elsewhere. The testimony of these witnesses was not substantially contra-
dicted. We are persuaded, as was the Trial Examiner, that much of the testi-
mony offered by the Union was negative, evasive, and lacking in probative value.
The Trial Examiner, having decided that the testimony offered by General
Counsel was credible, found that the Union threatened to inflict bodily injury
upon employees, damaged property of the Company and others, and interfered
with or blocked ingress and egress of employees and others to the premises of
the Company. These factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and
may not be disturbed.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the course of conduct pursued by the
Union was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8(b)(1)(A), 29
U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(1)(A), in that it restrained and coerced employees in their
exercise of the right to refrain from union activities, a right guaranteed by § 7
of the Act, 29 U S.C.A. § 157.
The Union urges in support of its argument that the episodes "had no effect
upon the operation of the employer's business, and they coerced or intimidated
no one." That no one was in fact coerced or intimidated is of no relevance.
The test of coercion and intimidation is not whether the misconduct proves
effective. The test is whether the misconduct is such that, under the circum-
stances existing, it may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in
the exercise of rights protected under the Act. Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers
Local 107 V. N.L.R B., 273 F. 2d 815 (D C Cir. 1959), Time-O-Matic, Inc. v.
N.L.R.B., 264 F. 2d 96, 99 (7th Cir. 1959); Progressive Mine Workers v.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 981
N.L.R.B., 187 F. 2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1951); N.L.R.B. v. Ford, 170 F. 2d
735, 738 (6th Cir. 1948). The misconduct of the Union in this case met
this test.
I have no trouble finding that Local 46 was and is responsible for the acts of its
individual members, including its officers and stewards and members of the card
check committee, for the acts of restraint and coercion described above. All of
these acts were performed in the presence of a responsible agent of the Union, includ-
ing the episode between Terry and Mclnteer at the tavern-there Mclnteer, a
steward and previously an active participant in other acts of coercion, was engaged
in what he considered to be a furtherance of the interest of the Union.
The proven facts in this case support the allegations of the complaint and I have
no difficulty in finding that Local 46 restrained and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of the right to refrain from union activities, a right guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act. I find further that Local 46, its officers, agents, and certain members,
have required certain employees of Rath Packing Company to become and remain
members of the Union, and have extracted as a condition of such membership
initiation fees, dues, and back dues, in violation of Sections 7 and 8(b) (1) (A) of
the Act. I expressly find that the Respondents Clarke Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray
Edsill, T. F. Mclnteer, and Clarence Paige were agents of the Respondent Union,
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act, at all times material herein.
It appears clear to me that the Union's objective was not simply to encourage
membership in the Union and solicit membership but, in the final analysis, to force
nonunion employees into the Union.
I find that Rath Packing Company is an employer within the meaning of Section
2 (2) of the Act.
I find from the preponderance of evidence, and upon the entire record in this
case, that the Respondent Local 46 condoned and encouraged the illegal acts set
forth in the complaint and found herein, and so engaged with its officers and agents
in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Employer described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union, and the individual Respondents Clarke
Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray Edsill, T. F. Mclnteer, and Clarence Paige have engaged
in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. Because the unlawful conduct of the Respondents, found herein, indicates a
purpose to limit the lawful rights of employees, and that the danger of their further
commission is reasonably foreseeable, it will be recommended that the Respondents
cease and desist from in any manner restraining and coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Further, because it has been found that
the Respondent Local 46 has required certain employees of Rath Packing Company
to become and remain members of the Union, and have exacted as a condition of
such membership initiation fees, dues, and back dues, said employees, including,
among others, Verne Kindschi, Clayborne William Terry, Margaret Terry, and
Larry Bedard, it will be recommended that the Respondent Local 46 reimburse the
said Verna Kindschi, Clayborne William Terry, Margaret Terry, and Larry Bedard,
and any other employees who has been similarly required to pay dues involuntarily
and under coercion, an amount equal to the sums of money paid by him or her to
the Union for all initiation fees, dues including back dues, and assessments since
May 29, 1963, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. The method
of computing the amounts due shall be in a manner consistent with Board policy set
out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, Crossett Lumber Company, 8
NLRB 440, and interest as computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.8
8 That this remedy will aid to effectuate the policies of the Act is supported by, among
other cases, Local 188, International Union of Operating Engineers, at al. (Nassau and
Suffolk Contractors Assn.), 123 NLRB 1393, 1407-1408 ; International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 513, et al. (Long Construction Co.), 145 NLRB 554, 555-556. See also
N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, and Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313
U.S. 177, 197-199.
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in this case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rath Packing Company is now, and has been at all times material herein,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local 46,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; and Clarke
Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray Edsill, T. F. Mclnteer, and Clarence Paige, among
others, are agents of the Respondent Union, within the meaning of Section 2(13)
of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union and its said agents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
hereby recommended that United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, Local 46, and its officers, representatives, and agents, including Clarke
Knowles, Paul Sulentic, Ray Edsill, T. F. Mclnteer, and Clarence Paige, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Conducting any card check or engaging in any similar or like activity for
the purpose of compelling employees of Rath Packing Company to produce evidence
of membership in the Union or to disclose payment or nonpayment of initiation
fees, dues, or assessments.
(b) Publishing in the Official Bulletin of Local 46, or in any other publication,
handbill. notice, or any other printed or written material, the name of any employee
who has not joined the Union or paid initiation fees, dues, or assessments, or com-
menting upon the refusal or choice of any employees in regard to the payment or
nonpayment of such initiation fees, dues, or assessments in said Official Bulletin
or otherwise.
(c) Collecting initiation fees, dues including back dues, or assessments from any
employee of Rath Packing Company who does not voluntarily pay the same or who
has not or does not voluntarily authorize his or her employer in writing to deduct
such amounts from his or her pay for remission to the Union.
(d) Requiring the payment of initiation fees or back dues from any employee
who has not retained membership in the Union after having once been a member
in the event such employee voluntarily and without iestraint or coercion tenders
current dues, or tenders such dues if any future agreement between the Union and
Rath Packing Company requires membership in the Union as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act and only in the event of the repeal
of the Iowa right-to-work law (Code of Iowa, 1958, section 736), or the repeal of
Section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(e) Interrogating, threatening, coercing, or intimidating by words or force or
otherwise, any employee of Rath Packing Company with the intent and purpose of
forcing such employee to join the Union or pay initiation fees or dues including
back dues or assessment to the Union, or in any like or related manner restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(f) Deriding or belittling or libeling any employee or any member of an employ-
ee's family by public abuse, vituperation, or degrading name-calling , or any like
way of intimidation or invasion of private rights and dignities
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the
purposes of the Act'
(a) Refund to Verna Kindschi, Clayborne William Terry, Margaret Terry, and
Larry Bedard, and any other employee of Rath Packing Company similarly situated,
of an amount equal to the sums of money paid by him or her to the Union for all
initiation fees, dues including back dues, and assessments since May 29, 1963, with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 pei cent per annum, paid by him or her to the
Union because of restraint. coercion, threats, or intimidation, in the manner pro-
vided in the section of this Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 18 or his duly authorized agent
or agents, on demand, all union iecords, including the names of members and
former members of the Union and employees of Rath Packing Company, and the
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL 46, ETC. 983
amounts paid by such persons to the Union since May 29, 1963, for initiation fees,
dues including back dues, and assessments, so that the amounts due such persons
under subsection (a) of this paragraph may he computed and determined.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the offices of the Union and on the union bulletin
boards at the plant of Rath Packing Company at Waterloo, Iowa, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed by official repre-
sentatives of the Respondent Local 46 and the individual Respondents, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent Union to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for Region 18, for
posting by Rath Packing Company, said Company willing, at all locations where
notices to the Company's employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, within 20 days
from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order,
what steps they have taken to comply herewith.10
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of receipt
of this Recommended Order, the Respondents notify said Regional Director, in
writing, that they will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the Board
issue an Order requiring the Respondents to take the aforesaid action.
9In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
10 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED PACKINGHOUSE, FOOD AND
ALLIED WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 46
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, you are hereby notified that:
WE WILL NOT conduct any card check or engage in any similar or like activity
at the gates or entrances of the plant at Rath Packing Company at Waterloo,
Iowa, or any other place, or require or compel any employee of Rath Packing
Company to produce evidence of membership in the Union or to disclose pay-
ment or nonpayment of initiation fees, dues, or assessments, by way of a card
check or any similar or like activity in any public place or in or around said
plant.
WE WILL NOT publish in the Official Bulletin of Local 46, or in any other
publication, handbill, notice, or any other printed or written material, the name
of any employee who has not joined the Union, paid initiation fees, dues, or
assessments, or comment therein upon the refusal or choice of any employee
in regard to the payment or nonpayment of initiation fees, dues, or assessments.
WE WILL NOT collect initiation fees, dues including back dues, or assessments
from any employees who does not voluntarily pay the same or who has not
or does not voluntarily authorize Rath Packing Company in writing, to deduct
such amounts from his or her pay for remission to the Union.
WE WILL NOT require the payment of back dues and initiation fees from any
employee who has not retained membership in the Union after once having
been a member, if such employee voluntarily and without restraint or coercion
tenders current dues, or tenders such dues if any future valid agreement between
the Union and Rath Packing Company requires membership in the Union as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, in the event of the repeal of the Iowa right
to work law.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate, threaten, coerce, or intimidate by words or force
or otherwise any employee with the intent and purpose of forcing such employee
to join the Union or pay initiation fees or dues including back dues or assess-
ments to the Union, or in any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL refund to Verna Kindschi, Clayborne William Terry, Margaret Terry,
Larry Bedard, and any employee similarly situated, an amount equal to the
sums of money paid by him or her to the Union for all initiation fees, dues
including back dues, and assessments since May 29, 1963, with interest thereon
at the rate of 6 percent per annum, such initiation fees, dues or back dues, or
assessments having been paid to the Union because of threats, intimidation,
force, restraint, or coercion.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE, FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 46,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By--------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
----------------------------
CLARICE KNOWLES
----------------------------
PAUL SIILENTIC
----------------------------
RAY EDSILL
----------------------------
T. F. MCINTEER
----------------------------
CLARENCE PAIGE
Agents, United Packinghouse, Food and Allied
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local 46
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal
Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone No. 334-
2611, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Grede Foundries, Inc. and International Molders and Allied
Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local 125, International
Molders and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos.
30-RC-90 and 30-RC-93. June 30,1965
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTIONS
On February 2, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 30 issued a
Supplemental Decision on Objections, Certification of Results, and
Certification of Representatives in the above-entitled consolidated
proceedings. The Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, filed a timely request for review thereof solely with
respect to the Regional Director's disposition of its objections to con-
duct affecting the results of three of the five elections held, those involv-
153 NLRB No. 92.