Conagra, Inc.

CONAGRA. INC. 609 Conagra, Inc. and Southeast Council, Retail, Whole- sale and Department Store Union. Cases 10- CA-14238,1 10-CA-14280, and 10-RC-11553 March 21, 1980 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE On November 8, 1979, Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached De- cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and sup- porting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent consistent herewith and to adopt his recommended Order. Supervisor Rick Semple approached employee Carolyn Long at work on September 15, 1978, and stated that he thought he would attend the employ- ees' union meeting. When Long replied that he could come, but she did not think he could vote, Semple stated, "Well, I could come and take names." The Administrative Law Judge found that Semple's statement did not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act because no reasonable employee would have thought he was actually threatening to attend their union meeting. We dis- agree. It is no defense that a violation is committed in a friendly or joking manner.3 Furthermore, by the time this statement was made, Respondent was well into its unlawful campaign against the Union. Numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) had already been committed by Respondent's agents, including the holding of meetings at which Plant Manager Roberts made it clear that Respondent intended to do everything it could to undermine the Union's support. In addition, Semple himself, about 2 weeks earlier, had threatened another employee with sur- At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the General Counsel's motion to dismiss Case 10-CA-14238 in its entirety. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. I Ethyl Corporation, 231 NLRB 431 (1977). 248 NLRB No. 85 veillance of union meetings. Evaluated in this con- text, we find that Semple's remark, even though jokingly made, created an impression of surveil- lance in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. On September 20, 1978, employee Carolyn Long was called to speak with Customer Service Super- intendent William Orr and Plant Manager Roberts. Orr told Long, "You know you're not supposed to be talking about the Union on the job." Roberts stated, "I know we don't pay the highest wages. . . . If you're looking for higher wages you'll have to look somewhere else. We won't have you talk- ing Union on the job." The Administrative Law Judge concluded that, even though the warnings made to Long may have constituted disparate treatment, they were limited to cautioning Long not to discuss the Union "during work," and, therefore, were not violative of Section 8(a)(1). We do not agree. The Administrative Law Judge has mistakenly equated the phrase "on the job" with "worktime." It is not clear that the prohibition herein has limit- ed to worktime, and thus it could reasonably be in- terpreted as a prohibition against solicitation at all times, including nonworking time. 4 Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the restriction was jus- tified by a need to maintain discipline or produc- tion in the plant, we conclude that the statements made to Long constitute an unlawfully broad re- striction on her right to engage in union activities and are in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.5 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Conagra, Inc., Dalton, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint alle- gations not specifically found herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on December 8, 1978, in Case 10-RC-11553 be set aside, and that case be severed and remanded to the Regional Director for Region 10 for processing in accordance with our Decision, Order, and Di- rection of Second Election herein in the appropri- ate unit. 4 Plastic Film Products Corp., 238 NLRB No. 22 (1978). 5 Florida Steel Corporation, 215 NLRB 97 (1974); Stewart-Warner Cor- poration, 215 NLRB 219 (1974). a Although the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent had not violated the Act in certain respects, he inadvertently failed to dismiss the allegations relating thereto in his recommended Order CONAGRA. INC. 609 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard in Dalton, Georgia, on July 10- 13, 1979. The charges in Cases 10-CA-14238 and 10- CA-14280 were filed on December 15, 1978, and Janu- ary 3, 1979. The charge in Case 10-CA-14280 was amended on January 25. A complaint issued in Case 10- CA-14280 on February 7, 1978. On February 28 a com- plaint issued in Case 10-CA-14238 along with an order consolidating Case 10-CA-14238 with Cases 10-CA- 14280 and 10-RC-11553. Case 10-RC-11553 was con- solidated for hearing on objections pursuant to a Report on Objections dated February 28.1 On July 12, during the hearing, counsel for General Counsel moved to dis- miss Case 10-CA-14238 in its entirety. The 10-CA- 14238 complaint alleged that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize the Union after a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit designated the Union as their representative on Sep- tember 22, 1978. General Counsel's motion to dismiss was granted. The complaint (Case 10-CA-14280) alleges that Re- spondent committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) following commencement of the Union's organiz- ing campaign during July 1978. The complaint also al- leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by with- holding the granting of a scheduled wage increase and by eliminating the job of one of its employees. The Union filed the 10-RC-11553 petition on Septem- ber 25, 1978. The election was held on December 8, 1978, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. Of approximately 377 employees who were eligible to vote, 88 cast valid votes for the Union and 188 cast valid votes against the Union; there were 27 challenged ballots and no void ballots. On December 15, 1978, the Union filed timely objections to the election. In accordance with the Report on Objections and the Board's Order, the hearing herein was held, in part, to resolve the issues raised by the Union's Objections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.2 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. JURISDICTION Respondent is engaged in the processing of poultry products at its plant in Dalton, Georgia. 3 Following Respondent's March 9 exception and Motion for More Definite Statement and Bill of Particulars to the Report on Objections, the Board sustained the Report on Objections, Order Directing Hearing, Consolidating Cases, and Notice of Hearing by Order dated March 22, 1979. 2 Pursuant to Respondent's motion to overrule Objections 3 and 4, and upon petitioning Union's assertion that no evidence had been offered in support of those objections during the hearing, Objections 3 and 4 were overruled. 3 Neither jurisdiction nor the status of the Union is at issue. The com- plaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent meets the Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction and is an employer en- II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The 8(a)(1) Allegations The Union's organizing campaign started during July 1978. Respondent's former plant manager admitted learn- ing of that campaign during July. The evidence regard- ing the allegations includes: 1. Employee Linda Sue Hastings testified that, some- time in late July or early August, her supervisor, James Roddy, approached her at work and asked her if she had signed a union card. Hastings admitted to Roddy that she had signed a card. Roddy was not called, so Has- tings' testimony stands undenied. 2. Marjorie Wells testified that, after she returned to work following sickness around August 22, she had a conversation with Plant Manager Roberts. During that conversation, Roberts stated, "Marjorie, about you sign- ing a Union card,4 what do you hope to gain?" Wells re- sponded that she hoped to gain a little leverage. Roberts then said that he did not understand what she meant. Wells explained that the employees had nowhere to go with their problems. Roberts said, "Well you can come-you can bring your problems here." Roberts testi- fied that he did have a conversation with Wells, and that he commented that he didn't really understand why she felt she needed a union.5 3. Joyce Stover was called to Roberts' office on Sep- tember 18 and asked "what a union could do for" her. After Stover said she wanted to be treated like some- body, Roberts said, "I don't know what the Union could do. We're not going to sign no contract no matter how many unions you get to make us lose money or to make us give you any better wages. We feel we're giving you all the wages we can right now." Roberts admitted stat- ing to Stover that he didn't understand what the people hoped to accomplish by getting a union. 4. Carolyn Long testified to a conversation with Rob- erts around September 27. Long testified that she was in Roberts' office, and he asked her why she thought the people wanted a union. Long replied she thought it would be good job security. Roberts replied that he didn't hear anyone mention wages or money. He then asked Long if she knew why the "Feed Mill" never got a union. Long answered no. Roberts said, "because they wouldn't agree to deduct the union dues from the em- ployees." Roberts then said, "We don't have to do any- thing we don't want to." Mr. Roberts recalled one con- versation with Long regarding employee Kate Warnack. Roberts placed the conversation around September 18. gaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent also admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization as defined in the Act. I Wells testified that she volunteered to her supervisor, but not to Rob- erts, that she had signed a union card. 5 Roberts testified that Wells brought up the Union during their con- versation, and that he told her it was her privilege to do whatever she wanted to do. However, in contending that Wells volunteered the infor- mation regarding her union activities during their conversation, Roberts testified, "She told me that in spite of the fact that she knew it was going to get her in trouble." Roberts said that he was careful to avoid direct questions about employees' union activities. However, he testified that he would ask questions like "I don't understand what the problem is" in an effort to determine "what made people feel that they needed" a union. CONAGRA, INC. 611 In response to a question of did he ask why Long felt she wanted a union, Roberts admitted that he may have made a statement like, "I don't understand what the problem is or something like that." 5. Employee Delia Hicks testified to a conversation with her supervisor, Rick Semple, around the middle of September. After Semple asked Hicks if she knew of any way things could be made better for the employees, he asked if she thought a union would be any help. Hicks told Semple that a union would absolutely not help. Semple also told Hicks that things were going to be made better. Semple denied asking Hicks why the em- ployees needed a union. 6. Clara Swanson testified that, around the latter part of September, she was having her arm wrapped around her arm brace and she remarked that, unless she hurried, she would be fired. Semple heard her remark and com- mented, "Just sign a union card." Swanson replied that she had signed a union card. Semple denied making the above comment. 7. Delia Hicks testified that, during September or the first part of October, Rick Semple asked her if she was still passing out union cards. Hicks said, "No, I'm not passing out cards, but if this is what you're getting at-I did sign one." Semple responded, "Well, be careful." Semple admitted this conversation except for the "be careful" remark. 8. Joyce Stover testified that, on October 11, Rick Semple told her, "Conagra had a place to run the chick- ens for one year if they had to close down for anything." Semple then asked if she knew why the Feed Mill didn't get their Union. Stover replied it was because they went on strike. Semple said, "[N]o, because Conagra wouldn't take out the union dues. They won't take them out down here either." Semple recalled a conversation with Stover regarding strikes, but he placed the conversation in Sep- tember. Semple denied saying the plant would shut down if the Union came in. 9. Carolyn Long testified that she talked to Semple around September 15. Semple told Long, "I think I'll go with ya'll to that meeting tomorrow." Long replied, "Well, come ahead but I don't think it'd do you any good. I don't think you could vote." Semple said, "Well, I could come and take names." Semple admitted saying, "I guess I ought to go to the Union meeting and get all the names, because after all I'd been invited." 10. Joyce Stover testified that during late August she had a conversation with Rick Semple in the first aid office. Semple remarked that he had heard that the union man was packing his bags. Stover replied that the Union was there to stay. Semple then said that some of the leaders in the plant go to all the meetings and come back and tell us everything that is said. Stover replied that she knew he sent some over; that she knew he sent Mary White over. Stover remarked, "She's not the only one who was there." Semple admitted talking to Joyce Stover in the first aid office. He also admitted starting the conversation by saying that he had heard that the union man had packed his bags. However, Semple denied that he said the Com- pany was sending Mary White or anyone to the union meetings. Semple did admit that Mary White had told him she had gone to the meeting. 11. Employee Charlcia Mullins testified about a con- versation she had with Semple on September 19. Semple said, "Charlcia, don't be talking to my employees trying to get them to sign a Union card. And don't be talking to them about the Union." Mullins replied, "I'm off the clock. I know my rights and I haven't violated any." Semple also said, "Kate Warnack was the one that start- ed the Union in the Plant. .... (Warnack) has been having Union meetings at her house." Mullins said, "Well, I don't know about that. I have never been to a meeting at her house." Semple said, "Carolyn Long wouldn't be for the Union if it wasn't for Kate War- nack." Mullins said she didn't believe that. Semple said that, if the Union came in, the Company could buy out the committee and you would be hurting. Semple testified that he did tell Mullins that he felt Kate and Harold Warnack were responsible for Carolyn Long's involvement in the Union. 12. Carolyn Long testified that, around September 20, Rick Semple said to her, "I heard ya'll was going to file a petition against us." Long responded, "Well, we could." Semple said, "You don't have a right to talk to one of my employees." Long replied, "Well, you don't have the right to question her about the Union either." Semple admitted telling Long that he heard they were going to file a petition for an election. According to Semple he told Long, on one occasion, that she was not supposed to leave her department and discuss the Union with another employee during company time. 13. Delia Hicks recalled a conversation with Semple during September in which Semple told her, "[Y]ou've run your help off talking about the Union." Hicks testi- fied that she had been training a lady who quit after 12 days. Semple admitted that he made the above remark to Hicks. 14. According to Carolyn Long, she was called into Superintendent Bill Orr's office on August 25. Orr asked Long if she was satisfied with her job anymore. Long denied that she was dissatisfied. Orr said, "Well, I know-I heard about that meeting that Harold and Kate had." Long said that the meeting was Kate's not Har- old's. Orr stated, "I think this Plant has done a lot for Harold and Kate." Orr then said that Conagra did not need a third party to come in and try to solve the prob- lems." Long asked if Orr had ever worked woth a union before. Orr replied no; that he wanted the people to un- derstand what they were doing. Long testified that Kate Warnack had held a union meeting prior to this conver- sation between Long and Orr. Orr admitted that he had a conversation with Long around August 25, during which he questioned her about what she could gain from asking representation from the Union. 15. Charlcia Mullins recalled a conversation with Rick Semple in early October in the break room. Semple told Mullins and two other employees that they had another plant that they could take the chickens to and process them; that they would close the plant down before they would bring in a union. Mullins said that Joyce Stover was present during this conversation. Stover placed the conversation on October II. According to Stover's ver- CONAGRA, INC. 611 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sion, Semple told them that they had a place to run the chickens for a year if they had to close down for any- thing (see par. (8) above). Semple placed the conversa- tion in mid-September, and he testified that he was re- sponding to Stover's contention that the plant would go under if the employees went on strike when he said they could send chickens to other processing plants. Semple denied that he threatened that the plant would close if the Union came in. 16. Joyce Stover testified to an incident on October 11, 1978. Stover was copying a list of employees from the timecards when she was called to Plant Manager Roberts' office. Roberts told her that he wanted her list. Stoven replied that she didn't have a list except for her "Christmas list" which was downstairs. Roberts told her to go get the list. Stover left but returned with only one page of her two-page list. Roberts said to her, "You don't know half the people on this list; the Union's got their ways and we gonna have our way." Stover told Roberts that she didn't know it was illegal to copy the names from the timecards. Roberts said she was not sup- posed to check with the timecards or pick them up. Stover told him that she had not picked any up. Roberts asked if she hadn't picked one up and turned it over. Stover told him she had not. Roberts told her that he wasn't going to do anything to her on this occasion, but that she should be honest with him since he was always honest with her. Roberts testified that he was told that Joyce Stover was going through the timecards, and he called Stover into his office. Roberts testified that Stover finally admitted the list was not a Christmas list. Roberts neither admitted nor denied that he told Stover that the Union had their ways and "we gonna have our way." 17. During their late August conversation in the first aid room, Rick Semple told Joyce Stover that 40 percent of the people that signed union cards have quit or been fired. According to Stover, Semple said, "We have to get rid of them one way or another." Semple denied that he threatened that the Company would fire employees because of the Union. According to Semple, he was re- ferring to natural turnover when he told Stover that 40 percent of the card signers were gone. 18. Joyce Stover attended an employee meeting con- ducted by Plant Manager Roberts on December 5. Ac- cording to Stover, Roberts said that Conagra would not sign a contract, and that Conagra would not sign a con- tract that would improve wages or working conditions. Roberts also said it may take up to 3 years to get a con- tract signed. Roberts testified about his several meetings with employees, but he did not rebut these particular as- sertions by Stover. 19. During their September 19 conversation (see par. 11 above) Rick Semple told Charlcia Mullins that the Union couldn't do anything for them and couldn't get them any benefits without the Company agreeing. Semple said that the Company wasn't going to agree; that they would close down the plant before they would do so. Semple admitted that he told Mullins on Septem- ber 19 that if the Union came in the employees would start from zero and they would bargain for each benefit; what it would amount to was what the Company was willing to negotiate on. 20. Employee Linda Hastings testified about an em- ployee meeting held by Plant Manager Roberts on De- cember 5. During the meeting, Roberts said employee benefits would be taken away if the Union came in, and they would "just start from blank." Roberts admitted holding several employee meetings involving all the em- ployees in at least one of those meetings. Roberts ad- mitted showing the employees a blank page from a chart to illustrate where negotiations would begin. Roberts tes- tified he used the term starting from scratch with negoti- ations more often than starting with a blank sheet. 21. Clara Swanson testified that, during the first part of September, Rick Semple brought an employee back near her work station to fill in for one woman that was out. Semple told Swanson to instruct the woman on how to stuff chickens. Then Semple pointed a finger at Swan- son and said, "Don't talk Union to her because she doesn't believe in it." Semple admitted telling Swanson that the woman had not come over there to listen to Union talk. 22. Carolyn Long testified to an incident that occurred on September 20. According to Long, another employee, Linda Pell, asked her if she could be fired for signing a union card. Long told her no. Thereafter Rick Semple told Long that she didn't have the right to talk to one of his employees (see par. 12 above). Thereafter, Long was called in to speak with Customer Service Superintendent William Orr. Orr told Long, "You know you're not sup- posed to be talking about the Union on the job." Long said, "Yes, I know that." Orr said, "I know your job is moving from place to place. If this continues, which is not [sic]-we'll put you on a job where you won't be moving around. But that's not a threat." Long testified that Roberts talked to her after Orr. Roberts told Long, "I know we don't pay the highest wages and we don't pay the lowest. If you're looking for higher wages, you'll have to look somewhere else. We won't have you talking Union on the job." Joyce Stover testified that she had an argument with another employee on December 4. The other employee was wearing a "Vote No" hat. Both Stover and the other employee were called into Roberts' office. Roberts told Stover that he didn't want her talking about the Union anymore on company time, and that they could not pass out any union literature at all in the plant. Plant Manager Roberts admitted that both he and Mr. Orr warned Carolyn Long not to discuss the Union while she was going around to various jobs.6 Orr ad- mitted telling Long she was not permitted to discuss the Union during working hours. Roberts admitted that Orr threatened to change Long's job. Roberts testified about the December 4 incident in- volving Joyce Stover. Roberts testified that he cautioned Stover and the other employee against "arguing, bicker- ing, or anything else down there during working time." According to Roberts, Joyce Stover called Betty Sellers an "ass-kisser" for wearing a "Vote No" hat, and the two almost got into a fight. I During 1978, Carolyn Long's job of "bathroom relief' required her to go to various jobs and relieve employees. However, according to Orr, Long was in a completely different area of the plant rather than her own work area when she spoke to Linda Pell on September 20 CONAGRA, INC. 613 23. Joyce Stover asked to see the plant manager on November 1. Stover complained to Roberts about a rule that limited her to one bathroom visit with a 5-minute limit. Roberts told her he could not change the rule. Stover asked Roberts why they were fighting the Union if the Union couldn't help the employees. Roberts replied that they didn't want a strike, and there would be one if the Union came in. Roberts said, "I don't know what you want a Union for. We can offer you the same bene- fits for nothing." Stover testified that Roberts said they were entitled to a raise that month but the Union had things tied up and they wouldn't be getting anything. Roberts also said that he enjoyed talking to the employ- ees, "but if someone had a grievance, he wouldn't talk to the Shop Steward and the one that filed the grievance. He would only talk to the Shop Steward." Stover asked what the Company could do for the employees, and Roberts held up a blank piece of paper and said, "This is what you'll start with if the Union comes in and build your way up with the Union." Roberts denied that he held up a blank paper during a meeting with Stover. He also denied that he told Stover that a wage increase had been withheld because of the Union. Roberts also denied telling Stover that if the Union got in the employees wouldn't have any benefits. Employee Sandy Ellis attended one of the plant man- ager's meetings on December 6. Ellis testified that Rob- erts told them that if the Union came in they would have to have a union representative any time they came up to see him, whereas now the employees could go to him with their problems. Roberts neither admitted nor denied Ellis' testimony. 24. During her late August conversation with Rick Semple (see pars. (10) and (17) above), Joyce Stover tes- tified that the subject of bathroom breaks came up. Semple told her, "When you're standing there and it's tinkling down you [sic] legs, we're not going to worry about it. We'll let the damn Union worry about it. And they can't do a damn thing about it." Semple did not deny that he made the above statement to Stover. He ad- mitted telling Stover that the extra or "go between" bathroom breaks was one item that could be taken away during negotiations because it was something the Compa- ny did out of courtesy to the employees. 25. Dean Ellis, who is presently a supervisor although he was an employee during the union campaign, testified that he attended one of the plant manager meetings a day or two before the election. Ellis recalled that Roberts told the employees that when negotiations started they would start with a blank sheet of paper. Ellis testified that Roberts said something to the effect that the Com- pany would not abide by the contact. Ellis asked Roberts during the meeting, "Well, as long as it's in a contract, it's a legal document, it's the law." Roberts replied, "Not necessarily." Ellis asked if Roberts meant that Conagra was above the law, and Roberts replied, "Yes." Roberts did not testify regarding Ellis' assertions. Employee Patsy Southern testified that she attended a plant managers' meeting around Thanksgiving. During that meeting, Roberts told the employees, "Now if the Union wins the election, this is what you start with--- nothing." As Roberts made this statement, he showed the employees a blank sheet on his chart. Roberts ad- mitted making similar statements during employee meet- ings. 26. Employee Joyce Stover attended a plant manager meeting on December 5. Stover recalled Roberts telling the employees that they didn't want outsiders coming in. Roberts said the employee benefits would be cut without insurance or a pension plan (see par. 18 above regarding more of Stover's testimony on this meeting). Roberts did not touch on the above contentions by Stover in his tes- timony. Patsy Southern recalled that, during the plant manager meeting that she attended (see par. 25 above), Roberts told the employees that there would be no retirement fund if the Union came in. 27. Linda Hastings recalled that, during the plant man- ager meeting she attended on December 5 (see par. 20 above), Roberts said that they couldn't give us a raise soon because the Union would feel like they were influ- encing us. Roberts denied telling any employee that, "if it hadn't been for the Union, they would have gotten a wage increase." Clara Swanson testified that Roberts told the employ- ees in the meeting she attended just before the election that they would have already gotten a raise if they hadn't been talking Union; if it hadn't been for the union activities, they would have gotten a raise at the usual time which had just passed. 28. Delia Hicks testified that, during September, Rick Semple called her off the line into an office and asked her if she knew of any way that things could be made better for the employees. Hicks told Semple of some of the things that she felt would result in improvement. Semple said that he thought those things could be im- proved; "that things were going to be made better." Semple then asked Hicks if she thought a union would be any help (see par. 5 above). 29. Charlcia Mullins attended a meeting held by Plant Manager Roberts in late August or early September during which employees complained about various prob- lems in their departments. Roberts told the employees that, if they had problems they couldn't work out with the supervisors, he would be glad to help out. Roberts admitted holding employee meetings in August and September to discuss various employee prob- lems that had surfaced, including getting rapid action on insurance claims, longer lunch breaks, and problems with the "chiller." However, Roberts testified that these meet- ings had nothing to do with the union campaign and the Union did not come up during the meetings. 30. During their September 18 conversation (see par. 3 above), Joyce Stover was told by Roberts that, any time the employees had a problem, all they had to do was come upstairs and talk to him. Roberts said that he was trying to make changes, but that he could not do it over- night. Discussion To the extent their testimony conflicts with credited evidence, I do not credit the testimony of Plant Manager Roberts or Supervisor Rick Semple. Both Roberts and Semple admittedly engaged in extensive antiunion activ- CONAGRA INC. 613 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ity. Those admissions, in large measure, corroborated tes- timony from employee witnesses. A great deal of the tes- timony which was denied by Roberts and Semple was corroborated by several employee witnesses. For exam- ple, Roberts testified that he did not tell employees that their union activity prevented them from receiving a scheduled wage increase. However, as shown above, several employees recalled Roberts making those state- ments. I do credit the testimony of Superintendent Orr. I found his testimony to be straightforward and candid. Conclusions (a) In view of the extensive antiunion involvement by Respondent's agents during the organizing campaign, I find that the matters related in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8,7 constitute interrogation of employees concerning their union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(l). I find that Semple's comments to Clara Swanson referred to in paragraph 6 do not constitute a violation. Semple's com- ments do not appear to be the type that would prompt a response even though Swanson did in fact reply that she had signed a union card. (b) I find that the facts mentioned in paragraph 9 do not constitute a violation. The tenor of the conversation between Long and Semple demonstrate that Semple's statements were such that no reasonable employee would have thought he was actually threatening to attend their union meeting. The record did not reflect there was any- thing unusual in Semple's knowing about the meeting. However, I find that Semple's statements to employees in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 above create an impression of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1). 8 (c) An impression of surveillance was also created by William Orr's discussion with Carolyn Long mentioned in paragraph 14. (d) General Counsel alleged that Respondent threat- ened to close its plant if the Union was elected. The only evidence I found supporting that allegation was the testi- mony of Charlcia Mullins mentioned in paragraph 15. However, Joyce Stover, who was also present during the conversation, revealed that Semple did not threaten to close the plant. Instead, Semple said the Company could "run the chickens" if the plant closed for any reason. This is more in accord with Semple's testimony that he was responding to Stover's contention that the plant would go under if the employees struck. I credit Stover's account and find that Semple did not threaten plant closure. (e) I find in agreement with General Counsel that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting employ- ee Joyce Stover from preparing a list of employees for the Union's use. Plant Manager Roberts cautioned Stover and confiscated a portion of her list. Roberts con- tended that employees were prohibited from handling other employees' timecards. However, the evidence failed to reveal that Stover was doing anything more than standing by the timecard rack and copying the I7 credit the testimony of employees Hastings, Wells, Stover, Long, and Hicks set forth in pars. 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-12. Ibid. names from the cards. I find Roberts' actions in that regard, which are included in paragraph 16 above, con- stitute a violation of the Act. (f) The facts mentioned in paragraph 17 above9 reveal a threat to discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and I so find. (g) General Counsel in several instances alleges that Respondent threatened its employees that it would be futile for its employees to select the Union. During the conversation mentioned in paragraph 3 above, Plant Manager Roberts told an employee that Respondent was not going to sign a contract no matter how many unions you get. On September 19, Rick Semple told Charlcia Mullins that, if the Union came in, the Company would buy out the committee, and she would be hurting (par. 11 above). During that same conversation, Semple told Mullins that the Union couldn't do anything for them, and the Company wasn't going to agree (par. 19 above). I find, in agreement with General Counsel, that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) in the above instances.'° On December 5, during an employee meeting, Plant Manager Roberts told the employees that Conagra would not sign a contract, and that Conagra would not sign a contract that would improve wages or working conditions (par. 18). I find those statements constitute a threat that it would be futile to select the Union. (h) The record reveals that, on several occasions during the union campaign, Respondent prohibited its employees from discussing the Union during work. On September 19, Semple told Mullins not to talk to em- ployees about the Union (see par. 11). On September 20, Semple told Long that she didn't have the right to talk to one of his employees about the Union (see par. 12). During September, Semple told Delia Hicks that she would run away her help talking about the Union (par. 13). On September 20, both Bill Orr and John Michael Roberts told Carolyn Long that she couldn't talk about the Union on the job (par. 22). Since there was no show- ing that employees were prohibited from talking about other matters on the job, the prohibition of union talk constitutes disparate treatment. There is evidence that Carolyn Long was out of her work area when she spoke to an employee about the Union on September 20, but the evidence reveals that Semple, Orr, and Roberts cau- tioned her about talking about the Union rather than being out of her work area. Roberts also told Joyce stover that she was not allowed to talk about the Union or pass out union literature on company time (par. 22). According to Roberts, he called Stover in along with employee Betty Sellers because they almost fought over Stover's calling Sellers an "ass-kisser" for wearing a "Vote No" hat. General Counsel did not allege and I do not find that Respondent is prohibited from taking rea- sonable steps to avoid disruption in its plant. However, I find in agreement with General Counsel that the above- mentioned statements to employees constitute disparate treatment. The statements by Semple to employees Mul- lins, Long, and Hicks were not limited to a prohibition I credit the testimony of Joyce Stover set out in paragraph 17. 'o 1 credit the testimony of Stover and Mullins. See The McCuller Press, Inc., 227 NLRB 145 (1977); El Monte Tool and Die Casting. Inc., 232 NLRB 186 (1977). CONAGRA, INC. 615 during work. It appears from his complaint allegation that General Counsel is seeking a remedy which would prohibit Respondent from restricting its employees' union discussion during nonworktime. I find in agree- ment with General Counsel that the restrictions placed upon Respondent's employees by Supervisor Semple were overly broad in violation of Section 8(a)(l). How- ever, it appears that, even though Orr and Roberts Sep- tember 20 warnings to Carolyn Long may have consti- tuted disparate treatment, they were limted to cautioning Long not to discuss the Union during work. Therefore, I find those statements do not constitute violations as al- leged by General Counsel. (i) During September, Rick Semple asked Delia Hicks if she was still passing out union cards. After Hicks re- plied that she signed a card, Semple told her to be care- ful (par. 7 above).' This statement constitutes a threat of reprisal and violated Section 8(a)(1). (j) During Carolyn Long's September 20 conversation, with Superintendent Orr and Plant Manager Roberts (par. 22 above), Orr, in cautioning Long about discussing the Union with other employees during work, told Long, "I know your job is moving from place to place. If this continues, which [it] is not-we'll put you on a job where you won't be moving around. But that's not a threat." 2 Respondent offered no evidence to show that other employees were ever warned about talking on the job. Long testified without rebuttal that the conversation for which she was warned included nothing more than her response to employee Linda Pell's question of wheth- er Pell would be fired if Pell signed a union card. Long told Pell no. Under the circumstances, it appears, and I find, that Long was threatened because she engaged in protected activity. I find that Respondent's action consti- tutes a violation. (k) General Counsel alleges that on two occasions Re- spondent's Plant Manager Roberts threatened its employ- ees that they would no longer be able to bring their grievances directly to management if the Union was se- lected. Joyce Stover testified to a November 1 conversa- tion with Roberts during which Roberts told her, "if someone had a grievance, he wouldn't talk to the Shop Steward and the one that filed the grievance. He would only talk to the Shop Steward" (par. 23 above). Sandy Ellis testified that, during an employee meeting on De- cember 6, Roberts told them that, if the Union came in, they would have to have a union representative any time they came up to see him whereas now the employees could go to him with their problems. The above state- ments impose a threat of more difficult working condi- tions if the Union is selected, and thereby violate Section 8(a)(l). (1) I also find a violation in Supervisor Semple's late August statement to Joyce Stover regarding the loss of the extra bathroom break (see par. 24 above). (m) The record reveals several instances of Plant Man- ager Roberts' threatening the employees with loss of benefits if the Union was selected. Roberts admitted that, I I credit Hicks' account of this incident 12 Although I generally credit Orr's testimony, I do not credit his denial of a threat to change Long's job in view of Plant Manager Rob- erts' admission that Orr made the threat during his employee meetings in November and Decem- ber, he showed the employees a blank sheet of paper and told them they would be starting from scratch with ne- gotiations (par. 20 above). Linda Hastings testified that Roberts told the employees that employee benefits would be taken away if the Union came in and they would just start from blank. Joyce stover testified that Roberts held up a blank sheet of paper to her on November I and said, "This is what you'll start with if the Union comes in" (par. 23 above). 3 I credit the testimony of Hastings and Stover.14 Roberts' statements constitute threats to reduce employees' benefits if they select the Union, and violate Section 8(a)(1).' 5 (n) I credit the testimony of Stover, Swanson, and Hastings that Plant Manager Roberts told them during November and December that they were being denied an increase in pay because of the union campaign (see pars. 23 and 27 above). I find those threats violate Sec- tion 8(a)(l). (o) Charlcia Mullins testified that Plant Manager Rob- erts held employee meetings during August and Septem- ber during which employees were asked to explain their problems to Roberts. Roberts told the employees that, if they couldn't work out their problems with their super- visors, he would be glad to help out. Roberts admitted holding the meetings, but contended these meetings had nothing to do with the union campaign. However, I credit the employees' testimony that meetings of this type were unusual.' 6 I find that those meetings held during the employees' union campaign were likely to affect the employees' activities by holding out improved conditions, and violate Section 8(a)(1).'7 (p) I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to eliminate its employee's pension plan. I credit employee Patsy Southern's testimony (par. 26 above) that, during the plant manager meeting which she attended around Thanksgiving, Roberts told the employ- ees that there would be no retirement fund if the Union came in. B. The 8(a)(3) Allegations General Counsel alleged that Respondent withheld the granting of a scheduled wage increase since November 1, and eliminated the job of employee Carolyn Long on December 27, in violation of Section 8(a)(3). I find that the evidence fails to sustain General Counsel on both those allegations. 1. The wage increase The evidence does demonstrate that Respondent's agent told the employees on several occasions that they were being denied a wage increase because of the union I' See also the testimony of Patsy Southern, par. 26 above, which I credit. 14 See also par. 19 above, where Rick Semple threatened that bargain- ing would start from zero. 15 The Kenrte Company, a subsidiary of Harvey Hubbell. Inc.. 236 NLRB 1084 (1978); Tufts Brothers. Incorporated, 235 NLRB 808 (1978); Interstate Engineering A Division of A-T-O. Inc., 230 NLRB 1 (1977) '8 See also par. 5 above, 17 See par 30 above, where Roberts told Joyce Stover to come to him with her problems. CONAGRA, INC. 615 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD campaign.' 8 General Counsel contends that Respon- dent's claim, that the wage survey which it admittedly scheduled for September was not completed until near the end of the year, is pretextual. However, General Counsel offered no evidence to support its pretext claim other than the aforementioned 8(a)(l) statements. Plant Manager Roberts testified that Respondent usual- ly conducts a wage survey among 12 different plants in the Dalton area. Roberts stated those surveys are usually started in March and September. Roberts testified that, in accordance with that practice, he instructed his person- nel manager, Steve Ferguson, at some time during or after August, to perform the survey. However, Ferguson was subsequently discharged. According to Roberts, Fer- guson's discharge resulted from Ferguson's failure to perform several functions including the requested wage survey for the fall of 1978. Roberts testified that a new personnel manager, Fred Campbell, was hired in late Oc- tober or early November. Campbell was instructed to conduct the wage survey around the first of December. Roberts testified that Campbell completed the survey in early January 1979. Subsequently, in due course, the em- ployees received a wage increase. Although this issue is bothersome, the record contains no evidence which quarrels with Roberts' testimony re- garding Steve Ferguson's neglect. I have presumed that the facts would not conflict with Roberts' testimony in this regard, especially in view of what appears to be a situation where there were several sources from which contrary evidence could have been obtained if it existed. For example, there were 12 companies involved in those surveys, and the man who allegedly failed to conduct the survey, Steve Ferguson, is no longer with Respondent. No evidence was offered from any of the 12 companies, and Ferguson did not testify. Therefore, I find that the statements to employees that they were being a wage in- crease because of the Union were nothing more than a fabrication designed to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign. 2. The elimination of Long's job A similar dilemma is presented in the allegation that Respondent violated the Act by eliminating Carolyn Long's job. Until late December, Long's job involved the relieving of women for bathroom breaks in packing. In her role as "bathroom relief," Long circulated through the department. Her role obviously afforded Long opportunities to speak to many of the employees about the Union. The evidence demonstrates that, on September 20, Superintendent Orr threatened to change Long to a job that would not involve her moving around if she did not discontinue discussing the Union on the job. Plant Manager Roberts admitted that a decision was made in October which would eliminate the necessity of having a bathroom relief in packing. 9 According to '8 Although statements that a wage increase was being withheld are entitled to substantial weight in considering whether Respondent actually withheld the increase, the statements alone are not dispositive of the issue. 19 The only bathroom relief job in packing was Long's job. There was no bathroom relief position on the other shift in packing. department because of product flow problems. Roberts testified that the grading belt in packing was too small and they did not have enough packing bins. Also, one of the packing department functions, the "drop-out," was being performed in the cooler, which is in Shipping. The evidence developed that Respondent uses bath- room reliefs only in those departments where it would be impractical for the department employees to relieve each other or be relieved by supervisors. Until late December, bathroom reliefs were used in the eviscerating cutting, and packing departments. During the Christmas holidays, while the plant was closed, Respondent engaged in ex- tensive remodeling at a cost of over $60,000. These changes, which were designed to relieve overcrowding and improve efficiency, resulted in substantial remodel- ing in the packing department. According to the testimo- ny of Roberts, those changes permitted Respondent to reconsider use of bathroom reliefs and eliminate those positions in both packing and cutting. The changes also permitted Respondent to eliminate five other jobs in the plant. According to Roberts, the two bathroom relief employees whose jobs were eliminated, Carolyn Long and Lillie Everett, were offered other jobs in the plant. Long reminded Plant Manager Roberts that, when she accepted the bathroom relief position several years earli- er, Roberts promised her that she could return to her old job as scale operator if he ever found it necessary to eliminate the bathroom relief job. Roberts asked Long if she wanted the scale operator job, but Long said that she didn't want to "bump" the woman that presently held that job, "Snooky" Whitted. Long testified that, after she told Roberts that she did not want to bump Whitted, she asked Roberts to give her a layoff. Roberts agreed, and Long took a layoff and drew unemployment conpensation benefits. After the benefits period expired, Long returned to work in the job she selected, "stuffing." Under these facts, I find no basis for a violation. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent was unjusti- fied in eliminating Long's job. Seven positions were eliminated by Respondent's remodeling. Apparently, all those positions remain unoccupied. Long was not laid off. Instead, she was offered her choice of jobs. She chose a layoff which she admitted was temporary.20 General Counsel contends that Respondent's action was motivated to curtail Long's union activities. Howev- er, the evidence does not support that contention. Some of Respondent's 8(a)(l) activity undoubtedly had the effect of curtailing employees' union activities, and I have so found, but there was no evidence offered to show that the elimination of Long's job resulted in cur- tailment of her union activities. In fact, the evidence failed to demonstrate that all the jobs available to Long after Christmas would result in curtailing her ability to talk with other employees during the workday. There- fore, I find that the evidence fails to support the allega- tion of an 8(a)(3) violation in the elimination of Long's job. 20 General Counsel has not alleged that the voluntary layoff constitut- ed constructive discharge. CONAGRA, INC. 617 C. The Objections to the Election In considering the Union's Objections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12,2' I have considered the evidence reflecting ac- tivity during the critical period of September 25 to De- cember 8, 1978. Objections 5 and 10 both contend Respondent engaged in objectionable conduct by threatening economic repri- sals if its employees selected the Union. I find that the evidence sustains those objections. During November and December, Plant Manager Roberts conducted a series of antiunion meetings with the employees. Roberts told the employees that negotiations would start from scratch if they selected the Union. Testimony revealed that Roberts would turn to a blank white sheet on a chart and say something to the effect of "this is what you will start with if the Union comes in." Respondent defended Roberts' actions, citing Coach and Equipment Sales Corp., 228 NLRB 440 (1977), and Plastronics, Inc., 233 NLRB 155 (1977). Respondent contends that the "bargaining from scratch" statements are objectionable only when they leave the employees with the impression that what they ultimately receive depends in large mea- sure upon what the Union can induce the Employer to restore (Plastronics, Inc., supra). Respondent contends that, during the meetings, Roberts told the employees that the bargaining could result in their receiving more or less, and thereby dispelled any implication that wages or benefits would be reduced during bargaining. I dis- agree. The rule in Plastronics, Inc., should be applied by examining the total context. Prior to its November and December meetings, Respondent engaged in numerous 8(a)(l) violations, including numerous threats that it would be futile for the employees to select the Union (pars. g and 19 above); a threat that the employees would be deprived of their extra bathroom break (par. I above); threats that employees could no longer bring grievances directly to management if they selected the Union (par. k above); and threats that employees were 21 Objections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are as follows: Objection 5: The Employer threatened its employees with econom- ic reprisals because of their union activities, sympathies, and desires. Objection 6: The Employer advised its employees that a scheduled wage increase was being withheld from them because of their union activities and the organizing campaign being conducted by the Peti- tioner. Objection 8: The Employer, through its officers and supervisors, summoned employees singly or in small groups to the plant manag- er's office, or other areas of authority within the plant, where they were subjected to anti-union talks. Objection 9: The Employer threatened its employees with dis- charge because they engaged in union or concerted activity, and cir- cumscribed the movement and activities of employees during non- working time to prevent them from engaging in activities on behalf of the Petitioner. Objection 10: The Employer threatened its employees that, if the Petitioner became their collective bargaining representative, dire economic reprisals would occur and the employees' present benefits would be taken away, and they would have to bargain from a blank sheet of paper Objection 11: The Employer threatened its employees that selection of the Petitioner as their bargaining representative would prevent any employee from taking up his or her grievance or problem direct- ly with management. Objection 12: The Employer interrogated its employees concerning their union activities and sympathies. being deprived of a wage increase because of the Union (par. n above). In the atmosphere of those threats, Re- spondent's threats to bargain from scratch is objection- able conduct. I find that Roberts' threat during the meeting attended by Patsy Southern around Thanksgiving, to eliminate the employees' pension plan if the Union was selected, con- stitutes objectionable conduct. In Objection 6, the Union alleges that Respondent told its employees they were being deprived of a wage in- crease because of the union campaign. As indicated above in paragraph n, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) during November and December by tell- ing its employees they had been denied a wage increase because of the union campaign. That conduct is objec- tionable. Several incidents which would qualify as objectionable under the Union's Objection 9 occurred before the Union filed its petition. However, I find that Respon- dent's action in prohibiting Joyce Stover from preparing a list of employees from the timecards (par. e above) on October II and its December 4 restriction of Stover's union talk (pars. h and 22 above), 22 are objectionable within the scope of Objection 9. As indicated above in paragraph k, Respondent threat- ened its employees on two occasions during the critical period that they would not be able to continue to bring their grievances directly to management if the Union was selected. That conduct is objectionable, and I so find. Respondent's conduct on those occasions falls within the scope of Objection 11. Carolyn Long was interrogated about the employees' union activities during a conversation with Plant Man- ager Roberts on September 27. On the basis of that activ- ity, which I find violates Section 8(a)(1) (see pars. a and 14 above), and Rick Semple's October I I interrogation of Joyce Stover (see pars. a and 8 above), I find the evi- dence sustains Objection 12.23 Although Objection 8 is factually supported by the evidence, the objection does not raise a basis for setting aside the election. Therefore, I would overrule Objection 8. Therefore, I recommend that Objections 5, 6, 9, 10, I 1, and 12 be sustained, and the election set aside and a new election ordered. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Southeast Council, Retail, Wholesale and Depart- ment Store Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 22 I find Respondent's December 4 statement to Joyce Stover, that she could not discuss the Union anymore on company time, is disparate since the evidence fails to demonstrate employees were otherwise prohibited from talking. 2a The incidents discussed in pars. 6 and 7 may have also occurred during the critical period. However, the evidence reflects that both Clara Swanson and Delia Hicks were unable to recall with precision the dates of those incidents In view of my finding that Objection 12 should be sus- tained on other evidence, it is unnecessary to make a finding as to the dates of those incidents CONAGRA, INC. 617 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By interrogating its employees about their union ac- tivities; creating the impression of surveillance of its em- ployees' union activities; prohibiting its employees from compiling a list of employees because of its employees' union activities; threatening its employees with discharge because of their union activities; threatening its employ- ees that it would be futile to designate the Union as their bargaining representative; prohibiting its employees from discussing the Union during nonworktime; threatening its employees with reprisals for supporting the Union; threatening to change an employee's job to prevent its employees from engaging in union activities; threatening its employees that they could no longer bring their grievances directly to management if they designate the Union as their representative; threatening to take away its employees' extra bathroom break if they designated the Union as their representative; threatening its employ- ees with loss of benefits if they select the Union as their representative; threatening its employees that a scheduled wage increase was being withheld because of the em- ployees' union organizing campaign; soliciting grievances from its employees in order to persuade its employees to refrain from union activities; and threatening it employ- ees with loss of their pension plan if they selected the Union as their representative, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices by failing to grant a wage increase on or after November 1, 1978, or by eliminating Carolyn Long's job of bath- room relief during December 1978. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I recommend that the allegations of the complaint that were not proved be dismissed. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER2 4 Respondent, Conagra, Inc., Dalton, Georgia, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, by interrogating its employees about their union ac- tivities; creating the impression of surveillance of its em- ployees' union activities; prohibiting its employees from 24 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. compiling a list of its employees because of its employ- ees' union activities; threatening its employees with dis- charge because of their union activities; threatening its employees that it would be futile to select the Union as their bargaining representative; prohibiting its employees from discussing the Union during their nonworktime; threatening its employees with reprisals for supporting the Union; threatening to change an employee's job to prevent its employees from engaging in union activities; threatening its employees that they could no longer bring their grievances directly to management if they select the Union as their bargaining representative; threatening to take away its employees' extra bathroom break if they select the Union as their bargaining representative; threatening its employees with loss of benefits if they select the Union as their bargaining representative; threatening its employees that a scheduled wage increase is being withheld because of its employees' union activi- ties; soliciting grievances from its employees in order to persuade its employees from engaging in union activities; and threatening its employees with loss of their pension plan if they select the Union as their bargaining represen- tative. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Dalton, Georgia, plant copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." 2 s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (b)Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 2s In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their activities on behalf of Southeast Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, or any other labor organization. CONAGRA, INC. 619 WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveil- lance of our employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from com- piling a list of employees because of our employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employ- ees because of our employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that it would be futile for our employees to select South- east Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, or any other labor organization, as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from dis- cussing the Union during nonwork time. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with repri- sals for supporting the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten to change an employee's job to prevent our employees from engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that they can no longer bring their grievances directly to management if they select the Union as their bar- gaining representative. WE WILL NOT threaten to take away our employ- ees' extra bathroom break if they select the Union as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of benefits if they select the Union as their bargain- ing representative. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that a scheduled wage increase is being withheld because of the employees' union organizing campaign. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our em- ployees in order to persuade our employees from engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of their pension plan if they select the Union as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. CONAGRA, INC. CONAGRA, INC. 619