Ross Packing Co.

In the Matter of Ross PACKING COMPANY, a CORPORATION and UNITED CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, YAKIMA VALL1Y LOCAL No. 1 Case No. C-96.-Decided March 4, 1939 Fruit Dehydrating and Packing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Co- ercion: charges sustained as to: surveillance of union activities by supervisory employees ; procuring of informer to report on union activities ; anti-union statements by president and supervisory employees; threat to close down plant if employees joined union ; charges dismissed as to alleged assembling of pickhandle brigade, invasion of union meeting, threats of violence to union organizers , arrangement of working schedule to conflict with union meetings, and interference through medium of farmers' organizations-Discramtination: discharge ; charges of, sustained as to two employees , dismissed as to one- Reinstatement Ordered: two discharged employees-Back Pay awarded; two discharged employees, from date of discharge to date of offer of reinstatement. Mr. Patrick H. Walker and Mr. William A. Babcock, for the Board. Bonsted d Nichoson, by Mr. DeForrest H. Bonsted, and Mr. F. C. Palmer, Jr., of Yakima, Wash., for the respondent. Mr. William Stix, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint and notice of hearing dated February 5, 1938, against Ross Packing Company, Selah, Washington, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discharged and has since refused to reinstate three employees because they joined and assisted the Union; 11 N. L. R. B., No. 76. '934 ItOSS PACKING COMPAN Y ITT AL. 935 that the respondent threatened to shut down its plant if the em- ployees joined the Union; that the respondent threatened violence to union organizers and members and through an organization of farmers of which it is a member denounced and threatened violence to union organizers; that the respondent employed informers; and that the respondent otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served on the respondent and the Union. Thereafter the respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it admitted certain allegations contained therein but denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices and that it was engaged in interstate commerce.' Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Yakima, Washington, on February 28, March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, 1938, before Charles A. Wood, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety or, alternatively, as to each of the separate allegations of unfair labor practices. The motion was denied. The Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 10, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in some but not all of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from those unfair labor practices. The Trial Examiner rec- ommended dismissal of the complaint as to the remainder of the alleged unfair labor practices. The respondent was advised in the Intermediate Report that it had 10 days from the date of its receipt to request the privilege of filing briefs or presenting oral argument before the Board. On October 20, 1938, the respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report, but made no request for oral argu- ment. We have considered the respondent's exceptions but, save for those exceptions which are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, we find them to be without merit. 1 During the hearing the respondent moved to strike from paragraph II of its answer the clause : "that he neglected the performance of said job and as a result of said neglect on one or more occasions caused considerable quantity of respondent 's product to become spoiled and unmarketable ." This motion was granted. 936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Ross Packing Company, a Washington corporation with its main office and one of its plants at Selah, Washington, is engaged in the business of dehydrating, packing, and distributing apples and other fruit products. The respondent operates a second plant at Fayette, Idaho. The apples processed by the respondent come chiefly from the State of Washington, but some of them and a substantial portion of the chemicals, fuel, cartons, and other materials used by the respondent come from outside the State. More than 99 per cent of the respond- ent's product is sold to customers outside the State of Washington, over half of it being sold through brokers to customers in foreign coun- tries. During October, November, and December the respondent ships the equivalent of three carloads of fruit a week by railroad and truck; production and shipments are lower from January to March; and for the balance of the year the plant does not operate. About 250 people are employed at the Selah plant during the peak season but after January the force is cut to approximately 190. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Yakima Valley Local No. 1 is a labor organization chartered on July 28, 1937, by United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of America, an affiliate of the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The Union began its campaign to organize the respondent's em- ployees shortly before the opening of the Selah plant for the season on September 12, 1937. The first meetings were held by the Union in conjunction with the Workers' Alliance, an organization of W. P. A. and unemployed workers. After September 28, the Union began in- dependently to hold organization meetings, meetings for special groups of employees, and membership meetings. The early meetings of the Union were attended by from 100 to 200 people but after the middle of October the attendance dropped to 50 or 75. Mimeographed cir- culars were distributed from the time the campaign started until early November, but principally during the first half of October. The union organizers, Gordon Lobb and William H. Wood, were aided ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 937 by a committee of the respondent's employees consisting of Marvin Howard, Mrs. Yrsa Clark, Marion Rhynard, Leon Rhynard, and Ted France, the first two being complainants in this case. Most of the membership applications obtained by the Union were signed during the early days of the drive. The respondent was not indifferent to the progress of the organiza- tion campaign. Ralph B. Vertner, superintendent of the plant, testi- fied that he and other supervisory employees were supposed "to keep (their) eyes open" for the first sign of a successful union campaign. There is substantial evidence that they did. Marion Rhynard, who was employed in the packing department, testified that on a date which he believed to be September 28, and the day of the first union meeting, he heard Vertner ask Sig Apple- gate, the day foreman of the drying department, what he had found out, and that Applegate responded that: he had been out inquiring around and they were talking of holding a meeting in Selah that night for the benefit of organizing the Ross Packing Company and the warehouses in Selah. Applegate denied having had this conversation. Vertner did not recall it, but, in view of his admission that he was keeping his eyes open for union activity, we believe Rhynard and find that Vertner had this colloquy with Applegate. On October 1, according to Marvin Howard, Wolfe, the packing- room foreman, asked him how the C. I. O. was progressing and told him that he hoped none of the employees of the Ross plant would be so foolish as. to accept membership in it because it would mean that the plant would have to close down. Wolfe did not testify and we find that he made the statement attributed to him by Howard. Covie Rodgers, a laborer not in the respondent's employ, testified that on October 9 he was present during a conversation between B. D. Page, the night superintendent, and Hiram Sartin,2 in which Sartin was instructed by Page to find out all that he could about the C. I. O. Sartin said he would "attend the meeting and give the line-up" to Page, who, in turn, assured Sartin that he would let him have a job. Sartin was not called to testify. Page admitted that he had frequently talked with Sartin, but denied that they had ever discussed unions. Since the Trial Examiner noted that Rodgers' de- meanor was convincing and since the respondent was admittedly watchful for incipient union activities, we find that the above- described conversation took place. 2 Sartin had been employed by the respondent during the 1936-37 season and was reemployed on November 29, 1937. 938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondent's superintendent, Vertner, admitted, and we find accordingly, that on a Sunday, probably in October,3 he had parked his car across the street from the home of Douglas Ayers, husband of Lillian Ayers, a complainant herein, for a half-hour and had watched an outdoor union meeting being held there "to see . . . what was going on." On October 15, C. C. Ross, president and manager of the respondent, made a speech to employees in the preparation department. Mrs. Ayers testified that Ross, after mentioning a union meeting which he thought most of his listeners would attend, declared among other things that the wages which the respondent was paying were as high as market conditions permitted and that the Union would make many promises which it would not fulfill. This testimony concerning the speech was corroborated by witnesses for the respondent. One of them, however, asserted that Ross had not spoken of promises which the Union would make, but since that statement is consonant with the respondent's patent distrust of the Union, as revealed by the record, and since Ross, though available, was not called by the respondent to testify concerning the speech, we believe and find that this remark was made. The reference to current wages, the allegation that many promises made by the Union would be illusory, and the indication that Ross was aware of union activity could not but have given to the respondent's employees the impression that, in their employer's opinion, they would gain nothing from self-organization. The effect of the speech, therefore, was to discourage membership in the Union. Mrs. Eva Rhoades, the forelady in the preparation department, had several conversations with Mrs. Yrsa Clark which revealed curiosity about and hostility towards the Union. Shortly after the discharge of Mrs. Ayers on October 16 4 Clark asked Rhoades the cause for the discharge. According to Clark, Rhoades answered that Ayers had been "doing a lot of unnecessary talking about the Union and things which should not concern her" and that the respondent did not need workers who thought more of the Union than of their jobs. Clark also testified that in November she had on request brought Rhoades a recently distributed union circular and that Rhoades later told her that she had read it and given it to Vertner. Rhoades testified that she had once asked Clark whether she belonged to the Union because she was curious to find out. She denied; however, having had the October conversation and said that she had never seen the circular mentioned by Clark. Because Vertner did not deny having received the circular, because-as we have noted-he testified that the super- 8 From other evidence it appears that the meeting took place on October 3 or 10, and we so find. 4 See infra, p 940, ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 939 visory employees were supposed to be on the alert for union activi- ties, and because Rhoades admittedly tried to ascertain whether Clark belonged to the Union , we believe Clark's testimony and find that the October and November conversations did occur. To summarize, the evidence establishes that the respondent has deliberately and repeatedly interfered with the self-organization of its employees . Ross, the president and general manager, made a speech to the employees with the intent and effect of discouraging them from joining the Union. Vertner, the superintendent, admit- tedly was vigilant for union activities and consistently with that objective had observed a union meeting. Page, the night superin- tendent, procured an ex-employee , Sartin, to act as an informer con- cerning union activities. Applegate, a foreman , made inquiries about the Union. Vertner, Wolfe, and Rhoades by their conversations with employees revealed the respondent's hostility toward the Union. We find that the respondent has by these acts interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by the Act. The evidence fails to sustain, and we shall accordingly dismiss, the allegations of the complaint that the respondent deliberately ar- ranged its operating schedule so that overtime work conflicted with union meetings, and that the respondent threatened violence to union organizers and members. B. Interference by farmers' groups The record contains a great deal of testimony concerning the formation, purposes, and activities of four farmers' organizations- the Farmers Protective Association of the United States, the Farmers Protective Association of Yakima County, and their successors, the United Farmers of Washington and the Associated Farmers of Yakima County. The first of these organizations, at its inception in March 1937, was designed to secure tariff legislation favorable to the farmer, but by May it had espoused the additional object of protecting farmers from organized labor. This was the dominant purpose of the other three bodies, all of which were formed during 1937. Ross and Le Van, secretary-treasurer of the respondent, as indi- viduals joined the Farmers Protective Association of the United States before it had manifested an anti-labor policy. There is hear- say evidence that subsequently the respondent contributed $75 or $100 to that Association. At a meeting of farmers in October, which was attended by Ross and Page, there was some discussion of form- ing a "pick handle brigade" to drive union organizers out of Selah and Ross declared that union activity made him nervous. 940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although these organizations were hostile to labor unions, the evidence does not establish that the respondent was connected with or accountable for any of their anti-union activities. On the basis of the entire record we do not find that the respondent, through the organizations of farmers, interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. C. The discharges Mrs. Lillian Ayers. Mrs. Ayers had been employed by the re- spondent for three seasons as a peeler and trimmer. She joined the Union on October 13. We have previously noted that Vertner on October 3 or 10 observed a union meeting held at her house.5 On October 14, Ayers complained to Rhoades that she had sore muscles and Rhoades ordered some medicine for her. On Saturday, October 16, she failed to come to work or to report her absence and when she came to the plant on the following Monday she found that her posi- tion had been filled. Ayers said that she failed to come to work on October 16 because she was ill, that Rhoades knew of her illness, and that she was not aware of a plant rule requiring absentees to report. While admit- ting that she had reported her absence on previous occasions when it was convenient to do so, she recalled two times in the spring of 1936 when she had been absent without reporting and had never- theless been taken back to work. Another employee, Clark, also in- volved in this case, testified that she had received no punishment for remaining away 3 or 4 days in November 1937 without reporting. We have previously found that Rhoades told Clark that Ayers had been discharged because she was "doing a lot of unnecessary talking about the Union and things which should not concern her." s Following her discharge, Ayers, as well as representatives of the Union acting on her behalf, complained to Ross, who said that he would investigate the circumstances, that he did not see why she might not have her job back, and that she would be returned to work at the first opportunity. Subsequently Ross told Vertner to take Ayers back if he could. Approximately 20 persons not pre- viously employed by the respondent were hired after Ayers' dis- charge. Vertner stated that Ayers had twice come to seek reem- ployment, but said there were no vacancies at the times she applied. Rhoades said that she had temporarily replaced Ayers on Satur- day morning when she was absent without having reported the cause and that later in the day, when Vertner noticed that another person G Supra, p 938, footnote 3. 0 Supra, p. 938. ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 941 was working at Ayers' machine, she explained to him that someone had seen Ayers on the street near Selah. Vertner said he concluded that Ayers was not sick and instructed Rhoades to fill the place permanently. Vertner, who asserted he had not known of Ayers' union membership until he heard that union organizers had pro- tested to Ross about the discharge, admitted, however, that he had observed the union meeting at the Ayers' house. He denied having known at that time whom the house belonged to, but in view of the small size of the community and his curiosity about union mat- ters we believe and find that he knew or immediately took steps to ascertain whose house it was. There is no evidence that the respondent had strictly enforced its rule requiring absentees to report. On the contrary, we find that in some instances violations of the rule were overlooked. Despite in- structions from Ross, Vertner made no effort to reinstate Ayers, though there were opportunities to do so. We find that Ayers was discharged and that the respondent failed to reinstate her because of her membership and activity in the Union. Mrs. Ayers' earnings averaged approximately $13 a week during the month she was employed in the fall of 1937. From the date of her discharge to the time of the hearing she had received $4 from other employment. Marvin Howard. Howard had been employed by the respondent since the season of 1932--33, but he had quit before the end of the season in April 1936 and April 1937. He was employed in the white room where the dried apples are cured and sorted prior to packing. On October 1, Wolfe, the foreman of the packing department, asked Howard how the C. I. O. was getting along and said he hoped the employees would not be foolish enough to join because in that case the plant would have to close down.7 On October 20, Howard had an argument with Applegate, foreman of the kiln room. On October 21, Vertner came to Howard and said that he was at a loss to under- stand the attitude that hen was taking toward "fermenting," telling him to confine himself to his department and not to be "mixing around with the employees." Vertner explained that "ferment" was synonymous with "agitate." On November 24 Howard was placed on an 8-hour instead of a 12-hour shift in order to make room, according to Vertner, for a worker who had been on another job. On November 27 Page, the night superintendent, accused Howard of having told other employees that his pay had been increased. Howard said, "That is all a lie," and Page answered that he had heard of it from several sources. Two days later, on November 29, Howard asked Page 7 See supra, p. 937. 942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD why he did not confront him with the people from whom he had received the information. That evening Page and Avery Lovejoy, night foreman of the drying department, came into the curing room. Howard said to Page, "Who you got there? Is this one of these parties that have been bringing the lies to you ?" Page said, "No," and asked Howard whether he was not satisfied, advising him that, if he could not get along with the other employees, the best thing to do was to "quit like a man." Howard asked if Page was trying to discharge him and Page said that if that was his interpretation he could leave. Page testified on one day of the hearing that he dis- charged Howard for insubordination and because, despite complaints, Howard-continued to pile apples in such a way that the hardest work fell to the man who relieved him on the next shift. On the following day he testified that he would not have discharged Howard except for what happened on November 29 and that by "insubordination" he had meant "not doing his work properly." Howard joined the Union on September 28, was a member of the plant organizational committee, and had written and distributed cir- culars. Union meetings had been held at his home. Prior to his quarrel with Applegate there had never been any complaint about his work serious enough to report to Vertner and Vertner told Howard on October 21 that his criticism did not refer to that incident. It is obvious from the conversations of Wolfe and Vertner with Howard that the respondent was aware of Howard's union membership and activities, even though Vertner denied knowing that Howard was a union member. Page was not able coherently to state why he had dis- charged Howard. We find that Howard was discharged because of his union membership and activity. Howard earned approximately $26 a weeks during the fall of 1937, and from the time of his discharge to the date of the hearing he earned a total of $25 from other employment. Mrs. Yrsa Clark. The respondent gives first preference in hiring to employees who have an uninterrupted record of employment and secondary preference to employees who have previously been employed by it. For part of the season the respondent operates a day and a night shift. When it becomes necessary to have a night shift and the respondent hires additional workers for that purpose, they are ap- portioned equally between the day and the night crew and half of the day workers already employed are transferred to the night shift. Clark had worked for the respondent for three seasons but had quit in order to take other employment before the end of the 1936-7 season, thereby losing her primary seniority. On September 12, she applied to Rhoades for a job and was told that, while the list of applicants s During the time that he worked on a 12-hour shift his earnings averaged about $27 a week. ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 943 had not been checked over, she would probably be given work. Rhoades testified that she told Clark she would have to be laid off when the night crew was discontinued. Clark denied this, although she admitted that Rhoades had told her the night crew would be dis- continued in December. The night crew worked regularly from Sep- tember 30, when Clark was given a position on the day shift, to December 9, when she was laid off along with 46 other employees. Lola Harvey testified that in December Clark was working faster than usual and, when asked why, gave as a reason that she was going to "make" as many boxes as she could because she would be laid off when the night crew was disbanded. We find, despite Clark's denial, that she made this statement. On December 9 two or three persons who had not worked for the respondent prior to the 1937-8 season were retained and Clark complained about this to Vertner. Sub- sequently the night crew worked from time to time and 20 new employees were taken on for occasional work. Clark joined the Union on November 5, was a member of the plant organizational committee, and had talked about the Union in the plant. We have already set forth several conversations between Rhoades and Clark about the Union." Despite Rhoades' apparent knowledge that Clark belonged to the Union, it is our conclusion that Clark was laid off on December 9 in pursuance of the conditions set by Rhoades when she was hired. Even though the respondent on December 9 admittedly retained and thereafter gave occasional work to new employees, there is no evi- dence that Clark was entitled to preference over the 46 persons laid off with her, and consequently we cannot say that she should have been retained on December 9 or subsequently given occasional work. We find that Clark was not laid off or discharged because of her union membership or activity. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed 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 The respondent will be required to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices described above. The respondent will also be ordered 0 See supra, p 938. 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to reinstate Mrs. Lillian Ayers and Marvin Howard to their former positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective discharges by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 10 during said period. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied `Yorkers of America, Yakima Valley Local No. 1, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mrs. Lillian Ayers and Marvin Howard and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent, by laying off Mrs. Yrsa Clark, has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re- spondent, Ross Packing Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 10 By net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county, municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects. ROSS PACKING COMPANY ET AL. 945 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of America, Yakima Valley Local No. 1, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees because of membership in United Cannery, Agri- cultural, Packing & Allied Workers of America, Yakima Valley Local No. 1, or in any other labor organization, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of membership in any labor organization; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Mrs. Lillian Ayers and to Marvin Howard immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole said Mrs. Lillian Ayers and Marvin Howard for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their respec- tive discharges by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings during said period, deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other govern- ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Selah, Washington, notices to its employees stating that the re- spondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid ; (d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed with respect to the following allegations contained therein: That the respondent caused the assembling of a pickhandle brigade for the purpose of assaulting union organizers; that the respondent, through an organization of farmers, caused a group of armed men to invade a union meeting, threatened union organizers, and ordered them to leave Yakima Valley; that the respondent threatened vio- lence to union organizers and members; that the respondent deliber- ately arranged its working schedule so that employees could not attend union meetings; and that the respondent discharged and re- fused to reinstate Mrs. Yrsa Clark because of her union membership and activities.