Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 640 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jacob E. Decker and Sons , a Division of Armour and
Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America AFL-CIO,
Local Union P-54. Case 16-CA-4488
March 22, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 10, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Lowell Goerlich issued his initial attached Decision
in this case in which it was found that the General
Counsel had not produced sufficient evidence to
establish a prima facie case of Respondent's violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
Accordingly, he granted the Respondent's motion to
dismiss the 8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint and
denied the General Counsel's motion to amend the
complaint to include an allegation that the Respon-
dent discriminatorily demoted Willie Hamilton "to a
less desirable status of employment."
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the initial Decision,2 and the Board issued an order
in which it found that the General Counsel had
established a prima facie case of violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and that the Administrative
Law Judge erred in dismissing those allegations of
the complaint for lack of a prima facie case. The
Board's finding of a prima facie case with respect to
the 8(a)(3) allegation that Charles Galbraith had
been discriminatorily discharged was based upon the
General Counsel's offer of evidence showing that:
"(1) Galbraith is the only employee in the history of
Respondent at its Texarkana plant to be discharged
pursuant to this rule violation; (2) Galbraith had
been guilty of this type of conduct over and over
during his year of employment with Respondent;
however, he was not discharged until the advent of
the Union; (3) Respondent had knowledge of
Galbraith's union activity through its informers who
engaged in illegal surveillance at the request of the
Respondent; (4) the discriminate application of the
rule requiring employees to phone in thirty minutes
prior to work time in the event they were to be absent
from work, i.e., the rule was not applied each time an
employee did not call in; (5) in the conversation
between Woodruff and Galbraith concerning Gal-
t The tale of "Trial Examiner" was changed to -Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
2 It was also held in the initial Decision that the Respondent had
committed only those 8 (a)(I) violations which were admitted by the
Respondent
3 In view of the Board's ruling , the Administrative Law Judge granted
the General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint to include an
braith's union sympathies Woodruff indicated that
he (Woodruff) would remove his protective hand
from Galbraith if Galbraith signed a union card."
The Board's finding of a prima facie case of the
discriminatory suspension and demotion of Willie
Hamilton to a less desirable status of employment3
was based upon the General Counsel's proffer of the
following evidence: "(1) Woodruff summoned Myles
into Woodruff's office and interrogated Myles as to
Hamilton's possible alignment with the Union; (2)
Respondent had knowledge of Hamilton's attend-
ance at a Union meeting through its unlawful
surveillance of such meeting; (3) the discriminate use
and application of the rule requiring employees to
call in each day thirty minutes prior to work time in
the event they are absent. In this regard, the smoke
meat foreman testified Hamilton had been absent
from work ten to fifteen times and had called in prior
to work `on and off' and (4) if Hamilton was
suspended for violation of the rule alone, then his
reclassification to a less desirable job should have no
connection with his suspension."
Based on these findings the Board's Order remand-
ed the case for a determination of whether the
Respondent did in fact commit the violations alleged
in the complaint, including the preparation and
issuance of a Supplemental Decision setting forth
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommen-
dations in conformity with the Board's Rules and
Regulations.
On November 17, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Goerlich issued the attached Supplemental Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions 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 has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision and Supplemental 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 the recom-
mended Order in his Supplemental Decision, and
those findings and conclusions4 set forth in his
Supplemental Decision, and to adopt the recom-
mended Order in his initial Decision to the extent it
is not inconsistent with the Board's Order of August
11, 1972.
allegation that the Respondent discnmmatorily demoted Willie Hamilton
"to a less desirable status of employment "
a On p 9, 22, of the Supplemental Decision, the Administrative Law
Judge inadvertently states the date of Charles Galbraith 's unlawful
discharge as occurring on September 8, 1972 We correct this error by
noting the correct date to be September 8. 1971
202 NLRB No. 97
JACOB E . DECKER AND SONS 641
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order , to the extent that it is not inconsistent with
the Board ' s Order of August 11, 1972, and the
Supplemental Order of the Administrative Law
Judge and hereby orders that Respondent , Jacob E.
Decker and Sons, a Division of Armour and
Company, Texarkana , Texas, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order and Supplemental
Order.
The Trial Examiner finds that at all times material herein
Respondent is and has been an employer, as defined in
Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in
operations affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, respectively.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all times herein Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
Umon P-54, hereinafter referred to as the Umon, is and
has been a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH , Trial Examiner : A charge was filed
by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO , Local Union P-54, on Septem-
ber 14 , 1971, and upon the same date the charge was served
by registered mail upon the Respondent herein , Jacob E.
Decker and Sons, a Division of Armour and Company. A
complaint and notice of hearing was issued on November
5, 1971, in which it was alleged that the Respondent had
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein referred to as the Act,
by unlawful interrogations , threats, and surveillance, and
by discriminatorily suspending employee Willie Hamilton
on September 8, 9, and 10 , 1971, and by discharging
employee Charles Galbraith on August 27, 1971.
The Respondent filed timely answer in which it denied
that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
alleged.
The case came on for hearing on January 13 and 14,
1972, at Texarkana , Texas. Each party was afforded a full
opportunity to be heard , to call , examine, and cross-
examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record , to submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions , and to file
briefs All briefs have been carefully considered by the
Trial Examiner.
Upon the whole record and upon his observation of the
witnesses , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein a Delaware corporation with principal offices in
Phoenix, Arizona. Respondent is engaged in the processing
and distribution of meat and meat products from its plant
in Texarkana , Texas. During the preceding 12 months
prior to filing the complaint herein , a representative period,
the Respondent bought goods valued in excess of $50,000
which it caused to be shipped in interstate commerce from
points located directly outside of the State of Texas to its
Texarkana , Texas, location.
A. The Pertinent Facts
The Union commenced an organizational drive at the
Respondent 's Texarkana plant on July 10, 1971, which
culminated in an election on November 5, 1971, in which
the Union was designated as the bargaining representative.
During this period the Union held seven or eight
organizational meetings of the Respondent 's employees.
Employee James DeLoach attended an organizational
meeting on Saturday , August 21 , 1971, at the Master Hosts
Inn, Texarkana, Arkansas , and informed the employees
present that H. R. Woodruff , the Respondent 's Texarkana
plant manager , had sent him to the meeting . On that day
upon leaving work DeLoach , while standing in front of
Woodruff's office, observed that he thought he would go to
the union meeting. Woodruff said , "Well, if you do, I
would appreciate it if you would let me know what was
going on out there and who was going to be there."
DeLoach failed to contact Woodruff after the meeting.
Woodruff, nevertheless , telephoned DeLoach and asked
him what had occurred at the meeting and who had been
present . DeLoach supplied Woodruff with the names of 12
employees who had attended the meeting , among which
were the names of alleged discriminatees Charles Galbraith
and Willie Hamilton. About a week later DeLoach
attended another union organizational meeting. Woodruff
asked DeLoach "what went on." DeLoach answered, "Oh,
about the same as usual."
According to employee Henry D. Myles, in the second or
third week in August 1971, Woodruff asked him whether
he knew what was causing Willie Hamilton 's dissatisfac-
tion . Myles said that Hamilton had not complained to him.
Woodruff then asked him whether he knew of the
employees' attempt to organize the plant . Myles answered
in the negative . Woodruff continued, "What about Willie
Hamilton?" Myles replied , "Willie Hamilton doesn't have
the ability to make no contact like that ." During the
conversation Woodruff also asked Myles what he thought
about the Union . Myles replied that he thought it was "a
good idea."
On August 12, 1971, Willie Hamilton received a
communication from the Respondent entitled "First
Warning." Among other things in the warning it was
recited that "On August 6, 1971, you were scheduled to
work at 6 a.m . Your wife called in and reported you off
with a sprained ankle . According to instructions, issued in
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a letter to all employees, you are to report to me at least
thirty minutes before you [sic] scheduled work time, this
you did not do."
The disciplinary procedure which had been posted on
the bulletin board was incorporated in the warning as
follows.
First offense-A written warning: Second offense-A
written warning; plus, I week suspension without pay;
Third offense-A written warning; plus, 2 weeks
suspension without pay; Any further offense will be
subject to dismissal.
A paragraph added, "If the second and third offense is
serious enough [sic] according to the rules and regulations,
you could be discharged."
On September 3, 1971, Hamilton received a second
written warning for an offense described as follows:
On September 2, 1971 you were scheduled for work at
5:00 a.m. Your wife called me at 5:30 a.m. to report
you off sick for the day. On September 3, 1971 you
were scheduled for work at 5:00 a.m. and you did not
report off and as I write this letter at 11:30 a.m., I have
not heard from you."
In the warning it was noted that "This is your second
warning and according to the rules posted on the bulletin
board, you are given a one week suspension without pay.
You will be scheduled back to work on September 13,
1971." This suspension is claimed by the General Counsel
to have been discriminatory. `
Hamilton testified that he informed the Respondent that
he was sick on September 2, 1971, and would not be
available for work. Thereafter he was absent on Friday and
Monday. He reported for work on September 7, 1971, at
which time he presented a doctor's statement to Foreman
Hubert Ekstrum. Ekstrum did not read the statement.
Thereafter Ekstrum told Hamilton to go home and he
would call Dr. Jamison. Hamilton was instructed to
contact Ekstrum at 4 o'clock. When Hamilton phoned
Ekstrum said, "Come down and report on Friday morning
and we will check with Ray to see what time he wants you
to come in Monday morning."
Prior to his suspension Hamilton worked in the receiving
department. When he returned to work from his suspen-
sion he was assigned to a skinning machine, which was a
lesser paying job. Hamilton had previously worked for
about 3 months on the skinning machine. The General
Counsel claims that Hamilton's assignment to the skinning
machine was also discriminatory.
On September 8, 1969, alleged discriminatee Charles
Galbraith received a first written warning. The warning
concerned Galbraith's representation that his car had
broken down on September 4, 1969. Galbraith did not
appear for work until September 8, 1969. Galbraith was
warned, "According to our rules and regulations posted on
the Bulletin Board, if this happens again, you will be
suspended for one week without pay."
On October 5, 1970, Galbraith received a second written
warning at which time he was given a 1-week suspension
without pay. On this occasion, October 2, 1970, Galbraith
was scheduled to work at 6:30 a.m., but he did not show up
or report that he would not be in until 7:10. In the warning
Galbraith was reminded that "any time an employee had
to be absent they were to report out at least thirty minutes
before their scheduled work time."
On March 25, 1971, Galbraith received a third written
warning with the admonition, "If this happens again, you
will be dismissed according to rules and regulations posted
on the bulletin board." The third warning mentioned that
Galbraith was scheduled to work at 6:30 p.m. and, as of
8:45 p.m., he had not reported as instructed to do.i
On September 8, 1971, Galbraith received a fourth
written warning. In this warning it was pointed out that
Galbraith was scheduled to work at 6:30 a.m. on
September 7, 1971, and at 7:30 a.m. someone called in and
said that he was sick. The warning noted that this was 1-
1/2 hours after he was supposed to report according to the
posted rules The warning also noted that the situation had
been discussed between Galbraith, Watson, and Ekstrum
on several occasions. It was further pointed out that on
September 8, 1971, Galbraith had not called at all. The
warning concluded, "This is your fourth warning letter and
in accordance with the rule posted on the bulletin board,
you are today dismissed as an employee of this company."
The General Counsel claims that Galbraith's dismissal on
September 8, 1971, was discriminatory.
Prior to his discharge Galbraith had attended about
three or four union organizational meetings. About 4 days
before the meeting of August 21, 1971, according to
Galbraith, as he was walking up the aisle, Plant Manager
Woodruff approached him, put his arm around him, and
said, "Hey, Charlie boy, you haven't signed one of them
cards, have you?" Galbraith answered that he had not
signed a card, whereupon Woodruff responded, "Well, you
know you are already skating on thin [sic] ice," and added,
"Well, if you signed one of those cards I have got my
hands off you and out the door you go." About 3 weeks
before this incident occurred, according to Galbraith,
Raymond Watson, warehouse foreman, asked him what he
thought about the Union, and Galbraith answered , "Well,
I think it is a good deal."
Galbraith testified that on Tuesday morning, September
7, 1971, he was sick at his girlfriend's house where there
was no telephone. Thus he asked her son to make a
telephone call to the plant for him. He appeared at the
plant on Wednesday in order to tell the Respondent that
he was not feeling better and that he was going to go to a
doctor. Ekstrum reminded him that he had not called in;
Galbraith responded that he "sent her son to call in for
me." Ekstrum said, "That's a flimsy excuse." Galbraith
remonstrated, "I was sick and there wasn't no phone; how
can I call in?" Ekstrum answered, "Charles, we dust ain't
goin to take this excuse this time. Just pick up your check
and go."
The foregoing evidence was produced during the
General Counsel's case-in-chief.
B. Conclusions and Reasons Therefor
The Trial Examiner is of the opinion that the General
Counsel has not adduced evidence which establishes a
prima facie case that the Respondent discriminatorily
I These warnings were given before the union drive commenced
JACOB E. DECKER AND SONS 643
suspended Willie Hamilton and discriminatonly dis-
charged Charles Galbraith. For this reason the Trial
Examiner grants the Respondent's motion to dismiss the
Section 8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint.2
In regard to the allegations in the complaint concerning
8(a)(1) violations of the Act the Trial Examiner is of the
opinion that by reason of the Respondent's denials the
General Counsel has not established by a preponderance
of the evidence such violations of the Act except for those
which were admitted by the Respondent.3 The admitted
violations concern Woodruff's interrogations in regard to
union activities and his participation in surveillance of the
employees' union activities. Accordingly the Trial Examin-
er finds that by engaging in such activities the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be
exercised herein.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.4
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following
recommended: 5
ORDER
Respondent Jacob E. Decker and Sons, a Division of
Armour and Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees regarding their
union activities and the union activities of other employees.
(b) Unlawfully engaging in surveillance of its employees'
union activities, giving the impression that it is engaging in
surveillance of its employees' union activities, or encourag-
ing employees to engage in surveillance of employees'
union activities on its behalf.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Texarkana, Texas, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.?
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those found in this Decision.
2 For the same reason the Trial Examiner denies the General Counsel's
motion to amend the complaint to include an allegation that the
Respondent discnminatonly demoted Willie Hamilton "to a less desirable
status of employment
3 In connection with Woodruffs testimony counsel for the Respondent
said, "I think that Mr Woodruff is admitting to clearly 8 (a)(1) violations "
4 The Respondent contends that "The General Counsel should be
assessed costs, attorney fees and expenses of Respondent 's expert witness
for prosecuting such a frivolous case to trial " The Respondent cites Tudee
Products, Inc, 194 NLRB No 198, and N LR B v Smith & Wesson, 424
F 2d 1072, 1073 (C A 1) While the Respondent's contention may be well
taken in an appropriate case , nevertheless , because a finding of unfair labor
practices is sustained its contention finds no support in the present
proceedings
5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
6 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
r In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
in respect to their union activities or the union activities
of other employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance in respect to our
employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT give the impression to our employees
that we are engaging in surveillance in respect to our
employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT encourage employees to engage in
surveillance of our employees' union activities on our
behalf.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of a labor
organization.
644
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JACOB E. DECKER AND
SONS, A DIVISION OF
ARMOUR AND COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room
8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort
Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: On
March 10, 1972, the initial Decision in this case was
rendered in which it was found that the General Counsel
had not produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima
facie case of Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
referred to as the Act. The Respondent's motion to dismiss
the 8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint was granted, and
the General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint to
include an allegation that the Respondent discriminatonly
demoted Willie Hamilton "to a less desirable status of
employment" was denied.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
initial Decision,' and the Board issued an order in which it
found that the General Counsel had established a prima
facie case of violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
and that the "Trial Examiner erred" in dismissing these
allegations of the complaint for lack of a prima facie case.
The Board's finding of a prima facie case with respect to
the 8(a)(3) allegation that Charles Galbraith had been
discriminatorily discharged was based upon the General
Counsel's offer of evidence showing that: "(1) Galbraith is
the only employee in the history of Respondent at its
Texarkana plant to be discharged pursuant to this rule
violation; (2) Galbraith had been guilty of this type of
conduct over and over during his year of employment with
Respondent; however, he was not discharged until the
advent of the Union; (3) Respondent had knowledge of
Galbraith's union activity through its informers who
engaged in illegal surveillance at the request of the
Respondent; (4) the discriminate application of the rule
requiring employees to phone in thirty minutes prior to
work time in the event they were to be absent from work,
i e the rule was not applied each time an employee did not
I It was also held in the initial decision that the Respondent had
committed only those 8(a)(I) violations which were admitted by the
Respondent
2 In view of the Board's ruling, the General Counsel's motion to amend
the complaint to include an allegation that the Respondent discriminatorily
demoted Willie Hamilton "to a less desirable status of employment" is
granted
3 The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the
observation of witnesses
call in; (5) in the conversation between Woodruff and
Galbraith concerning Galbraith's union sympathies Wood-
ruff indicated that he (Woodruff) would remove his
protective hand from Galbraith if Galbraith signed a union
card."
The Board's finding of a prima facie case of the
discriminatory suspension and demotion of Willie Hamul-
ton to a less desirable status of employment2 was based
upon the General Counsel's proffer of the following
evidence: "(1) Woodruff summoned Myles into Wood-
ruff's office and interrogated Myles as to Hamilton's
possible alignment with the Union; (2) Respondent had
knowledge of Hamilton's attendance at a Union meeting
through its unlawful surveillance of such meeting; (3) the
discriminate use and application of the rule requiring
employees to call in each day thirty minutes prior to work
time in the event they are absent. In this regard, the smoke
meat foreman testified Hamilton had been absent from
work ten to fifteen times and had called in prior to work
,on and off' and (4) if Hamilton was suspended for
violation of the rule alone, then his reclassification to a less
desirable job should have no connection with his suspen-
sion "
Based on these findings the Board's Order remanded the
case for a determination of whether the Respondent did in
fact commit the violations alleged in the complaint,
including the preparation and issuance of a Supplemental
Decision setting forth findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations in conformity with the Board's
Rules and Regulations. The scope of the Board's remand
commands a de novo reconsideration of the entire record in
this case.
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT,3 CONCLUSIONS,
AND REASONS THEREFOR
I THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
In the initial Decision in this case a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act was found in Plant Manager Woodruff's
admitted "interrogations in regard to union activities and
participation in surveillance of the employees' union
activities."4 In response to the Board's remand and upon a
reexamination of the record as a whole, with due regard for
the demeanor of the witnesses, the following additional
8(a)(1) violations are found:
The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in
early August when Woodruff interrogated Henry Myles as
to Willie Hamilton's dissatisfaction, Myles' knowledge of
4 Woodruff admitted that he contacted James DeLoach after the union
meeting of August 21, and "[H ]e gave me a list of the names of the
individuals that were there " He also admitted that unnamed employees
gave him the names of those who attended other union meetings As the
Board stated in Abex Corporation-Engineered Products Division, 162 NLRB
328, 329, °[1 ]nterrogation which seeks to place an employee in the position
of acting as an informer regarding the union activity of his fellow-employees
is coercive " See also N L R B v Builders Supply Company of Houston, 410
F 2d 606 (C A 5)
JACOB E DECKER AND SONS 645
the employees' attempt to organize the plant, and Hamil-
ton's "possible alignment with the union." 5
The Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act 3 or 4 days prior to the August 21 meeting when
Woodruff threatened to "remove his protective hand from
Galbraith if Galbraith signed a union card."6
Finally, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act when Woodruff threatened to discharge James
DeLoach for union activity on August 23.7
B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3)
It is well established that the General Counsel bears the
burden of proving an unlawful discharge or suspension.8
However, the Respondent must provide the Board with an
adequate explanation for a discharge or suspension once a
prima facie case of possible discrimination has been
established.9 An adequate explanation requires a showing
that a discharge or suspension was not motivated by a
desire to discourage union activity. "[A]n employer may
hire and discharge at will so long as his action is not based
on opposition to union activities." N.L.R.B. v. Little Rock
Downtowner, Inc., 341 F.2d 1020, 1021 (C.A. 8). "[A]bsent
a showing of antiunion motivation, an employer may
discharge an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or
no reason at all... ." O. A. Fuller Supermarkets, Inc, 374
F.2d 197 (C.A. 5). However, the "mere existence of a valid
ground for a discharge is no defense to a charge that the
discharge was unlawful, unless the discharge was predicat-
ed solely on those grounds, and not by a desire to
discourage union activity." N.L.R B v. Symons Manufac-
turing Co., 328 F.2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7).10 "A justifiable
ground for dismissal is no defense if it is a pretext and not
the moving cause." N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company, 237
F.2d 521, 525 (C.A. 8). ". . . the real motive' of the
employer in an alleged § 8(a)(3) violation is decisive
.." N.L.R.B. v. Brown Food Stores, 380 U.S. 278, 287
1. The discharge of Charles Galbraith
The Respondent claims that Charles Galbraith was
discharged for his fourth failure to comply with long-
existing company rules and not because of his union
activity. A list of company rules was posted on the
Respondent's bulletin board. Accompanying these rules
was a notice that a violation of 1 of the first 19 of the
company rules would be penalized by a written warning, a
second violation by a 1-week suspension, a third by a 2-
week suspension, and a fourth by discharge. The employ-
ees had been instructed that they were required to report
an absence to the company 30 minutes before the time they
were scheduled to begin work on the day of the absence; a
failure to do so was considered a violation of the
aforementioned company work rules. Charles Galbraith
had received his first, second, and third' warnings on
September 8, 1969, October 5, 1970, and March 25, 1971,
respectively. The company was notified that Galbraith
would be absent on September 7, 1971, at 7:30 a.m., 1 hour
later than required by the company rules. On September 8,
Galbraith did not call in to report his absence at all; he
appeared at the plant late in the day to inform the
Respondent that he was ill. Galbraith received his fourth
warning letter, which informed him that he was discharged,
on that same day. The Respondent claims that Galbraith's
discharge was motivated solely by his violation of
company rules.
In support of this claim Respondent's witnesses, Wood-
ruff, W.C. Campbell, Armour and Company manager of
labor relations, and H.C. Beale, executive administrator of
Decker and Sons, testified that employees who violated-the
rule requiring the reporting of an absence one-half hour
prior to the scheduled work time were always disciplined.
This testimony was refuted. Henry Myles testified that he
had been absent "a number of times" without calling in
and that no disciplinary action had been taken against him.
Galbraith stated that he had been absent, failed to call in,
and escaped discipline on numerous occasion. He recalled
being absent 10 to 20 times in the year previous to his
discharge. Asked if he called in to report his absences, he
said, "Sometimes I did and sometimes I didn't." The
General Counsel' s cross-examination of Raymond Wat-
son, the smoked meat foreman, revealed that Willie
Hamilton, a frequent absentee, reported to the company 30
minutes prior to worktime "off and on"; however,
Hamilton never received a warning letter until August 12,
1971, less than a month before his suspension and after the
start of the union campaign.ii Asked what would happen
to such an employee who had failed to call in to report an
absence on two separate occasions, Watson replied,
"Sometimes he gets suspended." 12
The Respondent has failed to show that Galbraith was
discharged in accordance with an automatic disciplinary
procedure which was applied without exception in all cases
of employee rule violations. First, Respondent's witnesses,
Campbell and Beale, admitted that they might be unaware
of a failure on the part of the plant manager to enforce the
company rules strictly. Woodruff, who insisted that plant
rules were strictly and completely enforced, was contradic-
ted by Watson who was in a better position to know
5 Myles' version of this conversation , which is credited , is set out in the
initial Decision in this case See also the Board's findings in its Order
remanding the case to the Trial Examiner
6 Galbraith 's version of this conversation , which is credited , is set out in
the initial Decision in this case See also the Board's findings in its Order
remanding the case to the Trial Examiner
I DeLoach testified "[ H ]e said, 'I guess you know you have got two
warnings I can write you two more and you know what that would
mean' I asked him, 'For what" ' He said .'You went out there to the
union meeting , you got drunk , you showed your ass and you signed a union
card' " Although Woodruff testified , the foregoing testimony of DeLoach
is uncontroverted in the record
" See N L R B v Borden , 392 F 2d 412, 416 (C A 5), G H Hicks and
Sons, Incorporated, 141 NLRB 1272, 1273
9 N L R B v Standard Container Co, 428 F 2d 793, 794 (C A 5)
is The principle was well stated by the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in N L R B v Great Eastern Color Lithographic Corp, 309 F 2d 352,
355, cert denied 373 U S 950
The issue before us is not, of course, whether or not there existed
grounds for discharge of these employees apart from their union
activities The fact that the employer had ample reason for discharging
them is of no moment [E]ven though the discharges may have
been based upon other reasons as well, if the employer was partly
motivated by union activity, the discharges were violative of the Act
ii See the Board's findings in its Order remanding the case to the Trial
Examiner
12 Emphasis supplied
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whether absentees who failed to notify the company were
always disciplmed.13 Weighing the testimony of Woodruff,
whose assertions were found to be incredible with respect
to the alleged 8(a)(1) violations, against the testimony of
Myles, Galbraith, and Watson that rule enforcement was
sporadic, the testimony of the latter must be credited.
Second, the Respondent introduced time records purport-
ing to show that Galbraith and Hamilton were disciplined
on every occasion when they failed to call in to report an
absence. (Resp. Exhs. 1l and 12.) The General Counsel
impeached these records by showing that they did not
reveal Willie Hamilton's unexcused absence of August 6,
1971.14 Third, although an average of 2 of the company's
approximately 50 employees were absent on any given day,
Galbraith was the only employee ever fired for failure to
call in to report an absence. It seems reasonable to assume
that this would not be the case if the 30-minute rule were
strictly enforced.
The Respondent never contended that Galbraith was a
poor employee.15 The reason advanced for his discharge
was that it was in accordance with established policy from
which the company never deviated. The fallacy of this
contention has been demonstrated. When "the reasons
advanced [for a discharge] are not persuasive the [protect-
ed] activity may well disclose the real motive behind the
employer's action." N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 351
F.2d 693, 698 (C.A. 8). "Proof .. . that the reason given
[for a termination] was false warrants the inference that
some other reason was being concealed . . . . If the
employer is independently shown to have a union animus
which the discharge would gratify, it may be a fair
inference that this was the true reason." N L.R.B. v. Joseph
Antell, Inc., 358 F.2d 880, 883 (C.A. 1).
Evidence of the Respondent's union animus and support
for the inference of an unlawful discharge is found in its
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, all of which were
committed by Plant Manager Woodruff, who was instru-
mental in the decision to fire Galbraith.16 "When a .. .
manager holding . . . antiunion bias . . . is involved
directly in the decision whether to discharge an employee,
the Board is entitled to conclude that this was a case of the
threat made good." N.L.R.B. v. Neuhoff Brothers Packers,
Inc., 375 F.2d 372, 374, 376 (C.A. 5).
Other factors, apart from the 8(a)(1) violations, support
the inference that the discharge of Galbraith was unlawful.
First, although Campbell testified that Armour and
Company had a good longstanding relationship with the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and claimed that Armour had
not conducted vigorous antiunion campaigns in other
locations, he admitted that he felt unionization was
unnecessary. Furthermore, the existence of Armour's
claimed nonhostile companywide relations with the Meat
Cutters is irrelevant in a given plant whose manager
13 The employees were instructed to call Ekstrum, the plant superintend-
ent, or Foreman Watson if they expected to be absent Ekstrum did not
testify as to the strictness of disciplinary enforcement of company rules.
Beale testified that if Ekstrum and Watson decided not to report a rule
violation to Woodruff, Woodruff would be unaware of such violation
14 Hamilton received his first warning of August 12 for this unexcused
absence
15 Both Woodruff and Ekstrum stated that they liked Galbraith's work
16 Woodruff called Beale , told him of Galbraith's fourth violation of
harbors union animus. Second, Woodruff reported the
names of employees attending union meetings to Beale.
The reporting of this information should have been
unnecessary if the company's policy during a union
campaign was, as Campbell claimed, merely to insure that
the employees would vote "knowing what all the facts
were." Third and most important, the timing of the
company's use of its disciplinary rules is highly significant.
Galbraith was discharged on September 8, 1971; the
warning letter to Willie Hamilton informing him of his 1-
week suspension was dated September 3, 1971, and his
suspension was effective from September 8 to September
10. Woodruff knew that both Galbraith and Hamilton had
attended union meetings. Woodruff originally claimed that
he did not discipline any of the other employees who
attended union meetings prior to the election. However,
cross-examination by the General Counsel revealed that
Charlie King was given a 2-week suspension and a third
warning letter 2 weeks before the election and that Henry
Myles received a 1-week suspension and second warning
letter on October 26, also a short time before the election
of November 5. Both of these men were on the list taken by
Woodruff of employees who attended union meetings.
Examination of Respondent's exhibits reveals additionally
that Willie Hamilton's first warning letter was issued on
August 12, 1971, at a time during the union campaign
when Hamilton had already been in attendance at union
meetings and about the time Woodruff interrogated Myles
on the subject of Hamilton's "dissatisfaction." 17 Finally,
Jim Holland, acknowledged by Woodruff to be the "main"
union leader, received his first warning on August 10, 1971,
also during the union campaign. Thus, six disciplinary
letters were sent to known union adherents during August,
September, and October 1971, the major months of the
union campaign, a total equal to one less than the number
of disciplinary letters issued during the entire year of 1970.
The Respondent attempted to support its claim that the
discharge of Galbraith was not discriminatory by showing
that other employees who attended- union meetings were
not disciplined. Woodruff specifically testified that Jim
Holland, the main union leader, was not discharged and
that no other unionmen, besides Galbraith and Hamilton,
were disciplined. To the contrary, Holland and at least two
other union adherents were disciplined. These additional
disciplinary sanctions to union supporters, although not
charged as independent violations of the Act, do constitute
evidence of union animus and support for the inference of
unlawful discharge. The Respondent's issuance of six
warnings in so short a period of time is either a
mathematically improbable coincidence or persuasive
evidence of illegal intent.18 Although such evidence is
circumstantial, and the Respondent directly denied dis-
criminatory intent, "[i It would indeed be the unusual case
company rules, and asked him "if there was to be any deviation from
company policy because there was union activities underway " Beale readily
agreed that Galbraith should be discharged
17 The union drive began on July 10, 1971
18 "[T]he unexplained coincidence of time with respect to the principal
events was really no coincidence at all, but rather part of a deliberate effort
by the management to scotch the lawful measures of the employees before
that had progressed too far toward fruition N LR B v Jamestown
Sterling Corp, 211 F 2d 725 (C A 2)
JACOB E. DECKER AND SONS
in which the link between the discharge and the union
activity could be supplied exclusively by direct evidence.
Intent is subjective and in many cases the discrimination
can be proven only by the use of circumstantial evidence."
N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 351 F.2d 693, 698
(C.A.8).'
Therefore, on the basis of the record as a whole, it is
concluded and found that the "real motive" 19 for the
Respondent's discharge of Galbraith was to discourage
membership in a labor organization and to interfere with
the right of employees "to self-organization and to form,
join, or assist labor organizations." The discharge of
Galbraith was a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Since the Respondent's motive was clearly unlawful, its
asserted reason for the discharge of Galbraith becomes
immaterial . The existence of an alternative ground for the
action taken is no defense where, as here, the Respondent's
actual motivation was based on unlawful discrimination.
Webster Wood Industries, Inc., 169 NLRB 67. "[T]he
existence of a proper reason for discharge is no defense if
the discharge was actually made for an improper purpose."
John Klann Moving and Trucking Company, 411 F.2d 261
(C.A. 6).
Moreover, the Respondent has not sustained its burden
of rebutting the prima facie case established by the General
Counsel as found by the Board and credited herein. The
Board has stated in National Automobile and Casualty
Insurance Co., 199 NLRB No. 1, "Fundamentally, a prima
facie case is one which is established by sufficient evidence
and can be overcome only by a preponderance of
competent, credible rebutting evidence."
2. The suspension of Willie Hamilton
The Respondent claimed that Willie Hamilton's suspen-
sion of September 8, 9, and 10, 1971, resulted from his
failure to report an absence 30 minutes prior to his
scheduled worktime. His second violation of company
rules. The Respondent admitted that Hamilton was a good
worker, claiming that its disciplinary procedure had been
automatically invoked only because of this rule violation.
As noted in the discussion concerning the illegal discharge
of Galbraith, the company failed to prove that it never
deviated from its policy of punishing those who failed to
call in to report an absence. Watson testified that
"Hamilton had been absent from work ten to fifteen times
and had called in prior to work `on and off' "; 20 yet before
Hamilton's suspension he had received only one warning
in his year of work for the company. Again, the falsity of
the reason given for this suspension warrants the inference
that the suspension was motivated by the Employer's
desire to discourage employee union activity. This infer-
ence is supported by the Respondent's knowledge of
Hamilton's union activity2i and Woodruff's interrogation
19 N L R B v Brown Food Stores, supra
20 See the Board's findings in its Order remanding the case to the Trial
Examiner
21 In its brief the Respondent relies on Tampa Times Company v
NLRB, 193 F 2d 582, 583 (C A 5), for the proposition that it must be
affirmatively shown that persons responsible for a discriminatory discharge
had actual knowledge of the dischargee 's union activities The Respondent
claims that the General Counsel has not shown such knowledge of
Galbraith and Hamilton 's union activities other than knowledge of their
647
of Myles on the subject of Hamilton's "dissatisfaction."
The evidence of Respondent's union animus and other
factors supporting the inference of unlawful discharge
discussed with respect to the discharge of Galbraith are
equally applicable here. Hence, it is concluded that the
Respondent's suspension of Willie Hamilton on September
8, 9, and 10 was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Moreover, as in the case of Galbraith, the Respondent
has not sustained its burden of rebutting the prima facie
case of the General Counsel which was found by the Board
and credited herein. See National Automobile and Casualty
Insurance Co., supra.
3. The change in Willie Hamilton's job
classification
When Willie Hamilton returned to work from his
suspension on September 13, he was transferred from the
Receiving Department to the Skinning Department, which
involved an 18-cent cut in pay. Hamilton testified that
although he was hired to work in the Receiving Depart-
ment and was working there at the time of his suspension,
he had previously worked on the skinning machine "for a
while," "maybe a couple of months." The reason advanced
by the Respondent for Hamilton's transfer , which is
considered to be valid and not of a discriminatory nature,
is that about a week before Hamilton's suspension Henry
Myles informed Watson that Hamilton could not read or
write. This deficiency made Hamilton unable to perform
the necessary recordkeeping functions of a receiver. It is
therefore concluded that the change in Hamilton's job
status was made for business purposes and was not in
violation of the Act.
SUPPLEMENTAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By unlawfully discharging Charles Galbraith on
September 8, 1972, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. By unlawfully suspending Willie Hamilton on
September 8, 9, and 10, 1971, the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and 8(a)(3) of the Act.
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged Charles Galbraith and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act, it is recommended that the
Respondent remedy such unlawful conduct. It is recom-
mended in accordance with Board policy 22 that Respon-
dent offer Charles Galbraith immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
attendance at one union meeting However, the record reveals that
Woodruff knew that Hamilton attended five union meetings and that
Galbraith attended at least "a couple " In any case, the required showing of
knowledge of union activity to support a finding of an illegal discharge is
satisfied by a showing of knowledge of attendance at even one union
meeting The statute protects those who engage in minimal union activity as
well as more vociferous union advocates
22 See The Rushton Company, 158 NLRB 1730, 1740
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
would have earned from the date of his discriminatory
discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less net
earnings during such period to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and including interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
It is further recommended, in accordance with the above
formula, that the loss of earnings caused by the Respon-
dent's discriminatory 3-day suspension be paid by the
Respondent to Willie Hamilton.
It is further recommended that the Respondent be
ordered to rescind and expunge Charles Galbraith's fourth
warning dated September 8, 1971, and Willie Hamilton's
second warning dated September 3, 1971, from their
personnel records.
Accordingly, upon the basis of the foregoing findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended
that the Board issue the following recommended: 23
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
The Respondent , Jacob E. Decker and Sons, a Division
of Armour and Company, its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging concerted activities of its employees, or
membership in Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , by unlawfully discriminatonly dis-
charging or suspending any of its employees.
(b) Unlawfully threatening to fire or discipline employ-
ees for engaging in concerted activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such
activities subject to the union-security requirements of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Charles Galbraith immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
discharging , if necessary , any employee hired to replace
him, and make him whole for any loss of pay that he may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's discrimina-
tion against him in accordance with the recommendations
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "Supple-
mental Recommended Remedy."
(b) Make Willie Hamilton whole for any loss of pay that
he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him in accordance with the recom-
mendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"Supplemental Recommended Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Supplemental Order.
(d) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(e) Rescind and expunge from its personnel records
Charles Galbraith's fourth warning dated September 8,
1971, and Willie Hamilton's second warning dated Septem-
ber 3, 1971.
(f) Post at its Texarkana, Texas, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A.1124 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Supplemental Decision, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.25
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those found in the decisions in this case.
23 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its supplemental findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
24 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
25 In the event that this recommended Supplemental Order is adopted by
the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified
to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in wnting, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board, after a trial in which
all parties were permitted to introduce evidence, found that
JACOB E. DECKER AND SONS
we discharged Charles Galbraith and suspended Willie
Hamilton unlawfully and that by their discharge and
suspension we discouraged employees from becoming and
remaining members of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL offer Charles Galbraith his formerjob or, if
his job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent
position.
WE WILL restore his seniority and pay him any
backpay he lost because we discharged him.
WE WILL pay Willie Hamilton any backpay he lost
because we suspended him.
WE WILL NOT discharge or suspend any employee for
the same reasons for which the Board found that we
discharged and suspended the above-named employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge or suspend
employees for lawfully engaging in union activities or
protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
in respect to their union activities or the union activities
of other employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance in respect to our
employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT give the impression to our employees
that we are engaging in surveillance in respect to our
employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT encourage employees to engage in
surveillance of our employees' union activities on our
behalf.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees for engaging in
union activities.
The laws of the United States give all employees these
rights:
To organize themselves
649
To form , join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through representatives
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any and all of these things
subject to the union -security requirements of
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
All of you are free to remain or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of a labor organization.
Dated By
JACOB E. DECKER AND
SONS, A DIVISION OF
ARMOUR AND COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement , upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Room
8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort
Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.