West Coast Growers and Packers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 814 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

I
In the Matter of D R HOAK & A R HOAK, CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSI-
NESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF WEST COAST GROWERS AND
PACKERS and PACKING HOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No 19653,
AFoFL '
Case No. C-2141-Decided July 93, 1942
Jurisdiction dried tiuit industry
Unfair Labor Practices
Disci imination discharge of three employees, charges of, dssmsssed
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismassed
111r Le Roy Marceau, for the Board.
Mr. Arthur C Shepard and Mr Chester -R Andrews,- of Fresno,
Carlif , foi the respondent.
Mr Raymond J Compton, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon chaiges and amended charges duly filed by Packing House
Employees Union, Local No 19653, affiliated with the American Fed-
oration of Labor, herein, called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California), issued its complaint
dated January 5, 1942, against D R Hoak and A R Hoak, co-partners,
doing business under the name and style of West Coast Growers and
Packers, Fresno, California, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning 6'f Section 8 (1) and
,(3) and Section 2' (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat 449, heiein called the Act Copies of the complaint and notice
of hearing thereon were duly served upon the iespondent and the
Union - ;
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,
alleged in substance that the respondent discharged Roy Siler and Ray
42N L R B, No 159
814
WEST COAST GROWERS AND PACKERS 815
Slier on February 19, 1941, and William, A Brady on March 12,
1941, because they joined and assisted the Union, and that by the
foiegoing acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the ekeicise of the eights guaianteed in Section 7 of
the Act On January 13, 1942, the respondent filed,its answer, admit-
ting certain allegations of the complaint conceiving the nature of its
business,-brit denynig that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice, and notice of postponement, a hearing was held
from February 11 to 13, 1942, inclusive, at Fiesno, California, before
A Bruce Hunt, the Tiial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and ci oss-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to
conform the complaint to the proof During the course of the hear-
mg, theTrial Examiner ruled upon other motions and upon objections
to the admission of evidence The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Taal Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted The rulings are hereby afiiimed At the conclusion of the
hearing, the par ties were afforded an opportunity to submit briefs
and to argue orally before the Trial Examiner Neither of the parties
presented argument The respondent submitted a brief to the Trial
Examiner
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
March 21, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in
which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning
of Section,8,(1) and, (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act He
accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist from en-
gaging in the unfair labor practices and that it reinstate with back
pay Roy Slier, Ray Siier, and William A Brady On Apr1123, 1942,
the respondent filed exceptions to the 'Intermediate Report The
Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and,
insofar as the exceptions are consistent,with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds merit in them
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
D. R Hoak & A R Hoak, doing business under the name and style
of West Coast Growers and Packers, is a partnership having its prui-
cipal office at Fresno, California Its principal place of business is at
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dinuba, California, where it is engaged in the preserving, processing,
warehousing, sale, and distribution of dried fruits Prior to July 3,
1941, the respondent had its piincipal place of business at Sultana,
California During 1941 the iespondent sold pioducts valued at over
$500,000, of which approximately 80 percent were shipped to points
outside the State of California The iespondent admits that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II TIIE OP.G ^' IZATION INVOLVED
Packing House Employees Union, Local No 19653, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the respondent
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
About the middle of April 1940, a union representative advised
the respondent that organizational activities on behalf of the Union
were being conducted in the plant and claimed that a majority of
the employees had designated the Union as their representative for
purposes of collective bargaining A comparison of the Union's
claimed membership was made with the names of employees on the
respondent 's pay roll, but it did not appear that the Union in fact
had obtained a majority status Thereafter , the Union continued its
organizing efforts among the employees
During the latter part of 1940, the Union filed charges with the
Board alleging , inter alia, that the respondent had discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of five employees, in-
cluding A. Gimm and W A Brady, because of their union member-
ship and activities i On December 20, 1940, during the pendency of
the charges , Gimm and Brady were discharged , allegedly because they
had destroyed certain property belonging to the respondent On
December 23, 1940, the Union and the respondent executed an agree-
ment which stated that the parties were contemplating entering into
a stipulation with the Board which would dispose of the matters set
out, in the above -mentioned charges, and provided that the discharges
of Brady and Gimm, which the Union contended had been effected
because of their union membership and activities , should be deter-
mined by a board of three arbitrators , and that the decision of the
arbitrators "shall be final and binding upon all the parties hereto as
1 The charges alleged that Gimm and Brady had been discriminated against with respect
to the amount of work given them The discharge of Biady on March 12, 1941, is dis-
cu-sed below
A
WEST COAST GROWERS AND PACKERS 817
to the justification of said discharge " Pursuant to the agree-
ment, Brady, and Gnnm nn ei e i einstated pending the arbitration
awaid
On December 27, 1940, pursuant to the above charges filed by the
Union, the Board issued its corn plaint against the respondent, alleging
'inter alia that the iespondent had discinninated against Brady and
Gimm with respect to the amount of work assigned them in order to
discourage membership in the Union On December 28, prior to a
hearing, the respondent, the Union,'and counsel for the Board, en-
tered into a stipulation in settlement of the issues raised by the Board's
complaint, and providing; in part, that the respondent would pay to
Brady and Gimm the suni of $100 each for their loss in wages because
of the discrimination against them 2 On February 1, 1941, in accoi.d-
ance with the stipulation, the respondent posted on the bulletin board
a notice stating that it would not interfere with the rights of its em-
ployees guaranteed by the Act, that it would not discourage member-
ship in the Union, and that the employees were free to join the Union
On February 19, 1941, pursuant to the arbitration agreement of
December, 23, 1940, the board of arbitrators found as follows
As the men [Brady and Grimm] destroyed the Employer's prop-
erty, we must rule that such destruction of property was justifica-
tion for their dismissal, and could not be interpreted as related
to Union activity But, as Management cannot be held entirely
blameless in their relations with these men and the Union, previous
to December twentieth, 1940, we feel that these men should be
i emstated, pay for the property destroyed (24 50, seventy boxes at
thirty-five cents each) and the Union reprimand these men so that
Company morale, better relations and the owner's authority be
reestablished in the plant
On February 19, 1941, the respondent posted on the bulletin board
in its plant a notice setting forth the finding of the board' of arbitra-
tors , and stating in connection therewith
Notwithstanding the Arbitration Committee's decision upholding
our dimissal of these men, we are in the interest of harmony going
to follow the suggestion of the Committee and continue these
men in our employment providing Messrs. Brady and Gimm come
to us on or before February 26, 1941, and signify their willingness
to comply with the suggestion of the Committee and pay for the
property destroyed in the amount the Committee indicated, and
2 Matter of D R Hoak and A R Hoak, co-partners, doing business under then name and
style of West Coast Groves and Packers and Packing House Employees Union, Local
19653, A F of L, 29 N L R B 136
472814-42-N of 42--52
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provided further that the Union take the affirmative action sug-
gested by the Committee 3
B The allegedly discriminatory discharge of William A Brady
On or about February 26, 1941, pursuant to the notice posted by
the respondent on February 19, 1941; Euzell Dawson, the Union's shop
stew aid, and Brady and Gimm called at the office of D R Hoak, one
of the respondent's paitneis, toydiscuss the arbitration award Daw-
son suggested that the employees be permitted to replace the boxes
Hoak rejected this suggestion Further discussion followed concern-
Ing the manner in which the indebtedness should be satisfied and
whether an amount could be paid by Brady and Gmmm when they re-
ceived their weekly pay No decision was reached, how ever, Hoak
telling the employees to make their aiiangements with Fred Sal-
wasser, the respondent's operating manager, or William Heintz, the
superintendent Hoak also told Brady and-Gimm to make -the pay-
ments*"easy oil" themselves ands that the respondent "wasn't hard to
please at all " The conference terminated with Dawson's statement
that he would inform Hoak of the arrangement agreed upon for paying
the indebtedness Shortly thereafter, Hoak mtormed Salwasser of
his conversation with the employees, and directed Salwasser not to
require payments which Brady and Gimm would find difficult to
make About February 28, Salwasser asked Gimm in what manner
lie and Brady expected to pay the indebtedness Gimm suggested a
weekly deduction from their pay checks, but Salwasser replied that
such deductions would necessitate "too much book work" Gnnm
testified that Salwasser then suggested that he and Brady pay a certain
amount when they received then checks, and that the payment should
not be "less than a-dollar " According to Salwasser, he informed
Gimm on this occasion that he and Biady should make payments of
$1 if their checks for the week were in the amount of $5 or more
Gimm, however, denied that Sahli asser so conditioned payment upon
the amount of weekly pay received In any event, it is clear that
Salwasser did advise Gimm that he should pay at least $1 per week
on the indebtedness 4
On March 5, Gimm received a check in the amount of $6 08, as
wages foi the previous week's work Gimm testified that he there-
upon approached Salw asser and asked him if he thought the check was
sufficiently large to warrant a payment According to Gimm, Sal-
wasser replied- that "he ,believed it was," with which response Gimm'
3 In the brief submitted to the Trial Examiner, the i espondent asserts that the Union
did not ieprunand Brad3 At the healing, howeet, this question was not raised, and
there is no eiidence to show ;whether of not Brady and Gimm weie'reprimanded by the
Union '
4 See footnote 6, inf a
WEST COAST GROWERS AND PACKERS s19
disagreed Salwasser testified to the same effect as Gimm, staturg
further that the conversation had terminated upon Glmm's statement
that he could not mike a payment until he cashed his check Gimm,
however, did not make any payment on that date
On Mai eh 12, the following pay day, Salwassei also spoke to Biacly
conceiningTthe-,indebtedness Accoi,cling to Biady,,•lie was asked by
Salwassei if be was "going to pay anything out of last v eek's check,",'
and when he replied that he could not "afford" to make a payment,
Salwassei told him that he was dischaiged Salwasser s testimony is
in substantial accoid with the foregoing He further testified, how-
ever, that when Bi ady stated that he could not affoid to make a jjay-
ment, he told Brady that he had made an airangenient with Gnnm for
the payment of $1 each week if his pay was $5 of mote, and again
asked him, "Well, what aie you going to do about it?", According to
Salwassei, Brady replied, "Nothing right now," whereupon Salwasser
told him that he was "fired "
On the day, of his,,dischargg, Biady, accompumed by Gin,m anal
Dawson, the shop steward, called upon D R Hoak at his office in
Fresno, California They informed Hoak of Brady's discharge and,
stated that they desired to secure his reinstatement and to arrange a
settlement of the debt Dawson offered Hoak payments of $1 each
on behalf of Brady and Giinm, which Hoak rejected, stating that he
would uphold Salwasser's discharge of Biacly and that Gimm's pay-
ment should be made to Sale asser On the same day, Gimm and
Dawson returned to the plant and talked with Salwasser Dawson'
offered Salwassei a payment of $1 each on behalf of Brady and Grmm,
but Salwasser accepted only the payment in Gimm's behalf, stating
that Brady had been dischaiged Dawson, according to his undenied
testimony, protested_ that Bt idy,'s eainnig^,had not been sufficient for"
him to make the payments, to which Sahw asser replied that "a' bill was
a bill and it had to be paid "
6 Br idy's check for the previous wool, was $6 OS, the same amount that Gimm had re-
ceised when he wis advised b3 Salwisser that it was sufficient to warrant making a
payment The respondent's business is seasonal, the busy season ordinaii1 temmnatmn
during the month of Febiuary The eaimngs of Br'idy and Gimm neat the close of the
season w(,i(, 9s follows
Pebruuy 26-Giinm, $11 96, Bi idy, $11 36
0Mai ch 5-Gimm, $608, Brady $608
March 12-Giinm, $1 56 , Biadi $1 18
The iespondents employees are paid on Wednesdays for woik performed dining the
pi ei ions calendar week The last checks weie for the week ending March 8 During the
week ending March 15, neither Brad', nor Gimm worked
sBiady hadrlust recei ed=a check for $11S but, as appears from his own testimony,
Salwassei'asked,'him to^make, pa}mcut onlyffiorn,lwages received the=seek befor'p^ This
fact con i oboiates Sahvasser s pi evieus testimony that he had informed Gimni that he
should make a payment if his weekll wages amounted to $5 of more
Within 12 weeks Gimm had paid the balance of $12 25, his share of the indebtedness
Shoitll tlie,eafter, woik became niegulai and Gimm quit the iespondent's employ Al-
though Ginn returned to the plant about September 1, 1941, and talked to Salwasser, he
did not seek ieemployment with the i espondent _
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 11, Brady %viote to the respondent, requesting reinstate-
ment and enclosing a money order foi $12 25 in payment of his indebt-
edness On August 13, the respondent replied, stating in part, as
follows
As we cannot at the piesent time offer you any encouragement
for reemployment, we aie retuining with this letter U S Postal
Money Oider in the amount of $12 25, as undei these ciicum-
stances, you-may not wish to ieimburse us foi the broken boxes
The respondent maintains that the ieason it discharged Brady, while
retaining Gimm, was because of the difference in their attitude towaid
payment of the indebtedness Salwasser testified that it appeared
to him that Gimm "was willing to woik the thing out" whereas Biady
showed "no attitude that way at all," and was not "very much con-
ceived" about meeting the obligation Since it appears that Gimm
did make a gi eater effoit than Biady to,ari ive at a satisfactory mode
of settlement, there appeais to be met it in the iespondent's contention
Gimm had first suggested to Salwasser that a deduction be made from
his check each week, and latei approached Salwasser on March 5 to
inquii e if the lattei thought that his check for $608 was sufficiently
large to wail tnt making a payment Brady, on the othei hand, did
not appioach the respondent or otherwise indicate that he was con-
coined about meeting the debt, and when questioned by Salwassei for
the fiist time on March 12, merely stated that he could not "affoid"
to make a payment While Biady's attitude, undei the cicumstances,
does not appear to have been as censurable as it was deemed by the
respondent , it neveitheless is in sufficient contiast to the greater
interest evinced by Gimm in dischaiging the debt as to pievent a
finding that the respondent's explanation for diffeienti itnng in its
treatment of them was so unreasonable as to ieveal its falsity Noi
does it appear that an alternative motive for Brady's discharge is to
be found in his union activities There is no showing that Biady,
as found by the Trial Examiner , was a more active , member of the
Union and foi that reason was accorded less favoi able treatment than
Giinm Gimm testified that he "helped talk the boys into signing up"
with the Union, Brady similarly testified that lie "attempted to per-
suade others to loin" While Gimm further testified, as noted by the
Trial Examiner, that lie could not recall whether his solicitation was
successful , it likewise does not appear with what success Brady solic-
ited his fellow employees Brady testified that lie also typed state-
rnents concerning grievances which he gave to Sweeney, the union
i epiesentitive, but there is no evidence that the respondent was aware
of such activity Lastly, both Gimm and Brady were equally in-
volved in the aibitration award and the Board 's stipulated order, so
that whatever resentment the respondent might have had towards
WEST COAST GROWERS AND PACKERS 821
Brady in this connection apparently would for the same reason have
existed with respect to Gimm. In view of the foregoing' we are not
convinced that the respondent was motivated by Brady's union activity
in effecting his discharge
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in iegarcl to bile
or tenure of employment of William Brady, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization
C The allegedly discriminatory lay-off of and refusal to reinstate
Roy Saler and Ray SZler
Roy Siler was employed by the respondent during the week of
September 21, 1940; Ray Siler, his brother, during the week of Decem-
ber 28, 1940 They were seasonal employees 8
On February 18, 1941, after the respondent, in compliance with the
stipulated order of the Board,° had posted a notice on its bulletin
board to the effect that it would not interfere with or discour age mem-
bership in the Union, both Roy and Ray Siler signed applications for
membership in 'the Union, dehvermg their application cards to Daw-
son immediately outside the entrance to the plant 10 According to
the testimony of Dawson and the Sileis, Paul Pretzer, who, they tes-
tified, was foreman of the shipping department, was watching them
as he stood in the doorway of the plant about 40 feet away Pietzer,
however, testified that he had no recollection of the incident, and that
he did not see union cards on any occasion He further testified that
he was not a foreman, and was employed only as a shipping clerk
In view of our ultimate finding with respect to the respondent's alleged
discrimination against the Sileis, as hereinafter discussed, it is un-
necessary to resolve the foregoing conflict in testimony with respect
to Pretzel's supervisory status, or to determine whether he was aware
that the Silers had applied for membership in the Union
On or about February 20, 1941, at which time the respondent had
reached the end of,its normal busy season, approximately 24 of the
respondent's 58 employees, including the Siler brothers, were laid off
The following week, the Srlers returned to the plant and, noticing
that their time cards were not in the time-card rack, concluded that
they had been discharged They thereupon communicated with offi-
cials of the Union, and on or about February 26, accompanied by
Dawson and J J Sweeney, a representative of the Union, called
upon D R Hoak at his office in Fresno and inquired as to why they
8 As previously stated , the respondent 's business is seasonal , the busy season com-
mencing about the first of September and ending toward the latter part of February The
number of seasonal employees varies, and constitutes from 40 to 70 percent of the total
number of employees
9 See footnote 2, supra
"Prior to this time, Dawson had been unsuccessful in his solicitation of the Silers for
membership in the Union
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had been discharged Hoak denied the accusation by Sweeney that
the Sileis had been discharged because they had applied foi member-
ship in the Union, and asserted that they weie laid off puisuant to
the customary reduction in personnel at the end of the busy season
Sweeney replied, however, that 1 seasonal employee with less seniority
than the Slier brothers had not been laid off Hoak then pioduced
the respondent's employment records, which ievealed that Amos
Parker, a seasonal employee with less seniority than either of the
Sileis, had been retained 11 - Hoak was Iul`ab]e-to `offer a-sijecrfic'ex-
^planation for the retention of Paiker but, according to his testimony,
told Sweeney and the Sileis that Parker might have been assigned
to a "different crew" of "doing some special work," and that he might
have been retained for "any one of a dozen reasons" that could not be
given "off -hand " 11 The Slier brothers and Sweeney testified that
the conversation terminated upon Hoak's statement that the Silers
would be recalled when work was available Hoak, however, testified
that he informed the Silers that when work became available, he
knew of "no reason why they couldn't be ie-employ ed "
In April 1941 the respondent unexpectedly received a large order
making"it necessary `to increase operi tiofis to the-'same extent- as
required during the busy season During the week ending April 26,
the respondent employed 44 persons, an increase of 18 over the pre-
ceding week, during the following week its personnel increased to 52
employees, and thereafter to 59 employees Opeiations on this scale
continued until the week ending June 7, 1941 None of the seasonal
employees laid off in February or March was notified to return to
work, and the 25 new employees hued during that per rod were se-
lected, pursuant to the respondent's customary piactice, from among
applicants at the plant The Slier brothers did not apply, nor were
they recalled to work by the i espondent
The Trial Examiner found that Roy Suer was discharged, and
that both of the Silei brothers were refused reinstatement, because
they had made application for membership in the Union We do
not concur in this conclusion Although, as found-by the Trial Exam-
iner, the respondent may have known that the Slier brothers had ap-
plied for membership in the Union, the cncumstances suriounchng
'11 Packer was employed dining the week ending I+ebiuai y 8 1941, and continued his
employment until the week ending Mai ch 8, 1941, at which time he was laid off
12 The respondent has no established scniorit, rule with respect to seasonal employees,
either dining a particulai season of fi our one season to anotlu r No recoid of seasonal
employees is kept foi the purpose of ieemploynient, and no attempt is made to recall such
employees the following season At the commencement of each busy season , the respond-
ent hues its additional pciso nel t0on1 persons making application at the plant while, as
found by the Ti ial Examiner it w is the respondent's practice at tlne close of its buy season,
first to lay off emplosecs who were junior in point of scrxice daring that particular season,
the application of sueh'pimciple was limited to canes where a elmrcc had to be made among
employees doing the same to pe of woi 1. This practice of selecting seasonal emplo' ees for
lay-off upon a seniority basis was not strictly adhered to , however , and was only mote or
less generally applied where other considerations did not interfere
WEST COAST GROWERS AND PACKERS 8231.
then' lay-off, in out opinion, do not establish that it,was occasioned
by such union activity In addition to the Sileis, 22 other seasonal
cmployees were laid off at the end of the busy season, all or none
of whom, so far as the record shows, may have been members of the
Linton Thus, there is no indication that the respondent had utilized
its seasonal lay-off generally to disciimunate against union members.
It is tine, as noted above, that the respondent retained one seasonal
employee, juniot in point of service, for approximately 2 weeks after
it dis`>i is'sed the' Sileis,' but there is nb- convincing evidence that the
preference thus shown was disciiminatoty So fat as it appears,
Parker, the employee thus retained, may have been employed at work
different from that performed by the Silers, in which case his lack of
seniority would have made his ietention'consistent with the respond-
ent's customary practice Fm thermoie, the mote of less casual man-
ner in which the respondent applies the seniority principle when,lay-
i ng off its seasonal employees undoubtedly makes unintentional errors,
not uncommon, thus strengthening the probability that Parker's
retention, if contrary to the respondent's practice, was merely inad-
vertent Lastly, there is no showing that Packer himself had not
signed an application foi' membership 'in the Union,' di-that the re-
spondent believed lie had not done so In view of the foregoing, we
ate unable to agree with the finding of the Trial Examiner that in-
laying off Roy Suler, who had greater seniority than his brother Ray,
the respondent was motivated by the fact that `he had made applica-
tion for membership in the Union
We axe similarly unconvinced that the Suler brothers were refused
reinstatement because of their application for " membership in the
Union We have found that the respondent did not discriminate
against the Silers at the time they were laid off, and it follows that the
respondent was therefore privileged to refuse them reinstatement
when they called upon D R Hoak at his office in Fresno shortly
thereafter Conditions necessitating the general lay-off at the re-
spondent's plant had not changed and the resultant lack of work
remained the same Assuming that Hoak may have promised, as
found by the Trial Examiner, to 1 ecall the Silei s when woi k became
available, it does not follow that the failure to keep such promise
evinced a disci tmnatory motive The promise to notify the Silers
was contrary to the respondent's practice with regard to seasonal
employees and one which it was under no obligation to make The
tilers knew from past experience that the respondent's employment
procedure required application at the plant, and yet neither applied
there for reemployment Furthermore, they both testified that they
had met Heintz, the plant superintendent, and Salwasser on the street
a number of times, but did not question either of these supervisory
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees as to the availability of work As stated above, none of
the other seasonal employees laid off in February or March was noti-
fied to return to work when the respondent Increased its operations
in April and, in accordance with the respondent's established prac-
tice, all of the new employees hired at that time were selected from
applicants at the plant There is nothing to indicate that the Siler
brothers would have been refused reemployment if they also had ap-
plied at the plant in April While the iespondent's failure to recall
the Silers may have been a violation of its alleged promise to do so,
we do not find that it was tantamount to a refusal to reinstate them,
or that it was occasioned by their application for membeiship in the
Union
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Roy Silei and Ray Siler, thereby
encouraging or discouraging membership in a labor organization
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of the respondent occur in commerce, within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act
2 Packing House Employees Union, Local No 19653, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
3 The respondent has not interfeied with, restrained, or coerced
-its employees, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
4 The respondent has not disciiminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of William A Bi ady, Roy Siler, or Ray Siler,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foiegoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint against the respondent, D R Hoak & A. R Hoak, co-
partners, doing business under the name and style of West Coast
Growers and Packers, Fresno, California, be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed