Sunnyland Packing Co.

590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sunnyland Packing Company aldAmalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-11248 and 10-RC- 10311 December-23, 1976 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On May 18, 1976, Administrative- Law Judge William F. Jacobs issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions-of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light-of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Sunnyland Packing Company, Thomasville, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, as modified be- low: Add the following as the final paragraph of the recommended Order: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conduct- ed in Case 10-RC-10311 on May 29,1975, be, and it hereby is, set aside." [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Adnunistrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt ,pro forma, the Administra- tive Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint related to the postpetition incidents set forth in sec. G of his Decision. Finally, Members Fanning and Jenkins disavow the Administrative Law Judge's remarks that Respondent's no-solicitation rule is lawful on its face, but in the absence of exceptions they make no finding on this issue. 2 The Adnumstrative Law Judge recommended that the election conduct- ed in Case 10-RC-10311 be set aside We agree. Hence we shall amend the Order to set aside the election conducted on May 29, 1975, and direct a second election. 227 NLRB No. 91 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Wu..u us F. JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing was held in this consolidated proceeding at Thomasville, Georgia, on October 30-31 and December 3- 4,1975. On April 14, 1975, the Charging Party-Petitioner (herein referred to as the Union) filed a petition in Case 10-RC- 10311 and on May 29, 1975, an election was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in a stipulated appropriate unit of production and maintenance employees at the Thomasville, Georgia, plant of the Respondent Employer (herein referred to as Respondent, Employer, or Company). The Union lost the election, having received 244 votes in its favor while 287 votes were cast against representation. There were 5 void ballots cast and the 12 challenged ballots cast were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On June 5, 1975, the Union filed timely objections to the election. Meanwhile, on May 12, 1975, the Union filed the charge 1 in Case 10-CA-11248 alleging as- violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act the discriminatory termination of two employees. On July 8, 1975, the Union filed an amended charge adding to the'existirig 8(a)(3) allegations further allegations of independent 8(a)(1) violations.-Com- plaint issued on July 18, 1975, covering both the 8(a)(3) allegations contained in the original charge and the independent 8(a)(l) allegations added in the amended charge. The latter concerned allegations of unlawful interrogation, promulgation of an unlawful no-solicitation rule, creation of the impression of surveillance of its employees' union activity, solicitation of its employees to persuade their fellow employees to oppose the Union, and promises of economic benefits in return for its employees rejecting the Union as their exclusive collective-bargaining representative. On August 6, 1675, the Regional Director of Region 10 issued a report on objections recommending that three of the four objections filed on June 5, 1975, be overruled but recommending further that the issues raised by Objection 4 be resolved by record testimony at a hearing. Inasmuch as the subject matter of Objection 4 was substantially the same as the independent 8(a)(1) allegations contained in para- graphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , and 12 of the amended complaint which issued July 18, 1975, the report further recommended that Cases 10-RC-10311 and 10-CA-11248 be consolidat- ed for the purpose of hearing, ruling, and decision by an 1 At the time the Union filed the charge it was also required to file a request to proceed . Respondent argues in its brief that by filing the request to proceed, the Union has waived any right to rely on any incidents occurring prior to the filing of the charge as the basis for setting aside the election. But the record contains no evidence that such a waiver was intended and the law is clear that a union can properly object to an employer's preelection interference with employees' rights occurring between the time of the filing of the petition and the holding of the election and such objections are valid even though they are the subject of a subseuqnet charge and even though the union had knowledge of the incidents at the time it chose to proceed to the election. Erie Technological Products, Inc., 218 NLRB 878 (1975); LloydA. Fry Roofing Co Inc., 142 NLRB 673 (1963). SUNNYLAND PACKING COMPANY 591 Administrative Law Judge. The 8(a)(3) allegations are based-on prepetition incidents and not subject to objec- tions.2 On October 17, 1975, the Board issued its Decision and Order adopting the Regional Director's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations and ordering that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by Objection 4. The Decision and Order further authorized the Regional Direc- tor to issue a notice of hearing and an order consolidating Case 10-RC-10311 with Case 10-CA-1 1248. On October 22, 1975, in accordance -with the Board's Decision and Order; the appropriate order consolidating cases and notice of hearing issued. The issues are whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by committing the alleged violations described above and whether those incidents alleged as independent 8(a)(1) violations and as objectionable conduct were of such a nature as to require that the election be set aside and a second election be conducted. Respondent, . in its answer generally denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Representatives of all parties were present and participated in the hearing. Briefs were timely filed by Respondent and by General Counsel. Based on the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after giving due consideration to the briefs, I make the following: _ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION purpose of distributing union cards. Among those partici- pating in this activity were Patricia Ann Scott and David Wilson, the alleged discriminatees herein. B The Termination of Scott 1. Scotts's union activity Patricia Ann Scott was employed by Respondent since October 1973, most recently as weigher in the sliced bacon department. Early in April Scott was advised by a fellow employee that the Union was organizing the plant. Inas- much as she had previously been employed at unionized plants, she manifested some interest in participating in the campaign. Thereafter she attended a union organizational meeting at the home of another employee where she signed a union card herself and inquired of one of the business agents in attendance as to how she could contribute to the campaign. She was advised as to the organizational procedure and educated as to her rights. She was given from 25 to 30 union cards to distribute and cautioned not to distribute them on company property during working time but rather to solicit during breaks or lunch hour. She took the cards and hid them under her car seat. Whenever she met fellow employees, in the parking lot, at their homes, or while shopping, she would talk with them about the benefits of unionization, offer them a card and, after obtaining their signature, secrete the cards back underneath the seat. In this fashion she obtained the signatures of a number of employees on union authorization cards which she returned to the business agents from whom she had received them. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a Georgia corporation with an office and place of business located at Thomasville, Georgia, where it is engaged in the processing and sale of meat. Respondent admits that during the .past calendar year immediately preceding issuance of complaint, a representative period, it sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Georgia. I find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in.,operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II: THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Umon-' 522 AFL-CIO, herein the Union, is a labor organization- within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. IIL THE UNFAIR LABOR- PRACTICES A. Background In early 1975 the Union undertook an organizing campaign at Respondent's plant which eventually culmi- nated in the election, of May 29, 1975,3 which, as noted above, the Union lost. During the campaign it enlisted the services of several of Respondent's employees for the 2 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453 (1962); The Ideal Electric andManufacturtng Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961). 2. The Scott-Welch solicitation One of the employees with whom Scott worked in the sliced bacon department was Mildred Welch who operated the tuck machine which boxes the bacon. According to Welch, on April 4, while Welch was working on the line, Scott talked to her about signing a union card. Scott was standing right beside Welch weighing bacon when the conversation took place. As Welch remembers it, Scott first asked her how she felt about the Union and Welch replied that she did not knowmuch about the Union and therefore really did not know how she felt about it. Scott then asked Welch if she would consider signing a union card and Welch again replied noncommittally that she did not know, that she would need time to think about it. Scott then volunteered that she knew a man that had some union cards and she could perhaps get one for her. Welch replied, "Well give me time to think about it" and Scott agreed. This ended the conversation to which only Scott and Welch were witnesses. Neither employee paused in her work nor interrupted production during this conversation which ended as Welch relieved Scott in order to permit the latter to go to the restroom. According to Scott, this conversation never took place. She denied talking to Welch- or anyone else about the Union while on company property, much less while actually working on the line. Prior to the discussion immediately described above, and beginning about the first of the year, Welch became aware 3 Hereafter, all dates refer to 1975 unless otherwise noted. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Scott's prounion sympathies when on several occasions Scott in a offhanded manner would make remarks such as "what this place needs is a union." This type of remark made both while working on the line and while away from her work station did not appear to be directed toward anyone in particular but was mostly rhetorical, intended to elicit a reply from no one. On other occasions Scott remarked that she had never worked anywhere before where the employees were not represented by a union. This remark, too, appears to have been of a causal nature, not to be construed as an attempt at solicitation for membership in the Union. These occasional remarks were uttered as much as a month before Scott' s termination and weeks before she actually attempted to solicit Welch's support. Inasmuch as these impromptu remarks were removed both in time and character from her later attempt to seriously solicit Welch's support for the Union, I do not consider them to be of a nature susceptible to proscription by Respondent's no-solicitation rule, particularly in light of the working habits of other employees which habits were considered acceptable to the employer. These matters will be discussed at length, infra. - Accordmg,'to Welch's testimony, on the day that Scott inquired of Welch as to her willingness to sign a card, Welch advised her supervisor, Curtis Eason, of the incident after checking out for the day. She told him, that she thought that the employees had been told that they were not supposed to solicit or talk union while working, to which Eason replied that she was correct, adding that it wouldn't matter if it occurred in the cafeteria or away from the job. He then asked her why she had brought up the subject. Welch then divulged the fact that she had been "approached about the union" and requested to sign a card whereupon Eason asked her who it was who had discussed the Union with her and where it had' happened. After she told him that it had been Scott, and described the circumstances of the solicitation, he said that she should leave the matter to him and he would tend to it. He did not describe to her what action he intended to take nor ask her any additional questions such as how often Scott had solicited for the Union before or whether there had been any disruption of work while the solicitation was in progress. She did, however, advise Eason that Scott had mentioned the Union on two or three previous occasions prior to her asking Welch to, sign the card. Eason's description of Welch's report of the solicitation differs from hers mostly as to emphasis. Thus, he testified that he was advised by-Welch fthat somebody was "bother- ing her" or was after her to "sign a union card" and "trying to talk to" her in favor of being for the union." He further testified that she complained that the person would talk to her about„the union every time she went by and "would not take `no' for an answer." Eason then asked Welch who it was that she was talking about and Welch named Scott. According to Eason, Welch asked him to put a stop to it, since she could not get her work done because of Scott bothering her. Eason promised to look into the matter. Eason's testimony concerning Welch's report about the solicitation reflected a lack of certainty as to precisely what Welch had told him. At one point during cross-examination he could not recall whether Welch told him that Scott was trying to get her to sign a card or was trying to get her to work for the Union. Eason could not recall either whether Welch had complained about being pestered by Scott or had merely been solicited to sign the card. All in all, Eason's description of his conversation with Welch seemed disjointed, unreliable because of memory lapses as well as suspect because of a clear lack of candor in answering questions on cross-examination. For these reasons, as well as the favorable impression I received from Welch's forthright manner in offering her testimony, I credit Welch's description of her report to Eason and find that it occurred as she described in her testimony as outlined above. After Eason received Welch's report, he informed Per- sonnel Manager Coffin as to what Welch had told him and asked him what could be done. Coffin mentioned the no- solicitation rule which was contained in the employee handbook and stated that it looked as though they would have to terminate Scott. It was decided, however, that before anything was done about Scott's solicitation of Welch, Respondent should first seek legal advice because of the fear that an unfair labor practice might be filed based on the discharge of Scott. Coffin also suggested that an affidavit be obtained from Welch encompassing the facts of the solicitation. The following day Eason asked Welch if she would mind signing a statement describing her solicitation by Scott. She agreed to do so and was thereupon taken to Coffin's office where she once again described the solicitation, this time to Coffin. Coffin did not inquire whether the solicitation incident had caused any interruption in production. He did, however, prepare a statement for her signature and advised her that she might later be required to testify in court. The statement which Welch signed and which was counter- signed by Coffin reads as follows: 4-4-75 On 4-3-75 PATRICIA SCOTT solicited my support for an organization while in established work areas during work time. Mildred Welch - Del Coffin Eason was present in Coffin's office when Welch de- scribed to Coffin the solicitation incident and signed the above statement. He testified that the statement which Welch signed said the same thing that Welch had earlier told Eason about the solicitation, although the wording was not exactly the same. Inasmuch as the signed statement, brief as it is, is closer in content to Welch's description of her original oral report to Eason than it is to Eason's description of the same oral report, it affords a further basis for crediting Welch over Eason with regard to the content of the oral report. I 3. The Scott-Crosby solicitation On June 6, 1975, Scott returned the signed authorization cards to the union officials and at that time was asked if she had attempted to obtain the signature of a particular fellow employee named Benjamin Crosby who had signed a union card during a previous campaign. She replied that she had SUNNYLAND PACKING COMPANY not discussed the union with Crosby because she was afraid to trust him, that he would likely report her to management. She was then advised that Crosby was a good prospect and told to solicit his signature, but was again cautioned not to do so on company property. According to Scott, she accepted the business agents' suggestion and the following day approached Crosby as they were both walking toward the plant to report for work on the night shift. As they entered the gate before punching in, she asked him if he was for the Union and he replied in the affirmative. She then asked him if he wanted to sign a card, to which he replied negatively, explaining that he had signed a card prior to the current campaign and did not wish to sign another. This ended the conversation and Scott went in to work. Scott testified that this was _ the only conversation which she had with Crosby concerning union matters. Later that evening Scott overheard her supervisor, Curtis Eason, say to Crosby, "We will get rid of her." Scott did not, however, hear what had prompted the remark. The circumstances surrounding Scott's solicitation of Crosby, in the absence of any testimony to the contrary, is fully credited. Crosby was not called as a witness by any of the parties. Eason, however, testified that it was about the same time that Welch reported Scott that Crosby called Eason over to his work station and, after requesting that Eason not get him involved, advised him that Pat Scott was always talking to him and trying to persuade him to sign a union card. According to Eason, Crosby said, "Everytime she's around me, that's all she talks about." Crosby complained that she was bothering him while he was working and that he really did not want any part of the Union. He requested that Eason put a stop to it and Eason replied that Crosby should not worry about it, Eason would take care of it in due time. Again, Eason did not ask if the solicitation had caused any interruption in production nor inquire as to any other particulars. Although as noted above, Crosby allegedly requested that his identity be kept secret, he nevertheless purportedly submitted a statement as had Welch. Crosby's statement was not offered into evidence and Crosby was not called to testify. Moreover, on cross-examination Eason testified that when Scott asked Crosby to sign a card, he was not at all certain where it was , whether it was in the plant or elsewhere. In light of the failure to call Crosby to substantiate Eason's testimony and the obvious contradic- tions in Eason's testmony, I am rejecting as incredible Eason's entire description of Crosby's report and find that the only attempt on the part of Scott to solicit Crosby's support for the Union was on the one occasion outside the plant as described in Scott's own testimony. 4. Scott's termination interview The decision to terminate Scott was made jointly by Eason and Coffm. Coffin had contacted Respondent's attorney and had obtained clearance from him to terminate Scott. He advised Eason ofhe clearance on the morning of April 8 about 10 or 11 a.m. at which time it was decided that Eason would conduct the exit interview. Eason waited until 1 p.m., when the shift was over, before he talked with Scott, hoping to avoid some embarrassment. At that time, as Scott was leaving the plant in order to go to lunch before 593 returning to work the second shift as she had agreed to do, she met Eason who stopped her and asked to speak with her. Eason, who had a copy of the employee handbook in his hand at the time asked Scott if she had ever received a copy of the handbook when she was hired, and if she had ever read it. She replied that she had. Eason then opened the handbook and pointed to the section entitled, "Intolera- ble Rule Infractions." He asked her if she had ever read that section and if she realized that soliciting on company time in established working areas was against company policy. Scott replied that she was aware ,of the rule. Eason then stated that she would have to be terminated for breaking this rule. Scott replied that she had never solicited on company time or property, to which he rejoined that he was in possession of an affidavit which contained evidence that she had broken the rule and that based on this evidence she would have to be terminated. Scott again denied breaking the no-solicitation rule and inquired as to the particulars of the alleged solicitation. Eason refused to answer her questions but simply stated that he had no alternative but to dismiss her. She then left. Although there is some small bit of testimony concerning Scott's working habits which were not totally without fault, she was considered a pretty good worker and her termina- tion according to Respondent was based solely on her breach of the no-solicitation rule. C. The Termination of Wilson 1. Wilson's union activity David Wilson, prior to his discharge, had been employed at Respondent's plant for approximately 1-1/2 years, most recently in the wrapping department. He was not deeply involved in the union campaign but one Sunday after church there "happened to be" a gathering of Sunnyland employees at Wilson's home and he was asked to sign a union card at the time. This occurred - between 1 and 2 weeks before his discharge . He subsequently signed the union card at a friend's home. Thereafter, he talked to several employees of Sunnyland about the Union and they asked him whether he had any union cards. After he told them that he did not have any cards, they requested that he get some, which he did that evening. The following day, at lunchbreak, he distributed them. Wilson and certain other employees were outside of the plant at this time . He gave six or seven cards to an employee sitting next to him named Joey who kept one card and passed the others down to the other employees who were all sitting in a row. 2. The Wilson-Slaughter Solicitation According to Wilson's testimony, that same afternoon, at the 2:15 p.m. break, he received back from Joey all of the cards which he had previously passed out except for one which had been given to an employee named Buddy Slaughter, a weigher who sometimes filled in as supervisor. When Joey explained to Wilson that Slaughter had not yet returned his card, Wilson later approached Slaughter at the latter's work station and asked him for the card back. Slaughter, however, told Wilson that he'did not yet have time to sign it. Wilson did not press the situation but the 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD following day again asked Slaughter for the card. For the second time Slaughter explained that he still had not signed the card. After the dinnerbreak Wilson again asked Slaughter for the card and upon being told that it had not yet been signed, demanded'the card back unsigned so that he could give it to someone else to sign. This last conversation took from-1 to 2 minutes.-Wilson testified that when he received the card back from Slaughter, Slaughter was at his work station where he weighs meat but was not busy at the time because he did not have any meat to weigh at the moment and wasjust walking back and forth. Slaughter, called as witness for the Respondent, struck me as a reluctant and evasive witness. Where his testimony is at odds with that ofWilson, I credit the latter. Thus, Slaughter testified that-Wilson approached him for the first time while he was weighing meat at his work station and asked him if he would sign a union card. Thereupon, Slaughter asked Wilson if he had one. Wilson replied that he did and Slaughter asked to see it. Wilson gave him a card and Slaughter put it in his pocket. After Wilson gave Slaughter the union card, Wilson returned to his work station located about 15 feet away. Slaughter further testified that when Wilson first approached him he stopped weighing meat for a minute or two but was not very busy at the time anyway. The following day Wilson came by on his way to the restroom and asked Slaughter where the union card was. Slaughter replied that he had it in his pocket and was not going to sign it . Wilson stated that if Slaughter did not intend to sign the card, he should give it back, whereupon Slaughter returned the card to Wilson without comment. The request for and return of the card, according to Slaughter, likewise took a minute or two. To reiterate, I reject Slaughter's description of the solicitation in favor of Wilson's. 3. Wilson's termination interview According to Wilson, the day after he received the union card back from Slaughter, he was walking to the restroom when he was stopped by Slaughter who said, "I have something to say to you." He then showed Wilson a copy of the employee handbook. Slaughter opened the book and continued, "you see where it says no-solicitation?" Wilson denied any knowledge of the rule, whereupon Slaughter explained the rule to him. Nothing more was said during this conversation but later that day, April 8, Slaughter stopped Supervisor Ramsey Clark as he was passing through the department and advised him that Wilson had asked him to sign a card. Clark asked Slaughter where the solicitation took place and it it had taken place during worktime. Slaughter replied that it had occurred at his work station on company time. Clark then asked Slaughter if he would be willing to sign a statement to that effect and Slaughter agreed to do so. Clark then contacted Coffin and Slaughter subsequently furnished an affidavit which Coffin drew up for his signature. After Slaughter provided the sworn statement to manage- ment, Clark called Wilson to his office. When Wilson arrived, Clark told him that since Wilson had been soliciting on company time during working hours by passing out union cards, he was going to have to terminate him since solicitation on company property during working hours was against company rules as contained in the employee handbook. Clark added that he had a written statement from an employee to substantiate his charge that Wilson had been soliciting. Although Wilson denied that he had been soliciting, Clark refused to believe him and Wilson was discharged. . Wilson testified that during the exit interview Clark made the statement that he definitely did not want a union in the plant and that he was going to let Wilson go. Clark denied making this statement. Although I have credited Wilson in all other respects, I cannot believe that Clark made this remark. The decision to terminate Wilson was made while Respondent's management was in close contact with its attorney, and the means and methods of terminating both Scott and Wilson were so carefully orchestrated in accor- dance with the no-solicitation rule that the prudence and caution otherwise exercised by management during the campaign would tend to preclude the likely utterance of so bold a declaration of union animus. I do not, therefore, rely on this alleged statement ascribed to Clark by Wilson in reaching my conclusion. Respondent's position with regard to the termination of Wilson, like Scott, is that it was lawful in that it was based solely on his breach of the no-solicitation rule. D. The No-Solicitation Rule The no-solicitation rule proper which appears in the back of the employee handbook reads as follows: B. No-Solicitation Rule Employees are not permitted to solicit funds or support for any individual, institution or organization while in established work areas during work time. Any such activity will be considered an intolerable violation of rules. There has been no question raised that this provision on its face is lawful, for the Act does not proscribe the right of an employer to forbid, by rule or regulation, solicitation on its property and to discharge an employee for violation thereof, provided that the rule or regulation is promulgated in good faith and bears some reasonable relation to efficient operation of the plant, and is not merely a device to obstruct or impede self-organization. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.LKB. 324 U.S. 793 (1945); The May Department Stores Company, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company, 174 NLRB 770 (1969). On page 2 of the employee handbook, however, is the following passage: It is important to point out that we do not have a labor union at Sunnyland. The wages and benefits we enjoy have always been made through the cooperation of management and our employees. We feel, and hope you feel, that outsiders are not necessary to tell employees how to work. No Sunnylander will ever be required to join a labor union to keep his job. If you should be caused any trouble, or be put under any pressure to support a union, you should report the matter to your supervisor. SUNNYLAND PACKING COMPANY 595 It is General Counsel's contention that the inclusion of this paragraph came to the attention of Welch, Crosby, and Slaughter and caused them to come to the conclusion that it required them to advise Respondent if anyone requested them to sign a union card or participate in union activities. General Counsel points out that any employee reading the no-solicitation rule in conjunction with the entry quoted immediately above would conclude that union solicitation on company time and" property would require different treatment than solicitation for other purposes . Be that as it may, the record of the case does not reveal that either Scott's or Wilson's union solicitation was brought to the attention of management by Welch, Crosby, or Slaughter because they relied on the paragraph - cited. Rather the testimony reflects that these employees were unaware of the existence of this particular paragraph in the employee handbook. Moreover, General Counsel and Respondent stipulated at the hearing that the entry described in paragraph 8 of the complaint no longer appears in the new employee handbook, although the date when the entry was removed is not on record. On the other hand, language similar to that discussed herein was the subject of the complaint in Bank of St. Louis, 191 NLRB 669 (1971), affd. 456 F.2d 1234. In that case the Administrative Law Judge found the language to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) in that it was a "not-too-subtle attempt by Respondent to have its employees inform management as to the identity of the Union proponents and tended to restrain and coerce employees in their right to engage in protected activities." The decision of the Admin- istrative Law Judge in Bank of St. Louis, at 673, adopted by the. Board, noted that "the request that employees report on such union activities was not limited to reports on matters which could properly be within Respondent's legitimate concern, such as a possible disruption of work . The request was broad enough to cover mere attempts by union proponents to persuade employees to sign cards at the bank during the employees' nonworking time and even off bank premises." Similarly, in the instant case the language appears to be an unlawfully broad no-solicitation rule and here, as in Bank of St. Louis, its promulgation is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1) regardless of whether or not its precept was followed by employees of Respondent . Though I have found that the no-solicitation rule proper which appears in the back of the handbook is presumptively lawful in that it refers to activity taking place in established work areas during worktime, there is no guarantee that an employee reading the handbook would himself assume that the passage appearing on page 2 inviting him to report union activity is similarly limited to reports of solicitation occurring on worktime-in working areas. There is nothing in the handbook which advises the employee reading it that the two rules should be read in conjunction, one with the other. Moreover, the fact that newly distributed handbooks do not contain the offending passage does not cure the problem inasmuch as the record does not indicate that the old handbooks containing the passage in question have been recalled or that disclaimer of the passage's content has issued. The inclusion of the offending passage in the employee handbook and the distribution of said handbook is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. E. Solicitation in Practice at the Plant Testimony at the hearing was taken from a large number of employees of Respondent concerning solicitation at the plant for various causes. Numerous and frequent collec- tions among employees were the, rule rather than the exception and sales of goods by employees to each other were habitual. Thus, in excess of a dozen witnesses were called by General Counsel and Respondent to testify concerning the practice of collecting money among em- ployees for the purpose of purchasing flowers for the relatives of employees who had died or were hospitalized. Employee Scott credibly testified that another employee collected for the flower fund on a regular basis and kept records of which- employees contributed. Her collections, according to Scott, were frequently made during working time in the working area in the presence of management personnel who did nothing to prevent these collections and in effect gave tacit approval to the solicitation by engaging the soliciting employee in conversation as she went about making her collections. Scott's testimony was supported by other employees who testified that while working in various departments they were solicited to contribute for flowers by a number of other employees including a foreman who, after purchasing flowers with the money collected, would place the sales receipts on the bulletin board as proof of purchase. The incidence of solicitation for flowers was neither isolated nor infrequent but recurrent and regular. The testimony of certain witnesses that collections were only taken up at the refreshment area during breaktime does not negate the credible testimony of others who witnessed the solicitation for the flower fund taking place during working hours in work areas. Moreover, in many cases where the actual exchange of money took place during breaks, the requests for money were made earlier by employees soliciting from fellow employees while-both were working side by side during production. There was also testimony that several employees sold Avon products. Although most of the Avon transactions took place away from working areas, sometimes the transactions took place, at least in part, in production areas, especially on the kill floor where catalogues and merchan- dise were sometimes distributed, orders taken, and collec- tions made. On one isolated occasion an employee found reading one of the Avon catalogues by a member of management while in a work area was referred to the rule in the employee handbook and told that if she intended to sell anything or even look through the catalogue she would have to do it in the ladies' room. This employee was not disciplined. According to the testimony of several witness- es, there is almost always at least one supervisor present on the kill floor so that it would appear highly unlikely that these transactions could have completely escaped notice of management. In addition to Avon products, various employees have peddled candy in order to raise money for their churches. At times the candy was openly pruchased and received on the line while employees were working. Peanuts and pies were also I sold for the same purpose and solicitation for churches was an almost daily occurrence, frequently while employees were at their work station on company time. Supervisors were also requested to make donations. In the 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD face of the testimony of so many witnesses that they were aware of these frequent and often times open transactions, I cannot credit those of Respondent's witnesses who claimed complete ignorance of these matters. Moreover, there was testimony that one of the supervisors approached an employee while she was working and asked her if she would care to purchase some cleaning fluid. She agreed to do so. There was -additional testimony concerning employees talking about the sale of clothes and jewelry in work areas during working time, and it is patently clear that employees freely discussed all of the above matters, the solicitation for the flower fund, the sale of Avon products, clothes, shoes, candies, pies, lottery tickets, and anything else without fear of reprimand or discipline in connection therewith. Em- ployees were free to talk as long as there was no serious interruption of production. Brief chats among employees which might result in a brief interruption of work of no more than a minute or two were permitted and not infrequently according to the testimony of several witness- es. Employees on their way to or from the restroom or walking through another department would stop to talk for a brief period without fear of supervision reprimanding them for it. Supervisors themselves upon occasion would engage employees in conversation. To summarize, the plant appears to be run in a rather easy going manner with employees being free to talk about anything they wish including the sale of merchandise and collection of moneys for various funds or charities, all with the tacit consent of management. Moreover, as more fully discussed below, during the period immediately preceding the election, management met with 40 to 50 of the most influential employees and specifically encouraged them to make their feeling known concerning their .preferences in the forthcoming election. Nothing was said to them as to where or when these employees were to discuss their preferences, because, as Vice President Howard testified, "we don't run that tight a ship." Clearly, they were being encouraged to campaign on company time and property as well as elsewhere but only if they were not soliciting for union representation . The two individuals, Welch and Slaughter, who reported dischargees Scott and Wilson to management had frequently engaged in small talk them- selves, had witnessed other employees so engaged, and had never reported anyone before for soliciting or talking at length. They testified that the only reason they reported the conversations of Scott and Wilson was because they concerned the Union. F. Conclusions Concerning the No-Solicitation Rule and Discharges From the above facts it appears patently clear that Respondent's attitude toward solicitation on company time and property was permissive and even benign no matter what charity, cause, or subject matter was involved, except if the solicitation happened to involve union representation. Thus employees were generally free without fear of repri- mand or discipline to discuss the sale of Avon products, candies, pies, shoes, clothing, lottery tickets,, or anything else while working and were permitted to take up collec- tions for churches or flowers on company time and property. They were even permitted to pause in their work to chat with fellow employees so long as the discussion was no more than a minute or two and caused no serious interruption in production. On the other hand when it came to the aftention of management,that Scott and Wilson had requested employees to sign union cards, they were both terminated for breaking the no-solicitation rule which was otherwise ignored in the face of daily solicitations by other employees for other purposes. When management was advised that Scott and Wilson had solicited on behalf of the Union, no question was raised as to whether the solicitation resulted in any loss of production or whether there was any other adverse effect from the brief conversations which Scott and Wilson had with fellow employees. Clearly Respondent chose to treat differently Scott's and Wilson's solicitation for the Union as compared with the solicitation of many other employees for other purposes solely because of the fact that Scott and Wilson were engaged in union activity. Where employees, with the knowledge and even participation of supervisory personnel, are permitted by an employer to solicit during worktime for various charities, functions, or causes, to collect money for churches and fellow employees, and to sell numerous items for personal gain while at the same time the employer enforces a no- solicitation rule against employees soliciting on behalf of a union, such disparate enforcement of the no-solicitation rule is both unfair and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Wm. H. Block Company, 150 NLRB 341 (1964); C & E Stores, Inc., C & E Supervalue Division221 NLRB 1321 (1976). Further, the termination of Scott and Wilson in pursuance of the unlawful enforcement of the no-solicita- tion rule is in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Gooch Packing Company 162 NLRB 1 (1966). I therefore fmd that Respondent is in violation of the Act as to both the 8(a)(1) and (3) violations concerning the unlawful enforcement of the no-solicitation rule and the discharges of Scott and Wilson. G. Postpetition Incidents General Counsel alleges various postpetition incidents as both violative of Section 8(a)(1) and as objectionable conduct of sufficient seriousness to require setting aside the election. Respondent denies these allegation in toto. 1. Interrogation by William Phinazee on May 14 and Eugene Rogers on May 26 The record contains no evidence to support the allega- tions that Killing Floor Department Supervisor William Phinazee and Beef Department Foreman Eugene Rogers interrogated employees of Respondent. Neither General Counsel nor Respondent discussed these allegations in their briefs. I therefore fmd that Respondent did not violate the Act with respect to the violations alleged. 2. The alleged 8(a)(1) violations by Bryant Harvard Following the filing of the original petition on April 14, Respondent undertook a campaign in connection with the forthcoming representation election to educate its employ- ees as to Respondent's position vis-a-vis union representa- tion. This campaign took the form of contacting certain SUNNYLAND PACKING COMPANY 597 employees whom management considered the most influ- ential 'among their fellow employees and meeting with them on an individual basis for the purpose of explaining Respondent's views with the hope that these employees would spread Respondents views among the rest of the employees. To this end certain members of management, including Vice President Harvard, met singly with these influential employees in a conference room adjacent to the cafeteria and spent between 15 minutes to an hour with them in an attempt to make certain, as Harvard testified, that they understood both sides of the question. Harvard on two occassions-also met with groups of employees. During the individual meetings Harvard asked the employees general questions, e.g., how things were going, if they had any complaints, and how their families were. He pointed out the various benefits which the employees then enjoyed, and then told these employees that they should go out among the rest of the employees and made their feelings, including Respondent's views, known. The nature of Respondent's, campaign appears to be basically noncoercive. There appears no evidence to support the theory that meetings held with employees in the relatively neutral area adjacent to the cafeteria were calculated to in any way intimidate the employees called there for discussion. The campaign as a whole cannot therefore be said to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) nor grounds for setting aside the election The NVF Company, Hartwell Division, 210 NLRB 663 (1974); Flint Provision Co. 219 NLRB 523 (1975); nor do I fmd Respondent's attempts at proselytizing by seeking to have employees obtain further support from fellow employees for its position objectionable or violative of the Act, in the absence of a showing that such attempts were accompanied by threats or coercion. Crowley, Milner and Company 216 NLRB 443 (1975). General Counsel, however, alleges further that in certain instances Respondent, through its various manage- ment representatives did more than simply present its case to employees while conducting these interviews. Specifical- ly it alleges that Vice President Harvard on May 15 interrogated one employee. In substantiation of this allega- tion employee Leroy Nash credibly testified that during his conversation with Harvard, which took about-45 minutes spread over a 3-hour period, all on company time, Harvard asked him if he knew what the Union was, what it was doing for the employees, and what it could or could not do for Nash and other employees. Harvard also asked Nash what he thought about the Union. In conjunction with these questions Harvard explained to Nash Respondent's position with regard to union representation. From the total context of the conversation it would appear that the questions posed were rhetorical in nature, prefatory'to the explication that followed, and not inherently intimidating. I find therefore that these questions were not supportive of the allegation of violative interrogation. After this initial contact with Nash, Harvard would occasionally ask Nash if he had talked to the other employees and, if so, whether they as a whole were for or against the Union. To these questions Nash would reply noncommittally that "every- thing was o.k.," although in fact, Nash never had bothered to talk to anyone as Harvard had requested. Once again, I find that the questions posed -by Harvard were simply an attempt on his part to fmd out if Nash felt that he was successfully getting Respondent's message across to other employees. These questions were again general and not specific. There was no demand for concrete information about particular employees or their union activities. In the context of the discussion, I fmd the questions not violative of the Act nor objectionable inasmuch as they were not accompanied by threat, coercion, or promise of benefit; Flint Provision Co., supra. In addition to the allegation that Harvard interrogated Nash, the complaint alleges that he also created the impression of surveillance during one of these conversa- tions by saying that he had been informed by Nash's former employer, currently employed as a foreman for Respon- dent, that Nash was in favor of the Union. It is unclear from the record whether the former employer/current supervisor purportedly knew of Nash's union sympathies from his previous employment or from his current employ- ment. Harvard denies ever having made any reference to Nash's union sympathies when talking to Nash and testified only that he told Nash that he had been advised that Nash was a good man to talk to. I credit Harvard with respect to the impression-of-surveillance issue not only because Nash's testimony seemed confused but because I fmd it inherently incredible that Harvard would first advise Nash that he was aware that Nash was in favor of the Union, then solicit his support to proselytize on behalf of the Employer. I fmd that General Counsel has failed to carry the burden of providing the allegation. The complaint further alleges that on or about May 29 Harvard promised Respondent's employees greater eco- nomic benefits if the Union were rejected as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees. Once again to support the allegation, General Counsel called Leroy Nash to testify. Nash testified that on the day before the election Harvard told him that he knew that the Company's insurance plan was not up to par but, as soon as the election was over, he would see to it that the insurance was improved. Nash testified to having several conversa- tions with Harvard about insurance during the critical period immediately preceding the election. Nash also testified that on another occasion Harvard told him that he knew a lot of things weren't being done right and that he would make some changes "afterwards," meaning after the election. Harvard on the other hand, testified that he had spoken to 45 or 50 employees during the critical period and that the subject of insurance .came up in just about every, conversation. He credibly testified that usually the employ- ees brought up the subject and that he tried to stay away from it because the insurance program was, in fact, "a little under par." Harvard denied making any promises to anyone concerning insurance and testified that when questioned about it, he merely stated that the insurance program was under review. It is clear from the testimony of both Nash and Harvard that Nash had previously had problems obtaining insur- ance payments when needed and had been disappointed with the program. It is equally clear that during the several conversations between Nash and Harvard, the subject of insurance was discussed on the basis of Nash's personal experience rather than on the basis of the insurance 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD program as a whole. Thus, it would appear, as Harvard testified, that when Nash complained of the inadequacies of the program, _ Harvard told him in the future to bring any problems he might have to the attention of the Company, and they would be taken care of. He further told Nash to tell other employees the same thing. It would appear then that rather than promising additional-insurance benefits to its employees in return for rejecting the Union, Harvard was simply telling Nash that the insurance benefits were available, and ifthere was dissatisfaction among employees in the future as there had been in the past in Nash's case, these problems could only be ironed out if brought to 'the attention of management. I credit Harvard with regard to the conversations between Nash and himself concerning insurance, not only because his testimony, in light of Nash's past personal experience with insurance, rings true but because I cannot conceive of any reasonable basis for believing that in an election involving almost 600 employ- ees the vice president should choose 45 to 50 employees to interview concerning the forthcoming election, and single out just one individual for the purpose of promising improved benefits. I believe that Nash simply misconstrued what Harvard was saying in their conversation concerning insurance, that Harvard's explanation is the more credible one, and that no promise of benefit was made. 3. The alleged interrogation by Foreman Joseph Miller General Counsel alleges that Night Shipping Forman Joseph Miller was observed distributing "Vote No" stickers by employee Harold Skeen and that Miller asked Skeen where his "Vote No" sticker was. When Skeen stated that he did not have a sticker, Miller purportedly asked him if he wouldn't be uncomfortable when he attended a meeting scheduled for that evening where the president of the Company was speaking. Later that evening Miller again asked Skeen where his "Vote No" sticker was. The complaint alleges these incidents as interrogation violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In support of the allegation employee Skeen testified generally to the above. He also testified, however, that the statements initially attributed to Miller were made by an employee named Jackson. Miller denied that he had distributed the "Vote No" stickers and also testified that he had not questioned Skeen about his not wearing one. On the basis of Skeen's apparent confu- sion with regard to these matters and the evident inconsis- tencies contained elsewhere in his testimony, as well as his tendency to answer questions in a careless, off-hand manner, I discredit Skeen, credit Miller, and find that the allegation of interrogation attributed to Miller is without foundation. Moreover, in the context of the circumstances herein described, the casual and isolated nature of these conversations, I do not believe these incidents of sufficient seriousness to warrant a finding of objectionable conduct or a violation of the Act. Crowley, Milner, and Company, supra. Clearly, their unpact on the election which involved a unit of close to 600 employees was de minimis. IV. CONCLUSIONS I have found that Respondent has violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by discriminatorily enforcing its other- wise valid no-solicitation rule and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by terminating employees Scott and Wilson in pursuance thereof. These incidents occurred prior to the filing of the petition in Case 10-RC-10311. I have also found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining in its employee handbook a passage providing that employees should report solicitations for union mem- bership to their supervisors. On the other hand, I have found that General Counsel has failed to prove violations of the Act with respect to the allegations contained in the complaint which deal with unlawful interrogation, the creation of the impression of surveillance of union activity, the solicitation of employees to pursuade fellow employees to oppose the Union, and unlawful promises of benefit in return for employees' rejecting the Union as their exclusive bargaining representative. I therefore recommend that these allegations be dismissed. V. THE OBJECTIONS The Union's objections to the election raised issues identical with those contained in paragraph 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the complaint. Inasmuch as I have found that the allegations contained in paragraphs 7,' 10, 11, and 12 are without merit, I would likewise recommend dismissal of the objections based thereon. The objections based upon paragraphs 8 and 9 dealing with distribution of the handbook containing the objectionable material which I have found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act stands on a different ground and must be considered in light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, at the time that the union campaign, was initiated there was in circulation the employee handbook which contained both the no-solicitation rule found to be presumptively valid as well as the paragraph providing that employees should report solicitations for union membership to their supervi- sors, found herein to be violative. During all times material herein the handbook was in circulation according to the admission in Respondent's answer. Similarly during the entire period, the- facts of the case reveal that widespread solicitation for various causes occurred throughout the plant and Respondent took no action to prohibit this solicitation until it terminated Scott and Wilson for union solicitation. This disparate treatment of union solicitation while permitting other solicitation in the absence of, any showing that production suffered or that discipline was adversely affected clearly rebuts the presumption of validi- ty of the no-solicitation rule and invalidates the rule. The same disparate treatment-of the union advocates under these circumstances supports the finding that Scott and Wilson were terminated by Respondent through its dis- criminatory implementation of the no-solicitation rule for motivations clearly violative of the Act. Although the termination of Scott and Wilson was prepetition and cannot under Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Ideal Electric Company be utilized as the basis for fording the terminations objectionable, the continued distribution and circulation of the employee rule, book containing the -SUNNYLAND PACKING COMPANY tainted rule and the invitation to report union solicitations following the filing of the petition requires the setting aside of the election and the conducting of a new election. The record is replete with the testimony of numerous witnesses that they were aware that solicitation for the Union was against company rules and the fact that no further terminations occurred during the critical period is a tribute to the effectiveness of Respondent's circulation-and dis- criminatory implementation of the invalidated rule and invitation to report union solicitations. Thus, during the critical period between the filing of the petition and the election, the circulation of Respondent's written exhorta- tion to report union solicitors to supervisors when consid- ered in the context of the continued existence of the invalidated no-solicitation rule,. and the recent history of discriminatory terminations, in my opinion, _so undermined the Union's campaign and interfered with the rights of employees to engage in protected activities during this critical period as to require the setting aside of the election. I so recommend. VI. THE EFFECT OF . THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with their operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. VII. THE REMEDY Having -found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. As 1. have found that Respondent, on or about April 8, 1975, terminated Patricia Ann Scott and David Wilson, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them, in order to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer these employees reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them with backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). As I have found that Respondent has engaged in conduct which interfered with the election conducted in Case 10- RC-1031 1, I shall recommend that the election be set aside. 4 Although this violation was not specifically alleged in the complaint, the no-solicitation rule, its implementation, and its enforcement were fully litigated by the parties at the hearing and therefore may properly be found. McGraw Edison Company v. N.L.RB, 416 F.2d 67 (C.A. 8, 1969). 5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.48 of the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 599 1. Respondent Sunnyland Packing Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union 522, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Patricia Ann Scott and David Wilson and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate them because of their activities on behalf of the Union, Respon- dent has engaged in unfair labor practices - within the meaning'of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By directing its employees to inform management about their fellow employees who solicit them to support union organizational activities, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By disparately enforcing its no-solicitation rule in respect to solicitation or advocacy- on behalf of the Union while permitting like activity with respect to all; other subjects or projects, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their guaranteed rights in violation of Section 7 of the Act .4 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct alleged. in paragraphs 7, 10, 11, and 12 of the complaint. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS The Respondent Sunnyland Packing Company, Thom- asville, Georgia, its - officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employees because of their activities on behalf of Amalga- mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 522, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zation. (b) Directing its employees to inform management about their fellow employees who solicit them to support union organizational activities, provided, however, that Respon- dent shall not be precluded by this Order from promulgat- ing and enforcing rules which by their terms are reasonably designed to prevent an interruption in the flow of work. (c) Disparately enforcing its no-solicitation rule with respect to solicitation or advocacy on behalf of Amalga- mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union 522, AFL-CIO, or any other labor Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization while permitting like activity with respect to other subjects or projects. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or cocercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Patricia Ann Scott and David Wilson immedi- ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without -prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "I'he Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payments records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant at Thomasville, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.' 16 Copies of said notices on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 201 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice, and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board. WE WILL NOT under pretext of enforcing a rule regarding solicitation or any other pretext, discourage membership in or activity on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union 522, AFL-CIO, by discharging or other- wise discriminating against any employee for legiti- 6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." mately engaging in such activity. WE WILL NOT direct our employees to inform management about their fellow employees who solicit them to support union organizational activities. WE WILL NOT disparately enforce our no-solicitation rule with respect to solicitation or advocacy on behalf of Amalgamated Meat-Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union 522, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE w ILL offer Patricia Ann Scott and David Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. SUNNYLAND PACKING COMPANY