Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 322 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of GROWER- SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALI-
FORNIA , No. 18211
In the Matter of F. V. BIRBECK and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS'
UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of BRUCE CHURCH COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of 0. 0. EATON and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS'
UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
III the Matter of FARLEY FRUIT COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of H. P . GARIN COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of E. E. HARDEN PACKING COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of HOLME & SEIFERT and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of IOE-KIST PACKING COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEG-
ETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
Ill the Matter of M. L. KALICH & COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of J. G. MARINOVICH amts FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of S. RIANDA PACKING COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of J. A. SIMMONS, INC. and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of E. H. SPIEGL and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS'
UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of D. A. STORM, INC. and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No . 18211
In the Matter of WATSONVILLE EXCHANGE , INC. and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
15 N . L. R. B., No. 39.
322
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF . 323
In the Matter of A. ARENA & COMPANY , LTD. and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKFAS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA , No. 18211
In the Matter of FARMERS PRODUCE COMPANY , INC. and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA , No. 18211
In the Matter of S. A . GERRARD COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of W. B . GRAINGER PACKING COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of MAJOR DISTRIBUTING COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter Of MERRILL PACKING COMPANY , INC., LTD. and FRUIT
AND VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA , No. 18211
In the Matter of K. R. NUTTING COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of SALINAS VALLEY VEGETABLE EXCHANGE and FRUIT
AND VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter Of SALINAS LETTUCE COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of SEARS BROS. & COMPANY and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of THE LESTER STIRLING COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of PETER A . STOLICH , INC. and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No . 18211
In the Matter of W. R . VAN Noy, INC . and FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of W. & S. PACKING COMPANY and FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
In the Matter of WESTERN GROWERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION and
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS' UNION OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18211
Cases Nos. C 178, C-178a to C-178n, inclusive, C -178p to C-178z,
inclusive, and C-178aa to C-178ee, inclusive, respectively.Decided
September 15,1939
Lettuce Packing Industry-Employee: agricultural laborer ; individuals em-
ployed in packing of lettuce in Salinas -Watsonville District , California, not
employed as agricultural laborers-Employer: employers' association as-
Labor Organization : union successorship after date of alleged unfair labor
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices ; territorial jurisdiction of successor union though smaller than that of
original union held not to affect successorship in the territory included by
both-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: shed workers employed in
lettuce packing in Salinas-Watsonville District by each of respondent firms ; no.
controversy as to-Representatives : proof of choice : stipulated-Collective Bar-
gaining: submission of proposal , after protracted negotiation on basis of
exclusive representation, restricting recognition of representation by union to.
its members only, respondents ordered to bargain with successor union, but
order limited to those respondents whose employees are confined to area in
which the successorship is effective-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion.
appeal, during negotiations, over heads of bargaining committee to union
members urging selection of new representatives ; attempt to impose individual
employment contracts during course of negotiations with bargaining committee;
organization , by employers' association , of a suppliers ' boycott designed to
punish an employer for acceding to union contract ; espionage upon union
activities by detectives retained by employers' association ; police brutality
during strike not attributable to employers-Discrimination: institution, by em-
ployers' association of central hiring and card system designed to preclude
employment of active union members and leaders ; victims ordered reinstated
with back pay ; order directed to employers' association and all respondent
members whether employers of the victims or not-Strike: caused by unfair
labor practices ; strikers ordered to be offered reinstatement-Complaint: dis-
missed as to two respondents unconnected with unfair labor practices and as
to one in receivership; dissolution of corporate respondent held no ground for
dismissal.
Mr. Bertram Edises and Mr. A. N. Somers, for the Board.
Mr. George Naus, of San Francisco, Calif., for Grower-Shipper
Vegetable Association of Central California, Bruce Church Company,
Farley Fruit Company, E. E. Harden Packing Company, S. Rianda
Packing Company, D. A. Storm, Inc., K. R. Nutting Company,
Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange, W. R. Van Noy, Inc., W. B.
Grainger Packing Company, Holme & Seifert, Ice-Kist Packing
Company, W. & S. Packing Company, Farmers Produce Company,
Inc., Major Distributing Company, Salinas'Lettuce Company, Peter A.
Stolich, Inc., F. V. Birbeck, 0. 0. Eaton, M. L. Kalich & Company,
Watsonville Exchange, Inc., Sears Bros. & Company, The Lester
Stirling Company, and J. G. Marinovich.
Mr. Sidney L. Church, of Salinas, Calif., for Grower-Shipper
Vegetable Association of Central California, Bruce Church Company,
Farley Fruit Company, E. E. Harden Packing Company, S. Rianda
Packing Company, D. A. Storm, Inc., A. Arena & Company, Ltd.,
K. R. Nutting Company, Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange, W. R.
Van Noy, Inc., W. B. Grainger Packing Company, Holme & Seifert,
Ice-Kist Packing Company, W. & S. Packing Company, Major Dis-
tributing Company, Salinas Lettuce Company, and Peter A. Stolich,
Inc.
Mr. Leo T. McMahon, of Santa Barbara, Calif., for Western Grow-
ers Protective Association and A. Arena & Company, Ltd.
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 325
Mr. J. T. Harrington, of Salinas, Calif., for E. H. Spiegl.
Mr. H. I. Noland, of Salinas, Calif., for W. B. Grainger Packing
Company, Holme & Seifert, Ice-Kist Packing Company and W. & S.
Packing Company.
Mr. W. C. Theile, of Salinas, Calif., for The Lester Stirling
Company and S. A. Gerrard Company.
Mr. E. G. Thomas, of Salinas, Calif., for Farmers Produce Com-
pany, Inc., Major Distributing Company, Salinas Lettuce Company,
and Peter A. Stolich, Inc.
Mr. Richard Gladstein, of San Francisco, Calif., for Fruit and
Vegetable Workers' Union of California, No. 18211, and United Can-
nery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers ofAmerica, Local 18.
Mr. Alexander B. Hawes, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 13, 1936, Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union of
California, No. 18211, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California)
charges that Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central Cali-
fornia, Salinas, California, herein called the Association or the
Grower-Shipper Association, and various members thereof, all re-
spondents herein, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On January 8, 1937,
supplementary charges were filed by the Union -against the same
respondents. On February 27, 1937, similar charges were filed by
the Union against additional members of the Association and against
Western Growers' Protective Association, Los Angeles, California.
On March 10, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued, by the Regional Director, separate com-
plaints against each of the persons named in the charges, alleging
that each had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On March 15, 1937, the
Board issued an amended and consolidated complaint -against the
same persons, respondents herein. On March 16, 1937, the Board,
pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the
cases against all the respondents to be consolidated.
199549-39-vol. 15-22
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 22 and 31, respectively, E. H. Spiegl and Western Grow-
ers' Protective Association filed answers to the amended and consoli-
dated complaint. The answer of Western Growers' Protective As-
sociation denied the allegations of unfair labor practices and, as a
separate defense, denied the jurisdiction of the Board and alleged
that the Act was unconstitutional on various grounds. The answer
of E. H. Spiegl denied the allegations of unfair labor practices,
denied that he was a member of the Grower-Shipper Association or
had authorized it to act for him, insisted that his operations were
entirely intrastate, and denied the jurisdiction of the Board on var-
ious grounds. On April 9, 1937, the Grower-Shipper Association and
the remaining respondents, except H. P. Garin Company, filed identi-
cal motions to dismiss the proceedings and answers to the amended
and consolidated complaint. These answers denied all of the allega-
tions of unfair labor practices, and most of the other allegations,
and raised as defenses the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Board
and unconstitutionality of the Act. These latter grounds were also
urged as the basis of the.motions to dismiss. Like the answers of
Western Growers' Protective Association and E. H. Spiegl, the mo-
tions to dismiss and answers also raised the point that the workers
involved were "agricultural laborers" and therefore excluded from
the operation of the Act by the definition of "employee" in Section
2 (3). The answers also alleged that Merrill Packing Company,
Inc., Ltd. and Peter A. Stolich, Inc., had taken proceedings for the
purpose of dissolution and that J. A. Simmons, Inc., had filed a peti-
tion for relief under the Bankruptcy Act.' In the case of H. P.
Garin Company, H. P. Garin, as Receiver of the assets of the com-
pany, filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss on the ground
that the Federal district court, by which he had been appointed
Receiver, had exclusive jurisdiction.
Pursuant to a notice of postponement of hearing duly served upon
the parties under date of March 18, 1937, a hearing was held at
Salinas, California, from April 12 to May 18, 1937, inclusive, before
Charles N. Feidelson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board.. The Board, the Union, and all the respondents named in
the complaint except H. P. Garin Company, Merrill Packing Com-
pany, Inc., Ltd., and J. A. Simmons, Inc., were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
1 Most of the answers alleged also that the business and property of S. A . Gerrard
Company were in the possession and management of a Federal district court receiver,
but the answer of S. A. Gerrard Company itself omitted any such allegation. We
therefore do not consider it.
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 327
At the hearing counsel for Grower-Shipper Association, on its
behalf and on behalf of the other respondents, renewed the motion to
dismiss previously filed. Counsel for Western Growers' Protective
Association also moved for dismissal of the proceedings as against it,
on the additional ground that Western Growers' Protective As-
sociation was not alleged to be an "employer," that there was an
improper joinder of causes of action against the respondents, and
that there was a fatal variance between the charges filed and the
allegations of the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied the
motions in so far as they were based upon the ground of uncon-
stitutionality and reserved ruling on the motions in so far as they
were based upon other ' grounds. Counsel for the Grower-Shipper
Association moved to strike out certain paragraphs of the complaint.
This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. Counsel for the
Grower-Shipper Association also moved for an order to amend the
complaint to state the specific affirmative relief sought. This motion
was denied by the Trial Examiner. At the conclusion of the testi-
mony in support of the complaint, and again at the conclusion of the
hearing, counsel for Western Growers' Protective Association
renewed his motion to dismiss the complaint so far as that respondent
was concerned, adding as a ground that the evidence was insufficient
to show its responsibility for the unfair labor practices alleged. At
the close of the hearing counsel for other respondents also renewed
motions to dismiss previously made and in addition moved to dismiss
on the ground of lack of evidence to sustain the complaint. Ruling
was reserved on these motions by the Trial Examiner. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on
objections to the admission of evidence and on motions other than
those mentioned above.
On May 29, 1937, pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
the Board issued its order transferring the proceeding to itself.
On July 30, 1937, counsel previously appearing for the Union filed
a petition in the name of Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union of
California, "heretofore known as Fruit and Vegetable Workers of
California, No. 18211," alleging that the membership of the Union
had voted to affiliate with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion, that about July 8, 1937, the charter of the Union had been
revoked by the American Federation of Labor, and that Fruit and
Vegetable Workers' Union of California was the successor to the
Union. The petition asked that it be made a part of the record, that
Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union of California be substituted as
the charging party in these cases, and that the petitioner be treated
thereafter as the sole successor to the Union. Copies of this petition
were served upon counsel for the respondents on July 31. 1937. On
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 30 the Board issued, pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (c),
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, a notice of reopening of the record for the purpose of
receiving further evidence, giving notice of a further hearing to be
held on September 10, 1937. The purpose of such further hearing
was stated to be limited to receiving evidence as to the change of
name and affiliation of the charging party in the proceeding. Copies
of this notice were served upon counsel for the parties.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 10, 1937, in
San Francisco, California, before Clifford O'Brien, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the petitioner, and
the respondents, except H. P. Garin Company and E. H. Spiegl,.
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,.
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issue stated in the notice of
reopening was afforded all parties. During the course of the hear-
ing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on objections to the
admission of evidence. At the close of this hearing the motions made
by counsel for the respondents at the close of the first hearing were-
renewed.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners on
motions and on objections to the introduction of evidence both at the,
first hearing and at the hearing on the reopening of the record and
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The motion of H. P. Garin to dismiss the complaint
as againsf H. P. Garin Company is granted. The motion of West-
ern Growers' Protective Association that the complaint be dismissed
as against it, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show
its responsibility for the unfair labor practices alleged, is also
granted. The other motions which were made at the first hearing
and renewed at the second, and on which the Trial Examiner made
no ruling, are hereby denied.
On June 16, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 10 (b) of
the Act, and Article II, Section 7, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued an amendment
to the amended and consolidated complaint for the purpose of con-
forming the complaint to the proof adduced at the hearing. Copie&
of this amendment were served upon counsel for all parties, together
with a notice that the parties had 10 days from receipt of the notice
in which to file an answer to the amendment. Notice was also given
that a request for a hearing might be submitted with the answer, and
that in any event application for oral argument or permission to file
briefs might be made within 10 days from receipt of the notice. No
application for oral argument or for permission to file briefs was
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 329
filed by any of the parties. An .answer to the amendment, filed on
behalf of all respondents, including J. A. Simmons, Inc., Merrill
Packing Company, Inc., Ltd., and Peter A. Stolich, Inc., but except-
ing H. P. Garin Company, E. H. Spiegl, A. Arena & Company, Ltd.,
and Western Growers' Protective Association, admitted certain alle-
gations of the amendment and denied others, and in addition, alleged
that the Board was without jurisdiction to issue the amendment be-
cause it contained no notice of a hearing and that certain allega-
tions of the amendment relating to events occurring after the date of
the original complaint were not the proper subject matter of the
amended complaint. Answers filed on behalf of A. Arena & Com-
pany, Ltd., and Western Growers' Protective Association denied all
the allegations of the amendment, alleged that the amendment was
void because no opportunity had been given to oppose its issuance,
and prayed that it be stricken. These prayers are hereby denied.
No answer was filed on behalf of H. P. Garin Company or E. H.
Spiegl.
On July 14, 1939, pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, the Board
issued an order directing that no Trial Examiner's Intermediate Re-
port should be issued in the proceeding but directing the issuance of
Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and a
Proposed Order. At the same time it granted the parties the right,
within 20 days from the receipt of the Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, to file exceptions,
to request oral argument before the Board, and to request permis-
sion to file a brief with the Board. Copies of this Order were served
upon all parties. On July 14, 1939, pursuant to Article II, Section
37 (c), of said Rules and Regulations, the Board issued Proposed
Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law,, and a Proposed .
Order, copies of which were served upon all parties. The respondent,
Peter A. Stolich, Inc., thereafter filed exceptions to a statement in
the Proposed Findings that no evidence had been submitted sup-
porting the allegation. that that respondent had been dissolved, and
to the failure of. the Proposed Order to dismiss the proceeding as
to said respondent on the ground that it had been dissolved on June
16, 1937. Said respondent also filed a request for oral argument
and permission to file a brief' in support of such exceptions. In
view of the modifications of the findings which have been made as a
result of these exceptions, no oral argument nor brief in support
thereof appears necessary and the request is therefore hereby denied.
No other exceptions, requests for oral argument before the Board,
nor requests for permission to file briefs with the Board were filed
by any of the parties.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Among the respondents the following are corporations organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California : Farley Fruit
Company, H. P. Garin Company (both of San Francisco, Califor-
nia) ; A. Arena & Company, Ltd., Farmers Produce Company, Inc.
(both of Los Angeles, California) ; Watsonville Exchange, Inc. (of
Santa Cruz County, California) ; Ice-Kist Packing Company, J. A.
Simmons, Inc., D. A. Storm, Inc., W. B. Grainger Packing Company,
Major Distributing Company, The Lester Stirling Company, Peter
A. Stolich, Inc., W. R. Van Noy, Inc. (all of Monterey County, Cali-
fornia).
The respondent S. A. Gerrard Company is a corporation organ-
ized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, but qualified
to do business in the State of California. The respondents F. V.
Birbeck, Bruce Church Company, O. O. Eaton, E. E. Harden Pack-
ing Company, Holme & Seifert, S. Rianda Packing Company, E. H.
Spiegl, K. R. Nutting Company, Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange,
Salinas Lettuce Company, Sears Bros. & Company, and W. & S.
Packing Company, are individuals or partnerships engaged in busi-
ness in the county of Monterey, State of California. The re-
spondents M. L. Kalich & Company and J. G. Marinovich are
individuals or partnerships engaged in business in the State of
California, but not in the county of Monterey.
The Grower-Shipper Association is a non-profit corporation or-
ganized and existing under the laws of the State of California, hav-
ing its principal office at Salinas, California. It is an association
of grower-shippers and handlers of lettuce and other vegetables in
the counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito, California,
making up what is known as the Salinas-Watsonville district. West-
ern Growers' Protective Association is a non-profit corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California,
having its principal office at Los Angeles, California. It is an asso-
ciation of growers, shippers, distributors, and handlers of vegetables
in California and Arizona.
All the respondents in this case, aside from the Grower-Shipper
Association and Western Growers' Protective Association, are en-
gaged in the packing and shipping of lettuce in the Salinas-Watson-
Ville district. All except five were members of the Grower-Shipper
Association 2 in the summer of 1936.
2 The respondent firms which were not members of the Grower -Shipper Association are :
E. H. Spiegl , Watsonville Exchange, Inc., S . A. Gerrard Company, Salinas Valley
Vegetable Exchange , and Peter A. Stolicb, Inc.
GROWER-SHIPPi;R VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 331
At the height of the season approximately 3,000 workers are em-
ployed in the Salinas-Watsonville packing sheds. However, during
the season, which lasts from approximately April 1 to December 1,
the amount of employment fluctuates radically. The amount of
employment at any particular shed varies from time to time and, as
a consequence, a large proportion of the workers are forced to move
from shed to shed in quest of employment. Only it relatively few
retain work with the same shed throughout the entire season. In
the off season from December to March many of the workers migrate
to the Imperial Valley in southern California and to southern Ari-
zona, which enjoy a short lettuce season during these months.
The Salinas-Watsonville district is the chief source of lettuce
shipped in carlots in the United States. During its season, over
75-per cent of all carlot shipments of Jettuce in the United States
originate there. For the year 1936 the Salinas-Watsonville district
shipped 25,857 carlots out of a total of 49,878 carlots shipped in the
entire United States. Practically all of these shipments are made
to points outside of the State of California. A carlot comprises
approximately 300 crates. During the fall of 1936, the average value
of a carlot was $600 f. o. b. Salinas. A report compiled by the
United States and California Departments of Agriculture,3 shows
that in the year 1936, Salinas-Watsonville lettuce was distributed in
carlots to 290 cities in 46 States, the District of Columbia, and
Canada. Out of a total of 25,855 carlots accounted for, only 79
were billed to points within the State of California. The record
does not give figures as to the shipments of the particular firms
named as respondents in this case, but it does show that large.quan-
tities of lettuce packed by each one of them are shipped to all parts.
of the United States.
The extremely perishable nature of lettuce, after it is picked,
requires that the packing, icing, and shipping proceed without
interruption. The process has been so organized that ordinarily
lettuce is moving out in refrigerator cars at latest by the evening of
the day on which it is picked. From the fields the lettuce is brought.
to the sheds either in field crates or in trailers. At the sheds it is
cleaned, trimmed, graded, and packed in crates with paper and ice.
The crates are then loaded on refrigerator cars standing on sidings
by the sheds, the cars are iced, and the doors sealed. Actually it is
not usually more than 3 or 4 hours from the receiving of the lettuce
at the packing sheds to its shipment.
While there is some latitude in the period in which lettuce can
be picked, it cannot be left unpicked more than 3 or 4 weeks after-
ripening. Thus a labor dispute interrupting the packing operations-
8L. T. Kirby , Marketing Salinas-Watsonville Lettuce, Summary of 1936 Season, Fed-
eral-State Market News Service ( March 1937 ), pp. 15-17.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the respondents would not only interrupt the flow of lettuce from
fields to markets while the dispute was in progress, but would,
if it lasted an appreciable period, permanently decrease the amount
of lettuce available for the season.
. The strike which began on September 4, and lasted until Novem-
ber 2, 1936, as discussed below, had both of these effects. During the
month of August, shipments out of the Salinas-Watsonville district
had averaged about 108 carloads a day. During the week preceding
the strike the daily average had reached the figure of 134 carloads.
After the strike began, a few carloads of accumulated lettuce moved
out, and then all shipments ceased. Shipments began again on Sep-
tember 15, when operations were resumed with strikebreakers, but
did not reach a normal figure until September 22. The daily average
for the month was 61 carload S.4
The result of this interruption was that a certain amount of the
lettuce crop was permanently lost, although exact figures are not
available.s
All of the firms named as respondents have trade-marks registered
in the United States Patent Office on the basis of statements that
such trade-marks have been used by them in interstate commerce.
Many of the respondents have joined in a national advertising cam-
paign involving the use of radio, newspaper advertisements, and
dealers' service in such cities as New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and
Des Moines. This campaign has been carried on through the West-
ern Growers' Protective Association, and it was estimated at the
time. of the hearing that as much as $150,000 might be spent by it in
1937 in advertising lettuce and other crops raised both in California
and Arizona.
II. APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO PACKINO- SI1;Et) EMPLOYEES
In determining, for the purposes of this case, whether the packing-
shed workers employed by the respondent firms are "agricultural
laborers," as that term is used in Section '2 (3) of the Act,' and
therefore excluded from the operation of the Act, we follow a defi-
nition contained in United States Treasury Department Regulation
90, Article 601 (1), published March 13, 1936.7 This latter definition
of the term "agricultural labor," as used in the Social Security Act,
49 Stat. 620, Section 811 (b), provides that the term
... includes all services performed-
op. cit. supra footnote 3.
5 Truck Crop Notes No . 248, Oct. 1, 1936 , published by U. S. and California Depart-
ments of Agriculture.
Section 2 ( 3). "The term `employee' shall . . . not include any individual employed
as an agricultural laborer . . ,
7 Cf. Matter of American Fruit Growers , Inc., et al. and Fruit h Vegetable Workers
Sub-Local of #191, UCAPAWA, C. I. 0., 10 N. L. R. B. 316; Matter of North Whittier
GROWER-SJJIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 333
(b) By an employee in connection with the processing of
articles from materials which were produced on a farm; also
the packing, packaging, transportation, or marketing of those
materials or articles. Such services do not constitute "agricul-
tural labor" however, unless they are performed by an employee
of the owner or tenant of a farm on which the materials in their
raw or natural state were produced and unless such processing,
packing, packaging, transportation, or marketing is carried on
as an incident to ordinary farming .operations as distinguished
from manufacturing or commercial operations .. .
The packing of lettuce, although it follows immediately upon the
field cutting, is an entirely distinct process. The packing sheds them-
selves are located almost without exception in town, next to railroad
sidings, and generally close to ice sheds. The crews which do the
packing are entirely distinct from the field crews which cultivate
and eventually cut the lettuce. The skills required in packing and
in cultivating are entirely different. The wage scales paid the two
groups are also different. While the field crews are generally
Oriental and Philippine workers, employees in the shed crews are
generally Americans.
Of the firms named in this complaint, five apparently pack only
lettuce grown by themselves. Three other firms, however, grow no
lettuce themselves but purchase all the lettuce which they pack. The
remainder, constituting the vast majority, pack not only their own
lettuce but also lettuce which they purchase.
Of the employees of all but five firms it is thus clear that they
are not agricultural laborers under the test stated because their serv-
ices are performed entirely or to a greater or less extent on lettuce
grown by farmers who are not their employers. But the division of
labor between the packing firms and the producers which is illustrated
by this fact is also convincing evidence that the packing of lettuce
for carlot shipment as carried on in the Salinas-Watsonville district
is not "an incident to ordinary farming operations" but rather in the
nature of a "commercial operation." s This conclusion excludes the
employees of all the respondent firms from classification as "agricul-
tural laborers."
Heights Citrus Association and Citrus Packing House Workers Union, Local No . 21091,
10 N. L . R. B. 1269 . We do not follow , however, all the specific rulings which have
been made with respect to this definition. We expressly reject the ruling of the Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue of September 10, 1937, set forth in the American Fruit Growers
Decision, for the same reason which impelled us in that Decision to reject it.
'This is in accord with the classification by the United States Bureau of the Census
which tabulates under "Census of Business ," as distinguished from "Census of Agri-
culture," workers employed by "Packers and Shippers" of "Farm Products-consumer
goods" including "Fruits and vegetables ( fresh )." See United States Department of
Commerce , Bureau of the Census , Census of Business : 1935, Wholesale Distribution,
Vol. I, p. 74.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As stated above, the motions to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the workers involved are agricultural laborers, excluded
by the definition of the term "employee" in Section 2 (3) from the
operation of the Act, are denied.
III. THE UNION
The charges in this case were filed by Fruit and Vegetable Work-
ers' Union of California, No. 18211. This Union was a State-wide
labor organization formed in 1932, and, at the time of the original
hearing, was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Its
headquarters were in Salinas. A sublocal existed at Watsonville.
The Union admitted to membership all workers engaged in the vari-
ous processes of packing-shed work from the receiving of the lettuce
as it is brought to the sheds from the fields through the loading of
packed crates on ,freight cars. It did not admit to its membership
any field or "stoop" workers.
On June 24, 1937, at a regular weekly meeting of the Union,
herein also called Local 18211, it was voted that the Union's Bulletin
Committee be instructed to "arrange for a C. I. O. meeting as soon
as possible." Notices of a mass meeting to be held in the auditorium
of the Municipal High School in Salinas on June 30 were thereafter
printed and distributed. The meeting on June 30 was attended by
about 500 persons, of whom approximately 250 registered as union
members. This meeting adopted a resolution "that packing house
employees seek immediate affiliation with the C. I. 0." A ballot was
also taken on the question : "Are you in favor of the affiliation with
the Committee for Industrial Organization?" The results of the
balloting showed 238 in favor of affiliation and 12 against.
On July 1 the regular weekly meeting of the Union voted to ratify
the resolution adopted at the mass meeting and to place the resolu-
tion in its minutes. The meeting then voted to adjourn and to bring
in an organizer from the Committee for Industrial Organization.
The union meeting having adjourned, another meeting was immedi-
ately held at the same place. All but four or five of the persons who
had attended the union meeting stayed on for the second meeting.
The latter was called to order by a C. I. O. organizer. A temporary
acting president and a temporary recording and financial secretary
were elected. Thereafter, at some time prior to July 12, the charter
of Local 18211 was revoked by the American Federation of Labor.
,On July 31 a certificate of affiliation was issued to the group by
United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of
America, an international labor organization affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization,9 designating it as Local 18. All
0 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 335
but 2 of the 10 officers of Local 18211 became members of Local 18.
Meetings of Local 18 were held at the same place and same time as
the meetings of Local 18211 before revocation of its charter. Sub-
stantially the same persons who had attended meetings of Local
18211 attended meetings of Local 18 after its organization. The
functions of Local 18 were the same as those of Local 18211. Both
were chartered to organize packing-house workers. While both.
were authorized by their charters to organize field workers, neither
local did so, preferring to have such workers organized in separate
locals. The territorial jurisdiction of Local 18, which was confined
to the Salinas area, is smaller than that of Local 18211, which was
authorized to organize throughout California. The practice, however,
of Local 18211 was to organize separate sublocals for other districts,
such as Watsonville, Santa Maria, and El Centro. In any event, by
far the largest portion of membership of Local 18211 was derived
from the Salinas area.
We find that United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied
Workers of America, Local 18, is the successor to Fruit and Vegeta-
ble Workers' Union of California, No. 18211. Since its jurisdiction
is confined to the Salinas area, however, our finding as to its succes-
sorship will be confined to that area, not including Watsonville io
IN. THE BACKGROUND OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In the summer of 1934 the Union called a strike against various
shippers in the district, and an Industrial Relations Board was set
up to arbitrate the Union's demands. On October 8, 1934, the Board
issued its award setting forth the conditions of labor which were to
obtain in the packing sheds until September 1, 1935. During the
summer of 1935 the Union and the Grower-Shipper Association en-
tered into negotiations for a contract to replace the award on its
expiration. It was finally agreed that the terms of the award should
be extended 1 year to September 1, 1936. This agreement was
embodied in letters exchanged between the Union and the
Association.
Tension between the Uniofi and the Association arose in 1936 as
the Union's membership grew and its leadership became more ag-
gressive. Various demands made by the Union on individual sheds
bore witness to the rising temper of the organization. There were
disputes about the switch in certain sheds from women to men trim-
mers, and some members of the Association complained that the
Union's shed stewards were taking over the functions of the fore-
W In addition , there are indications in the record that the Watsonville sublocal of
Local 18211 did not follow its parent body into the new affiliation . The record is
insufficient , however, to determine what is the present status of the Watsonville group.
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men. The most acute incident, however, was the Simmons and Ice-'
Kist job action. On May 4 the crew of the Simmons shed threat-
ened to walk out the next day unless Simmons complied with certain
demands. The more important of these was that he dismiss four
employees referred to by the crew as "gun-toters" and "Imperial
Valley scabs," and charged by them as having acted as strikebreakers
in the Imperial Valley in 1934 or 1935. The crew also demanded a
change in the then method of calculating their working time, which
they claimed violated the terms of the agreement of 1935.
Doss, financial secretary of the Union, appeared at the Simmons
shed early on May 5. He repeated the demands of the crew to Sim-
mons. When Simmons refused them, the crew walked out and
within a short time formed a picket line around the shed. Simmons,
who had 30 trailers of lettuce all ready for packing, attempted to
cut his loss by having it packed at other sheds. When some were
accordingly sent to the Ice-Kist Packing Company, however, Sim-
mons' pickets went along. Doss, thereupon, ordered the Ice-Kist
crew to quit rather than pack the "hot" lettuce. All but 16 or 18
of 75 or 80 walked out.. The Simmons lettuce was returned, and
attempts to pack it elsewhere were unsuccessful. Both sheds re-
mained closed for 8 days.
The Association almost immediately took action. On May 6 it
wrote the Union accusing it of violating the agreement by calling a
strike instead of submitting the demands to the grievance commit-
tee established by the agreement. Not receiving a reply, the Asso-
ciation, on May 7, telegraphed the American Federation of Labor
again accusing the Union of violation of the agreement and asking
intervention of the parent body. On the same day it again wrote
the Union informing it of the appeal to the Federation. On the next
day it published in a local paper a nearly full-page advertisement
repeating its accusation and setting forth the two letters and the
telegram. In passing, it should be noted that, on the stand, the sec-
retary of the Association admitted that the agreement contained no
restriction on the right to strike and no provision for reference to the
grievance committee of any demands of the kind made on Simmons.
At about this time the Association also reengaged the services of
the-Charles N. Watkins Detective Agency to report on "labor and
labor trouble." The activities of this agency will be discussed below
in more detail. The reaction of the Association to these strikes,
however, is noteworthy as indicating an increasingly belligerent atti-
tude adopted in response to the growth in the Union's aggressiveness.
Some days later the Simmons and Ice-Kist incidents ended with
agreements providing for the discharge from both sheds of several
employees whom the crews regarded as "scabs."
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 337
The Association 's advertising during this incident indicated its
realization of the value of public support in any controversy with
the Union . This and the incident itself led to a resolution of the
membership on May 28 authorizing an assessment to cover the ex-
pense of employing a public-relations expert. Shortly afterward
one Cruse Carriel was hired for this position at a salary of $100 a
week. He was recommended by. the advertising firm, of Lord &
'Thomas which had been asked by the Association to find it such an
expert. The firm made sure of Carriel 's belief in the "open-shop"
principle before making the recommendation . His first instructions
from the Association were to become acquainted with the Salinas
,community "and the feeling-with reference to the Shippers and the
labor trouble they [had] had."
There is no question but that Carriel 's job was to secure public
support for the Association in its labor relations . While the Asso-
ciation's secretary attempted to maintain that his duties were not
confined to that purpose , it is clear that his efforts were not to be
directed to sales promotion , and that the encouragement of better
relations with the farmers to which he' was to devote himself was
merely another name for securing the farmers ' support in any labor
trouble.
But the Association did not rely on Carriel alone. At about the
same time, one Henry Strobel was hired ; also to "promote better
relations" with the farmers , as well as to "cement the membership"
,of the Association . His salary was set at $300 a month . The de-
scription of his duties given by the secretary of the Association is so
vague as naturally to arouse suspicion, and one is justified in assum-
ing that the activities which Strobel actually undertook in organizing
the Associated Farmers as described hereafter were not unauthorized.
The next step of the Association was the erection of two organiza-
tions behind which it could operate to arouse favorable public opin-
ion. At about the time Carriel arrived, the "Citizens ' Association"
was organized . The origin of this organization is clearly traceable
to the Grower - Shipper Association . Brooks, the Grower-Shipper
secretary , admitted that he was "in on the ground floor." He was
a member of the pre-organization group, which met in the Grower-
Shipper offices to consider the advisability of organizing . The pur-
pose, according to Brooks , was "to have an organization that could
act as - mouthpiece- for the sentiment of the town people," because
"many outfits , were having labor trouble at that time:"
As it turned out, the Citizens ' Association was to act as mouthpiece
.for the Grower-Shipper Association . The latter - was represented
on the board of directors by Brooks and by Bruce Church , its presi-
dent. The Grower-Shipper Association became a member of the
Citizens ' Association in its own name and took out memberships in
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
behalf of all its members. From the organization of the Citizens'
Association in June up to the end of November 1936, the Grower-
Shipper Association contributed $6,000 in assessments. It also made
another contribution in the form of Cruse Carriel, who was released
from his position as public-relations counsel within 2 weeks after
he was hired, in order to become secretary of the Citizens' Associa-
tion. Although only a short time before it had been thought neces-
sary to have a special counsel to improve the Association's public
relations, Carriel was not replaced. The reason is clear. Carriel in.
his new position could be equally or even more effective. When the
subsequent strike threatened and after it began, the two associations
collaborated on an anti-strike publicity campaign.
Meanwhile the farmers were not neglected. For some time there
has been in existence in California a State-wide organization known
as the Associated Farmers. An indication of the purposes of the
Associated Farmers may be gathered from the remarks of its presi-
dent, Colonel Walter E. Garrison, made at a. local organization meet-
ing in Salinas toward the end of June 1936. He contended that the
farmers must organize to protect . themselves against organization
of the field workers. He also stated that the Associated Farmers
were considering legislative plans to restrict the furnishing of relief
to strikers. He asked that members send him pictures of labor
leaders or "radicals" and said that he would "see they were handled,"
that the organization had a very effective system of under-cover men
working in the Union, and that they had handled the suppression
of a strike in Orange County."
At about this time Brooks received a copy of .an elaborate report
of the Associated Farmers dealing with a conference held by the
State Federation of Labor in Stockton, California, on June 6 and 7.
The conference was the cause of great anxiety on the part of many
farmers, for its purpose was to commence the organization of all
agricultural labor of the State, including field workers. As Brooks
said on the stand, organization of the field workers "would make
things that much tougher" for members of the Grower-Shipper
Association. It should be noted that, under its charter from the
American Federation of Labor, the Union was the only organization
affiliated with the Federation which was authorized to organize the
field workers. While its own bylaws excluded such workers, its juris-
diction over them was recognized by the Federation, which always
secured its approval before chartering Federal unions of field
workers. The Union, therefore, appeared as the prospective antag-
onist of such farmers as opposed organization of their employees.
"This account of Garrison 's remarks was not denied by Strobel , although he' had
presided at the organization meeting and testified at the hearing,
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 339
This fact facilitated cooperation between such farmers and the
members.of the Grower-Shipper Association. An incident testified
to by Strobel as having occurred during the Simmons-Ice-Kist strike
indicates another plane upon which farmers and shippers might find
a community of interest in opposition to the Union. According to
Strobel, union members are supposed to have approached one
Breschini, a grower of lettuce, and to have informed him that his
lettuce was "hot" because he had been dealing with the Ice-Kist
company, and that it could therefore not be harvested. An indigna-
tion meeting of farmers and shippers following this event prepared
the, way for the rejuvenation of the Associated Farmers' local branch,
as described hereafter. Whether or not this event actually occurred,
it is clear that the effect which a widespread strike of packing-shed
workers would have on the possibility of sale of their crop by the
farmers would tend to throw the latter .into the arms of the shippers
in a struggle with the Union.
Early in June Strobel was hired by the Grower-Shipper Associa-
tion to promote better relations between the shippers and the farmers.
It seems more than a coincidence that almost at once thereafter he
became president of the Associated Farmers of Monterey County, a
local organization which had been moribund for about 2 years but
which, under his leadership, proceeded to revive. While, at the hear-
ing, Strobel steadfastly denied receiving any instructions or sugges-
tions from the Grower-Shipper Association to embark on this course,
the inability of the usually precise Brooks to specify what Strobel
was told to do, the fact that Strobel received no pay from the
Associated Farmers but spent considerable time working for them
while receiving his regular monthly salary from the Grower-Shipper
organization, and the admittedly complete harmony between the
objective of the two bodies belie his denials.
Throughout the summer the local Associated Farmers conducted
a membership drive and held numerous meetings. At one of the
earliest of these, Abbott, sheriff of Monterey County, was the invited
guest . Strobel, on behalf of the members, announced that, if they
were needed, they were ready to act as deputies under the orders
of the constituted authorities. They did not believe in vigilante
methods, he said. Abbott expressed his pleasure at the offer. Later,
as will be disclosed, this offer was to be accepted and acted upon.
. V. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate units
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the shed workers em-
ployed by each of the members of the Grower-Shipper Association
340, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. This allega-
tion was not contested. . This class of workers is that which the
Union admitted to membership and which it represented in bargain-
ing with the employers and the Association both in 1935 and in 1936.
The same considerations would appear to apply to employees of non-
members of the Association engaged in packing lettuce in the district.
At the hearing no distinction was sought to be drawn, and it was in
fact stipulated that the Union represented a majority of the said
workers of each.
We therefore find that the shed workers employed in packing
lettuce in the Salinas-Watsonville district by each of the respondent
firms constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay; wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and that said unit insures to
the employees of such respondents the full benefit of the right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectu-
ates the policies of the Act. -
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate units
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Union was, at all
times relevant, the only designated collective bargaining representa-
tive of an overwhelming majority of the shed workers employed
by each of the members of the respondent Grower-Shipper Associa-
tion in the Salinas-Watsonville district. This allegation was not
contested.
At the hearing it was stipulated that on September 4, 1936, the
Union was the collective bargaining representative of a majority of
the employees in each of the lettuce sheds in the Salinas-Watsonville
district.
Throughout the entire summer of 1936 up to September 2, the
Grower-Shipper Association treated the Union, without question, as
representative of all the shed workers of the district. There was no
evidence of sudden increase in membership shortly prior to Septem-
ber 4. We are, therefore, justified in inferring that the majority
representation by the Union existed for some time prior to that date,
at least as early, for example, as August 6, when negotiations began.
On the basis of the stipulation, and on the basis of the testimony
referred to, we find that on August 6, 1936, and at all times thereafter,
the Union was the representative designated by a majority of the shed
workers employed by each of the respondent firms in lettuce-packing
sheds in the Salinas-Watsonville district for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment.
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 341
3. The refusal to bargain
On July 27, 1936, the Association wrote to the Union stating its.
readiness to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of a new col-
lective agreement to take the place of that expiring September 1.
Committees to represent the Association and the Union were selected,
and the first meeting was set for August 6.
On August 5, apparently to safeguard against the possibility that
the Association might not have authority from all its members, the
Union wrote each member requesting that it enter into separate
bargaining with the Union. At the conference the next day, however,
it was agreed that each party would recognize the authority of the
other, that of the Association to represent its members, that of the
Union to represent all the shed workers in the industry. The author-
ity of the Association was confirmed on August 11," when 72 firms,
including some hon-members and all but 2 members of the Associa-
tion, signed a power of attorney to the Association.12 Among these
72 firms were all the firms named as respondents in this case, except
E. H. Spiegl.
At the August.6 meeting, the Union Committee submitted a pro-
posed contract which had been approved by the union members. The
Association Committee wished to commence discussion on the basis
of the existing agreement, but, on the insistence of the Union, its
proposal was considered briefly,, paragraph by paragraph. For the
purposes of this decision it is necessary to note only 2 of the 52
paragraphs of this elaborate agreement. Paragraph 7 provided for
-recognition of the Union "as The agent of (sic) collective bargaining
for workers employed in the fruit and vegetable industry . . .
Paragraph 37 provided that "when obtainable all workers employed
in and around packing sheds must be members in good standing of
12 The terms of the power of attorney were as follows :
The undersigned do hereby authorize and appoint the Grower -Shipper Vegetable As-
socia.tion of Central California to act as their exclusive agent in all dealings and
negotiations with the Fruit & Vegetable Workers Union of California , No. 18211, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor , during negotiations for a labor contract to
supersede the contract between the Association and the Labor Union expiring September
7 , 1936'
The undersigned further agree :
1. That the Association shall have the power to enter into a labor agreement with
.the Labor Union for the undersigned , and the undersigned shall be bound by the terms
of said agreement.
2. That the agency relationship here existing shall be irrevocable until the first day of
Sept. 1, (sic) 1937.
.. The undersigned agree not to individually enter into any negotiations concerning
labor problems either with the Labor Union above referred to, or with the crew, or any
members thereof , of the undersigned during the term of this agency relationship.
4. The Association is authorized by this agreement to act for the undersigned in labor
problems arising only in the counties of Monterey , Santa Cruz , and San Benito.
5. This agreement shall be effective when and if 85% of the shippers of vegetables
in the counties above referred to shall have signed the same.
199540-39-vol. 15--23
342 DECIS IONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union, No. 18211, of California,.
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor ..
After reviewing the proposal and indicating acceptance of a num-
ber of the provisions , including paragraph 7, the Association Com
mittee stated that the controversial items, such as paragraph 37,
would have to be taken tip with the general membership of the
Association . The meeting accordingly adjourned to convene again
on August 12, after it had been agreed , on the suggestion of the
Union Committee , that reports to the press of the proceedings of the
joint meetings be in writing and approved by both Committees.
The meeting of the general membership of the Association to
consider the union proposal was held on August 11. The Association
Committee reported at the joint meeting the next day that the pro-
posal had been . rejected "on account of it being too long," as the
chairman , Bruce Church, testified . The Union Committee was asked
to collaborate on the drafting of a new agreement , a revision of the
existing contract , but it refused , disclaiming any authority to do so.
It was agreed that the Association Committee should work out its
own proposal and submit it at the next joint meeting on August 18.
On August 18, accordingly , the Association Committee presented
its proposal . The provisions were to a large extent those of the ex-
isting contract . No increase in wages was provided for, and nothing
like the recognition or preferential hiring clauses in the Union's
proposal was included . The Union Committee stated that the pro-
posal would have to be submitted to the Union 's members, and the
meeting adjourned to meet again on August 25.
Despite the agreement reached at the first meeting that news of
negotiations was to be confined to releases approved by both parties,.
the Association representatives insisted , against the opposition of
the Union Committee , on publishing the texts of the two proposed
contracts . On August 19 the proposals were, accordingly , printed
in local newspapers.
At the meeting of August 25, the Union Committee reported that
its membership had rejected the Association proposal and had di-
rected it to negotiate only on the basis of the proposal it had sub-
mitted on August 6. The joint news release covering this meeting
contains the following : "The Union 's representatives stated that
their membership would demand a preferential employment clause
which appears in their proposed agreement as paragraph No. 37, alsoi
equal pay for men and women and that the former was not subject
to bargaining or arbitration."
Negotiations were resumed the next evening . Again most of the
discussion centered around the demand for a preferential employ-
ment clause. The Association Committee stated that it was not ac-
ceptable to the Association 's membership , and the Union Committee
GROWER-S1TIIIPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 343
insisted that it must be included. The meeting adjourned that night
With no date fixed for further meetings. This was the first meeting
to end in such a way, and it began to appear that no agreement
would be reached by September 1. Representatives of the Associa-
tion began to consider a stoppage as likely, although apparently the
question had been brought up at the meeting as to what the Union
proposed to do after September 1, and the Union Committee had
stated that work would continue without a contract.
On August 27 the general membership of the Association met to
consider the situation. A Planning Committee was appointed to
formulate plans and put them into operation in the event of difficul-
ties between the packing-house labor and the shippers. The secre-
tary was instructed to prepare a notice to be placed on the bulletin
boards in the sheds of the various shippers, setting forth the wages
and working conditions proposed in the agreement submitted by
the Association bargaining committee on August 18, and stating that
such wages and conditions were to be effective in September 1 until,
further notice.
On August 28 there appeared in the Salinas Index Journal, a local
newspaper, a full-page advertisement over the name of the Associa-
tion. It was headed:
WORKERS : THINK!
Read this Ad-Study the Agreement
Did You Have a Chance to VOTE ON IT?
The Association proposal of August 18 was set forth, and then the
following statement made : ". . . representatives of the Union re-
ported to our group that they would not even discuss our proposal.
They ended negotiations, saying that full discussion of their own
proposal would be futile, unless the Grower-Shippers first agreed
to paragraph No. 37 .. . .". The .most significant section of the
advertisement, however, read as follows :
You who make up the sane, conservative, straight-thinking
group, for your own sakes, do this:
SET UP YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP AND COMMITTEES. DEMAND THAT
YOUR ORGANIZATION FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF THE MAJORITY. RE-
FUSE TO BE DOMINATED BY A RADICAL MINORITY, WHOSE "ORDERS"
CERTAINLY DON'T COME FROM YOU. DEMAND THAT YOU BE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER ALL IMPORTANT PROBLEMS. AND MOST
IMPORTANT, DEMAND THAT YOU BE GIVEN THE AMERICAN OPPOR-
TUNITY OF THE SECRET BALLOT WHEN PASSING ON SUCH PROBLEMS.
The advertisement ended :
LET'S NOT ALLOW THESE SHEDS TO SHUT DOWN WITH CONSEQUENT
UNEMPLOYMENT , BITTERNESS , AND INESTIMABLE FINANCIAL LOSS TO
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WORKERS, EMPLOYERS, AND THE SALINAS-WATSONVILLE DISTRICT.
Let's Let Well Enough Alone.
On August 31, the Union telephoned the Association and arranged
for another joint meeting of the. Committees, to be held on
September 1.
On the morning of September 1, the Association published in
Salinas newspapers, a "Notice to Workers in The Lettuce Industry."
This was a reproduction of a notice to be posted in the packing
sheds and was apparently published pursuant to the resolution of the
Association membership adopted at the meeting of August 27. The
important paragraphs read as follows :
Whereas the Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union, No. 18211,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, has failed to
negotiate or ratify an agreement for the ensuing year covering
wage scale and working conditions :
Beginning September 1st, 1936, the following wage scale and
working conditions will prevail. Any work performed on Sep-
tember 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, shall not obligate the worker to con-
tinue to work under such wage scale and working conditions.
HOWEVER, ANY WORK PERFORMED UNDER SAID WORKING CONDI-
TIONS AND/OR WAGES ACCEPTED FOR WORK PERFORMED ON OR AFTER
SEPTEMBER 4, 1936, SHALL BE CONSTRUED BY BOTH THE WORKER AND
THE UNDERSIGNED AS THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAID WORKING CONDITIONS
AND WAGE SCALE FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 4TH,
1936, AND ENDING AUGUST 31ST, 1937, AND SHALL BE BINDING ON
THE SAID WORKER AND THE UNDERSIGNED FOR SAID PERIOD.
Should the undersigned and the Fruit and Vegetable Workers'
Union, Number 18211, enter into an agreement pertaining to the
matters contained herein, this agreement shall thereafter. become
ineffective.
Following this there was set forth a schedule of wages and working
conditions based upon the proposal submitted to the Union by the
Association Committee on August 18.
The notice was posted in many of the packing sheds the same day.
The two Committees met again, by arrangement, in the evening
of September 1, and a protracted discussion took place. The Union
submitted a second draft of a proposed contract, which was, to a
large extent, merely a rearrangement of its first proposal. The num-
ber of items was cut from 52 to 36. The controversial paragraph 37
providing for preferential employment was moved up to paragraph
2, and paragraph 1 now provided for recognition.
. This meeting lasted from 9 p. in. to 5 a. in. on September 2. Only
the first two paragraphs Were considered and most of the time was
-spent on paragraph 2. Toward morning it was agreed that both
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 345
committees should submit to their general memberships a modified
provision for preferential employment under which persons then
employed should be exempted from its operation so long as they
retained their jobs.
The notice published and posted that day by the Association
was also discussed and, according to a union witness, the Union
Committee asked if in view of that notice the Association would be
obliged to negotiate after September 4. Apparently Seifert, one of
the Association Committee members, said not. But others of the
Committee said that the Association would continue negotiations.
The meeting broke up, with the understanding that discussion
would be resumed on the evening of September 2.
When the two Committees, accordingly, met that evening, the
Association representatives reported that the general membership
had that afternoon rejected the preferential clause with the proposed
modification. The modification consequently was never submitted to
the Union's members. The Association Committee submitted a sec-
ond proposal, which was based upon the existing agreement with
the addition of certain of the Union's demands. The recognition
clause, however, restricted the position of the Union to representing
its members only. No detailed discussion of the proposal occurred
because it was only in preliminary form. The Association Commit-
tee proposed that it be printed and distributed to the members of
the Union. The Union Committee strenuously objected to this ar-
rangement, but finally agreed to distribute copies to the union mem-
bers at a meeting to be held September 3, if the Association agreed
not to make a distribution or "ballyhoo" the agreement to the
employees.
There was further discussion of the September 1 notice, the Asso-
ciation representatives explaining that its provisions would be super-
seded by any agreement reached with the Union. Sbrana, president
of the Association, stated, however, that the question of preferential
employment was not one for negotiation, and the meeting ended
without provision for resumption of discussions.
Late in the afternoon of September 3, 2,500 printed copies of the
Association's second proposal were tendered by messenger to Doss,
the Union's financial secretary, at the union offices. The tender was
rejected because, Doss claimed, the Association had broken its agree-
ment not to distribute copies or "ballyhoo" the proposal to the shed
workers.
In the evening, meetings of the Salinas local and the Watsonville
sublocal were held to consider the September 1 notice and the Asso-
ciation's second proposal. The Association's proposal was rejected,
chiefly on the ground that it failed to give recognition to the Union
as representative of all the shed workers. The effect of the Septem-
0
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber 1 notice, which the Union termed an "ultimatum," was debated.
By overwhelming votes the members decided not to work beginning
September 4 because of the provision that work would constitute
the making of an individual contract.
The Association was notified of the decision, and the next day
the strike began.
While the strike was in progress various efforts were made to reach
an agreement between the Union and the Association. The first
attempt was made on September it, when representatives of the
Union, a representative of the American Federation of Labor, and
certain members of the Association's negotiating committee, dis-
cussed further the demand for preferential hiring. The Association
representatives reiterated their previous statements that their mem-
bership would never accede to this demand. They agreed, however,
that they would consult the membership as to whether the As-
sociation's proposal of September 2 was still open, if the Union would
agree to submit that proposal again to its own members.
There was testimony that as the meeting broke up Sbrana said:
"All propositions are off with reference to collective bargaining."
This statement appears, however, to have been made in the heat of
temper and in the midst of "an uproar."
The negotiations were reported to a union meeting on the evening
of September 11, where it was voted not to abandon the demand for
preferential hiring. When the result of this vote was reported to
the secretary of the Association the next day, he wrote the Union
Withdrawing the Association's proposal, but saying that "we wish to
repeat our statements in former communications that we are still
willing to negotiate on an agreement."
Subsequent negotiations were carried on, however, through third
parties. Of these the only negotiations which need be mentioned for
the purposes of this case are those which were conducted between
Vandeleur, secretary of the State Federation of Labor, and repre-
sentatives of the Citizens' Association. At meetings shortly before
October 21 these parties reached a tentative agreement which was to
be submitted to the Grower-Shipper Association and the Union.
Union meetings held on the 21st and 22nd considered the proposals
but flatly rejected them when it was disclosed that one of the terms
of the agreement would permit the employers to reject any applicant
for reemployment without specifying any reason. Following this
abortive attempt, the Union wrote the Grower-Shipper Association
on October 26, submitting a brief outline of a proposed settlement of
the strike. On October 27 the Association replied, in part, as follows :
Recently a proposal of settlement was made to Mr. Vandeleur,
secretary of the State Federation of Labor, and Walter G.
Mathewson, Federal Conciliator : a proposition which was con-
4-;ROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIAT1O OF CI XTRAL CALIF. 347
sidered eminently fair by them but which we understand was
not so considered by you. We have no further suggestions to
make in the matter at this time.
This appears to have been the last attempt to negotiate an agree-
ment between the Union and the Association before the strike ended.
On November 2 the Union voted to release its members and permit
them to apply for reemployment . Since that time no agreement has
ever been reached.
The complaint , as amended , charges that three of the steps taken
by the Association in the period leading up to the strike constituted
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (5)
of the Act. These were the publication of the advertisement of
August 28, the publication and posting of the notice of September
1, and the submission of the agreement on September 2, restricting
union recognition.
The advertisement of August 28 was the clearest kind of attempt
to destroy the authority of the employees ' chosen representatives. It
is hard to conceive of any step more likely to obstruct the process of
collective bargaining than an effort , such as this , to get rid of the
bargaining agents of the other party . Nothing could more clearly
violate the fundamental right of employees to bargain through their
,own representatives free from coercion or interference by employers.
The notice of September 1. was, on its face, more subtile. As stated
above, it not only set forth the working conditions to be in force
from September 1, but also sought to establish 1-year contracts with
those who worked under the notice from September 4 on. While, of
course, an employer is as much justified as an employee in demanding
the security afforded by a contract of employment, the exercise of
such right must not be made for the purpose of interfering with the
rights guaranteed to employees under Section 7 of the Act. The
attempt to bind the employees by individual contracts in this case
,toes not appear so much an attempt to obtain security as an attempt
either to provoke a strike or to impair the prestige and bargaining
position of the Union.
There was, in fact, no need for the Association or its members
to obtain contracts . The Union Committee had assured the Asso-
,ciation's representatives that work would continue after September
I even if no agreement had been reached . As a matter of fact, it
was so continued up to the morning of the 4th. Curiously enough
the Association members did not apparently contemplate the con-
tractual arrangement when on August 27 they authorized the posting
of notices setting forth working conditions in the absence of a col-
lective agreement. At that time this plan had not been thought
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary. Both these facts indicate that another motive for the
attempt to secure individual. contracts must be sought.
As the substantive terms of the notice had already been rejected
by the Union, the Association could easily anticipate that the attempt
to secure contracts along such lines would be at least equally objec-
tionable. In addition to the objections which the Union had to these
terms, the conclusion of individual contracts would naturally weaken
the position of the Union in any further bargaining for a collective
agreement, since the Association would already have the security
afforded by existing agreements.13 The Association could therefore
reasonably anticipate that the notice would either provoke a retali-
atory strike or make the Union "lose face" with its members. We
must assume that the Association did anticipate these effects and
intended them.
We find that by publishing the advertisement of August 28 and
by publishing and posting the notices of September 1, the respond-
ent Grower-Shipper Association, and all other respondents, except
Western Growers Protective Association, H. P. Garin Company, and
E. H. Spiegl, interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees
of members of the Association and of those firms which the Associ-
ation was authorized to represent, in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Whether the advertisement of August 28 and the notice of Sep-
tember 1 also constituted refusals to bargain within the meaning of
the Act we do not find it necessary to decide. The language of the
Association's proposal of September 2, restricting recognition of the
Union as representing its members only, constituted a clear refusal
so to bargain. An employer cannot fulfill his obligation to a labor
organization which is the exclusive representative of his employees
by offering to bargain with it for its members only 1.4 We accord-
ingly find that, on September 2, 1936, the respondents, except West-
ern Growers Protective Association, H. P. Garin Company, and
E. H. Spiegl, refused to bargain collectively with the Union. By so
doing they also interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees
of members of the Association and of those firms which the Associ-
ation was authorized to represent, in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The events subsequent to September 4, however, do not disclose
a refusal to bargain on the part of the respondents, even if they
were covered by the complaint.
1s Cf. Matter of Arcade-Sunshine Company, Inc. and Laundry Workers Cleaners &
Dyers Union, 12 N. L. R. B. 259.
14 National Labor Relations Board V. Giles -Coleman Lumber Company, 96 F. (2d) 197
(C. C. A. 9th, 1938).
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 349
The strike, commencing September 4, was caused by the publishing
and posting of the notice of September 1 and by the attempt to re-
strict recognition of the Union to its membership only.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion doming the strike
On September 4 the strike commenced, as stated above, and all
sheds in the Salinas-Watsonville district were closed down. No at-
tempt was made to operate them for over 10 days. About September
5 or 6, law-enforcement officers met with representatives of the Asso-
ciation to determine a future course of action. Griffin, the chief of
police of Salinas, advised that a stockade be built around the packing
sheds before any attempt was made to reopen them. In view of the
fact that three law-enforcement agencies would be involved in any
attempt to resume operations, namely, the city police, the sheriff's
deputies, and the State Highway Patrol, he also advised that a
coordinator of these agencies be appointed.
L stockade around the sheds located in Salinas on Front Street at
the foot of Gabilan Street was completed about September 14, and
plans were made to commence operations with strikebreakers the
following day. In the meantime, on September 13, there had ar-
rived in town, apparently at the invitation of the attorney for the
Citizens' Association, one Colonel Henry Sanborn. Colonel Sanborn,
an officer in the Reserve Corps, is the publisher of The American
Citizen of San Francisco, a paper devoted to combating "radical"
and "subversive" influences. Under the assumed name of Winter,
the Colonel operated as the coordinator suggested by Griffin.
The Colonel's first advice was to display no force in resuming
operations until the strikers commenced violence. Consequently on
the 15th, when the first lettuce trucks were driven in from the fields
to the shed enclosure, they were not accompanied by guards. The
police, however, awaited their arrival at the enclosure entrance. A
crowd also had gathered there. Rocks were thrown at one or two
of the trucks, which, however, finally got through the crowd into
the sheds. The chief of police warned the crowd to disperse, and
then, after waiting about 10 minutes, ordered a gas attack. Ten
officers, of whom 4 carried riot gas guns and the others grenades, pro-
ceeded to "clean up" the crowd. The attack lasted from 30 minutes
to an hour.
The subsequent caravans of trucks were convoyed in. The State
Highway Patrol guarded them at least as far, as the city limits, and
from the limits either the Patrol or some other law-enforcement
agency guarded them into the sheds. Nevertheless rock throwing
continued, and on the following day a more serious clash between
police and strikers took place.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Early in the morning of the 16th, groups of persons appeared on
Gabilan Street heading for the enclosure. At the time of the occur-
rence to be described, one witness estimated that they numbered about.
50 individuals in the blocks close to the enclosure. No trucks had
yet appeared, and there was no violence or offer of violence by the
crowd. The police were on hand near the entrance, and with them
a motion picture camera crew and their apparatus, evidently waiting
for some action shots. Without any warning to the crowd, when its
nearest members were still about 75 feet away, the officers suddenly
opened fire with their gas riot guns. The gas drove the crowd back
in the direction of Main Street.
Somewhat later in the morning a convoy of trucks, driving in from
the north of town, instead of following the usual truck route, drove
down Main Street to Gabilan Street. At this corner, which is the
center of the town, the convoy had to stop for a traffic light. A.
large crowd, many of whom had been driven in this direction by the
gassing at the lower end of Gabilan Street, had already gathered
around. When the convoy stopped, some of the bystanders ran out,
cut the ropes holding the field crates on the trucks, and pulled two
or three dozen off. The trucks got away, leaving large piles of
lettuce and crates in the street.
This seems to have been the signal for the commencement of
another series of gas attacks. All along Gabilan Street from the
enclosures to the corner of Main Street, a distance of about 5 blocks,
gas bombing went on, particularly as convoys came through. Groups
of as few as two or three were attacked, with no apparent justifica-
tion. At one time people were pursued into a block off Gabilan
Street from both ends, and there subjected to gas bombing from
two directions. This block contained the Labor Temple, headquar-
ters of the Central Labor Union. When the crowd retired into the
building, bombs were thrown inside.
The gassing continued into the early afternoon and was resumed
later. An active and presumably enthusiastic participant in these
occurrences was George F. ("Jimmie") Cake, Pacific Coast repre-
sentative of Federal Laboratories, Inc., supplier of most of the gas
equipment. Cake had foresightedly secured a deputy's badge and
proceeded to "consume" some of the goods which he had sold to the
city and county.
The impression of these events obtained from the record is one
of inexcusable police brutality, in many instances bordering upon
sadism.
After the 16th, however, there do not appear to have been any
further mass actions by the police. The strikers withdrew their
pickets from the sheds and attempted to demonstrate around the
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 351
fields where lettuce was being cut. Apparently the sheriff's deputies
and the highway patrol succeeded in keeping such pickets far enough
away from the field workers to prevent their having any effect.
The activities of the police in town in the meanwhile do not
inspire one with a sense of respect. Innumerable false arrests were
made, many without a shadow of evidence.- Large numbers of per-
sons were kept in jail for 4 or 5 days without having any charges
brought against them.
All of these matters were brought out at the hearing pursuant to
detailed allegations of the complaint charging a concerted plan be-
tween the respondents, the Associated Farmers, the Citizens' Asso-
ciation, city, county and State law-enforcement officers, and others
to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the shed workers in the exer-
cise of their rights under the Act. In order, however, to determine
whether the complaint in this respect is supported by the proof,
it is necessary to consider to what extent the respondents are respon-
sible for the activities of the law-enforcement agencies. This is a
question on which inevitably the evidence must be of a circumstantial
nature. Nevertheless, having considered all the evidence and the
inferences which may properly be drawn therefrom, we do not find,
on the basis of the record, that responsibility should be attached to
the Association or firms named as respondents in this case.
We have noted that Sanborn appeared at the bidding of the
attorney for the Citizens' Association. But the testimony shows only
that Sanborn acted in an advisory capacity, handed out press releases,
and addressed a posse on its powers under the law. It fails to indi-
cate that he received any remuneration from the respondents, and
indeed shows that he was paid by the sheriff.
It is true that Strobel, an employee of the Association and president
of the Associated Farmers, was extremely active in recruiting depu-
ties for the sheriff among the farmers of the county. This in itself,
however, is not an action which can be considered a violation of
the Act. It is true also that on September 16, he appeared at the
head of a group of deputies in the midst of the crate wreckage at
Main and Gabilan Streets, after the trucks had departed, and tried
to push some bystanders around. But he was sent there by the
sheriff, and we do not consider that whatever violence he may have
indulged in there can be attributed to the respondents.
It is also true that during the strike the Association hired approxi-
mately 150 guards from a Los Angeles detective agency. Most of
these were stationed outside of town, however, at the field crew
camps and ranches. Some of the guards were stationed in the shed
enclosure, where they were apparently under police direction. And
despite explicit testimony of the secretary of the Association to the
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contrary, it is clear from an examination of the Association's records
that a large number of guards supplied by the same agency for whose
services the agency billed the police department were paid for by
the Association, and there is no evidence that it was ever reimbursed
for such payments. But, even if the respondents were to be held
responsible for the activities of these guards, the record fails to disclose
their participation in any of the violence. In fact, in several of the
incidents, the participants are specifically identified as regular or
special members of the police force.
It is true, too, that the Association appears to have supplied a great
many free meals both. to the police on duty at the sheds and to the
various officers who appeared from time to time on the sixth floor
of the Hotel Jeffery, strike headquarters of the law-enforcement
agencies. The police at the sheds also received their lodging there
without payment of rent. But none of these facts is sufficient to
fasten on the respondents responsibility for the methods used by
the police in preserving law and order. The gas equipment and other
munitions used were, according to the record, ordered and paid for by
the city and county, and not by any of the respondents.
C. The Tracy-Waldron boycott
Tracy-Waldron Fruit Company, a local packer not a member of the
Grower-Shipper Association, was one of the firms which on August
11,1936
.
, signed the power of attorney to the Association, authorizing
it, irrevocably for a year, to represent the signers in negotiating an
agreement with the Union. On September 11, 1936, the company wrote
the Association purporting to revoke the "authority delegated to
you to negotiate new labor agreement for us . . "
By this time, although actual packing by the Association did not
commence until September 15, most of its necessary arrangements
for securing supplies presumably had been made. In any event, on
September 12, the Association wrote to various ice, box, and paper
manufacturers and dealers informing them of the revocation of the
agency by the Tracy-Waldron Company. The letter continued :
Although the delegation of agency by Mr. Tracy was irrev-
ocable, we advise you to do as you see fit in the matter.
We hope, however, that we shall continue to have your loyalty
during the present labor crises.
Upon revocation, Tracy, representing the Tracy-Waldron Fruit
Company, entered into an agreement with the Union along the lines
of the contract which it had sought to obtain with the Association,
providing among other things, for union preference in employment.
He had 230 acres of lettuce, ready for cutting and packing. He tried,
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 353
therefore, to secure the ice, paper, and box shook necessary for
packing.
Ice was ordered from the Salinas Valley Ice Company (a recipient
of the Association's letter), with whom Tracy had dealt. for 12
years. The ice company obviously had ice on hand, since none of
the Association members were packing and the Association had not
yet started. A few days later it furnished ice to the Association.
Nevertheless the reply to Tracy,was that "they couldn't furnish . . .
any ice during the strike conditions." Tracy tried to buy ice from
other ice companies within 100 to 200 miles of Salinas, but they
replied they had no ice to sell. The Salinas Valley Wax Paper
Company (another recipient of the Association's letter) replied that
it could not sell him any paper, because. it was all sold to the Asso-
ciation, but he did manage to secure paper from another source.
Shook also might possibly have been secured, but as, without ice,
packing was impossible, it was not actually ordered.
Just at this time Tracy was notified that the bond which he had.
put up with the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, required to
guarantee payment of freight charges on perishable shipments iri
the absence of pre-payment of such charges, had been canceled by
the railroad. This cancelation was apparently due to the withdrawal
of the signers of the bond, Bruce Church and Vincent Arence, both
belonging to firms which were members of the Association.
The result was that the abortive attempt to pack collapsed. Tracy
told the Union he could not go on. And surrendering to the situa-
tion, he wrote the Association on September 14 canceling the revoca-
tion of authority and -agreeing to be bound by the authorization of
August 11.
The suppliers' boycott of Tracy, which, it is clear, had been
induced by the Association, was designed to punish him for con-
ceding to the Union the contractual provisions which the Association
had decided to refuse. It was calculated to strike at the Union
indirectly by preventing its enjoyment of the fruits of collective
bargaining with the employer of some of its members. It was also
designed to prevent further defections from the ranks, which might
have resulted in the conclusion of similar agreements between em-
ployers and the Union.
We find that by such boycott the Association and its members who
were named as respondents herein (except H. P. Garin Company') 15
interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees, not only of
Tracy-Waldron Fruit Company, but also of-all the members of the
11 We except H; P. Garin Company from this finding since we aie granting the motion
of H. P. Garin , Receiver , to dismiss the complaint as against it.
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association and of all other employers who had authorized the
Association to represent them, in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
D. Espionage
Intermittently for more than a year prior to the strike the Associa-
tion employed the 'services of the Charles N. Watkins Detective
Agency, "to find out what they could" about the Union's programs,
policies, and activities. The agency was rehired during the Sim-
mons-Ice-Kist episode and employed thereafter through the summer
of 1936 and the strike of the fall. It was reemployed at the time
of the hearing before the Trial Examiner of the Board, until this
fact was disclosed in the proceedings. Its services were then
terminated.
During the period in which it was retained, the agency supplied one
or two agents, who rendered written reports to the Association almost
daily. The reports covered only "labor and labor trouble." The
exact contents of the reports cannot be determined since they were
destroyed immediately or within a short time after their receipt.
Brooks testified that they were useless, containing merely a repetition
of street-corner gossip; nevertheless the Association continued to
employ the agency, paying monthly bills that ranged, in the period
before the strike, between $540 to $665.
Brooks testified that lie was sure that the Watkins agents did not
join the Union, but he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to
that effect and that no limitations were placed upon their methods.
Some indication of the agency's methods appears in items of expenses
detailed in the bills rendered by it to the Association. On a bill
"for special services acid expenses as ordered and authorized ., . ."
for the month of September there appears the item, "cultivating
expense with parties known to client." On a similar bill for
October the following item occurs : "Dues and assessments, local trans-
portation points in County and expense with subjects." The item,
"Expense with subjects" occurs again on the bill for November.
In addition to employing the Watkins operatives, the Association,
for a few weeks during the strike, purchased information on union
matters from one Major Hagen, who was in Salinas for the time
being as an "observer" for the Spreckels Sugar. Company.
Besides the facts which we have recited concerning the employment
of these operatives, the record also contains evidence of "another kind
indicating espionage by the Association. This evidence is in the
form of cards, originally kept in the files of the Association, which
were used, as described in more detail below, in passing on appli-
'GROWER-SEll'PER VEGETABLE. ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 355
cations for employment both during and after the strike. A separate
card was made out for each person who had been employed by an
Association member at the time the strike began. The cards of some
individuals indicate to what length the Association and its agents
went in keeping track of the Union and other activities of its
employees. Reports of union instructions given to members, of
intimate details of intra-union politics, and of apparently incriminat-
ing remarks attributed to active union members, all indicate that the
Association was securing information by a system of spies planted
in the union ranks. One of the features of some of the cards is refer-
ence to "#11" and "#12," as having obtained the information set
forth, apparently designations for Watkins operatives.16 The nota-
tions on some of the cards are reproduced in part in the footnote."'
'6 A Watkins bill to the Association ifor Septmuber "for special services and expenses
as ordered and authorized . . ." carries this item :
"Chief. #11-Sept. 8th-3019h, 23 days a $10.00 ----------------- $230.00"
A similar bill for October :
$248.00""#12: October 1st to 31st inclusive-31 days n $8.00 ----------
An entry like the latter. referring to "#12," also appears on a bill for November.
17 The card of G. Harris bears this notation : "9/17/36-With G. Roe-instructed to
fay off Salinas Sts., but to learn all lie could of activities of vigilantes and plans; orders
issued at Poodle Dog Hall I Union strike headquarters] at 7: 00 A. M. . . . 11/6/36-
#12-Released by Police Dept. Is confirmed thief. Was the one who stole the clothing
out of the automobile at the Poodle Dog and has been responsible for knocking over non-
union strike breakers and removing pay."
G. Roe's card carries practically the same notation.
H. F. Day : "12/31/30-Was in meeting in El Centro Hotel with Dick Caldwell, Geo.
Cramer, Mickey Shevlin, Frenchy Hart. Joe Powell, Wing Ding Red Railey, Millie Railey
and Harry Kilgore. It was agreed by this group that nothing could be done about a
strike until the non-union men were brought into line. Frenchy Hart suggested that an
open mass meeting be held with everyone invited. Speakers from San Francisco and
an Pedro will be sent a special invitation in an effort to convert non-union men. Caldwell
will make this motion at the next Union meeting. A special assessment will be levied on
each member to defray expenses of the mass meeting. Shevlin stated that 12 new
.applications had been filed and he was expecting more before the next meeting night.
1/15/37-Reported to be the next Pres. of F V W U #18211."
Roy. Alcorn: "11/1/36-CP [Communist Party] member and works rather close to
Kircher. Working hard to have Doss [Union financial secretary] put out of office."
"Bud" Montgomery, a member of the Union negotiating committee: "9/25/36-#11-
Connected in the Communistic communication that was in the personal effects of Kircher
has left the city of Salinas. Montgomery resided at the Salinas Hotel. On the day that
the Communistic literature was discovered, Montgomery went to hotel and was in a
terrible state of hysteria ; it was stated that he had the jitters and was in fear of his
life. Local Union officials have been trying to locate him in and about Salinas. This
may be one reason why Aram and local labor leaders have made a search of the morgue
of the County Coroner's office for some of their men who have disappeared. Montgomery
had left most of his clothes in his room and not one person has any idea where he can
be located ; he has sonic relatives in Stockton and is reported to have a daughter in
Santa Cruz."
F. Abbott and Sun: "11/3/36-#12-Members of `beef squad'-plan on leaving for San
Francisco."
L. Farris: "10/11/36-works on Filipino situation. He works with them on problems.
Program is not yet exposed."
L. D. Kirby : "1/27/36-(# 12)-Cbmmmnist."
J. Harwood : `Very radical in his talk, and active with the radical group in the
Union.
"12/10/36-Has made several attempts to get non-union men interested in joining
the union; claims that if they are not members that there will be no chance for them to
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We, therefore, find that by espionage upon the union activities of
the shed workers employed by the Association's members, the As-
sociation and its members named as respondents interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced such employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
E. Discrimination in reinstatement and employment after the strike
During the strike the Association took upon itself the function;
of packing for its members. On September 12 it instituted a central
hiring system. Under this system, every. appl icant for a job in any
of the sheds was supposed first to apply at a central office or hiring
hall, which was in charge of an Association employee. His appli-
cation was taken down on a card, which he was required to sign.
Of the three forms of application cards used at various times two
had lines to be filled in after the heading: "Uni6n affiliations." If
there were jobs available and if the decision of the employee in. charge
was favorable, the applicant was given a pass into the enclosure.
This same system of hiring was continued through the rest of the
season, after the strike had ended and after the individual packers
had resumed operations for themselves. The Association's hiring
hall acted in general as a sort of employment office for the members
of the Association. If, as sometimes happened, applicants managed
to obtain employment directly from a packer or foreman without
going through the hiring hall, the packer was nevertheless supposed
to report the employee's name to the hall and to file with the hall
an application card made out by the employee. The hall undertook
to pass upon the qualifications of employees thus directly hired as
well as upon those who applied to it. It thus controlled the employ-
ment of workers in the sheds of all the Association members.1°
work in Salinas this spring and that the Growers Shippers are going to sign up for 100%
Union Shop rather than have another strike."
J. B. McFadden : "C. P. Party but innocent ; trusted by rank and file ; honest ; this
notation filed In the effects of Frank Stern as of 10/3/36. Salinas Communist.
(C-1) ...
"10/20/36-Reported McFadden will engineer gorilla [sic ] welfare tonight."
M. (Marlie ) McFadden : "10/11/36-Insisting that members get rough and defy Picket
Ordinance."
B. Shell: "9/25/36-Responsible for solicitation and aid of Filipino Laborers, who
are calling mass meeting to vote on strike."
A. Van Noy : "10/27/36-On switch board , Miller Hall , 2 weeks . Refused to go P.D.
not In good standing for that reason ; strong Union , but not Radical." .
"The record does not indicate whether any of the non -member respondents took part
in this hiring-hall system. The letters of the secretary of the Association dated October
28 and 30, 1936 , explaining some of its features and asking cooperation are addressed to
"Members of the Association ." We therefore find,,for the purposes of this proceeding.
that the non-member respondents ( Western Growers Protective Association . S. A. Gerrard
Company, Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange , E. H. Spiegl, Peter A. Stolich, Inc., and
Watsonville Exchange , Inc.) did not participate.
GROWER-SHIPPER. VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 357
The employees were also furnished with so-called "recommenda-
tion cards," which could be filled out by an employer and supplied
to any of those of his employees whom he wished to recommend toy
other employers. Duplicates of any cards so filled out were to be.
filed by the employer with the Association.
Association witnesses testified that the purpose of the hiring halt'
after the end of the strike as, in part, to weed out those applicants=
whose activities in the strike indicated that they might "cause troy--
ble." Thus, it was stated, there was an attempt to keep out men who,
had been jailed during the strike. In a letter to the members of
the Association, explaining the system, the secretary wrote that with,
it they would be able to maintain "a desirable personnel to the end-
that the unpleasant and expensive experience of the past 2 months-
shall not be. repeated at any sooner date than we can avoid." It was.
insisted at the hearing, however, that union activity, as such; was=
not a ground for rejecting an application. S. H. (Pete) Taylor,,
who was in charge of the hiring hall immediately after the termina-
tion of the strike, and therefore presumably best acquainted with
its purposes, had disappeared on November 20, 1936, 1 day after the
institution of proceedings in the Federal courts against him and the-
Association-charging violation of certain Federal laws, and he was-
unavailable at the time of the hearing.
In passing upon applications for employment a file of cards was.
consulted by those in charge of the hiring hall. This file, which.
is an exhibit in evidence, contains, with insignificant exceptions, a
card for every worker who was employed before and during the-
strike. The card indicates whether the employee was, a striker or-
whether lie worked as a strikebreaker. Many of them carry addi--
tional comments, which are illuminating in determining the actual
purpose of the central hiring system. The nature of the entries on.
certain of the cards is convincing evidence, not only of espionage,.
but also of the purpose of the Association to blacklist the more active
union members. We 'have already quoted some of these in discussing-
above the charge of espionage.'A In addition, there are large num-
bers of cards bearing such comments as "active striker," "picket.
duty," "strong union man," and "shed steward."
Use of the recommendation cards, which, under the circumstances,,
would go only to employees who had already been approved by the.
hiring hall, naturally would enable the exclusion by the hiring hall
of an applicant from employment to be perpetuated even after the
abandonment of the hiring-hall system in December 1936, as well. as,
to be spread to any other areas, such as southern California or Ari-
See footnote 17, supra.
199549-39-vol. 15--24
:358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
zona, where employers might decide to require applicants to have
such cards.
Direct evidence of the operation of this system was given by Otto
Ables, who was employed as shed foreman by E. J. Russell Co., one
,of the Association members, both before and after the strike. After
,the, strike E. J. Russell Co. used the shed of the respondent W. R.
Van Noy, Inc., for packing carrots. About 8 or 10 clays after Ables
resumed work for E. J. Russell Co. following the strike, Van Noy,
of the other firm, asked him to hire a night crew for carrot packing.
Ables went to the Labor Temple and picked up a crew of 21 union
men. Their work lasted about a week. Shortly before the end of
the week S. H. (Pete) Taylor was seen in the shed looking over this
crew. After his departure 'Van Noy asked Ables the identity of
five or six members of the crew who, it appears, were working under
assumed names. These included John B. Alberty, Forrest Heard,
and "Bud" Montgomery. On learning their true names, Van Noy
insisted that they get clearance from the hiring hull, and asserted
that they were troublemakers, members of the so-called "beef gang,"
and that lie did not want to work them. Ables remousa-aCea °saying
that their work was satisfactory, but Van Nov replied that lie had
to work some- non-union men, that the Association was putting pres-
sure on him. Examination of the cards kept by the. Association on
the employees mentioned above gives it clue as to the reason why
they were apparently on the blacklist.20
As a result, Ables took a list of the crew to the hiring hall in an
.attempt to have them cleared. Eventually the matter was settled by
an arrangement permitting Van Noy to retain the crew to finish up•
the night carrot-packing work, which lasted only a night or two
more.
During this same period, while Ables was working as foreman in
the E. J. Russell Co. lettuce shed, Corley, Taylor's assistant, gave
him a list of 11 persons who, Corley said, could not be employed by
Russell. The list included Mr. and Mrs. William Wooten, Mrs.
Marvel Alberty, Lawrence Hagelund, Forrest Heard, Mr. and Mrs.
Glenn Skaggs, Dolly Garrett, Hazel Smart, one Rhyne, and James
Daniels. - The comments appearing on the cards of these employees
in the Association files are reproduced in the footnote.21
2oFor Alberty ' s card see footnote 22, infra . For heard ' s card see footnote 21, infra.
For Montgomery's card see footnote 17, supra.
.21 Wooten , William . M.: "9/4/30-FVWU out on strike . W. B. Grainger Packing Co.
Wife : Katherine , owns property in Hebbron District with value of $800-balance of
'$ 350-due Robert Kay-payments as agreed to date 1 /10/36.
"10/27/36-Agitator . Red. No good . Talks too much-. Was cause of prestrike unrest
on .shed. -
,,10/22/36-In on dirty work, they brag . Supposed to have led quite a few of the
young teamsters-new members mostly kids."
Mrs. Marvel Alberty: "E. J. Russell Pkg. Co. 9 /4/36.-FVWU out on strike. Wife of
John Alberty. Extremely active in strike . Prestrike , agitator . Five feet six inches-
i.;R.OwVhR-S.HIPPElt VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIF. 359
The experience of several shed workers in attempting to secure
employment after the strike also illustrates the operation of the
Association's card system.
John B. A1bei°tty was employed as a box maker by the General Box
Corporation in Salinas before the strike. He was a member of the
Boxmakers Union, which struck in sympathy with the Fruit and
Vegetable Workers Union. Though not a member of the latter union,
any discrimination against him because of his participation in the
strike would be within the scope of the complaint, not only because.
such discrimination would tend to discourage membership and ac-
tivity in the Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union, but also because
the complaint charged that by. discrimination the respondents dis-
couraged membership both in that and other labor organizations.
On October 15 Alberty was arrested in connection with the dyna-
miting of the General Box Corporation's shed. Though held in jail
for 4 days, he was finally charged only with vagrancy and disturbing
the peace. Later he was released without trial on' these charges.
On the day after the strike was called off, Alberty went to work,
under an assumed name, for W. R. Van Noy, Inc., packing broccoli
at-.first, and then carrots. A few days later, on November 8 or 9,
his foreman, Bashin, told hint, when lie returned from lunch, that
he could not be used any more. Bashin admitted to him that his
work was satisfactory a nd that lie was washing enough carrots, but
said. "The' orders cone from higher lip." When he called for his
check the next day, Basliili asked him if his name was Alberty.
Albert.y admitted it was, but Bashin refused to explain why he had
asked.
On the following Sunday Alberty talked to Van Noy about one
Otis Barger who had also been laid off. Van Noy told him that
135 pounds-29 years-full face-rather chunky-has seven-year-old son by first husband.
Asa rule she works on smaller jobs. Very strong in her union work . Agitator ; believes
in strong-arm methods."
Ilurd. Forest: ••!,/4/3(;-FV\V'U out on strike. The Merrill Packing Company.
10/2T/36-In jail during strike . Reported trouble maker."
Skaggs. G.: • 9/4/ ;(;-l'ViiVV- it on strike. Tho Merrill lacking Company. 10/27/:t6-
Picket Duty ; strike <4itator .' 10/15/ 'i6-SPD-Sec. 409 P. C. For description see
111 ug ^ 9S6."
Skaggs. i,. (\I(s.j : ' 9/4/36-FVWU out on strike. Salinas Packing Company.
10/27/36-Picket duty : strike agitator."
Hagelmid , Lawrence "9/4/36-FV WIJ out on strike . The Merrill Packing Company.
8135 C. B. claim for collection cancelled as uncollectible . 10/27/36-on picket duty. In
Jail during stoke. Rm. 22 Plaza Hotel, Salinas , California . 10/16/36-SPD."
(;arrett, I).: "9/4/:36-FVWU out on strike . E. J. Russell Pkg . Co. CB; File on M. C.
(Jack) Garrett ; Wife, Dolly ; no dependents ; rents hone ; 2/20/35 .•' Card of Jack Gar-
rett thus refern d to : "9/4/36-FVWU out on strike. Ice-Kist Packing Co., Salinas.
10/27/3 6. Trouble-maker . Hot. Agitator. Should be checked further."
Smart. i-Iazcl: Card missing.:
There are cards for four Rhynes in the Association files. The comments on them are
o f no particular significance.
Daniel,, . ,i.: 9,/4/36-FVWU out on strike. ' K. R. Nutting Co. C. B.. ' Claim for, col-
lection canceled as uncollectible 11/21/ 33. Salinas 10/5/36-SPD-Ord . 20. 11/5/36
Working."
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Barger had been on the blacklist but that "that has been straightened
up liow." Alberty asked what he had to do "to get off the black-
list." Van Noy told him to see Ryan of the General Box Corpora-
tion and Taylor at the hiring hall before he could work in Salinas,
Imperial Valley or Arizona. '
In a later conversation Van Noy admitted that he had learned
Alberty's identity from the General. Box Corporation and Taylor.
The foregoing findings are based upon testimony of Alberty which
was uncontradicted by Van Noy or Ables, although W. R. Van Noy,
Inc., is one of the respondents.
About November 15, Alberty met Taylor on the street and asked
why Taylor had him on the blacklist. Taylor replied, "I haven't got
you on the blacklist. That comes from the higher ups and there is
nothing I can do about it."
In January Alberty made his next attempt to secure work, at the
Imperial' Box Corporation, in El Centro, California. He also tried
at the Martin C. Wall Packing Company, in El Centro, and later at
his former. place of employment, the General Box Corporation, in
Salinas. He was successful in none of these attempts. At the time
of the hearing he was working for Gillinsky Packing Company, a
firm which was neither a member of the Grower-Shipper Association
nor a respondent in this proceeding..
The notations on his card are reproduced below.22
For'°est Heard was employed by Merrill Packing Company,. Inc.,
Ltd., before the strike. He was a member of the Union and during
the strike took part in the picketing. Toward the end of the strike
Heard was at a drinking party in the Plaza Hotel which was raided
by the police. The police were looking for gas bombs and dynamite
but found none. Nevertheless the members of the party were taken
into custody. Heard was kept in jail for 41/2 days and then released
without trial.
After the strike he sought employment unsuccessfully at several
sheds. About a week later he was hired by Ables to work for ' Van
Noy. He worked under an assumed name. for 3 nights packing
carrots. Then Ables told him he would have to be cleared through
the hiring hall. He and Ables went to see Taylor. Taylor told him
to continue work that night, but asked for a list of Van Noy's night
crew. A day or so later, Corley, Taylor's assistant, brought Van Noy
the list of 11 names referred to in Ables' testimony, saying that those
listed could not be employed. The list included Heard, under his real
name. Van Noy knew Heard's real name, and he was therefore told
22 Alberty, John B . (Alias below) : "9/4/36 FVWU out on strike . General Box Dis-
tributors. 10/27/36. Went out on strike and still out. Jailed Ord. 231 N. C. S. SPD.
See Mug #1046 . Alias-John Colburn and Jobn Corbin."
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION Or CENTRAL CALIF. 361
he could not work there any longer. The comments appearing on
his card in the Association files have already been set forth above.2"
Two months later he, secured- work with Gillinsky Packing Com-
pany, for which he worked up to the time of the hearing.
Mrs. Marvel Alberty was working for E. J, Russell Packing Co.
at the time of the strike. Apparently without going to the hiring
hall she obtained employment at the shed of Gco. J. Gillingham Co.,
an Association member, the day after the strike ended. About 2
weeks later her foreman told her he could not use her any more.
When she asked why she was being discharged, he replied that he
did not have to tell her. On November 20 she secured work with
her former employer, E. J. Russell Co., another Association member.
But after 2 days' work there, Ables, the foreman, told her that he
had orders to discharge her, although her work was satisfactory and
he did not want to do so. He said, however, that Corley, Taylor's
assistant, had pointed her out for discharge, and had stated that an-
other was to be substituted for her. Russell also told her that he
would have to discharge her, but he said that he would try to get her
name off the Association's "black list." He told her to return on
Monday. On Monday he reported that he had talked to Taylor and
gotten her off the "black list," but the shed shut down that day,
having run out of work. The comments on the card for Mrs. Alberty
in the Association's files, which have already been set forth above,24
provide a clue to the motive of the hiring hall in attempting to have
her discharged. Shortly before she testified at the hearing on May
4, 1937, Mrs. Alberty applied at Salinas Packing Co. (an Association
member) for work. She was asked whether she had been in any
trouble during the strike or if she "had anything against her."
When she replied that she was "on the black list," she was told that
she could not be used, that no one was wanted "that would cause
trouble in any wity." She also applied to The Lester Stirling Com-
pany and Merrill Packing Company shortly before May 4, 1937,
without success. She was not working at the time of the hearing.
George Foote was a member of the union strategy committee dur-
ing the strike. On November 9, after it ended, the Geo. J. Gilling-
ham Co. offered him a job, but withdrew the offer on the same day
before. he had reported for work, because the hiring hall had dis-
approved him. On November 15, the foreman of the Irving
Williams Co. offered him a job and said he could "clear" him with
the hiring hall. But the hiring hall refused to issue him a pass, and
he obtained no work. The card for Foote is missing from the Asso-
x See footnote 21, supra.
a See footnote, 21, supra.
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciation's files, but it appears that it listed him as a "commuuist.''2'
He received work later, from December 15 until early in March.
1937, in Imperial County. He also worked in Arizona.
Bill Redner was working for the Salinas Valley Vegetable Ex-
change at the time of the strike. He was a member of the Union,
and was financial secretary of Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union
of Arizona. During the strike he worked on the committee which.
prepared the Union's strike bulletins. The comments on his card in
the Association files are reproduced below.26
After the strike he found that because he had no pass he vas' un-
able to get into the various packing sheds -inside the barricades to
apply for work. John Noah, foreman of the shed of Irving Wil-
liams Co., undertook to obtain a pass for him. At Noah's suggestion,
Redner applied at the hiring hall about 2 days after the end of the
strike. He stood by the telephone while the clerk receiving applica-
tions repeated a lot of names over it, which included his own. She
then disappeared into the office of Taylor, who was at that time ill
charge of the hiring hall. When she returned she called the names
of five or six in the list and of two or three others, and gave them
passes, but told Redner and one other applicant that they were "out
of luck." Redner obtained no pass, and he was unable to secure
work packing in Salinas the rest of the season, although he tried at
two or three other sheds.
He worked at two box companies, however, and then went to
Arizona, where he obtained employment from L. D. McLaren Pack-
ing Company.' Later he worked for "Well Pack Packing Com-
pany." ' He was working at the time of the hearing.
E. G. Huddleston was employed by E. E. Harden Packing Com-
pany before the strike. He had been a union member since 1932.
During the strike he did picket duty. The comment on Huddleston's
card from the Association's file is reproduced below. "1
After the strike was over he made no immediate attempt to secure
a job in the Salinas-Watsonville district, because, as he testified at
"The comments on the card were read into the record as follows : "Foote, G. (George)
9/4/36. FVWU out on strike. Peter A. Stolich, Inc. 10/27/30 nickname 'Whitey.'
Communist . 9/21 /36 (S-1) Communist."
eft Redner , B.: "9/4/36 FVWU out on strike . Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange.
CB : Graduate 'of local schools. Employed here and there. Parents own property.
9/18/36-Following notation contained on paper : Bill Redner-Chung. W. Nelson, L.,
E. Montgomery, S. L., S. Elston. Stolich, E. Alcorn , Spiegl ., L. Farris , Gillingham . Picked
up in raid on -lirscher. Salinas Communist 9/20/36. 10/2/36-Arrested Salinas chg.
on investigation . 21 years ; 148 lbs. ; 5 '9%/ " ; brown eyes ; brown hair . Box maker-
lettuce trimmer. 10/17/36-Case to come up 10/27/36 (A-2). Case considered serious
by I. L. D. Salinas Sheriff's 9498. Mug #1004.
27 Not a respondent or Association member.
28 So in record . Exhibit B-15 lists Welpak Vegetable Co. of Salinas as an Association
member.
a" nuddleston. E. : "9/4/36 BV WU out on strike. E. E. Harden Packing Co. 10/27/36
Radical ; trouble maker ; Red . CB: File on ' E. B. Huddlestone ; married twice ; Have
accounts against several Huddlestons in town."
GROWER-s:H I PPF,R V IECEETABLE ASSOCIATION .OF CENTRAL CALIF. 363.
the hearing, it was against his principles to go through the hiring
hall. Instead he went south and secured work at the King Packing
Company, Resida, California, starting November 16. When the
operation finished on December 3 or 4 the company moved to Somer-
ton, Arizona, taking the crew with it. His foreman , one "Scotty"-
Forington, asked hint personally to come along. When he arrived
at Somerton, however, the ' foreman stated that he could not use-
Huddleston. He admitted that Huddleston's work was ' satisfactory
but asked him whether he had "got into any trouble in Salinas."
Hudclleston, however, secured work at M. 0. Best Company in El
Centro about December 2:1, where he worked 2 weeks. Not long
after he started work Taylor was seen in the shed. The foreman
warned Huddleston that Taylor was trying to get hint dismissed.
A few days later Hudclleston asked for a short leave, saying, however,.
that if it would endanger his job he would not go. He was assured
by his foreman that it was all right. But when he returned, he
found that his place had been filled. While he was waiting around'.
the shed for the foreman to see if any other openings were available,.
he saw two new melt hired for work which he was qualified to
do. Up to the time of the hearing he had been unable to secure-
employment although he had applied at not less than six sheds,
in the Salinas-Watsonville district, five of which belonged to mem-
bers of the Association, four to respondents in this proceeding.
Jack Hart worked for the Crown Packing Company before the
strike. He had been a union member since 1933. During the strike.
he was an active picket. The comments appearing on his card in
the Association files, which are reproduced below, indicate, what a
close check was kept on his activities.:"
Immediately after the strike Hart applied to the foreman of the.
Crown Packing Company for reemployment. He was told to apply
at the hiring hall , but refused to do so. Sometime later he did • go.
to the hiring hall, and with the help of Noah, foreman of the Wil-
lianls shed, succeeded in getting a pass into the enclosure . He worked
1 day for Williams Packing Company, and then, learning that only
half a clay's work remained, he quit to take a job in a barroom.
When the lettuce season had finished in Salinas he sought work in
30 Hart . J. (Jack Frank ) : "9/4/36 FVWU out. on strike . Crown Packing Co. CB :-
Claim for collection cancelled as uncollectible , 5/14/34. 5'5"-144 lbs.-34 years--
single-born Penna. 12/28/36-Backed Left Winger Kesterson up in all his remarks
made in Union meeting of 12/24 / 36. 12 / 19/36-Working for Engleman . 12/21/36-
Caged #512 . 12/28 /36-Working Wahl. 1/2/37-,Called #512 . 7.2/29/36-Reported;
to be Communist investigator for left wing members of Union. 12 /30/36-Discharged by-
Wahl for poor work. 12/31/36-See report on Homer Day of this date. Important.
1/4/37-Working for Hunter Johnson . 1/12/36-Not working Hunter Johnson-
1/29/37-Reported to have left for Salinas with Danny Deavers , Helen Hardeman Fat.
McFadden, and Alex Bordges to attend meeting of CIA."
:364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
southern California. He worked for a short while at the Engleman
shed and 'then at the Martin C. 'Wall Packing Company in Eli Centro.
.After 1 or 2 days there his foreman,'Glenn Wright,, told him that
the company could not use him, his work was satisfactory but "you
have got a finger on you in the office." He was accordingly dis-
'charged about December 30. Wright advised him to keep his mouth
'shut and not ask why and said that if Hart talked it would cost
Wright his job. He advised Hart to apply to one Weaver for a job,
saying that Weaver "don't care who he uses, he will use anybody,
union men, radicals, or anybody can go to work there." Hart had
seen Taylor in both the Engleman and Wall sheds.
Following Wright's advice, Hart applied to Weaver but found that