Concordia Creamery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 651 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of FAIRMONT CREAMERY COMPANY, D/B/A CONCORDIA
CREAMERY COMPANY, AT CONCORDIA, KANSAS, and AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFFILI-
ATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. 0-2649.-Decided July 23, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 16,1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support in its exceptions. The
Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond-
ent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Fairmont'Creamery Com-
pany, doing business as Concordia Creamery Company, Concordia,
Kansas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organ-
ization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 110.
651
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Con-
cordia, Kansas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating
that the respondent will not engage in the condlvct from which it is
ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN Mills took no part in the consideration of the above,
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John A . Weiss, for the Board.
Mr. Leonard A. Flansburg , of Lincoln , Neb. and Mr. C. B . Evinger, of Omaha,
Neb , for the respondent.
Mr. T. J. Lloyd, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on May 19, 1943 , by Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board , by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region
(Kansas City , Missouri ) issued its complaint dated May 21, 1943 against Fairmont
Creamery Company, doing business as Concordia Creamery Company, Concordia,
Kansas, herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and.Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notices of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance ;
(1) that since about January 1, 1943, the respondent , by its officers , agents and
supervisory employees , has sought to dissuade its employees from affiliating with
any labor organization ; uttered statements whiclh were prejudicial or derogatory
to the Union , its members and officers , and labor organizations in general ; ques-
tioned its employees concerning their union membership and attendance upon
union meetings ; made false statements concerning other affiliates of the Union
which had organized the employees of other plants of the respondent ; required
employees , who were members of the Union , to work at a time when they were
planning to attend a scheduled meeting of the Union ; sought to discredit the
Union, its affiliates and other national labor organizations ; and (2 ) that by the
aforesaid acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Concordia, Kansas, on June 2, 1943,
before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner . The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel ; the
Union by its representative. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to
be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 653
At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent filed its answer admitting
certain allegations of the complaint in respect to its business, but denying all
material averments relating to the unfair labor practices.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent's counsel moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety for lack of proof. Ruling on this motion was
reserved by the Trial Examiner, which motion is, at this time, denied by the
undersigned.
The motion of the Board's counsel, made at the conclusion of the hearing, to
conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to minor inaccuracies as to dates and
the spelling of names, was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection.
At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument on the record was made before
the Trial Examiner by counsel for the Board and the respondent, respectively.
Opportunity to file briefs with the Trial Examiner was afforded the parties.
On June 14, counsel for the respondent filed a brief with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Fairmont Creamery Company, is a Delaware corporation
having its principal office in Omaha, Nebraska. It is duly licensed to do business
in the State of Kansas, where it owns and operates a number of plants. At its
Concordia, Kansas, plant, which it purchased in 1927, the respondent is doing
business under the firm name and style of Concordia Creamery Company,' where
it is engaged in the purchase and sale of poultry, eggs and dairy products.
During the calendar year 1942 the respondent purchased the aforesaid products
for its Concordia plant to a value in excess of $50,000, of which 10 percent was
purchased outside of Kansas and shipped from points outside of Kansas to its
Concordia plant. During that period the respondent sold and distributed finished
products processed at its Concordia plant to a value in excess of $50,000, of which
65 percent was shipped, to points outside of Kansas. The respondent normally
employs a total of approximately 190 employees at its Concordia plant. The
respondent admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that since January 1, 1943,
it has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In the first part of 1943 the Union began an organizational campaign in the
respondent's Concordia plant and approximately 7 organizational meetings were
held in Concordia. As a result of these meetings, a number of the respondent's
employees joined the Union. The first few meetings were fairly well attended,
from 26 to 30 persons being present, but only 2 or 3 persons attended the last 2
meetings. From February 25 to March 9 these meetings were conducted by
Robert Nielubowski, international representative of the Union. Prior to that
time two other representatives of the Union conducted the campaign.
i The 'respondent owns and operates other creamery plants in Kansas and Nebraska ;
however, its Corcordia, Kansas, plant is the only plant involved in this proceeding.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
On February 24 the Union distributed at the plant a number of copies of a
handbill, herein called the February handbill, advertising a union meeting the
next day at 8 p. M.,2 which stated inter alia that the Union h'a.d already secured
contracts with the respondent covering the employees at the respondent's plants
at Omaha, Crete, and Grand Island, Nebraska, and that it had just organized
the respondent's employees 'at its plant in Alliance, Nebraska ; that the .Union
had secured a raise in pay for all these employees-women to 44 cents per hour
and men to 53-581/2 and 60 cents per hour; and that an open meeting would be
held at the Roller Rink, Concordia, Kansas, February 25.
According to the credible testimony of Erhart Edquist, manager of the re-
spondent's Concordia plant, and C. B. Evinger, the respondent's general person-
nel director in the head office at Omaha, Nebraska, in February, Edquist learned
of the Union's activity in the plant ; about that time Evinger came to Concordia ;
Evinger told Edquist the foremen were not to discriminate against any em-
ployee on account of membership or non-membership in any union, and that-the
respondent did not want to become involved in union matters, except when
questions were asked by employees, and then "to tell them the truth." Evinger
also told Edquist that on the date the February handbill was distributed, the
respondent had contracts with the Union at its Omaha, Crete, and Grand Island
plants, but not at the Alliance plant, and no election had been held at Alliance
to determine the Union's majority; also that the wage rates set out in the
February handbill were the rates obtaining only at the Omaha plant. Edquist
and Evinger told the foremen 8 that the statement in the February handbill
I This handbill stated as follows :
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO.
- CONCORDIA, KANSAS
GREETINGS :
They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that goes for other things too.
DO YOU KNOW-
That we, "The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen A F. of L." have
signed contracts with the Fairmont Creamery Company in the following cities : Omaha,
Nebraska ; Crete, Nebraska ; Grand Island, Nebraska, and have just organized Alliance,
Nebraska.
DO YOU KNOW-
That we have raised the pay for all these workers who work for Fairmont, to the
following scale : Women 440 per. hour ; men 53-58i/2 and 600 per hour. These people
worked for about the same wage you are working for, when we organized them. They
now receive time and one-half for all time worked over forty (40) hours in,any one
week. They receive a vacation with pay after being in the employment of the company
one year and they receive many other benefits through their Union.
DO YOU KNOW-
That the Company must recognize the Union of your own choosing? YES and the
laws of the United States gives you this right and their protection as an American
Citizen
DO YOU KNOW-
That we have clean rest rooms, and two ten (10) minute rest periods every day, one
in the forenoon and one in the afternoon for the Fairmont Workers in these other cities
we have organized.
Now so that you as employees may enjoy better working conditions and open the
door for better wages we are holding an open meeting with all workers cordially invited.
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 25-8 p in. at the ROLLER RINK-W. 6tb STREET-
CONCORDIA, KS.
Signed : THE AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTHRS AND BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF N. A. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
It was stipulated by the parties that the following employees of the respondent at Its
Concordia plant, at all times material herein, were foremen occupying supervisory positions,
with authority to hire, fire, direct, and reprimand other employees ; Frank Phillips, poultry
department ; William Frundell, creamery department ; Arnold Schroeder, engineering depart-
ment ; and Lyle Carmichael, personnel department.
CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 655
that the Union had organized the Alliance plant, and the inference that the
Union had secured a raise in pay for all of - the employees , other than the
Concordia plant, were not true. They told the foremen that they would have
to take a neutral attitude toward the Union's activities, as the Act forebade
them "taking any side one way or the other, but if the employees asked them
questions about the Union they should go ahead and answer them to the best
of their ability" ; that "it was entirely up to the employees, and that should be
our attitude, but when they were asked by an employee, or asked their opinion,
they had a perfect right to explain their opinion , so long as it wasn 't coercion
of the employee, or anything like that ; that we would stand for no threats, and
should not let it affect any employee's tenure of hire with us in any way, shape
or form." The respondent did not inform the employees in general that this
was its policy . It only instructed the foremen . Neither did the respondent post
any notice or in any other way inform the nonsupervisory employees that the
February handbill was not true.
On February 24 or 25, Foreman Schroeder said to Albert Aldrich, an employee
in the engineering department , "I heard you joined the union ." Aldrich replied
in the negative. Schroeder then said, "I would like to talk to somebody who
did, and see what they would gain by joining the union." Aldrich said that
he would join the Union if he could get more pay by doing so. Schroeder re-
plied that the unions in the East could not get a raise in pay, and he did not
think that the Union could in the respondent's plant 4 In connection with this
conversation between Schroeder and Aldrich, Schroeder testified as follows :
I told him [Aldrich] I had heard he had joined the union, and I asked him
if he did . . . I heard he [Aldrich] joined the union, and I told him I would
like to get his ideas why he did, or someone's ideas, just to see what the
reason would be. Evidently he would be dissatisfied, and I would like to
kiiow his reasons for doing that.
According to the undenied testimony of Pearl Barker ,' which is credited by
the undersigned , on February 24 or 25 Foreman Phillips came up to Barker in
the plant and after saying that probably Barker was a union man, Phillips
began to comment on the February handbill, a copy of which he had in his hand.
He told Barker that the Alliance plant was not organized ; that the employees
in the Omaha plant were entitled to higher wages than the Concordia plant
employees because of the higher living expenses in Omaha ; that there were
not many more Union members left in the Omaha plant ; and that he did not
think the Union could do them "a bit of good."
Alfred Rarick, an employee in the poultry department, testified that he had
several conversations with Foreman Phillips about the Union ; that in February
Phillips said to him, "I understand you are the ringleader trying to get the em-
ployees to join"; that he denied it, and then Phillips said to him "Do you know
what I ought to do with you fellows who join the union? I ought to work you
your union (sic) 40 hours a week, and then let you lay off the rest of the week",
that Phillips further told him it would cost $28 or $29 a year to belong to the
Union, and that the respondent would check-off the union dues; that on another
occasion Phillips said to him, "I understand you are telling the employees they
have to join the union or quit"; that he denied this statement and asked Phillips
who told him, and Phillips refused to tell him ; that Phillips then said to him, "If
4 This finding is based on the undenied testimony of employee Albert Aldrich. Aldrich
did not join the Union.
c Barker was employed by the respondent from' September 1942 to the middle of April 1943
in the poultry department.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you've got so much money to throw away on unions, why don't you give some of it
to me, I can use it"; that on February 24, Phillips read to him the February
handbill and said that the Alliance plant was not organized ; that the Omaha
employees should get higher wages than the other plants; that-the Crete plane
employees, with the exception of one woman supervisor, did not receive any
higher pay than the Concordia plant employees ; that Phillips then asked him if he
was going to the union meeting- the next night ; and that Phillips told him a
number of times he could not see where it would do him any good to join the
Union.
Clayton Hillan ° testified that during 1943, while he was employed in the plant,
he had three or four conversations with Foreman Phillips about the Union during
working hours ; that on the one occasion Phillips asked him if he was going to
a union meeting the next day, and when he replied in the affirmative, Phillips
told him if he knew what was good for him he had better stay away from the
meeting ; that on another occasion Phillips asked him if he had attended a
union meeting, how many had joined the Union, and who was the first one to join ;
that he replied he had gone to the meeting, and all of those present, except one,
had joined, and either he, or employee Elvin Smith was the first to "sign up";
that Phillips further said to him that it would not do him any good if the Union
"did go through", they might get a "little more money per hour, but the union
would more than get what raise" they got.
Phillips testified that he talked about the Union more to the employees who
were members of the Union than he did to the non-members because "He [Phillips]
was asking what they knew about it [the union]. I didn't know much about the
union, and I like to learn things as I go along. If there is union activity, it is
only natural that you want to learn what they had " Phillips further testified
that he had brought up the subject of unions in his talks with the employees
without first having been asked any questions by the employees. The only part
of Rarick's testimony that was denied by Phillips was that he said to Rarick
that he should work the union employees 40 hours a week and then lay them
off for the rest of the week, and that he told, him that it would cost $28 or $29
to belong to the Union. He did not remember saying to Rarick that it would not
do him any good to join the Union.
In respect. to the testimony of Hillan as related above, Phillips testified that
he had talked to Hillan about the Union and that he understood that Hillan was
a member of the Union; and that on one occasion he asked Hillan "just what it
[the Union] was all about." However, Phillips denied that he asked Hillan
if he was going to a union meeting and also denied having said to Hillan that
he had better stay away from the meeting if he knew what was good for him.
The undersigned does not credit the partial denial of Phillips in respect to
the testimony of Rarick and Hillan and in view of the entire record, and from
his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned finds that Phillips made the
statements substantially as testified to by Rarick and Hillan.
Loyal Parratt 7 testified that during ,February and March, while working
in the plant, he had a number of conversations about the Union with his fore-
man, William Frundell; that on one occasion Frundell called his attention to
a newspaper article about the failure of the miners to receive higher wages,
and Frundell said to him, "There you are. That will show you the union can't
do ,you any good" ; that at another time, Frundell asked him if he still belonged
° IIillan was employed by the respondent from April 1942 to sometime in February 1943,
in the poultry department.
7 Parratt was employed by the respondent from April 1942 to the first part of March
1943 In the creamery department.
CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 657
to the Union, and upon being told that he did, Frundell said "What do you
expect to get out of it? . . . Don't you know all those guys want to do is to get
your money and leave with it? . . . If they sell you the union and leave town,
what have you got?" Frundell further said to him, "You have a lot of friends
here in the plant . . . Mr. Edquist is your friend . If you go ahead and join
this union, you are just putting a wall between yourself , and that's a slap in
Mr. Edquist's face" ; that on February 24 Frundell came up to him while he
was at work and read to him the February handbill, a"copy of which Frundell
had in his hand, and criticized several of the statements therein ; that Frundell
said "If we wanted to, we could made it pretty tough for those guys. They
haven't got Alliance organized yet" ; that the next day after the union meeting
on February 25, Frundell asked him if he had attended the meeting , how many
of the employees were there , and who they were : that he replied, he and
approximately 20 others were there, but only one, Ralph Minard, was from the
creamery department ; that the day after another union meeting, which was
held on March 4, Frundell started another conversation with him in regard
to the February handbill , and said to him, "Hey, do you know they 've got one
[union ] at Crete? . . . They're not satisfied with it up there, the boys at Crete
were drawing 42 cents, and all the union ever got them was 44 cents. All they
raised them was 2 cents . That wasn 't much of a raise . . . They 're sick of it
up there. They never got over a 2 -cent raise" ; that Frundell further told him
that after the Crete employees joined the Union the hours were reduced to 40
a week and that some of the employees had to quit and seek work elsewhere
because they could not make a living at the Crete wages ; that Frundell also told
him that it would cost $25 to join the Union and at least $5 a month to main-
tain his membership . Parratt further testified that Frundell asked him what
good he expected to get out of the Union ; that he replied , possibly there were
several benefits, for example, that the employees had no guarantee that the
respondent would not lay them off after the war and hire the returning service
men, in which event the Union might protect them , that Frundell replied "We
won't do that . And if we did , what can the union do about it? They can't
put you back to work . . . Well, the union can't do you any good there."
Ralph Minard 8 testified that during February and March he had six or eight
conversations about the Union with his foreman, William Frundell, in the plant ;
that on one occasion Frundell called his attention to an article in the Topeka
State Capitol newspaper in regard to some labor legislation in Kansas , and that
Frundell said to him "that shows you the union can't get you any place, be-
cause .. ." ; that usually the next day after a meeting of the Union , Frundell
would make some remark about the meeting, such as "There wasn ' t much of a
turn-out at the meeting last night . There wasn 't many of them falling for
the union" ; that he had never told Frundell how many persons attended the
union meetings ; that on another occasion Frundell told him that the $25 the
Union charged would go out of the country and "wouldn 't do anybody any
good , and then they would soon leave, and there you were" ; that Frundell also
told him that he could not get the raise in.wages stated in the February hand-
bill , that, in fact , 60 cents an hour was all that he was getting ; that Frundell
further said to him, in reference to the February handbill, "If they want to
get tough , we can get tough, too . We can make you work right up to quitting
time, instead of going to the dressing room and having 10 minutes until you get
out."
8 Minard was employed by the respondent from November 1942 to March 23, 1943, first
in the poultry department and then in the creamery department.
a
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frundell made no substantial denial of the testimony of Parratt and Minard.
In respect to his conversation with Parratt, Frundell testified as follows :
Q. You didn't have any conversation with him trying to prevent him from
joining the union?
A. No, I did not. He was a great fellow to talk, and I was a kind of a
daddy to him, and we would discuss those things. Sometimes he would
start it, and sometimes I would.
Frundell admitted that he asked Parratt why he thought he would be bene-
fited by joining the Union and that he talked more to Parratt about the Union
after he "was pretty sure" that Parratt had joined the Union. Frundell ad-
mitted that he talked to Parratt about the February handbill but that he did
not remember showing Parratt a newspaper item in regard to the coal miners'
strike. He further admitted that he told both Parratt and Minard that he did
not think they were going to gain so much by belonging to the Union. How-
ever, he denied that he told Minard that the Union "would-make away with the
union dues."
In view of the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned credits the testimony of Parratt and Minard and finds that Frundell
made the statements substantially as testified to by'Parratt and Minard.
According to the undenied testimony of Nielubowski, which the undersigned
credits, on or about March 3 Nielubowski and T. L. Lloyd, international vice-
president of the Union, were walking on the public sidewalk, which ran along-
side of the respondent's dock at the Concordia plant, and one of them said to
two employees who were working on the dock, "It's kind of cold to work to-
night." Thereupon Foreman Phillips came out of the office and said to Nielu-
bowski and Lloyd "You get the hell out of here before I call the officers of the
law." Nielubowski and Lloyd said they would remain as they had done nothing
wrong. Phillips then went back into the office and presently came out and told
them that the officers of the law were busy. Nielubowski recognized Phillips as
he had seen him before. Phillips had seen Nielubowski before when the latter
was distributing union handbills at the plant.
According to the undenied testimony of Rarick, which is credited by the
undersigned, about March 10 Lyle Carmichael, the respondent's Concordia plant
personnel director, questioned Rarick about the rumor that he, Rarick, was the
ringleader in the Union and that he had told the employees they had to join
the Union or quit work. Rarick denied the accusations. Carmichael said it
would make no difference to him whether the employees joined the Union
or not. Carmichael further said to Rarick "What good is the union doing you?
Well, I think Erhart [Edquist] can do as much for you as the union can." Car-
michael admitted having had a conversation with Rarick in which he told
Rarick that "remarks had been made about his talking among the employees
about labor unions."
There is no merit in the contentions of the respondent that once having in-
formed its supervisory staff that itj attitude toward the Union was neutral,
its liability under the Act ceased, and whatever the foreman said to the employees
about the Union, was their own opinion ; that the employees knew it made no
difference to the respondent whether they joined the Union or not, and there-
fore they could not be coerced by anything the foremen said ; that the conversa-
tions with the employees about the Union, engaged' in by the foremen, were with
employees who had already joined the Union and therefore they were not in-
fluenced by what was said. The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the
statements and acts of Frank Phillips, William Frundell, Arnold Schroeder and
Lyle Carmichael, described above, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
CONCORDIA CREAMERY COMPANY 659
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The
complaint alleged that the respondent required employees, who were members of
the Union, to work at a time when they were planning to attend a scheduled
union meeting . The evidence does not substantiate this allegation. The facts
disclosed in the record are that the Union distributed handbills advising that a
meeting would be held on March 4 at 8 p. in.; that on that day, Foreman Phillips
requested Barker, Walden, and Rarick, all employees in the poultry department,
to work overtime that night, because the respondent had an order for a car-
load of eggs to go to the Army, and it was necessary to work overtime to get it
ready. At that time there were 18 or 20 employees in the poultry department
and 6 or 8 of them were members of the Union, but only 3 of them were asked
to work overtime. Barker told Phillips that he wanted to get off at 8: 00 p. m.
Phillips did not say anything. Barker left at 8: 00 p. in. and went to the union
meeting. Walden testified that he nailed egg cases until 8:00 p. in. because
he had gotten behind that day and had to 'catch up. He left at 8:00 p. m,
and went to the union meeting. Rarick told Phillips that he had a date at
8: 00 p. in. and Phillips said nothing. Rarick worked until 8: 00 p. in. and went
to the union meeting. The respondent made no complaint whatsoever against
these employees for stopping work at 8: 00 p. m. and attending the union meeting.
It was not unusual for employees to work overtime on occasions, and most of them
were glad to get overtime work, as it paid time and one-half. The undersigned
finds that these employees were not requested to work overtime in order to pre-
vent them from attending the union meeting, and that by this request, the respond-
ent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section 1, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 'to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that the evidence does not sustain the allegation of the com-
plaint that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8'(1) of the Act, by requiring Pearl Barker, Walter Walden and
Alfred Rarick to work overtime on March 4, 1943, the undersigned will recom-
mend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, affil-
iated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
540612-44-vol. 51-43
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3. The respondent has not, by requiring Pearl Barker, Walter Walden and
Alfred Rarick to work overtime on March 4, 1943, engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Fairmont Creamery Company, doing
business as Concordia Creamery Company, at Concordia, Kansas, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from : -
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organi-
zations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Con-
cordia, Kansas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a) of the aforesaid recommendations.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleges that the
respondent, by requiring Pearl Balker, Walter Walden and Alfred Rarick to work
overtime on March 4, 1943, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, be dismissed.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the-
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
W. P. WEBB,
Trial Examiner.
'Dated June 16, 1943.