Fruit Industries, Inc.

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fruit Industries, Inc.-and International Union of United, Brew- ery, Flour;' Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers, of Amer- ica, CIO.' Case No. 10-CA-2321. October,18, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On August 30, 1955, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair,labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take, certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent which, al- though it had been served with the charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing, had neither filed an answer nor appeared at the hearing, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed., The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER . ' Upon the entire record in this 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, Fruit Industries, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: . 1. Cease and desist from : Ja) Threatening to close its plant and discharge its employee be- cause of their membership in or activities on behalf of International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink &, ,Dist}lery Workers of America, CIO, `engaging in surveillance of union meetings attended by its employees, and interrogating its employees`coi cerr}ing their membership in and activities on behalf of that labor organiza- tion. (b) In. any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to 1joi]R or assist International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft 1 The Respondent contends that, no copy of the charge was served upon it, and that the complaint is defective because the discharge of pan employee, alleged as a violation of Section 8 (a) (3) in the charge, was not included in the complaint. We reject these contentions The record shows, as the Trial Examiner found, that a copy of the charge was properly served upon the Respondent. With respect to the Respondent's second contention, the charge-did allege that the Respondent had by its conduct violated Section 8 (a) (1). There is no requirement that a charge specify each incident allegedly violative of Section 8 (a) (1)., 1 114 NLRB No. 89. FRUIT'INDUSTRIES;'INC. ' , R ". 517. Drink &,Distillery Workers of'America;:CIO, or any other, labor or-' ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their, own' choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreementrequiring membership in a labor organization as a condition, of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)of the Act. 2. Take'the following affirmative action which the Board'finds will , effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant at Bradenton, Florida, copies of the notice at- tached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of at least 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 al- tered, -defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within ten. (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken-to comply herewith., I ' , 1, 2 This notice is amended by substituting , for the' words "The Recommendations, oft a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted 'for- the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of thp. United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE.CASE Upon a charge filed by International Union of United Brewery, Flour , Cereal,' Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel by the Regional Director for the, Tenth Region (Atlanta, ,Georgia'), of the;,National Labor Relations Board herein called the Board , issued his, com- plaint dated July 11, 1955, against Fruit Industries, Inc., herein called the Re spondgnt, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaged in unfair . labor practices affecting, commerce within the meaning. of Section 8 (a) (1), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61'Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charge together with notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent engaged in certain acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. The Respondent did not file an answer. Pursuant to notice a'hearing was held on August 16 , 1955, at Bradenton, Florida, before the duly designated Trial Examiner.; The General Counsel was represented by counsel and the Union was represented by its agent. The Respondent did not' appear. The General Counsel moved that the facts be "found as alleged 'in the complaint, for failure of. the . Respondent- to answer, as provided in Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , and rested his case. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling at the 'hearing. 'Although afforded an opportunity, none of'the parties submitted briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law: 518 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Counsel's motion is hereby granted and all allegations of the complaint- are deemed to be true and are so found.' Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Florida corporation with its principal office and place of busi- ness at Bradentun, Florida, is engaged in the business of processing concentrated fruit juices and fruit sections. During the past 12 months, which is a representative period, the Respondent sold and shipped products of a value in excess of $4,000,000 to points outside the State of Florida. It is found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference, Restraint, and Coercion It is found as alleged in the complaint that the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act: (1) On or about April 27 and 28, and May 6, 11, and 12, 1955, the Respondent by its supervisor, Maude Myers, threatened its employees that it would close its plant and that they would be discharged because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union. (2) On or about May 10, 1955, the Respondent by its duly authorized agent and representative, David Hamrick, threatened its employees that it would close its plant because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union. (3) On or about May 26, 1955, the Respondent through its supervisors, C. L. Whitehurst and Vernon Rowe, and during April and May 1955, through its super- visor, Maude Myers, engaged in surveillance of union meetings which were attended by its employees. (4) On or about April 28, 1955, and at other times during the month, the Re- spondent by its supervisor, Maude Myers, interrogated its employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent in section I, 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 interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by the conduct enumerated above which shows a determination to pre- vent self-organization by its employees, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from this conduct or in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and also take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing< findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of United, Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Dis- tillery Workers of America, CIO, is. a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By threatening to close its plant and discharge its employees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union, by engaging in surveillance- IN. L. R. B v Modern Optics, 201 F. 2d 513 (C. A 5) ; Local 170, International- Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, APL, et al., 110 NLRB 850. FRANKLIN SQUARE. LUMBER CO. 519 ,of union meetings attended by its employees,' and by interrogating its employees •concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. - 3. 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 Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant and discharge our employees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organization, engage in surveillance of union meetings attended by our employees, or question our employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of a labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representative of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author- ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become. or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. FRUIT INDUSTRIES, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Richard T. Baylis, et al. co-partners d/b/a Franklin Square Lum- ber Co.,' Petitioner and Local 1205, affiliated with the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL and Local 719, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL., Case No. 2-RM-691. October 18, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Abraham Lehman, hearing officer. , The hearing officer's. rulings made 'at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended. 114 NLRB No. 87.