Santa Clara Lemon Association

SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION 93 4. The following employees of the Employer may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : I All photoengravers employed at the Employer's Fulton, New York, plant, including apprentices, but excluding all other employees, office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. 5. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] parties to a series of bargaining agreements covering the employees in the certified unit. The most recent contract is effective until March 21, 1955 , and provides for automatic annual renewal thereafter absent 60 days' notice in writing to modify or terminate. The petition was filed on January 10, 1955 As the petition was filed before the automatic renewal date, we find that the contract is not a bar. Gemco Engineering and Mfg. Co., Inc, 76 NLRB 437. 3 The Petitioner seeks to sever a group of photoengravers and apprentices from the cur- rent contract unit. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose the requested unit and con- tend that only a plantwide unit is appropriate . The Employer is engaged in the manu- facture of paper cartons and containers , and maintains a photoengraving department in the basement of its plant. There are about 14 employees in this department engaged in making plates for imprint on paper cartons. The department is composed of several camera operatois, etchers, routers, printers, finishers, color separators , and three apprentices. Ex- cept for the temporary assignment of photoengravers to a production department when work Is slack , there is no interchange between the photoengravers and the other employees in the plant. Although the Employer does not maintain a formal apprenticeship program, it takes about 6 years for a new employee to acquire the necessary skills and techniques inci- dent to the photoengraving process , and to reach the top wage in the department. The Board has held that employees similar to those involved herein constitute a craft group appropriate for severance purposes, Waldorf Paper Products Co., 100 NLRB 618. More- over, the union requesting severance historically and traditionally represents this craft. Accordingly, we find that the photoengravers and apprentices may constitute a separate unit, if they so desire. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 11418. As the working foreman within this department has no authority effectively to recom- mend changes in the status of employees, and otherwise exercises no supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act, he is included in the unit. Santa Clara Lemon Association and United Fresh Fruit & Vege- table Workers Union, LIU #78, CIO. Cases Nos. 921-CA-1851, 21-CA-1907, and 21-CA-1908. April 13,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On November 19, 1954, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that 112 NLRB No. 17. 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief. 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 Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modification.' Except for the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent bar- gained with the employee committee and thereby violated the Act, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (5). 2 We find it unnecessary to determine whether the Respondent in fact bargained or negotiated with the employee committee and thereby en- gaged in an additional violation of Section 8 (a) (5). 8 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Santa Clara Lemon Association, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : i After the issuance of the Intermediate Report the Respondent moved for leave to adduce certain additional evidence The General Counsel opposed the motion on the ground that there was no claim that the additional evidence was newly discovered or unavailable at the time of the hearing. For the reasons set forth in the opposition, the motion is hereby denied We find no merit in the Respondent's argument that its refusal to bargain with the Union after January 14, 1954, but during the certification year, was justified by the allega- tions of the employees' petition repudiating the Union See Ray Brooks v N. L. R. B., 348 U S 96 , N L R B v Henry Heide, Inc, 219 F. 2d 46 (C A 2) ; Plastic Age Company, et al, 111 NLRB 121. See also Hex ton Furniture Company, 111 NLRB 342. As to the 8 (a) (3) finding, we are particularly impressed by the plant superintendent's admission to Luttrell that after September 14, 1953, in part because she had become in- volved with the Union, she would no longer be permitted to perform grading work when the washer was shut down We reach the conclusion that discrimination was practiced against Luttrell, without relying upon the Trial Examiner's discussion concerning the effect of the absence of evidence in the record of Luttrell's employment history during August and early September 1953. 'The record in this and tour companion cases (112 NLRB 109, 115, 121, 130) shows and the Trial Examiner found that after the refusal to bargain, the Union, by a member- ship vote which included the Respondent's employees, voted to affiliate with United Packing- house Workers of America, and the name of the Uihon was changed to United Packing- house Workers of America, Local 78, C1O. The record also establishes, without contra- diction, that a large number of employees in the unit voted, that the vote was unanimous for the affiliation, and that the CIO cancelled the Union's original charter. Pursuant to the authority of the consent-election agreement, the Regional Director thereupon amended the certification to substitute the new name of the Union We find that the Regional Director did not act arbitrai ily of capriciously in the circumstances SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION 95 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the labor organization now known as United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the Respondent's production and maintenance employees, excluding clerical employees, guards, profes- sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to assign any employee to work because of interest in or activity on behalf of any labor organization. (c) By unilateral action on wages, by threats, by discriminating in work assignments, or in any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organ- ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex- tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Make Jewel Luttrell whole for any loss of wages suffered be- cause of the discrimination against her. (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described above, and if an under- standing-is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for ex- amination and copying, all records necessary to an analysis of the amount of back pay due in accordance with this Order. (d) Post at its plant in Oxnard, California, copies of the notice at- tached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty- first Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 'Said notice shall be amended however by substituting for the words "The Recom- mendations of a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order," and by deleting the words "by dealing with an employee committee " In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words " Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Workers Union, LIU #78, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, issued his complaint, dated May 27, 1954, against Santa Clara Lemon Asso- ciation, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had committed and was committing unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. In respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent, through its agents, threatened adversely to affect employees' tenure of employment and earnings if they supported the Union; lessened the working op- portunities of Jewel Luttrell and discharged Ruby Hooper because each had engaged in union activities; and refused unlawfully on and after January 14, 1954, to bargain with the Union. Respondent's answer denies the commission of unfair labor practices, asserts that its employees are agricultural laborers without the coverage of the Act, and asserts that the Union is defunct and no longer exists. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner from September 13 through 24, 1954. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded a full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. A brief has been received from counsel for the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a California cooperative nonprofit association with its principal place of business in Oxnard, California, where it is engaged in processing and packing citrus fruits. Upon orders of its sales agent, the Respondent ships from Oxnard, citrus fruits having a value in excess of $190,000 yearly to points outside the State of California. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED At all times until about July 1, 1954, United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Workers Union, LIU #78, CIO, was a labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. On that date, in circumstances which will later be described, the Union affiliated with United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent appears to have been organized as an association in 1948 and began its operations in the spring of 1949. The evidence indicates that it handles no fruit other than lemons. Fruit is received on what may be called the washer side of the plant where, after a series of cleaning, sorting, and grading operations, it is prepared for storage. The other side, the packing operation, is concerned with the removal of fruit from storage, further grading, packing, and shipment. The months of heaviest receipt are in the spring and summer although it appears that there is no month in the year when fruit does not come to the plant. Shipments are heavier during the warmer months, but, again, shipments are made during all months. The record suggests, if it does not establish, that until September 1953 the employees of the Respondent had never been represented by any labor organization. Jewel Luttrell became Respondent's employee at about the time the plant opened in 1949. She worked in the grading operation and after some training became a sample grader. The evidence is that this latter position is one of some importance SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION 97 and traditionally is rewarded by a higher hourly rate than that paid to other workers. After several months as a sample grader, Luttrell, whose regular employment has always been on the washer side, was assigned as a sort of assistant to the washer foreman, watching the color segregators to insure that fruit for storage was boxed in uniform colors. In the fall of 1951, Luttrell quit to take employment in another packing operation in the area, but in early 1952 returned to the Respondent's employ, and thereafter worked steadily in various positions on the washer. Luttrell testified that until September 1953 she was given opportunity to do grading on the packing side whenever the washer operation was shut down. Luttrell and others testified to a number of happenings and incidents upon which the General Counsel premises his claim that the Respondent interfered with, re- strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of statutory rights and, in respect to Luttrell and Ruby Hooper, accomplished unlawful discrimination. Because the testimony concerning such matters is sharply conflicting, requiring numerous credi- bility resolutions, for clarity I have set forth below in the first column in interpretive summary form the testimony upon which the General Counsel relies to support the complaint's allegations, and in the second, the testimony tending to dispute or over- come them. Certain incidents which were the subject of testimony have been ignored in this summation because, upon study, they appear to me to have no probative value in respect to the ultimate issues. JEWEL LUTTRELL: About Sep- tember 1, 1953, Roger Sayre asked me if I knew that another nearby packing house was "going union." I said that I knew nothing of it. He said that an organizing meet- ing was to be held that night and that he would like to know more about it. He said that he could not understand why the employees at the other house might be inter- ested in a union but that a differ- ent situation existed at Santa Clara explaining that he had begged our manager, Mr. Fuller, to raise wages without success. He told me that if Ruby Hooper, Bertha Van- denberg, or I brought Union cards to the plant he would not fire us. I went to the meeting and got some cards. I asked other employees to sign them and a number of them did. I then had a number of Union meetings at my home. LUTTRELL: On the morning fol- lowing this meeting, Sayre asked me if I had attended. I said I had not. He said he would like to find out from someone what went on at the meeting so he could in- form Manager Fuller about it when he returned from his vacation. ROGER SAYRE: I am House Foreman and have a number of foremen under my supervision. I do most of the hir- ing. I did not have such a conversation with Luttrell on September 1 or at any other time. SAYRE : I had no such conversation with Luttrell. LUTTRELL: About September 14 SAYRE: I had no such conversation I worked as a grader on the pack - with Luttrell and made no such com- ing side. This is the last day that I ments. worked there. I talked to Sayre that day and he told me that he knew that union cards were in the plant but didn't know who brought them in. He said that whoever was passing them around was mak- ing misrepresentations and prom- ises that could not be fulfilled. LUTTRELL: About September 20 Sayre came around to where I was SAYRE: I knew that some letters were taken off the bulletin board but I never 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD working and, talking to other girls nearby where I could overhear, said that someone had taken some letters from the bulletin board. These letters contained some argu- ments opposing the Union. Sayre said that he knew who had taken them; that she was an old employee for whom he in the past had con- siderable respect; and that if the letters were left some place where they could be found no charges would be pressed. Later that after- noon Manager Fuller came to me and said that he had been informed that I had the letters. I said I didn't. He then suggested that someone may have planted them in my purse, and I opened it so he could see they were not in there. Sayre came up then and accused me of taking the letters and asked if I was lady enough to let him look in my purse for them. I showed him my purse and he glanced in it and Mr. Fuller said that I didn't have the letters. Sayre said that he must have been misin- formed and was going to talk to the person who had given him the information. LUTTRELL: Ever since I have worked in the plant I have been permitted to work as a grader on the packing side when the washer was shut down. Consequently I have been given work when any operation in the plant was going. After the 14th of September, how- ever, and until now I have been sent home whenever the washer shut down. Some time in late Oc- tober, I asked Sayre why it was that I no longer was being permitted to work on the packing side. Sayre told me that some of the girls there didn't like me and had asked him not to let me come down there to work and, since I had gotten in- volved in the Union, he didn't want me there either. He said if I wasn't running around doing things for the Union I would be down there get- ting 8 hours the same as the other girls. LUTTRELL: About November 6 Sayre told me that even if the Union won the election the Respondent would not sign a contract and that if the employees had not involved themselves with the Union they would be making $1.15 an hour. Most of us were getting 950 then. [The election was held on Novem- ber 4, so it is probable that Luttrell spoke to Luttrell about it and never looked in her purse and never suggested that any charges would be filed against anyone because of the removal. GENERAL MANAGER ERNEST FULLER: I asked Luttrell if someone could have put the letters in her purse and when she opened her purse I just glanced in it and did not make a search. I left then and did not hear Sayre say any- thing to her. Sayre was walking over in that direction when I left. It is my recollection that this happened shortly after the election. I know that the let- ters referred to were not posted on the bulletin board before about the 16th of October. At the time I spoke to Luttrell in the matter I knew that she was the Union's steward in the plant and I did not have that information until after November 6. SAYRE: I did tell Luttrell that the girls on the grader didn't like her and also that the grader foreman, Russell Barnes had asked that she not be sent over to work there, but this happened on July 17, 1953. I told her then that I would keep her on as a cull picker if she wanted to remain or if I paid her off she could get unemployment compensation. She told me that she wanted to stay on the job. I never told her that she was being sent home on any occasion rather than being sent to work on the grader because she was working to help the Union. SAYRE: I never said that the company would refuse to sign a contract with the Union or that the employees would be getting more money had they not joined the Union. SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION is mistaken as to the date. There is some indication in her testimony that she intended to place this con- versation in late October. On the occasion when she asked why she was not permitted to work on the grader.] LUTTRELL: On December 17, as a representative of the Union, I attended a bargaining meeting with the Respondent Mr. Fuller was among those present. The next day he called me to his office and said he wanted to speak to me about my health He said that he was wor- ried about me because I seemed to be working under a nervous strain and that if I wanted to quit and work some place else I could. I told him that I wanted to stay on my job and asked why they didn't let me work on the packing side when the washer was shut down He just said that things had changed. He then told me that some of the members of the Asso- ciation who had been at the bargain- ing meeting the day before had said that they didn't like the expression on my face; that I didn't seem to be as happy as the other employees were. I told him that we weren't happy, and then I went back to work. LUTTRELL: Some time in Janu- ary 1954 the washer shut down and I was sent home. All the other girls were sent over on the packing side to work. The next day the washer operated and all the girls were called back to work but me. I did go back to work on the third day. LUTTRELL: On February 10, 1954, while I was working, Lock- ner came up to me and said that Sayre had found two culls in a box of fruit that had gone to storage and had told Lockner to "eat me out" about it . Lockner said he knew I was doing the best I possibly could and that Sayre was after me be- cause I was on the "other side." LUTTRELL' On February 15 Lockner told me that I was to work on the wet belt. He said it wasn't his idea but Sayre's, and that it was some more of -the'discrimina- tion that was going on around there. I have been on the wet belt ever since It is a cold and drafty place to work and generally is a position 369028-56-vol. 112-8 99 FULLER I called Luttrell to my office because I thought she didn't look well and she did seem to be working under a strain. I told her that her condition might be affecting her work and that of those who were working near her, and asked if there was anything I could do, to help her. She said that she knew what she was doing and no matter what was said she would continue doing it. I saw that there was no use in talking to her any longer and that was the end of it. FOREMAN JOE LOCKNER: I sent Lut- trell home on the day that the washer shut down and sent the other girls over to the packing side. Luttrell was not being permitted to work on the, packing side and most of the washer crew that day had regular assignments on the packing side. That night I went to Luttrell's house twice to tell her to come to work the next day, but no one was home. I left a note on the garage door for her to come to work, but the next day she didn't show up. FOREMAN LOCKNER: Nothing like that happened. It is a common thing for culls to slip by and be sent with good fruit to storage. LoCKNER: I told Luttrell to go on the wet belt on February 15, and all she said was that she would do so. I said nothing about discrimination and just told her that I 'ahted her to do'a-good job there. It is desirable to have ex- perienced help on the wet belt and that job is no less desirable than many others on the washer and is preferable to some.- 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD given to inexperienced, newly hired workers. RUBY CARTER' I quit my job with the Respondent in August 1952 and came back to work in September 1953. Just a week be- fore the election that fall I asked Mr. Sayre if I could work more steadily. He said he thought it could be arranged and said that the election was going to be held soon and that if he found out who voted for the Union he would lay them off. CARTER: I knew in January 1954 that there was a petition go- ing around at the plant to get rid of the Union and to get us a wage increase. I didn't sign it. On January 27 Sayre gave me a back pay check and I told him that I didn't think I was entitled to it because I hadn't signed the peti- tion. He said he wished I had not told him that because he did not know who had signed it and who had not CARTER: I had been a box filler and on February 15 Foreman Lock- ner moved me over to the wet belt at the same time that Luttrell was sent there. Walking over toward the wet belt Lockner told me that I was being punished and when I asked him for what, he told me I would have to talk to Sayre. That noon I went to Sayre's office and asked him why I was being pun- ished. He asked me what I meant and I told him what Lockner had said. He called Lockner in then and asked him why Lockner had said I was being punished. Lock- ner said that it looked like it to him. Sayre got angry and said that if Lockner wanted to be washer foreman he had better say what Sayre wanted him to say. I told Sayre that no one worked on the wet belt who had been on the job for any length of time, and that all the other employees knew that I was being punished; they would look up at Luttrell and me when we were working and laugh. Sayre said it had been a problem for him to get anyone to work with Luttrell since she had joined the Union and asked me to go back to work as if noth- ing had happened. Later on I com- SAYRE: The work on the wet belt is important and we like to have experi- enced help there whenever possible. It is no worse job than many others on the washer and better than some. SAYRE: In late September, as soon as we found out that the Union was signing up some of the employees, I was instructed, as were all other fore- men, to be completely neutral and not to talk about the Union with the em- ployees. I followed this instruction and did not discuss Union matters with any of the workers. [There is no spe- cific reference in Sayre's testimony to the incident concerning Ruby Carter just before the election.] SAYRE: I never saw the petition and don't know to this day who signed it or who didn't. [There is no specific ref- erence to the conversation with Carter in Sayre's testimony.] SAYRE: Carter came to my office on February 15 and asked me if she was put on the wet belt as a means of pun- ishment, saying that Lockner had told her so. I called Lockner in and he told Carter to stop putting words in his mouth. I then told Carter to go back to work. [Sayre's testimony does not contain any reference to a complaint by Carter that she was not permitted to work elsewhere when the washer shut down or any reference to Carter's sug- gestion that Luttrell was being discrimi- nated against.] LOCKNER: On February 15 Sayre told me to put Carter on the wet belt so I did so. I said nothing to her about punishment. When Sayre called me to his office that day and told me what Carter had said I asked Carter not to put words in my mouth. SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION plained to Sayre that when the washer was shut down I was not given any other work, just like Lut- trell, and I couldn't understand why he would want to discriminate against me as he did against Lut- trell [Carter's testimony does not contain any response from Sayre to this last protest.] RUBY HOOPER: I worked for the Respondent for about 5 years un- til my discharge on April 6, 1954. For the last 2 years I was the sam- ple grader on the washer. I signed a Union card in the fall of 1953. When the petition was being passed around in the plant I mentioned the matter to Sayre and he said that he was sure that I had signed it. I told him that I hadn't and he asked why. I said that I didn't understand about the petition and wasn't going to sign anything that I didn't understand. Sayre said that the petition was all right and that I should sign it. He told me that I could speak to one of the girls who was circulating it and ar- range to sign. On January 27, 1954, Sayre gave me my back pay check. I thought I should have received a raise of 200 an hour but got only 150. When I asked him why this was, he said that Lottie Murphy, one of those who had been circulating the petition, was the one respon- sible. In late March I told Sayre that I had heard there was going to be a union meeting that night and I thought I might go to see what was happening. He said that it was all right for me to go if I wanted to but that it wasn't neces- sary, that he was well informed and knew everything that was go- ing on. I said that even if he did I wanted to find out for myself. Sayre said that if the other girls trusted me they would confide in me, and that it was obvious they did not trust me because they hadn't asked me to be on the com- mittee that was behind the peti- tion. He said that if I was in favor of the Union to go to the meeting, but if not I should get busy and do something to help "us." He said that I should be loyal to something. If I was a Democrat I should be one, or a Republican I should be one, but not to try to be on the fence. I told him I had a right to be neu- 101 SAYRE: Some time in January Hooper asked me if I knew anything about a petition going around the packing house and I said that I didn't. I did not in any way advise her to sign it. When on April 6 I learned that Hooper was not at work I telephoned her to find out why. She told me that she could not come because she had no way of getting there. I told her that if she would get ready I would come over to pick her up. She said that she wasn't ready and that she had a cake in the oven, and could not be over there until 1.00 o'clock that afternoon. I offered several times to come after her and finally told her that if she did not come immediately she need not come at all. [Foreman Lockner and Robison and Manager Fuller testified that they over- heard Sayre's end of the conversation, and corroborated his testimony in that respect. ] 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tral. He told me to get busy to do something; that my name should be on the petition in black and white for him and Mr. Fuller to show to members of the Respond- ent. He said that the growers would be displeased with him and Mr. Fuller if 1, the sample girl, didn't sign it and show that 1 was helping I said that I wouldn't sign it. Sayre said that the girls in the plant did not want to pay $17 a year to the Union and that there was no reason for them not to get together and kick the Union ouL. I said I did not think $17 was too much, that the Union would not do any harm. When we finished work on April 5 I learned that we were not to come to work the next day until 10.00. I told Foreman Lockner that I couldn't come in then be- cause I had no means of transpor- tation. He said that he could do nothing about it. I then saw Man- ager Fuller and told him I had no way to get to the plant at 10:00 in the morning. He said he had told Sayre to check with the girls about transportation. On my way out of the plant I saw Foreman Paul Hunneweill, who told me I didn't have to wait until 10:00 to come to work. I told him that I had been instructed to come in at 10:00 but that I couldn't be there because of lack of transportation. The next morning about 10.30 Sayre telephoned me and asked why I wasn't at work. I said that I had no way to get there and Sayre asked why I hadn't phoned him; that he would have come after me. I said that I had told Lockner, Fuller, and Hunneweill about it and thought perhaps Sayre would pick me up. He said he did not make it a prac- tice to pick up everyone who didn't have transportation and told me to come in immediately "or else:' I told him that I was dressing to come to work and had intended to leave at 1:00 o'clock when my husband would be able to take me. I then suggested that I could walk to the plant, but it would take me about 30 minutes to get there. Sayre said he wanted to talk to Fuller about it and would call me .back. In a few minutes he, did phone me again and said that he had talked to Mr. Fuller and they decided that they no longer wanted me to work there; that I might come down to pick up my check. I told him that I didn't think that SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION I was being treated fairly and he told me that Foreman Lockner had instructed me to make arrange- ments with Sayre to ride to work. I told him this was not so. Later in the day I telephoned Mr. Fuller to see if Sayre had actually talked to him about firing me. Mr. Fuller said that if it hadn't happened to- day, maybe it would have hap- pened tomorrow. [On cross-exam- ination Hooper admitted that when Sayre telephoned her that morning she was baking a cake.] WILLIAM TURNAGE: In October 1953 1 told Sayre that I was getting 5¢ less an hour than the other men and he either promised to give me a raise or to attempt to do so. He asked me to say nothing about it where the Union might find out. When I got my pay check for the 2-week period ending October 24 it showed a 5-cent wage increase. About a week before the election Sayre noticed that I was wearing a union button and said that if the union won the election I would be laid off because he would have to replace me with a man of more experience. On the day of the elec- tion, but after it was over, Sayre told me that my raise was being taken away from me but didn't say why. About a week after the elec- tion Sayre said that he had not expected me to kick him in the pants as I had done. [Employee Joe Gomez testified that he overheard Sayre tell Turn- age that in the event of a Union vic- tory Turnage would be laid off.] JOE GOMEZ: Some time in the spring or summer of 1953 I asked Mr. Sayre if there would be any op- portunity for me to become a fore- man. He said that he liked my work and that I might get such a promotion. When the petition was being passed around Sayre told me he knew who had signed it and those who had not would suffer financially. He said that there would be no opportunity for me to become a foreman. I asked him why, and he said it was because of political reasons. ANDREZ REYEZ: In January 1954 two other employees came to me and said they were circulating a petition to get rid of the Union and to get a wage increase. I men- tioned the matter to Sayre who said he knew nothing about it. Then the two of us got to talking to 103 SAYRE: Turnage did ask me for a wage increase and I told him I would see what could be done. I did not arrange that his wages be raised, although I understand that it happened through some mistake and I did not tell him that the increase was being taken away from him. I never said that if the Union won the election he would be replaced and never accused him of kicking me in the pants PEARL DAVIS: I am the bookkeeper responsible for the preparation of the payroll. In listing amounts to be paid for the period ending October 24 I made an error by showing Turnage's rate to be the same as that of the male employees whose names appeared on the list just above his The reason he was paid at the higher rate for that 2- week period is this error. FOREMAN PAUL HUNNEWEILL: I re- placed Mrs. Davis when she was on her vacation in late October. In preparing the payroll I noticed that Turnage's rate seemed to be higher than I had recalled it. I consulted Mr. Sayre and learned that a mistake had been made. I changed the rate back to the proper figure. SAYRE: I did talk with Gomez about the possibility of promotion but I didn't promise him anything. I just said that any capable, hard working employee might aspire to such advancement. I never saw the petition, never told Gomez that he would not be promoted because of political reasons, and never said that nonsigners would be financially hurt. SAYRE • Reyez did ask me about the petition. I told him I knew nothing about it When we were talking to Lockner we both sort of laughed about the matter and said that that seemed like an easy way to get more money-just to sign a petition [Lockner corroborated Sayre's testimony on this point ] 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Foreman Lockner and Sayre told Lockner what I had said Sayre then asked me if I had signed the petition and when I said no he said if I were you I would already have signed the petition. VIVIAN LIEVSAY : Shortly after [No mention of this incident is to be the election I was walking into the found in Sayre's testimony.] plant at noon with Inez Mendoza, Dora Pena, and Mr. Sayre. Mr. Sayre said that he wanted to thank them for the way they stood by him during the election and said that everything would work out 0 K. for them. Sayre said he was about to lay off 30 women that day. I quit my job in July 1954. JOSE GUILLEN : When the com- SAYRE : I did not speak to Guillcn mittee was formed to circuate the about the Union, either for or against, petition to get the Union out of the or authorize him in any fashion to at- plant, I became a member. Before tempt to influence the employees against and after the election , on a number the Union. of occasions, Sayre told me to keep up the good work I was doing and said that the Respondent would back me up . For several months I spent most of my time talking against the Union with other em- ployees throughout the plant, and I was paid as if I was working full time . Sayre told me to tell the employees that the Union was no good for them ; that their pay would be better with no union in the plant. After a short period of employment, Maxine White was laid off about November 6 and recalled 2 or 3 weeks later. When she had then worked a week she quit for another position . White testified that shortly before her recall Sayre told her that it did not matter to him how she voted in the election. On the same occasion according to White and in her presence , one Ann Kehrer applied for work. Sayre rejected the application , saying that no one was being hired because of "the case of the Union" and because Kehrer was friendly to White. Sayre testified that he could not recall the incident and denied that any consideration involving the Union operated to cause the rejection of anyone's application . White's testimony was somewhat confused and self-contradictory in respect to the last period of her employment . I do not consider the evidence to establish that Kehrer's application was rejected for any unlawful reason. Primarily because of my opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the witnesses as they testified, I am convinced that in the main Luttrell gave a truthful and substantially accurate account of her conversations with Sayre, and that the latter's denials do not merit credit. I have also considered in reaching this determination the amount of circumstantial detail contained in Luttrell's testimony concerning these conversations . The observation that a would-be deceiver weaves a tangled web, is a sound one and cross -examination is usually an effective device to enmesh the perpetrator of the embellished lie. I have found no instance in the testimony of Luttrell on direct or cross-examination where her relation of the conversations with Sayre contains any self-contradictory matter or where she was at any point shown to have been in error in any matter of substance . I think that as to certain dates she may have been mistaken , but in such instances the dates were of slight importance . Further, as dates are often susceptible to check by reference to some objective criterion , one would expect a would-be perjurer to be most careful in that respect. I am convinced and find that about September 1 Sayre did have the conversation with Luttrell about which she testified and that the next day he asked her if she had attended the union meeting. I find also that about September 14 Sayre told her that he knew that union cards were being circu- lated in the plant and that about that date was the last time that Luttrell was sent to the packing side when the washer was not operating . I believe Luttrell in her SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION 105 testimony that Sayre questioned her about the missing letters from the bulletin board and accused her of taking them . I think she is mistaken as to the date and I find this incident happened in late October or early November. I credit Luttrell in her testimony that sometime in October Sayre told her that he no longer wanted her to work on the grader because among other reasons she had become involved with the Union and that he said then if this had not been the case she would be at work there. I also find that on this same occasion Sayre told her that the employees were getting less money than they would be receiving had they not involved themselves with the Union. Upon the same considerations set forth above, I believe Luttrell 's testimony that on December 18 Manager Fuller spoke to her about working under a nervous strain and suggested that she might be happier working for another employer. I find, based upon Luttrell's testimony , and discrediting that of Foreman Lockner, that on February 10 Lockner told her that he had been instructed to criticize her concerning culls because Luttrell was on the "other side" and that Lockner meant by that expression that Luttrell was a supporter of the Union. I further credit the testimony of Luttrell that on February 15 on the occasion that she was sent to work on the wet belt Lockner told her that it was another instance of discrimination. On the occasion in January when Luttrell was recalled to work when the washer resumed operation , I am not persuaded that her loss of a day's pay on that occasion derived from any intent on the part of the Respondent to discriminate against her. I credit Lockner's testimony that he did attempt to notify her to return to work. I credit the testimony of Luttrell and Carter as opposed to that of Sayre, Fuller, and Lockner, that the position on the wet belt to which these two were assigned on February 15 is less desirable than other positions on the washer and that it is one which usually is given to an inexperienced, newly hired worker. I credit the undenied testimony of Ruby Carter that on October 28, 1953, Sayre said that those who voted for the Union , if identified, would be laid off . In doing so I of course disbelieve Sayre in his general testimony that he followed any instruction to remain completely neutral and to refrain from discussing questions concerning the Union with employees . Further, in regard to Carter , I regard as completely believable her testimony that Lockner told her she was moved to the wet belt in punishment for something . Sayre testified that this transfer was made at his direction but did not give the reason for his order . I do not find however that the evidence establishes by its preponderance that the transfer of Carter derived from any antiunion consideration. Considering that Ruby Hooper had worked for the Respondent for about 5 years, that her work until the day of her discharge had been at least acceptable , and that the Respondent then had no individual outside its supervisory force trained to replace her , Hooper's discharge certainly was in retaliation for some conduct on her part. The General Counsel of course argues that the Respondent 's action was then motivated by its knowledge that Hooper had not signed the antiunion petition and had said that she intended to go to a union meeting. Of course this argument may be valid , but it is also true that Hooper did not appear for work on the morning of April 6 and her failure to do so was more than a slight inconvenience to the Respondent. I believe that Hooper on April 5 knew that she should check with Sayre about the possibility of transportation to work the next morning, and' that on the next morning Sayre offered to call for her . The entire incident on Hooper's part , based upon her testimony , suggests to me that she preferred not to come to work at the hour set , and that she made no attempt to get to the plant, and rejected Sayre's offer of transportation . I find no unlawful discrimination attending her discharge. Considering the testimony of Turnage , Sayre, Davis, and Hunneweill about the 5-cent wage increase which Turnage enjoyed for a 2-week period in October 1953, I am convinced by the testimony of Davis and Hunneweill that an error in book- keeping brought this about . It is indeed a strange coincidence that Turnage had in that period requested precisely the raise which error gave him, but I nonetheless conclude that Davis' mistake was at the bottom of it. I credit Turnage and disbelieve Sayre in the former's testimony that Sayre threatened that Turnage would be replaced with a more experienced man if the Union won the election. As I am convinced by a consideration of all the testimony that Sayre was an active opponent of the Union from the time that it first appeared at the Respondent's plant and that on numerous occasions he threatened employees with adverse con- sequences should the Union be selected by them, I credit the testimony of Joe Gomez that Sayre said that those who had not signed the antiunion petition would suffer financially and that he then said that Gomez ' opportunity to become foreman had vanished for "political reasons." I find that the phrase "political reasons" in that 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD context was intended by Sayre and interpreted by Gomez to mean the failure of the latter to join in opposing the Union. I accept as completely correct the testimony of Jose Guillen that Sayre did encourage him to oppose the Union in conversations with employees in the plant and that in furtherance of Sayre's desire and with his permission Guillen absented himself from his working place for substantial periods of time over a period of months. Sayre's denial that he did so is not credited. Because of my conviction, based upon the evidence, that Sayre was such an active opponent of the Union, I find that the conversation with Andrez Reyez, to which the latter testified, constituted a recommendation on the part of Sayre that Reyez sign the petition. In another context one might believe that Sayre was remarking lightly that merely to sign a paper was an easy way to get more money, but not here. I credit the undenied testimony of Vivian Lievsay that Sayre thanked Mendoza and Pena for opposing the Union in the election and promised them that everything would be well with them. In this context Sayre's unsolicited remark that a number of employees were about to be laid off had the natural and I believe calculated effect of impressing upon his hearers that their opposition to the Union kept them from inclusion in that group. Foreman Russell Barnes testified that at his request, because he considered her not an efficient worker and because she did not get along well with others on the grader, Luttrell was not permitted to work on the packing side in his department after some date in March 1953. Sayre said that he first informed Luttrell of Barnes' attitude on July 17 that year. Two witnesses for the General Counsel, Maxine White and Carmelita Venegas, who I assume were expected to testify otherwise, said that Luttrell did not work on the grader during the summer of 1953. Other witnesses for the General Counsel, Vivian Lievsay and Hazel Solano, testified that she worked there in September. Neither of the last two is now working for the Respondent and both appear to have left their jobs voluntarily. Each testified that she is not a member of the Union. I regard White and Venegas on the one side and Lievsay and Solano on the other as disinterested witnesses on this point and believe that each of them gave her best recollection. It seems probable that the Respondent was and is in possession of records which would serve to settle the question. Payroll records if offered at the hearing would have established beyond any probable question the number of hours she worked in August and September 1953. Foreman Lockner testified that after July 1953 Luttrell was never transferred to the grading job when the washer was shut down and that such shutdowns occurred about four times a month. If during August and early September Respondent's rec- ords indicated that Luttrell worked full weeks, that would be strong evidence that she was on some occasions being transferred to work on the grader, for she worked only on the grader or the washer. If on the other hand such records showed her on occasions to work less than a full week, the suggestion would be a strong one in sup- port of Respondent's contention that when the washer shut down she was, after July 17, regularly sent home. Here then was evidence of a persuasive character within the power of the Re- spondent to produce. I consider it to be a reasonable conclusion that its failure to do so is an indication that such records would not tend to establish its contention in respect to Luttrell. I find that after September 14, 1953, in the belief that Luttrell was a leader in the movement to bring the Union into the plant, the Respondent, through Sayre, followed a policy of refusing to permit her to work on the grader at such times that the washer was shut down; that this practice was a reversal of that which had been observed prior to the time when the Respondent became aware of Luttrell's union interest; and that it was a discriminatory retaliation against her because of her leadership in the organizing campaign I find that by denying opportunity to Luttrell to work on the grader when the washer was shut down, the Respondent discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in and activity in behalf of the Union, and that the Respondent thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. By depriving Luttrell of such work opportunities, by questioning her as to occur- rences at union meetings, by telling her that her wages and those of other employees were less because of their involvement with the Union, by stating to her that she would be working more hours had she not become involved with the Union, by sug- gesting because of her union activity that she was working under a strain and might well seek work elsewhere, and by saying that her transfer to the wet belt resulted from a purpose to discriminate, I find that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced her in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION 107 I find that by telling Carter that those who voted for the Union would be laid off, by telling Hooper that her name should appear on the antiunion petition with the strong suggestion that the Respondent would be displeased otherwise, by telling Turnage that he would be laid off in the event the Union won the election, by indi- cating to Gomez that his opportunity for promotion had been lost because of his failure to oppose the Union, by advising Reyez to sign the antiunion petition as a means of getting rid of the Union and securing a wage increase, by suggesting to Lievsay that those who opposed the Union were immunized from layoff, and through the agency of Guillen telling the employees that their pay would be better with no Union in the plant, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and I find that all production and maintenance employees in the plant, excluding all clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, at all times material herein, constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. On November 4, 1953, Board agents conducted an election among the employees in the unit. On November 13 the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative based upon the election result. On December 17 representatives of the Union and the Respondent met in a bargaining meeting and the Union then submitted its written proposals. These were read and explained by union representa- tives without specific agreement being reached on any provision of substance. The next meeting took place on January 14. Reading and explanation of the Union's proposals continued. The meeting was interrupted by the appearance of a constable who made formal service of a document upon Manager Fuller. Shortly thereafter, following a private conversation with Respondent's counsel, Ivan McDaniel, it was announced that the constable had given Fuller a petition bearing the apparently genuine signatures of about 70 percent of the employees requesting that the Respond- ent no longer bargain with the Union. Over the protest of Union Representative Syd Rose, McDaniel announced that he desired time to study the legal effect of the petition and that the meeting must be adjourned, and it was. Thereafter Rose attempted to have further meetings scheduled. McDaniel however refused to agree to this. It is the position of the Respondent that upon learning that a majority of its employees no longer desired the Union as their representative, it was incumbent upon it to cease bargaining with the Union and to refuse to bargain with any group until directed to do so by some authority. On January 16 or, as Manager Fuller in his testimony later placed it, January 26, the Respondent met with the proponents of the antiunion petition and told them that it intended granting an immediate wage increase with back pay from the pay period ending September 28, 1953. Fuller said that the wages of male employees would be raised to $1 35 an hour. Jose Guillen, a member of the employee com- mittee in attendance, asserted that other employers in the Ventura area about 10 miles away were paying their male help $1.40 an hour. Fuller, he testified, verified this assertion by means of a telephone call and immediately agreed that the wage rise would be to $1.40. On January 27 back-pay checks were distributed to all employees On April 24 a further wage increase of 10 cents per hour was given to all employees. On neither occasion was the Union consulted in the matter and on the two occasions mentioned when bargaining meetings occurred, wages were not a subject of discussion. The Union's mimeographed proposal included a suggested wage scale The Respondent argues that it raised wages merely to preserve its competitive position in the labor market and to correct inequities which became apparent after certain changes in its method of operation were made in July 1953 I consider the reason for making the wage increase in the circumstances outlined to be immaterial. If the Union was entitled to be consulted in the matter and to have an opportunity to bargain about it, the reasons advanced by the Respondent for granting the increase would not absolve it of such a duty. If on the other hand the Respondent was under no obligation to meet with the Union on the question, its reasons for granting the increase in this context can hardly be a matter of interest. First for consideration is the validity of the Board's certification-year ruling. The Board has consistently held, with the approval of the great weight of court decisions, that a certified union's majority status in the absence of unusual circumstances is conclusively presumed to continue for 1 year following certification. Mere repudia- tion of a certified representative and affiliation with another organization do not 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD constitute such circumstances.' I find therefore that by the refusal of the Respondent further to bargain with the Union after January 14, 1954, and within the certifica- tion year, the Respondent failed in its duty to recognize and deal with the Union and thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. The Respondent asserts that it did not bargain with or extend any sort of recogni- tion to the employee committee which circulated and sponsored the antiunion peti- tion. The admissions of Fuller in his testimony demonstrate that the contrary is true. By discussing the amount of the wage increase on January 16 or January 26, by listening to the reason given by Guillen why the wage rise should be greater, and by acceding to it, Respondent engaged in bargaining in its simplest form. By the refusal to bargain with the Union and by the bargaining, limited though it was, with the employee committee, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In the spring and early summer of 1954 meetings were held by the Union to consider the question of affiliation with United Packinghouse Workers of America. The local group in Oxnard to which Respondent's employees were attached voted in favor of the new affiliation. As of July 1, 1954, the name of the Union became United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO. There is not the slightest evidence that any remnant of the Union under its prior name remains. There was no schism and nothing more happened than a change of affiliation.2 I find no merit in Respondent's contention that the Charging Union here has dissolved or disappeared. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, occurring in connection with its conduct described in section III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which I find will serve to effectuate the policies and pur- poses of the Act As the Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, the majority representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and as the Union under its present affiliation is the same organization as that cer- tified on November 13, 1953, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered upon request of the Union to bargain with it Having found that the failure to assign Jewel Luttrell to work on the grader after September 14, 1953, derived from a discriminatory motivation, it will be recom- mended that the Respondent cease and desist from such practice and make Luttrell whole for any loss of wages she may have suffered as a result. The transfer to the wet belt is not alleged to have been unlawful and is not so found. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Workers Union, LIU #78, CIO, and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO, are and were at all times material herein labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees, excluding all clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Workers Union, LIU #78, CIO, at all times since November 13, 1953, that it has been known by that name has been, and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO, now is the exclusive represent- ative of all employees of the Respondent in the appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 1 Genesee Foundry Company, Incorporated, 109 NLRB 1253 See also N L R B V. .Ray Brooks, 204 F. 2d 899 (C A 9) cert granted 347 U. S. 916 Contra • Mid-Continent Petroleum Coip V N. L R B, 204 F 2d 613 (C A. 6) cert denied 346 U S 856 In the first case cited the Board in reaffirming the piinciple first outlined, states its purpose to adhere to the certification-year ruling until the Supreme Couit of the United States decides the issue 2 Cf Sears Roebuck d Company, 110 NLRB 226 SOMIS LEMON ASSOCIATION 109 4. By refusing to bargain with the Union under its former and present name, by negotiating with an employee committee concerning wages , and by unilaterally making wage increases , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By refusing to assign Jewel Luttrell to work on the grader subsequent to September 14, 1953, because of her activity in support of the Union , the Re- spondent has discouraged membership in and activity in behalf of such organiza- tions and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 6. By the refusal to bargain, by the discrimination in regard to Jewel Luttrell, and by threatening its employees with loss of earnings , promotion, and employ- ment because of their interest in the Union, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment and if an understanding is reached we will embody it in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is All production and maintenance employees , excluding all clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL make Jewel Luttrell whole for any loss of earnings she has suffered by our refusal to assign her to work on the grader. WE WILL NOT by unilateral action on wages, by threats, by dealing with an employee committee , or by discriminating in work assignments , or in any other 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 United Packinghouse Workers of America , Local 78, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. SANTA CLARA LEMON ASSOCIATION, Employer. Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Somis Lemon Association and United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Workers Union, LIU #78, CIO. Case No. d1-CA-1913. April 13,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On November 19, 1954, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 112 NLRB No. 18.