Food & Commercial Workers Local P-9 (Hormel & Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local No. P-9, United Food and Commercial Work-
ers Union and Geo. A. Hormel & Company.
Cases 18-CC-1091, 18-CC-1092, 18-CC-1093,
18-CC-1094, 18-CC-1095, 18-CC-1100, and
18-CC-1100-2
30 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 26 February 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions, a supporting
brief, and a reply brief;' the General Counsel filed
exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering
brief; the Charging Party filed exceptions, a sup-
porting brief, and an answering brief; and the Min-
nesota Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to
appear as amicus curiae and a brief amicus curiae.2
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions to the extent consistent with this Deci-
sion and Order, and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by picket-
ing and handbilling at seven banks in furtherance
of the Respondent's primary labor dispute with
Charging Party Hormel. Nevertheless, for the rea-
sons set forth below, we find that the judge erred
in his analysis of the legality of the handbilling.
Specifically, the judge concluded that the banks
"distribute" products of Hormel, and therefore it
was necessary to determine whether the Respond-
ent's handbilling comported with the publicity pro-
viso to Section 8(b)(4).3 He proceeded to find that
' The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied
as the record , exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties
2 The Charging Party filed a statement in opposition to the motion
We grant the motion and accept the brief amicus curiae.
2 The proviso exempts from the proscription of Sec 8 (b)(4) all
publicity, other than picketing , for the purpose of truthfully ad-
vising the public , including consumers and members of a labor orga-
nization , that a product or products are produced by an employer
with whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and are dis-
tributed by another employer, as long as such publicity does not
have an effect of inducing any individual employed by any person
other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to
refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods, or not to perform
any services , at the establishment of the employer engaged in such
distribution
the Respondent's handbills were not protected by
the publicity proviso because they were untruthful.
Although we agree with the result reached by the
judge, we reverse his finding that a producer-dis-
tributor relationship exists between Hormel and the
banks, and therefore we find that the publicity pro-
viso does not apply to the Respondent's handbill-
ing.
The essential facts in this case are undisputed.
Hormel is engaged in the meat packing and food
processing business. The Respondent represents
employees at Hormel's Austin, Minnesota plant,
and the parties have had collective-bargaining
agreements for many years. After unsuccessful ne-
gotiations for a new contract to replace the most
recent agreement, the Respondent struck Hormel
on 19 August 19854 and was still on strike at the
time of the December hearing in this case.
First Bank System, Inc. is a holding company
which has a number of subsidiary banks, including
four involved in this case: First National Bank of
Minneapolis; First National Bank of Austin, Minne-
sota; First National Bank of Milwaukee; and First
National Bank of LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Banks of
Iowa, Inc. is another holding company. Three of
its subsidiaries located in Iowa are involved here:
Key City Bank and Trust Company in Dubuque;
Union Bank and Trust Company in Ottumwa; and
First National Bank in Sioux City. First Bank
System owns 19 percent of the stock of Banks of
Iowa, and has an option to buy the remainder of its
stock if and when such purchase becomes permissi-
ble under applicable banking laws. Hormel con-
ducts normal banking business with only three of
these banks-First Banks of Minneapolis and
Austin, and Union Bank and Trust in Ottumwa.
Hormel does not transact business directly with the
other four local banks or with either holding com-
pany. The Respondent does not represent any em-
ployees of First Bank System, Banks of Iowa, or
their subsidiaries.
There are two common directors or officers of
First Bank System or its subsidiaries and Hormel.
DeWalt Ankenny is the president and chief execu-
tive officer of First Bank System, a director of
First Bank Minneapolis, and one of 11 members of
Hormel's board of directors. Richard Knowlton is
chairman, chief executive officer, and president of
Hormel, and is on the board of directors of First
Bank Minneapolis and First Bank Austin. The only
common director or officer of Banks of Iowa or its
subsidiaries and Hormel is Hormel's plant manager
in Ottumwa, who is a director of Union Bank and
Trust.
4 All subsequent dates are in 1985, unless otherwise stated
281 NLRB No. 135
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 987
First Bank System does not own any stock of
Hormel and none of its subsidiaries own an eco-
nomic interest in any shares of Hormel 's stock.
First Bank Minneapolis and another subsidiary not
involved here hold shares of Hormel's common
stock in various fiduciary capacities . These shares
held constituted 12.6 percent of Hormel's outstand-
ing common stock as of 31 July. The subsidiaries,
however, exercise voting rights on only approxi-
mately 5 percent of Hormel 's stock. Most of these
shares were held in trust for the Hormel Joint
Earnings Profit Sharing and Savings Plan, and the
Hormel Pension Plan. The beneficiaries of these
plans are present and former Hormel employees.
Hormel does not own any stock in First Bank
System or any of its subsidiaries . Further, Hormel
does not own any stock in Banks of Iowa or its
subsidiaries, and there is no evidence that Banks of
Iowa or its subsidiaries own any Hormel stock.
In furtherance of its strike against Hormel, the
Respondent engaged in picketing and handbilling at
the seven aforementioned banks on various dates
between 22 August and 10 October.5 The picket
signs and handbills used by the Respondent charac-
terized First Bank System as a "corporate ally" of
Hormel involved in the Respondent 's labor dispute
with Hormel . For example , some of the picket
signs directed against First Bank System stated:
"Hormel and First Bank Unfair to Labor"; "First
Bank Hurts Labor"; "Stop First Bank Greed";
"First Bank Unfair to Labor"; "First Bank Out of
Iowa"; and "Break the Hormel First Bank Connec-
tion."
The Respondent distributed two different hand-
bills during its demonstrations at the banks. One
handbill stated that during 16 of the last 22 years,
the Respondent's members "have been forced to
give in to the concessions shakedown run by Geo.
A. Hormel & Co. and its corporate ally, the First
Bank System." The handbill then asserted that
First Bank System shares interlocking directors and
has major stock and credit relationships with
Hormel. In addition , the handbill declared that the
Respondent was taking its "fight" to the doorsteps
of First Bank branches across the Midwest. At the
bottom of the handbill was a coupon that invited
bank customers to notify the Respondent that they
were removing their funds from First Bank in
order to "[L]et Hormel and First Bank know that
citizens won't stand for Hormel's intimidation tac-
tics."
The other handbill stated that Hormel had
forced the strike on the Respondent 's members by
s Corporate Campaign, Inc. assisted the Respondent in its picketing
and handbilling activities, and acted as its agent in dealings with Hormel
and the banks.
its unfair bargaining demands and "that 's why we
are taking the fight to the doorsteps of Hormel
plants and to branches of the company 's corporate
partner, First Bank, throughout the Midwest." Re-
peating a slogan chanted at the various banks by
the demonstrators , the handbill urged the public to
"[L]et these companies know that when they say
giveback, we say fightback!" At the top of the
handbill was a picture of an individual holding a
picket sign which read : "Stop 1st Bank Greed."
This handbill , however, did not have a coupon re-
questing that customers close their First Bank ac-
counts.
For the reasons set forth by the judge, we agree
that the banks at issue are neutral and secondary
employers, and that the picketing was coercive and
had the "cease doing business" object proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). We also adopt the judge's
findings that the handbills were coercive and had a
"cease doing business" object , and therefore, unless
privileged under the publicity proviso , violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
As mentioned earlier , the judge found that the
requisite producer-distributor relationship existed
between Hormel and the banks to bring the hand-
billing within the meaning of the proviso . In this
regard, the judge stated:
While the banks do not distribute meat prod-
ucts produced by Hormel three of them,
which were also indirectly related to the other
banks through corporate ownership by First
System and Banks of Iowa , did transact bank-
ing business with Hormel . These business
transactions in the broad sense involve the
production and distribution of revenues which
I find is sufficient to bring Hormel and the
banks within the meaning of the publicity pro-
viso.
Nevertheless , he concluded that the handbilling
was unlawful because the handbills did not comply
with the proviso 's requirement that all information
on the handbill truthfully publicize the relationship
between the primary dispute and the secondary
employer.
We agree that the handbills do not comport with
the proviso's truthfulness requirement because they
misleadingly claim that First Bank System and
Banks of Iowa are responsible together with
Hormel for the actions being protested by the Re-
spondent . There is no evidence that the banks were
involved in any way in Hormel 's labor policies, or
could exercise any control concerning the labor
dispute between the Respondent and Hormel. The
record does not show that the operations of the
banks and Hormel are interrelated in any manner
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other than that they conduct normal arms-length
business with each other.6
In our view, proper disposition of the producer-
distributor issue makes it unnecessary even to ad-
dress the truthfulness question. Although it does
not affect the result here, the judge's finding of a
producer-distributor relationship could have broad
ramifications and lead to misapplication of the pub-
licity proviso in future cases if allowed to stand.
Contrary to the judge, we hold that the handbilling
does not fall within the ambit of the publicity pro-
viso because there is no basis for finding that the
banks distribute Hormel's products.
We recognize that the Board and the courts have
not read the proviso's producer-distributor lan-
guage literally, but instead have broadly construed
it in order to effectuate the proviso's "clear pur-
pose of protecting labor's ability to publicize by
means other than picketing its grievances to con-
sumers ."7 We find, however, that the precedent
does not support the judge's reasoning that simply
because three of the local banks receive money
from Hormel for banking services and distribute
money deposited by Hormel, all seven banks and
their parent holding companies are distributors of
Hormel's products. The judge' s analysis is even less
tenable for the four local banks and two parent
companies that have no direct business relationship
with Hormel. Hormel produces meat products.
These products are distributed by wholesalers,
retail markets, and restaurants. The banks do not
distribute or have any connection to the chain of
distribution of the food products produced by
Hormel.
It cannot reasonably be concluded that one of
Hormel's products is "revenue." Hormel "pro-
duces" revenue only in the general sense that any
business does-by selling its products to customers.
To find that Hormel produces revenue within the
meaning of the publicity proviso could mean that
any person or business that has any contact with
any money generated by Hormel is a distributor of
Hormel's products, and therefore may be enmeshed
in any of Hormel's primary labor disputes. Such a
result would be at odds with the plain meaning and
purpose of the limitation of protection in the provi-
s In addition , we find that the handbills do not satisfy the truthfulness
requirement of the proviso because they fail to distinguish between the
primary and secondary employers, they do not adequately identify the
nature of the primary dispute and the banks ' relationship to it, and they
refer to banks that have no business or other relationship with Hormel
Service Employees Local 399 (Delta Air Lines), 263 NLRB 996 (1982)
' Edward J DeBartolo Corp. v NLRB, 662 F.2d 264, 270 (4th Cir
1981), see also Teamsters Local 537 (Lohman Sales Co.), 132 NLRB 901
(1961), Electrical Workers IBEW Local 662 (Middle South Broadcasting),
133 NLRB 1698 (1961 ); Television Artists AFTRA Local 55 (Great Western
Broadcasting), 150 NLRB 467 (1964), enfd 356 F 2d 434 (9th Cir 1966),
cert denied 384 U S 1002 (1966)
so to "publicity that is designed to create consumer
pressure on secondary employers who distribute
the primary employer's products."' The judge's ex-
pansive reading of the proviso's producer-distribu-
tor relationship obliterates the limiting effect of the
proviso's distribution requirement.9
In sum, we find that it would contravene Con-
gressional intent to expand the scope of the publici-
ty proviso by defining revenues as a product of any
primary employer's business and by defining as a
distributor of such product any entity in a financial
relationship with the primary. Accordingly, we re-
verse the judge's finding that a producer-distributor
relationship existed between Hormel and the
banks. 10
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order 11 of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Local No. P-9, United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union, Austin, Minnesota, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
"(a) Picketing and/or handbilling the premises of
First Bank System, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries in-
cluding First National Bank of Minneapolis, First
National Bank of Austin, First National Bank of
LaCrosse, First National Bank of Milwaukee, and
the Banks of Iowa, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries in-
cluding Key City Bank and Trust Company, Union
Bank and Trust Company, and First National Bank
in Sioux City or any person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce where an
object thereof is to force or require any of these
banks or any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing
business with Geo. A. Hormel & Company."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
9 Edward J. DeBartolo Corp v NLRB, 463 U S 147, 154 (1983)
9 Ibid.
is In light of our findings that the Respondent 's picketing and hand-
billing were unlawful when considered separately, we find it unnecessary
to pass on the issue of whether the publicity proviso is inapplicable to the
handbilling because it occurred simultaneously with, and conveyed the
same message as, the picketing.
11 We have modified the recommended Order to reflect the violations
found
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 989
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT picket and/or handbill First Bank
System , Inc. or any of its subsidiaries including
First National Bank of Minneapolis ; First National
Bank of Austin; First National Bank of LaCrosse;
First National Bank of Milwaukee; and Banks of
Iowa, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries including Key
City Bank and Trust Company , Union Bank and
Trust Company , and First National Bank in Sioux
City or any person engaged in commerce,or in an
industry affecting commerce where an object
thereof is to force or require any of these banks or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry affecting commerce to cease doing business
with Geo. A. Hormel & Company.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
threaten, coerce , or restrain First Bank System,
Inc. or any of its subsidiaries including First Na-
tional Bank. of Minneapolis ; First National Bank of
Austin; First National Bank of LaCrosse;, First Na-
tional Bank of Milwaukee; and Banks of Iowa, Inc.
or any of its subsidiaries including Key City Bank
and Trust Company , Union Bank and Trust Com-
pany, and First National Bank in Sioux City or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce where an object thereof is
to force or require these banks or any person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to cease doing business with Geo. A.
Hormel & Company.
LocAL No. P-9, UNITED FOOD AND
COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION
James L. Fox, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James E. Youngdahl, Esq. (Youngdahl, Youngdahl &
Wright),, of Little Rock, Arkansas; and Roderick H.
MacPherson III, Esq. (MacPherson & Fellman), of Min-
neapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondent.
Thomas P. Krukowski, Esq., and John M, Loomis, Esq.
(Krukowski, Chaet, Beck & Loomis, S. C), of Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin, for the Charging Party.
Minnesota, on 3-5 December 19851 pursuant to charges
filed by Geo. A. Hormel & Company (Hormel) in Case
18-CC-1091 on 27 August, in Cases 18-CC-1092 and
18-CA-1093 on 30 August, in Cases 18-CC-1094 and
18-CC-1095 on 3 September, in Case 18-CC-1100 on 8
October, and in Case 18-CC-1100-2 on 15 October; and
a consolidated complaint issued on 10 September and
amended on 21 October and 19 November.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges Local
No. P-9, United Food and Commercial Workers Union
(Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (the Act) by picketing First
National Bank of Minneapolis and distributed handbills
there asking, that the public cease doing business with
First National Bank of Minneapolis and First Bank
System, Inc. (First System); picketed First National Bank
of Austin and distributed handbills there asking that the
public cease doing business with First National Bank of
Austin and First System; picketed Key City Bank and
Trust Company and distributed handbills there asking
that the public cease doing business with Key City Bank
and Trust Company and First System; picketed Union
Bank and Trust Company and distributed handbills there
asking that the public cease doing business with Union
Bank and Trust Company and Banks of Iowa, Inc.
(Banks of Iowa); picketed First National Bank in Sioux
City and distributed handbills there asking that the public
cease doing business with First National Bank in Sioux
City and Banks of Iowa; picketed First National Bank of
La Crosse and distributed handbills there asking that the
public cease doing business with First National Bank of
La Crosse and First System; and picketed First National,
Bank of Milwaukee and distributed handbills there asking
that the public cease doing business with First National
of Milwaukee and First System and thereby has threat-
ened, coerced, and restrained these banks with an object
of forcing or requiring them to cease doing business with
Hormel and to apply pressure on those banks to achieve
Respondent's objectives in its labor dispute with Hormel.
Respondent in its amended answer dated 25 November
denies having violated the Act as alleged and asserts as
an affirmative defense that all of the activities referred to
in the amended consolidated complaint are protected as
free speech and expression by the first and fourteenth
amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The issues involved are whether Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by picketing and hand-
billing the banks for the proscribed object alleged and
whether the affirmative defense raised by the Respond-
ent has merit.
On the entire record2 in 'these cases and from my ob-
servations of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following3
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge.
These consolidated cases were heard at Minneapolis,
1 All dates referred to are in 1985 unless otherwise stated
2 R. Exhs. 8 and 10, which were submitted after the close of the hear-
ing of agreement of the parties, were received in evidence.
2 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Geo. A. Hormel & Company, a corporation with an
office and place of business located at Austin , Minnesota,
is engaged in the business of the slaughter, processing,
and nonretail sale and distribution of meat and meat
products. During the calendar year 1984 in the course of
its operations it sold and shipped products, goods, and
materials, valued in excess of $50,000, from its Austin,
Minnesota facility directly to points located outside the
State of Minnesota and it also purchased and received
products , goods, and materials, valued in excess of
$50,000, at its Austin, Minnesota facility directly from
points located outside the State of Minnesota.
Banks of Iowa , Inc. at all material times has been a
holding company owning the stock of several operating
banks in the State of Iowa.
First Bank System , Inc. at all material times has been a
holding company owning the stock of several operating
banks in the State of Minnesota and elsewhere. It also
owns 19 percent of the stock of the Banks of Iowa, Inc.
and has an option to purchase the remainder of its stock
if and when such purchase becomes permissible under
applicable banking laws.
First National Bank of Minneapolis , a wholly owned
corporate subsidiary of First System, maintains an office
and place of business located at Minneapolis , Minnesota,
where it is engaged in the banking business. During the
calendar year 1984 in the course of its operations it de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged
in financial transactions in excess of $1 million in inter-
state commerce with firms located in States other than
the State of Minnesota.
First National Bank of Austin, a wholly owned corpo-
rate subsidiary of First System, maintains an office and
place of business located at Austin, Minnesota, where it
is engaged in the banking business . During the calendar
year 1984 in the course of its operations it derived gross
revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged in financial
transactions in excess of $100,000 in interstate commerce
with firms located in States other than the State of Min-
nesota.
Key City Bank and Trust Company, a wholly owned
corporate subsidiary of Banks of Iowa, maintains an
office and place of business located at Dubuque, Iowa,
where it engaged in the banking business . During the
calendar year 1984 in the course of its operations it de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged
in financial transactions in excess of $100,000 in interstate
commerce with firms located in States other than the
State of Iowa.
Union Bank and Trust Company, a wholly owned cor-
porate subsidiary of Banks of Iowa, maintains an office
and place of business located at Ottumwa, Iowa, where it
is engaged in the banking business . During the calendar
year 1984 in the course of its operations it derived gross
revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged in financial
transactions in excess of $100,000 in interstate commerce
with firms located in States other than the State of Iowa.
First National Bank in Sioux City, a wholly owned
corporate subsidiary of Banks of Iowa, maintains an
office and place of business located at Sioux City, Iowa,
where it is engaged in the banking business . During the
calendar year 1984 in the course of its operations it de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged
in financial transactions in excess of $100,000 in interstate
commerce with firms located in States other than the
State of Iowa.
First National Bank of La Crosse, a wholly owned
corporate subsidiary of First System, maintains an office
and place of business located at La Crosse, Wisconsin,
where it is engaged in the banking business . During the
calendar year 1984 in the course of its operations it de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged
in financial transactions in excess of $100,000 with firms
located in States other than the State of Wisconsin.
First National Bank of Milwaukee, a wholly owned
subsidiary of First System, maintains an office and place
of business located at Milwaukee , Wisconsin , where it is
engaged in the banking business. During the calendar
year 1984 in the course of its operations it derived gross
revenues in excess of $1 million and engaged in financial
transactions in excess of $1 million in interstate com-
merce with firms located in States other than the State of
Wisconsin.
Geo. A. Hormel & Company, First National Bank of
Minneapolis , First National Bank of Austin, Key City
Bank and Trust Company, Union Bank and Trust Com-
pany, First National Bank in Sioux City, First National
Bank of La Crosse, and First National Bank of Milwau-
kee are each employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and those
named banks along with First System and Banks of Iowa
are each persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. P-9, United Food and Commercial Workers
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Hormel is engaged in the meat packing and food proc-
essing business. It operates approximately 18 production
plants and 11 distribution centers. Included among these
plants is a plant located at Austin, Minnesota . The Austin
plant which is the largest plant employs approximately
1500 employees . Its employees are represented by Re-
spondent which has had collective-bargaining agreements
with Hormel covering them for many years. The most
recent collective-bargaining agreement between them ex-
pired on 9 August. Prior to that time there were unsuc-
cessful negotiations for a new collective-bargaining
agreement. Since 17 August Respondent , which is en-
gaged in a labor dispute with Hormel, has conducted a
strike against Hormel. The strike was still continuing at
the time the hearing was held in December.
First System is a holding company. It owns the stocks
of certain banks including First National Bank of Minne-
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 991
apolis, which is located at Minneapolis, Minnesota; First
National Bank of Austin, which is located at Austin,
Minnesota; First National Bank of LaCrosse, which is
located at La Crosse, Wisconsin; and First National Bank
of Milwaukee, which is located at Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin.
Banks of Iowa is a holding company. It owns the
stocks of certain banks including Key City Bank and
Trust Company, which is located at Dubuque, Iowa;
Union Bank and Trust Company, which is located at Ot-
tumwa, Iowa; and First National Bank in Sioux City,
which is located at Sioux City, Iowa. First System also
owns 19 percent of the stock of Banks of Iowa and has a
option to purchase the remaining stock if and when its
purchase become permissible under applicable banking
laws.
Respondent, which does not represent the employees
of First System or Banking of Iowa or their subsidiaries,
in furtherance of its strike against Hormel has engaged in
demonstrations at these various banks. Assisting Re-
spondent in conducting these demonstrations and acting
as Respondent's agents are Corporate Campaign, Inc.
(Corporate Campaign) and its president and director
Raymond Rogers Jr. Corporate Campaign has also pro-
vided guidance and advice to Respondent in its labor dis-
pute with Hormel.
B. Respondent's Picketing and Handbilling at Various
Banks
1. The demonstration at First National Bank of
Minneapolis
On 22 August Respondent engaged in a demonstration
at the First National Bank of Minneapolis at Minneapo-
lis, Minnesota. The bank is located in downtown Minne-
apolis and is bordered by Marquette Avenue on the
north, Second Avenue at the south, Sixth Street on the
west, and Fifth Street on the east.
Michael Grostyan, a legal investigator employed by
the law firm representing Hormel, covered the demon-
stration and with a video technician assisting him video-
taped portions of the demonstration. Grostyan's testimo-
ny reflects they arrived at the bank about 11 a.m. and re-
mained there until 12:40 p.m. There were an estimated
400 demonstrators present. Many of them carried sign'
and between three to six demonstrators were observed
distributing handbills. Some of them were on Marquette
Avenue and the other streets around the bank with the
largest group on Sixth Street. The majority of the dem-
onstrators were standing on the sidewalk facing the
street while some were standing on the curb or in the
street by the curb. There was also a large number of
demonstrators congregated in the area of one of the main
entrances to the bank located on Sixth Street and a large
number of them displayed signs . These signs were dis-
played so they could also be observed by passing motor-
ists.
Demonstrators also chanted such slogans as "P-9" and
"We don't need corporate greed."
The handbill distributed by the demonstrators which
was entitled "Shakedown at Hormel" is as follows. [See
copy of handbill on page 1003.]
Grostyan described the demonstration as peaceful and
denied seeing anyone being blocked from entering the
bank or walking up the street.
The videotape shows large numbers of demonstrators,
many with signs, demonstrating around the bank area in-
cluding entrances to the bank and handbills being distrib-
uted. The signs contained captions directed against both
Hormel and the bank. Those signs relating to the bank
included captions such as "Stop 1st. Bank Greed," "1st
Bank & Hormel Unfair To Labor," "1st Bank Unfair To
Labor," and "First Bank Hurts Labor." The demonstra-
tors were chanting and horns on passing vehicles were
also being blown apparently in response to signs appeal-
ing to the drivers to honk their horns.
During the demonstration Grostyan, misrepresenting
his occupation, conducted an interview with Respond-
ent's president , James Guyette, who was participating in
the demonstration. The videotape of this interview re-
flects on Grostyan questioning Guyette about First Sys-
tem's involvement in the dispute with Hormel. Guyette
informed Grostyan it was threefold. Those reasons were
the bank had a historic financial relationship with the
company; the bank was the largest shareholder in the
company controlling 16.4 percent of the stock; and there
were interlocking directorships between the company
and the bank. Those interlocking directors identified by
Guyette as members of both boards of directors were
Richard Knowlton, DeWalt Ankeny Jr., and Sherwood
Berg.5
Guyette explained when one looked beyond the com-
pany and at the money behind any company that was
where one found the real source of power in any compa-
ny and those were the people who could make decisions
that could change or correct policy. Guyette stated those
three people he named according to Knowlton had a
considerable or enormous amount of influence over com-
pany decisions.
On Grostyan inquiring of Guyette what Guyette was
asking Grostyan or anyone else as a consumer to do,
Guyette informed him they were appealing to consumers
because the Union believed in people power and con-
sumers had the power to tell Hormel to correct the situa-
tion through a number of different means. Second,
people who did business with First System had a right to
tell the bank they did not want their moneys being used
in a way that hurt people in Austin, Minnesota, and
forced them out on strike and the people also had the
right to tell them they did not want their moneys used
like that.
Grostyan then asked Guyette specifically what
Guyette was asking him as a First Bank customer to do.
Guyette's response was if Grostyan was a First Bank
customer they would like for him to call into question
his account with First System and tell that bank he did
not want his moneys being used in that manner and if
4 The signs during this as well as the other demonstrations were not
attached to sticks used to hold them
5 These three persons and their relationships to Hormel and First
System are discussed infra.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
First System did not want to correct the situation then
they were asking people to look for another financial in-
stitution that did not hurt people like First Bank was
doing in Austin. Second, customers had an enormous
amount of influence in the market place as to products
they bought and they were telling them they would like
for them to write to the company to correct the situation
in Austin.
Guyette pursuant to Grostyan's inquiry, told him it in-
volved both funding and consumer spending.
Guyette also stated there were a lot of labor unions
which had moneys in First System too and they were
telling those labor organizations to help them and call
into question their funds and if the bank persisted then
for them to move those funds to another financial institu-
tion that was not a part of what was happening in
Austin, Minnesota.
When Grostyan inquired whether First System was
the only bank that had an involvement of that scale in
Hormel, Guyette told him in their opinion First System
was the primary financial resource behind the company.
Guyette mentioned for the company to make the threat
about moving it had to have financing and labor had to
focus in beyond the four walls of the building and focus
in on those people who were setting the policies that
were hurting so many of them and those people could
correct those policies.
Guyette further mentioned they were also going to
focus in on First System throughout the State of Minne-
sota as they had already and were going to stage protests
at other First System banks around Minnesota.
President Guyette who acknowledged being present
during the demonstration did not testify regarding this
conversation or deny having made such statements
which I find he made based on the undisputed evidence.
A writeup of this demonstration appearing in the 30
August issue of the "Unionist," that in Respondent's
newspaper, described it as the most dramatic and visible
example of the tactic to turn Respondent's strike force
into an economic and political force and quoted one of
Respondent's business agents as stating , "Rather than
merely having P-9 members withdraw their labor from
Hormel, we intend to put them to work, bringing the
struggle directly to the doorstep of the power brokers
who supportthe company."
2. The demonstrations at First National Bank of
Austin
On 22 August Respondent engaged in a demonstration
at the First National Bank of Austin, in Austin, Minneso-
ta. The four streets bordering the bank are Main Street
on one end, First Street NW on the opposite end, and
Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue on the other two
sides. Across the street from the bank on Third Avenue
is located the drive-in facility of the bank with another
parking lot. There were about 12 to 15 demonstrators
stationed on the sidewalk around the perimeter areas of
the bank including all the streets surrounding the bank
and the area of the drive-in facility. They were carrying
signs and some of them were wearing caps indicating
they belonged to Local P-9 of Austin, Minnesota. Some
of the signs were captioned, "Honk to Support Labor"
and demonstrators also hollered at people in vehicles to
honk their horns which they did. Most of the demonstra-
tors were distributing handbills to people walking down
the sidewalk or entering the bank and to persons leaving
the bank's drive-in facility. This was the same "Shake-
down at Hormel" handbill described, supra. The demon-
strators, described as loud and boisterous, also engaged
in chanting. One of their chants was, "They say give
back, we say fight back."
The demonstration lasted that day about 9 a.m. to 3
p.m. Thereafter demonstrations continued on an almost
daily basis for 2 to 3 weeks and then occurred on only a
sporadic basis until they ceased in September. The dem-
onstrations on those occasions lasted each day until
about 3 p.m. and normally followed the bank's schedule.
While the demonstrations were peaceful they were de-
scribed as being disruptive to the bank's' employees and
customers. Although the police were contacted they
took no action.
The above findings are based on the undisputed testi-
mony of William Connelly which I credit. Connelly,
who is presently on the Corporate Relations Staff of
First System, was the president and chief executive offi-
cer of the First National Bank of Austin when the dem-
onstration occurred there.
Corporate Campaign President Rogers also acknowl-
edged Respondent conducted demonstrations at the bank
using 10 to 15 demonstrators on occasions and more
demonstrators on other occasions.
3. The demonstration at Key City Bank and Trust
Company
On 27 August Respondent engaged in a demonstration
at the Key City Bank and Trust Company in Dubuque,
Iowa . The bank fronts on Main Street and West 12th
Street, which intersects Main Street, is located on one
side of the bank. There were 50 to 60 persons demon-
strating most of whom were in front of the bank and a
few of them on West 12th Street. Some of the demon-
strators wore caps with "Local P-9, Austin, Minnesota"
on them. Thirty to forty of the demonstrators were hold-
ing or carrying signs. These signs included captions such
as "Hormel, First Bank Unfair to Labor," "First Bank
Out of Iowa," and "Honk for Labor." The demonstra-
tors, led by one of them with a public address system,
were chanting such slogans as "Hormel unfair to labor,"
"They say give back, we say fight back," and "Keep
First Bank out of Iowa." Handbills were also distributed
by demonstrators including the Respondent's vice presi-
dent, Lynn Houston. While this handbill was also enti-
tled, "Shakedown at Hormel" and contained with two
exceptions identical wording as the one described, supra,
it also included a section entitled, "Hormel Also Puts
Squeeze On Iowa Workers and Farmers." One of the ex-
ceptions referred to was the first handbill mentioned con-
tained the following wording which is not in this hand-
bill, "You can help us achieve justice by filling out the
coupon below. LET HORMEL AND FIRST BANK
KNOW THAT CITIZENS WON'T STAND FOR
HORMEL'S INTIMIDATION TACTICS." Instead it
was worded as follows, "Working people from across
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.)
the Midwest must stick together to defeat such schemes-.
Please fill out the coupon below and LET HORMEL,
FDL, FIRST BANK AND BANKS OF IOWA
KNOW THAT WE WON'T LET THEM DIVIDE
US." The other exception was a change in the wording
of the coupon by substituting the name of Banks of Iowa
branches in the place of First Bank.
The demonstration lasted about 30 to 45 minutes. It
was peaceful and no one was physically blocked from
entering or leaving the bank.
These findings are based on the undisputed testimony
of Mark Stone who I credit. Stone, who is a deputy for
the Dubuque County Sheriff's Department, but was off
duty at the time was present at the demonstration as a
private individual on behalf of the law firm representing
Hormel.
4. The demonstration at the Union Bank and Trust
Company
On 28 August Respondent engaged in a demonstration
at the Union Bank and Trust Company in downtown Ot-
tumwa, Iowa . The bank has its main entrance on East
Third Street. The rear portion of the bank borders on
East Fourth Street and one side of the bank borders on
Market Street. There were approximately 100 to 150 per-
sons demonstrating at the bank along Fourth Street, East
Third Street including the area by the main entrance to
the bank and on Market Street. They wore caps with
"Local P-9, Austin, Minnesota," on them and campaign
buttons. The demonstrators also carried signs directed
against both Hormel and First System . Those signs di-
rected against First System were captioned , "Hormel
and First Bank Unfair to Labor" and "First Bank Unfair
to Labor." Other signs carried were captioned, "Honk to
Support Labor" which resulted in a lot of people in ve-
hicles honking their horns in response . Two of the dem-
onstrators distributed the handbills entitled , "Shakedown
at Hormel" which included the extra section relating to
farmers. Besides carrying signs and handbilling 'the dem-
onstrators , two of whom had public address systems, also
chanted such slogans as "We don't need corporate
greed," and "They say give back, we say fight back."
The demonstration which Was in progress at 11 :45 a.m.
lasted about 50 minutes beyond that time.
The demonstration appeared to be peaceful and the
demonstrators did not block the sidewalks or physically
keep anyone from entering the bank.
The above findings describing the demonstration are
based on the undisputed testimony of Larry Merrill who
I credit. Merrill is employed by Merrill ' Security and was
present at the demonstration.
5. The demonstration at the First National Bank in
Sioux City
On 30 August Respondent engaged in a demonstration
at the First National Bank in Sioux City, Iowa. The bank
located in downtown Sioux City, Iowa, and its drive-in
facility and parking lot are bounded by Sixth Street on
one side and Fifth Street on the opposite side and the
streets ' on the other two sides of the bank are Douglas
Street and Pierce Street. There were between 75 to 100
993
demonstrators ' at the bank . They were on Pierce Street,
Douglas Street , and Fifth Street as well as in the parking
lot and its entrance to the drive-in facility . The main en-
trance to the bank is ' located at the corner of Fifth Street
and Tierce Street with other entrances through the
drive-in facility location or down an alley on the north
side of the bank . 'The demonstrators , a number of whom
wore caps and buttons with "Local P-9," on them car-
ried signs . These signs contained various captions includ-
ing, "United We Stand. ... ..Local 9-Moving On," "Keep
First Bank Out of Iowa," and "Local P-9." Another sign
captioned , "Honk If You Support Labor" resulted in a
number of persons in vehicles honking their horns.
Handbills entitled "Shakedown at Hormel" which in-
cluded the extra section relating to farmers were also dis-
tributed by the demonstrators . Besides the display of
signs and distribution of handbills the demonstrators also
chanted "P-9" and one of them had a bullhorn or mega-
phone.
The demonstration which began before 1 p.m. lasted
until about 2:30 p.m.
This description of the demonstration is based on the
undisputed testimony , which I credit, of James Anderl,
who is the senior vice president and a member of the
board of directors of the First National ' Bank in Sioux
City.
6. The demonstration at the First National Bank of
La Crosse
On 7 October Respondent engaged in a demonstration
at the First National Bank of La Crosse . The bank is lo-
cated in a plaza in downtown La Crosse , Wisconsin. It
fronts Main Street where its main entrance is located off
the plaza and it is bounded on one side by Second Street
and on the other side including an alley and parking lot
located beside the bank by Third Street . According to
Stanton Jorgens, who is the bank's president , there were
about 50 demonstrators . Several of them wore caps and
jackets with "Local P-9" on them. They arrived at the
corner of Second Street and Main Street about 11:45
a.m., crossed over to the other side of Main Street from
the bank and then they proceeded down Main Street to
the intersection of Third Street and Main Street where
they demonstrated on that side of the street-, at both cor-
ners of that intersection and on Main Street opposite the
parking lot by the bank. The distance between the bank
entrance and the demonstrators across the street from
the parking lot was about 60 feet ' and from, the , bank en-
trance to the , intersection where the demonstration oc-
curred was about 150 feet . These areas were within view
of the entrance of the bank . The captions on'these signs
displayed by the demonstrators contained wording to the
effect, "Honk If You Support Labor" and "Help ' Stanip
Out First Bank Greed ." Several demonstrators distribut-
ed handbills at the intersection across the street from
where the demonstration occurred and on the plaza in
front of the main entrance to the bank . The handbills dis-
tributed included the original one described above enti-
tled, "Shakedown at Hormel" and another handbill enti-
tled, "Are Hormel Workers Striking For 69¢?"
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This latter handbill referred to provides as follows.
[See copy on p. 1004.1
The demonstrators led by two persons with micro-
phones including Corporate Campaign President Rogers
also engaged in chanting such slogans as, "We don't
need First Bank Greed," "La Crosse doesn't need First
Bank Greed," and something to the effect, "They say
give back, we say fight 'back." There was also cheering
and shouting, which could be heard from inside the
bank. Whenever vehicles passed there were chants and
the horns of the vehicles would be blown.
One of the demonstrators passing out handbills identi-
fied himself to a reporter as Lynn Houston and said he
was in charge of the demonstration and indicated some-
thing to the effect they were there to tell their side of
the story.
The demonstration, described as loud, lasted about 45
minutes to an hour.
Respondent's vice president, Houston, testified the dis-
tance from the bank entrance on Main Street to the near-
est demonstrator with a sign at the intersection of Main
Street and Third Street was 297 feet that he said he
measured. However, Houston acknowledged he was not
in a position the entire time to observe this distance al-
though he was present about 90 percent of the time
during which that distance was maintained. Rogers also
stated the bannering occurred a substantial distance
down the street away from the bank and that only one
person was at each bank entrance distributing handbills.
Photographs of the demonstration submitted by Re-
spondent also show single persons identified as distribut-
ing handbills at the entrance to the bank and at its drive-
in facility exit.
I credit Jorgens' testimony regarding the demonstra-
tion. While both Houston and Rogers claimed the dem-
onstrators with signs were a substantial distance from the
bank entrance Houston acknowledged he did not observe
them the entire time and Rogers gave no estimate of
what he meant by substantial. Moreover, regardless of
the distance the demonstration occurred within sight of
persons entering the bank.
7. The demonstration of the First National Bank of
Milwaukee
On 10 October Respondent engaged in a demonstra-
tion at the First National Bank of Milwaukee. The bank
is located in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the
intersection of W. Wisconsin Avenue and Second Street
and is part of the Grand Avenue Mall. There are two en-
trances to the bank from W. Wisconsin Avenue and the
other entrances are located inside the mall. Across the
street from the bank and located in the next block at the
intersection of W. Wisconsin Avenue and Third Street is
the Reuss Federal Plaza which fronts on W. Wisconsin
Aventie:
Scott Brader, who is, employed by Universal Produc-
tions and also does free lance - work, was employed by
the law firm representing Hormel to cover the demon-
stration. Brader's description of the demonstration re-
flects there were about 30 demonstrators. The majority
of them were wearing caps with "Local P-9" on them.
About 25 of the demonstrators were in a group in front
of the Reuss Federal Plaza carrying signs. While Brader
estimated it was approximately 30 to 50 yards from the
closest entrance to the bank on W. Wisconsin Avenue to
Third Street he acknowledged he was not very good
with distances. The signs included such captions as,
"Honk for Labor," "Stop First Bank Greed," "First
Bank Unfair To Labor," "Cut Meat Not Wages," and
"Honk." There were also three or four demonstrators in
front of the Reuss Federal Plaza and a demonstrator at
each entrance to the bank on W. Wisconsin Avenue,
who were the only demonstrators at the bank, distribut-
ing handbills. The handbills were entitled, "Shakedown
at Hormel" like the original one described and "Are
Hormel Workers Striking For 69^?" The demonstrators
led by one or two demonstrators with public address sys-
tems also engaged in chanting in front of the Reuss Fed-
eral Plaza which was loud enough to be heard at the
bank and inside the mall.
Brader described the demonstration, which lasted
about 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., as peaceful and denied seeing
anyone being blocked from going to the bank or any-
where else.
Respondent's vice president, Houston, who stated he
was also at the demonstration that day, placed the dis-
tance from the bank entrance on W. Wisconsin Avenue
to the nearest demonstrator ' with a sign, who was in
front of the Reuss Federal Plaza, which he measured as
being approximately 330 feet.
Corporate Campaign President Rogers who was
present at the demonstration also testified except for one
person at each bank entrance handing out the handbills
the other demonstrators including those with signs dem-
onstrated a considerable distance down the street from
the bank.
Photographs of the demonstration submitted by Re-
spondent show a large number of demonstrators with
signs ,in front of the Reuss Federal Plaza and a demon-
strator distributing handbills at the bank entrance on W.
Wisconsin Avenue.
The testimony of Brader that I credit concerning this
demonstration is either undisputed or consistent with that
of Houston and Rogers except for Brader's estimate of
the distance from the bank entrance to the area where
the demonstrators with signs were demonstrating. Since
Housto4 had measured the distance and Brader, who ac-
knowledged he was not good with distances, only esti-
mated the distance I credit Houston on this conflict in
the testimony.
C. Respondent's Reasons Given for the
Demonstrations
Corporate Campaign President Rogers described the
purpose of a corporate campaign was to create a better
balance of power in a situation where there is some very
serious injustices being perpetrated on a group of people.
To accomplish this a campaign is developed to provide
an effective mechanism for workers and their organiza-
tions to fight back and to get a fair deal. Research is con-
ducted to identify those persons and institutions that can
most effect, s in the case of a labor dispute, the corpora-
tion's labor policies as well as the other policies. It deter-
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 995
mines who really wields influence and control over a
company 's labor and other policies . Rogers acknowl-
edged they draw into the dispute institutions they feel
are really an extension of one or another and they view
them as primary rather than secondary for the relation-
ships they discover.
According to Rogers the latter part of 1984 his firm
was asked by the Respondent to do a research analysis of
Hormel which it did and in January his firm was hired
by Respondent to develop a campaign against Hormel.
The results of the research analysis as described by
Rogers, who stated he and Research Director Tina Sim-
cich conducted the research , were Hormel and First
System were so connected and intertwined and the rela-
tionship so intimate that Hormel had to be viewed as an
extension of First System . Roger admitted it was their in-
tention as they had done to draw First System and its
subsidiaries into the controversy because of the relation-
ships they discovered . While Rogers claimed Hormel
was their target there was such an intertwined relation-
ship between First System and Hormel that Hormel was
viewed as an extension of First System and therefore
they drew First System into the controversy over the
role it played in the policies of Hormel . Rogers also
claimed their information showed First System and its af-
filiations were part of the Respondent 's dispute with
Hormel because of its relationship with Hormel and the
control it had over Hormel . Those documents Rogers
claimed were relied on to support this conclusion were
proxy statements of both companies, their annual reports,
their 8-K reports filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission , literature including magazines issued by
Hormel, and a book on the history of Hormel.
Respondent's president, Guyette , testified that Re-
spondent decided to conduct a corporate campaign
against Hormel and First System because of the inter-
locking directorships , stock control , and historical rela-
tionship between the bank and Hormel and that Re-
spondent engaged in the campaign to bring public aware-
ness and pressures to bear on the directors of the compa-
ny who in fact set policy for the company . According to
Guyette the purpose of the demonstrations at the banks
was to reach out to people and make them aware of Re-
spondent 's dispute with Hormel and the relationship be-
tween the banks and Hormel. Guyette denied Respond-
ent's objectives were to force the banks to sever their re-
lations with Hormel or to stop making loans to Hormel
or have its officers or directors resign their positions on
Hormel's board of directors or to stop people from en-
tering the bank.
Guyette also stated the Respondent 's campaign was
designed to focus in on people who can make decisions
behind the scenes of Hormel . It was designed to call into
question people who sat on boards of directors that to-
gether have overlocking directors or to confront a com-
pany and the people who vote the stock.
Guyette, who also said he was involved in the re-
search, acknowledged as part of Respondent's campaign
against Hormel , that First System became part of their
strategy to win back wage and benefit concessions. This
was based on the proxy report with the stock control
First System had with respect to 16.4 percent of Hor-
mel's stock; interlocking directorships of Richard
Knowlton, DeWalt Ankeny, and Sherwood Berg; and
the historical relationship between Hormel and First
System which gave Hormel a tremendous amount of le-
verage to freeze and starve the workers into submission.
Those documents, Guyette stated , he considered were
the proxy statements , newspaper accounts , and things
written by Jay Hormel about his father and the Hormel
philosophy, a newspaper article of an interview with
Hormel 's president, Knowlton, and the wills of George
A. Hormel and Jay Hormel.°
Guyette stated what they hoped to achieve by their
demonstrations at the banks was to raise the public con-
sciousness to their struggle and wanted people to under-
stand the fight was not just a fight against Hormel but it
was against those people who set the policy that sit in
the board rooms of Hormel . Guyette admitted Respond-
ent's withdrawal of funds from the banks, handbilling,
and displaying signs were to put pressure on First
System and its subsidiaries . Guyette also acknowledged
one form of pressure would be to get consumers to re-
quest the banks to act in a certain way or the consumer
would pull his money out if the consumer so chose.
Guyette further admitted in the demonstrations conduct-
ed at First National Bank of Minneapolis, First National
of Austin, First National Bank of La Crosse, and First
National Bank of Milwaukee that the Respondent was
seeking to put pressure on First System because of the
relationship it perceived between First System and
Hormel and this pressure directed against First System
would help Respondent achieve a favorable contract set-
tlement.
Guyette stated First System became a target because
of the stock control it voted, the historical relationship,
and its enormous influence those outside directors had in
company policy.
According to Guyette Respondent wanted other
unions to call into question their own funds in the banks
and say they did not want their moneys being used in a
way that hurt fellow union members in Austin, Minneso-
ta. Guyette also admitted if First System could not do
what Respondent wanted it to do Respondent's objective
was it wanted to break the First System connection with
Hormel . However, Guyette denied Respondent was
trying to sever any business relations.
Guyette admitted making the following statement
which he contends is accurate in an affidavit he gave re-
lating to the case : "Local P-9 has attempted to focus
public attention on First Bank's relationship with
Hormel , because the bank holds a position of power and
influence with the management of Hormel . The Union
seeks to persuade First Bank to use its influence , its posi-
tion on Hormel's board of directors , and its voting
power to change Hormel's position in this labor dispute."
Their research , according to Corporate Campaign
President Rogers, also revealed a relationship between
Banks of Iowa and its subsidiaries and Hormel . The basis
of this relationship , as described by Rogers for targeting
s While Guyette also claimed he examined Hormel Foundation records
it was not involved in this proceeding.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Banks of Iowa in its dispute with Hormel, was First
System owed 19 percent of the stock of Banks of Iowa
and was in the process of trying to get 100-percent con-
trol if interstate banking regulations passed. While
Rogers gave as another reason a Mr. Walker, who
headed FDL Company, also served on the board of di-
rectors of the Banks of Iowa and claimed Hormel and
FDL Company were becoming one and the same,. FDL
Company was not involved in this proceeding.
President Guyette also stated as part of this campaign
against Hormel it was determined the Respondent would
take certain actions against the Banks of Iowa and its
subsidiaries. Guyette could not specifically identify those
documents relied on in making this determination but
mentioned newspaper accounts that the chief executive
officer of FDL Company was on the board of directors
of the Banks of Iowa, and claimed FDL Company was a
convenient marriage for both Hormel and First System
which wanted -to acquire the Banks of Iowa.
Guyette admitted the display of signs and handbills di-
rected against the Banks of Iowa including Key City
Bank and Trust Company, Union Bank and Trust Com-
pany, and First National Bank in Sioux City were de-
signed to assist Respondent in reaching a favorable con-
tract settlement with Hormel. The Respondent's activi-
ties including handbills were also directed to enlist those
banks' consumers support for Respondent's contract
goals. Guyette acknowledged the withdrawal of funds by
consumers from the Banks of Iowa in response to Re-
spondent's handbill was consistent with the Respondent's
attempts to -achieve a favorable contract settlement with
Hormel if there was no other recourse. Guyette defined
"no other recourse" to mean if the banks did not do any-
thing then the consumers would withdraw their money.'
Research Director Simcich, who performed research
work on the corporate analysis of Hormel, stated the
purpose was to identify those institutions which had the
most influence over Hormel because Respondent felt
there might be other institutions that had influence over
Hormel and might have a real say. According to Simcich
the analysis showed First System was the primary insti-
tution `involved. Those specific documents relied on and
submitted into evidence to support' this position included
Hormel's proxy statement dated 4 January; an analysis
and charts of all the relationships on the boards of direc-
tors of First System and its subsidiaries and Hormel from
the 1920s based on information contained in Moody's In-
dustrial Manuals, Moody's Banking and Finance Manu-
als, and proxy statements; Hormel's 1981 annual report
and form' 8-K dated 30 October 1981 filed by Hormel
with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and a
book on the history of Hormel entitled, "Quest for Qual-
ity.
7 While Guyette subsequently claimed he had answered certain ques-
tions asked by the Charging Party's counsel about whether certain kinds
of conduct were consistent with the idea of a corporate campaign based
on his understanding the questions applied to corporate campaigns in
general rather than specifically to Respondent's campaign involving
Hormel, these particular questions he allegedly misunderstood were not
further identified and his answers and the questions asked show they
were related to the campaign involving Hormel.
Based on her research and analysis Simcich stated she
recommended to Corporate Campaign and Respondent
for purposes of their activities relating to Hormel that
First System was the most powerful institution in its rela-
tionship with Hormel and had a great deal of influence
over its affairs and was far and above any other outside
entities in their relationships with Hormel.
The significance of the 4 January proxy statement ac-
cording to Simcich is it shows First System President
and Chief Operating Officer DeWalt Ankeny8 and Sher-
wood Berg, who was a member of the board of directors
of First Bank of South Dakota,9 were both members of
the board of directors of Hormel and Richard Knowlton,
who was chairman of the board of directors, president,
and chief executive officer of Hormel, was a member of
the boards of directors for First National Bank of Minne-
apolis and First National Bank of Austin. While Simcich
first claimed the proxy statement showed First System
owned 16.44 percent of Hormel's common stock, she
later said it managed the stock and did not hold it in its
own name.
This proxy statement further reflects there were eight
other members on Hormel's board of directors none of
whom held` positions with any of the banks involved
here. Five of the members of the board of directors in-
cluding Ankeny and Berg were outside directors and
were not employed by Respondent and the other six
members were inside directors employed by Hormel.
There were also 9,606,516 shares of common stock out-
standing as of 3 December 1984.
The proxy statement also describes First National
Bank of Minneapolis and' First National Bank of Austin
as two of Hormel's principal banking connections and in
1984 First National Bank of Minneapolis provided
Hormel with a line of credit which was used for part of
the year as backup for commercial paper.
According to F. E. Porter,10 who is senior vice presi-
dent, secretary, and general counsel of First System,
First System is a regional, multistate banking organiza-
tion that owns 78 commercial banks and trust companies
in various States. Each of them has its own separate
board of directors and operates as a separate, freestand-
ing corporation pursuant to applicable 'banking laws.
They are responsible for the conduct of their own oper-
ations subject to the supervision, planning, control, and
monitoring responsibility exercised by First System as
owner of its banks. Except for DeWalt Ankeny none of
First `System's officers or directors or those of its subsidi-
aries serves as an officer or director of Hormel. ' First
System does not own any shares of common stock of
Hormel and none of its subsidiaries owns an economic
interest in any shares of Hormel's stock. First National
Bank of Minneapolis and another subsidiary, not in-
volved here, hold shares of Hormel's common stock in
various fiduciary capacities. These shares' held constitut-
ed 12.6 percent of Hormel's outstanding common stock
Ankeny is also a member of the board of directors of First National
Bank of Minneapolis as well as First System
9 This bank was not involved in this proceeding.
10 The parties stipulated Porter would testify to these facts contained
in his affidavit,
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 997
as of 31 July; however, they only exercised voting rights
on approximately 5 percent of the outstanding shares of
Hormel 's common stock . Most of the shares were held in
trust for the Hormel Joint Earnings Profit Sharing and
Savings Plan and the Hormel Pension Plan. Various sub-
sidiaries of First System provide common commercial
banking services to Hormel such as commercial loans,
payroll checking accounts, cash management services,
letters of credit, lines of credit , and commercial paper
servicing . The average daily balance of loans between
First System's subsidiary banks to Hormel in 1984 and
1985 was less than $500 ,000. While as of 1 August
Hormel had multimillion dollar lines of credit from those
banks, only $220,000 in loans under them was outstand-
ing. First System itself does not make loans to Hormel.
First System holds 19 percent of the outstanding
common stock of Banks of Iowa which is nonvoting
stock and has an agreement with it to acquire the subsid-
iary banks of Banks of Iowa should such acquisition
become legally permissible . However , First System does
not exercise control over the management or policies of
Banks of Iowa.
Hormel's director of taxes, Larry Gorden, corroborat-
ed Senior Vice President Porter's description of the rela-
tionship between First System and Hormel. Gorden
denied Hormel dealt directly with First System. While
Gorden acknowledged Hormel did do business with two
of First System's subsidiaries , namely, First National
Bank of Minneapolis and First National Bank of Austin,
he stated Hormel also did business with approximately 30
other banks as well.
Gorden denied Hormel owned any stock of First
System or its subsidiaries . Gorden also denied First
System owned any of Hormel's stock or held such stock
in a trust capacity although its subsidiary First National
Bank of Minneapolis did hold stock in a trust capacity. I t
Gorden described Hormel 's only relationship with
Banks of Iowa was it had an account with one of its sub-
sidiaries, the Union Bank and Trust Company, located at
Ottumwa, Iowa. Hormel had the account there because
one of its facilities was located at Ottumwa , Iowa. The
only other relationship is the plant manager of Hormel's
Ottumwa facility is also a member of the board of direc-
tors of the Union Bank and Trust Company. Neither
Hormel nor the Banks of Iowa or its subsidiaries own
stock in each other.
Although Simcich 's analysis and charts reflect in the
past that some of Hormel's officials served on the boards
of directors of First System and some of its subsidiaries
and some of the officials of First System and some of its
subsidiaries served on Hormel 's board of directors, the
only officials doing so at the time of the demonstrations
involved here were, as previously discussed, First
System official Ankeny and Hormel official Knowlton.
Hormel's 1981 annual report and the form 8 -K relied
on by Simcich reflect that Hormel formalized the bulk of
its credit lines into a revolving credit/term loan agree-
11 Although Hormel 's 4 January proxy statement reflects First System
held 16 .44 percent of Hormel 's outstanding common stock in trust in a
fiduciary capacity, the testimony of both First System Senior Vice Presi-
dent Porter and Gorden establish it was not First System but rather its
subsidiaries that did so.
ment for loans which could be made up to an aggregate
$75 million with three banks which had had longstanding
business relationships with Hormel . These banks were
First National Bank of Chicago and Morgan Guaranty of
New York each with extensions of credit to Hormel in
the amount of $30 million and First National Bank of
Minneapolis with an extension of credit to Hormel of $15
million. 12
Excerpts from the book entitled, "Quest for Quality"
relied on by Simcich reflect about 1926 members of the
Hormel family together with other business and profes-
sional people in Austin, Minnesota , lent their support and
helped save the Austin National Bank, which at the time
was an independent bank, from failing . That Bank was
later purchased by First Bank Stock Corporation,
merged with another bank , and subsequently became the
First National Bank of Austin . On another occasion
about 1921 Hormel was saved from bankruptcy by the
support of a number of banks including First National
Bank of Minneapolis . According to Simcich those arti-
cles show a historical relationship between Hormel and
the banks.
The newspaper article of an interview with Hormel's
president, Knowlton, conducted on 30 July by reporter
Bruce Maxwell of the Rochester Post Bulletin referred
to by Respondent 's president , Guyette, reflects Knowl-
ton stated the five outside members of Hormel 's board of
directors believed the firm had outgrown Austin and
should move its corporate headquarters to a metropolitan
area . The article also stated Knowlton said the five out-
side directors who advocated moving the corporate
headquarters "have a strong influence" on company de-
cisions . Knowlton acknowledged making certain of those
statements but stated he thought there was a choice of
words there that were wrong and he did not make the
statement "strong influence" but thought they had strong
feelings about it. Maxwell however contended the article
accurately reflected Knowlton's comments to him. Since
Knowlton's testimony reflects that he thought that was
what was said and thereby appears less certain in his tes-
timony than Maxwell, I credit Maxwell . Moreover,
while Knowlton did contact Maxwell the day after the
interview seeking to correct other portions of the article
no mention was made of this statement Knowlton now
indicates was inaccurate.
President Knowlton was called as a witness by Re-
spondent to establish a relationship between Hormel and
the banks involved here. While Knowlton acknowledged
there had been about seven meetings held by Hormel's
board of directors in 1985 and updates were given at
four of them about what was happening concerning the
Austin plant, Knowlton denied the board of directors
had ever taken any action on the matter . The purpose of
the updates was merely for informational purposes.
Knowlton denied the board of directors ever involved
itself in labor policy although it possesses the power to
do so . Knowlton, while stating First System President
Ankeny who was also a member of Hormel 's board of
12 Respondent 's president , Guyette, denied that the credit relationship
between the banks and Hormel was a factor in Respondent's decision to
target the banks.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
directors attended meetings at which those updates were
given, 'stated Ankeny did not participate to any great
degree in the discussions. Knowlton denied Ankeny par-
ticipated in any discussions concerning moving Hormel's
Austin plant out of Austin.
Knowlton explained Ankeny's appointment to Hor-
mel's board of directors was based on his ability to bring
insight to the board from the financial aspects.
Knowlton, who is a member of the board of directors
of the First National Bank of Minneapolis, denied there
had been any discussions at those meetings regarding the
labor situation at Hormel and denied he had ever been
asked by any officers or directors of First System at any
time about the labor situation at the Austin plant.
The actions undertaken by Respondent as described by
Rogers and Guyette as a result of the Corporate Cam-
paign analysis and planning included among other things
the display of signs and distribution of handbills prepared
by Corporate Campaign at branch banks of First System
as well as at branch banks of Banks of Iowa because of
their relationships with Hormel. Rogers stated he attend-
ed all the demonstrations involved here. Both Guyette
and Rogers, however, denied Respondent picketed at
any of these banks. Rogers' reasons for denying that the
display of signs constituted picketing were because the
signs displayed did not have sticks attached to them, a
reason later partly disclaimed by him, and because Re-
spondent had not tried to keep people from entering the
bank by either blocking the entrance or trying to talk
them into not entering the banks.
The purpose of Respondent's demonstrations at these
banks as claimed by Rogers was to draw public aware-
ness to the very intimate relationship between First
System and its subsidiaries and Hormel with the hope the
general public and others would use their influence to
bring pressure to bear on Hormel through First System
to use its enormous influence to help settle the dispute.
Rogers denied its purpose was to have the banks' cus-
tomers break their relationship with the banks.
Rogers as well as Guyette acknowledged one of the
signs displayed by Respondent at one of the demonstra-
tions at a subsidiary bank of First System involved here
was, captioned, "Break The Hormel First Bank Austin
Connection." While Rogers contended its message was
to have people use their influence to cause the bank to
stop being a rubber stamp for the Hormel policy that
was creating so much havoc in the lives of Respondent's
members and their community it was not shown this al-
leged meaning of the message was either explained or
conveyed to others. Under cross-examination, Rogers,
also on being asked about this sign, acknowledged one of
the messages Respondent was conveying to the public
was to break the First System and Hormel connection
and the actions Respondent was asking the public to un-
dertake were those actions portrayed on the signs.
A picture of this sign also appeared in the 18 January
issue of the Unionist newspaper published by Respondent
and distributed to its-members and other labor organiza-
tions in Austin, Minnesota, in addition to other persons.
Respondent President Guyette is the editor. The cover
page of that issue was entitled, "P-9 Fights Back: It's Us
vs. Them" and in between those two statements appears
the name of First Bank Austin, member First Bank
System and cartoon-type pictures of persons identified
by name as Richard Knowlton, DeWalt Ankeny Jr., and
Sherwood Berg and indicating they were representatives
of both First Bank and Hormel. An article entitled,
"First Bank's brass often on wrong side" appearing in
that issue describes various reasons First System was
brought into Respondent's dispute with Hormel. Among
those reasons given were interlocking directorships and
overlapping financial ties which the article states if First
System told Hormel to settle with Respondent the next
day, Hormel would settle. The "Unionist" issue dated 3
May contains an article which states Corporate Cam-
paign President Rogers at an annual meeting held by
First System the previous week informed the sharehold-
ers that Respondent's efforts to drag the bank into Re-
spondent's dispute with Hormel had thus far been suc-
cessful. It also reflects Respondent's president, Guyette,
at the same meeting requested First System to use its in-
fluence over Hormel to rescind wage cuts previously
made by Hormel. A cartoon appearing on the same page
links Hormel and First System together reflecting they
were making huge profits.
An undated letter issued by Respondent to its mem-
bers in the spring and signed by its officials including
President Guyette and Vice President Houston reported
on the progress of its corporate campaign and 'set forth a
statement taken from an enclosed editorial in another
publication as follows: "The money unions have in First
Bank and the money individuals have deposited there as
well does not belong to First Bank. If First Bank intends
to use the power of its assets on the side of Hormel-as
it has demonstrated it intends to do-then it deserves to
have those assets taken away." The letter further stated a
number of unions and individuals had removed funds
from First Bank or were in the process of doing so. It
informed the members they must keep the heat on
Hormel and First Bank and encouraged them to write
First System and let it know Respondent would hold the
bank accountable for the direct role it plays in Hormel's
attack on Respondent and the Austin community.
D. Other Types of Demonstrations
Respondent presented several witnesses who testified
they participated in other types of demonstrations at the
banks.
Randolph Staten , a legislator for the State of Minneso-
ta, on 14 December 1984 participated in a demonstration
along with 75 to 100 other demonstrators at the St. Paul
First Bank located at St. Paul , Minnesota. They passed
out handbills, displayed signs, and sang songs. The pur-
pose of the demonstration which lasted 5 to 7 hours was
to protest First System's investment policies and the sale
of Krugerrands as it related to South Africa.
Staten acknowledged the demonstration was not orga-
nized by a labor organization.
Paul Wellston, a professor of political service at Car-
leton College, about the latter part of 1985 participated
in a demonstration which lasted about 2 hours at the
First National Bank of Minneapolis located in downtown
Minneapolis, Minnesota. The demonstrators included
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 999
farmers who were concerned about First System 's poli-
cies and practices and leaving a number of small commu-
nities and calling in demand notes against farmers. Well-
stone denied this was an organized or official representa-
tion of any organization although some of the farmers
were from Minnesota Groundswell which is an organiza-
tion of farmers throughout the State of Minnesota.
Heidi Adelsman on behalf of "Minnesotans Against
Apartheid" participated in a demonstration at the First
National Bank of Minneapolis in December 1984 to pro-
test the bank 's investments in companies and other banks
doing business in South Africa . The demonstrators en-
gaging in picketing and handbilling.
Adelsman also participated in a demonstration at the
same bank by the University of Minnesota Coalition for
University Divestment from South Africa on 26 August.
On that occasion the demonstrators distributed handbills.
The handbills stated in part First Bank's capital flows
into the South Africa economy via loans to those profit-
eers and asks support in picketing the bank and helping
end U .S. corporate , financial , and governmental support
for South Africa . It also stated , "Don't Bank With Blood
Money."
Adelsman acknowledged neither of these groups were
labor organizations.
There was no showing whether any of these demon-
strations had been held to be lawful or unlawful.
E. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel alleges Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by picketing First National
Bank of Minneapolis , First National Bank of Austin,
First National Bank of La Crosse, and First National
Bank of Milwaukee and distributed handbills at those
banks asking that the public cease doing business with
that particular bank and with First System and by picket-
ing Key City Bank and Trust Company , Union Bank and
Trust Company, and First National Bank in Sioux City
and distributed handbills at those banks asking that the
public cease doing business with that particular bank and
with Banks of Iowa and thereby threatened, coerced,
and restrained the banks with an object of forcing or re-
quiring them to cease doing business with Hormel and to
apply pressure on those banks to achieve Respondent's
objectives in its labor dispute with Hormel.
Respondent in its answer denies having violated the
Act and asserts its activities are protected as free speech
and expression by the 1st and 14th amendments of the
Constitution of the United States.
Respondent argues in its brief the banks are not neutral
or secondary employers; there was no cessation of doing
business object; and its activities are protected by the
publicity proviso and first amendment to the United
States Constitution . Both the General Counsel and the
Charging Party in their briefs dispute these contentions.
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a union:
(ii) to threaten , coerce, or restrain any person .. .
where in either case an object thereof is-
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using,
selling , handling , transporting , or otherwise dealing
in the products of any other producer , processor, or
manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any
other person , or forcing or requiring any other em-
ployer to recognize or bargain with a labor organi-
zation as the representative of his employees unless
such labor organization has been certified as the
representative of such employees under the provi-
sions of section 9 : Provided, That nothing contained
in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlaw-
ful, where not otherwise unlawful , any primary
strike or primary picketing.
A publicity provision exempts from the proscription of
Section 8(b)(4) all:
publicity , other than picketing , for the purpose of
truthfully advising the public , including consumers
and members of a labor organization , that a product
or products are produced by an employer with
whom the labor organization has a primary dispute
and are distributed by another employer, as long as
such publicity does not have an effect of inducing
any individual employed by any person other than
the primary employer in the course of his employ-
ment to refuse to pick up , deliver, or transport any
goods, or not to perform any services , at the estab-
lishment of the employer engaged in such distribu-
tion.
While a union is permitted to picket a primary em-
ployer with which it has a labor dispute it violates Sec-
tion 8(b)(4) of the Act if it pickets a secondary or neutral
employer with a proscribed object of enmeshing that em-
ployer in a controversy not its own. Teamsters Local 126
(Ready Mixed Concrete), 200 NLRB 253, 254 (1972). Sec-
tion 8(b)(4) of the Act places a burden on unions to con-
duct themselves in primary disputes in such ways as will
not needlessly entangle neutral employers . Plumbers
(Hanson Plumbing), 277 NLRB 1231 (1985).
The above evidence establishes that Respondent is en-
gaged in a primary labor dispute with Hormel . It also, in
furtherance of this dispute with Hormel , engaged in sep-
arate demonstrations at the seven banks involved here
which are wholly owned subsidiaries of either First
System or Banks of Iowa . These demonstrations included
demonstrators at or in the immediate vicinity of the
banks and their entrances displaying signs with captions
directed against both the banks and Hormel and handbill-
ing. This display of signs by the demonstrators constitut-
ed picketing notwithstanding as urged by Respondent
the signs were not attached to sticks and persons were
not physically prevented from entering the banks or ac-
tually talked to about not entering the banks . The cap-
tions on the signs themselves were appeals and induce-
ments to both consumers and employees alike to take
action consistent with the signs.
The undisputed evidence including admissions made
by both Respondent's president Guyette and its agent
corporate campaign president Rogers as well as the cap-
tions contained on the picket signs, language embodied in
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the handbills, and statements contained in Respondent's
newspapers clearly establish Respondent intentionally en-
meshed the banks involved here into its labor dispute
with Hormel. The reasons advanced by Respondent's
representatives for doing so were because they felt the
relationships between the banks and Hormel were such
that Hormel had to be viewed as an extension of First
System and the banks became primary employers with
Hormel, in its labor dispute. This pressure directed
against the banks as described by Rogers and Guyette
was to help Respondent settle its dispute with Hormel
and obtain a favorable contract settlement.
A employer can lose its protection as a neutral based
on its relationship to the primary employer. Teamsters
Local 560 (Curtin Matheson), 248 NLRB 1212, 1214
(1980). There the Board quoted from another cited case
in discussing the question of neutrality as follows:
... cannot be answered by the application of a set
of verbal formulae. Rather, the issue can be re-
solved only by considering on a case-by-case basis
the factual relationship which the secondary em-
ployer bears to the primary employer up against the
intent of the Congress as expressed in the Act to
protect employers who are "wholly unconcerned"
and not involved in the labor dispute between the
primary employer and the union. [Vulcan Materials
Company v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, and United Steelworkers of America, Local
Union No. 2176, 430 F.2d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 1970),
cert. denied 401 U.S. 963 (1971).]
An examination of the relationships between the banks
involved here and Hormel as established by the evidence
shows Hormel transacts banking business with First Na-
tional Bank of Minneapolis and First National Bank of
Austin. Although these two banks are wholly owned
subsidiaries of First System each bank is a separate cor-
poration with its own board of directors and is responsi-
ble for conducting its own operations. Hormel also has
an account with the Union Bank and Trust Company
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banks of Iowa.
These banking operations between Hormel and the three
banks involved as described by officials of First System
and Hormel appear as normal-type banking operations
that exist between any large corporation and its banking
institutions. First System also owns 19 percent of the
Banks of Iowa's common stock with an agreement to ac-
quire all of its subsidiary banks should it become legally
permissible. While in July First National Bank of Minne-
apolis along with another subsidiary of First System not
involved here held approximately 12.6 percent of Hor-
mel's common stock in fiduciary capacities there is no
common ownership ` between Hormel and any of the
banks involved here. Except for Hormel's highest official
serving as a member of the board of directors of First
National Bank of Minneapolis and First National Bank of
Austin, and First System's highest official serving as a
member of Hormel's board of directors there were no
common officers or directors between Hormel and the
banks during the period of this labor dispute. The fact a
person employed by one corporation serves as a member
of the board of directors of another corporation, which
is not an uncommon occurrence in normal business prac-
tices, that person cannot be presumed to be acting in the
interest of the employing corporation in performing his
duties and responsibilities as a member of the other cor-
poration's board of directors. Moreover, there is no
showing in the instant case and it was specifically denied
by President Knowlton that the boards of directors of
Hormel or the two banks where Knowlton was a
member of the board of directors took any action involv-
ing Hormel's labor dispute.
Thus, for the reasons indicated the banks and Hormel
are separate and distinct corporate legal entities without
any actual or even potential control existing between
their operations and there were no relationships estab-
lished between them to alter or remove the banks' pro-
tected status as neutral or secondary employers making it
legally permissible for Respondent to picket them as part
of its dispute with Hormel. Rather the evidence reflects
Hormel's dealings with the three banks involved here
with which it transacted banking business were but a
normal arms-length business-type arrangement.
Having found the banks involved here are neutral and
secondary employers and were intentionally enmeshed
by Respondent into its dispute with Hormel, I find Re-
spondent during the period from about 22 August
through about 10 October violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act by picketing First National Bank of Minne-
apolis, First National Bank of Austin, First National
Bank of La Crosse, and First National Bank of Milwau-
kee, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of First
System, and Key City Bank and Trust Company, Union
Bank and Trust Company, and First National Bank in
Sioux City, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of
Banks of Iowa, and thereby threatened, coerced, and re-
strained them with an object of forcing or requiring
them to cease doing business with Hormel. This unlawful
object of the picketing, contrary to Respondent' s asser-
tions which I discredit, is clearly established by directing
the picketing against these banks themselves with whom
Respondent had no dispute; admissions by both Respond-
ent's representatives, Rogers and Guyette, about the cap-
tion on a picket sign and the sign about breaking the
connection between Hormel and the banks; and handbills
discussed infra and statements made by President
Guyette to Michael Grostyan which solicited consumers,
employees, and other persons to withdraw their funds
from the banks all of which conduct was engaged in to
cause the banks to cease doing business with Hormel to
bring pressure on Hormel.
Next discussed is whether the distribution of the hand-
bills which occurred simultaneous with the picketing was
also unlawful or was conduct protected by the publicity
proviso.
The distribution of handbills appealing to the public
not to patronize neutral or secondary employers violates
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. See Florida Building
Trades Council (DeBartolo Corp.), 273 NLRB 1431
(1985).
The publicity proviso is not limited to a union's labor
dispute with the manufacturer or processor. NLRB v.
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.) 1001
Servette, Inc., 377 U.S. 46, 55 (1964). The only publicity
exempted from the prohibition is publicity intended to
inform the public that the primary employer's product is
"distributed by" the secondary employer. Edward J. De-
Bartolo Corp v. NLRB, 463 U.S. 147 (1983).
While the banks do not distribute meat products pro-
duced by Hormel three of them, which were also indi-
rectly related to the other banks through corporate own-,
ership by First System and Banks of Iowa, did transact
banking business with Hormel. These business transac-
tions in the broad sense involve the production and dis-
tribution of revenues which I fmd is sufficient to bring
Hormel and the banks within the meaning of the publici-
ty proviso.
This proviso as interpreted by the Board requires that
all coercive information on handbills be for the purpose
of truthfully advising the public of the nature of the pri-
mary dispute and thereby prohibits a union from attack-
ing a secondary employer on grounds totally unrelated
to the primary dispute. Service Employees Local 399
(Delta Air Lines), 263 NLRB 996, 998 (1982).
The "Shakedown At Hormel" handbills distributed by
Respondent at the banks involved here reflect both
Hormel and First System together were involved in the
dispute involving Hormel's employees. It refers to them
as being corporate allies and accuses them together of
having forced prior concessions' on Hormel's employees.
It mentions in spite of this corporate extortion Respond-
ent was fighting back and workers were taking the fight
to the doorsteps of Hormel and First System branches
across the midwest. One type of handbill then solicited
people to help Respondent achieve justice by filling out
a coupon to let Hormel and First System know citizens
would not stand for Hormel's intimidation tactics. The
coupon was to show the person' and their family mem-
bers were removing their accounts from First System or
to show whether that person's organization had accounts
in or funds managed by First System. The other type of
handbill solicited people to fill out a coupon to let
Hormel, First System, and Banks of Iowa know they
would not let them divide them. The coupon was to
show that the person and other family members were re-
moving their accounts from the Banks of Iowa or to
show whether the person's organization had accounts in
or funds managed by Banks of Iowa branches.
The "Are Hormel Workers Striking For 694!" hand-
bills distributed by Respondent at the, banks involved
here show a person holding a picket sign captioned,
"Stop 1st Bank 'Greed" standing beside another picket
with a sign captioned, "Hormel Unfair To Labor." This
depicts Respondent's dispute as being against both
Hormel and First System together. It accuses Hormel
and its corporate allies of untruthfully suggesting that
Respondent was striking over only a few cents difference
per hour from Hormel's proposal. It also accuses Hormel
of forcing the strike on Respondent and gives that as the
reason Respondent was taking the fight to the doorsteps
of Hormel's plants and to the branches of First System,
which it describes as being Hormel's corporate partner
and in the same paragraph then solicits other union
people to join with Respondent to let those companies
know that when they say give back, they say fight back.
Not only do these handbills clearly claim First System
and Banks of Iowa are responsible together with Hormel
for Respondent 's dispute with Hormel and seek to have
consumers , employees, and other people withdraw their
funds from the banks as a result which could cause the
banks to cease doing business with Hormel the handbills
are also untruthful . There is no evidence to show the
banks referred to in the handbills were involved in any
way in Hormel 's actions which Respondent claims is the
basis for its dispute with Hormel and about which it was
protesting in the demonstrations. Rather the evidence
found shows no relationships existed between the banks
and Hormel for holding the banks responsible with
Hormel in its dispute with the Respondent.
Under these circumstances I fmd Respondent failed to
comply with the truthfulness requirement of the publicity
proviso which requires that the publicity truthfully
advise the public of the nature of the primary dispute
and the secondary employer's relationship and the hand-
bills were therefore not protected by the proviso.
For those reasons discussed I also find Respondent by
handbilling the banks involved here, like the picketing,
threatened , coerced , and restrained those banks for the
proscribed object of forcing or requiring them to cease
doing business with Hormel to bring pressure on Hormel
and thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
Having , found that both the picketing and handbilling
fall within and constitute conduct unlawful under Sec-
tion 8 (b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act the affirmative defense
raised by Respondent that its conduct is protected as free
speech and expression by the 1st and 14th amendments
to the United States Constitution is rejected. Secondary
picketing by a union in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the
Act is not protected activity under the First Amend-
ment. Longshoremen ILA v. Allied International, 456 U.S.
212, 226 (1982). There is also a presumption the Act is
constitutional. Florida Building Trades Council (DeBartolo
Corp.), supra.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occur-
ring in connection with the operations of Hormel, First
National Bank of Minneapolis, First National Bank of
Austin, Key City Bank and Trust Company, Union Bank
and Trust Company, First National Bank in Sioux City,
First National Bank of La Crosse, and First National
Bank of Milwaukee, described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Geo. A. Hormel & Company, First National Bank
of Minneapolis, First National Bank of Austin, Key City
Bank and Trust Company, Union Bank and Trust Com-
pany, First National. Bank in Sioux City, First National
Bank of La Crosse, and' First National Bank of Milwau-
kee are each employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and they
along with First Bank System, Inc. and Banks of Iowa,
Inc. are each persons engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
2. Local No. P-9, United Food and Commercial Work-
ers Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5)`of the Act.
3. By picketing and handbilling the premises of First
National Bank of Minneapolis , First National Bank of
Austin, First National Bank of La Crosse and First Na-
tional Bank of Milwaukee, which are wholly owned sub-
sidiaries of First Bank System, Inc., and by picketing the
premises of Key City Bank and Trust Company, Union
Bank - and Trust Company, and First National Bank in
Sioux City, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of
Banks of Iowa, Inc., with an object of forcing or requir-
ing these banks to cease doing business with Geo. A.
Hormel & Company, Respondent has threatened, co-
erced, and restrained these banks and has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, Local P-9, United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union, Austin, Minnesota, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Picketing and handbilling the premises of First
Bank System, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries including
13 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 pur-
poses.
First National Bank of Minneapolis, First National Bank
of Austin, First National Bank of La Crosse, First Na-
tional Bank of Milwaukee, and the Banks of Iowa, Inc.
or any of its subsidiaries including Key City Bank and
Trust Company, Union Bank and Trust Company, and
First National Bank in Sioux City or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce where an object thereof is to force or require any
of these banks or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing busi-
ness with Geo. A. Hormel & Company.
(b) In any like or related manner threatening, coercing,
or restraining First Bank System, Inc. or any of its sub-
sidiaries including First National Bank of Minneapolis,
First National Bank of Austin, First National Bank of La
Crosse, First National Bank of Milwaukee, and Banks of
Iowa, Inc-or any of its subsidiaries including Key City
Bank and Trust Company, Union Bank and Trust Com-
pany, and First National Bank in Sioux City or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce where an object thereof is to force or require
these banks or any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing busi-
ness with Qeo. A. Hormel & Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at Respondent's offices, meeting places, and
all places where notices to its members are customarily
posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." r 4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and'
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the
Regional Director for Region 18 for posting by the Em-
ployers named above, if they are willing, at all places
where notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this' Order what steps the Re-
spondent, has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended consolidat-
ed complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations
of the Act not specifically found.
14 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 Nation-
al 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."
FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL P-9 (HORMEL & CO.)
SHAKEDOWN AT HORMEL
GUNS ARE POINTING AT THE HEAD OF THEHORMEL WORKER.
During 16 out of the last 22 years , members of
UFCW Local P-9 in Austin . Minnesota have been
forced to give in to the concessions shakedown run
by Geo. A. Hormel & Co. and its corporate ally, the
First Bank System . (First Bank shares interlocking
directors and has major stock and credit
relationships with Hormel.)
In the late 1970's, the workers reluctantly agreed
to the elimination of an Incentive bonus system and
to an increase In production quotas to get the
company to build a new plant In Austin . They felt
forced to accept a payroll deduction plan that
amounted to a $12,000 average per worker loan to
the company. And after years of company bullying,
union members even suggested that their wages be
tied to Hormel 's profits to insure that the company
would remain competitive.
But none of this was enough . Last year, Hormel
robbed the workers of a further 23% of their wages,
grossly reduced healthcare benefits and began
making paycheck deductions of as much as $100 per
week for medical coverage employees had used in
the past. When the workers repeatedly protested,
Geo. A. Hormel & Co. told them that this highway
robbery was for their own good . At the same time,
NAME -
ADDRESS
----------------------------------------------
q YES, I WANT TO HELP P-9.
q I and/or a member of my family
are removing our accounts from
First Bank.
q My organization has accounts in
and/or funds managed by
First Bank.
q Donation to P-9 Emergency and
Hardship Fund Is enclosed.
1003
the company has been raking In record profits:
Business Week called it "the envy of the industry
because of its consistent profitability."
Hormel is also holding the small town of Austin
hostage, threatening to leave altogether if Local
P-9 does not give in . Meanwhile , the company has
already caused considerable. destruction in the
town : the wage and benefit cuts amount to almost
$1 million a month taken out of the local economy.
Hormel is also pummeling its workers in
Fremont, Nebraska and Ottumwa, Iowa, by reducing
wages and benefits and saying that it'may pull out
of those towns If workers become uncooperative.
In spite of this corporate extortion , Local P-9 Is
fighting back. The company has pushed us around
long enough. We are tired of watching injuries
skyrocket due to speedups and lack of training of
new workers . We had no choice but to strike to
bring justice to Austin . 1700 workers are taking the
fight to the doorsteps of Hormel , the Hormel
Foundation , which controls 45.6% of Hormel 's stock,
and First Bank branches across the Midwest.
You can help us achieve justice by filling out
the coupon below . LET HORMEL AND FIRST BANK
KNOW THAT CITIZENS WON'T STAND FOR
HORMEL'S INTIMIDATION TACTICS.
PHONE (
CITY STATE ZIP
ORGANIZATION, If any
Please mail this coupon back to: UFCW LOCAL P-9 CORPORATE
CAMPAIGN", 316 N.E. 4th AVE., AUSTIN , MN 55912
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Are Hormel Workers ' Striking For 69$?
L J
O n August IS, the 1,500 members of United Food and WORKERS-An injured employee who is assigned to a
Commercial Workers Union Local PA rejected the ehabi itation job will lose all rights to reclaim his regular
"final offer" of Geo. A. Hormel A Co. by a vote of 1,261 job if he does not return to it within 60 days.
to 96 and went out on strike , sanctioned by their dational
union. Since that time the company and its corporate DIVIDING THE WORKFORCE AND EXPLOIT
allies have suggested that the union is striking over a ING NEW WORKERS-Hormel demands a two-tier
difference of only a few cents per hour with the com - wage system that would alw ayspaynewworkers lessthan
pany 's proposal current workers for the same work, the right to hue
part-time workers with no benefits and temporary
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE workers with no benefits other than holiday pay.
TRUTH ! The package offered by the company was
nothing less than a UNION BUSTER 'S DREAM S THIS A PACKAGE ANY SELF-RESPECTING
COME TRUE. Not only would it continue the 23% wage UNION MEMBER COULD VOTE FOR' Local
cut instituted over a year ago. it would also FREEZE PA's members and officers are united : we will not sur-
WAGES OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS and render our hard-won rights, or our dignity. We will not
DESTROY VIRTUALLYALLOFTHE UNION PRO- accept a situation where over a third of our members
TECTIONS woo since the 19301 . suffer major. lost-time injuries every year.
The final offer would mean Not long after the strike began, HORMEL
• DESTRUCTION OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM. announced that their EARNINGS HAD RISEN BY
replaced by management's right to transfer workers 816% over the year-earlier level. And what is the com-
wherever they wish in the plant . to assign overtime to pany doing with all ofthiswealthtbraoentmonthaithas
whomever they with, and to shift a worker to any part of purchased one aonafon port processing plant. DoW
the plant they wish to finish out the day . Foods of Wichita. Lamas. aced has began it tateovetof
fh D bF [oanot er lour-wage plait, FDL u tgse, owtt.oods
DISMISSAL-Norme! demands very broad powers to P-9 members say that Hormel does not need tbemto
suspend or discharge workers-including the power to make oottoessioosonly toenabkthecompany tainvest in
suspend or discharge for any 'strike. slowdown, refusal outfits that exploit workers elsewhere.
to work, sympathy strikes , picketing , boycotting [or] To satisfy Hormel's stated concern that it cannot
handbilling..." restore the wage cuts and remain profitable for long, we
® ABOLITION OF RIGHTS WON IN PREVIOUS even offered to tie our wages to company profits-but
YEARS-All policies established through past prat- Hormel refused that offer. THEY HAVE FORCED
tier" would be eliminated . THIS STRIKE ON US-that s why we are taking the
fight to the doorsteps of Hormel plants and to branches
D REDUCTION OF BENEFITS-Medical benefits . of the company's corporate partner. First Bank . through-
which were cut drastically Last year. are reduced even out the Midwest . WE ASK OUR UNION BROTHERS
more. Holiday pay will be paid only when a worker is AND SISTERS TO JOIN WITH US AND LET
assigned to work on a holiday . THESE COMPANIES KNOW THAT WHEN THEY
SAY GIVEBACK, WE SAY FIGHTBACKS Please fill
PUNITIVE TREATMENT OF INJURED out the coupon below.
0 THE RIGHT OF SUMMARY ARBITRARY
----------------------------------------------
q YES, I WANT TO HELP P-9.
q Donation check made out to
"P-9 Emergency and Hardship
Fund" is enclosed.
(The Information regarding First Bank
and Banks of Iowa previously here has
been censored by the National Labor
Relations Board.)
NAME PHONE ( )
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
ORG ANIZATION. if any
Please mail this coupon back to., UFCW LOCAL P-9 CORPORATE
( t`1PAIGN°.316 N .E. 4th AVE.. AUSTIN, MN 55912 am-