Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 788 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. Capitol
8-0611 , Extension 271, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance 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. 1?-CA-4653. June 26, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 4, 1963, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Charging
Party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and
supporting briefs.
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 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations with the modifications noted below.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section
8(a) (5) of the Act by discontinuing its cheese processing and packag-
ing operation on or about March 25, 1963, without notifying or bar-
gaining with the Union as the statutory bargaining representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner further
found that the Respondent's failure to do so was part of a continuous,
unlawful refusal to bargain which began October 25, 1961, when the
Respondent first refused to recognize the Union, and extended through
and beyond the period covered by the charge in this case, while the
Respondent was seeking review of the Board's earlier unit determina-
tion, findings of violations, and bargaining order.'
1 See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 138 NLRB 1355, enfd. 324 F. 2d 502 (C .A. 5). In that
case the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and ( 5) by its acts of
interrogation , threats, interference, and coercion , and by its refusal to bargain with the
Union as the certified representative of its employees in a certified unit. The Board there
rejected the Respondent 's challenge to the appropriateness of the unit.
147 NLRB No. 89.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 789
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions as to the substan-
tive violation. We find no merit/in Respondent's. claim that, absent
a collective-bargaining agreement, any operational change is a matter
of management prerogative and not a bargainable subject. An em-
ployer is under a duty to bargain with the chosen representative of his
employees concerning matters affecting their wages, hours, and'terms
and conditions of employment and cannot unilaterally change estab-
lished employment conditions without bargaining, regardless of the
existence or nonexistence of a collective-bargaining agreement. Thus,
in the instant case, the Respondent was not justified in completely
disregarding that duty regardless of what may have appeared to it to
be the economic desirability of terminating the cheese packaging opera-
tion. The Union had a statutory right to be notified in advance of
the proposed action and to be given an opportunity, if it so desired, to
consult and negotiate with the Respondent about the need for elimina-
tion of unit jobs and the possibility of alternative approaches that
might avoid such action. Failing other resolution, the Union had a
further right to bargain about steps that might be taken to minimize
the effects upon employees of the proposed action. That such dis-
cussion might have had a salutary effect cannot be gainsaid. As the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia indicated in its affirm-
ance of our decision in the Fibreboard case: 2
It'is not necessary to find an anti-union animus as a predicate
for a conclusion that the employer violated Section 8 (a) (5)
which commands good faith bargaining on wages, hours' and
terms and conditions of employment. It is enough that manage-
ment's reasons for its proposal might have been deemed satis-
factory by and have been acceptable to the Union. It is not neces-
sary that it be likely or probable that the union will yield or
supply a feasible solution but rather that the union be afforded an
opportunity to meet management's legitimate complaints that its
maintenance was unduly costly. . By way of illustration : the
union, after hearing management's side of the problem, might
concede the justice of the claims and agree to invoke union dis-
cipline to increase productivity and reduce costs. Specifically it
might proffer a six months trial period in which either produc-
tivity would be increased with the existing force of 73 men or
maintained with a reduced force to effect the economies desired
by management. It has been so often pointed out that no cita-
tion is called for that the obligation to bargain is not an obliga-
tion to agree. The basic concepts underlying the Labor Manage-
2 East Bay Union of Machinists , Local 1304 , United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Fibreboard Paper Products ) v. N.L.R.B.,
322 F. 2d 411 (C.A.D.C.).
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment Relations Act call for utilization of joint efforts at the
bargaining table as a substitute for labor strife.' [Footnote
omitted.]
But, while correctly finding a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act in Respondent's failure to notify, consult with, or bargain with
the Union about the elimination of the cheese packaging operation-
an action that resulted in the discontinuance of 10 unit jobs and the
permanent layoff of 6 unit employees-the Trial Examiner, by way
of remedy, merely ordered that the Respondent bargain about the
effects on its employees of its unilateral action. Thus the recom-
mended order does not seek to correct the basic violation found; nor
does it take account of employee injury flowing from the unlawful
refusal to bargain. We do not agree that an order so limited goes far
enough in the circumstances of this case to redress the violations
found.
In framing his recommended remedial order, the Trial Examiner
relied on Carl Rocket and Charles Ruud, partners, doing business as
The Renton News Record, et al.,4 where the order was similarly
limited. But that case involved special circumstances of a compelling
nature not present in the instant case. There the employer was con-
fronted with a situation where the change unilaterally effected was
unavoidable because of pressing economic necessity. Changing tech-
nology had made the former method of operation prohibitively costly;
and it clearly appeared that the only choices open to the employer
were either to go out of business or to subcontract certain printing
operations to a company which could employ the technology and skills
of automation. It was also clear that any return to the status quo
ante would have worked an undue hardship on innocent third parties
who in the meantime had invested in the modern equipment necessary
to service the Renton News and other papers. Finally there was no
indication of union animus on the part of the employer in that case.
This case is different. Here we have an employer who by its past
conduct has given evidence of its opposition to the policies of the Act.
There are no intervening outside interests that would suffer serious
injury if the action taken were undone. Nor can it be said here that
the action taken was compelled by pressing economic necessity. There
is no evidence that Respondent was faced with an emergency situation
or that the action it took was otherwise unavoidable. On the con-
trary, as found by the Trial Examiner, the Respondent's decision to
discontinue its cheese packaging operation was not made until after
2 years of consideration, and its implementation occurred after the
use of prepackaged cheese had been tried for a month. In sum, we
3Id. at pp. 414-415.
4 136 NLRB 1294.
.WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 791
find in this case no mitigating circumstances of a, kind which might
have excused the Respondent then from fully complying with its bar-
gaining obligation, or which would justify us now in fashioning an
order that would fall short of the remedial measures appropriate to
meet the violation we have found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and
from like or related conduct, and that it take certain affirmative action
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found specifically that Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) by its unilateral discontinuance of its cheese process-
ing operation on April 12, 1963, resulting, inter alia, in the termina-
tion that day of six employees.' In fashioning our affirmative order,
we bear in mind that the remedy should "be adapted to the situation
that calls for redress," 8 with a view toward "restoring the situation as
nearly as possible, to that which would have obtained but for [the
unfair labor practice]. "'
`The nature of the violation would justify us in directing the Re-
spondent to restore the status quo ante by reestablishing the discon-
tinued operation.8 However, we believe that our remedy should also
be tempered by practical considerations. Reviewing the nature of the
Respondent's general business operations,, the likelihood that the af-
fected employees are suitable for employment elsewhere in the Re-
spondent's organization, and the possibility that the discontinued
operation may now be outmoded, we are of the opinion that such re-
establishment is not essential in this case to the molding of a mean-
ingful remedy suited to the practical needs of the situation before us.
We shall therefore not impose any such requirement.
Effectuation of the policies of the Act does require, however, if the
unilaterally discontinued operation is not restored, that the Respond-
ent undo the specific violation found by offering now to bargain. with
the Union, not only about the effects on the employees of the dis-
continued operation, but also about the resumption of such operation.
Our order will so provide.'
5 Flo Heasley , Ossie Leggett, Mabel Morrison , Polly Ramsey, Evelyn Spillers, and
Patricia Spires.
e N.L.R.B. v. Mackap Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 348.
7 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R .B., 313 U.S. 177, 194.
8 Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation , 138 NLRB 550, enfd . 322 F. 2d 411, cert.
granted 375 U.S. 963.
9 Of course , if the Respondent elects to resume its cheese packaging and processing opera-
tion , this provision will not apply , but the Respondent will be required to fulfill its statu-
tory bargaining obligations in the event it later proposes discontinuance thereof.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, it is clear if the Respondent had honored its statutory
bargaining obligation, the employees affected by the discontinued
operation would not have been terminated without the protection af-
forded them through collective bargaining about the proposed action.
As a result of the processes of bargaining, the employees might not
have been terminated at all. In any event-it must be presumed-
they would have retained their jobs at least until Respondent had ful-
filled its bargaining obligation by negotiating to a bona fide impasse.
Effectuation of the Act's policies therefore further requires that the
employees whose statutory rights were invaded by reason of the Re-
spondent's unlawful unilateral action, and who may have suffered
losses in consequence thereof, be reimbursed for such losses until such
time as the Respondent remedies its violation by doing what it should
have done in the first place.
Accordingly, we shall further order that the Respondent shall make
the discharged employees whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of the Respondent's unfair labor practice. The
liability for such backpay shall cease upon the occurrence of any of
the following 'conditions : (1) reaching mutual agreement with the
Union relating to the subjects which Respondent is herein required
to bargain about; (2) bargaining to a bona fide impasse; (3) the
failure of the Union to commence negotiations within 5 days of the
receipt of the Respondent's notice of its desire to bargain with the
Union; or (4) the failure of the Union to bargain thereafter in good
faith. Of course, if the Respondent decides to resume its cheese pack-
aging operations and offers to reinstate its former employees to their
same or substantially. equivalent positions, its liability will cease as of
that date.10 Backpay 11 shall be based upon the earnings which the
terminated employees would normally have received during the ap-
plicable period less any net interim earnings, and shall be computed
on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289; N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of
Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344; with interest thereon; Isis Plumbing cC
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Re-
spondent , Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Meat Cutters , Packing-
house and Allied Food Workers Union, Local 433, Amalgamated
1u Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation , supra.
11A.P.W. Products Co. Inc., 137 NLRB 25.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 793
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of all of its employees in the appropri-
ate unit comprising of all employees in the meat and cheese processing
and packaging department employed at the Respondent's warehouse
in Jacksonville, Florida, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
(b) Unilaterally subcontracting or discontinuing unit work, or
otherwise unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of unit employees without prior bargaining
with the above-named Union concerning such decision and the effects
thereof.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to, and upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
concerning the resumption of its cheese processing and packaging
operation, and if no agreement is reached with respect thereto, bar-
gain collectively with the Union concerning the effects of the dis-
continuance of its cheese processing and packaging operation on the
employees in the above-described unit.
(b) Make Flo Heasley, Ossie Leggett, Mabel Morrison, Polly Ram-
sey, Evelyn Spillers, and Patricia Spires whole for any loss of pay
suffered by them in the manner and under the conditions and circum-
stances set forth in the section of the Board's Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make.available to the Board and
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary or useful to determine the amount of
backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an official representative of the Respondent,
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to its 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically
found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse 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, as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the appropriate unit comprising of all employees in the
meat and cheese processing and packaging department at our
warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally subcontract or discontinue our cheese
processing and packaging operation or otherwise unilaterally
make changes in the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment for the employees in the appropriate unit without
prior bargaining with the aforesaid Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist
the above-named Union or any other labor organization , to bar-
gain 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 as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the aforesaid unit with respect to our decision to discontinue our
cheese processing and packaging operation and failing to reach
agreement thereon, WE WILL bargain collectively as to the effects
of said discontinuance.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 795
WE WILL make Flo Heasley, Ossie Leggett, Mabel Morrison,
Polly Ramsey, Evelyn Spillers, and Patricia Spires whole for any
loss of pay suffered by them as a result of failure and refusal to
bargain with the aforenamed Union concerning the discontinu-
ance of our cheese processing and packaging operation.
WINN-DI%IE STORES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa,
Florida, Telephone No. 228-7711, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Meat Cutters , Packinghouse and Allied Food Workers
Union, Local 433, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO , herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , through the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region , issued
a complaint dated August 13 , 1963, against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,' herein called
the Respondent or the Company , alleging violation of Section 8(a) (1) (3 ) and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. ), herein
called the Act. The answer of the Respondent admits certain allegations of the com-
plaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Reeves R . Hilton at
Jacksonville , Florida, on September 9.and 10, 1963. All parties were present and
represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to intro-
duce relevant evidence , to present oral argument , and to file briefs. About October 9,
counsel for the Respondent submitted their brief.2
Upon consideration of the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY 'S BUSINESS
The Company, a Florida corporation , has its principal office in Jacksonville,
Florida, and owns and operates a multistate chain of retail food stores. Included in
its operations are company -owned warehouses which house the meat processing and
cheese packaging, among other departments . The Company's warehouse at 3156
Edgewood Court, Jacksonville, Florida, is the only warehouse or store involved in
this proceeding . During the past year the Company's gross volume of business ex-
ceeded $10 million , and it made shipments of goods valued in excess of $50,000 to
its stores in Florida directly from other States and shipped goods valued at more
than $50,000 from its warehouse in Jacksonville , Florida, to points outside the State
of Florida.
1 As amended at the hearing to show the correct name of the Respondent.
2 The General Counsel submitted a motion to correct certain errors appearing in the
transcript of the hearing which was served upon counsel for the Respondent . There being
no objection thereto, and as the corrections appear to be proper , the motion is granted.
The motion, with the corrections stated therein , is received in evidence as Trial Examiner's
Exhibit No. 1.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company concedes, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The prior proceedings; the present issues
In a prior proceeding involving the same parties the Trial Examiner found that on
and after October 25, 1961, the Company, in violation of Section 8(a)(5), refused
to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, namely, all meat and cheese
processing and packaging department employees at the Company's warehouse in
Jacksonville, Florida. The Trial Examiner also found a violation of Section 8(a) (1)
based on several acts of interrogation, threats, interference, and coercion directed
against the employees. In reaching his findings and conclusions, the Trial Examiner
rejected the Company's contention that it had a good-faith doubt regarding the appro-
priateness of the unit and the Union's majority status.
On October 3, 1962, the Board issued its Decision and Order adopting the Trial
Examiner's findings and conclusions as well as his Recommended Order, which re-
quired the Company to cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the Union,
from interfering with the employees' right • to self-organization by the unfair labor
practices found or in any like or related manner and, affirmatively, to bargain, upon
request, and to post notices .3 The case is now in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit on petition for enforcement of the Order?
In brief, the present refusal to bargain is bottomed on the prior findings and con-
clusions of the Board insofar as the unit and the Union's majority status is con-
cerned. Specifically, the complaint (paragraph 8) alleges that commencing on or
about October 25, 1961, "especially since on or about November 21, 1962," the
Union has requested the Company to bargain and (paragraph 10), since on or about
October 27, 1961, "especially since April 12, 1963," the Company has, refused to
bargain with the Union, primarily, because it unilaterally discontinued its cheese
processing and packaging operation, which resulted in the discharge of six employees
and the transfer of four employees to another operation. The complaint also alleges
certain acts of interference, restraint, and coercion.
The Company, as in the earlier case, questions the appropriateness of the unit
and the Union's majority therein and denies it has engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
The' Board has already .determined questions concerning the appropriateness of
the bargaining unit and the Union's majority status, so I accept and adopt the Board's
findings and conclusions in these respects.
B. The refusal to bargain
There is no dispute as to the events leading to the Company's discontinuance of its
cheese operation , the discharge and transfer of employees engaged in the operation,
or its failure to notify or bargain with the Union regarding the matter.
J. Wertz Nease , vice president , testified that since early 1960 , he has been
division manager of the Company 's Jacksonville division , 1 of the Company's 8 divi-
sions, which is a complete operational unit performing all buying, selling, and
warehousing functions in connection with the operation of some 95 retail stores
in the division.
About January 1961 , Nease initiated the plan of packaging cheese in the ware-
house for all the stores instead of cutting and wrapping it in the individual stores.
Later, in May 1961, the idea of handling cheese in prepackaged form prepared by
other companies was presented to all the Company 's merchandisers at a general
meeting held in Jacksonville and samples of the prepackaged product were distributed
for inspection . While the subject was discussed, no decision was reached at that
time; Nease believed the product too expensive and he continued to package cheese
at the warehouse . In October 1962 another meeting of the merchandisers was held
in Jacksonville and this time it was reported that all of the Company's divisions,
3138 NLRB 1355.
4 On November 19, 1963, the court Issued Its decision enforcing the Board's Order.
WVINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 797
except Jacksonville, were handling prepackaged cheese and it was proving to be very
satisfactory from a purchasing, shipping, and merchandising standpoint. Nease
thereupon decided to study the program.
in the course of his study Nease conferred with J. A. Adams, vice president in
charge of the perishable merchandising department, and S. F. Murphy, director of
meat merchandising, both assigned to company headquarters, and they urged Nease
to adopt the program. Nease also discussed the matter with other division managers,
who expressed satisfaction with the program, as well as personnel in his own divi-
sion. As a result of his study Nease decided to try out the plan and about March 15,
1963, his buyer placed a small order for prepackaged cheese from Kraft Food Com-
pany. Nease found that as food distributors it was far more economical to pur-
chase prepackaged, cheese from processors than to package it at the warehouse. Thus,
the Company maintained the same merchandising advantages as if it had performed
the packaging for the appearance, and the label on the prepackaged cheese was the
same and the price stamped thereon was fixed by the Company. Further, the pre-
packaged cheese was all center cut and quality controlled which eliminated mold
conditions and gave the product a shelf life of 60 days, in comparision to 10 or
12 days for cheese packaged at the warehouse. The net result of the prepackaged
method was better merchandising at lower costs and increased sales and profits.
During the first week in April, Nease decided to use the prepackaged method ex-
clusively and to discontinue its own cheese processing and packaging operation.
Admittedly, Nease did not notify or bargain with the Union on this subject.
Murphy corroborated Nease's testimony. Likewise, James S. Brakefield, of Kraft
Food, testified concerning the advantages of prepackaged cheese and that since about
March 1963, the Jacksonville division (as well as three other divisions) has been using
Kraft prepackaged cheese products exclusively.
Robert Ackerman, a union official, stated he had no advance notice of the dis-
continuance of the cheese operation. Ackerman further stated that one of the dis-
chargees advised him of the action on April 15, but he made no attempt to discuss
the matter with the Company. In fact Ackerman admitted he did not, at anytime
after the issuance of the Board's Order, request the Company to bargain because
he thought it futile to do so until the case had been decided by the circuit court.
The parties stipulated the Company discontinued its cheese operation about
April 12, 1963, and terminated the following-named employees because it had no
further need for them:
Flo Heasley Polly Ramsey
Ossie Leggett Evelyn Spillers
Mabel Morrison Patricia Spires (nee Sylvester)
The remaining four employees on this operation, Bob Stalnaker, Benny Stewart,
Clyde Pierce, and Don Gaye were transferred to the beef processing operation
and, in turn, four employees on the beef operation were transferred to various
retail stores in the Jacksonville area.
C. Alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
Heasley worked on two occasions commencing in June 1959, and from about
January 2, 1961, until April 12, 1963, she was employed as a wrapper on the
cheese operation. Heasley signed a union card.
Around January 1963, Heasley said she was called to the office for the employees'
annual iutai ea 'which was conducted by Sam Thompson, meat merchandiser.
HeasL@ a glchy, rambling account of the interview in which she said Thomp-
son talleedr^biitier job without relating the substance of the discussion. She
inquired"i-her husbband, who also worked for the Company, was secure in his job and
Thompson `said he was well liked, but he, Thompson, "couldn't figure out why I
would do, something like that, and George [her husband] being such a nice guy."
Heasleiiso the had heard a rumor the cheese operation was temporary and
Thompsoiaitlslte dad nothing to worry about, that when "this mess" was cleared
up the Company c u1d expand the operation. Thompson apologized to Heasley for
thinking a iffier of the Union and when he asked if she had heard any more
talk of thinil^old him no. Thompson commented he thought the employees
realized they had made a mistake and if they worked together they could do a better
job withdty;n^t^Union to keep their lobs. Thompson cautioned Heasley not
to mention flr,^!cr^sw^irsation because it might get back to the "wrong person" and
they would 4 iii , t>urD