Falarski Sausage Co.

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director is instructed to issue the appropriate certification or certifica- tions as directed by the outcome of the elections.' [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] e Member Fanning agrees with the majority's finding that a unit of all lithographic production employees , is appropriate for, purposes of collective bargaining . However, he does not agree with the majority's decision to certify such a unit only if the Petitioner achieves majorities in both the camera department and offset pressmen voting groups. In accordance with views he has expressed in other recent cases, he would pool the votes of the camera department employees and offset pressmen in the event they reject the unions which have represented them in the past, for such rejection makes the overall unit appropriate and the Petitioner would be entitled to certification if it obtains a majority of all the votes in that unit . Waikiki Biltmore, Inc., 127 NLRB 82; Cook Paint and Varnish Company, 127 NLRB 1098; Star Union Products Company, 127 NLRB 1173. Falarski Sausage Company and Sausage Makers Local #102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-502. August 9, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On April 15, 1960, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley 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 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in conjunction with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings," conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's conduct toward Mueller and Urbanski, was discriminatorily motivated because of their activities on behalf of the Charging Union, but conclude that they were discriminatorily denied reemployment rather than dis- criminatorily terminated. We make this distinction because of the indefinite employment status of both Mueller and Urbanski. Mueller had been off work from May 12 through July 20, 1959, for an opera- tion, while Urbanski had ceased work on May 20, 1959, because of 'In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's implied con- clusion that the Respondent did not violate section 8 (a) (4) of the Act. 128 NLRB No. 71. FALARSKI SAUSAGE COMPANY 507 pregnancy. The Respondent had no formal leave policy but normally reemployed such individuals if their job or other work was available 2 We conclude that the Respondent deviated from its normal policy when it refused to consider Mueller and Urbanski for reemployment and, for the reasons relied on by the Trial Examiner, that such re- fusal was discriminatorily motivated. With respect to Mueller, we find that she was discriminatorily denied reemployment on July 24, 1959, when, after previously being told work would soon be available, she was told without explanation to go on "unemployment." Urban- ski was discriminatorily denied consideration for reemployment on August '27, 1959, when she appeared as a union observer at the repre- sentation election held on the premises of the Respondent, her vote was challenged by the Respondent, and she was informed that she would not be reemployed. THE REMEDY We have found that Mueller and Urbanski were discriminated against by being denied consideration for reemployment, but it is not wholly clear from the record when, following the discrimination against them, jobs became available for which they were qualified. Moreover, because of her pregnancy, Urbanski did not become avail- able for employment until about the middle of October 1959. In these circumstances we shall order the Respondent to offer Mueller immediate employment if her former or substantially equivalent posi- tion 9 became available at any time after July 24, 1959, and to offer Urbanski immediate employment if such a position became available at any time after she became available for employment. If such a position did become available, Mueller or Urbanski, or both, as the case may be, shall be entitled to backpay, computed in accord with the Board's customary formula,4 from the date such position became avail- able to the date of Respondent's offer of employment. In the event such employment has not become available, Mueller or Urbanski, or both, as the case may be, are to be placed on a preferential hiring list and to be employed as work for which they are qualified becomes available, before other persons are hired for such work. The dates such jobs became available, the date Urbanski became available for employment, and the amounts of backpay are to be determined in com- pliance proceedings. As discrimination against employees goes to the very heart of the Act and reflects a purpose, by unlawful means, likely to be executed in the future to thwart freedom of choice by employees as to union 2It appears that if their former jobs had been filled , it was Respondent's policy to consider such former employees for employment in other available jobs. 3 In Mueller's case, the record discloses that she was an employee of some 14 years' standing with skills in several job categories and had been utilized in various places throughout the plant, including the packing room, when the workload so warranted. &F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representation,-' we shall, in order that the preventive purpose of our Order may be coextensive with the threat of future violations, order that the Respondent cease from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 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, Falarski Sausage Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Sausage Makers Local #102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in re- gard to its employees' hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Sausage Makers Local #102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer Elsie Mueller and Lois Urbanski immediate employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions if such positions became available and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, or, if such positions have not become available, place them on a preferential hiring list, and employ them as work for which they are qualified be- comes available before other persons are hired for such work, all in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision and Order entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security 5 N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4). FALARSKI SAUSAGE COMPANY 509 payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amounts of backpay due and the rights to employment under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its place of business in the vicinity of Grand Rapids, Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of such notice, to be supplied by the National Labor Relations Board's Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, upon being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respon- dent has taken to comply therewith. IT Is HEREBY Fu1THEE OR.DEIED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. OIn 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 the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage- ment Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Sausage Makers Local #102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by dis- criminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Sausage Makers Local #102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec- tion 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer to Elsie Mueller and Lois Urbanski immediate employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions, if such positions have become available; otherwise we will place them on a preferential hiring list. WE WILL make whole Elsie Mueller and Lois Urbanski for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against them. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be- coming or remaining members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. FALARSKI SAUSAGE COMPANY, 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in Grand Rapids, Michigan , on February 8, 1960. The issues litigated were whether Elsie Mueller was discharged, laid off, and/or terminated by Falarski Sausage Company (Respondent herein ) in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), and whether Lois Urbanski was discharged , laid off, and/or terminated by Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4 ) of the Act. After the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs which the Trial Examiner has considered. Upon the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent maintains its principal office and place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where it engages in the manufacture and sale of meat products . During the calendar year 1959, Respondent received from points and places outside of Michigan materials valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 'H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Sausage Makers Local # 102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Butchers Union ), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. FALARSKI SAUSAGE COMPANY 511 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues Elsie Mueller was off duty from May 12 until July 24, 1959, for an operation. When she attempted to go back to work she was told that her services were no longer needed. Respondent contends that this was the third successive year in which Mueller had been off duty during the busy season, that during the last such absence Respondent installed a machine which took over 60 percent of the job Mueller pre- viously performed, and that Mueller was not taken back because her services were no longer needed and there was no place for her. The General Counsel contends that Respondent refused to take Mueller back because she identified herself with the Butchers Union's organizing efforts. Lois Urbanski was married on October 12, 1957, to another employee of Re- spondent and continued to work for Respondent until May 20, 1959, when she stopped work because of her pregnancy. At an election conducted among certain employees of Respondent on August 27, 1959,i Urbanski was informed that she was no longer employed by Respondent. Respondent contends that it has a policy of not permitting husband and wife to b eemployed at the same time, that Urbanski was employed contrary to this policy until such time as an opportunity presented itself to dispense with her services gracefully, and that such an opportunity was presented by the election during the time Urbanski was off duty due to pregnancy. Respondent also contends that "there was no job" for Urbanski when she was ready to return to work. However, this appears to be an "afterthought" toward which Respondent now reaches to evade the legal import of its action. It was not advanced at the time Urbanski was told she was no longer employed by Respondent and the evidence adduced is insufficient to support any such contention. The General Counsel disputes Respondent's contention that Urbanski's services were terminated in furtherance of a policy of not permitting husband and wife to be employed at the same time and asserts that Urbanski was terminated because she was active in sup- porting the Butchers Union's organizing drive and because she appeared as a witness for the Butchers Union in the representation hearing culminating in the election heretofore mentioned (see Case No. 7-RC-4073, unpublished). B. The facts 2 During the early part of August 1958, Doris Buist, a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,3 approached a group of packing room workers and told them "the Butchers Union had approached Falarski" and she was going to take a vote to see how many wanted a union. Buist then conducted an election in which the employees voted nine to five in favor of a union. Buist then informed the employees that the five votes against unionization "could make it rough for" the Butchers Union and suggested an independent union to keep out the Butchers Union with "their high dues." A few days later Milo Flyfield, an individual not employed by Respondent who engaged in organizing efforts on behalf of an unaffiliated union, came into Respondent's plant and with the aid of Buist obtained signatures from employees signifying their interest in forming an independent (unaffiliated) union. Shortly thereafter Falarski's Consolidated Employees Union came into existence and was accorded recognition and a contract by Respondent. On or about September 23, 1958, an election was conducted 4 under the auspices of the Michigan Mediation Board in which the employees of Respondent were i See Case No. 7-RC-4073 (unpublished) 2The charge in this matter was filed on September 1, 1959. Accordingly, the 10(b) date governing in this case is March 1, 1959 However, evidence of conduct which occurred prior to the statutory 6-month period was received at the hearing in this matter, and is included in this summary of the facts as background to evaluate Respondent's conduct within the 6-month period (see Mt. Clemens Metal Products Company, 126 NLRB 1297). 8 There is a dispute herein as to whether Buist is a supervisor but the evidence ad- duced clearly reveals that she is and the Trial Examiner so finds. Buist is supervisor over the packing room employees and as such instructs and responsibly directs a staff of 10 or more employees. She also handles grievances on behalf of management. She receives a distinguishing higher rate of pay. 4 The record also reflects November 23, 1958, as the date of this election but in the light of probability (November 23, 1958, was a Sunday) and on the entire record herein the Trial Examiner finds the correct date to be September 23. 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD given a choice of the Butchers Union, the recently formed independent union, or no union. The day preceding this election, Leo Falarski 5 instructed Elsie Mueller to vote for the recently formed independent union and told her that in the event the Butchers Union won the election he would "close the damn place up. I cannot go along with them." During the morning of September 23, 1958, and prior to the election, Leo Falarski criticized Lois Urbanski for her activity on behalf of the Butchers Union and "all this union trouble." Near the time set for the closing of the polls on September 23, 1958, a heated discussion ensued between the'Falarski brothers on one side and Louis Daniels (International representative for the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO) on the other side as to whether the polls should be kept open beyond the estab- lished closing time. This discussion ended when one of the Falarski brothers directed a filthy remark at Daniels and threatened him with physical harm and Daniels left the premises rather than engage in scuffling. While on vacation during 1958, Lois Urbanski was elected steward for the re- cently formed independent union. On or about November 17, 1958, Urbanski attempted to process a grievance and was told by Respondent's plant foreman, in vulgar language, that if she did not stop her aggressiveness on behalf of the independent union she "would be out in the street looking for another job." Under similar circumstances in December 1958, Urbanski was again criticized for processing a grievance, was given a written "warning" not to create "trouble among employees without due cause," and was told by Leo Falarski that the Falarski brothers wished she would "find a job some place else." At a meeting of the independent union held on February 28, 1959, the mem- bers present voted to disband the independent union and to affiliate with the Butchers Union. About 3 weeks later 6 a committee composed of Elsie Mueller, Lois Urbanski, and Lois Urbanski's husband (Eugene Urbanski) sought recogni- tion (from the three Falarski brothers) as the bargaining agent on behalf of the Butchers Union. At this meeting Jerome Falarski expressed surprise and disap- pointment at the presence of Mueller 7 and Leo Falarski told the committee that Respondent would close "the damn place up" before it would deal with the Butchers Union or Daniels, the Butchers Union representative 8 On May 13, 1959, a surgical operation was performed upon Elsie Mueller. She had obtained a leave of absence from Respondent for this purpose. On or about June 15, 1959, Mueller called upon Jerome Falarski and told him she would not be able to come back to work for another month. Jerome Falarski told her "don't worry. We are not busy. Take it easy and don't worry." On or about July 16, 1959, Elsie Mueller told Jerome Falarski she was released from the doctor and was able to come back to work on Monday, July 20, 1959. Falarski responded "everything is ready and we are waiting for you Monday." The next day (July 17, 1959) Jerome Falarski told Mueller that he had talked the matter "over with the boys [Leo and John Falarski] and we decided you better lay low for one week" because "work was slack." Mueller responded, "Okay, Jerome, I will see you the week after [next]." Between July 17 and 24, 1959, Mueller com- plained to John Falarski about the delay in returning her to work and was told by John Falarski that Respondent "was not too busy right now" but the work was "picking" up and that she would be back to work soon. On Friday July 24, 1959, Sandra Erickson, Respondent's office girl, telephoned Elsie Mueller and told her Jerome Falarski had left a message that she (Mueller) should "apply for unem- ployment." When Mueller began to protest this action, Erickson "hung up." rFor the most part Respondent's business is a family enterprise conducted by three brothers-Leo, John, and Jerome Falarski. The principal officers in the corporation are president, vice president, and treasurer, and these brothers take turns filling these positions serving therein for 2 years each term. 6After the 10(b) date governing in this matter. 7 Prior to this date (during the latter part of 1958), Mueller and John Falarski (the Falarskis and the Muellers had been close friends for many years) discussed recognition at Respondent's place of business and at that time Mueller stated that she "wanted no part of any labor union" The attitude toward Mueller became less cordial after Re- spondent became aware of her activity on behalf of the Butchers Union. 8 Respondent contends that its reason for not wanting to deal with Daniels was because of antipathy or resentment against him for personal conduct and not because of anti- union bias. The evidence adduced does not warrant such a finding. To the contrary, the evidence adduced reveals that Respondent resented Daniels because of his activity on behalf of the Butchers Union. FALARSKI SAUSAGE COMPANY 513 The next contact between Mueller and Respondent's officials occurred on the day of the National Labor Relations Board election (August 27, 1959). In May 1959, Lois Urbanski was in an advanced state of pregnancy. A week or two before May 20, 1959, Urbanski asked Leo Falarski how long after having the baby she would have to wait before coming back to work and Leo Falarski told her he could not give her a definite answer, it depended upon the individual, and that some people needed more time than others. On May 20, 1959, the date that Urbanski last worked for Respondent, Urbanski conferred with Foreman Steve Kraut and told him "I will let you know a week before I am coming back, so you can make arrangements" and Kraut said "all right." Respondent did not have a policy or custom of guaranteeing employment to pregnant employees after child- birth but did have a policy or custom of according them employment after such event if work was available when they sought to return. On June 8, 1959, the National Labor Relations Board held a hearing which resulted in a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 7-RC-4073. Urbanski testified for the Butchers Union in this hearing. Pursuant to the aforementioned Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 7-RC-4073, an election was conducted among employees of Respondent on August 27, 1959, at which Urbanski appeared as an observer for the Butchers Union. At this election Respondent challenged the votes of Elsie Mueller and Lois Urbanski on the grounds that they were no longer employees of Respondent. When Elsie Mueller appeared at the polling place her vote was challenged by the observer for Respondent. Mueller went to Leo Falarski immediately and asked for an explanation, complaining that she was only temporarily laid off due to lack of work. Leo Falarski told her that that was only "part of it" and that Respondent resented her being "off the last 3 years in August when we needed you the most" and informed her that she was permanently laid off. Mueller protested, pointing out that her absences had been with Respondent's permission and no dissatisfaction had been expressed previously, but her protest went unheeded. In 1957, Mueller was granted a leave of absence from August 7 to September 27, during which time a major surgical operation was performed upon her. In 1958, she was granted a leave of absence from July 7 to September 6 to visit her native country-Germany. As noted above, in May 1959 she was granted a leave of absence to have another surgical operation. Leo Falarski's comments at the time of the election was the first indica- tion that Mueller received that Respondent resented her absences and that she was laid off permanently. While Mueller was on leave of absence during 1959, Respondent installed a ma- chine which resulted in elimination of about 25 percent of the duties which Mueller previously performed.9 However, the installation of this machine and the resulting savings, which were significant, were not mentioned to Mueller either when she at- tempted to return to work after her operation or at the time she was informed she was no longer an employee of Respondent. When Lois Urbanski discovered that her name was not on the eligibility list of voters she asked Leo Falarski why and was told that she was no longer an employee of Respondent. Urbanski responded that that was the first time she had heard she was no longer an employee and asked for an explanation. Leo Falarski then told her that in accordance with Respondent's policy of not permitting husband and wife to be employed at the same time, she was no longer an employee of Respondent. Urbanski protested that she had never heard of such a policy and Leo Falarski answered, "I can't help it; you heard it now." Urbanski's child was born September 5, 1959. She did not thereafter seek to work for Respondent since she believed such efforts would have been futile. At the hearing in this matter considerable evidence was received bearing upon the issue of whether Respondent has a policy of not permitting husband and wife to be employed at the same time. The evidence tending to establish such a policy is general in nature and not very convincing. There is no written matter on this sub- ject and there was never an announcement of such a policy. Conclusions As noted above, the installation of the machine was not advanced to Mueller as a reason for her termination and her absences were with Respondent's permission and were without objection until it was important to Respondent to rid itself of a IThere is a dispute herein as to whether 25 percent or 60 percent of Mueller's duties were eliminated. In the light of the entire record, and from observations of witnesses, the Trial Examiner credits Mueller and finds it was 25 percent. 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD known union adherent. Furthermore, it is not clear from the record herein whether Mueller's absences were during busy or slack periods and in either situation her absences were excused and even encouraged. In this light and in the light of Re- spondent's antiunion and anti-Butchers Union attitude, the Trial Examiner is not convinced that Mueller was terminated for the reasons asserted by Respondent. To the contrary, the Trial Examiner believes, finds, and concludes that these are mere pretexts to conceal Respondent's true motive. From the aforementioned facts it is apparent that Respondent resented any union aggressiveness and resented activity on behalf of the Butchers Union. Furthermore, Respondent signified its disap- proval of Mueller's membership on the Butchers Union's committee and im- mediately upon becoming aware of this activity changed its attitude toward Mueller although it did not take action to sever her employment until it became important to reduce the Butchers Union's likelihood of becoming the bargaining agent. When that likelihood became imminent, Mueller's employment (and the employment of another member of the Butchers Union's three-member committee) was terminated for reasons which do not withstand analysis. In the light of the foregoing, an in- ference is warranted, and is now made, that Respondent capitalized upon the op- portunity afforded by Mueller's leave of absence and the National Labor Relations Board election to rid itself of an active member of the Butchers Union and thereby reduced the likelihood of the Butchers Union becoming the bargaining agent for its employees. A similar situation prevails with respect to Urbanski. The Trial Examiner is not persuaded that Respondent has a policy of not per- mitting husband and wife to be employed at the same time but, assuming such a policy, the Trial Examiner is not convinced that the termination of Urbanski was based upon such a policy. The fact that Urbanski and her husband were employed for almost 2 years after their marriage, during which time they took joint vacations without mention being made of such policy negates Respondent's contention that it was awaiting an opportune time to effectuate such a policy. The fact that such a policy was not mentioned to Urbanski until after she became active an behalf of the Butchers Union, in the light of Respondent's antiunion and anti-Butchers Union attitude (outlined above), infers that Respondent's reliance upon any such policy is a pretext to conceal the real motive-the termination of a Butchers Union protagonist. In summary, the Trial Examiner believes, finds, and concludes that the evidence establishes that these terminations were for the purpose of undermining the Union and stemming the tide of its organizational campaign and that the reasons assigned for these terminations were pretexts to conceal this purpose. Ultimate Findings and Conclusions In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes: 1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board's requirements for the assertion of jurisdiction herein. 2. Sausage Makers Local #102, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work- men of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent, by discriminating in regard to tenure and conditions of employment and discouraging membership in a labor organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Industrial Rayon Corporation and District 50, United Mine Workers of America. Case No. 5-CA-1686. August 9, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed on April 4, 1960, and amended on April 12, 1960, by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called 128 NLRB No. 67.