Extract
Cagle's, Inc., 603 (1975)
CAGLE'S, INC. 603
Cagle's, Inc. and Allied Workers District Union No.454, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases 10CA-10452 and 10-CA-10644June 18, 1975 DECISION AND ORDEROn October 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Fannie M. Boyls issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order only to the extent consistent herewith.Briefly, the relevant facts, which were not disputed, are as follows : Jewell, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Jewell), was for many years engaged in the production of live poultry at Gainesville, Georgia, and had a collective-bargaining contract with the Charging Party (hereinafter referred to as the Union) which expired on April 30, 1975.2 In October 1972, Jewell filed a voluntary petition for relief and reorganization under chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act and a trustee was appointed who immediately began to wind down Jewell's operations. Jewell's operations were completely closed on November 16-17, 1972, and all but a few maintenance employees were laid off.The Respondent formally assumed control of Jewell's business on August 6, 1973, under the terms of a management agreement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court in July 1973, which provided that the Respondent would assume full responsibility to manage and operate Jewell's business with rights to use Jewell's trade name, trademarks, and formulas.The Respondent was to receive no direct compensa1 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily refusing to hue Kathleen Brown, Kathryn Greber, Olhe Mae Mincey, Dora S. Pethel, Ida Mae Pinson , Vera Stevens, Hazel Wehunt,Lurleen Williams, and Juanita Woody.2 The contract covered approximately 672 production and maintenance employees in Jewell's processing plant, feed mill, hatchery, and rendering plant.3 The Respondent produces 6 products, but retained Jewell's trademark for only 1 of the approximately 200 products which Jewell had produced. In addition, the Respondent does not sell any consequential amounts of its products to former Jewell customers, and, although all orders are billed on Jewell invoices, all sales are handled by the Respondent.4 In the processing plant, the Respondent eliminated production of precooked and frozen chickens, operations which had involved approximately 300 or more employees, and installed new machines to speed the preparation' of fresh chickens for sale (Respondent also has plans to install a chill-packing,operation).3 Jewell had employed 571 employees in the processing plant, 20 in its Gainesville hatchery, 28 in the feed mill, and 36 in the rendering plant for a 218 NLRB No. 92Lion for its managerial undertaking and was to periodically remit a percentage of the assets and net profits to the Trustee in Bankruptcy (hereinafter referred to as the Trustee) for the benefit of Jewell's creditors. The Trustee agreed to commit all working capital and borrow an additional $1-1/4 million for the operation of the business and would, at the Respondent's recommendation, petition the court to set aside certain of Jewell's executory contracts. The management agreement additionally gave the Respondent an option to acquire all of Jewell's stock within 60 months and if it elected not to do so, the Respondent could give 120 days' notice of its discontinuance of operations and reimburse the Trustee for cash and loans, thus turning back operations in no worse a financial condition than when it commenced operations.The Respondent did not commence actual operations until November 6, 1973, after it had effected certain operation changes. These changes included the elimination of all but a few of the products formerly -made by Jewell,3 mechanization of the processing plant operation,4 and a reduction in the number of job classifications and in the total employee complement.5 In addition, the Respondent appointed a new general manager, personnel director, and seven front line supervisors 6The Respondent refused the Union's requests for recognition and bargaining, which were made in August and September 1973, questioning the Union's majority status among its present employees and contending that it had hired only a fraction of Jewell's former employees; that it made substantial changes in the plant operations and the distribution of products; that the products produced and identity of customers as well as the identity of the employees were radically changed; that none of the officers and directors are the same; and that all of Jewell's contracts were subject to cancellation by the court.7 total of 655 empl...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
