Packerland Packing Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

494 F.2d 293, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2865, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9348

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 1974
• Docket: 73-1518
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner Company has sought review of, and the Board has applied for enforcement of, a Board order finding that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by transferring employees Ted R. Rockwell, Charles Petty and Ronald Whiting because of their union activity. 203 NLRB No. 39.

The employees were city truekdrivers who joined the picket line during a June 1-2, 1971 strike by the certified representative of the Company’s production and maintenance employees. The strike was settled and the employees returned to work as city truekdrivers on June 4. The Board found that “the matter of whether the city truekdrivers were in the . . . unit or not was never resolved, and [the union] . . . had not abandoned its claims over these employees.” 203 NLRB No. 39, p. 5.

On June 5, the three employees were told that “they would be placed into the bargaining unit which now represents them.”¹ Whiting and Petty were assigned to the boning room and Rockwell to the loading dock. On June 7 while performing one of the most exacting jobs in the Company’s operation, Rockwell aggravated an old injury. On June 8, Whiting, who was required to stand all day in his new assignment, also aggravated an old injury.

In addition to cease and desist requirements, the Board ordered the three employees reinstated to their city truck-driving jobs and made whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination.

Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding and order.

Petition for review denied and order enforced.

1 . At this time the Company’s president, Frankenthal, read to the three employees from a letter written by their supervisor, which stated that these employees were unreliable because they had not worked on June 1 and 2 and that he did not want them driving for the Company in the future. The administrative law judge credited testimony that the letter was read to the employees.