Baltz Brothers Packing Co., 1114 (1965)

DECISION AND ORDER

On April 5,1965, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them.

Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief and the Respondent filed an answering 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 powers in connection with this proceeding to a threemember panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].

153 NLRB No. 89.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that Baltz Brothers Packing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Baltz Brothers Packing Company, during an organizing campaign of the above-named Union at its Nashville, Tennessee, plant (1) discharged two employees for union and other concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), and (2) coerced and restrained employees by interrogations, promises and grants of benefits, threats of reprisal and other coercive conduct, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The issues arise on a consolidated complaint issued September 18, 1964,1 by the Board's General Counsel through the Regional Director for the Region 26, and answer of Respondent admitting jurisdiction but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing on the issues was held on due notice before Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey at Nashville, Tennessee, on November 16 and 17, 1964, in which all parties participated fully through counsel or other representative. On motion of General Counsel at the close of his case-in-chief, I dismissed the allegations of the consolidated complaint charging that Dennis Baltz on June 29, 1964, and James Osborne in July 1964 threatened employees with discharge and solicited an employee to inform on union activities of other employees. I also granted Respondent's motion to dismiss said complaint insofar as it charged that Dennis Baltz in mid-July 1964 threatened employees with more arduous working conditions. At the close of the testimony, I reserved decision on Respondent's motions to dismiss the remainder of the complaint on the merits; those motions are disposed of by the findings and conclusions below. General Counsel and Respondent presented argument on the above motions, which was in effect oral argument on the issues. All parties were given opportunity to file written briefs, and General Counsel filed a brief which has been duly considered.

Upon the entire record in the case, and and from my observation of the witnesses on the stand, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office and place of business in Nashville, Tennessee, where it is in the business of making and selling beef, pork, and allied meat products. In the 12 months prior to issuance of the complaint,

   Respondent had a direct inflow of products to its Nashville plant valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

   1 The complaint issued after Board investigation of charges filed by the above Union on July 14 and September 18, 1964, in Case No. 26-CA-1873, and other charges filed by It in Case No . 26-CA-1913 on August 27 and September 18, 1964.

   2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union named above is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

      III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

      1. The union organizing campaign On June 19, 1964, the Union began an organizing campaign among Respondent's employees by holding a meeting with employees, at which about 28 signed union authorization cards. A second meeting was held the night of June 26 at the union office in Nashville, and later meetings were held at that office on July 3 and July 9.

         During the campaign a committee of employees Clifton Mitchell, Ernest Stephens,

         Fred Collier, and Willie and Murray Sowell actively assisted the Union by soliciting other employees to sign cards, and notifying them of the time and place of various union meetings.

      2. Employer reaction to the campaign The June 26 meeting of workers was held at the union office on 12th Avenue, near Church Street, in Nashville. Employees Robert Shelton and Clifton Mitchell attended it. On Monday, June 29, Company Vice President and Personnel Director Dennis Baltz remarked to Shelton, when passing him at work in the plant, that he heard a 'lawn party' had been held, and that Shelton had attended it. Shelton denied that he had. The same day Vice President and General Manager Frank Baltz asked Mitchell at his workplace if he had a good time at the 'party.' Mitchell replied that he did not know what Baltz was talking about. Two or three days later, Baltz told Mitchell he had heard that Mitchell was one of the 'ringleaders ' Mitchell made the same reply as above, and Baltz said 'you know what I'm talking about, all right.' Employees Charles Gooch and Ernest Stephens attended the first union meeting of June 19. On Wednesday, June 24, Gooch went to see Frank Baltz to borrow money, as he had often done in the past. Baltz asked him if he had signed a union card. Gooch replied he had not (which was not true). Baltz then said, 'You know that you and Murray Sowell are the ringleaders in that thing back there,' to which Gooch replied that he knew nothing about the Union. Baltz commented that the plant did not need a union He then loaned Gooch the money. On Monday, June 22,

         Frank Baltz came upon Stephens and others as they were picking up ham loaves which had spilled on the floor in the ham room. Baltz asked Stephens if he had gone to a 'night of fun' last Friday night. Stephens replied, 'No, not me.' Baltz commented that if the employees would keep their products stacked properly and keep their minds on their jobs instead of having so many 'nights of fun,' the products would not have been spilled.

         I find the above facts on credited testimony of the employees named in each instance, as corroborated in part by admissions of Dennis and Frank Baltz. Testimony of the latter officers in denial or conflict therewith is not credited because (1) both men admitted that just before July 1 they learned from a former employee that a 'lawn party' (the worker reported it was a gathering out in the 'country') had been held by 25 to 30 Negro employees over the past weekend, and that in about 2 weeks they planned to walk off the job in order to get more money. Frank asked the worker if the Union was involved, and the worker said no. Frank Baltz said he was concerned about this because Respondent had experienced two similar walkouts of smaller groups of Negro employees in September and December 1963, and he had these walkouts in mind when he questioned Stephens and Mitchell about the 'lawn party' and 'night of fun' as found above; and (2) Dennis Baltz admitted that sometime in June some workers had told him other employees had union cards, to which he replied he knew it, and that company officers had heard from workers that various Negro employees, including Stephens, had been going to the 'lawn parties,' and that he had questioned employees directly about who attended union meetings. Both officials claimed their interrogation was based on a fear of possible consequences to plant operation from another larger walkout, but while this fear was natural, it still did not justify their repeated and far from casual interrogation of workers about their concerted activities, including rhetorical statements amounting to questions designed to elicit answers disclosing such activities. I find that the interrogations of specific employees found above, and those of others admitted by Dennis Baltz, were improper inquiries into employees' concerted activities well calculated to coerce and restrain such activities, and thus violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Likewise, the rhetorical and direct statements of both officers to workers, indicating that they knew or had learned of employee distribution of cards or attendance at union meetings, had a tendency to impress upon workers that Respondent was closely watching their concerted and union activities, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 I also find from the Baltz' admissions and their interrogation and other remarks to employees, as found above, that Respondent was aware of the union campaign and the activities of various employees in it almost from the outset.

         On Friday morning, July 10, President Robert Baltz made a speech to all workers assembled in the plant cafeteria. He opened by saying he had heard that the workers had been attending meetings lately, and was glad they were attending one held by him. He then reviewed the Company's...