A
Anonymous
Guest
Test kits?
For detecting spinal columns in export shipments of beef?
~SH~
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Japan halts imports again
- Thread starter the chief
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Test kits?
For detecting spinal columns in export shipments of beef?
~SH~
Release No. 0019.06
Contact:
Ed Loyd (202) 720-4623
STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS REGARDING U.S. BEEF EXPORTS TO JAPAN
January 20, 2006
"We take this matter very seriously and we are conducting a thorough investigation.
"I have talked with Ambassador Kato and I expressed our regret and informed him of our actions. I also offered to provide in writing an outline of our actions and the results of our investigation into this matter.
"Under U.S. regulations, the backbone, or vertebral column, that was exported to Japan is not a specified risk material because it was in beef under 30 months. However, our agreement with Japan is to export beef with no vertebral column and we have failed to meet the terms of that agreement.
"The processing plant that exported this product has been de-listed and therefore can no longer export beef to Japan. We will take the appropriate personnel action against the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service employee who conducted the inspection of the product in question and approved it to be shipped to Japan.
"I am dispatching a team of USDA inspectors to Japan to work with Japanese inspectors to reexamine every shipment currently awaiting approval, to confirm compliance with the requirements of our export agreement with Japan.
"I have directed that additional USDA inspectors be sent to every plant that is approved to export beef to review procedures and ensure compliance with our export agreements and I am requiring that two USDA inspectors review every shipment of U.S. beef for export to confirm that compliance. I have also ordered unannounced inspections at every plant approved for beef export.
"These additional inspection requirements in the U.S. will be applied to all processing plants approved for beef export and all beef shipments designated for export from the U.S.
"I am also requiring that all USDA beef inspectors undergo additional training to make certain they are fully aware of all export agreement requirements. And, I have directed my staff to coordinate a meeting of representatives from all U.S. processing plants that export beef to review those requirements.
"While this is not a food safety issue, this is an unacceptable failure on our part to meet the requirements of our agreement with Japan. We take this matter seriously, recognizing the importance of our beef export market, and we are acting swiftly and firmly."
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2006%2F01%2F0019.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM
Greetings,
>>> I have also ordered unannounced inspections at every plant approved for beef export. <<<
>>>"These additional inspection requirements in the U.S. will be applied to all processing plants approved for beef export and all beef shipments designated for export from the U.S. <<<
IT"S a damn shame that the USA consumer cannot get the same safety requirements as the consumer of Japan that protects them against mad cow disease from USDA beef$
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect.asp?main=/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/03-025IFA.htm
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/TSC_SRM_Cecum_Ileum.pdf
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/TSC_SRM_Ileocecal_Junction.pdf
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/TSC_SRM_Trimmed_Uncoiled_Ileum.pdf
Jan. 20, 2006, 10:39PM
JAPAN AGAIN BANS U.S. BEEF
It's unclear if backbone pieces found in veal will mean brief freeze or yearslong halt
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - U.S. beef exporters struggling to recover from a mad cow disease scare suffered a stunning setback Friday, after a New York processing plant shipped banned animal parts to Japan.
Just six weeks after lifting a two-year ban on U.S. beef products, Japan closed its borders again Friday after inspectors there discovered pieces of backbone in a veal shipment.
Although such meat products would be deemed safe for human consumption in the United States, Japan has forbidden their import because of concerns about mad cow disease.
The incident has proved especially embarrassing for the United States because an inspector from the Agriculture Department had approved the shipment.
Whether the gaffe will translate into only a temporary halt to trade or another yearslong freeze remains unclear.
The issue is of no small import to Texas, the nation's No. 1 cattle-raising state. In 2004, Texas accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. beef exported, USDA figures show.
Agriculture Department officials scrambled Friday to control the damage the incident could cause to the beef industry's export market.
"This is an unacceptable failure on our part to meet the requirements of our agreement with this trading partner, the country of Japan," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns told reporters. "We are taking this matter very seriously, recognizing the importance of our beef export markets. And we are acting swiftly and firmly."
Regulators yanked Brooklyn meat processor Atlantic Veal and Lamb's authority to export to Japan. And Johanns promised to take "appropriate personnel action" against the inspector.
USDA responds quickly
To try to further reassure the Japanese, USDA will send additional inspectors to processing plants to review procedures and require that two USDA inspectors review every shipment of U.S. beef being exported.
USDA also will require that federal inspectors undergo additional training to make sure they are well-versed on the details of beef export agreements.
Burt Rutherford, spokesman for the Amarillo-based Texas Cattle Feeders Association, applauded the federal government's quick response.
"We think it's very necessary that USDA continue to address the situation very aggressively," Rutherford said.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, said the improper shipment demonstrates that USDA is not doing enough to guard against mad cow disease.
"If they just did their job domestically, then we wouldn't have the problem," Mendelson said.
Regulators and beef industry officials were at pains to insist the shipment did not pose a health risk.
The veal shipped to Japan was derived from animals less than 4 1/2 months of age, Atlantic Veal officials said.
U.S. officials consider beef from animals less than 30 months of age as being safe from the brain-wasting mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Japan sets the bar lower, banning animals of more than 20 months from the food chain. Still, Atlantic Veal's shipment would have been well within that range.
However, the United States' agreement with Japan specifies that no beef exports will include certain animal parts such as spinal cords, bone marrow and brains deemed to be most at risk for harboring the disease.
The shipped veal included parts of vertebral columns, which fall under Japan's list of mad cow risk materials.
"Were this product shipped to San Francisco, there would be no question about its safety," Atlantic Veal President Philip Peerless said in a statement. "But because we shipped it to Japan, and because it contained bones that are not accepted by the Japanese, we have now been prohibited from exporting to Japan."
The incident comes as beef exporters were managing to rebuild markets devastated by the discovery of a diseased cow in Washington state in late 2003.
Japan and other countries quickly slammed the door on U.S. beef. The situation was then compounded last year, when regulators had to concede they had misdiagnosed a Texas cow that also had the disease.
In 2003, U.S. exporters shipped $3.8 billion worth of beef, USDA officials said. About a third of those shipments — valued at $1.3 billion — went to Japan. The following year, total beef exports plunged to $804 million, with none going to Japan, USDA officials said.
Texas worldwide beef exports dropped by more than half, from $756 million in 2003 to only $327 million in 2004.
How long will it last?
USDA officials responded to the mad cow crisis by initiating a heightened surveillance program to screen for the disease and by launching an international charm offensive to pry open closed markets.
Japan agreed to reopen its market last month, followed by Hong Kong, South Korea and — just Thursday — Singapore.
Bill Hyman, executive director of the Lockhart-based Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, says he thinks Japan was slow to reopen its borders after the 2003 case of mad cow.
Will Japan's response be different this go-round?
"I'm hoping this is a temporary issue," Hyman said.
[email protected].
http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3602210.html
Greetings,
burkie ponders;
There is something Secy. Johanns has failed to mention
regarding the events that have taken place about the
beef export trade problems with Japan.
Here is a quoted statement taken from USDA's Export
Verification Program for Japan (Beef) website:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapan.htm
"Only eligible suppliers listed in the Official
Listing may supply product to Japan."
Question:
Using USDA's own Official Listings,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapanlisting.htm
of USDA's approved list of suppliers, do you see or
find even mentioned the name of the company from New
York, that is identified as being responsible for
shipping the beef that the Japanese found SRM material
in?
Answer:
No! You don't.
Absolutely absent from the Approved List....Atlantic
Veal and Lamb. NOT LISTED!
So let's ask ourselves a few more questions.
1. How has a company not "approved" to export beef to
Japan, been allowed to do so?
2. Why would a small meatpacking company in New York,
air freight an 840-pound shipment of beef to Japan in
the first place? What cuts of beef were shipped?
3. Why would a USDA inspector sign and authorize such
a shipment, knowing SRM material was present prior to
shipping it?
4. Why would an air carrier accept such a
shipment...or rather, would an air carrier be
responsible for delivering such meat products, without
verifying full compliance on the part of the shipper
and product being shipped?
5. And was this shipment just a "set-up" to prove
that the whole system is full of flaws, loop-holes and
trade traps.
Who stands to benefit from sabotaged trade policies?
Mr. Johann's has announced his plans he intends to
implement, immediately. Well, it's a little bit late
for that, isn't it?
But, for the record, the fact that Mr. Johann's fails
to mention that this shipment was shipped by a
non-USDA-approved shipper, meat processor is highly
questionable.
6. Official Listing of Eligible Suppliers to the EV
Program for Japan
"NOTICE:
Effective January 20, 2006, no additional facilities
will be audited and approved for EV or BEV programs.
This prohibition on approvals of additional EV and BEV
programs will continue until further notice. All audit
activities pertaining to these programs will be
suspended and will not be resumed until the approval
process has been reinstated."
Now how is any company NOT LISTED ever supposed to be
able to export beef to Japan after January 20, 2006?
1. Where does Atlantic's calf supply originate from?
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or CANADA?
2. If it is Canada, then why hasn't USDA provided any
information about source of origin?
3. If it is Canada, then why hasn't USDA restricted
this company's sourcing to US-only origin?
4. Again, according to USDA's EV to Japan rules,
rules were not observed or complied with regarding
this shipment of "VEAL."
5. Why hasn't someone outside USDA pounced on this
company's officials and gotten some answers, other
than the Proverbial "official line?"
Burkie in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYBE it had something to do with the working environment that caused the slip of the knife and the lack of finding all SRMs ???
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/alj/JD(NY)-46-03.htm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
ATLANTIC VEAL & LAMB, INC.
and
Cases 29-CA-24484
29-CA-24619
29-CA-24669
KNITGOODS WORKERS' UNION,
LOCAL 155, UNION OF NEEDLETRADES,
INDUSTRIAL & TEXTILE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Haydee Rosario, Esq. for the General Counsel.
Leila M. Maldonado, Esq. for the Union.
Don T. Carmody, Esq. for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
D. BARRY MORRIS, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in New York City during
11 days of hearing commencing February 27, 2002 and
concluding March 3, 2003. Upon charges filed on
September 20, November 27 and December 18, 2001,[1] a
consolidated complaint was issued on December 20,
alleging that Atlantic Veal & Lamb, Inc.
("Respondent") violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the "Act").
Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of
the alleged unfair labor practices.
The parties were given full opportunity to
participate, produce evidence, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, argue orally and file briefs.
Briefs were filed by the parties on May 21, 2003. Upon
the entire record of the case, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following:
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a New York corporation, with
its principal office and place of business in
Brooklyn, NY, has been engaged in the wholesale
distribution and sale of meat. It has admitted, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the
Act. In addition, it has been admitted, and I find,
that Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local 155, UNITE (the
"Union") is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts
1. Background
Respondent is in the business of
processing, selling and distributing meat at its
facility in Brooklyn, NY. Philip Peerless is the
President of the corporation, Martin Weiner is
Secretary, and his son, Brian Weiner, is
Vice-President. Joseph Saccardi is Chief Financial
Officer. The production operations are supervised by
three individuals, Eddie Cruz, Hector "Rafael" Lopez
and Francisco "Jimmy" Rojas.
The company has approximately 100
production employees, whose categories are:
"deboners", who remove the bone from the meat;
"trimmers", who clean the meat and remove the fat;
"cutters" or "choppers", who cut the calves in half;
and slicing and packing employees. There are also
several employees who do the inventory and fill the
orders.
The Union organizing campaign started in
August 2001 when Modesto "Cuidadano" Lora encountered
"Marcelo" and "Wilson", two Union organizers on the
street, about a block away from Respondent's facility.
On August 24 some of the employees met at the Cafeto
Restaurant located near the plant to discuss the Union
and sign authorization cards. No supervisors were
present.
The complaint alleges that Lora was
discharged on August 22 and that Cecilio "Leo" Soto
and Jeorge Ogando were discharged on August 28. The
attack on the World Trade Center occurred on September
11 (9/11). On September 12 Respondent laid off three
employees. From September 13 to 25 it laid off an
additional 11 employees. Respondent contends that the
layoffs were necessary in light of the 9/11 attack.
2. Alleged Discharge of Lora
Lora, a deboner, began his employment with
Respondent in 1998. During August he and several
co-workers met with Marcelo and Wilson, the Union
organizers, on the street near the plant. Several days
later Marcelo came to Lora's home and gave him an
authorization card. Lora signed the card at his home
on August 18. Marcelo gave Lora seven cards, which he
distributed to fellow employees.
Lora testified that on Friday, August 17,
he asked Lopez for permission to be absent the
following Monday to attend a meeting at the Social
Security office. Lora testified that Lopez responded,
"no problem". When he returned to work on Tuesday,
August 21, Lora testified that Lopez told him not to
start working but instead he should wait for Rojas. He
testified that Rojas told him to "take a week's
vacation". Lora then went to discuss the matter with
Peerless. Lora testified that Peerless told him, "the
conversation is over, go home". Lora then asked for
documentation to be able to collect unemployment
insurance. Lora testified that Peerless told him, "go
or call on the phone and they will give it to you
automatically".
Peerless testified that Lora was suspended
for taking Monday off without permission. Respondent's
position is that Lora was not terminated but instead
"he walked out because he refused to accept a
suspension". Lopez testified that on Sunday, August
19, Lora asked him for permission to be absent the
next day. Lopez testified that he did not authorize
Lora's absence.
Franklyn Rosario, a deboner who was laid
off on September 12, testified that at a meeting of
employees, one of the employees asked Rojas why Lora
and Soto were fired. Rosario testified that Rojas
replied that they were the "two persons that were
talking to the employees to join the Union". Juan
Moreno, a cutter and stripper, who was laid off on
September 12, testified that at a meeting of several
employees which he attended, Rojas told them "not to
let our minds get poisoned by Cuidadano [Lora] and Leo
[Soto] because they were already fired".
3. Alleged Discharge of Soto
Soto, a deboner, began his employment with
Respondent in 1998. He testified that he first heard
about the Union on August 24 at which time he signed
an authorization card.
He further testified that the following Monday, August
27, Lopez told him that "he was trying to get the
Union inside the company" and that he should be "very
careful with was I doing". Lopez told him that the
Union "was not going to bring benefits into the
company". Soto testified that at the same time both
Lopez and Rojas told him they were going to "keep an
eye on me" and that he was "Modesto's [Lora] right
hand man over there".
Soto reported for work at 5:30 A.M. on
Tuesday, August 28. He testified that after he punched
in, Lopez and Rojas told him that Peerless "didn't
want to see me in the company any more". Soto
testified that nevertheless he went to the table and
began deboning. Soon thereafter Marty Weiner appeared
at the table. Soto testified that Marty told him to
leave, he replied that he wouldn't, and Marty said
that if he didn't leave he would call the police. Soto
then left the plant.
Peerless testified that Soto was called
off of the production line by Human Resources with
respect to some documentation. Peerless stated that
Soto was suspended because he refused to leave the
production line. Rojas testified that Peerless told
him that Soto needed to produce some "paperwork" and
that if he doesn't comply "don't let him start to work
in the morning". On August 28 Rojas told Soto that he
couldn't start work unless he provided the
information. Soto began work anyway. Rojas testified
that he then contacted Marty. Marty approached the
table and told Soto to leave. Rojas testified that
Soto "got excited" and shook his knife "in Marty's
face". Lopez testified that when Marty told Soto to
leave Soto "got real mad" and "pulled his knife".
Lopez and Rosario testified that Lopez left the plant
before the police arrived.
Marty testified that when he arrived on
Tuesday morning he saw that Soto was having an
argument with Lopez. Marty told Soto to listen to
Lopez, but instead Soto "started to walk toward me
with his knife in his hand". Marty testified that he
told Soto to put the knife down and "if you want to
talk, I'll talk with you. I won't talk with a knife
pointing". Marty stated that after telling Soto to put
the knife down three times, and Soto refusing to do
so, Marty called the police.
4. Alleged Discharge of Ogando
Ogando began his employment with
Respondent in 1998. He filled orders and did inventory
under the supervision of Eddie Cruz. Originally his
hours were 7 A.M. until 3:30 P.M. Because he was going
to school, Ogando asked Cruz to change his hours to 6
A.M. until 2:30 P.M. The change was made in the
beginning of the summer of 2001. Francis Marti also
worked in the same department. Ogando signed a Union
authorization card on August 23.
On August 28 Cruz told Ogando that his
work schedule was being changed to 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
Ogando testified that he told Cruz that he would not
be able to attend school with that schedule. Ogando
testified that he asked Cruz "do you want to fire
me?". Ogando testified that after Cruz answered "no",
Cruz asked him what time he left the previous Friday
and if "I went to the Cafeto Restaurant".
Ogando testified that he then went to
discuss the matter with Peerless, explaining to
Peerless that the new schedule "wasn't going to work
with my school schedule". Ogando testified that
Peerless stated that "he couldn't do anything to help
me". Ogando further testified that he asked Peerless
what time he should start the next day to which
Peerless replied, "from 9:00 to 5:00 the way Eddie
told you". Ogando testified that he then told
Peerless, "fine, we'll see each other tomorrow".
Ogando further testified that at 3:30 that afternoon
Cruz called him and told him "it was time to part ways
and that he was going to give me layoff" and that he
should return his keys.
Peerless testified that Ogando quit his
job after he was told that his hours had been changed.
Cruz testified that "things were not working out", the
inventory was not being done correctly and orders were
not being filled correctly. He testified that he told
Ogando that the hours would have to be changed and
that Ogando stated that because of school "he didn't
want to do the hours". Cruz testified that after he
told Ogando that he had to revert to his prior
schedule, "the next day he didn't show up".
5. Plant Closure
Rosario testified that on August 31 a
meeting was held between several employees and Rojas
and Lopez. Rosario testified that Rojas told the
employees that "if the Union came in Phil [Peerless]
would close the business and move to Indiana". Moreno
corroborated this testimony. Ramon Diaz testified that
at a meeting of all the employees held on August 31
Jimmy stated that "if we continue this idea about the
union Philip was going to close the company as he had
done on other previous occasions". Rojas testified
that at a meeting with several employees he shared his
feelings about the Union. He told them that he
"wouldn't trust the union", that the Union promises
many things and "then they don't to anything after
they are there". He further testified that he felt
this way because of his "previous experience" with the
Union and he admitted that part of the "previous
experience" was "when the company shut down and moved
to Utica". He conceded that he discussed this with the
employees.
6. Threats to Discharge
Rosario testified that a meeting of
employees was held on September 5. There were
approximately 30 employees present along with Lopez
and Rojas. Rosario testified that Rojas told the
employees that "[if] Phil found out whoever was
signing the cards for the Union, they would get
fired". Rosario testified that Rojas again stated that
Peerless would move the company "to Indiana". Moreno
testified that at a meeting of all employees, Rojas
said that the meeting was called to discuss the
"consequences that arise from signing the card" and
that the consequences were "that we could lose our
jobs".
7. Interrogation
Moreno testified that after he signed the
authorization card, he had a conversation with Rojas
and Lopez in the coatroom. Lopez asked him "what I
knew about the Union". Moreno responded that he
"didn't know anything about that". As stated earlier,
Ogando testified that Cruz asked him what time he left
the plant on the Friday that the employees held a
meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant and then asked "if I
went to the Cafeto Restaurant".
8. Surveillance
Lora testified that after he was
terminated he was passing out Union authorization
cards about a block away from the plant. He testified
that Cruz was standing in the middle of the block
"observing" him. He also testified that Marty Weiner
"observed" him and that Rojas and Cruz were standing
at one of the plant's exits, "observing" him. Peerless
testified that there are cameras at each of the
plant's entrances.
9. Layoffs
Rosario worked for Respondent from 1997
until 2000, at which time he was laid off. He was
rehired in June 2001 and was laid off on September 12.
He testified that he signed a Union authorization card
at the Cafeto Restaurant meeting and that no
supervisors were present. He testified that during the
afternoon of September 12 Lopez and Rojas told him
that they were going to give him "layoff for two weeks
because there wasn't enough work to do in the
company". Rosario testified that while he was employed
by Respondent he had worked as a deboner, a cutter, a
trimmer and a packer.
Moreno, a cutter and stripper, was hired
by Respondent in December 1999 and was laid off on
September 12. He signed a Union authorization card on
August 24 at the Cafeto Restaurant and testified that
no supervisors were present. He testified that at 2
P.M. on September 12 Lopez told him "stay home for two
weeks because work is slow".
Ramon Diaz, a warehouse worker, began his
employment with Respondent in October 1998. He was
laid off on September 12. He testified that during the
afternoon of September 12 Rojas told him "go home
because there was no work for me". Rafael Mora, a
trimmer, worked for Respondent from December 1998
until the end of 1999. He started working there again
in August 2001 and was laid off on September 12. The
complaint lists the names of ten additional employees
who were laid off between September 13 and September
25. They did not testify. Notations on the employment
records contained in the record as General Counsel
Exhibit 11 indicate that the following employees may
have held the indicated positions: Pena-packer;
Polanco-trimmer; McKensie-packer; and Vasquez-packer.
General Counsel Exhibit 25 indicates that McKensie was
a "helper". The record does not show what jobs the
other laid-off employees held.
Attachments to General Counsel and
Charging Party's briefs show that there were 21
employees newly hired after September 12. The record
does not show what positions these employees were
hired to fill.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Alleged Discharge of Lora
The complaint alleges that Respondent
discharged Lora on September 22. Lora signed a Union
authorization card on September 18 and distributed
seven cards to other employees. I credit his testimony
that on Friday, September 17, he asked his supervisor,
Lopez, for permission to be absent on Monday. Lopez
told Lora, "no problem". When Lora returned to work on
Tuesday, September 22, Rojas, another supervisor, told
him to "take a week's vacation". Lora went to discuss
the matter with Peerless, after which Peerless told
him, "the conversation is over, go home". Peerless
testified that Lora was not terminated, but instead
was suspended for one week.
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 455 U.S. 989, the Board requires that the
General Counsel make a prima facie showing sufficient
to support the inference that protected conduct was a
motivating factor in the employer's decision. Once
this is established, the burden shifts to the employer
to demonstrate that the "same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected conduct."
Lora signed the Union authorization card
on September 18 and distributed seven additional
cards. I credit Rosario's testimony that Rojas said
that Lora and Soto were "the two persons that were
talking to the employees to join the Union" and they
"got fired because they were the head . to get the
employees to get in the Union". In addition, I credit
Moreno's testimony that Rojas told several employees
"not to let our minds get poisoned" by Lora and Soto.
Based on the above I find that General Counsel has
made a prima facie showing that protected conduct was
a motivating factor in Respondent's decision.
Respondent contends that Lora was
suspended and was not terminated. In addition,
Respondent contends that Lora was not given permission
to be absent on Monday, September 20. While Lopez
testified that he did not give Lora permission to be
absent on Monday, I do not credit that testimony.
Instead I have credited Lora's testimony that when he
asked Lopez for permission to be absent, Lopez
replied, "no problem". Accordingly, I find that
Respondent has not sustained its burden of showing
that the "same action would have taken place even in
the absence of the protected conduct".
With respect to Respondent's contention
that Lora was not terminated, Lora testified that on
September 21 at a meeting with Rojas and Lopez, he was
told, "they wanted to give me one week as punishment".
He testified that Rojas told him "take a week's
vacation". Peerless testified that Lora was suspended
and Respondent's position is that he was not
terminated. While Rosario testified that a meeting on
August 31 he was told that Lora was "fired" because he
was one of the "head" to get the employees in the
Union, there is no indication that Lora was told prior
to the end of the one-week suspension that he was
"fired". Accordingly, I find that Lora was given a
one-week suspension because of his Union activities,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. Alleged Discharge of Soto
Soto signed a Union authorization card on
August 24. I credit his testimony that on Monday,
August 27 Lopez told him that "he was trying to get
the Union inside the company" and that he should be
"very careful with what I was doing". I further credit
his testimony that Lopez and Rojas told him that they
were going to "keep an eye on me" and that he was
Lora's "right hand man". As discussed previously, I
have found that Rojas told Rosario that Lora and Soto
were the "head" to get the employees in the Union.
I credit Soto's testimony that on Tuesday, August 28,
after he punched in, Lopez and Rojas told him that
Peerless "didn't want to see me in the company any
more". Soto was discharged that day. Pursuant to
Wright Line, supra, I find that General Counsel has
made a prima facie showing that protected conduct was
a motivating factor in Respondent's decision to
discharge Soto.
Peerless told Rojas that Soto needed to
produce some documentation and that if he doesn't
produce it, Rojas should not let Soto begin work on
Tuesday, August 28. On Tuesday morning, when Soto
appeared for work, Rojas told him that he couldn't
start work unless he provided the information. Soto
started to work anyway. Rojas then contacted Marty
Weiner. Marty approached the table where Soto was
working and told him to leave. I credit Marty's
testimony that Soto "got excited" and shook his knife
in Marty's face. Marty told Soto to put the knife down
but Soto didn't comply. After telling Soto to put the
knife down three times, and Soto
having refused, Marty called the police. Soto left the
plant before the police arrived.
I find that Respondent has satisfied its
burden under Wright Line, supra, of showing that Soto
would have been discharged even in the absence of his
Union activity. As Marty Weiner testified, the knife
was 13 inches long, it was "threatening" and
"dangerous" and wielding such a knife is a
dischargeable offense. Accordingly, the allegation is
dismissed.
3. Alleged Discharge of Ogando
Ogando signed a Union authorization card
at home on August 23. He did not attend the Union
meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant. No showing has been
made in the record that Respondent knew that he signed
the card or that he engaged in any activity on behalf
of the Union. General Counsel's brief states that
Respondent engaged in "nip in the bud" tactics.
Apparently it is General Counsel's theory that
Respondent discharged or laid off employees even
though their Union activities, if any, were not known
to Respondent to "nip in the bud" the impending
unionization. In this connection, the Board's decision
in Link Mfg. Co., 281 NLRB 294 (1986) is instructive.
The Board stated (id. at 299, n. 8):
Although several of the
laid-off employees had signed cards and
engaged in union activities,
it is unnecessary to the finding of
discrimination that the
Respondent specifically knew of the union
activities of each of the
discriminatees. .The Respondent's reaction
was thus in the nature of a
"power display" in response to the
advent of the Union and was
unlawful without regard to specific
knowledge of the prounion
activities of particular employees.
Until the summer of 2001 Ogando's hours
were 7 A.M. until 3:30 P.M. Because he was attending
school Ogando asked his supervisor, Cruz, if his hours
could be changed to start at 6 A.M. and finish at 2:30
P.M. Cruz agreed to the change. On August 28 Cruz told
Ogando that his schedule was being changed to 9 A.M.
to 5 P.M. Ogando told Cruz that he would not be able
to continue going to school with the new schedule.
Cruz then asked Ogando whether he attended the Union
meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant the previous Friday.
Ogando replied that he had not attended.
Ogando subsequently discussed the matter
with Peerless. Peerless told Cruz that he would have
to comply with the new schedule and to report the next
day at 9 A.M. I credit Ogando's testimony that he told
Peerless "fine, we'll see each other tomorrow". Later
that afternoon Cruz telephoned Ogando and told him "it
was time to part ways". In light of Link Mfg. Co.,
supra, I find that General Counsel has made a prima
facie showing that protected conduct was a motivating
factor in Respondent's decision to discharge Ogando.
Cruz testified that he changed Ogando's
hours because the inventory was not being done
correctly and the orders were not being filled
correctly. While Cruz testified that he changed
Ogando's hours back to what they were, I credit
Ogando's testimony that his hours had been 7 A.M.
until 3:30 P.M. Indeed, I credit Ogando's testimony
that the employees in his department did not work from
9 A.M. to 5 P.M. and that after Ogando's discharge,
Marti's hours were changed back to 6 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.
I find that Respondent has not sustained its burden of
showing that Ogando would have been discharged were it
not for the Union campaign. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent discharged Ogando in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. September Layoffs
Fourteen employees were laid off between
September 12 and September 25. No showing has been
made that Respondent was aware whether any of these
employees had signed Union authorization cards or
whether they had done anything in support of the
Union. Instead, General Counsel's theory is that
Respondent intended to "nip in the bud" the organizing
campaign. As previously discussed, in view of Link
Mfg. Co., supra, I find that General Counsel has made
a prima facie showing that protected conduct was a
motivating factor in Respondent's decision to lay off
the employees.
Respondent contends that the layoffs were
necessary because of the 9/11 attack on the World
Trade Center. Saccardi testified that after the first
reports of the attack he and Peerless discussed that
they were going to be "seriously affected by a
catastophe of this scope". Peerless testified, "[A]
lot of our businesses, restaurant related, airline
related, cruise ships related, hotel related, when the
World Trade Center went down I think it was fairly
well documented that the restaurants, the airlines,
the cruise ships, all of those industries suffered
tremendously and they cut back on their buying".
The record shows that in August 2001, 6020
calves were purchased. This decreased to 5595 calves
purchased in September, a loss of 7%. In October, 5190
calves were purchased. This represented a decrease of
14% from the August purchases. The record further
shows that for the month of September 2000, 6364
nature calves[2] were killed. In September 2001 the
corresponding figure was 4755 calves, a decrease of
25%. For the month of October 2000, 6883 nature calves
were killed. The corresponding figure for October 2001
was 5613 calves, a decrease of 18%.
In view of the above, I believe that
Respondent has satisfied its Wright Line burden of
showing that the "same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct".
Accordingly, the allegation is dismissed.
5. Failure to Recall
The complaint alleges that, with the
exception of Jose Hernandez, Respondent has failed to
recall the laid-off employees. Only four of the
laid-off employees testified. During the time that
Rosario worked at the plant, he worked as a deboner, a
cutter, a trimmer and a packer. Moreno was a cutter
and stripper. Diaz was a warehouse worker and Mora was
a trimmer. After September 12, there were 21 newly
hired employees. The record does not show what
positions these employees held.
In order to show that an employer has
failed to recall a laid-off employee it must be
demonstrated that a job was filled which should
otherwise have been offered to the laid-off employee.
Inasmuch as Rosario had been a deboner, cutter,
trimmer and packer, he had basically performed all of
the jobs that were being performed in the plant. Thus,
even though the record does not show what jobs the 21
new employees were hired for, clearly at least one of
the positions was for a deboner, cutter, trimmer or
packer. I find, therefore, that Respondent has
violated the Act by not recalling Rosario. As to the
other laid-off employees, no showing has been made
that jobs became available which were the same jobs
which they previously performed. Accordingly, with
respect to the laid-off employees other than Rosario,
the allegation is dismissed.
6. Plant Closure
The complaint alleges that Respondent
violated the Act by threatening employees with plant
closure if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. I credit
Rosario's testimony that on August 31 Rojas told
employees that if the Union "came in" Peerless would
"close the business and move to Indiana". This was
corroborated by Moreno. I also credit the testimony of
Diaz that Rojas told employees that "if we continue
this idea about the Union", Peerless "was going to
close the company as he had done on other previous
occasions". Accordingly, I find that Respondent has
violated the Act by threatening plant closure if the
employees select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. See Quality
Aluminum Products, 278 NLRB 338 (1986), enfd. 813 F.
2d 795 (6th Cir. 1987).
7. Threats to Discharge
I credit Rosario's testimony that on
September 5 Rojas told employees that if Peerless
found out who was "signing the cards for the Union,
they would get fired". I also credit Moreno's
testimony that at a meeting of employees Rojas said
that a consequence of signing the Union authorization
cards would be that "we could lose our jobs". I find
that through such statements Respondent threatened
loss of jobs for supporting the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. Interrogation
The complaint alleges that Respondent
interrogated its employees about their Union
activities. I credit Moreno's testimony that Lopez
asked him "what I knew about the Union". I also credit
Ogando's testimony that Cruz asked him if he had
attended the Union meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant. I
find that these questions constitute unlawful
interrogation, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
9. Surveillance
The complaint alleges that Respondent
created the impression of, and engaged in
surveillance, in violation of the Act. Lora testified
that after he was terminated he was passing out Union
authorization cards about a block away from the plant.
He testified that Cruz was standing in the middle of
the block "observing" him. Lora did not testify what
the "observing" consisted of. He simply testified to
the conclusory statement that Cruz was "observing"
him. Lora also testified that Marty Weiner "observed"
him and that Rojas and Cruz were standing at one of
the plants exits, "observing" him. Again, no details
were given as to what the "observing" consisted of. I
do not credit this testimony, and find that General
Counsel has not sustained her burden of proof. In
addition, General Counsel elicited testimony from
Peerless that there was a security camera at each of
the plant's exits. If this testimony was intended to
show unlawful surveillance, it shows no such thing.
There is no indication that the cameras served any
purpose other than for security. Accordingly, I find
that General Counsel has not shown by a preponderance
of the evidence that Respondent engaged in unlawful
surveillance or created the impression of
surveillance. The allegation is therefore dismissed.
10. Other Allegations
General Counsel has moved to withdraw the
allegation that Respondent ceased giving Soto a free
ride to work and that James Fischer was one of the
unlawfully laid-off employees. The motion is granted
and the allegations are withdrawn.
At the hearing General Counsel amended the
complaint to allege that Rojas and Lopez unlawfully
solicited grievances. Rosario testified that at a
meeting of approximately 60 employees he and two other
employees asked Rojas why they had not gotten raises.
Rojas explained to them why they had not gotten
raises. I find that General Counsel has not shown that
Respondent solicited grievances or that there was a
promise or an implied promise to confer benefits. The
testimony merely shows that several employees, on
their own, asked why they had not received raises. Not
only did Rojas not promise them raises, but he told
Rosario that "I should be lucky they took me back to
work". I find that General Counsel has not shown that
Respondent solicited grievances in violation of the
Act. Accordingly, the allegation is dismissed. See
Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, 315 NLRB 596, 600
(1994).
The complaint alleges that Respondent
unlawfully refused to pay Ogando for work performed
the last day of his employment, September 28. Ogando
punched in on September 28 and worked the full day.
However, he did not punch out. Respondent contends
that he wasn't paid for that day because he didn't
punch out. I do not believe that Respondent has
sustained its burden under Wright Line, supra, of
showing that under similar circumstances an employee
who has worked the day but did not punch out isn't
paid. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated the
Act by refusing to pay Ogando for the hours he worked
on September 28. Inasmuch as I am ordering backpay for
Ogando, the backpay period shall include September 28.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening plant closure, by threatening to
discharge employees because of
their Union activities and by interrogating employees
concerning their Union activities, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By suspending and discharging
employees for protected activity, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. By failing to recall a laid-off
employee because of protected activity, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices
constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent did not violate the Act in any
other manner alleged in the complaint.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that
it must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent, having unlawfully discharged
Jeorge Ogando, I shall order Respondent to offer him
immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position, or if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges. In
addition, Respondent having unlawfully suspended
Modesto Lora and having unlawfully failed to recall
Franklyn Rosario, I shall order Respondent to make
whole Lora for the one-week suspension and make whole
Ogando and Rosario for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered. Ogando's backpay period shall commence
September 28 and extend until Respondent's offer of
reinstatement. Rosario's backpay period shall commence
on the date a position as deboner, cutter, trimmer or
packer became available, and extend until the date he
is recalled by Respondent. Backpay shall be computed
in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions
of law and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended:[3]
ORDER
The Respondent, Atlantic Veal & Lamb,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening plant closure,
threatening to discharge employees because of their
Union activities and interrogating employees
concerning their Union activities.
(b) Suspending and discharging
employees because they engaged in protected
activities.
(c) Failing to recall laid-off
employees because they engaged in protected
activities.
(d) In any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jeorge Ogando
immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position, or if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings, with
interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this Decision.
(b) Make whole Modesto Lora
for his one-week suspension, with interest.
(c) Recall Franklyn Rosario
and make him whole for any loss of earnings, with
interest, for the period beginning on the date a
position as deboner, trimmer, cutter or packer became
available until the date of his recall.
(d) Within 14 days from the
date of this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge and suspension,
and within 3 days thereafter notify the employees in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge
or suspension will not be used against them in any
way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14
days of a request, or such additional time as the
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown,
provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after
service by the Region, post at its facility located at
275 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."[4] Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings,
the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 22, 2001.
(g) Within 21 days after
service by the Region, file with the Regional Director
a sworn certification of a responsible official on a
form provided by the Region attesting to the steps
that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint
is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C.
_____________________
D. Barry Morris
Administrative Law
Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post
and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities
WE WILL NOT threaten plant closure, threaten to
discharge employees because of their Union activities
or interrogate them concerning such activities.
WE WILL NOT suspend, discharge or fail to recall
employees because they engage in protected activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board's
Order, offer Jeorge Ogando full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings, with interest.
WE WILL make Modesto Lora whole for any loss of
earnings resulting from his one-week suspension, plus
interest.
WE WILL recall Franklyn Rosario and make him whole for
any loss of earnings, with interest, for the period
beginning on the date a position as deboner, trimmer,
cutter or packer became available until the date of
his recall.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board's
Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Ogando and suspension of Lora,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge
and suspension will not be used against them in any
way.
Atlantic Veal & Lamb, Inc.
(Employer)
Dated
By
(Representative)
(Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent
Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National
Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot
elections to determine whether employees want union
representation and it investigates and remedies unfair
labor practices by employers and unions. To find out
more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board's Regional
Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board's website: www.nlrb.gov.
One MetroTech Center (North), Jay Street and Myrtle
Avenue, 10th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201-4201
(718) 330-7713, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY
ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE'S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (718) 330-2862.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] All dates refer to 2001 unless otherwise
specified.
[2] BOB calves are newborn calves. Nature calves are
approximately 24 weeks old before they are
slaughtered. The bulk of Respondent's purchases are
nature calves.
[3] If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.
102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by
the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
[4] If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD" shall read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A
JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD."
=========================================
1/20/2006 Cattle Market Notes: COF, GIPSA Audit, Japan Discovers SRM 1/20/2006 Cattle Update: Japan Bans U.S. Beef Again 1/20/2006 Burns Concerned Japan Holding U.S. Beef Imports 1/20/2006 Beef Backbone Processor Identified As Atlantic Veal & Lamb 1/20/2006 Jolley: An Embarrassed Koizumi Stops U.S. Beef Imports 1/20/2006 Meat Institute: USDA Has Delisted Plant In Beef Case 1/20/2006 Japan Halts U.S. Beef Imports Due To Contaminated Shipment 1/20/2006 Tyson Says It Wasn't Exporter Of Beef Backbone To Japan 1/20/2006 NCBA Statement on U.S. Beef Exports to Japan 1/20/2006 R-CALF "Disappointed" By Japan Beef Situation 1/20/2006 NDA: Ibach Comments On Reports Of UnApproved Beef Product Arriving In Japan 1/20/2006 Johanns Statement Regarding U.S. Beef Exports To Japan 1/20/2006 KLA Cattle Alert: Japan Considers Options With U.S. Beef 1/3/2006 Link: Japan's Beef Back On Menus
IF these folks Johanns/industry et al would have taken as much effort in eradicating BSE/TSE and following regulations in the first place, as they are now trying to again fix something that has been terribly broken for years and years, they would not be in the position they are in today. but they just keep on keeping on, digging deeper and deeper. oh what a tangled web they weave, when all they do is practice to deceive $$$
TSS
Contact:
Ed Loyd (202) 720-4623
STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS REGARDING U.S. BEEF EXPORTS TO JAPAN
January 20, 2006
"We take this matter very seriously and we are conducting a thorough investigation.
"I have talked with Ambassador Kato and I expressed our regret and informed him of our actions. I also offered to provide in writing an outline of our actions and the results of our investigation into this matter.
"Under U.S. regulations, the backbone, or vertebral column, that was exported to Japan is not a specified risk material because it was in beef under 30 months. However, our agreement with Japan is to export beef with no vertebral column and we have failed to meet the terms of that agreement.
"The processing plant that exported this product has been de-listed and therefore can no longer export beef to Japan. We will take the appropriate personnel action against the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service employee who conducted the inspection of the product in question and approved it to be shipped to Japan.
"I am dispatching a team of USDA inspectors to Japan to work with Japanese inspectors to reexamine every shipment currently awaiting approval, to confirm compliance with the requirements of our export agreement with Japan.
"I have directed that additional USDA inspectors be sent to every plant that is approved to export beef to review procedures and ensure compliance with our export agreements and I am requiring that two USDA inspectors review every shipment of U.S. beef for export to confirm that compliance. I have also ordered unannounced inspections at every plant approved for beef export.
"These additional inspection requirements in the U.S. will be applied to all processing plants approved for beef export and all beef shipments designated for export from the U.S.
"I am also requiring that all USDA beef inspectors undergo additional training to make certain they are fully aware of all export agreement requirements. And, I have directed my staff to coordinate a meeting of representatives from all U.S. processing plants that export beef to review those requirements.
"While this is not a food safety issue, this is an unacceptable failure on our part to meet the requirements of our agreement with Japan. We take this matter seriously, recognizing the importance of our beef export market, and we are acting swiftly and firmly."
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2006%2F01%2F0019.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM
Greetings,
>>> I have also ordered unannounced inspections at every plant approved for beef export. <<<
>>>"These additional inspection requirements in the U.S. will be applied to all processing plants approved for beef export and all beef shipments designated for export from the U.S. <<<
IT"S a damn shame that the USA consumer cannot get the same safety requirements as the consumer of Japan that protects them against mad cow disease from USDA beef$
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect.asp?main=/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/03-025IFA.htm
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/TSC_SRM_Cecum_Ileum.pdf
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/TSC_SRM_Ileocecal_Junction.pdf
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/TSC_SRM_Trimmed_Uncoiled_Ileum.pdf
Jan. 20, 2006, 10:39PM
JAPAN AGAIN BANS U.S. BEEF
It's unclear if backbone pieces found in veal will mean brief freeze or yearslong halt
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - U.S. beef exporters struggling to recover from a mad cow disease scare suffered a stunning setback Friday, after a New York processing plant shipped banned animal parts to Japan.
Just six weeks after lifting a two-year ban on U.S. beef products, Japan closed its borders again Friday after inspectors there discovered pieces of backbone in a veal shipment.
Although such meat products would be deemed safe for human consumption in the United States, Japan has forbidden their import because of concerns about mad cow disease.
The incident has proved especially embarrassing for the United States because an inspector from the Agriculture Department had approved the shipment.
Whether the gaffe will translate into only a temporary halt to trade or another yearslong freeze remains unclear.
The issue is of no small import to Texas, the nation's No. 1 cattle-raising state. In 2004, Texas accounted for 40 percent of all U.S. beef exported, USDA figures show.
Agriculture Department officials scrambled Friday to control the damage the incident could cause to the beef industry's export market.
"This is an unacceptable failure on our part to meet the requirements of our agreement with this trading partner, the country of Japan," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns told reporters. "We are taking this matter very seriously, recognizing the importance of our beef export markets. And we are acting swiftly and firmly."
Regulators yanked Brooklyn meat processor Atlantic Veal and Lamb's authority to export to Japan. And Johanns promised to take "appropriate personnel action" against the inspector.
USDA responds quickly
To try to further reassure the Japanese, USDA will send additional inspectors to processing plants to review procedures and require that two USDA inspectors review every shipment of U.S. beef being exported.
USDA also will require that federal inspectors undergo additional training to make sure they are well-versed on the details of beef export agreements.
Burt Rutherford, spokesman for the Amarillo-based Texas Cattle Feeders Association, applauded the federal government's quick response.
"We think it's very necessary that USDA continue to address the situation very aggressively," Rutherford said.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, said the improper shipment demonstrates that USDA is not doing enough to guard against mad cow disease.
"If they just did their job domestically, then we wouldn't have the problem," Mendelson said.
Regulators and beef industry officials were at pains to insist the shipment did not pose a health risk.
The veal shipped to Japan was derived from animals less than 4 1/2 months of age, Atlantic Veal officials said.
U.S. officials consider beef from animals less than 30 months of age as being safe from the brain-wasting mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Japan sets the bar lower, banning animals of more than 20 months from the food chain. Still, Atlantic Veal's shipment would have been well within that range.
However, the United States' agreement with Japan specifies that no beef exports will include certain animal parts such as spinal cords, bone marrow and brains deemed to be most at risk for harboring the disease.
The shipped veal included parts of vertebral columns, which fall under Japan's list of mad cow risk materials.
"Were this product shipped to San Francisco, there would be no question about its safety," Atlantic Veal President Philip Peerless said in a statement. "But because we shipped it to Japan, and because it contained bones that are not accepted by the Japanese, we have now been prohibited from exporting to Japan."
The incident comes as beef exporters were managing to rebuild markets devastated by the discovery of a diseased cow in Washington state in late 2003.
Japan and other countries quickly slammed the door on U.S. beef. The situation was then compounded last year, when regulators had to concede they had misdiagnosed a Texas cow that also had the disease.
In 2003, U.S. exporters shipped $3.8 billion worth of beef, USDA officials said. About a third of those shipments — valued at $1.3 billion — went to Japan. The following year, total beef exports plunged to $804 million, with none going to Japan, USDA officials said.
Texas worldwide beef exports dropped by more than half, from $756 million in 2003 to only $327 million in 2004.
How long will it last?
USDA officials responded to the mad cow crisis by initiating a heightened surveillance program to screen for the disease and by launching an international charm offensive to pry open closed markets.
Japan agreed to reopen its market last month, followed by Hong Kong, South Korea and — just Thursday — Singapore.
Bill Hyman, executive director of the Lockhart-based Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, says he thinks Japan was slow to reopen its borders after the 2003 case of mad cow.
Will Japan's response be different this go-round?
"I'm hoping this is a temporary issue," Hyman said.
[email protected].
http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3602210.html
Greetings,
burkie ponders;
There is something Secy. Johanns has failed to mention
regarding the events that have taken place about the
beef export trade problems with Japan.
Here is a quoted statement taken from USDA's Export
Verification Program for Japan (Beef) website:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapan.htm
"Only eligible suppliers listed in the Official
Listing may supply product to Japan."
Question:
Using USDA's own Official Listings,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapanlisting.htm
of USDA's approved list of suppliers, do you see or
find even mentioned the name of the company from New
York, that is identified as being responsible for
shipping the beef that the Japanese found SRM material
in?
Answer:
No! You don't.
Absolutely absent from the Approved List....Atlantic
Veal and Lamb. NOT LISTED!
So let's ask ourselves a few more questions.
1. How has a company not "approved" to export beef to
Japan, been allowed to do so?
2. Why would a small meatpacking company in New York,
air freight an 840-pound shipment of beef to Japan in
the first place? What cuts of beef were shipped?
3. Why would a USDA inspector sign and authorize such
a shipment, knowing SRM material was present prior to
shipping it?
4. Why would an air carrier accept such a
shipment...or rather, would an air carrier be
responsible for delivering such meat products, without
verifying full compliance on the part of the shipper
and product being shipped?
5. And was this shipment just a "set-up" to prove
that the whole system is full of flaws, loop-holes and
trade traps.
Who stands to benefit from sabotaged trade policies?
Mr. Johann's has announced his plans he intends to
implement, immediately. Well, it's a little bit late
for that, isn't it?
But, for the record, the fact that Mr. Johann's fails
to mention that this shipment was shipped by a
non-USDA-approved shipper, meat processor is highly
questionable.
6. Official Listing of Eligible Suppliers to the EV
Program for Japan
"NOTICE:
Effective January 20, 2006, no additional facilities
will be audited and approved for EV or BEV programs.
This prohibition on approvals of additional EV and BEV
programs will continue until further notice. All audit
activities pertaining to these programs will be
suspended and will not be resumed until the approval
process has been reinstated."
Now how is any company NOT LISTED ever supposed to be
able to export beef to Japan after January 20, 2006?
1. Where does Atlantic's calf supply originate from?
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or CANADA?
2. If it is Canada, then why hasn't USDA provided any
information about source of origin?
3. If it is Canada, then why hasn't USDA restricted
this company's sourcing to US-only origin?
4. Again, according to USDA's EV to Japan rules,
rules were not observed or complied with regarding
this shipment of "VEAL."
5. Why hasn't someone outside USDA pounced on this
company's officials and gotten some answers, other
than the Proverbial "official line?"
Burkie in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYBE it had something to do with the working environment that caused the slip of the knife and the lack of finding all SRMs ???
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/alj/JD(NY)-46-03.htm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
ATLANTIC VEAL & LAMB, INC.
and
Cases 29-CA-24484
29-CA-24619
29-CA-24669
KNITGOODS WORKERS' UNION,
LOCAL 155, UNION OF NEEDLETRADES,
INDUSTRIAL & TEXTILE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Haydee Rosario, Esq. for the General Counsel.
Leila M. Maldonado, Esq. for the Union.
Don T. Carmody, Esq. for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
D. BARRY MORRIS, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in New York City during
11 days of hearing commencing February 27, 2002 and
concluding March 3, 2003. Upon charges filed on
September 20, November 27 and December 18, 2001,[1] a
consolidated complaint was issued on December 20,
alleging that Atlantic Veal & Lamb, Inc.
("Respondent") violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the "Act").
Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of
the alleged unfair labor practices.
The parties were given full opportunity to
participate, produce evidence, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, argue orally and file briefs.
Briefs were filed by the parties on May 21, 2003. Upon
the entire record of the case, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following:
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a New York corporation, with
its principal office and place of business in
Brooklyn, NY, has been engaged in the wholesale
distribution and sale of meat. It has admitted, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the
Act. In addition, it has been admitted, and I find,
that Knitgoods Workers' Union, Local 155, UNITE (the
"Union") is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts
1. Background
Respondent is in the business of
processing, selling and distributing meat at its
facility in Brooklyn, NY. Philip Peerless is the
President of the corporation, Martin Weiner is
Secretary, and his son, Brian Weiner, is
Vice-President. Joseph Saccardi is Chief Financial
Officer. The production operations are supervised by
three individuals, Eddie Cruz, Hector "Rafael" Lopez
and Francisco "Jimmy" Rojas.
The company has approximately 100
production employees, whose categories are:
"deboners", who remove the bone from the meat;
"trimmers", who clean the meat and remove the fat;
"cutters" or "choppers", who cut the calves in half;
and slicing and packing employees. There are also
several employees who do the inventory and fill the
orders.
The Union organizing campaign started in
August 2001 when Modesto "Cuidadano" Lora encountered
"Marcelo" and "Wilson", two Union organizers on the
street, about a block away from Respondent's facility.
On August 24 some of the employees met at the Cafeto
Restaurant located near the plant to discuss the Union
and sign authorization cards. No supervisors were
present.
The complaint alleges that Lora was
discharged on August 22 and that Cecilio "Leo" Soto
and Jeorge Ogando were discharged on August 28. The
attack on the World Trade Center occurred on September
11 (9/11). On September 12 Respondent laid off three
employees. From September 13 to 25 it laid off an
additional 11 employees. Respondent contends that the
layoffs were necessary in light of the 9/11 attack.
2. Alleged Discharge of Lora
Lora, a deboner, began his employment with
Respondent in 1998. During August he and several
co-workers met with Marcelo and Wilson, the Union
organizers, on the street near the plant. Several days
later Marcelo came to Lora's home and gave him an
authorization card. Lora signed the card at his home
on August 18. Marcelo gave Lora seven cards, which he
distributed to fellow employees.
Lora testified that on Friday, August 17,
he asked Lopez for permission to be absent the
following Monday to attend a meeting at the Social
Security office. Lora testified that Lopez responded,
"no problem". When he returned to work on Tuesday,
August 21, Lora testified that Lopez told him not to
start working but instead he should wait for Rojas. He
testified that Rojas told him to "take a week's
vacation". Lora then went to discuss the matter with
Peerless. Lora testified that Peerless told him, "the
conversation is over, go home". Lora then asked for
documentation to be able to collect unemployment
insurance. Lora testified that Peerless told him, "go
or call on the phone and they will give it to you
automatically".
Peerless testified that Lora was suspended
for taking Monday off without permission. Respondent's
position is that Lora was not terminated but instead
"he walked out because he refused to accept a
suspension". Lopez testified that on Sunday, August
19, Lora asked him for permission to be absent the
next day. Lopez testified that he did not authorize
Lora's absence.
Franklyn Rosario, a deboner who was laid
off on September 12, testified that at a meeting of
employees, one of the employees asked Rojas why Lora
and Soto were fired. Rosario testified that Rojas
replied that they were the "two persons that were
talking to the employees to join the Union". Juan
Moreno, a cutter and stripper, who was laid off on
September 12, testified that at a meeting of several
employees which he attended, Rojas told them "not to
let our minds get poisoned by Cuidadano [Lora] and Leo
[Soto] because they were already fired".
3. Alleged Discharge of Soto
Soto, a deboner, began his employment with
Respondent in 1998. He testified that he first heard
about the Union on August 24 at which time he signed
an authorization card.
He further testified that the following Monday, August
27, Lopez told him that "he was trying to get the
Union inside the company" and that he should be "very
careful with was I doing". Lopez told him that the
Union "was not going to bring benefits into the
company". Soto testified that at the same time both
Lopez and Rojas told him they were going to "keep an
eye on me" and that he was "Modesto's [Lora] right
hand man over there".
Soto reported for work at 5:30 A.M. on
Tuesday, August 28. He testified that after he punched
in, Lopez and Rojas told him that Peerless "didn't
want to see me in the company any more". Soto
testified that nevertheless he went to the table and
began deboning. Soon thereafter Marty Weiner appeared
at the table. Soto testified that Marty told him to
leave, he replied that he wouldn't, and Marty said
that if he didn't leave he would call the police. Soto
then left the plant.
Peerless testified that Soto was called
off of the production line by Human Resources with
respect to some documentation. Peerless stated that
Soto was suspended because he refused to leave the
production line. Rojas testified that Peerless told
him that Soto needed to produce some "paperwork" and
that if he doesn't comply "don't let him start to work
in the morning". On August 28 Rojas told Soto that he
couldn't start work unless he provided the
information. Soto began work anyway. Rojas testified
that he then contacted Marty. Marty approached the
table and told Soto to leave. Rojas testified that
Soto "got excited" and shook his knife "in Marty's
face". Lopez testified that when Marty told Soto to
leave Soto "got real mad" and "pulled his knife".
Lopez and Rosario testified that Lopez left the plant
before the police arrived.
Marty testified that when he arrived on
Tuesday morning he saw that Soto was having an
argument with Lopez. Marty told Soto to listen to
Lopez, but instead Soto "started to walk toward me
with his knife in his hand". Marty testified that he
told Soto to put the knife down and "if you want to
talk, I'll talk with you. I won't talk with a knife
pointing". Marty stated that after telling Soto to put
the knife down three times, and Soto refusing to do
so, Marty called the police.
4. Alleged Discharge of Ogando
Ogando began his employment with
Respondent in 1998. He filled orders and did inventory
under the supervision of Eddie Cruz. Originally his
hours were 7 A.M. until 3:30 P.M. Because he was going
to school, Ogando asked Cruz to change his hours to 6
A.M. until 2:30 P.M. The change was made in the
beginning of the summer of 2001. Francis Marti also
worked in the same department. Ogando signed a Union
authorization card on August 23.
On August 28 Cruz told Ogando that his
work schedule was being changed to 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
Ogando testified that he told Cruz that he would not
be able to attend school with that schedule. Ogando
testified that he asked Cruz "do you want to fire
me?". Ogando testified that after Cruz answered "no",
Cruz asked him what time he left the previous Friday
and if "I went to the Cafeto Restaurant".
Ogando testified that he then went to
discuss the matter with Peerless, explaining to
Peerless that the new schedule "wasn't going to work
with my school schedule". Ogando testified that
Peerless stated that "he couldn't do anything to help
me". Ogando further testified that he asked Peerless
what time he should start the next day to which
Peerless replied, "from 9:00 to 5:00 the way Eddie
told you". Ogando testified that he then told
Peerless, "fine, we'll see each other tomorrow".
Ogando further testified that at 3:30 that afternoon
Cruz called him and told him "it was time to part ways
and that he was going to give me layoff" and that he
should return his keys.
Peerless testified that Ogando quit his
job after he was told that his hours had been changed.
Cruz testified that "things were not working out", the
inventory was not being done correctly and orders were
not being filled correctly. He testified that he told
Ogando that the hours would have to be changed and
that Ogando stated that because of school "he didn't
want to do the hours". Cruz testified that after he
told Ogando that he had to revert to his prior
schedule, "the next day he didn't show up".
5. Plant Closure
Rosario testified that on August 31 a
meeting was held between several employees and Rojas
and Lopez. Rosario testified that Rojas told the
employees that "if the Union came in Phil [Peerless]
would close the business and move to Indiana". Moreno
corroborated this testimony. Ramon Diaz testified that
at a meeting of all the employees held on August 31
Jimmy stated that "if we continue this idea about the
union Philip was going to close the company as he had
done on other previous occasions". Rojas testified
that at a meeting with several employees he shared his
feelings about the Union. He told them that he
"wouldn't trust the union", that the Union promises
many things and "then they don't to anything after
they are there". He further testified that he felt
this way because of his "previous experience" with the
Union and he admitted that part of the "previous
experience" was "when the company shut down and moved
to Utica". He conceded that he discussed this with the
employees.
6. Threats to Discharge
Rosario testified that a meeting of
employees was held on September 5. There were
approximately 30 employees present along with Lopez
and Rojas. Rosario testified that Rojas told the
employees that "[if] Phil found out whoever was
signing the cards for the Union, they would get
fired". Rosario testified that Rojas again stated that
Peerless would move the company "to Indiana". Moreno
testified that at a meeting of all employees, Rojas
said that the meeting was called to discuss the
"consequences that arise from signing the card" and
that the consequences were "that we could lose our
jobs".
7. Interrogation
Moreno testified that after he signed the
authorization card, he had a conversation with Rojas
and Lopez in the coatroom. Lopez asked him "what I
knew about the Union". Moreno responded that he
"didn't know anything about that". As stated earlier,
Ogando testified that Cruz asked him what time he left
the plant on the Friday that the employees held a
meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant and then asked "if I
went to the Cafeto Restaurant".
8. Surveillance
Lora testified that after he was
terminated he was passing out Union authorization
cards about a block away from the plant. He testified
that Cruz was standing in the middle of the block
"observing" him. He also testified that Marty Weiner
"observed" him and that Rojas and Cruz were standing
at one of the plant's exits, "observing" him. Peerless
testified that there are cameras at each of the
plant's entrances.
9. Layoffs
Rosario worked for Respondent from 1997
until 2000, at which time he was laid off. He was
rehired in June 2001 and was laid off on September 12.
He testified that he signed a Union authorization card
at the Cafeto Restaurant meeting and that no
supervisors were present. He testified that during the
afternoon of September 12 Lopez and Rojas told him
that they were going to give him "layoff for two weeks
because there wasn't enough work to do in the
company". Rosario testified that while he was employed
by Respondent he had worked as a deboner, a cutter, a
trimmer and a packer.
Moreno, a cutter and stripper, was hired
by Respondent in December 1999 and was laid off on
September 12. He signed a Union authorization card on
August 24 at the Cafeto Restaurant and testified that
no supervisors were present. He testified that at 2
P.M. on September 12 Lopez told him "stay home for two
weeks because work is slow".
Ramon Diaz, a warehouse worker, began his
employment with Respondent in October 1998. He was
laid off on September 12. He testified that during the
afternoon of September 12 Rojas told him "go home
because there was no work for me". Rafael Mora, a
trimmer, worked for Respondent from December 1998
until the end of 1999. He started working there again
in August 2001 and was laid off on September 12. The
complaint lists the names of ten additional employees
who were laid off between September 13 and September
25. They did not testify. Notations on the employment
records contained in the record as General Counsel
Exhibit 11 indicate that the following employees may
have held the indicated positions: Pena-packer;
Polanco-trimmer; McKensie-packer; and Vasquez-packer.
General Counsel Exhibit 25 indicates that McKensie was
a "helper". The record does not show what jobs the
other laid-off employees held.
Attachments to General Counsel and
Charging Party's briefs show that there were 21
employees newly hired after September 12. The record
does not show what positions these employees were
hired to fill.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Alleged Discharge of Lora
The complaint alleges that Respondent
discharged Lora on September 22. Lora signed a Union
authorization card on September 18 and distributed
seven cards to other employees. I credit his testimony
that on Friday, September 17, he asked his supervisor,
Lopez, for permission to be absent on Monday. Lopez
told Lora, "no problem". When Lora returned to work on
Tuesday, September 22, Rojas, another supervisor, told
him to "take a week's vacation". Lora went to discuss
the matter with Peerless, after which Peerless told
him, "the conversation is over, go home". Peerless
testified that Lora was not terminated, but instead
was suspended for one week.
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 455 U.S. 989, the Board requires that the
General Counsel make a prima facie showing sufficient
to support the inference that protected conduct was a
motivating factor in the employer's decision. Once
this is established, the burden shifts to the employer
to demonstrate that the "same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected conduct."
Lora signed the Union authorization card
on September 18 and distributed seven additional
cards. I credit Rosario's testimony that Rojas said
that Lora and Soto were "the two persons that were
talking to the employees to join the Union" and they
"got fired because they were the head
employees to get in the Union". In addition, I credit
Moreno's testimony that Rojas told several employees
"not to let our minds get poisoned" by Lora and Soto.
Based on the above I find that General Counsel has
made a prima facie showing that protected conduct was
a motivating factor in Respondent's decision.
Respondent contends that Lora was
suspended and was not terminated. In addition,
Respondent contends that Lora was not given permission
to be absent on Monday, September 20. While Lopez
testified that he did not give Lora permission to be
absent on Monday, I do not credit that testimony.
Instead I have credited Lora's testimony that when he
asked Lopez for permission to be absent, Lopez
replied, "no problem". Accordingly, I find that
Respondent has not sustained its burden of showing
that the "same action would have taken place even in
the absence of the protected conduct".
With respect to Respondent's contention
that Lora was not terminated, Lora testified that on
September 21 at a meeting with Rojas and Lopez, he was
told, "they wanted to give me one week as punishment".
He testified that Rojas told him "take a week's
vacation". Peerless testified that Lora was suspended
and Respondent's position is that he was not
terminated. While Rosario testified that a meeting on
August 31 he was told that Lora was "fired" because he
was one of the "head
Union, there is no indication that Lora was told prior
to the end of the one-week suspension that he was
"fired". Accordingly, I find that Lora was given a
one-week suspension because of his Union activities,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. Alleged Discharge of Soto
Soto signed a Union authorization card on
August 24. I credit his testimony that on Monday,
August 27 Lopez told him that "he was trying to get
the Union inside the company" and that he should be
"very careful with what I was doing". I further credit
his testimony that Lopez and Rojas told him that they
were going to "keep an eye on me" and that he was
Lora's "right hand man". As discussed previously, I
have found that Rojas told Rosario that Lora and Soto
were the "head
I credit Soto's testimony that on Tuesday, August 28,
after he punched in, Lopez and Rojas told him that
Peerless "didn't want to see me in the company any
more". Soto was discharged that day. Pursuant to
Wright Line, supra, I find that General Counsel has
made a prima facie showing that protected conduct was
a motivating factor in Respondent's decision to
discharge Soto.
Peerless told Rojas that Soto needed to
produce some documentation and that if he doesn't
produce it, Rojas should not let Soto begin work on
Tuesday, August 28. On Tuesday morning, when Soto
appeared for work, Rojas told him that he couldn't
start work unless he provided the information. Soto
started to work anyway. Rojas then contacted Marty
Weiner. Marty approached the table where Soto was
working and told him to leave. I credit Marty's
testimony that Soto "got excited" and shook his knife
in Marty's face. Marty told Soto to put the knife down
but Soto didn't comply. After telling Soto to put the
knife down three times, and Soto
having refused, Marty called the police. Soto left the
plant before the police arrived.
I find that Respondent has satisfied its
burden under Wright Line, supra, of showing that Soto
would have been discharged even in the absence of his
Union activity. As Marty Weiner testified, the knife
was 13 inches long, it was "threatening" and
"dangerous" and wielding such a knife is a
dischargeable offense. Accordingly, the allegation is
dismissed.
3. Alleged Discharge of Ogando
Ogando signed a Union authorization card
at home on August 23. He did not attend the Union
meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant. No showing has been
made in the record that Respondent knew that he signed
the card or that he engaged in any activity on behalf
of the Union. General Counsel's brief states that
Respondent engaged in "nip in the bud" tactics.
Apparently it is General Counsel's theory that
Respondent discharged or laid off employees even
though their Union activities, if any, were not known
to Respondent to "nip in the bud" the impending
unionization. In this connection, the Board's decision
in Link Mfg. Co., 281 NLRB 294 (1986) is instructive.
The Board stated (id. at 299, n. 8):
Although several of the
laid-off employees had signed cards and
engaged in union activities,
it is unnecessary to the finding of
discrimination that the
Respondent specifically knew of the union
activities of each of the
discriminatees. .The Respondent's reaction
was thus in the nature of a
"power display" in response to the
advent of the Union and was
unlawful without regard to specific
knowledge of the prounion
activities of particular employees.
Until the summer of 2001 Ogando's hours
were 7 A.M. until 3:30 P.M. Because he was attending
school Ogando asked his supervisor, Cruz, if his hours
could be changed to start at 6 A.M. and finish at 2:30
P.M. Cruz agreed to the change. On August 28 Cruz told
Ogando that his schedule was being changed to 9 A.M.
to 5 P.M. Ogando told Cruz that he would not be able
to continue going to school with the new schedule.
Cruz then asked Ogando whether he attended the Union
meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant the previous Friday.
Ogando replied that he had not attended.
Ogando subsequently discussed the matter
with Peerless. Peerless told Cruz that he would have
to comply with the new schedule and to report the next
day at 9 A.M. I credit Ogando's testimony that he told
Peerless "fine, we'll see each other tomorrow". Later
that afternoon Cruz telephoned Ogando and told him "it
was time to part ways". In light of Link Mfg. Co.,
supra, I find that General Counsel has made a prima
facie showing that protected conduct was a motivating
factor in Respondent's decision to discharge Ogando.
Cruz testified that he changed Ogando's
hours because the inventory was not being done
correctly and the orders were not being filled
correctly. While Cruz testified that he changed
Ogando's hours back to what they were, I credit
Ogando's testimony that his hours had been 7 A.M.
until 3:30 P.M. Indeed, I credit Ogando's testimony
that the employees in his department did not work from
9 A.M. to 5 P.M. and that after Ogando's discharge,
Marti's hours were changed back to 6 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.
I find that Respondent has not sustained its burden of
showing that Ogando would have been discharged were it
not for the Union campaign. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent discharged Ogando in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. September Layoffs
Fourteen employees were laid off between
September 12 and September 25. No showing has been
made that Respondent was aware whether any of these
employees had signed Union authorization cards or
whether they had done anything in support of the
Union. Instead, General Counsel's theory is that
Respondent intended to "nip in the bud" the organizing
campaign. As previously discussed, in view of Link
Mfg. Co., supra, I find that General Counsel has made
a prima facie showing that protected conduct was a
motivating factor in Respondent's decision to lay off
the employees.
Respondent contends that the layoffs were
necessary because of the 9/11 attack on the World
Trade Center. Saccardi testified that after the first
reports of the attack he and Peerless discussed that
they were going to be "seriously affected by a
catastophe of this scope". Peerless testified, "[A]
lot of our businesses, restaurant related, airline
related, cruise ships related, hotel related, when the
World Trade Center went down I think it was fairly
well documented that the restaurants, the airlines,
the cruise ships, all of those industries suffered
tremendously and they cut back on their buying".
The record shows that in August 2001, 6020
calves were purchased. This decreased to 5595 calves
purchased in September, a loss of 7%. In October, 5190
calves were purchased. This represented a decrease of
14% from the August purchases. The record further
shows that for the month of September 2000, 6364
nature calves[2] were killed. In September 2001 the
corresponding figure was 4755 calves, a decrease of
25%. For the month of October 2000, 6883 nature calves
were killed. The corresponding figure for October 2001
was 5613 calves, a decrease of 18%.
In view of the above, I believe that
Respondent has satisfied its Wright Line burden of
showing that the "same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct".
Accordingly, the allegation is dismissed.
5. Failure to Recall
The complaint alleges that, with the
exception of Jose Hernandez, Respondent has failed to
recall the laid-off employees. Only four of the
laid-off employees testified. During the time that
Rosario worked at the plant, he worked as a deboner, a
cutter, a trimmer and a packer. Moreno was a cutter
and stripper. Diaz was a warehouse worker and Mora was
a trimmer. After September 12, there were 21 newly
hired employees. The record does not show what
positions these employees held.
In order to show that an employer has
failed to recall a laid-off employee it must be
demonstrated that a job was filled which should
otherwise have been offered to the laid-off employee.
Inasmuch as Rosario had been a deboner, cutter,
trimmer and packer, he had basically performed all of
the jobs that were being performed in the plant. Thus,
even though the record does not show what jobs the 21
new employees were hired for, clearly at least one of
the positions was for a deboner, cutter, trimmer or
packer. I find, therefore, that Respondent has
violated the Act by not recalling Rosario. As to the
other laid-off employees, no showing has been made
that jobs became available which were the same jobs
which they previously performed. Accordingly, with
respect to the laid-off employees other than Rosario,
the allegation is dismissed.
6. Plant Closure
The complaint alleges that Respondent
violated the Act by threatening employees with plant
closure if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. I credit
Rosario's testimony that on August 31 Rojas told
employees that if the Union "came in" Peerless would
"close the business and move to Indiana". This was
corroborated by Moreno. I also credit the testimony of
Diaz that Rojas told employees that "if we continue
this idea about the Union", Peerless "was going to
close the company as he had done on other previous
occasions". Accordingly, I find that Respondent has
violated the Act by threatening plant closure if the
employees select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. See Quality
Aluminum Products, 278 NLRB 338 (1986), enfd. 813 F.
2d 795 (6th Cir. 1987).
7. Threats to Discharge
I credit Rosario's testimony that on
September 5 Rojas told employees that if Peerless
found out who was "signing the cards for the Union,
they would get fired". I also credit Moreno's
testimony that at a meeting of employees Rojas said
that a consequence of signing the Union authorization
cards would be that "we could lose our jobs". I find
that through such statements Respondent threatened
loss of jobs for supporting the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. Interrogation
The complaint alleges that Respondent
interrogated its employees about their Union
activities. I credit Moreno's testimony that Lopez
asked him "what I knew about the Union". I also credit
Ogando's testimony that Cruz asked him if he had
attended the Union meeting at the Cafeto Restaurant. I
find that these questions constitute unlawful
interrogation, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
9. Surveillance
The complaint alleges that Respondent
created the impression of, and engaged in
surveillance, in violation of the Act. Lora testified
that after he was terminated he was passing out Union
authorization cards about a block away from the plant.
He testified that Cruz was standing in the middle of
the block "observing" him. Lora did not testify what
the "observing" consisted of. He simply testified to
the conclusory statement that Cruz was "observing"
him. Lora also testified that Marty Weiner "observed"
him and that Rojas and Cruz were standing at one of
the plants exits, "observing" him. Again, no details
were given as to what the "observing" consisted of. I
do not credit this testimony, and find that General
Counsel has not sustained her burden of proof. In
addition, General Counsel elicited testimony from
Peerless that there was a security camera at each of
the plant's exits. If this testimony was intended to
show unlawful surveillance, it shows no such thing.
There is no indication that the cameras served any
purpose other than for security. Accordingly, I find
that General Counsel has not shown by a preponderance
of the evidence that Respondent engaged in unlawful
surveillance or created the impression of
surveillance. The allegation is therefore dismissed.
10. Other Allegations
General Counsel has moved to withdraw the
allegation that Respondent ceased giving Soto a free
ride to work and that James Fischer was one of the
unlawfully laid-off employees. The motion is granted
and the allegations are withdrawn.
At the hearing General Counsel amended the
complaint to allege that Rojas and Lopez unlawfully
solicited grievances. Rosario testified that at a
meeting of approximately 60 employees he and two other
employees asked Rojas why they had not gotten raises.
Rojas explained to them why they had not gotten
raises. I find that General Counsel has not shown that
Respondent solicited grievances or that there was a
promise or an implied promise to confer benefits. The
testimony merely shows that several employees, on
their own, asked why they had not received raises. Not
only did Rojas not promise them raises, but he told
Rosario that "I should be lucky they took me back to
work". I find that General Counsel has not shown that
Respondent solicited grievances in violation of the
Act. Accordingly, the allegation is dismissed. See
Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, 315 NLRB 596, 600
(1994).
The complaint alleges that Respondent
unlawfully refused to pay Ogando for work performed
the last day of his employment, September 28. Ogando
punched in on September 28 and worked the full day.
However, he did not punch out. Respondent contends
that he wasn't paid for that day because he didn't
punch out. I do not believe that Respondent has
sustained its burden under Wright Line, supra, of
showing that under similar circumstances an employee
who has worked the day but did not punch out isn't
paid. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated the
Act by refusing to pay Ogando for the hours he worked
on September 28. Inasmuch as I am ordering backpay for
Ogando, the backpay period shall include September 28.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening plant closure, by threatening to
discharge employees because of
their Union activities and by interrogating employees
concerning their Union activities, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By suspending and discharging
employees for protected activity, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. By failing to recall a laid-off
employee because of protected activity, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices
constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent did not violate the Act in any
other manner alleged in the complaint.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that
it must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent, having unlawfully discharged
Jeorge Ogando, I shall order Respondent to offer him
immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position, or if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges. In
addition, Respondent having unlawfully suspended
Modesto Lora and having unlawfully failed to recall
Franklyn Rosario, I shall order Respondent to make
whole Lora for the one-week suspension and make whole
Ogando and Rosario for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered. Ogando's backpay period shall commence
September 28 and extend until Respondent's offer of
reinstatement. Rosario's backpay period shall commence
on the date a position as deboner, cutter, trimmer or
packer became available, and extend until the date he
is recalled by Respondent. Backpay shall be computed
in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions
of law and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended:[3]
ORDER
The Respondent, Atlantic Veal & Lamb,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening plant closure,
threatening to discharge employees because of their
Union activities and interrogating employees
concerning their Union activities.
(b) Suspending and discharging
employees because they engaged in protected
activities.
(c) Failing to recall laid-off
employees because they engaged in protected
activities.
(d) In any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jeorge Ogando
immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position, or if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings, with
interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this Decision.
(b) Make whole Modesto Lora
for his one-week suspension, with interest.
(c) Recall Franklyn Rosario
and make him whole for any loss of earnings, with
interest, for the period beginning on the date a
position as deboner, trimmer, cutter or packer became
available until the date of his recall.
(d) Within 14 days from the
date of this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge and suspension,
and within 3 days thereafter notify the employees in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge
or suspension will not be used against them in any
way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14
days of a request, or such additional time as the
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown,
provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after
service by the Region, post at its facility located at
275 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."[4] Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings,
the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 22, 2001.
(g) Within 21 days after
service by the Region, file with the Regional Director
a sworn certification of a responsible official on a
form provided by the Region attesting to the steps
that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint
is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C.
_____________________
D. Barry Morris
Administrative Law
Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post
and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities
WE WILL NOT threaten plant closure, threaten to
discharge employees because of their Union activities
or interrogate them concerning such activities.
WE WILL NOT suspend, discharge or fail to recall
employees because they engage in protected activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board's
Order, offer Jeorge Ogando full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings, with interest.
WE WILL make Modesto Lora whole for any loss of
earnings resulting from his one-week suspension, plus
interest.
WE WILL recall Franklyn Rosario and make him whole for
any loss of earnings, with interest, for the period
beginning on the date a position as deboner, trimmer,
cutter or packer became available until the date of
his recall.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board's
Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Ogando and suspension of Lora,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge
and suspension will not be used against them in any
way.
Atlantic Veal & Lamb, Inc.
(Employer)
Dated
By
(Representative)
(Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent
Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National
Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot
elections to determine whether employees want union
representation and it investigates and remedies unfair
labor practices by employers and unions. To find out
more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board's Regional
Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board's website: www.nlrb.gov.
One MetroTech Center (North), Jay Street and Myrtle
Avenue, 10th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201-4201
(718) 330-7713, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY
ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE'S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (718) 330-2862.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] All dates refer to 2001 unless otherwise
specified.
[2] BOB calves are newborn calves. Nature calves are
approximately 24 weeks old before they are
slaughtered. The bulk of Respondent's purchases are
nature calves.
[3] If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.
102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by
the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
[4] If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD" shall read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A
JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD."
=========================================
1/20/2006 Cattle Market Notes: COF, GIPSA Audit, Japan Discovers SRM 1/20/2006 Cattle Update: Japan Bans U.S. Beef Again 1/20/2006 Burns Concerned Japan Holding U.S. Beef Imports 1/20/2006 Beef Backbone Processor Identified As Atlantic Veal & Lamb 1/20/2006 Jolley: An Embarrassed Koizumi Stops U.S. Beef Imports 1/20/2006 Meat Institute: USDA Has Delisted Plant In Beef Case 1/20/2006 Japan Halts U.S. Beef Imports Due To Contaminated Shipment 1/20/2006 Tyson Says It Wasn't Exporter Of Beef Backbone To Japan 1/20/2006 NCBA Statement on U.S. Beef Exports to Japan 1/20/2006 R-CALF "Disappointed" By Japan Beef Situation 1/20/2006 NDA: Ibach Comments On Reports Of UnApproved Beef Product Arriving In Japan 1/20/2006 Johanns Statement Regarding U.S. Beef Exports To Japan 1/20/2006 KLA Cattle Alert: Japan Considers Options With U.S. Beef 1/3/2006 Link: Japan's Beef Back On Menus
IF these folks Johanns/industry et al would have taken as much effort in eradicating BSE/TSE and following regulations in the first place, as they are now trying to again fix something that has been terribly broken for years and years, they would not be in the position they are in today. but they just keep on keeping on, digging deeper and deeper. oh what a tangled web they weave, when all they do is practice to deceive $$$
TSS
>>>burkie ponders;
There is something Secy. Johanns has failed to mention
regarding the events that have taken place about the
beef export trade problems with Japan.
Here is a quoted statement taken from USDA's Export
Verification Program for Japan (Beef) website:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapan.htm
"Only eligible suppliers listed in the Official
Listing may supply product to Japan."
Question:
Using USDA's own Official Listings,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapanlisting.htm
of USDA's approved list of suppliers, do you see or
find even mentioned the name of the company from New
York, that is identified as being responsible for
shipping the beef that the Japanese found SRM material
in?
Answer:
No! You don't.
Absolutely absent from the Approved List....Atlantic
Veal and Lamb. NOT LISTED!
So let's ask ourselves a few more questions.
1. How has a company not "approved" to export beef to
Japan, been allowed to do so? <<<
snip...
=================
hmmm, a little more digging and i found this;
Plants Eligible for Export
All federally inspected establishments are eligible to export to Japan. Exporters should be aware that establishments not listed in the Meat and Poultry Inspection Directory may experience delayed entry into Japan. Contact the Technical Service Center at (402) 221-7400 for assistance.
JA-90 (Jan 19, 2006)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Japan_Requirements/index.asp
TSS
There is something Secy. Johanns has failed to mention
regarding the events that have taken place about the
beef export trade problems with Japan.
Here is a quoted statement taken from USDA's Export
Verification Program for Japan (Beef) website:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapan.htm
"Only eligible suppliers listed in the Official
Listing may supply product to Japan."
Question:
Using USDA's own Official Listings,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/evjapanlisting.htm
of USDA's approved list of suppliers, do you see or
find even mentioned the name of the company from New
York, that is identified as being responsible for
shipping the beef that the Japanese found SRM material
in?
Answer:
No! You don't.
Absolutely absent from the Approved List....Atlantic
Veal and Lamb. NOT LISTED!
So let's ask ourselves a few more questions.
1. How has a company not "approved" to export beef to
Japan, been allowed to do so? <<<
snip...
=================
hmmm, a little more digging and i found this;
Plants Eligible for Export
All federally inspected establishments are eligible to export to Japan. Exporters should be aware that establishments not listed in the Meat and Poultry Inspection Directory may experience delayed entry into Japan. Contact the Technical Service Center at (402) 221-7400 for assistance.
JA-90 (Jan 19, 2006)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Japan_Requirements/index.asp
TSS
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Subject: Re: Japan to reimpose ban on all US beef imports
Date: January 23, 2006 at 10:09 am PST
BSE PREVENTION - JAPAN (02): US BEEF BAN
*****************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: 24 Jan 2006
From: Hikaru Fukuda
I would like to inform you of your misunderstanding concerning the ban on
US beef by Japan.
There is no misunderstanding between the Japanese and US governments
regarding the maximum age for importing cattle. There is only a difference
of opinion between Japan and the US regarding the definition of specified
risk materials (SRMs).
The USDA defines SRMs as: (1) the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column, and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30
months of age and older, and (2) the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle.
However, the government of Japan defines SRMs as: (1) the brain, skull,
eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column, dorsal root
ganglia (DRG), the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle.
Although Americans eat SRMs of cattle younger than 30 months, Japanese
people never eat them.
The US has already agreed with the Japanese government that they accept the
Japanese definition of SRMs, and the US promises not to export SRMs (as
defined by Japan) to Japan.
--
Hikaru Fukuda
Food Safety Commission, Japan
[We appreciate Hikaru Fukuda's clarification of this situation. - Mod.TG]
[see also:
BSE prevention - Japan: US beef ban 20060122.0209]
...........tg/msp/dk
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports
..........snip...........TSS
Subject: Re: Japan to reimpose ban on all US beef imports
Date: January 23, 2006 at 10:09 am PST
BSE PREVENTION - JAPAN (02): US BEEF BAN
*****************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: 24 Jan 2006
From: Hikaru Fukuda
I would like to inform you of your misunderstanding concerning the ban on
US beef by Japan.
There is no misunderstanding between the Japanese and US governments
regarding the maximum age for importing cattle. There is only a difference
of opinion between Japan and the US regarding the definition of specified
risk materials (SRMs).
The USDA defines SRMs as: (1) the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column, and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30
months of age and older, and (2) the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle.
However, the government of Japan defines SRMs as: (1) the brain, skull,
eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column, dorsal root
ganglia (DRG), the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle.
Although Americans eat SRMs of cattle younger than 30 months, Japanese
people never eat them.
The US has already agreed with the Japanese government that they accept the
Japanese definition of SRMs, and the US promises not to export SRMs (as
defined by Japan) to Japan.
--
Hikaru Fukuda
Food Safety Commission, Japan
[We appreciate Hikaru Fukuda's clarification of this situation. - Mod.TG]
[see also:
BSE prevention - Japan: US beef ban 20060122.0209]
...........tg/msp/dk
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports
..........snip...........TSS