Whitfield Pickle Co., 430 (1965)

DECISION AND ORDER

On November 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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 151 NLRB No. 49.

WHITFIELD PICKLE COMPANY 43T has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a threemember panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].

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 entire record in these cases, including the Trial Examiner's,

Decision, the exceptions, and brief, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.' 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 Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Whitfield Pickle Company of Montgomery, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following modification:

Modify paragraph 1(e) to read :

'(e) Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing rules prohibiting its employees from engaging in solicitation or discussion on company premises during their nonworking time in connection with their union or concerted activities or prohibiting the distribution of literature relating to such activities in nonworking areas during nonworking time.' 2

1 We agree, as the Trial Examiner in effect found , that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) by prohibiting union discussion and solicitation during the employees' own time and by prohibiting employee distribution of union literature in nonworking areas during nonworking time.

2 The fourth indented paragraph of the notice shall be amended to read WE WILL NOT promulgate , maintain, or enforce any rule which unlawfully prohibits our employees from engaging in solicitation, discussing union activities, or distributing literature on behalf of Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,

AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner in Montgomery,

Alabama, on July 7, 1964, on the complaint of the General Counsel, as amended, and the answer of Whitfield Pickle Company, herein referred to as Respondent.' The issues litigated were whether the Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4), and 2( 6) and (7) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61

Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The parties waived oral argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered. During the hearing the Trial Examiner reserved rulings on several motions. These motions are disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein set forth.

'The charge in Case No. 15-CA-2449 was filed on February 27, 1964 , and amended on April 28, 1964 The charge in Case No. 15-CA-2449-2 was filed an March 18, 1964.

The complaint was issued on May 11, 1964.

Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

  1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is an Alabama corporation, maintaining its principal office, and the manufacturing plant with which we are herein concerned, in Montgomery, Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of pickles and pickle products. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative period, Respondent purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Alabama plant, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were transported directly from States in the United States other than the State of Alabama. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce wihin the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

    H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

    HI. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues The principal issues raised by the pleadings, as amended, and litigated at the hearing are whether the Respondent: (a) interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by (1) interrogation or threats, (2) promulgating a rule prohibiting union discussion, solicitation, or distribution of literature, or (3) advising employees that Respondent would not sign a collective-bargaining agreement; (b) discriminatorily discharged Marguerite Elizabeth Goodwin, on February 20, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act; or (c) discriminatorily failed and refused to reinstate Marguerite Elizabeth Goodwin, thereafter, because charges were filed before the Board, in violation of Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) of the Act. Respondent generally denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.

    B. Background and sequence of events On an unspecified date, late in 1963 or early in 1964, the Union began an organizational campaign at Respondent's plant. On January 20, 1964, John L. Parker, union representative, forwarded a letter to L. B. Whitfield, Jr., president, advising the Respondent that the Union was engaging in an organizing campaign at Respondent's plant. The letter listed five employees as representatives: Eula Mae Gray,

    Nonnia Bell, Gertrude Wright, Frances Brantley, and Irma Bryant. It is undisputed that the letter was received by J. G. Aired, secretary-treasurer of Respondent, in the normal course of business. The principal events herein relate to the period immediately following January 20 and continuing until approximately 3 weeks after an election held on March 20, 1964, extending until the time of the hearing relative to the failure to recall dischargee Goodwin.

    It is undisputed that a Board-conducted election was held on March 20, 1964, at which time the employees voted 85 to 75 in favor of the Union.

    C. Supervisory personnel It is undisputed that: L. B. Whitfield III, assistant vice president; J. C. Herring, vice president; J. G. Aired, secretary-treasurer; S. A. Ribbik, plant superintendent;

    and John E. Brown, a supervisor in the grading department, are, and at all times pertinent herein were, supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.2

    D. Interference, restraint, and coercion The evidence relative to acts and statements of Respondent's supervisory personnel, allegedly conduct in derogation of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, is summarized under the name of the particular representative specified in the complaint and testimony.

    21 find, for reasons explicated infra, that Thomas Butler was not a supervisor during the period commencing January 20, 1964, and thereafter.

  2. John E. Brown Marguerite Elizabeth Goodwin credibly related that she had a conversation with John Brown. She placed the time of the conversation as the day following the first union meeting, which she attended.3 Goodwin identified John Brown as her supervisor in the grading department at the time of the conversation .4 Brown is also one of a three-member committee who approve or reject employee applications for credit union loans.

    Goodwin related that Brown came to her work station and advised her that he had been in the packing department and heard rumors about the Union. Brown asked her if she knew anything about the union meeting that had taken place the prior afternoon. Goodwin advised Brown that she had attended the meeting and that she thought it would be a good thing to have a union in the plant. Goodwin related that she advised Brown that she had had 'some words' with Winnie Luster, a packing department employee, who had countersigned a note to enable Goodwin to obtain a credit union loan. Goodwin explained to Brown that Luster, whom the record indicates was antiunion, had advised Goodwin that Goodwin would lose her job if she had anything to do with the Union. Goodwin inquired of Brown if it was possible for her to obtain a different cosigner, since Luster was holding a threat over her. Brown responded that she could obtain another cosigner. Thereafter, Goodwin obtained Nonnia Bell as a substitute cosigner of her note. Nonnia Bell is one of the five members of the union organizing committee, listed in the Union's letter of January 20 to Respondent. Goodwin asserted that Brown then advised her that a union had tried to organize the plant once before, that the employees had gone on strike, and that the employees that were on strike lost their jobs. Biown advised Goodwin that he knew that she had to work 'and that his advice to me was that if I wanted my job, wanted to keep my job, to leave the Union alone.' Brown acknowledging that he talked to Goodwin every day while she was working, asserted that he had no recollection of asking Goodwin about the Union. He admitted there was a lot of talk going on about the Union and 'in the conversation you have with employees day in and day out, there is a possibility the Union could have come up. But as far as any threats or anything of that nature, I never made that.' Brown denied ever interrogating Goodwin relative to a union meeting.

    Brown admitted having a conversation with Goodwin relative to her obtaining a different cosigner to replace the one that she had...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT