H. J. Daniels And Blanche Daniels, Co-partners, Doing Business As H. J. Daniels Poultry Co. And United Packinghouse Workers Of America, C. I. 0., 689 (1946)

Extract

---

H. J. Daniels And Blanche Daniels, Co-partners, Doing Business As H. J. Daniels Poultry Co. And United Packinghouse Workers Of America, C. I. 0., 689 (1946)

In the Matter of H. J. DANIELS AND BLANCHE DANIELS, CO-PARTNERS,

DOING BUSINESS AS H. J. DANIELS POULTRY Co. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.

Case No. 18-C-1092.-Decided January 31, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On February 28, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral argument before the Board was made by any of the parties, and none was held.

The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications:

1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the respondents have engaged in a course of conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act. With respect to Daniels' speech to his employees on September 15, the respondents have excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to refer specifically to the fact that during the speech Daniels stated that the employees had the right to join any union they wanted. We have considered this statement and Daniels' other protestations of neutrality and find that they were insufficient to counteract the coercive nature and effect of Daniels' other remarks. We are convinced that the inferences drawn by the Trial Examiner concerning these remarks are correct and agree that these statements, considered in their entirety and in connection with the respondents' other unfair labor practices, constituted an integral part of a coercive course of conduct.

2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion, and we find, that the respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed support to, Our Agreement Committee in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act. In so concluding, however, we do not concur in or rely upon the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondents 'obligated all employees to join and support' the Committee.1 Although it is plain that the conduct of the respondents and their agents in forming, controlling, and supporting the Committee violated Section 8 (2) and was largely responsible for the adherence of the employees to this organization, we are of the opinion that the evidence falls short of establishing that the respondents required all employees to join ard support the Committee. In these circumstances, and upon the entire record, we shall not order the respondents to reimburse their employees for initiation fees paid to the Committee. Nor do we regard it as necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act that the respondents be required to reimburse employees for attorney fees paid for services in organizing the Committee. We therefore shall not adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation in these respects. Since, however, we find that respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Committee and contributed support to it, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom. Ordinarily such a finding would require the issuance of an order of disestablishment; but such an order is unnecessary here since it is clear that the Committee has been dissolved by a vote of its members. This voluntary dissolution of the Committee, however, has no effect upon the respondents' commission of unfair labor practices with respect to the Committee. The fact that the Committee is no longer in existence is relevant only to the question of whether the respondents should be required to disestablish it. Since a possibility exists that it may be revived, however, in order to prevent a recurrence of the unfair labor practices, we shall, in addition to our cease and desist order, order the respondents to withhold recognition from the Committee as bargaining agent of any of their employees should it return to active existence, and so notify their employees.2 3. We agree with the ...

See the full content of this document

---