Haines Meats And Provisions, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 37 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

HAINES MEATS & PROVISIONS , INC. 37
Haines Meats and Provisions , Inc. and Meat Cut-
ters, Packing House Workers and Food Handlers
District Union Local #657. Case 12-CA-3825
March 4, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
suant to charges filed on the preceding April 20
and July 11, presents questions whether the
Respondent engaged in various acts of interference,
restraint , and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, discharged Laura Jones and
Raymond Francis in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1 ) of the Act, and refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Charging Party in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
On December 18, 1967, Trial Examiner Owsley
Vose issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings," conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondent, Haines Meat and Provi-
sions, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
We note that the Trial Examiner in sec. III, B, 2, b, of his Decision in-
advertently refers to Haines where it is obvious from the context that the
reference is to Raymond Francis The Decision is hereby corrected in this
respect
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner: This case, heard
at Miami , Florida, on September 12, 1967, pur-
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Florida corporation, is en-
gaged in the wholesale distribution of meat,
poultry, and provisions at Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The Respondent annually purchases more than
$50,000 worth of products and supplies from points
located outside of Florida. Upon these facts, I find,
as the Respondent admits , that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein,
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Meat Cutters , Packing House Workers and Food
Handlers District Union Local #657 ( herein called
the Union) is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of Events
1. The employees ' designation of the Union as
their bargaining agent ; the Union's first bargaining
request
Some of the Respondent 's employees , including
meatcutters Jack Blake, Eugene Batchelder, and
Slim Jones , and Jones ' wife, Laura , a wrapper and
packer , met with Robert Hershey , a business
representative of the Union , in early February
1967. Hershey gave the employees bargaining
authorization cards and explained the procedure
for seeking recognition and a collective-bargaining
contract with the Respondent.
On March 16 , 1967, a group of the Respondent's
employees got together and 10 of the 15 plant em-
ployees, including truckdrivers, signed cards
designating the Union as their "sole bargaining
agent." Eugene Batchelder collected the cards and
mailed them to Gerald Greenfield , the president of
the Union, in Miami . Greenfield received the cards
on March 21, 1967.
That same day, March 21, Greenfield sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
170 NLRB No. 11
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Respondent 's address the following letter:
Dear Mr. Haines: -
The above named organization . represents a
majority of your employees that cut , process
and handle merchandise which comes under
our jurisdiction . In accordance with
procedures outlined by the National Labor
Relations Board we hereby request that you
recognize our union and agree to enter into
negotiations for a collective bargaining agree-
ment . We herewith offer to submit all of the
signed application cards to an impartial person
in order that we may have a card check and
furnish proof that we do represent the majority
of your employees.
In the event that you refuse to grant this
request then please be advised that we have
filed a petition with the National Labor Rela-
tionsBoard . I would like to point out to you
that upon receipt of this letter any efforts to
discourage union activity , making threats of
loss of jobs or benefits or making promises of
promotion , pay raises or other benefits would
be a violation of the Act and would compel the
union to file Unfair Labor Practice charges
against your company.
I think that you will remember me personally
Mr. Haines and you may also know that we
have excellent Union-Company relationships
with many of the leading packers in the area.
We would appreciate an opportunity to meet
with you and, discuss this entire matter more
fully. Would you kindly advise me by mail or
phone regarding these requests . Hoping that
you will see fit to meet with us within the next
week, I am
Very truly yours,
Gerald Greenfield,
President
Stamped on the upper left-hand corner of the
front of the envelope in prominent letters was the
following return name and address:
MEAT CUTTERS UNION
LOCAL 657, A.F.L. C.I.O
2206 N. W. 27th AVE.
MIAMI 42, FLORIDA
The letter was addressed to Mr. Ted Haines,
Haines Meat Company, at the Respondent's correct
address. The correct name of the Respondent is
Haines Meats and Provisions, Inc., and the correct
name of the chairman of the board and the majority
stockholder of the Respondent corporation - is
Howard O. Haines.
The envelope was later returned to the union of-
fice unopened bearing a post office stamped nota-
tion indicating that the letter was refused. The, en-
velope bore the date stamp of the Miami Post-Of-
fice "MAR 21 '67" and also the additional date
stamp of-the Fort Lauderdale Post Office "MAR
' This was before the attempted delivery of the Union's letter to the
Respondent.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
24, AM, 1967." In view of the original date stamp
on the envelope, the day's time normally-taken for
mail to reach Fort Lauderdale from Miami, a
distance of 23 miles, and the Respondent's sub-
sequent conduct, I conclude that the envelope con-
taining the above letter was delivered and refused
by the Respondent on March 22.
Haines testified that "someone said that there
was a letter that came for a Mr. Ted Haines there
and that they had refused the letter , but that he
had not seen it at all and had had nothing to do
with the refusal of the letter.
2. The events of March 22
At 1 a.m. on March 22,' Plant Foreman Sullivan,
commented to Raymond Francis, one of the
Respondent's meatcutters, as he came in to work
"that Mr. Haines has found out about the union
and somebody is going to be fired over this. "2 .
Later in the morning Haines himself asked -Eu-
gene Batchelder, one of the meatcutters, whether
he knew anything about the Union and if he had
signed a card. When Batchelder replied that he had
signed a card, Haines inquired whether any of the
other employees had signed cards. Batchelder said
he did not know. Haines then asked if the em-
ployees had signed cards at a meeting . Batchelder
told him there was no meeting and that he had ob-
tained his card from someone on the street.
About 8:30 or 9 that morning Haines summoned
Batchelder and four other meatcutters to his office.
With Haines in his office was Al Meisenberg, the
president of the Respondent. Then the following
transpired, according to the credited and undenied
testimony of Raymond Francis:
A. Mr. Haines told us to sit down he said, "I
understand you boys want to join the union."
And with that he says, "You know the union is
nothing but a bunch of crooks." And then he
started pointing his finger around and he said,
"Did you join?" He asked Marshall, "Did you
join the union?"
Q. Pointing his finger?
A. Yes. And Marshall, said yes. And he went
right around and we all said yes, that we had
signed union cards. - -
Q. This is everybody?
A. Except Bob Tait. Bob Tait had not
signed the union card. And then he went back
and he said to Marshall, he says, "I know you
didn't start it," and to lack right down the line,
he says "I know you didn't start it." And when
he came to me he says, "Well, it has to be you
that started the union ." And I told him that I
did not, and that is when he called me a liar. I
asked Marshall right in front of him, "Marshall
to your knowledge was I for or against the
Z This and the succeeding findings are based upon the uncontradicted
testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel, unless otherwise indicated
HAINES MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. 39
union? Did I not try and talk you out of the
union?" And Marshall said to his knowledge
that I was definitely against the union, that I
couldn't see where the union could help.
And then he hold me that if I didn't like the
way things were going that I could leave or
something to that effect. And then he told us,
he says, that his office was always open, that if
we had any problems we should come and see
him, that we did this in an underhanded
manner and that if we wanted a union why not
form our own union in the plant and elect a
group, a spokesman, and pay the union dues to
it and that he would give it to us back at the
end of the year and we could have a party with
it instead of giving it to the union. In other
words, have our own union in the plant.
0. Was there any discussion as to the sub-
ject of rights that the parties had?
A. Yes. Mr. Haines said that he has his
rights too as well as we, that he can put us on a
40 hour week and cut our overtime.
Q. How did he tell you that he was going to
put you on a 40 hour week? Did he explain
this?-
A. He just said that he could put on more
help and cut us down to 40 hours a week.
0. Was there any particular talk as to what
the union could get you?
A. It was said that the union couldn't get us
no more than what he would agree to give us,
that they couldn't give us nothing that he
wouldn't. Okay?
Q. (By Mr. Rachelson) What else was said
that you recall?
A. Well, the only thing that was said was
Mr. Haines said , whether there is a union or
not he can fire anybody he pleases . There is al-
ways a way of discharging a person or firing a
person.3
Later on March 22 Haines went up to Mike
Macias, a truckdriver , and after telling him that he
had learned that Macias was trying to get a union in
the plant, asked him what he wanted the Union for.
When Macias denied it , Haines angrily accused him
of being a liar. Macias inquired who had told him
and Haines responded that a driver named Bill had.
Haines thereupon summoned Bill out where the
two men were talking and asked him about the
matter. Bill asserted that Macias had been talking
to two or three of the Negro drivers about the
Union.
3. The discharge of Laura Jones
Laura Jones is a wrapper and packer in the
Respondent 's portion control department. The tem-
perature in the department is, kept between 37
degrees and 45 degrees. The door to the freezer,
which is kept at a much colder temperature, opens
out of the department and everytime the door to
the freezer opens, the workers in the department
are subjected to a subfreezing blast. Because of the
cold and damp conditions in the portion control de-
partment the Respondent is normally very lenient
about employees helping themselves to coffee in
the lounge whenever- they can do so without hold-
ing up the work.
About 5 o'clock in the morning of March 23
Jones finished the work on her table and went into
the lounge for a cup of coffee (Jones commences
work at 2 a.m.). There were five other employees
in the lounge at the time. About 4 minutes later
Haines came into the lounge and looking directly at
Jones and said, "Is this a coffee break and don't
you have anything else to do." Jones replied that
she was just having a cup of coffee. Haines directed
Jones to go to his office where he abruptly told her
to punch her card and go home. When Jones asked
what she had done, Haines answered, "I don't like
your attitude." When Jones again pressed Haines
for an explanation, he said that he did not want to
talk to her. Jones asserted, I am sure it has
something to do with the Union-and I am not
responsible for the whole thing." Haines insisted
that Jones leave and as he escorted her through the
portion control department forbade her to talk to
anyone in the department.4
A short while later Haines went into the pumping
room where Raymond Francis was engaged in bon-
ing out the ends of some loins . Haines told Francis
that Jones had been discharged, "that he was
getting rid of the troublemakers, and that if [he]
didn't like it [he] could go." Francis declared that
Haines had made a "big mistake" because Jones
,,was not for the Union." Francis added that he and
Jones "were about the only ones who were not in
the Union at the time." Haines replied that he was
a "damned liar," that Francis and Jones were
"pushing the union."
Jones was reinstated about a week after her
discharge.
4. Events of March 23; the discharge of Raymond
Francis
At 1 p.m. on March 23 Haines called all of the
meatcutters except Francis into the office and, in
3 Francis ' testimony about his meeting is corroborated by that of Eugene
Batchelder and Marshall Doerfler.
'' Haines had a poor recollection of the discharge incident . At first he
testified that he found Jones and , he thought, only one other person whose
identity he could not recall , in the lounge Later, he testified that it might
have been Ray Frans who was in the lounge , but he was not sure, Jones
testified unequivocally that Francis was not in the lounge and named some
of the others who were in the lounge with her Haines also testified that
there was no discussion of the Union in the discharge interview . In view of
Haines' hazy recollection of this incident, I accept Jones' more precise ac-
count in preference to Haines ' version
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
the course of a discussion lasting about 30 minutes,
told them that he wanted them to take over Fran-
cis' work because he was going to let Francis go.
Haines added "that he was going to get rid of the
troublemakers." Haines also said at this meeting
that it "wasn't absolutely necessary that he have
meat cutters, that if he had to he could close the
plant and buy meats prefabricated ... and act as
distributor. "'
Francis finished up his day's work while the four
other meatcutters were in the office with Haines.
When Francis went to punch out, his card was not
in the rack, and he was told that. Haines had it and
that Haines wanted to see him. When the meeting
was over Francis went into the office. Haines
handed Francis' timecard to the bookkeeper and
said "I guess you know what is coming ." Then the
following ensued, according to Francis' credited
and undenied testimony:
And I made the statement then, "You have
had the boys in the office and if nobody spoke
up in my defense I guess I am being fired." So
he says, "You know you started it." And I told
him I did not and he called me a liar again.
And then he asked me, "If you didn't start it,
who did? And I told him that I could not work
in the back room if I was to tell him who was
doing this and be able to face them and be able
to work with them.
And he told me I would tell ... that I would
not lose my job and I would not tell him so
then he told me, "Before we let the union in
that he would close down his plant and let all
the employees go and he will sell direct to the
customers."
He made an example, he says, "Sunday he
had sold a strip to one of the restaurants and
they came down and picked it up and cut it
themselves and he made money."
Mr. Haines had said that he knew that I was
at a union meeting, that they had known about
this union meeting for a month prior to the
union activities. And he said that his son had
been following me for the past two weeks, that
he followed me to Jack Blake's house and fol-
lowed me to Gene's house for the union
meeting.
And I told him, "I have never been to Jack
Blake 's house in my life and it is over a year
since I have been to Gene 's house , that I was
not at a meeting . I was supposed to go there."
And I also told him that if his son would know
that when I get through work that I go right
home and go to bed because I am so blasted
tired . I was supposed to go to the meeting. I
3 Both Marshall Doerfier and Eugene Batchelder testified to this effect
While there is some confusion in their testimony as to whether it was the
first or second meeting at which this statement was made, I conclude that
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wanted to go because I wanted to find out what
the union would do for us . They called me up
and I told them I just couldn't drive all the way
back.
Haines also informed Francis on this occasion that
he had told the other meatcutters , that he was
letting him go, that "[he] was a troublemaker."
Francis was offered reinstatement about a week
after his discharge and returned to work a few days
later.
5. Subsequent events ; the Union 's telegraphic
request for recognition and. bargaining
On March 24 the Union mailed to the Respond-
ent's employees a letter which in part is as follows:
Dear Friend:
Mr. Haines has been advised that a majority of
his employees have designated the Meat Cut-
ters Union- to represent them in bargaining for
a union contract . We have also filed a petition
with the National Labor Relations Board.
Mr. Haines answered by calling meetings of the
employees , intimidating , threatening and even
firing some employees . These and other acts
violate the laws of the United States and we
are therefore also filing UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE CHARGES against the Haines
Company . From our preliminary information
Mr. Haines has violated the law and we predict
that he will eventually have to rehire the fired
employees and pay back wages for all time lost
until their reinstatement . In the meantime the
union is making efforts to get temporary em-
ployment for those employees . There is also a
very strong possibility that because of the acts
and actions of Mr . Haines that he will be com-
pelled by the Labor Board to recognize the
Meat Cutters Union and bargain for a labor
contract without the necessity of having to win
an election.
A'few days later , as Haines testified , one of the
employees gave him a copy of the letter.
On March 28 the Respondent received from the
Union the following telegram:
ON MARCH 22ND YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT OUR
LETTER DEMANDING RECOGNITION. WE
REPRESENT MAJORITY OF YOUR EMPLOYEES AND
CAN ESTABLISH THIS FACT BY AN AUTHORIZATION
CARD AND PAYROLL CHECK BY ANY IMPARTIAL
PERSON . CONSIDER THIS OUR SECOND DEMAND
FOR RECOGNITION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
NEGOTIATIONS . IN ADDITION , DEMAND IS MADE
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LAURA JONES AND RAY
FRANCIS WHO WERE DISCHARGED DISCRIMI-
NATORILY. CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED AT
635-5113 IN MIAMI
GERALD GREENFIELD PRESIDENT MEAT CUTTERS
LOCAL UNION #657
this statement was made at the second meeting on March 23 It is immateri-
al for the purposes of this case whether the statement was made at the first
or second meeting
HAINES MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. 41
The next day or so Haines called Batchelder into
the office. Haines had a list of names in front of
him and as he went down the list he asked
Batchelder whether the employee had signed a
union card. Included on the list were 8 of the 10
employees who had signed union cards. Batchelder
informed Haines that all eight employees had
signed cards and told Haines that two others, Philip
Connis and Edith DeAtley, had also signed union
cards.
The Union never received any response from the
Respondent in answer to its request for recognition
and the commencement of bargaining negotiations.
B. The Respondent's Contentions; Conclusions
1. The Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
The complaint alleges the Respondent made vari-
ous threats against employees because of their
union activities . As found above, Plant Foreman
Sullivan warned Francis that "somebody is going to
get fired over" the Union . Haines himself on one
occasion threatened a group of meatcutters that he
could "put us on a 40-hour week and cut our over-
time" and that he could fire anyone he pleased, re-
gardless of the Union. On two other occasions
Haines warned meatcutters that their services were
not "absolutely necessary ," that "he could close
the plant and buy meat prefabricated." Haines also
stated in the course of discussions involving the
Union that he was getting rid of the "trouble-
makers," a threat, which as found below, he be-
lieved he was carrying out in the cases of Jones
and Francis. Upon the evidence summarized above,
the Respondent has unquestionably engaged in in-
terference , restraint, and coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The complaint further alleges that the Respond-
ent repeatedly engaged in questioning of em-
ployees concerning their union sympathies, the
identity of the instigators of the union movement,
and of other union sympathizers , and their at-
tendance at a union meeting . The evidence set
forth in the preceding section III , A, establishes that
this questioning was at times accompanied by
outright threats of reprisals against employees
because of their union activities . In these circum-
stances there can be no doubt that the Respondent
has engaged in coercive questioning of employees
about union matters, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, and I so find.
The complaint further alleges that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling
one employee that he had been kept under surveil-
lance and,created the impression of surveillance by
naming card signers for the Union. As found above,
Haines told Francis that his son had been following
him for the past 2 weeks and had followed him to a
union meeting. Also Haines showed Batchelder a
list of names purporting to be names of union mem-
bers , which was substantially correct-omitting the
names of but 2 of the 10 card signers-and then
sought to verify from Batchelder the accuracy of
his information . Such conduct which betrays an ex-
cessive interest in the union activities and sym-
pathies of the employees , carries with it the intima-
tion that the information is sought in order to take
retaliatory action against union sympathizers, and is
therefore coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Citizens Hotel Co., dlbla
Texas Hotel, 313 F.2d 708, 709 (C.A. 5); Hendrix
Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 104,
fn. 7 (C.A. 5).
Finally, the complaint charges the Respondent
with encouraging the employees to form their own
union in further violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. The evidence of Haines ' conduct at the March
22 meeting fully supports this allegation of the
complaint and I so find.
2. The Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(3)
and (I ) of the Act
a. The discharge of Laura Jones
As found above, Laura Jones was a wrapper and
packer in the portion control department . She had
been employed by the Respondent for about 5
years, although not without some interruption.
Jones and her husband, Slim, who had been
discharged by the Respondent 3 or 4 weeks earlier,
were among the original group of employees who
were interested in the Union. They had attended at
least one union meeting in February, of which the
Respondent had some knowledge , as is indicated by
Haines ' statement to Francis about union meetings
at employees' homes.
As found above, Jones was abruptly discharged
the day after the Respondent had received informa-
tion, through seeing the Union's name and address
on the letter which it refused to receive, that the
Union was trying to communicate with its It was
also the day after Haines called the first meeting of
the meatcutters in his office . In this meeting, it will
be recalled, after attacking the Union as "a bunch
of crooks," Haines questioned the meatcutters con-
cerning their union affiliation , accused Raymond
Francis of being the instigator of the union move-
ment , and threatened them with discharge or a
reduction in hours because of their union sym-
pathies.
Haines refused to give Jones any explanation for
her discharge other than he did not like her at-
titude.
Although it was Jones' conduct in having a cup
of coffee in the lounge which precipitated her
"This is a (reasonable inference from the fact that a representative of the
Respondent! having authority to reject mail refused to accept a certified
mail letter having the name and address of the Union stamped in prominent
letters on the front of the envelope
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge, there was nothing unusual or in any way
contrary to the Respondent's regulations about
Jones' conduct. Jones had already worked for 3
hours that morning and was fully caught up with
her work. The Respondent normally had a very
tolerant attitude about employees taking breaks
when they could without interfering with their
work, particularly when the employees had to work
under the cold and damp conditions under which
Jones did.
While Haines admitted that normally Jones "is an
excellent worker, does an excellent job, and we de-
pended on her a lot," he stated that at the time in
question her work was not "up to par" because
"she had been talking to other employees in trying
to get us to take Slim back, that is her husband ...
and I had received some complaints from super-
visors that she was lagging behind in some of her
orders and ... the trucks would be held up."
Haines' testimony makes it clear that he had no in-
formation at the time he discharged Jones as to
whether she was caught up in her work or not but
was relying on reports he had previously received
concerning work in that department. More specifi-
cally, Haines testified that he "had a complaint
from the supervisor (Sullivan) that the orders were
not getting out ... Sullivan said he just had to have
her out of there because he just couldn't get the
work out." Sullivan was not called as a witness.
I am not persuaded that either Jones' efforts to
obtain the reinstatement of her husband or the as-
serted dropoff in the quantity of her production was
responsible for her discharge. Jones and her
husband were early supporters of the union move-
ment. Francis' testimony that Haines accused both
himself and Laura Jones of being the instigators of
the union movement indicates that Haines believed
Jones was active in the union movement. Haines'
aversion to having a union in the plant is clearly
established in the record. Under all the circum-
stances I, conclude that Haines discharged Jones
because of his belief that she was one of the em-
ployees who was responsible for starting the union
movement in the plant and not for the reasons as-
serted by him. Jones' discharge, therefore, violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
b. The discharge of Raymond Francis
Francis was a meatcutter in the Respondent's
portion control department. He had been employed
by the Respondent for about 3 years. Haines ad-
mitted that Francis was a "very good" portion con-
trol man. It is a job which requires considerable
skill in estimating and cutting the right sized piece
of meat. The portions are sold by the piece, and if a
10-ounce steak, for example, is being cut, a cut of a
10-1/2-ounce steak causes the Respondent to lose
money and a cut of a 9-1/2-ounce steak results in
an overcharge to the customer. Haines also testified
that "at one time" Francis was a "fast worker" but
that for a period of "probably 2 or 3 months" he
had noticed a change in his work.
Haines was discharged the day after the Re-
spondent had refused to receive the certified letter
which the Union had sent to it. It was also the day
after Haines, in the presence of all the other meat-
cutters, had charged him with being the instigator
of the union movement. On the occasion of his
discharge Haines not only accused Francis of start-
ing the union movement but also informed him that
he had told the other meatcutters that he was
getting rid of "the troublemakers." As found above,
Haines had discharged Jones earlier that same day.
At the hearing the Respondent contended that
Francis was discharged for, failing to keep sufficient
meat cut ahead for stock and for permitting the
needle and the equipment used to pump tenderizer
into the meat to become filthy. Haines testified that
Francis had been warned about keeping the pump-
ing equipment clean and that the inspector had
threatened to require the Respondent to stop
pumping if .it did not keep its equipment clean.
Haines also testified at one point regarding Francis'
discharge that "the crowning blow, really of the
whole thing was the filthy condition of his pumping
equipment." Later Haines testified that "really
what topped it all off was that morning the, day that
he was discharged was because he had not followed
instructions to keep stock ahead in, the freezer
which we always do."
Regarding Haines ' first complaint about Francis'
work, it appears that the asserted filthy condition of
the needle was not discovered until , the morning
after Francis' discharge. It is also to , be borne in
mind that Francis' pumping work occupied but 10
percent of his time. After his reinstatement Francis
was so busy cutting meat that he was relieved of his
pumping duties altogether.
As to Francis' failure to, keep freezer stock cut
ahead, Haines testified that he had called Francis in
"probably a week before" and told him of com-
plaints about trucks being held up because his de-
partment was running behind . Haines further
testified that he had received complaints from Plant
Foreman Sullivan that Francis was not keeping up
with his freezer stock. Cutting stock ahead was a
job which was left to be done after all the day's or-
ders were gotten out. The Respondent was in its
busiest season at the time of Francis' discharge and
the employees were working almost 70 hours a
week, as Haines admitted. The last full week which
Francis worked he put in 73-1/2 hours . In view of
the long hours then being worked at the plant, it
appears that the Respondent was having some dif-
ficulty getting its daily orders out and that not
much time remained for getting stock cut ahead.
Under all the circumstances, including particu-
larly Haines' freely expressed opposition to the
Union, I conclude that Haines seized upon Francis'
alleged filthy pumping equipment and his failure to
manage to get stock cut ahead as pretexts for
getting rid of the employees whom he believed to
HAINES MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. 43
be the instigators of the union movement at the
plant . It appears that Haines was attempting to
carry out the threat which he had made to Francis
and the other meatcutters the day before, when he
said that he could always find a way to discharge an
employee, union or no union . Francis ' discharge
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act
As found above, on March 22, as soon as Haines
received information that the employees had
become seriously interested in the Union, he sum-
moned his five meatcutters, his most skilled em-
ployees, to a meeting at which, after disparaging
the Union in no uncertain terms, he questioned
them about joining the Union, threatened them
with discharge or with a serious reduction in their
working hours, and urged the formation of an in-
side union. Later that same day the Respondent
refused to accept a certified mail letter with the
Union's name and return address stamped in
prominent letters in the upper left-hand corner of
the envelope. The next day Haines discharged
Raymond Francis and Laura Jones, employees of
experience and relatively long service, and at the
hearing gave wholly pretextual explanations for
their discharge, as I have found.
On March 28, the Respondent received the
Union's telegraphic demand for recognition and
bargaining in which the Union offered to submit its
authorization cards to any impartial person for
verification of its assertion of majority status. The
Respondent has at no time made any response to
this request for recognition and bargaining.
The complaint alleges that a majority of the
Respondent's employees in a unit consisting of:
All production and maintenance employees
including truckdrivers, meat cutters, packers
and laborers employed by Respondent at its
plant located at 1643 N.E. 14th Avenue, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, guards, professional em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act,
have designated the Union as their representa-
tive for the purpose of collective bargaining
with the Respondent. The Respondent con-
cedes that the above-quoted unit is an ap-
propriate unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act. Lists prepared by the Respondent
establish that there were 15 employees in the
above unit during the period from March 16,
1967, through March 29, 1967. Bargaining
authorization cards signed by 10 of the 15 em-
ployees in the appropriate unit were received
in evidence in this case. All the cards were
dated March 16. No evidence was offered by
the Respondent attacking the validity of any of
these bargaining authorizations.
Upon the evidence summarized above, the
Respondent has clearly refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act- Although it received a
request for bargaining from the duly designated
representative of a majority of its employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit, it never replied in any
way to this request. Instead, commencing at the
time it first heard of serious interest in the Union at
the plant, the Respondent engaged in various unfair
labor practices the necessary effect of which was
adversely to affect the Union's majority status.
Since the Respondent has filed no briefs in this case
it is difficult to ascertain what its defense is.
The only matter of defense suggested at the hear-
ing was that the Union's letter of March 21 did not
constitute a valid request for bargaining because it
was addressed to "Mr. Ted Haines, Haines Meat
Company" instead of to Mr. Howard 0 Haines,
Haines Meats and Provisions, Inc.,' and was not
received by the Respondent. But even if the Union
had not sent the March 21 letter at all, since the
Respondent admittedly received the Union's tele-
graphic request for recognition and bargaining on
March 28 and made no response thereto, a finding
of a refusal to bargain is clearly warranted. In view
of the fact that there is no evidence of, and that no
contention is made concerning, any change in the
Union's majority status between March 22 and 28, I
need not pass upon the significance of the Respond-
ent's refusal to receive the Union's letter on
March 22. I conclude that commencing on March
28, 1967, and continuing thereafter the Respondent
has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening employees with discharge and
other reprisals because of their union sympathies or
activities, by coercively questioning employees con-
cerning union matters, by creating the impression
among employees that it was keeping their union
activities under surveillance, and by suggesting that
employees form their own union, the Respondent
has engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By discharging Laura Jones and Raymond
Francis the Respondent has discriminated against
them in regard to their tenure of employment and
discouraged membership in Meat Cutters, Packing
' In my opinion it borders on the frivolous to suggest in the circum-
stances of this case that the Respondent did not know that the Union's
March 21 letter was intended for it
" Were I called upon to consider the effect of the Respondents refusal to
accept the Union's letter of March 21, 1 would conclude, under all the cir-
cumstances of this case , including the admitted receipt of the Union 's tele-
gram of March 28, that the Respondent first breached its duty to bargain
collectively with the Union on March 22, when it refused the Union's cer-
tified letter on that day In my opinion, employers in circumstances such as
these should not be permitted to frustrate the employees ' right of collective
bargaining by the use of such a transparent evasive device
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
House Workers and Food Handlers District Union
Local #657, AFL-CIO, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees,
including truckdrivers , meat cutters , packers and
laborers employed by Respondent at its plant
located at 1643 N.E. 14th Avenue, Fort Lauder-
dale, Florida; excluding office clerical employees,
salesmen , guards , professional employees and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, as amended, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. On and at all times since March 16, 1967,
Meat Cutters , Packing House Workers and Food
Handlers District Union Local #657, AFL-CIO,
has been the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the aforesaid collective -bargaining
unit.
5. By refusing on and after March 28, 1967, to
recognize and bargain collectively with Meat Cut-
ters, Packing House Workers and Food Handlers
District Union Local #657, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit , the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices , my Recommended Order
will direct that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act, including bargain-
ing collectively with the Union, upon request.
I have found that the Respondent discriminatori-
ly discharged Laura Jones and Raymond Francis
and that the Respondent reinstated them within a
week or 10 days later. While the Respondent as-
serted in its answer to the complaint that it had
paid them backpay, there is no evidence in the
record concerning either the fact of such payment
or the adequacy thereof. Consequently, my Recom-
mended Order will provide, if the Respondent has
not already done so, that it make Jones and Francis
whole for any losses resulting from their discharge
by paying each of them a sum of money equal to
that which each would have earned as wages from
the date of the discharge to the date of the Re-
spondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net
interim earnings, if any.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, the commission by the Respondent of
similar and of other unfair labor practices may be
anticipated . I shall, therefore, make my Recom-
mended Order herein coextensive with the threat,
o In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words " a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
and order that the Respondent cease and desist
from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and
the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, there is hereby issued the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Haines Meats and Provisions,
Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with discharge, clos-
ing of the plant, a reduction in hours, or other
reprisals because of their union activities ; coercive-
ly questioning employees about their union sym-
pathies or activities ; creating an impression among
the employees that their union activities are under
surveillance ; and suggesting the formation of a
union of their own.
(b) Discouraging membership in Meat Cutters,
Packing House Workers and Food Handlers Dis-
trict Union Local #657, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , by discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(c) Refusing to recognize and bargain collective-
ly with Meat Cutters, Packing House Workers and
Food Handlers District Union Local #657,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit stated in para-
graph 3 of the Conclusions of Law above.
(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) If it has not already done so, make whole
Laura Jones and Raymond Francis for any loss they
may have suffered by reason of their discharge on
March 23, 1967, in the manner prescribed in "The
Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available
to the Board or its agents , for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards,. personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(c) Upon request, recognize and bargain collec-
tively with Meat Cutters, Packing House Workers
and Food Handlers District Union Local #657,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit set forth in para-
graph 3 of the Conclusions of Law above.
(d) Post at its Fort Lauderdale, Florida, plant co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Court of Appeals , the words " a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
HAINES MEATS &
Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 12, after being duly
signed by Respondent 's representative , shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.10
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 12, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
Meat Cutters, Packing House Workers and
Food Handlers District Union Local #657,
AFL-CIO, or any other union, by discharging
or by discriminating against employees in any
other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with
discharge or other harm because of their union
PROVISIONS, INC. 45
sympathies or activities , coercively question
employees concerning union matters , create
the impression among employees that we are
keeping their union activities under surveil-
lance , or suggest that they form their own
union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL , upon request , recognize and bar-
gain collectively with Meat Cutters , Packing
House Workers and Food Handlers- District
Union Local #657, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all our production and main-
tenance employees , including truckdrivers,
meatcutters , packers and laborers, but exclud-
ing office clerical employees, salesmen , guards,
professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL , if we have not already done so,
reimburse Laura Jones and Raymond Francis
for the pay which they lost as a result of their
discharge.
Dated By
HAINES MEATS AND
PROVISIONS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office , Room 706 , Federal Office Building, 500
Zack Street , Tampa , Florida 33602, Telephone
228-7257.