Shreveport Packing Corp.

SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1255 to do was to continue its long existing relationship in the transportation division with Wanzer. The Trial Examiner consequently can find no illegal object involved here. Accordingly the Trial Examiner recommends that the complaint herein be dis- missed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Milk Drivers' Union, Local 753, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , and Peter Smith, its agent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Pure Milk Association and Sidney Wanzer Sons, Inc., are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. 3. Neither Respondent Union nor Respondent Smith have engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommends that the complaint in the instant matter be dis- missed in its entirety. Shreveport Packing Corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cut- ters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181. Case No. 15-CA-2120. April 11, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On February 7, 1963, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone 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 attached Inter- mediate Report. He further found that the Respondent had not en- gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, both the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and supporting briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Rodgers 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 briefs,2 and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations' of the Trial Examiner, except as noted herein. 'The Respondent's motion to "correct" a certain portion of the record testimony is denied. We cannot conclude that the testimony as it appears in the record does not accu- rately reflect the testimony of the witness 2 The Trial Examiner concluded that L. E. Mowry, Jr., was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt this finding pro forma. 8 Member Rodgers, for the reasons set forth In his dissenting opinion in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716, would not require the payment of interest on the backpay award provided for herein. 141 NLRB No. 114. 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.4 ' The notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix" Is hereby modified to read as follows: NOTE -We will notify George Robinson if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and amended charges filed on July 12 and 19 and August 30, 1962, respectively , by Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans , Louisiana), issued his complaint dated August 31, 1962, against Shreveport Packing Corporation , herein called the Respondent. In sub- stance the complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, and that such conduct affected and was affecting com- merce as set forth in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's answer ad- mits many of the facts pleaded in the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone at Shreveport , Louisiana , on October 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1962. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing , and were afforded the right to present evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to offer oral arguments, and to file briefs . On December 17, 1962, briefs from the General Counsel and Respondent were received and have been considered. Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: i FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Based upon the pleadings it is found that Shreveport Packing Corporation is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a Louisiana corporation engaged in the slaughter, sale, and distribution of meats and related products. Respondent, during a representative 12-month period, in the course and con- duct of his business operations described above, purchases cattle valued in excess of $50,000 which are shipped to its Shreveport, Louisiana, plant from points out- side the State of Louisiana. During a typical 12-month period Respondent sells and ships hides valued in excess of $50,000 to customers outside the State of Louisiana I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is found that Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The setting The Union filed with the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board on June 22, 1962, a petition for determination of a question concerning representa- tion of the employees of Respondent. The Respondent acquired knowledge of 'All ciedibility resolutions are based in whole or In part upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses. SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1257 this petition on or about June 25, 1962 2 Events subsequent to this date give rise to this action. The principal issues raised by the pleadings and litigated are in essence whether the Respondent : ( 1) interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by (a) interrogating employees , (b) threatening employees with reprisals, (c) authorizing and circulating an antiunion petition on company time , (d) engaging in surveillance , (e) reducing the hours of employ- ment of certain employees , and (f) discharging two employees , Augusta Newson, Sr., 3 and George Robinson , and (2 ) discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act by (a) reducing the hours of employment of certain em- ployees, and (b) by discharging two employees-Augusta Newson, Sr., and George Robinson. There were also issues as to L. E. Mowry, Jr. 's status as a supervisor, and to Andy Loftus' status as an agent of the Respondent. B. The conduct of Supervisors L. E. Mowry, Sr., and Charles Reid 1. The conduct of Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr. The General Counsel alleged that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr.,4 in the latter part of June and early part of July 1962: (a) orally interrogated employees as to their union memberships, desires, and activities; (b) threatened employees with loss of employment by stating that Mr. Cowley would close the plant in the event the Union was successful in its organizing activities; and (c) authorized, condoned, and ratified the preparation and circulation of a petition on company time and premises denouncing the Union and representation by the Union and urged employees to sign the petition. The Respondent's answer denied these allegations. The General Counsel introduced evidence in support of these allegations through testimony by witnesses William Jones, Jr,5 Alton Jones, Lois King, and Walter Murray. Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., testified in this proceeding but not as to the issues raised by these allegations. a. Interrogation I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Lois King to the effect that on July 9, 1962, in the sausage kitchen at the plant, Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., asked her if she knew anything about the Union, and after her reply that she did not, asked her if she were sure that she did not known anything about the Union. King further credibly testified to the effect that on July 13,6 in the boilerhouse, Super- visor L. E. Mowry, Sr , asked her, "How does it feel to look up in the face of a man you lied to?" and that she had told him that it did not bother her. Walter Murray credibly testified to the effect that a day or two after July 4, 1962, Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., asked him about the Union. I find that the foregoing interrogation of employees King and Murray by Super- visor L. E. Mowry, Sr , under the circumstances described, constituted interference within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 7 b. Threats, authorization, condonation, and ratification of antiunion petition The uncontradicted credited testimony of William Jones, Jr , and Alton Jones was to the effect that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., spoke to them and four other employees and told them that Mr. Loftus had a "petition up" to keep the Union out. During the conversation Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., stated in effect that the only thing to do was to keep the Union out because it meant their job and his, that 2 Based upon a stipulation by the parties , and on official notice of the proceeding In Shreveport Packing Corporation, Case No. 15-RC-256 18 (not published in NLRB volumes). 3 Referred to in the complaint and transcript as Newsome-but in the record of garnish- ment as Newson. 4 Based upon the pleadings It is found that L E Mowry, Sr, is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 6 Referred to in the complaint as Willy Jones. "As revealed with reference to the matter of surveillance a union meeting was held on July 12. The witnesses testified that the second conversation with L E Mowry, Sr, occurred on the day after this union meeting. King testified that this interrogation occurred on Monday , before the July 12 union meeting 7 Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp , 139 NLRB 425 1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if the Union got in, Mr. Cowley was going to close the plant down, that he knew it was a penitentiary crime for him to be talking to them, but that he would rather be in jail eating than to be out walking around starving to death; that the employees should go on and sign the petition. Based upon the foregoing credited testimony, I find that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., authorized, condoned, and ratified the circulation of the antiunion petition by Loftus and L. E. Mowry, Jr.,8 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9 I also find, based upon the foregoing credited facts that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., threatened employees that successful support of the Union would result in their losing their jobs and in the closing of the plant. This threat by Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees and constituted a coercive effort to secure the employees' support of the antiunion petition in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.10 2. The conduct of Supervisor Reid The General Counsel alleged that Supervisor Charles Reid 11 in the latter part of June and the early part of July 1962: (a) orally interrogated employees as to their union memberships, activities, and desires; and (b) threatened employees by telling them he was not going to give a raise in pay to any employee he thought was not for the Company and that he was not going to do anything for them. The Respondent's answer denied the foregoing allegations. According to the credited uncontradicted testimony of Dorothy Collins, Super- visor Reed asked her on Monday, June 25, 1962, on the back porch,12 "What is going on around here?" Collins then asked Reid what he was talking about and Reid said, "You know what I am talking about, this damn Union." Reid also told Collins that Mr. Cowley (owner of the Respondent) knew all about it. Lois King in her credited uncontradicted testimony testified to the effect that Supervisor Reid asked her on Monday, June 25, in the sausage kitchen at the plant, if she had heard anything about the Union. Based upon the foregoing credited evidence, I find that the interrogation of em- ployees Collins and King by Supervisor Reid, under the circumstances described, constituted interference with the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.13 The Threat of Deprivation of Pay Raise The General Counsel introduced testimony through witness Washington Starks in support of his allegation relating to Reid's alleged threat that employees who were not for the Company would not be given raises, and that he (Reid) would not do anything for them. Starks testified to the effect that he had asked Reid for a raise and that Supervisor Reid came up to him 14 and related that he would not give raises to employees who were not for the Company, that Mr. Cowley had said that the Company was not giving anybody a raise that was not for the Company. Starks further testified that Reid asked him if he were for the Union and that he replied that he was not and did not know anything about it. Starks testified that later that day Reid told him that he had heard something that he (Starks) had said about the Union and that he was going to "fix" him. Supervisor Reid testified that Starks came to him and asked, "When am I going to get a raise?" and that he (Reid) said, "George, before, when I thought a man was entitled to more money, I could give him a raise, but at the time being our hands is tied, and we can't give no raises. It is a violation of the law." Reid further testified that he told Starks that "At the time being no raises can be give[n], and when it is settled one way or [the] other, the ones that are eligible for an increase in salary like you are a new hand you will be paid a settlement." s See the section entitled "The petition denouncing the Union" for details relating to Loftus' and L. E. Mowry, Jr's activities pertaining thereto, and for the phraseology of the petition. 9 Altamont Shirt Corporation, 131 NLRB 112; Editorial "El Imparoaal" Inc., 92 NLRB 1795. 10 Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., 139 NLRB 425 ; Carolina Mirror Corporation, 123 NLRB 1712; Birmingham Fabricating Company, 140 NLRB 640 "Based upon the pleadings it is found that Charles Reid is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 12 It is not clear whether this was at the plant or at Collins' home. 13 Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., supra. 14 According to Starks it "might have been a couple of weeks after July 4." SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1259 I credit Starks' version of the conversation. Testimony did not produce a denial that Reid questioned Starks as to whether he was for the Union, nor did it produce a denial that he had threatened to "fix" Starks. Furthermore, it is not logical that Reid would have said that the employees would be paid a settlement. Based upon the credited testimony of Starks, I conclude and find that Supervisor Reid's interrogation of Starks constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.15 I further conclude and find that Super- visor Reid's statement to the effect that raises would not be given to employees who were not for the Company, accompanied by his interrogation of the employees' union desires, and followed by his threat to "fix" the employees because of something he had heard the employees had said about the Union, constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.16 C. The conduct of L. E. Mowry, Jr., and Andy Loftus 1. Litigability of L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s status At the hearing Respondent's counsel contended that the question of L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s status as a supervisor could not be relitigated inasmuch as it had been litigated in Shreveport Packing Corporation, Case No. 15-RC-2568, and in the Regional Direc- tor's Decision and Direction of Election L. E. Mowry, Jr., had been found not to be a supervisor. Respondent's counsel in his brief called the above representation case decision to my attention but stated, "We take no position as to whether Section 102.67(f) read in conjunction with Section 102.8 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions precludes a relitigation of L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s status in this proceeding." 17 On August 23, 1962, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 15-RC-2568, finding as follows with respect to the status of L. E. Mowry, Jr. "The assistant superintendent is hourly paid and under the supervision of the superintendent. He performs mechanical mainte- nance work on trucks, welds, and works on the killing floor. He does not have authority to hire, fire, effectively recommend such action, or assign or transfer em- ployees on his own initiative. Directions he might give to other employees consist of orders passed on from the superintendent." The Regional Director further found on the record that the assistant superintendent was not a supervisor. In Leonard Niederriter Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 113, at page 115, footnote 2, the Board stated, "Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the finding in the earlier rep- resentation case (Case No. 6-RC-2390, not published in NLRB volumes) that Schwartz was not a supervisor did not finally and conclusively resolve that issue for the purposes of this case involving alleged violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act." I have found no cases or rules subsequent to the Niederriter case which reveal that the Board has changed its policy with respect to the relitigation of issues previously litigated in a representation decision issued by the Board . I am con- vinced that the Board, by the issuance of the new rule in Section 102.67(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, did not intend to give more binding effect to a Regional Director's decisions than to a decision issued by itself. The Board in the Niederriter case thus distinguishes the difference of the issue of supervisory status for the purposes of the 8(a)(3) and (1) type case as compared to the representation case. Thus, in connection with the phrase "related subsequent 15 Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp , supra. le Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., supra. ' National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8: Sec. 102 8 Party.-The term "party" as used herein shall mean the regional di- rector in whose region the proceeding is pending and any person named or admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party, in any Board proceeding, including, without limitation, any person filing a charge or petition under the act, any person named as respondent, as employer, or as party to a contract in any proceeding under the act, and any labor organization alleged to be dominated, assisted, or supported in violation of section 8(a) (1) or 8(a) (2) of the act ; but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Board or its designated agent from limiting any party to participate in the proceedings to the extent of his interest only. Sec. 102.67(f) The parties may, at any time, waive their right to request review. Failure to request review shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any re- lated subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding. Denial of a request for review shall constitute an affirmance of the regional director's action which shall also preclude relitigating any such issues in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding. 1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practice case" included in rule 102.67(f), I am convinced that the Board did not intend that the issue of supervisory status in an 8(a )(3) and (1) type case would be considered as being an issue in a "related subsequent unfair labor practice case." It is clear, therefore, that the issue of supervisory status in the instant case is not one precluded from litigation inasmuch as it is not an issue in a subsequent related unfair labor practice case. I construe the Board's statement in the Niederriter case to the effect that the finding in the representation case did not "finally and conclusively resolve that issue for the purposes of this case involving alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act," to be distinguishing between the accord given such an issue in a "related subsequent unfair labor practice case" which under Board law would not be relitiga- ble,18 and the accord given such a determination in an unrelated unfair labor prac- tice case. In the latter, if the evidence in the representation case were of a nature that the additional evidence were not persuasive of a different conclusion, the Board would abide by the previous determination. The Board has consistently qualified its restriction on the relitigation of representa- tion case issues in complaint cases by setting forth, in proper cases, such restriction with an accompanying statement to the effect that the relitigation was precluded "unless there is evidence which was newly discovered or unavailable at the time of the representation hearing." 18 The instant case involves evidence as hereinafter in- dicated of L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s authority to discharge and to swap work with his father (admitted supervisor, Superintendent L. E. Mowry, Sr.) and thus an additional reason exists for the permission to litigate L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s supervisory status. In summary then I conclude that the supervisory status of L. E. Mowry, Jr., is litigable because (a) the instant case is unrelated to the representation case within the meaning of Section 102.67(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and under Leonard Niederriter Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 113, the Board permits such litiga- tion , and (b) newly discovered evidence has been adduced at the hearing which was clearly unavailable at the time of the representation hearing 20 The facts relating to the status of L. E. Mowry, Jr., are revealed by the following credited testimony of the witnesses. I so find the facts as hereinafter set out. William Jones, Jr.'s uncontradicted credited testimony was to the effect that he had worked at Respondent's for about 6 years, that he was told by L. E. Mowry, Sr., that he had two bosses (L. E. Mowry, Sr., and L. E. Mowry, Jr.) and would receive his instructions from them, that he received instructions from both L. E. Mowry, Sr., and L. E. Mowry, Jr., that he could ask for time off from either L. E. Mowry, Sr., or L. E. Mowry, Jr., that L. E. Mowry, Jr., had given him time off without prior consultation with anyone else, that L. E. Mowry, Sr., and L. E. Mowry, Jr., repri- manded him for improper work, that either L. E. Mowry, Sr., or L. E. Mowry, Jr., admonished employees to work faster, that L. E. Mowry, Jr., filled out timecards for employees, that L. E. Mowry, Jr., was doing the same type work now as he al- ways had, and that L. E. Mowry, Sr., and L. E. Mowry, Jr., were the only persons who directed his work.21 Charles Green's uncontradicted credited testimony also revealed that L. E. Mowry, Jr., approved employees' timecards, that L. E. Mowry, Jr., was in charge of the employees when L. E. Mowry, Sr., was absent, and that L. E. Mowry, Jr, has been the only supervisor present in L. E. Mowry, Sr.'s absence for a period of time of 8 days, that the only persons who gave him instructions were L. E. Mowry, Sr., and L. E. Mowry, Jr., and that L. E. Mowry, Jr., engaged in the same type of work as he did for only a small part of the time. Alton Ray Jones credibly testified similarly and stated that L. E. Mowry, Jr., had been the sole supervisor for a period of time of 2 weeks during L. E. Mowry, Sr.'s absence 22 is Ken Lee, Inc, 137 NLRB 1642 19 Clark Shoe Company, 88 NLRB 989; Leonard Niederriter Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 113 20 In view of the foregoing I do not deem it material to consider the effect of Section 102 8 and its definition of the Regional Director as a party I would construe, however, that within the meaning of Section 102 67(f) that the Regional Director executing the functions of the General Counsel's authority in an unfair labor practice case is a different party from the Regional Director executing the functions of the Board in representation case matters. 21 William Jones, Jr.'s testimony is substantially corroborated by the uncontradicted credited testimony of John L. Robinson, Charles Green, and Alton Ray Jones to the effect that L E. Mowry, Jr., punched a timeclock as he did The testimony of John L. Robinson, Charles Green, William Jones, Jr, and Alton Ray Jones, in main, was similar to that of William Jones, Jr, as set out To avoid repetition, in main, the corroborative facts have not been repeated The witnesses also testified to the type of work clothes worn by the employees and L. E. Mowry, Jr. There appears to SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1261 L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s credited testimony to the events concerning the discharge of George E. Robinson on July 11 reveals that he made the decision to fire, and did fire George E. Robinson, that he and his father, L. E. Mowry, Sr., swapped Saturday work on occasion. L. E. Mowry, Jr., further credibly testified that L. E. Mowry, Sr.'s lunch hour was from 11 a.m. to 12, and that he (L. E. Mowry, Jr.) went to lunch at 12 noon. Kathryn Cowley's credited testimony revealed that L. E. Mowry, Jr., had signed some termination slips in 1961 and 1962 as foreman for the Respondent. Without additional summation upon the foregoing facts revealed by the credited testimony, and which I have found to constitute the facts, I am convinced that the facts clearly support a finding that L. E. Mowry, Jr., has at all times material to this proceeding possessed and exercised supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. I so conclude and find.23 2. The status of Andy Loftus The General Counsel's complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in certain acts and conduct by its agent, Loftus. The Respondent's answer denied the General Counsel's allegations. The facts previously found reveal that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., told several employees to the effect that Loftus had a petition to keep the Union out, and that they should sign it. At the time that L. E. Mowry, Sr., told the employees about this, he made accompanying threats relating to job security. Various employees went to the "boiler room" on company time to see Andy Loftus and were asked by either him or Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., to sign a petition 24 Loftus received permission from Supervisor Reid to talk to Reid's employees and did so on company time. As later revealed by the credited evidence, Loftus made threats substantially similar in nature to those made by Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr 25 Under the circumstances described, I find that Loftus was an agent for the Respondent for the acts hereinafter attributed to him by the credited evidence.26 3. The petition denouncing the Union The General Counsel 's complaint alleges that the Respondent, by agent Loftus, circulated and solicited and urged employees to sign a petition, on company time and premises, denouncing the Union and representation by the Union, and that super- visor and agent, L. E. Mowry, Jr., authorized, condoned, and ratified the prepara- tion and circulation of the petition. The acts complained of were alleged to have occurred during the latter part of June 1962 and the early part of July 1962. The Respondent's answer denied the allegations. General Counsel's witnesses credibly testified to the effect that during a period of time from several days after June 25, 1962, to a date occurring around July 5, 1962, that employees William Jones, Jr., Alton Jones, Charles Green, John L. Robinson, be no requirement or standards as to the uniform and I see no significance to that factor Nor do I see significance to the testimony alluding to the factor of L E Mowry, Jr 's and L. E Mowry, Sr.'s being of the white race, and of the employees' being of the colored race Their duties and functions constitute the essential criteria. 28 Archer Mills, Inc., 115 NLRB 674 Even were I precluded from a finding that L E Mowry, Jr, was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, on the same facts set forth herein I would find L. E. Mowry, Jr., an agent for the employees inasmuch as the em- ployees had just cause to believe that he was acting for management based on the facts herein described. International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No 35 (Serrick Corp ) v. N L.R.B., 311 U S. 72 At the hearing Respondent requested that I take official notice of the Regional Director's decision in Shreveport Packing Corpo- ration, Case No. 15-RC-2568, wherein L E Mowry, Jr, was found not to be a super- visor. I stated that I would officially notice said decision and transcript of hearing I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing in that matter and have noticed the Regional Director's findings. Even considering the evidence in the representation hearing relating to L E Mowry, Jr.'s status, I am impelled by the more specific nature of the evidence in the instant case revealing indicia of supervisory status to the finding herein that L. E Mowry, Jr., is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act 24 The petition, the substance of which is set out in a later section, pieviously char- acterized as being to keep the Union out. 25 The facts concerning Andy Loftus' status are based on the uncontradicted credited testimony of William Jones, Alton Ray Jones, Charles Reid, and Lois King 2' International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35 (Serrick Corp) v. N.L R,B., 311 U S. 72. 1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Walter Murray, 0. D. Hawkins, Willie Latin, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and Louis Mayhorn were asked in the boilerroom office during working hours by Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., to sign and they refused to sign a petition reading as follows: We, the employees of Shreveport Packing Company, do not wish to negotiate a union at this time. We are satisfied with our present working conditions.27 As previously indicated William Jones, Jr., and Alton Jones testified in effect that they were told by Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., that Loftus had a petition in the boiler- room "to sign up all the men that don't want the Union" and that they wanted them to sign it.28 Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., told the two Joneses to go to the office on the dock 29 As previously noted, L. E. Mowry, Sr., in connection with this conversa- tion, stated that Mr. Cowley would close the plant down if the Union should get in, and made other remarks-previously found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1). Employees William Jones, Jr., and Alton Jones went to the boilerroom office. In the boilerroom office were Andy Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr. Loftus asked the two Joneses if they wanted to sign the petition. William Jones, Jr., stated that he wanted to read the petition, and read it. Both Joneses told Loftus and L. E. Mowry, Jr., that they did not want to sign the petition. Alton Jones told Loftus and L. E. Mowry, Jr., to get some of the older men on the killing floor to sign it and then he would go along. Several days later William Jones, Jr., went back to the boilerroom office and saw Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., and Loftus. L. E. Mowry, Jr., told William Jones, Jr., that he had said that he would sign the petition if he (L. E. Mowry, Jr.) got the majority to sign. William Jones, Jr., asked to see the petition and saw some names on it. He then told L. E. Mowry, Jr., that he was not going to sign. L. E. Mowry, Jr., told William Jones to send Alton Jones in. Alton Jones went in and Loftus told him that he (Jones) had said that he would sign the petition if a majority did 30 Alton Jones looked at the petition and told them that he was not going to sign the petition. Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., then told Alton Jones to leave the office. Charles Green credibly testified that on the day before he went in to the boilerroom to see Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., concerning the petition to keep the Union out, that Loftus and a man named Beaumont had spoken to the employees in the lunchroom and that Loftus and Beaumont had told the employees that they had a petition which they would like for the employees to sign. The next day Green went into the boilerroom office and was told again by Loftus that he had a petition that he would like him to sign. Charles Green told Loftus and L. E. Mowry, Jr., that he would not have anything to do with it Loftus said in effect that an employee was either with us or with the rest of them 31 L. E. Mowry, Jr., asked Green if he were going to sign and Green replied in the negative. L. E. Mowry, Jr., then told Green to go back downstairs. James Lewis' credited testimony to the occasion of Loftus' asking him to sign the petition is revealed in the following excerpts from his testimony: Mr. Lofton asked me was I for the Union or against the Union. I told him I didn't have anything to do with it and he asked me, "If you see anybody on the fence, if you don't push back you will fall off the fence" asked me what would I do. I said, "Nair one." So he asked me to come on out. Q. Did he ask you to do anything while you were in there9 A. No, sir. Q. How do you know he had a petition? A. He had it laying out on the table there. Q'' The facts concerning Loftus', L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s, and Beaumont's conduct relating to the petition denouncing the Union are based on a composite of the credited uncontradicted testimony of witnesses William Jones, Jr., Alton Jones, Charles Green, John L Robinson, Walter Murray, 0 D Hawkins, Willie 'Latin. Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, Louis Mayhorn, and Charles Reid 28 During the period of time June 25 to July 5, 1962. 28 Elsewhere described as the boilerroom in Alton Jones' testimony. 8O The transcript at page 200, line 18, is corrected by substituting the word "Alton" for the words "how could" In accordance with my recollection of the testimony 31 The transcript is corrected at page 167, lines 7 and 8, by substituting the words "was with them or with the rest of them" in place of "would work then or work the rest of them" in accordance with my recollection of the testimony. SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1263 Q. What did he do with it? A. He just picked it up and asked me did I want to sign it, I told him "No, sir." During the same period of time (June 25 through July 5) Loftus received permis- sion from Supervisor Reid to talk to some of Reid's employees at work concerning the previously referred-to petition. The following employees refused to sign the petition at the time that Loftus discussed the matter with them: Lois King, Washing- ton Starks, Pauline Brown,32 Ozell Stader, Lurline Carpenter,33 and Margaret Page. An employee named Beaumont, who on some of the occasions had been with Loftus while Loftus was discussing the petition with employees, asked Nancy Addy to sign the petition and she refused. As to the occasion when Loftus talked to Lois King about the petition she credibly testified as revealed by excerpts from her testimony: I was working in the curing department and Mr. Loftus came up to me and he said, "Any s.o.b. that messes with my money makes me mad" and I told him that no one messed with my money. Q. Did anything else happen during this time? A. Yes, sir. And he explained to me that he had a petition to sign and he said if he got enough names on there he could keep the Union out. Q. Did he say anything else? A. Yes, sir. He said that if the Union came in that Mr. Cowley was going to close the plant down. A. Yes, sir, he told me, he said he needed his job and needed his money too, for his family. I told him I needed mine too, but if I had to sign that petition to keep my job it wasn't worth it. Q. And did you sign the petition? A. No, sir, I did not. I conclude and find that the activities of Andy Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., described above, in connection with the approval of Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., and Supervisor Reid, clearly reveal that the Respondent authorized, condoned, ratified, and circulated the petition as previously described, and that Respondent urged em- ployees to sign the said petition denouncing the Union and representation of the Union and that the Respondent thus violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.34 I also conclude and find that the statement made by Loftus to employee King to the effect that if the Union came in that Mr. Cowley was going to close the plant down constituted a threat to employee job security if they supported the Union, and thus constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The application for employment 35 Shortly after the activities of Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., involved in the circulation of the petition referred to in the preceding paragraphs, Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., while interviewing employees for the alleged purpose of filling out forms similar to an "application for employment" type form, asked employees William Jones, Jr., Charles Green, Alton Jones, and John L. Robinson "if they belonged to the C.I.O." John L. Robinson's credited testimony as to L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s conduct is revealed by the following excerpt from his testimony: Well, Mr. Mowry, Jr., axed was I married, what bills I owed, any relatives, to give him names of any relatives, and asked me was I a member of the C.I.O., I said, "No." He asked was I at the meeting, I said, "Yes." He said, "You are a member," and wrote it down. Charles Green's credited testimony as to L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s conduct is revealed by the following excerpt from his testimony: The complaint was amended to show Pauline Brown as a discriminatee instead of Pauline Howard. 'Apparently the Lurline Harvey referred to in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. 81 Editorial "El Imparciai" Inc., 92 NLRB 1795; Carolina Mirror Corporation, 123 NLRB 1712. 'c The facts relating to the conduct of L. E. Mowry, Jr., as to the "application for em- ployment" are based on a composite of the uncontradicted credited testimony of William Jones, Jr., Charles Green, Alton Ray Jones, and John L. Robinson. 1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD When I went in he told me that he had an application to fill out for the Federal Government and he asked me my name, where I lived, how old I was, what grade in school I got, my wife's name, what grade in school she got, where she lived, how many children I have, who all I owed, and he asked me did I belong to any C.I.O. or club, and I told him, "No, sir." He said, "Wilbert, James Louis and John L. Robinson belonged to the C.I.O. didn't I belong to it." I told him "I didn't know what they belonged to, I didn't belong to it." I conclude and find that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s questioning of employees as to whether they were a member of or belonged to the C.I.O., or whether they had attended meetings,36 in the context of L E. Mowry, Jr.'s other conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1), is clearly violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 37 5. The surveillance On July 12 the Union held a meeting at night at a union hall. As several employees of Respondent left the meeting, they saw L. E. Mowry, Jr., parked in a truck at a street corner across from and within sight of the back door to the union hall. The truck was parked and did not have its lights on. Employees John L. Robinson credibly testified that he got in his car and started to leave and drove to a distance within 12 feet of L. E. Mowry, Jr., and that he saw L. E. Mowry, Jr., in his truck with the lights out. Robinson and the employee with him went back in the union hall and told their fellow employees who were there what they had seen. A few minutes later when the employees came out, L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s truck had been moved to a parking lot adjacent to a drive-in (restaurant) where he was then seen. Considering the foregoing facts in connection with L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s other conduct, previously found to be violative of Section 8(a) (1), and revealing illegal attempts to ascertain employees' union sympathies, I conclude and find that he engaged in surveillance of the union meeting on July 12, 1962, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.38 D. The reduction in hours (men) 39 After employees William Jones, Jr., Louis Mayhorn, Walter Murray, Alton Jones, Charles Green, Willie Latin, John L. Robinson, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and O. D. Hawkins refused to sign the petition denouncing the Union which Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., were attempting to secure signatures to, the Respondent commenced sending said employees and Jessie L. Robinson home at an earlier time than usual. The aforesaid employees who worked in the "killing room," credibly testified that although they were sent home at an earlier time, that employees whose names they had seen on the petition were not sent home earlier as they were. The employees whose names were on the petition were Eddie Smith, Floyd Pearson, Freddie Pearson,40 Joe Hines, Eddie Johnson, Jr., B. F. Mims, Alvin Mims, LaVert Mims, and Louis Foster. The practice of sending the employees who had not signed the petition home earlier continued until around July 17, 1962. William Jones, Jr., was told in effect by L. E. Mowry, Sr., that the reason the employees had been sent home early was ae The Union involved in this proceeding is the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, and it is obvious that reference to C I.O. is a reference to said Union. s'' Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., 139 NLRB 425 28Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 274. The General Counsel argues per- suasively and I concur that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr.'s asking employee King, "How does it feel to look a man in the face that you lied .to?" on the day after the surveillance of the union meeting by L. E. Mowry, Jr., and occurring after L E. Mowry, Sr.'s interro- gation of King about the Union on June 9, to which she had told him in effect that she knew nothing about the Union , also reveals L E. Mowry, Jr.'s conduct on July 12 , 1962, to be that of surveillance . However, I do not find that L. E. Mowry , Jr 's questioning of John L. Robinson as to his attendance at a union meeting, sufficiently identifies the time of the questioning relating to the "application of employment " as being after July 12, 1962, or as being with reference to the union meeting of July 12, 1962. The testimony of Robinson indicates that there was more than one union meeting. ^ The facts relating to the reduction in hours of the men employees are based on a composite of the uncontradicted credited testimony of William Jones, Jr, Louis Mayhorn, Walter Murray, Alton Ray Jones, Charles Green, Willie Latin, John L. Robinson, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and 0. D. Hawkins. 1° Identified by several witnesses as Freddie Pearson, but by Charles Green as Freddie Smith . Green's identification appears to be in error. SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1265 to permit the Company to keep an eye on a smaller number of employees in order to find some employees who were stealing from the Company. After the Respond- ent allegedly found such employees, the reduction in hours for the employees ceased. There were six men who worked in the boning department. Three-William Jones, Jr., Willie Latin, and Charles Green who refused to sign the said petition- were sent home earlier for about a 2-week period, and three employees-Eddie Smith, Floyd Pearson, and Freddie Pearson whose names appeared on the peti- tion-worked as usual. As gleaned from the record there were approximately 20 employees in the killing department. Of these 12 refused to sign the petition against the Union and after this they were sent home at an earlier time until around July 17, 1962. Nine employees whose names appeared on the said petition continued to work longer hours than the ones who did not. The evidence does not reveal whether Jessie Robinson, who was sent home earlier with the employees who did not sign the said petition, signed or did not sign the said petition 41 Nor does the evidence reveal whether Wilbert Akron or Leroy Carter signed or did not sign the said petition. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent discriminatorily selected the employees who were sent home. The facts previously set forth reveals that of the number of employees who refused to sign the petition that an overwhelming majority of said employees were selected to be sent home earlier than normal, resulting in a reduction of their work hours, whereas of the number of employees whose names appeared on the said petition an overwhelming majority of such employees continued to work as they normally did. Considering the above facts in connection with Respondent's threats relating to employees' job security made during the handling of the petition denouncing the Union, I conclude and find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent discriminatorily, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, reduced the hours of employment of employees William Jones, Jr., Louis Mayhorn, Walter Murray, Alton Jones, Charles Green, Willie Latin, John L. Robinson, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and O. D. Haw- kins because they had refused to sign a petition denouncing their interest in the Union.42 E. The reduction in hours (women) On the week of July 25, 1962, several weeks after Loftus had contacted the employees in Supervisor Reid's department and employees Lois King, Pauline Brown, Ozell Stader, Lurlene Carpenter, and Margaret Page had refused to sign the petition previously described, the Respondent commenced not using women em- ployees on Friday except for several employees who were assigned to work on the "stuffing table." 43 The weeks in which the women employees as a whole did not work were the weeks ending July 25, August 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29, September 26, and October 3. Employees Grappe and Page consistently worked on the Fridays wherein the women as a whole did not work.44 In summary it appears that the Respondent' s action in scheduling work for the weeks of July 25 and August 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29 resulted in less working 41 Louis Mayhorn testified that he did not see Jessie Robinson's name on the petition. This does not rule out the possibility that his name was affixed to the petition at a later time and prior to the reduction in hours. u Although there is testimony that Jessie L. Robinson was among the employees sent home early there is no evidence that he was asked to or refused to sign the petition Accordingly, I do not find that the evidence supports, that Jessie L. Robinson was dis- criminatorily selected for a reduction in hours. sa The facts relating to the reduction in hours (women ) are based on a composite of the credited evidence of Lois King, Pauline Brown, ,Ozell Stader, Margaret Page, Charles Reid, and J. B. Daniels. The witnesses' testimony would indicate in general that the petition was circulated shortly after the filing of the representation case in Case No. 15-RC-2568 on June 22, 1962. Margaret Page fixes the time around July 4, 1962. The witnesses' testimony would indicate the reduction in hours to have commenced immediately there- after. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 reveals the first reduction in hours to have occurred around July 25. I find, in view of the foregoing, that the reduction in hours occurred several weeks after the circulation of the petition by Andy Loftus. 44 Dorothy 'Collins worked on Friday of the week of July 25 and Grappe did not work that day. Collins worked on Friday of the week of September 26 and Collins and King worked on Friday of the week of October 10. 1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hours for employees King, Addy, Brown, Collins, Stader, Carpenter, and Sanders 45 as compared to other employees. It is thus clear that of the women employees working in Supervisor Reid's de- partment that the overwhelming majority of those who refused to sign the pe- tition denouncing the Union suffered a cutback in their working hours during the weeks designated beforehand. Of the employees who worked consistently during the time described, one had signed and one had refused to sign the petition. Supervisor Charles Reid credibly testified that during the period of time pre- viously described as commencing around July 25, business had fallen 46 off and that he had had an increase in demands for bologna. Reid further credibly testi- fied that he selected for work on Fridays those employees qualified to "stuff" the bologna, and that to fill out a few hours work that said employees completed work on other products. Employees Grappe and Page had previously generally worked at the stuffing operation, and Collins, of the other employees, was quali- fied to work at the stuffing operation. Reid further credibly testified that the employees complained of having to work only on I or 2 days and that his scheduling of only the stuffing operation was done to avoid such complaints. Although other conduct of the Respondent in this case has been found to constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Respondent's basis of selection of the employees for the stuffing operation appears entirely valid and credible. I conclude and find that Respondent's scheduling of work for the women in Reid's department was not done to dis- criminate against the employees who had refused to sign the petition denouncing the Union, nor to discriminate against them because of their union activities. F. The alleged discriminatory discharge 47 of Augusta Newson, Sr. Augusta Newson, Sr., was discharged on July 6, 1962. His discharge slip re- flected that the cause of his discharge was garnishment. On June 27, 1962, Hub Credit Clothiers, Inc., had served notice of garnishment on the Respondent con- cerning a debt of Augusta Newson. The facts are also undisputed that at the time of Augusta Newson's discharge, said garnishment had not been satisfied. For a period of several years, the official policy of the Respondent had been that an employee who receives a garnishment of his wages would be immediately discharged. A notice to this effect, which had been posted at the Respondent's place of business, had been taken down while the plant was being painted ap- proximately around July 1961. During the conduct of a Federal Wage and Hour investigation, the Respondent discovered the absence of the notice and reposted a similar notice during the week preceding June 25, 1962. Irrespective of the notice, Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., had in the past aided employees in working out arrangements to satisfy the garnishment in order that they might continue to work. If such arrangements were made, and the Respondent had no liability involved as regards the employee's debt, the employee was al- lowed to continue work. Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., credibly testified that he informed employee New- son during the week of June 27 of the garnishment and that when he was later informed by Mr. Abbott of Hub Credit Clothiers that Newson had not satisfied the garnishment or made arrangements, he had Newson discharged 48 General Counsel's witness William Jones, Jr., credibly testified that after he refused to sign the petition denouncing the Union, that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., stopped acting as a conduit for him in paying on a debt he had to The White System. This was not alleged as a violation but apparently was offered to sup- port a contention that L. E. Mowry, Sr., had changed his policy of aiding employees 4e The evidence does not reflect whether Sanders was asked to sign the petition, or whether Sanders signed or did not sign the petition. Although the evidence does not re- flect that Collins was asked to sign the petition, or that she signed or did not sign the petition, the credited evidence does reflect that the Respondent knew of her attendance at the union meeting on July 12, 1962, by virtue of the surveillance of said meeting, at which occasion she spoke to Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., as she left the union hall. 40 This is corroborated by the credited testimony of J. B. Daniels and Kathryn Cowley and the tonnage reports reflected in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. 47 The facts concerning Augusta Newson, Sr.'s discharge are based on a composite of the credited testimony of Newson, William Jones, Jr., L. E. Mowry, Sr., Kathryn Cowley, and Harold C. Abbott. 48 Harold C. Abbott credibly testified that L. E. Mowry, Sr., called him around June 27 and informed him to the effect that Newson would come in and make arrangements. SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1267 in making arrangements to satisfy garnishment as retaliation against those who refused to sign the petition denouncing the Union. Newson's credited testimony was to the effect that on July 5, 1962, in the boilerroom he was asked by Loftus to sign the petition denouncing the Union and that he refused to sign the petition. Newson also testified that he was not told about the garnishment until he was fired. The facts are undisputed that Newson was in financial difficulties and that he owed money to the Respondent and to the bank. Regarding the money owed to the bank, it appears that L. E. Mowry, Sr., considered himself and the Respondent at least morally liable even though not legally liable. The facts are clear that the Respondent deducted the money owed to itself and to the bank from Newson's weekly pay on June 29 and July 6 'resulting in Newson's receiving no pay for those dates. I find that in evaluating the credibility of witnesses L. E. Mowry, Sr., and Augusta Newson, Sr., that the timing of Augusta Newson, Sr., in refusing to sign the petition denouncing the Union is revealing. As I see the evidence in the factual situation of this case, if Newson were to be believed and if the basis of a vio- lation existed, motivation to discriminate against Newson must be shown to have existed prior to the deductions from Newson's paycheck resulting in no take- home pay to him occurring to him on June 29, 1962. Such deductions from a man in financial straits would appear to make it very difficult for him to make necessary arrangements to satisfy a garnishment. General Counsel in his brief, recognizes this and states that it was probable that Newson's refusal to sign the petition denouncing the Union occurred on a Thursday the week before July 5, 1962. Although Newson testified on cross-examination as to the time of his refusal to sign the petition to the effect that it was as "far as I can remember," I see nothing about his testimony to reveal that he doubted the accuracy of his testi- mony on this point on` direct examination. On the contrary, he was the one wit- ness who had a good solid reference point within which to place the timing of this event. He was discharged on July 6, 1962.49 I find that Newson refused to sign the petition denouncing the Union on July 5, 1962. The General Counsel in his brief argues that by the deductions of moneys result- ing in no take-home pay for Newson on June 29 and July 6, that Respondent knew that Newson would have no opportunity to make arrangements with Hub to obtain a release. This argument appears logical and I concur.50 In the absence of a dis- criminatory motivation prior to June 29, 1962, I can discern no reason for the Re- spondent not to tell Newson of the garnishment. As previously indicated, Abbott credibly testified that L. 'E. Mowry, Sr., on or about June 28, 1962, told him that Newson would be in to straighten out the garnishment. Considering the above and the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified to these events, I find L. E. Mowry, Sr.'s version of having told Newson of the garnishment more reliable than Newson's denial of the same. I conclude and find that the Respondent was not motivated by discriminatory reasons but fired Newson, because he had failed to satisfy a garnishment prior to the time that the Respondent would become legally liable for such garnishment de- ductions.51 G. The discriminatory discharge of George Robinson George Robinson credibly testified that a week before his discharge he was told by a fellow employee that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., wanted him to come 40I am cognizant that Respondent counsel's questions and statement of what his in- vestigation led him to believe that the timing was contrary to this ; however, I am guided by the evidence in the record on this point. 60 Although apparent that a discharge would ensue, after Newson was discharged he did in fact straighten out -the garnishment and was rehired. Whether Hub Credit Clothiers, Inc., was more amenable to suitable arrangements toward a man who was unemployed and in a position to obtain. work as compared to a man working and subject to discharge is not known. 51 As regards William Jones, Jr.'s testimony that L. E. Mowry, Sr., stopped acting as a conduit for paying a debt of his to The White System, if it is evidence of retaliation against those who refused •to sign the petition denouncing the Union , I am convinced that Newson's discharge was triggered prior to his refusal to sign. If the said change in prac- tice were offered to support; a change resulting from general knowledge of union activity, in the instant case I am persuaded that it does not reveal that the Respondent intended a discriminatory discharge. 708-006-64-vol. 141-81 1268 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the boilerroom office. Robinson went to the boilerroom office where he saw Loftus and Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr. What occurred is revealed from the following excerpts of his credited testimony: A Mowry, Jr sent someone, one of the employees down to the boning room and told me to come up to the boiler room office, so I went and Mr. Loftus and Mowry, Jr. was there. Loftus asked me did I want my job? I said, "Yes " He said, "Sign this paper then and keep that job." Mr. Mowry, Jr , said "Sign it " I told him 1 wouldn't sign the paper, I didn't know what I was sign- ing for Robinson credibly testified as to his discharge on July 11, 1962, as is revealed from the following excerpts from his testimony: A. That morning we were cutting down hogs. I went in the cooler to turn those racks, so I helped Willie Jones hook. He came got my hook. 1 came behind him to get me a hook When 1 went out Mowry, Jr. was coming down- stairs so I went around the back to get a hook. A 1 said I was cutting down hogs, when I got through cutting down hogs, I went in the cooler to unload racks, so 1 had Willie's hook, so he came in after the hook Mr CHAMPAGNE- Pardon me a minute, George Q Willie is who, who is Willie9 A. Jones. Q Willie Jones, Go ahead A. So when I came from around the lard room with the hook and Mowry, Jr. was standing up at the door, he said, "I thought I told you not to put no more trash in those bags." He repeated it again, I denied it He said, "You are fired," so I didn't say anything So he told me to go down and change clothes, bring my uniform up to the boiler room and I did.52 Q What did you then do, what then happened9 - A. So he gave me my check and he told me to get out from there, so I went to tell my brother, I was out in front, he was mowing yard, so I went to tell him. He said. "I thought I told you out on the dock to get out of here," so I gave my brother his lunch and 1 left The discharge slip which was given to Robinson reflected that the reason for his discharge was sleeping on the job. Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s version of the event of his discharge is different. He testified to the effect that he caught Robinson sleeping in the dressing room and that he discharged him for it. The events surrounding Robinson's discharge presents a credibility question Robinson is corroborated to an extent by the testimony of William Jones, Jr., to the effect that he saw Robinson in the lard room, and that he saw L E Mowry, Jr., coming down the stairs from the kill floor to the cooler. Although, as indicated, I credit Robinson as to his version of what occui red concerning his discharge, in some respects as to whether he had been reprimanded on July 2, and one other occasion by Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Sr., or whether he was sent home every day at 12 noon, I found him prone to attempt to build his case. As to his version of his discharge, it would appear that if the reason advanced were legitimate, he could have been properly discharged. In this respect I am convinced that he was truth- ful as 53 to his testimony relating to his discharge. The real issue is the basis of Robinson's discharge Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s testimony clearly reveals to me that Robinson was not discharged for sleeping on the job Although, as indicated, I found some of Robinson's testimony not credible, I find that L E. Mowry, Jr.. was not a credible witness. As previously indicated in this report, the status of L E. Mowry, Jr., as a supervisor was an issue L. E. Mowry, Jr , appeared at first very reluctant to admit that he discharged Robinson although he later clearly testified that he fired Robinson. Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr, testified to the effect that he found Robinson in the dressing room asleep. L. E Mowry, Jr.'s further testimony reveals that he timed Robinson as being asleep for approximately 3 minutes and that when Robinson woke tip, he told Robinson to change his clothes and that he would have his money for him. '-'The transcript is corrected at page 245, line 11, to reflect " barrels" instead of "bags" in accordance with my recollection of the testimony 61 I observed Robinson carefully on the witness stand and his demeanor as to those matters not credited did not appear forthright but as to this matter lie did appear forthright. SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1269 In answer to a question by me, L. E. Mowry, Jr., testified with respect to the termina- tion slip as follows: "I just showed him that slip when he woke up, I told him to change clothes, I would have his pay." Thus L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s testimony would reveal that he had the termination slip with him at the time he found Robinson asleep. The slip reflected that Robinson was being discharged for sleeping on the job. It is inconceivable to me that L. E. Mowry, Jr., would have had the slip setting forth the reason for Robinson's discharge prior to the time of the alleged violation. This reveals to me that L. E. Mowry, Jr.'s testimony regarding the discharge is not credible, and that in fact the events occurred as Robinson testified. It is thus apparent that Supervisor L. E. Mowry, Jr., told Robinson that he was fired in connection with the conversation concerning Robinson putting trash into bairels, and that he decided to assign a different reason, although not the real one, for his discharge. It is clear to me, in connection 54 with Robinson's refusal to sign the petition de- nouncing the Union and the obvious discharge on a pretext, that Respondent was attempting to cover up its reason for discharge. There exists in the record no reason for covering up the real reason for discharge excepting for the reason of discriminat- ing against Robinson because of his refusal to sign the petition denouncing the Union. I conclude and find that the Respondent's discharge of George Robinson on July 11, 1962, violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 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 described 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 Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent having discharged George Robinson because of his refusal to sign a petition denouncing the Union, I recommend that Respondent offer to him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to such date as Respondent shall offer him reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. Such said backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in the F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and with interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Respondent having discriminatorily reduced the work hours of William Jones, Jr., Louis Mayhorn, Walter Murray, Alton Jones, Charles Green, Willie Latin, John L. Robinson, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and 0. D. Hawkins, I recommend that Respondent pay to each of the employees referred to above a sum of money equal to the difference between the wages that they did receive and the wages that they would have received absent the Respondent's discriminatory reduction of their work hours on or about July 5, 1962, and to on or about July 17, 1962. Such said backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in the F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and with interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of type which strike at the very roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 51I do not credit L E Mowry, Sr's or L E. Mowry, Jr's testimony to the effect that Robinson was an extremely marginal employee. He had been an employee for 2 years and not the subject of major reprimand except for two instances occurring during the 2-week period before his discharge. The obvious false reason for his discharge casts great sus- picion on such testimony. All credibility resolutions herein are in part based on the demeanor of the witness. 708-006-64-vol. 141-82 1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2. Respondent Company, Shreveport Packing Corporation, is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. 3 By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employees, thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid are unfair practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the reduction of hours of employees Jessie L Robinson, Lurline Carpenter, Ozell Stader, Dorothy Collins, Pauline Brown, Lois King, Nancy Addy, Louise Sanders, nor by the discharge of Augusta Newson, Sr. RECOMMENDED ORDER 55 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended 56 that the Respondent, Shreveport Packing Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from • (a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any employee, or in reducing work opportunities of any employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating its employees about their union activities or desires in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (c) Authorizing, circulating, condoning, or ratifying the preparation and circula- tion of a petition denouncing the Union among, and the solicitation of signatures from, its employees during their regular working hours. (d) Threatening employees with the closing of the plant or loss of job oppor- tunities if its employees select the Union as their bargaining representative. (e) Threatening employees with loss of pay raise opportunity or other reprisals if they engage in union activities. (f) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above-named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or 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 authorized by 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 designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to George Robinson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole George Robinson for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy " (c) Make whole William Jones, Jr., Louis Mayhorn, Walter Murray, Alton Ray Jones, Charles Green, Willie Latin, John L. Robinson, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and O. D. Hawkins for any loss of pay each may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against each of them, by payment to each es In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the word "Order" shall be deemed substituted for the words "Recommended Order " se In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the word "ordered" shall be deemed substituted for the word "recommended." SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION 1271 a sum of money equal to the difference between the wages he normally would have earned absent said discrimination, and the wages he did earn, from the time of the commencement of the discriminatory reduction in work hours affecting each em- ployee until the time of the cessation of such discriminatory reduction in work hours. The computation of such back wages to be computed in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant or necessary to the determination of backpay due and to the reinstatement and related rights pro- vided under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Post at its premises in Shreveport, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 57 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representa- tive, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.58 It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges a discrimina- tory discharge of Augusta Newson, Sr., or a discriminatory reduction in hours of employees Jessie L. Robinson, Lurline Carpenter, Ozell Stader, Dorothy Collins, Pauline (Howard) Brown, Lois King, Nance Addy, or Louise Sanders. 17 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the voids "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " 511n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this pio\ ision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order 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 offer George Robinson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them WE WILL make whole William Jones, Jr., Louis Mayhorn, Walter Murray, Alton Jones, Charles Green, Willie Latin, John L. Robinson, Connell Green, James Lewis, Paul Young, Fred Green, and 0 D. Hawkins, by paying to each a sum of money equal to each such employee's loss of pay suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against each employee. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging, reducing work opportunities, or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of any employee's employment or any term or condition of employment WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, activities, or desires in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the closing of our plant or loss of job opportunities if our employees select the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of "pay raise" opportunity or with other reprisals because of their engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings. 1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT authorize, circulate, condone, or ratify the preparation and circulation of a petition denouncing the Union among, nor will we solicit signa- tures thereto from, our employees during their regular working hours. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 181, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities. All our employees are free to become and remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. SHREVEPORT PACKING CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify George Robinson if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T-6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. G. H. Hicks and Sons, Incorporated and International Brother- hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-2682. April 11, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On February 15, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He also found that Re- spondent had engaged in certain other unfair labor practices. How- ever, he recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in sup- port of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection,with. this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 141 NLRB No. 112,