Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1355
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain Knight Newspapers , Inc. in violation
of Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) ( B) of the Act.
MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL No. 46,
A SUBORDINATE LOCAL UNION OF INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS ' UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organizer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Industrial
Building, 232 West Grand River , Detroit 26, Michigan , Telephone Number, Wood-
ward 2-3830 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its-
provisions.
Winn-Dixie Stores , Inc. and Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and
Allied Food Workers Union , Local 433, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 12-CA-2213. October 3, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 7, 1962, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.'
' In the notice , the next to the last sentence Is hereby amended to read : "This notice
must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, . . ." instead of
"GO days from the date hereof, . . .
138 NLRB No. 142.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29, U.S.C. section 151, et seq., herein called the Act.
Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers Union, Local 433,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter sometimes called the Union or Local 433), having on December 1, 1961,
filed a charge against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.' (hereinafter sometimes called the
Respondent, the Company, or the Employer), the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Twelfth Region, on January 12, 1962, issued a complaint against the Respondent,
alleging that by certain acts set forth in the complaint the Respondent had engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act. On January 19, 1962, the Respondent filed an answer to the
complaint, effectively, denying the alleged violations.
On the issues framed by the complaint and the answer, this case came on to be
heard before Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman at Jacksonville, Florida, on
March 12, 1962, and was concluded and closed on March 15. At the hearing, all
parties were represented by counsel, each party was afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent
to the issues, and each was afforded opportunity to argue orally upon the record,
to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or both, and to file briefs.
Briefs have been submitted by counsel for each of the parties.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.
The Respondent, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of Florida.
At all times material herein, the Respondent, having its principal office in Jack-
sonville, Florida, has owned and maintained a multistate chain of retail grocery
stores. Included with the chain of stores are company-owned warehouses which
-house the meat processing and meat and cheese packaging department among other
departments. The Respondent's warehouse located at 3156 Edgewood Court, Jack-
sonville, Florida, is the only warehouse or store involved in this proceeding.
During the year immediately preceeding the issuance of the complaint herein,
the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, had a gross
volume of business in excess of $10,000,000, made shipments of goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 to its stores in Florida directly from States other than the States of
Florida, and shipped from its warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, to points outside
the State of Florida goods valued in excess of $50,000.
The Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers Union, Local 433,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary findings
1. Union organization
On or about September 15, 1961, the Union undertook to organize the employees
in the meat processing, cheese, and cottage cheese department of the warehouse?
1 Complaint amended at hearing to change from Winn-Dixie Company, Inc., to proper
corporate name shown in caption.
2 Other employees in the warehouse are in a department called a perishable warehouse
and include shipping, receiving, and storage employees. Other than those employees in
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1357
A meeting of the employees with the secretary-treasurer and business manager of Lo-
cal 433 was held on October 2, and altogether, after that, some eight other meetings
were conducted. During the course of these meetings, signed cards authorizing the
Union to represent individual employees for the purposes of bargaining collectively
with the Employer were furnished to the union representative. Twenty-two signed
authorization cards were in the hands of Robert Ackerman, the secretary-treasurer
and business agent of the Union, on or before October 25, when he sent the following
letter to the vice president of the Company:
DEAR SIR: Please be informed that a large majority of your employees, working
in the centralized meat processing and meat and cheese packaging department
located in the Company's warehouse at 3156 Edgewood Court, Jacksonville,
Florida, have selected Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Work-
ers, District Union 433, to represent them for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
We request that you contact the writer within five (5) days so that a con-
ference can commence for the purpose of consummating a collective bargaining
agreement.
Subsequent to the letter of October 25, the Union notified the Respondent by letter
dated November 1 that information had come to its attention that the Respondent
was actively seeking information concerning the union activity of the meat, cheese,
and cottage cheese processing and packaging employees and offered to submit the
union authorization cards to a neutral third party for verification of the union
majority status. On the following day, November 2, a letter was dispatched by the
secretary-treasurer of the Union to the Respondent advising that:
. . . The below listed employees of the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., employed in the
centralized meat cutting operation at the Company's warehouse in Jacksonville
have authorized the [Union] to represent them in collective bargaining for the
purpose of consummating an agreement with the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., in
their behalf concerning wages, hours and working conditions: .. .
and listing the names of 23 employees .3 At this time 25 employees were engaged
in the meat processing department, 7 in the meat and cheese packaging department,
and 2 in the cottage cheese department for a total of 34 employees. Thirty-seven
employees were engaged in the perishable warehouse department, making a total
of 71 employees which, the Respondent contends, would constitute the appropriate
bargaining unit.
Under date of November 3, 1961, O. R. T. Bowden, attorney for the Company,
addressed the following letter to Ackerman, the business representative of the
Union
Your letter dated November 1, 1961, addressed to Mr. J. Wertz Nease has
been forwarded to our office for reply.
I note in your letter that you state that certain company representatives have
been interrogating employees about their union membership or activities. This
is to officially advise you that this statement is not true.
In reviewing your correspondence to the Company, we do not believe that you
represent a majority of Winn-Dixie employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
We therefore decline to recognize you until such time as you have been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees
in an appropriate unit.
You will note that this letter is being answered within three days and, there-
fore, we do not need the 10-day limit that you so kindly allowed us in your
letter.
2. The appropriate unit
The complaint sets forth that:
All meat and cheese processing and packaging department employees at the
Respondent's warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, constitute a unit appropriate
the meat processing , cheese, and cottage cheese department ( which the Union attempted
to organize ) and the perishable warehouse , there are other employees employed in the
grocery warehouse , cigarette room, yard cleanup , maintenance ( not warehouse), banana
and nut repacking, salvage, and egg repacking and employees employed as carpenters and
janitors There are in all approximately 250 employees engaged at work in the warehouse.
O The name of Hymle Sikes was included . The union representative later learned that
Sikes was not employed within the claimed unit.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
and that on or about October 19, 1961, a majority of the employees of the Respondent
in the unit described, designated or selected the Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Respondent. The answer of the Respondent
denies the appropriateness of the described unit and asserts that it is without knowl-
edge as to whether or not the employees did designate or select the Union as their
representative, as alleged in the complaint. At the hearing and in its brief the
Respondent takes the position that if the Union sought to represent an appropriate
unit of employees in the warehouse, the facts clearly show that such unit would
have consisted of the 25 employees in the meat processing department, the 7 em-
ployees in the meat and cheese packaging department, the 2 employees in the cottage
cheese department, and the 37 employees in the perishable warehouse department,
a total of 71 employees.
A floor plan of the warehouse, in evidence, shows that the meat processing, cheese,
and cottage cheese operations are actually within a compact integrated area within
the warehouse proper; it also shows that functionally the other departments of the
warehouse including the perishable and storage spaces are so arranged that the
warehouse operations as such, in regard to the movement of commodities and
receiving and shipping and storing are in a sense integrated for efficient handling
of goods and the conduct of warehouse activities.
From testimony taken at the hearing, the following rough chart indicates the or-
ganizational setup within the warehouse:
General Warehouse Superintendent John Blackburn
Coordinates all warehouse activities
Dry Grocery Drugs & Houseware
(Cooley) (Blank)
-I I
Garage & Repair Transportation
(Abbott) (Wilson)
Meat Merchandiser Produce Merchandiser
(Sam Thompson) (Ray Goodall)
School
Meat Processing,
Cheese, & Egg Room Tomatoes Frozen Foods
Cottage Cheese (Foreman) (Foreman) (Dudley)
(Jack Camp)
The General Counsel, in support of his assertion that the unit described is an
appropriate one, asserts that the record discloses that the meat, cheese, and cottage
cheese processing employees have a community of interest; that in addition to the
frequent interchange of employees in these sections only, and common supervision,
these employees are considered an administrative division and a separate group by
the employer. He argues that all of the employees are engaged in the actual proc-
essing of related products and work in the same area within the warehouse. The
record does reflect these facts. He says further that unlike any other section of the
warehouse, the meat, cheese, and cottage cheese personnel use certain tools such
as saws, knives, and other processing machinery; wear white overalls and other
protective clothing including hats, leather aprons, and galoshes; work continually
in a refrigerated area; require certain skills not required by other sections; and
process and package beef, lamb, cheese, cottage cheese, and luncheon meats. Upon
the other hand it is argued on behalf of the Respondent that it would be incongruous
to exclude those employees who receive, assemble and ship the products from a unit
comprised of the employees who process and pack the same products; and that this
is especially true when it could be shown that it is not at all unusual for the employees
in the meat processing and meat and cheese packaging and cottage cheese depart-
ments to assist employees in the perishable warehouse department. Among the
duties of the meat processing employees, Respondent says, is the receiving and un-
loading of products and lending aid to the perishable warehouse employees in any
other manner that was required. These and other considerations which seem perti-
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1359
vent to the resolution of the unit questioned, will be discussed on the basis of the
facts as presented by the witnesses at the hearing .4
The testimony of J. Wertz Nease, vice president in charge of the Jacksonville divi-
sion of the Company, and Jack Camp, foreman in the meat processing department,
supports to some degree the contention of the Company that the warehouse opera-
tions are integrated, particularly between meat processing, cheese, and cottage cheese
and the perishable warehouse. Nease testified at length in regard to the receiving and
handling of meats, produce, and other products and in regard to meats stated they
might be handled either by the perishable warehouse crew or the processing room
employees. I do not find much support in the record to show that produce and
other perishable products received on the shipping dock are handled by employees
from the meat processing department. There is some showing that on very rare
occasions a meat processing man may assist in the unloading of beef and other meats
from a railroad car; however, in ordinary practice, the meat is unloaded at the dock
and hung on a hook on a monorail and from there is taken into the meat cutting
department where it is cut according to markings made on the carcass. In regard
to the work with the perishable warehouse employee, in the meat processing de-
partment, Nease said:
When a order comes-when an order comes to us, the meat manager will
order the product that he needs and when the person assembles that order, he
has to go into one cooler and then another. For instance, he has to go get
chickens or pork loins or biscuits or what have you and he goes into another
cooler to get that, when he has gotten it all together then he has to assemble it
in this room [the meat processing room] and that is necessary prior to pulling
it out.
All of the coolers open into the meat processing room where the cutting is done
before the meat is placed in the coolers. The coolers are in effect large refrigerated
rooms, the doors of which open directly into the meat processing department, so
obviously, it is necessary for the perishable warehouseman who is assembling an
order calling for meats or chickens and so on (as mentioned by Mr. Nease) to enter
the meat processing room to pick up these goods.
There is evidence of one permanent transfer of a man formerly employed in the
perishable warehouse to the meat processing department. There is little if any
evidence going to show that persons employed in meat processing, cheese, or cottage,
cheese are called upon to assist employees in the perishable warehouse in the normal
course of the functioning of that department
On the other hand the evidence is clear and uncontradicted that employees en-
gaged in meat processing interchange work at times with those employees engaged
in the packing of cottage cheese and other cheese and luncheon meats and that it
is not at all unusual for these interchanges to occur. Infrequently, if ever, does an
employee work part of the time in the meat processing department and part of the
day in the perishable warehouse department.
All the employees in the meat processing, cheese, and cottage cheese departments
work days from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The employees in the perishable warehouse work
from 8 a in. to 5 p.m. in regard to receiving and packing and those employees .there
engaged in shipping report for work at 12 noon.
In regard to rates of pay in these departments, 1 employee in meat and cheese is
rated at $2.16 per hour, 16 at $1.96, 4 at $1.76, 5 at $1 57, and I man (Cowart, first
assistant to Jack Camp, foreman) is a salary rated employee. In the perishable
warehouse 26 employees are rated at $1.86 per hour, 8 at $1.76, and 1 at $1.66, 1
at $1.56, and 1 at $1.45. As noted above the minimum and maximum grade classi-
cations to me are not greatly significant in determining whether the meat processing
department, together with the cheese, shows the ultimate appropriateness of a bar-
gaining unit. I do think that it is significant that generally speaking, current
present rates are shown as being slightly higher in the meat processing and cheese
department.
4 The Respondent argues, too, that the fact that the minimum and maximum rates of
pay in the various job classifications are similar, the same, or very close within the meat
processing, cheese, and cottage cheese and perishable warehouse departments tend to sup-
port the argument against the claimed appropriate unit I do not think the similarity
of rates shows very much ; if there were a divergence between very high and low rates,
then of course the wage scale would play an important part in the determination of which
the employees would belong in an appropriate unit.
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In connection with the findings above made regarding the interchange or giving
of temporary assistance between employees within the meat, cheese, and cottage
cheese processing sections, I have taken into account and generally credited testi-
mony of employees Arnold, Adams, and Heasley. °
The Respondent has offered testimony going to show that Jack Camp, foreman
in the meat processing, cheese, and cottage cheese departments supervises the activities
of all the employees in all the departments in question.
Camp said that he coordinated, supervised, and directed other employees in the
perishable warehouse, and that among other things he assigned employees to other
duties around the warehouse other than making assignments of work in the meat
processing, cottage cheese, and cheese departments. Close examination of his
testimony both on direct and on cross-examination show, however, that he greatly
enlarged his importance in the light of the testimony of Nease, as well as the
testimony of employees who actually work on the jobs. I do not believe that Camp
had full authority over the perishable warehouse as well as the meat processing,
cottage cheese, and cheese departments. Certainly it is reasonable to believe that he
coordinated the work in his department with the packing and filling of orders by
employees from the perishable warehouse, but I do not believe that Camp had that
full authority claimed by him with respect to the assignments of work of all the
employees in these several departments. The interchange of employees, it clearly
appears, is as between those engaged in meat processing, in packing and working
on cheese and cottage cheese, and goes no further than that. It appears, moreover,
from the testimony of Nease that Sam Thompson, the meat merchandiser and Camp's
superior confines most of his activities to the meat processing and related depart-
ments while Thompson's opposite number, the produce merchandiser, is the man
really in charge of the perishable warehouse. I do not quarrel with the fact that
there must be coordination between the two departments, especially in regard to the
filling of orders by employees from the perishable warehouse, but I do question
whether either Thompson or Camp spend much if any time in direct supervision of
employees in the perishable warehouse. I cannot find enough in the record to
support such a finding. I think that the General Counsel is correct when he says
that the evidence discloses that the perishable warehouse employees service
the produce and other sections of the warehouse and that their only contact
with the meat, cheese, and cottage cheese departments is when they deliver meat for
processing and pick up meat for delivery.
Although the General Counsel contends that there is an extra degree of skill
involved in work of employees in the meat processing department in regard to the
cutting of meats, particularly premium steaks, and in the making of corn beef,
I do not believe this has a great deal to do wtih the issues other than the main
one-whether their work is different and requires a different skill or a higher degree
of skill than that held by perishable warehouse employees. I think the work is
entirely different, and it has not been proven nor has it been attempted to be proven
that perishable warehouse employees could in usual course step in and assume
the job of the meatcutter or boner in the meat processing department. I discount
the statement of Camp to the effect that it is customary for perishable warehouse
employees to handle merchandise "in the beef processing department" unless that
statement ,is taken to mean that their activities are confined to filling orders.
I find that the employees in the meat processing, cheese, and cottage cheese
departments constitutes a functionally distinct group with special interests sufficiently
distinguishable from the employees in the perishable warehouse to warrant the
placing of them in a separate unit.
I am satisfied that a majority of the employees in the meat processing, cheese,
and cottage cheese departments did authorize Local 433 to represent them in collec-
tive bargaining prior to October 25, 1961, or about October 19. In such case I
think the Union was entitled to request the Company to bargain with it in regard
to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment for those employees shown
to have been at that time represented by the Union.
In A. S. Beck Shoe Corporation, 92 NLRB 1457, 1459, the Board said:
There is nothing in the statute which requires that the unit for bargaining
be the only appropriate unit, or the ultimate, or the most appropriate unit. The
Act requires only that the unit be "appropriate" to ensure to employees in each
case .the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed under the Act.
B See Bruno's Food Store, Incorporated, 131 NLRB 1023, 1025 See also The Great
Atlantan and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 128 NLRB 342, 343
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1361
The act imposes a duty to bargain in good faith upon request whenever a labor
organization has been designated by a majority of employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit. The employer must recognize and bargain with such an organ-
ization whether or not it has been certified by the Labor Board. United Mine
Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62 (1956);
N.L.R.B. v. Sunrise Lumber & Trim Corp., 241 F. 2d 620 (2 Cir. 1957), cert.
denied 355 U.S. 818 (1957). To be sure, an employer laboring under a good
faith doubt as to a union 's majority status need not extend recognition . Never-
theless, in the absence of such a doubt , the employer has no vested right to an
election . N.L.R.B. v. Trimfit of California, 211 F. 2d 206 (9 Cir. 1954).
I find , as alleged in the complaint , that all meat and cheese processing and pack-
aging department employees at,the Respondent's warehouse in Jacksonville , Florida,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. A large majority of the employees in that
unit in October 1961 , designated the Union as their collective -bargaining
representative.6
3. Refusal to bargain
In section III, A , 2, above, I have found that all meat and cheese processing
and packaging department employees at the Respondent 's warehouse constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining . It remains to decide
whether the Respondent refused in good faith to bargain with the Union as the
representative of the employees in that unit.
The Respondent contends that from the very beginning it did not believe that
the Union represented a majority of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Respondent claims it has proven a good-faith doubt and therefore is protected
by the principle laid down in Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732
(C.A.D.C.), and other cases which hold that an employer may refuse recognition
to a union when motivated by a good-faith doubt as to the majority status of that
union.
The offer of the Union here to lay down its authorization cards in the presence
of an impartial third person and the refusal of the Respondent to avail itself of an
opportunity to inspect the cards and compare signatures , is indicative of a desire
on the part of the Respondent to postpone if not entirely evade its obligation to deal
with the employees. I am sympathetic toward the expression of view made on behalf
of Respondent that not only did it have doubt of the majority status of the Union
in the claimed appropriate unit but it had doubt concerning the majority of employees
in the claimed unit. However, in the light of its antiunion activities, as set forth
below (section III, A 4), I believe I am entitled to infer that the Respondent had
no intention to bargain.
Upon the whole record of this case, including the activities of the Company during
the union organizational campaign and its interrogation of employees and the other
acts set forth below, I will find that the Respondent has refused and is refusing
to bargain in good faith with the Union, and therefore has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(5) of .the Act.
4. Interrogation and other asserted unfair labor practices
The complaint asserts that since on or about October 20, 1961, Respondent engaged
in certain unfair labor practices including, besides a refusal to bargain in good faith,
interrogation of employees, threatening them with loss of jobs by closing the ware-
house and loss of other economic benefits; attempting to bargain directly with em-
ployees as to wages, hours, and working conditions; unilaterally presenting benefits
directly to its employees and presenting gifts to them; and urging its employees
to renounce or repudiate the Union as their duly selected representative by acts
such as scratching their names off a union membership list; and threatening em-
ployees with loss of their jobs if they did not renounce the Union.
The following statement, made on the letterhead of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., under
date of October 10, 1961, and circulated among the employees of the Company,
evidences the fact that the Company had knowledge of union organizing activities
almost from the inception of the union organizing campaign which began in
September:
6 The fact that one employee employed in another department of the warehouse also
gave the Union his authorization to represent him, does not affect the essential fact that
a large majority of the employees in the unit did designate the Union.
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To: Our Winn-Dixie Co-Workers.
OCTOBER 10, 1961.
DON'T SIGN ANYTHING-
Unless you are sure you know what it means and what effect it will have on
you and what effect it might have on your job.
Several Unions have been attempting to get Winn-Dixie folks to sign cards.
These cards are used to get the National Labor Relations Board to certify the
Union, which means that the Union then speaks for everybody in that group
whether they are members of the Union or not and whether they have signed
cards or not. When you sign that card, you give away your right to represent
yourself and talk to your boss about your wages, the hours you work, and about
your job. It only takes a few employees' signatures on these cards to start an
investigation by agents of the National Labor Relations Board leading to an
order of the board which says that the company can't talk with its employees
about their wages, hours, and working conditions, but must deal ONLY with
the Union. This order cannot be changed for at least a year and possibly
longer.
The Union cannot force you to sign a card or join the Union-it's against
the law.
The Company cannot keep you from signing a card or join the Union-it's
against the law.
You are the only one that can decide this question.
But, the Company can and does urge you to be careful-find out what it
means-find out what the Union's laws are-find out if they can do anything
for you or if they are just promising something they can't deliver.
The Union did not get your job for you and had nothing to do with your
hours, wages, Retirement Fund, Christmas Bonuses, vacations, or anything
else.
You and the company got those things by working together without inter-
ference from strangers.
Sincerely,
(S) J. W. NEASE.
Sam Thompson, meat merchandiser , testified that his duties consisted of coordi-
nating the buying, selling , shipping , and receiving of meats, frozen poultry, fish,
and refrigerated items. Also, in retail stores, he coordinates the sales of meat and
supervises the training of employees employed in the retail meat department of the
stores.
His office is located in the Jacksonville warehouse. He testified that there he
may conduct interviews with employees and receive their complaints. During the
month of October 1961, Thompson testified that he had a number of interviews
with employees both in the retail stores and in the warehouse. Interviews or meet-
ings with warehouse employees were had on October 23 and 24.
The Company has published and furnishes to its employees a booklet entitled "You
and Your Job'!--a handbook for all Winn-Dixie store and market employees . It also
has prepared and has circulated among the employees a pamphlet covering the
benefits available to the employees of the Company, all of these benefits being at
the expense of the Company except for social security and group insurance. The
Company bears a part of the expense of group insurance. The booklet outlines
the history of the Company , it contains a "message to employees" which in effect
advises the employee to follow practices and methods which are set forth as rules
and regulations outlined in the booklet. Company practices, or rules and regula-
tions, as set forth in the booklet cover such situations as might ordinarily rise during
the course of the work of each employee, outlines certain prohibitions regarding
smoking and drinking, requirements as to personal appearance and cleanliness,
punctuality and honesty, personal purchases, and many other things that naturally
would be a subject of concern to the Company in its desire for employees to know
how to conduct themselves according to the policy and the rules set forth. The last
page of the booklet contains the following statement regarding labor unions:
WINN-DIXIE'S POSITION REGARDING LABOR UNIONS
1. No person has ever had to join a labor union to get a job, or keep a job,
with Winn-Dixie.
2 Winn-Dixie has been in business for more than forty years. We now have
18,000 employees and not a single one is represented by a labor union. There
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1363
have been some elections and in every case our people have voted against
representation by a union.
3. We have never had a strike of any of our people in any department in any
area that Winn-Dixie operates. No employee has lost any wages because of a
strike. No unions-no strikes.
4. We always have, and always will, treat our people fairly and squarely. It
is not necessary for anyone to be represented by a union to get fair treatment
at Winn-Dixie.
5. Winn-Dixie has and will continue to have good employee benefits, good
working conditions, good hours and salaries in line with the going rates for
the food industry in our area. These policies are reasons why our people do
not wish to be represented by a labor union.
6. The union did not get your job for you and had nothing to do with your
hours, salaries, retirement fund, profit sharing, Christmas bonuses, vacations or
anything else. You and the Company got these things by working together
without interference from strangers.
7. At some time a labor union organizer may attempt to get Winn-Dixie em-
ployees to sign union cards. When you sign a union card, you give away your
right to talk to us about your salary, the hours you work, and about your job.
Be careful about what you sign-don't sign anything unless you know what
you are signing and what it might mean to you and your fellow employees.
During his talks with the warehouse employees in his office in October, Thompson
said that he covered such matters as personal problems, where employees were
living and how they were getting along, and in some cases he stated that he was
happy to hear that they had bought homes; that he corrected company records in
regard to addresses, telephone numbers, and referred to and distributed the "don't
sign anything" letter, set forth above. He said:
Well, as I stated, I was interested in their welfare. I had the personnel book
in which there were several addresses changes, several phone number changes.
Some of them told me about some of their family having been sick-some ques-
tions in regard to one or two on the insurance program-I distinctly remember
telling-complimenting them on not having had any fights in their area or any
problems among themselves, which was gratifying. I read the "don't sign any-
thing" letter and gave them a copy of it, each of them. I read from the book,
"You and Your Job," and I gave each one of them a copy of the letter.
I read Winn-Dixie's Positions "Regarding Labor Unions" and to some of
them read the "Fair Play" on the back cover, and then I discussed-some of
them had questions in regard to retirement, things like that. I tried to answer
them the best I could because it's a little bit out of my lme.7
Thompson prior to these meetings had arranged for James Cameron, employees
relations director, to also speak to groups of employees, not only in the retail
stores and in the warehouse, but also to truckdrivers and other groups of employees.
Cameron testified that he spoke to the employees in furtherance of an educational
program ;regarding benefits, training schools, labor policy, and company policy regard-
ing the minimizing of illnesses or sickness and related matters. He said he spoke
with the aid of his so-called flip book, which is an enlarged book placed on a stand,
each page covering a particular subject and, during the course of Cameron's discussion,
when he finished with one subject as denoted on a page or explained on a page
he would flip that page to the next one and continue on another subject. He said
that the meetings at which he was present lasted for a minimum of 1i/2 hours and
the longest he remembered was for about 3 hours. Cameron was present during part
of the time that Thompson talked,to the employees on October 23 and 24 and con-
firmed in part what Thompson said to the employees at those meetings.
Thompson said that after Cameron had completed his flip chart talk and brought
up the part regarding company labor policy, it reminded him (Thompson) that a
number of former employees had been visiting their stores, that he had been informed
by his clerks that these people had "aggravated them and reported it to me" so that
at the meeting Thompson was compelled to remark. "There have been some bums
visiting our store. For God's sakes don't get mixed up with these bums." Thompson
said the first knowledge he had of union organizational activities in the warehouse
was about October 27, when Nease read the letter to him from the Union requesting
7 Prom his testimony, it appears that Thompson covered pretty much the same sub-
jects in the retail stores as he covered in the warehouse with the warehouse employees.
662353-63-vol. 138-87
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognition as a representative of the employees in the meat processing, cottage
cheese, and cheese departments 8 Thompson on cross-examination said that the
",bums" referred to by him in his talk to the employees and whom he identified by
name, had been described to him by several retail employees, who told him that one
of them, Jimmy Saffo, had mentioned the Union when he was visiting the retail
stores.
Melvin Arnold, an employee in the meat processing department was present at
the meeting of October 23. He said:
Mr. Thompson got up and said to us that they had spotted different union
organizers in different stores and said that they were a bunch of bums and we
shouldn't let them talk to us, into signing anything unless we were absolutely
sure of what we were signing.
The admission of Thompson that some retail clerks had mentioned that there were
union organizers in his stores, taken together with the statement of Arnold whom I
consider to be a credible witness, impels me to conclude that Thompson and Nease
were well aware of union organizing activities before .the receipt of the letter of
October 25 from Ackerman, the union representative.
It would seem that the "Don't sign anything" letter of October 10, the coincidence
of meetings held on October 23 and 24, and the reports to Thompson by retail clerks
concerning the visits of ex-employees and the suggestion that they were interested in
the Union, shows that company officials had at least unofficial knowledge of union
organizing activities prior to the time the union demand letter was received on Octo-
ber 26. Either Nease and Thompson elect to regard their prior knowledge as un-
official or they deliberately misstated the fact when they say that their first knowl-
edge was on October 26.
Camp, the foreman in meat processing, testified that after the receipt of the demand
letter of the Union of October 25, he was instructed at a meeting called by Nease
not to ask any questions, not to promise anything, or not to threaten anyone, and
was informed what he could or could not do in regard to the Union. He said he
followed these instructions.
At the meeting of October 23 after Cameron and Thompson had spoken, refresh-
ments were served and prizes were awarded by Thompson to employees. According
to Melvin Arnold:
Q. At this meeting in addition to the refreshments, did the employees receive
anything else other than that?
A. Yes, sir, we drew names. We had one person to draw our name out of
the hat and it was for prizes such as clocks, ice chests, and prestige steaks.
According to Arnold and other employees who testified on the point, this was the
first time that such a party other than Christmas parties had been held and the first
time gifts were presented by Thompson. The testimony of Arnold is corroborated by
that of Curtis Adams, a credible witness.
The letter of November 2, 1961, from the Union to the Company, which listed
the names of the employees who had signed union authorization cards, was posted
in the meat processing department by someone of management. The letter was posted
on the bulletin board in the usual place where notices were posted. On the day the
Laker was posted, Camp approached Arnold and told him that "Your name would
sure look good off that list." A few days later Camp again approached Arnold and
repeated to him that his name sure would look good off the list. Arnold did scratch
his name. A few days later Nease called Arnold together with employees Manning,
Wildiam Baysden, and Fred Woods into his office, talked to them about company
benefits and wages paid by the Company as compared with a meat packing company,
asked them if they had any grievances, and told them that if each would initial the
letter where his name had been scratched they would not have to have any more to,
do with the Union and would not have to attend any more union meetings. Ac-
cording to Arnold, about a week after this meeting with Nease, Thompson spoke
to a number of the employees:
He spoke of the company benefits that the company employees had, the benefits
that the company employees had and he asked me how everybody was getting
s The "don't sign letter" was dated October 10 Thompson 's meetings with the ware-
house employees were on October 23 and 24, the union letter was received on the 26th,
and according to Thompson he was advised of the Union' s demand , which he says was his
first knowledge of union activity in the warehouse, on October 27, all as noted above.
Nease also testified that the first knowledge he had of union organizing activities in
the warehouse was the receipt of the Union's letter of October 25.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1365
along and how they liked their job. He also said that the Company wouldn't
tolerate any strangers interfering with their business and said that they had op-
perated for 42 years without any strangers interfering with their business and he
would close down the warehouse before he would let the Union in.
His testimony remains substantially uncontradicted upon the record.
Further, according to Arnold, Thompson, around October 1, asked him how the
employees were getting along and whether they like their jobs; that during the course
of this conversation Thompson informed him that it would be impossible to grant
any wage increases-that the Company could not afford to pay any more than
they presently were paying in the way of wages. Pay increases, retroactive to
September 1, were announced to the employees in the meat processing department
on October 24.9
Curtis Adams, employed in the beef processing department, testified that after
the posting of the letter containing the names of employees who had signed the union
authorization card, Camp approached him and said:
"You know that list outside sure would look good with your name scratched
off of it." I told him, "I was sorry that I had signed this list-that I signed
my name on the list." He said, "if you really mean that, you can take my
pen and you can scratch your name off the list." I told' him, "'You can go
over there and do it yourself if you want too," and he said, "I couldn't do
that." And I told him that I would do it on my break time, which I did... .
he said that "Winn-Dixie stores had been in operation for 40 years without a
union and they didn't want a union and wasn't going to have a union and that
they would close up the warehouse before we will have a union."
Adams said that a few days after his conversation with Camp he and Perry Sim-
mons were told by Nease, in a conversation in a zoom called the schoolroom, just
off the meat processing department, that he was sorry to see that the employees
wanted a union to represent them and that if there was anything he could do or
anything they needed in their work he would see that they would get it. Adams
suggested that he would like to have galoshes, which Nease noted, and the latter
said that:
... "If we were feeling sorry and wanted to do something about our names
on that list, we could scratch our names off the list and initial it out by the
side," I [and that he, Adams] did so scratch my name off the list and initial
it off by the side.
During the first week in November, Adams said, Thompson paid a visit to his
home about 7 o'clock in the evening, expressed his satisfaction at the good work
Adams was doing and advised Adams not to have anything to do with the Union,
said that the Company did not want any outsiders to come in and bother the em-
ployees, and advised Adams and his wife to make sure of what they were signing
and to bear in mind what effect it might have on Adams' job. Thompson, during
the course of this conversation, indicated to Adams that the Company had several
new projects in mind which might affect Adams favorably; he said that these plans
would not go into effect "until this business of the Union was settled and over with."
Flo Heasley signed an authorization card for the Union on October 25, 1961, at
a time when she was employed in the cheese department. She testified that
Cameron, employee relations director, at a meeting on about October 20, spoke to
the employees employed in the cheese department and meat processing department
and did, after explaining the benefits and insurance program of the Company to
the employees, talk about the Union. Mrs. Heasley, whom I consider a credible
witness, testified in part as follows:
Q. What did he say about the Union?
A. He said that that was one word he didn't like. I believe that he said
there were 18,000 employees of Winn-Dixie ... and everytime that they had
ever talked about it, the people voted it down.
9It was about this time that the employees in the meat processing department received
coveralls and overshoes, items which they had requested long before Adams testified
that about a year and a half prior to the time galoshes or overshoes actually were fur-
nished to the men in the meat processing department, he had asked Jones, assistant to
Thompson, that they be supplied to which Jones replied that if he wanted them he could
go out and buy them himself The employees in the perishable warehouse had received
an increase about September 1, or at least effective September 1. Arnold denied that
Thompson told him shortly after October 13 that the Company was making a survey to
determine whether a raise should be granted in the meat processing department.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. They always voted it down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After Mr. Cameron talked-
A. Yes.
Q. Did any other company officials say anything?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Mr. Thompson.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said that he had heard that three union members were going around
to the stores and he had been told about it and he said that they were trying
to get the people to go into the union and to meet and sign the cards and he
said, "For goodness sakes, if they go to your homes and contact you, don't
let them talk you into anything unless you know what you are doing."
Mrs. Heasley testified that after the letter containing the names of the employees
who had signed union authorization cards was posted, Camp told her that her name
"sure would look good off that list"; that on the following Monday, Thompson dur-
ing the lunch period told her that he wanted her to go into his office that day
and straighten things out and get her name off the list because it did not belong
there. In response to a question from Thompson as to why the union cards were
signed, she replied,
I told him "It was on account of that we didn't get our raises when every-
body else got the raises and it was pretty cold in there." I also talked to him
about them always pushing me and that Bob also pushed me at that time and
wanted me to do more work than the rest of them were doing. I told him
"I didn't see-I couldn't see me working harder than the others and then
me getting the same pay."
Shortly thereafter, on another day, she said:
We were standing out by the clock and Mr. Camp came by and Patricia
and I were there and J. W. Hall was standing over there by him and so I
looked up at the clock-he looked up at the clock and at us and our names
over the clock and he said, "I sure would hate to be on that ship when it
sinks."
She said they then went back to work; that a few minutes later Camp came in and
talked to' one Stalnaker, and that after Camp left Stalnaker came over and asked them
why they didn't go out and mark their names off the list. She did go out and
mark her name off the list; she said Camp-
thanked us for marking our names off the list and for standing by the Com-
pany and he said if we thought we could find a better company to work with,
that he would give us a week off to look for another job and said that Mr.
Nease was in the produce schoolroom and some of the boys had already marked
their names off the list and he was talking to the boys and as soon as he got
through with them, he would get around to us and he wanted us to go in there
and talk to him; that the girls did go in and talk to Nease.
She said her conversation with Nease was as follows:
Well, I told him that I had been sent in and had marked my name off the list
and I had been sent in by Mr. Camp. He thanked me for coming in and he
thanked me for signing or rather sticking by the Company and then he started
talking about the Company benefits that we have and I started to ask him
a question about the insurance and he said, "Wait a minute, Flo." I said if
there is going to be a union and then he stopped me and he said, "Wait a
minute, Flo. First, there is no union and second there is not going to be a
union" and he pointed down at the list which the names had been marked off.
Q. Now, after that-
A. Yes.
Q. What occurred during the conversation?
A. Well, he told me that if the union was to come in that my wage scale
would probably go down because I was making more than the wage scale and
I think I was making a $1.36 at that time or rather it'd be knocked down to
$1.36 and that it would be knocked down, my wage scale would be.
Q. More than the Union' s wage scale?
A. That's right. And he also told me that the retirement plan could be
cut off if the Union was going to come in because he had already talked to
the legal advisers and he had already been told-
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1367
Q. The legal advisers had already told him what?
A. They had already-he had already been told by the legal advisers about
the retirement benefits and if the Union came in, they would have to cut
it off.
Q. Was any remark made about the letter that you mentioned that he pointed
down to in the schoolroom?
A. Yes. He told me that I would have to initial my name or put my initial
there by the name to make it official.
Q. I see Did he make any further comments about what could be done by
initialing it?
A. He said I wouldn't have to attend any more Union meetings and that
the union card wouldn't amount to anything.
Mrs. Heasley's name was the next, to the last name scratched off the list.
Fred Wood, employed as a meatcutter, testified that a few days after the meeting
at which Thompson and Cameron addressed the employees, he was called into
Thompson's office and informed of a raise retroactive to September 3; whether in the
same conversation or a subsequent one, he said that Thompson asked him how he
liked the raise he had just received and said further that in the 23 years that he
(Thompson) had been with the Company he had never dealt with any Union and
told Wood "if any union organizers come around and try to get you to sign a card,
make sure you know what you are signing." Wood testified further,
It was the Union's letter consisting of the people's names that had signed the
union card. And on a Monday it was posted and on Friday-on Monday
morning, I was looking at-Mr. Camp walked up and he said, "I still see your
name is on the list," and he said while I was standing there and he said, " I still
see your name isn't crossed off the list." And he said that he would loan me a
pen to cross it off and I said, "No, I don't want your pen." Mr. Jones 10 walked
by and he said, "Woodie, I am sure surprised at you having your name and I
never thought that you would have it on there."
After these comments by Camp and Jones, Wood crossed his name from the list.
He said that he was one of the last of the employees so to do. On the following
day, he, together with three or four other employees, were called in to see Nease, he
said, and asked to state any complaints they might have. They mentioned wanting
overshoes, and coveralls which Nease noted. Continuing, Wood testified:
.. . and he told us "if you want to initial and scratch your name off and I
am not making you initial it but if you want to initial your name besides scratch
if off I will assure you that you won't have to attend anymore union meetings
of the Union; have anything to do with the Union." One of the boys asked
him if he initialed that would he lose his job. He said, "I assure you that if
you will-I assure you that you will not lose your job, if you will initial this
union letter."
Camp freely admitted talking to the employees and telling them that it would look
good if their names were off the list. He admitted calling at the homes of several
of the employees to thank them for taking their names off the list and standing by
the Company He had assumed his duties as foreman in the meat processing, cheese,
and cottage cheese departments in July 1961, and, according to him, after a month
or so around the first of September he relayed to Thompson a request the employees
made to him for wage raises, overshoes, and coveralls He said that he first learned
the amount of the wage increase given to the employees in his departments on
October 20, 1961, that he was not then told the amount of the raise but that be
knew the amount of increases proposed on October 24, being so informed by
Thompson.
From my observation of the employee witnesses called by the General Counsel,
from the nature of their testimony and their demeanor as witnesses, I have no diffi-
culty in crediting the substance of their testimony, individually and collectively, in
regard to interrogation, threats, and other statements made by Nease, Thompson,
and Camp to them, collectively and individually. The testimony of none of them
was impeached or was changed under cross-examination , and much of it stands
uncontradicted on the record.ii
10 Jones is variously identified on the record as assistant to Thompson , as a meat pur-
chaser, and as an acting supervisor
"On credibility, I do not ignore the testimony of Nease that he was unaware of the
Union' s organizational activity until October 26, although he had signed the "Don't Sign
Anything" letter on October 10. If Nease knew of such activity on October 10, then
Thompson knew, and if Thompson knew, Camp knew
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Concluding findings
The proof shows that threats were made by both Thompson, meat superintendent,
Camp, the foreman, to employees Arnold and Adams to the effect that the Company
would close down the warehouse before it would accept the Union. Camp and
Thompson also engaged in a campaign to coerce employees to renounce or break off
their relationship with the Union by urging them to remove their names by marking
them off on the letter dated November 2, containing the names of employees who
had signed authorization cards and which had been posted by management in the
plant Particular pressure seems to have been put upon Mrs. Heasley, Arnold,
Adams, and Wood to remove their names from the list, they being among the very
last of the employees to hold out agamst so removing their names Unusual pressure
was exerted by Thompson against Adams by Thompson's call at Adams'
home where he held out an implied promise of benefits for Adams at the same time
stating that nothing could be done until the "'union mess" was cleared up. Further
pressure was applied by Nease who talked to each one of the 23 employees whose
names appeared on the posted letter, individually and in groups. I do not believe
that these employees went in to talk to Nease voluntarily-1 do believe and find
that he went out of his way to talk to them. 'I agree with the General Counsel that
Nease not only attempted to bargain directly with the employees concerning their
grievances, but also made it clear to the employees that the Company would not
tolerate a union as a representative of the employees in the warehouse.
The meetings conducted by Thompson and Cameron, the posting of the letter con-
taining the names of the employees favoring the Union, the intrusion of Camp and
his remarks to the employees concerning their names appearing on this letter, the
call of Thompson at the home of Adams, and the threats of withdrawals of benefits
during the times the Union was seeking recognition, were not fortuitous. It is
obvious on the record that the Company engaged in a program of interference with
the employees' activities in support of the Union and that this interference was
calculated and planned and was devoted solely to encourage the employees in the
meat processing, cheese, and cottage cheese departments to desert the Union The
delayed granting of benefits in the way of increased wages and the supplying of
overshoes and coveralls can reasonably be inferred to have been granted by the
Company simply because the Union had appeared upon the scene. The belated
granting of these benefits which had been requested by the employees long before
they were granted, is simply another demonstration of the Company's plan to dis-
courage employee concerted activity in regard to union organization.
I find by reason of the foregoing that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in that it refused to bargain in good faith with a designated representative of
the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, in violation of Section
8(a) (5) of the Act. I further find that by the several acts of interrogation, threats,
interference, and coercion mentioned above, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.ii
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, 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
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
In Orkin Exterminating Company of South Florida, Ire, 136 NLRB 399, the Board
rejected the employer's contention that its interrogation of employees concerning union
activities was permissible under the Board's Blue Flash doctrine (109 NLRB 591). and
found, instead, that the interrogation of employees called individually to the general
manager's office violated Section '8(a) (1) The Board based its decision on the fact that
the Inquiries did not have the purpose of determining the extent of the Union's representa-
tion for any legitimate objective ; were not In all instances accompanied by assurances to
the employees that there would be no reprisals ; Including an inquiry as to "who was in
back of the union" ; and occurred in a context of threats to close the plant if the Union
organized It, and of pressures upon employees to withdraw their union cards
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 1369
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain acts of interference,
restraint , and coercion it will be recommended that .the Respondent cease therefrom.
Also, having found that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above -described ap-
propriate unit , I shall recommend that Respondent , on request , bargain collectively
with the Union.
By conduct found to constitute interference , restraint , and coercion and by its
refusal to bargain with the majority representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, Respondent has demonstrated a determination not to accord to employees
rights which the Act was designed to protect . It reasonably may be assumed that
further unfair labor practices of a same or different character may be expected to
occur unless the Respondent is ordered to refrain from in any manner transgressing
employees' statutory rights. It will be recommended, therefore, that the Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in any manner , in the exercise of the right to self-organization . to form,
join , or assist labor organizations , to join or assist the Union , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Meat Cutters , Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers Union , Local 433,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meanmg Hof Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 All employees of Respondent employed in the meat and cheese processing
and packaging departments at its Jacksonville , Florida, warehouse , constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
3. Meat Cutters , Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers Union , Local 433,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
was on October 20, 1961 , and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of all of the Respondent 's employees in the appropriate unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and
Allied Food Workers Union, Local 433, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , it is recommended that the Respondent, Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating any of its employees regarding their union membership in, or
activities on behalf of , any labor organization , or taking any affirmative action to
determine who among its employees are or are not members of any labor organiza-
tion , or seeking to induce any of its employees to withdraw from membership in
a labor organization by solicitation and promises of benefit, or threatening to deny
any of its employees privileges previously enjoyed by them for the purpose of dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied
Food Workers Union , Local 433, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America , AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees in the meat and cheese processing and packaging departments at the Re-
spondent's warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , or other conditions of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
join or assist Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers Union, Local
433, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Meat Cutters, Packinghouse and
Allied Food Workers Union, Local 433, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all
its employees in the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the attached notice,
marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the Twelfth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official repre-
sentative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice is not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.14
"In the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words
"A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice and in the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership
and activities , or seek ,to induce them to withdraw from membership in a labor
organization by solicitation or promises of benefit , deny them privileges pre-
viously enjoyed by them for the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor
organization , or in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Meat Cutters , Packinghouse and Allied Food
Workers Union , Local 433, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request, with the above -named Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions
of employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding
in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All meat and cheese processing and packaging department employees at
our warehouse in Jacksonville , Florida.
GENERAL INDUSTRIES ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1371
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming members
of the above -named Union , or any other labor organization, except to the extent
that his right may be affected by a lawful agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 112 East
Cass Street , Ross Building, Tampa, Florida, Telephone Number, 223 -4623, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
General Industries Electronics Company and International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 26-CA-1156. October 4, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 23, 1962, Trial Examiner John H. Dorsey issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent Company had not engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dis-
missed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed timely exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and finds merit in the exceptions of the General Counsel. Ac-
cordingly, the Board adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner only
to the extent that they are consistent with the following :
At all times material, Respondent Company had rules in effect at
its plant governing solicitations and distribution of literature.' These
rules do not specifically prohibit solicitation of union membership
or distribution of union literature. However, in view of their prohibi-
tion against "soliciting of any kind" and "distributing of literature of
any kind" and the fact that one employee received a written reprimand
for distributing union literature, we find that these rules encompass
within their broad scope the solicitation of union membership and dis-
1 The rules are set forth fully in the Intermediate Report
138 NLRB No. 139.