CONAGRA FOODS, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 9, 2013

09-CA-089532 (N.L.R.B. May. 9, 2013)

JD–34–13
Troy, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
CONAGRA FOODS, INC.
and Cases 9–CA–089532
9–CA–090873
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERICIAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 75
Jamie Ireland and Zuzana Murarova, Esqs.
for the General Counsel.
Ruth Horvatich and Jennifer Dehloff, Esqs.
(McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, P.C.)
Omaha, Nebraska, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Dayton, Ohio
on March 25 and 26, 2013. UFCW Local 75 filed the initial charges on September 18, and
October 5, 2012. The General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2013.
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent, Conagra, by its consultant and agent,
Phillip Craft, violated Section 8(a)(1) in a series of presentations he made to employees on
August 21 and 22, 2012.The General Counsel alleges more specifically that Craft told the
employees that they could not talk about the Union while on company time or on the production
floor.
The General Counsel also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in
issuing a verbal warning to employee Janette Haines on about October 2, 2012. Respondent
issued Haines a verbal warning on that date for soliciting on behalf of the Union.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following

1 Tr. 102, line 23 should read, “antithetical.”
JD–34–13
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation with a facility in Troy, Ohio where it produces Slim Jims, 5
pizza, breadsticks and similar products. In 2012 it sold and shipped goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to places outside of Ohio. Conagra admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
10
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Complaint paragraph 5: the meetings conducted at Respondent’s facility by Phillip Craft
The Union, UFCW Local 75, began an organizing drive at Respondent’s Troy, Ohio 15
facility in about August 2011. As of the date of this hearing, the Union had not filed a
representation petition.
At some point, Respondent hired the firm of Craft and Barresi to prepare a presentation
for its employees about unions. Employees of the consulting firm gathered information from 20
employees at the plant in preparation for these presentations. Phillip Craft, a principal of the
firm, conducted 14 meetings with different groups of employees on August 21 and 22, 2012. He
conducted 6 meetings in Building 2 of the plant on August 21 and 8 more in Building 1 of the
plant on August 22.2
25
Craft made his presentations from a slide show or Power Point demonstration. He
generally read from the slides, although at times he talked extemporaneously or responded to
questions from the audience.
One slide from which Craft read at every meeting concerned Conagra’s “No Solicitation 30
No Distribution Policy.” This slide presented the following “bullet points:”
No distribution rule (strictly enforced)
Prohibit in work areas at all times
Prohibit in all areas during working time35
Prohibit all non-employees from distributing
No solicitation rule (strictly enforced)
Prohibit solicitation during working time
Prohibit solicitation in a work area on employee’s own time40
Prohibit all non-employees from soliciting

2 The parties stipulated to the introduction of G.C. Exh. 9 without any discussion or testimony. In the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that the meetings took place at the times set forth in that
exhibit.
JD–34–13
3
It is undisputed that Respondent allows employees to talk about non work-related
subjects while working in working areas.3 What is disputed in this matter is whether Craft said
at several meetings, when speaking extemporaneously, that employees could not discuss the
Union or unions during work time in work areas. However, it is also undisputed that after
Craft’s presentations, several or many employees discussed the Union on the production floor 5
while working and that nobody was disciplined for doing so with the possible exception of Jan
Haines on October 2, 2012.
Scott Adkins, Respondent’s plant manager, and Thomas Thompsen, Respondent’s human
resources manager, attended all 14 of Craft’s presentations. They, as well as Craft, himself, 10
testified that he never told employees they could not discuss the Union while working and in
fact, in response to questions, said just the opposite. Respondent also presented the testimony
of Jesse French, a rank and file employee, and leadperson Ryan Fields, concerning the 10:00
p.m. meeting on August 22, to rebut the testimony of the General Counsel’s witnesses regarding
Craft’s presentation. Douglas Hearn and Jane Gambill were called by Respondent to testify 15
about the 0700 meeting which they attended. James Warner, a leadman, testified for Respondent
regarding the midnight August 22/23 meeting. Jacqueline Seipel, a rank and file employee,
testified for Respondent concerning the meeting which she attended, although it is not clear from
the record which session that was.
20
There are no recordings or notes of anything Craft said other than the slides. Therefore, it
is necessary to closely examine the testimony of the General Counsel’s witnesses in order to
determine whether there is any greater reason to credit their testimony than that of Respondent’s
witnesses. Another way of putting this would be whether the General Counsel established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Craft said the things alleged in the complaint.25
Testimony regarding the 1:00 p.m. meeting on August 21:
Rhonda Dross: Dross testified that Craft had a slide show and then, “he talked about
soliciting, we wasn’t allowed soliciting. Talked—said we was not allowed talking about the 30
Union on our breaks until—unless we was on our breaks and lunches, or outside of work,” Tr.
92. On cross-examination, Dross testified that Craft said that no soliciting was allowed during
our working hours, but also that he said, “no talking about the Union,” Tr. 97.
Paul Jackson: Jackson testified that he was almost 100% sure that Craft said that you 35
cannot talk about the Union on company time. I do not credit Jackson’s testimony because he
clearly had only a sketchy memory of what was said at the meeting, and his testimony is
obviously inaccurate in some respects, see Tr. 114, 119-20, 125, 133.
Julie Strader: Strader testified that Craft stated the employees were not allowed to talk 40
about the Union on the production floor, Tr. 146.

3 A long line of Board cases holds that an employer violates the Act when employees are forbidden to
discuss unionization, but are free to discuss other subjects unrelated to work, e.g., Jensen Enterprises, 339
NLRB 877, 878 (2003).
JD–34–13
4
After the meeting, Strader saw Jan Haines, one of the most outspoken union supporters,
in the ladies room. Strader told Haines that Craft had stated that employees could not talk about
the Union on the production floor.
Testimony regarding the meeting at 5:00 a.m. on August 22:5
The General Counsel presented only one witness to testify about the 5:00 meeting on
August 22. Cynthia Bowling came to 5:00 meeting prepared to take notes. She testified that
Craft stated that employees are not allowed to talk about the Union in a work area. Tr. 16.
Bowling testified that she challenged Craft on this statement and that he responded by stating 10
this rule was in Respondent’s employee handbook. She testified that she asked him to show the
rule to her in the handbook. At some point, according to Bowling, Craft said his slide came right
out of the handbook. Bowling’s testimony in this respect is unreliable because it certain that
Respondent did not have a rule against union talk on the production floor in its handbook and
Craft’s slides had no such statement on them.15
After the meeting Bowling approached plant manager Scott Adkins and asked him to sign
her notes. He declined but accompanied Bowling to talk to Craft. Craft denied he told
employees that they were not allowed to talk about the Union on work time and affirmatively
stated the opposite, Tr. 20.420
Testimony regarding the 7:00 a.m. meeting on August 22:
Employees Bill Stevens, Crystal Lindamood and former employee Robert Adams
testified that Craft stated that employees could not talk about the Union, Tr. 37, 58, 73. 25
Lindamood gave an affidavit to the Board Agent stating that Craft told employees that
Respondent’s handbook prohibited employees from talking about the Union on the production
line. At trial, she recanted this testimony, Tr. 78-79. The fact that both Lindamood and Cynthia
Bowling either testified or gave affidavits that Craft cited the employee handbook as authority
for prohibiting union talk on the production line undercuts the reliability of both witnesses’ 30
testimony. Since the handbook contains no such statement, it is highly unlikely that Craft said
that it did so.
Testimony regarding the 10:00 p.m. meeting on August 22:
35
Jan Haines, an early and prominent union supporter, went to the 10:00 p.m. meeting on
August 22, after discussing with other employees, including Julie Strader, what Craft had said at
earlier meetings. She testified that:
And I remember him reading from the slides, and he got to a point where –and I—I feel 40
like he read this from the slide, but he said for sure you cannot talk about the Union
during – work time, on the—floor, on the production floor. I don’t know his exact words,
but he definitely said you couldn’t discuss it while working.

4 Atkins confirmed that Bowling approached him after the meeting with a request to sign her notes.
He did not testify regarding her subsequent conversation with Craft. Craft did not discuss any interaction
with an employee that corresponds with Bowling’s testimony.
JD–34–13
5
Tr. 266.
Haines then took issue with Craft and they engaged in an argument in front of the entire
audience. Craft denied that he said that employees could not talk about the Union during work
time, Tr. 267. After a while both Craft and another employee expressed anger at Haines. The 5
reliability of Haines’ testimony is undercut by her testimony that Craft was reading from a slide
when he told employees that they could not discuss the Union on work time, Tr. 281. Craft had
no such slide.
The testimony of Jerry Hoschower, who attended the same meeting, is completely 10
unreliable as he testified that he did not specifically recall what Craft stated about talking about
the Union, Tr. 49-50. He did not recall Craft’s name and generally seemed not to remember
much that transpired during Craft’s presentation.
Victoria Harris testified that she was embarrassed by Haines’ conduct at the meeting. 15
However, she also testified that Craft stated that you can talk about the Union but not during
production, Tr. 163-64. However, Ms. Harris conceded that she was not paying close attention
to what was going on at the meeting due her lack of interest, Tr. 173, 177. Thus, I conclude her
testimony has little value.
20
John Adkins, who also attended the 10:00 p.m. meeting on August 22, testified that Craft
told employees that they were not allowed to discuss the Union on the production floor. He also
testified that Craft denied saying this when challenged by Jan Haines, Tr. 184-85. In his
affidavit to the Board agent, Adkins contradicted his trial testimony and also stated he was not
paying attention until Haines spoke up. This leaves his testimony as to what transpired 25
beforehand worthless, Tr. 192-93.
Don Burns, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified that he was not paying
attention at the meeting until Jan Haines began arguing with Craft. He did not testify as to what
Craft said before the argument.30
Andrew Golden at first testified that Craft said employees could talk about the Union on
their own time, not company time. On cross-examination, he was unsure as to whether Craft
said this, Tr. 237-38. Golden recalled almost nothing else about the meeting and did not recall
anybody asking questions. It is not clear to me that Golden had any accurate recollection about 35
what transpired.
The General Counsel clearly did not meet his initial burden of establishing that Craft told
employees that they could not talk about the Union on the production floor during work time at
the August 22, 10:00 p.m. meeting.40
Testimony about the August 22/23 midnight meeting:
The General Counsel called Pamela Cole, a security guard at Conagra, who is hostile to
Jan Haines and therefore I assume, unsympathetic to the Union. Cole testified that Craft told 45
employees that they could talk about the Union but that if you were bothering other people you
were to leave them alone, Tr. 253. In an affidavit given to a Board agent, Cole stated that Craft
JD–34–13
6
told employees that they were not to talk about the Union on the company floor. At trial, Cole
denied that she heard Craft say that and testified that she did not read that part of her affidavit
closely.
Testimony regarding unspecified meetings: 5
It is unclear which meeting Jacqueline Seipel, called by Respondent, attended. Seipel
testified that Craft did not say that employees could not talk about the Union on working time.
It is the General Counsel’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Craft 10
made the statements alleged in the complaint. He has failed to do so. The General Counsel has
not given me any persuasive reason to credit his witnesses over that of Scott Adkins, Thomas
Thompsen and Craft. Many of the witnesses appear to have little recollection of what actually
what was said at the meetings and with regard to many, it is clear that their testimony is in part
inaccurate. For that reason, I dismiss complaint paragraph 5.15
Complaint paragraph 6: the verbal warning issued to Janette Haines
As stated previously, Janette Haines, who worked the third shift (10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.)
in Respondent’s sanitation department was one of the Union’s earliest and most active 20
supporters. She distributed union literature and solicited employees to sign union authorization
cards. Haines, as stated before, openly challenged Phillip Craft in the presence of plant manager
Scott Adkins and Human Resource Manager Thomas Thompsen on the night of August 22.
On October 2, 2012, Respondent issued Haines a verbal warning for alleging soliciting 25
employees in a working area – apparently on or about September 24, 2012, G.C. Exh. 5. The
General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in doing so.
Sometime in September 2012, Haines began to encourage employees who had signed
union authorization cards to sign new ones. One day she encountered Megan Courtaway and 30
Andrea Shipper, who worked close to one another on the Slim Jim Packaging line, in the ladies
room. Haines asked them if they would sign new authorization cards. Courtaway and Shipper
indicated that they would do so.
A few days after that, Haines encountered Shipper in the ladies room again. She asked 35
Shipper if she could put authorization cards in Shipper’s locker for the two women and
Courtaway’s husband, who also worked for Respondent. Shipper agreed and gave Haines the
number of her locker, which she shared with Courtaway.
As to the incident for which Haines was disciplined, I credit the testimony of Haines and 40
Respondent’s witnesses, Andrea Shipper, and specifically credit Shipper’s testimony to the
minimal extent that it conflicts with that of Respondent’s witness Courtaway. Shipper and
Courtaway were at their work station waiting for their production line to start running when
Haines passed them and told Courtaway that she had put authorization cards in their locker.
Haines did not have authorization cards on her person and did not ask Courtaway and Shipper to 45
sign authorization cards in a work area.
JD–34–13
7
This conversation lasted a matter of seconds and did not interfere with production, Tr.
364, 355. Haines continued on to do her work duties. A lady named Amanda, who was the
leadperson for Courtaway and Shipper’s line, came by their work station shortly thereafter.
Courtaway told Amana that Haines had put authorization cards in their locker and that Haines
had just advised them of that fact. 5
Amanda reported this to their supervisor, a man named Ritchie, and sent Courtaway and
Shipper, “upstairs” to talk to Ritchie. Ritchie told Courtaway and Shipper to get the cards and
bring them to him. Shipper went to her locker, obtained the authorization cards and brought
them to Ritchie. Then Ritchie had Courtaway and Shipper fill out a statement about what 10
transpired. Neither Courtaway nor Shipper told anyone that Haines had asked them to sign an
authorization card on the production floor, Tr. 350—54, 361.
On about October 2, 2012, in the early morning, Haines’ supervisor, Bo Smith, told her to
go to the office of Brad Holmes, a senior human resources generalist, who reports to Thomas 15
Thompsen. Haines and Smith attended a meeting with Holmes. Holmes told Haines that “two
girls had complained that [she] had solicited them on the gable top,” Tr. 277. Holmes told
Haines that employees were saying that Haines was offering authorization cards on the
production floor for them to sign, Tr. 336.
20
This, according to Shipper and Courtaway, was not true.. Holmes never spoke to Shipper
and Courtaway. Their written statements are not in this record, thus there is no evidence as to
what information was in them.
Haines told Holmes that “absolutely did not happen.” Holmes then presented Haines 25
with the warning which is signed by Holmes, Haines, Smith and David Stormer, the Production
Manager, who entered the room at the end of the meeting.5
Human Resources Director Thomas Thompsen testified that he made the decision to
discipline Haines for solicitation, but it is unclear what his involvement was and when it took 30
place. Thompsen did not attend the October 2, 2012 meeting with Holmes and Haines at which
the verbal warning was presented. He testified that “we “ took a look at the statements written
by Andrea Shipper and Megan Courtaway, Tr. 321. At Tr. 326 Thompsen testified that he read
these statements and talked to both employees. I do not credit this testimony.
35
First of all, neither Shipper nor Courtaway testified to being interviewed by anyone other
than their immediate supervisor. Since Holmes, who reported to Thompsen, only reviewed these
employees’ written statements and did not interview them, I find it highly unlikely that
Thompsen interviewed them.
40

5 The warning appears to have been drafted prior to Holmes’ meeting with Haines. Thus, there is a
strong indication that Respondent decided to discipline Haines before it heard her side of the story.
Moreover, it declined to tell Haines which employees accused her of solicitation, making it virtually
impossible for her to effectively respond to these accusations. This inadequate, inaccurate and biased
investigation of Haines’ conduct indicates discriminatory motivation, Midnight Rose Hotel & Casino, 343
NLRB 1003, 1005 (2004).
JD–34–13
8
Based on the record as a whole, I conclude that Respondent had no evidence that Haines
attempted to have employees sign authorization cards on the production floor. I also conclude
that the verbal warning was discriminatorily motivated.
Management knew that Haines was a vocal and active supporter of the Union. I also 5
infer that Respondent bore substantial animus towards her as the result of her conduct at the
August 22 meeting. There is no explanation in this record as to why Megan Courtaway felt
compelled to report to her line lead that Haines had left authorization cards in Andrea Shipper’s
locker. There is no explanation as to why the line lead immediately sent the two employees to
their supervisor to write out a statement. Given this and the fact that Respondent issued the 10
warning based on inaccurate information (which it apparently did not possess) that Haines was
asking employees to sign authorization cards while they were on the production floor, I conclude
that Respondent was looking for an excuse to retaliate against Haines for her union activity. I
further conclude that Respondent would not have issued Haines the verbal warning on October 2,
but for the animus towards her protected conduct on August 22.15
Did Haines engage in unprotected solicitation?
A most curious aspect of this case is that Phillip Craft, the consultant hired by
Respondent to educate its employees about what they could or could not do, opined that conduct 20
similar to that of Haines does not constitute unprotected solicitation.
At Tr. 228, Respondent’s counsel sought to clarify Craft’s understanding of what
constitutes solicitation. The General Counsel objected on the grounds that the question exceeded
the scope of cross-examination. I overruled the objection. Craft stated that if an employee asks 25
another on working time if they can sign an authorization card, it does not constitute solicitation
unless the employee has the card in hand for the other employee to sign on the production line,
Tr. 229-231. Thus, if an employee tells another on the production line that he or she should get
an authorization card from the first employee after working hours in a non-work area, the
employee is not engaged in unprotected solicitation.30
Craft’s opinion is consistent with Board precedent, Wal-Mart Stores, 340 NLRB 637,
638-39 (2003).6 There the Board stated that “an integral part of the solicitation process is the
actual presentation of an authorization card to an employee for signature at the time. As defined,
solicitation activity prompts an immediate response from the individual or individuals being 35
solicited and therefore presents a greater potential for interference with employer productivity if
the individuals are supposed to be working. Solicitation is therefore subject to rules limiting it to
nonworking time and in the special circumstances of retail stores, to non-selling areas.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the Board in part, 40
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. NLRB, 400 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2005). The Court of Appeals panel held

6 Also see Lamar Industrial Plastics, 281 NLRB 511, 513 (1986); Waste Management of Arizona,
345 NLRB 1339,1349-50 (2005) in which the Board affirmed the decision of the administrative law
judge. Two Board members, however, stated they found it unnecessary to rely on his comments and case
citations regarding the distinction between union solicitation and other employee activity in support of
union organizing.
JD–34–13
9
2-1 that Wal-Mart employee Shieldnight engaged in unprotected solicitation when he asked
another employee, who was on duty, to come to a union meeting and told her that he would like
her to sign an authorization card. I am bound by Board precedent even if the Wal-Mart case is
indistinguishable from the instant matter. Judges must apply established Board precedent which
the Supreme Court has not reversed. It is for the Board, not the judge, to determine whether that 5
precedent should be varied, Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 n. 14 (1984).
Furthermore, the instant case is distinguishable from the Wal-Mart case. The panel
majority noted that the record in Wal-Mart was silent as to whether Shieldnight had an
authorization card on his person. In this case, the record establishes that Haines did not have a 10
card on her person and made it clear to fellow employees Courtaway and Shipper that the
authorization cards were in Shippers locker, a non-work area, not on her person. Thus, Haines’
statements to Courtaway and Shipper did not have a significant potential to disrupt the
workplace.
15
Moreover, it is meaningless to say that employees can express their support or opposition
to the Union on work time but cannot tell others how they may demonstrate that support or
opposition (assuming they are allowed to discuss non-work matters at all). If it is protected
activity to discuss the union or speak for or against the union, it would follow that an employee
may tell other employees about meetings or rallies either in favor or against the Union. It also 20
follows that they have a protected right to tell employees where they may obtain pro or anti-
union buttons, or an authorization card or sign an anti-union petition on non-working time, if
located in a non-work area.
The letter to employees posted by Respondent on April 30, 201225
At the close of the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege
that Respondent’s Exhibit 4, a letter to employees from plant manager Scott Adkins, violates
Section 8(a)(1), Tr. 426-28. This exhibit was introduced into evidence by Respondent through
Scott Adkins, Tr. 291-92.30
I granted the motion to amend, which I construe as a motion to conform the pleadings to
the evidence. Respondent contends that it has been denied its due process rights by virtue of the
amendment.7In deciding whether to permit a motion to amend, the Board considers a variety of
factors, including the identity of the party who first introduced evidence relating to the 35
amendment, whether the issue was fully litigated and whether Respondent has demonstrated that
the amendment was prejudicial, Pincus Elevator & Electric Co., 308 NLRB 684 (1992).
I find that the amendment is not prejudicial and does not deny Respondent due process.
The April 30 letter was introduced by Respondent through its plant manager and, as explained 40
below, violates Section 8(a)(1) on its face. Given that fact that alleged Section 8(a)(1) violations
are adjudicated pursuant to an objective test (whether employees could reasonably interpret the

7 Respondent has not raised a Section 10(b) defense. Even if it had done so, I conclude that the
allegation has a sufficient nexus to the charge filed on September 18, 2012 (since July 2012 the employer
has prohibited employees from engaging in union activity on company time), to satisfy the requirements
of Section 10(b), Payless Drug Stores, 313 NLRB 1220 (1994).
JD–34–13
10
letter as prohibiting protected conduct), no additional evidence could have bearing on the merits
of the additional allegation, Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004).
Respondent’s motive in posting the letter and its subjective effect on employees (i.e., whether
they were in fact coerced, restrained, etc.) is irrelevant, Miller Electric Pump & Plumbing, 334
NLRB 824 (2001).5
The letter was posted on April 30, 2012, in conjunction with Conagra’s posting of a
general notice regarding employee rights under the Act. The letter in pertinent part states:
We also wish to remind employees that discussions about unions are covered by our 10
Company’s Solicitation policy. That policy says that solicitation for or against unions or
other organizations by employees must be limited to non-working times. Distribution of
materials is not permitted during working time or in work areas at any time.
In equating “discussions about unions” with solicitation, the letter is overly broad and 15
violates Section 8(a)(1). The letter not only does not distinguish between “solicitation” and
“discussions about unions,” it equates them. Thus the letter violates Section 8(a)(1) in that it is
so broad that it can reasonably be construed as encompassing protected conduct, Cintas Corp.,
344 NLRB 943 (2005); Bigg’s Foods, 347 NLRB 425 n. 4 (2006).
20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing Janette Haines a verbal
warning on October 2, 2013 for solicitation.
25
2. Respondent’s letter regarding the NLRA notice, which has been posted at the Troy,
Ohio facility since April 30, 3013 violates Section 8(a)(1).
3. The General Counsel has not established that Respondent, by Phillip Craft, violated
the Act on August 21 and 22, 2012 as alleged in the complaint.30
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 35
the policies of the Act. Respondent shall be ordered to rescind the verbal warning issued to
Janette Haines on October 2, 2012 and to revise the letter it posted on April 30, 2013 to clarify
that talking about the union during work time on the production floor does not constitute
solicitation that is unprotected by Section 7 of the Act.
40
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8

8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–34–13
11
ORDER
The Respondent, Conagra Foods, Inc., Troy, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
5
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Disciplining employees for engaging in protected activities, such as encouraging
other employees to sign an authorization card during working time on the production floor so
long as they do not attempt to have another employee sign an authorization card while on 10
working time and/or on the production floor.
(b) Posting notices or letters which can reasonably be construed as prohibiting protected
conduct, such as merely discussing the union while working.
15
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
20
(a) Rescind the verbal warning issued to Janette Haines on October 2, 2012.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
references to the unlawful verbal warning issued to Janette Haines, and within 3 days thereafter
notify her in writing that this has been done and that the warning will not be used against her in 25
any way.
(c) Revise and post the letter posted on April 30, 2013 so as to inform employees that
Respondent does not consider discussing the union during work time to constitute solicitation
within the meaning of its Solicitation Policy.30
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Troy, Ohio facility copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive 35
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, 40
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these

9 If this 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.”
JD–34–13
12
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
October 2, 2012.
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 9, 2013.5
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge, discipline or otherwise discriminate against any of you for
supporting United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union 75, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT post letters or notices that can be reasonably construed to prohibit protected
discussions about unions and/or union activity during work time in working areas by
characterizing such discussions as solicitation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the October 2, 2012 verbal warning issued to Janette Haines for soliciting
during work time in a work area.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful verbal warning issued to Jan Haines on October 2, 2012, and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been done and that the warning will not be used
against her in any way.
WE WILL revise the letter we posted on April 30, 2013 so that it cannot be reasonably construed
as prohibiting mere discussion about the Union or unions on working time in work areas and thus
make clear that mere discussion of the Union and/or unions does not constitute prohibited
solicitation under our solicitation and distribution policy.
CONAGRA FOODS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National
Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation
and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights
under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
550 Main Street, Federal Building, Room 3003, Cincinnati, OH 45202-3271
(513) 684-3686, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (513) 684-3750.