188 N.L.R.B. 554 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

C. W. F. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 17, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 554 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. W. F. Corporation and Retail Store Employees Un- ion Local No. 400 , Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-4710 February 17, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND KENNEDY On October 22, 1970, Trial Examiner Alvin Lieber- man issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed cross-ex- ceptions to the Decision, with a supporting brief and a brief in opposition to the Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, C.W.F. Corporation, Bladensburg, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.3 'Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner committed prejudicial error when he failed to grant Respondent 's request for a continuance of the trial after General Counsel amended the complaint to allege certain addition- al violations of Section 8(a)(1), relying principally on the decision of the U S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Russell -Newman Mfg Co, Inc v N L R B, 370 F 2d 980 , where the court reversed the Board 's procedural ruling and remanded that case for a hearing on the employer 's defense to the amended allegations To the extent that the Board ' s decision in Russell- Newman is in conflict with the Fifth Circuit' s decision on this procedural matter , we respectfully disagree and adhere to the view set forth in our original decision at 153 NLRB 1312 Moreover , the circumstances of the instant case are readily distinguishable from those present in Russell-New- man In that case , the employer' s counsel was not informed of General Counsel's intention to offer amendments to the complaint at the hearing scheduled for a Monday until the preceding Friday The court characterized the amendments as entirely new material , noting that the asserted facts upon which the amendments were based had arisen only a few days prior to the hearing The employer 's defense was limited to an offer of proof made after the close of the hearing None of these elements are present in the instant case Respondent was notified by the General Counsel of his intention to amend the complaint approximately two full working days prior to the scheduled hearing date At the Trial Examiner's request , the General Counsel refrained from presenting his case as to the amended portion of the complaint on the first day of the hearing, July 15, 1970 The hearing reconvened on July 16, at 1 30 p in. At the end of the day, the hearing was recessed at Respondent's request, until July 20, affording Respondent additional opportunity for investigation It is also apparent that the amendments here, unlike those in Russell-Newman, are merely additions to and refinements of the original complaint and are con- temporaneous with the original Section 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations All issues were fully litigated and Respondent had ample time to investigate and pre- pare a defense No offer of proof was made Accordingly, we shall deny Respondent 's motion to reopen the hearing 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board' s established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponder- ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3) We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case 3 In footnote 40 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision , substitute "20" for "10" days TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALVIN LIEBERMAN, Trial Examiner: The trial in this pro- ceeding with all parties represented was held before me in Washington, District of Columbia, on July 15, 16, and 20, 1970,1 uon the General Counsel's complaint 2 dated June 5, 1970,p and respondent 's answer. In general , the issues litigated were whether respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Particularly, the questions for deci- sion are as follows: 1. Did respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their attitude toward and relationship to, Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400 (herein called the Union)? 2. Did respondent further violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to discharge employees for supporting the Union? 3. Did respondent violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging an employee, David Stevenson? Upon the entire record,4 upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying , and upon careful consideration of the arguments made , and the briefs submitted by the parties,5 I make the following: i All dates subsequently mentioned without stating a year fall within 1970 2 During the trial the complaint was amended in several respects Para- graph VI was renumbered as paragraph VI(a) and the following two para- graphs were added V I(b) On or about March 21, 1970, Respondent , through its Store Manager Nathan Vogin, threatened employees with discharge if they signed union cards or otherwise supported the Union VI(c) On or about March 25, 1970, Respondent, through its Regional Manag- er Morris Kottler , otherwise known as Moe Kay , and its Store Managers Nathan Vogin , George Hale and Charles Casper, unlawfully solicited the employees to revoke or withdraw union designation cards 3 The complaint was issued on a charge filed on March 30, 1970, by Retail Store Employees Union Local No 400 Issued simultaneously is a separate order correcting obvious inadvertent errors in the stenographic transcript of this proceeding 5 Although all the arguments of the parties and the authorities cited by 188 NLRB No. 94 C. W. F. CORPORATION 555 FINDINGS OF FACT 6 I JURISDICTION Respondent, a Virginia corporation whose principal of- fice and place of business is located at Bladensburg, Maryland , is engaged in Maryland and Virginia in the retail sale of radios, television sets, and electrical appliances. Dur- ing the year ending on June 4, 1970, a representative period, respondent's gross volume of business exceeded $500,000. In the same period respondent purchased at its Bladensburg office merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 from ven- dors located outside the State of Maryland and the Com- monwealth of Virginia. Accordingly, I find that respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) is warranted. Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines, 124 NLRB 813, 815; Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction Briefly, this case concerns itself with events which oc- curred during the early days of a campaign mounted by the Union to become the collective-bargaining representative of respondent's employees. These include, the complaint alleg- es, respondent's interrogation of, and threats to, employees; its solicitation of employees to revoke or withdraw union designation cards; and the dismissal of an employee, David Stevenson. The General Counsel and the Union contend 7 that respondent's interrogation and threats coerced and re- strained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and were, therefore, violative of Section 8(axl); that its solicitation of employees to withdraw their union designation cards was likewise violative of Section 8(a)(1); and that Stevenson was discharged because of his union activities in contravention of Section 8(a)(3).8 Taking issue with the General Counsel on all points, re- spondent flatly denies the complaint's allegations that it interrogated and threatened employees. Respondent also denies that it solicited employees to withdraw their union designation cards. Affirmatively, in this regard, respon&nt asserts , on brief, that employees, themselves, decided to seek the return of their cards; that respondent "rendered minor ministerial assistance" to them; and that the assist- ance thus rendered "did not amount to unlawful interfer- ence recognized by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." Finally, respondent argues that Stevenson was not discharged be- cause of the support he gave to the Union but because he used vulgar language during a discussion with two supervi- sors and insulted one of them. This asserted ground for Stevenson's discharge is attacked by the General Counsel as bein a pretext to mask respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(3). B. Preliminary Findings 9 1. Respondent's business Under the trade name of Sun Radio respondent operates retail stores at Baileys Crossroads and Tysons Corner, Vir- ginia, at Marlow Heights, Maryland, and at other loca- tions,10 where, as already noted, it sells radios, television sets, and electrical appliances. Similar merchandise is sold by respondent in departments leased from G-E-M, Inc. (herein called GEM), whose stores, like respondent's, are located in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. Respondent's employees who work in GEM' S stores are covered by a collective agreement between GEM and the Union. Respondent is not party to any collective agreement having applicability to its stores bearing the Sun Radio trade name. Insofar as material, respondent's supervisory hierarchy, in descending order, consists of its vice president, general manager, store managers, assistant store managers, and managers of departments in its stores. Joseph Warsaw is respondent's vice president and Morris Kottler, also known as Moe Kay, is respondent's general manager; Charles Cas- per, Nathan Vogin, and George Haje are, respectively, man- agers of respondent's stores at Baileys Crossroads, Tysons Corner, and Marlow Heights. David Turkow and one Huntsberger are, respectively assistant managers of respondent's stores at Baileys Crossroads and Marlow Heights. Walter Seymour is manager of the small appliance department at respondent's Tysons Corner store, and one Carroll occupies a similar position at respondent's Baileys Crossroads store. them , whether appearing in their briefs or made orally during the trial, may not be discussed in this Decision , each has been carefully weighed and studied 6 Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint made at the conclusion of the teal , upon which decision was reserved , is disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision 7 As the contentions of the General Counsel and the Union are, in the main , similar, unless otherwise indicated , they will be referred to hereinafter as the General Counsel' s contentions In pertinent part these sections provide Sec 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with , restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7, (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization Section 7, insofar as relevant, states Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection 2. Respondent's check acceptance procedure Frequently respondent's customers tender checks, rather than cash, in payment for merchandise. When such a tender is made respondent' s salesmen are expected to follow cer- tain procedures designed to assist store managers and assist- ant store managers in deciding whether to accept or reject the check offered by a customer. As set forth in a memorandum 11 issued by Sol Fishman, 9 The purpose of these findings is to furnish a frame of reference within which to consider the facts relating to respondent's alleged unfair labor practices and the conclusions to which they may give rise To the extent that the contentions of the parties relate specifically to the findings made here they will be treated here, although they may again be considered in other contexts 10 Respondent's stores at locations other than those specifically mentioned are not involved in this proceeding 11 Respondent's Exhibit (Resp Exh) 7 This document was issued on February 10, 1970 Earlier memoranda to the same effect were received in Continued 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent's comptroller, the check must contain the "name, address & telephone number of the purchaser [and] that sales ticket [number]." In addition, the customer must show the salesman his "drivers license and two `hard card' identifications" which may be credit cards or specified equivalents. If the store manager or his assistant, as the case may be, is satisfied with these identifying documents, which together with the check are brought to him by the salesman involved in the transaction, and the customer's name does not appear on the store's "bad check list" the store manager or assistant manager initials the check, thus signifying its acceptability. Upon a check's dishonor the manager of the store in which it was taken is required "to try to get the check made good immediately." If the person who issued the check does not do so "within five days, the store manager is to send a registered letter requiring an answer in three days, so that [respondent] can turn it over to the authorities.' The memorandum warns that "any deviation from the above procedure will be cause for separation of employ- ment.' Tiotwithstanding this, Fishman, respondent's comp- troller, testified that "to [his] knowledge [no] manager has been discharged because of the failure to observe the proce- dures set out on this memoranda [sic]." In similar vein, although as will appear more fully below, David Stevenson, 12 a salesman in respondent's Baileys Crossroads store, was asked to reimburse respondent for a dishonored check which he received from a customer, no witness, including Morris Kottler and Charles Casper, re- spectively respondent's general manager and manager of respondent's Baileys Crossroads store, was able to remem- ber a similar request made by respondent of any other sales- man. In this regard, as stated by Gerald Eudailey, who at the time of the trial was assistant manager of a department leased by respondent from GEM, he was informed by Cas- per that "it'sIrespondent's] policy that ... salesmen do not have to absorb the bad checks.' 3. The Union's organizing campaign On March 17, 1970, David Stevenson obtained from Al- bert Chavaree, the Union's organizing director, copies of a booklet issued by the Board entitled To protect the rights of the public ... "13 and authorization cards. The next day Stevenson brought this material into respondent's Baileys Crossroads store, where he worked at the time, and distrib- uted them to employees. At Stevenson's solicitation about 13 people, including David Turkow, the store' s assistant manager, signed cards and returned them to him. Two days later, on Friday, March 20, the Union conduct- ed what was referred to during the trial as a "blitz" cam- aign to organize respondent's employees. To this end, as Chavaree testified, he "dispatched 10 organizers to go through every Sun Radio Store and distribute authorization cards to all employees that were working on the floor at that time ." This organizing effort was almost immediately brought to the attention of Morris Kottler, respondent s general manager. On the following day, after his discharge, which will be discussed below in detail, Stevenson went to respondent's Tysons Corner store for the purpose of asking employees to sign union cards. While he was so engaged, and after some evidence as Resp . Exhs. 8 and 9. Unless otherwise indicated, the quotations in the text are taken from Resp Exh 7. 12 As already mentioned , Stevenson's discharge is alleged in the complaint as having been violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 13 Resp . Exh. 11. six or seven employees had signed , Nathan Vogin , the man- ager of the store , was informed of what Stevenson was doing . At this point Stevenson left the store. C. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 1. Kottler's conversation with Eudailey On March 21, 1970, with knowledge of the Union's "blitz" on the preceding day, Morris Kottler, respondent's general manager , went to respondent's Baileys Crossroads store, arriving before the store had been opened for bus- iness . His purpose in being there as he related was "to spend the day, to hold [a sales] meeting, and to also take care of a few problems." After the sales meeting , Kottler spoke to Gerald Eudailey then employed as a salesman .14 Kottler asked Eudailey what he thought about the Union, whether he had signed a union card, and whether he had joined the Union. Upon being informed by Eudailey that he had signed a card, Kottler requested him to "withdraw [his] card," and told him that he "could get fired over it." Kottler also inquired of Eudailey as to what he knew "about Stevenson and the Union." Kottler terminated the conversation by telling Eudailey "You know, Stevenson's going to get fired today."15 As will appear below, Stevenson was, in fact, "fired" later that day. 2. Stevenson's discharge David Stevenson was last hired by respondent in mid- February 1970. From that time until his discharge on March 21, 1970, Stevenson worked in respondent's Baileys Cross- roads store as a major appliance salesman two evenings a week and Saturdays. Stevenson had previously been in respondent's employ for about 10 months starting late in 1966, and again from about April 1968 until about April 1969. Each of these periods of employment were terminated by Stevenson's resignation, made necessary by his atten- dance at the University of Maryland where he is still a student. During Stevenson's latest tour of duty with respondent he was compensated on a straight commission basis. As put by Charles Casper, the manager of respondent' s Baileys ross- roads store, Stevenson "was not wasting his time ... he made some good sales." Findings have already been made concerning the manner in which Stevenson, before his discharge, assisted the Union in its organizing campaign. He initiated the drive and was the Union's prime mover among respondent's employees. It is patent that respondent was aware of these facts. On February 25, 1970, a customer to whom Stevenson 14 As previously noted , at the time of the trial Eudailey was the assistant manager of a department leased by respondent from GEM 15 My findings as to Kottler's conversation with Eudailey are based on, and the quotations appearing in the text are taken from, testimony given by Eudailey. I do not believe Kottler's denial that he talked with Eudailey about the Union or about Stevenson . In crediting Eudailey over Kottler I have taken into account not only the comparative demeanor of the two witnesses as they testified ; Kottler 's general evasiveness ; and his apparent inability to focus on, and give direct answers to, questions , undoubtedly caused by his poor health, but also the fact that Eudailey was giving evidence against respondent, although in respondent's employ as an assistant manager at the time of the trial, and, therefore , was in a sense testifying under peril of reprisal See Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305, modified on other grounds 308 F.2d 89 (C.A. 5) I have also taken into account in assessing Eudailey's credibility the fact that his pretrial affidavit does not include all the matters as to which he testified C. W. F. CORPORATION had sold a television set offered him a check in the sum of $98.76 16 in payment. The identification furnished to Ste- venson by the customer consisted of a Howard University pass and another instrument the nature of which Stevenson could not remember. When Stevenson brought the check to Casper, the store manager , for approval Casper balked at accepting it be- cause the customer's identifying documents did not meet the standards required by respondent for this purpose. However, Casper initialed and accepted the check upon Stevenson's representation that although he was not "per- sonally ... acquainted with" the customer, he knew the customer; that the customer was "a teacher"; and that the customer was "good as gold."17 The check was dishonored. After unsuccessfully trying to locate its maker Casper was directed by Joseph Warsaw, respondent's vice president, to notify Stevenson that he would have to reimburse respondent for the cost of the merchandise sold. On March 14 Casper requested Ste- venson to do so, but Stevenson refused. A few days later, on March 18, Stevenson inquired of Casper, as Stevenson testified, if he "was in any trouble over [the] check," and Casper replied that he was not. Having overheard this conversation between Stevenson and Casper, Gerald Eudailey 18 put a similar question to Casper. He asked Casper, as he related, whether Stevenson would "have to pay for the check." Casper answered that he would not have to do so because it was "company policy that .. . salesmen do not have to absorb . . . bad checks." As has already been found, Moms Kottler, Respondent's general manager , was at respondent's Baileys Crossroads store on March 21 and that, among other reasons, he was there "to ... take care of a few problems." One of these, as Kottler testified, "involve[d] Mr. Stevenson [and] related to a bad check [which he intended] to try and rectify." Accord- ingly, upon Stevenson's arrival at about 11:30 a.m. Kottler requested him and Casper, the store manager, to attend a conference in a back room.19 Before that Casper had in- formed Kottler of Stevenson's earlier refusal to make the check good. When the three men gathered at the appointed place Kottler told Stevenson at the outset of their conversation that unless he made "good this check ... and we'll work out terms on it [he was] going to be through .1120 Faced with this alternative Stevenson "flared up" and said in a loud voice "I'll be damned [and an] s.o.b. if I'm going to pay that." Kottler asked Stevenson to "calm down," to talk in a lower 16 Resp. Exh 5 17 My findings concerning the acceptance of the check are based on, and the quotations appearing in the text are taken from , testimony given by Casper . Stevenson having admitted that his memory as to this event "is a little vague ," I reject his version of the incident to the extent that it differs from Casper's 1 As will be remembered , Eudailey was then employed as a salesman in respondent's Bailey Crossroads store Each person present at this meeting gave an account of what took place there Each account was different, both in emphasis and content . This, how- ever, is to be expected . Where an incident engenders high feeling , as was the case concerning the matter here under consideration , the persons present generally find it difficult , several months later, to reconstruct that event and articulate with exactitude what transpired Casper, the store manager who was generally a credible witness, was least involved in the discussion and was, therefore , more apt to remember what went on than the others For this reason in making my findings as to what occurred at this conference I have in large part relied on the version given by Casper, from whose testimony the quotations appearing in the text have been taken . Cf. Memcor, Inc, etc, 162 NLRB 930, 931 , 938 Where deemed warranted material differences in the three accounts will be set forth in appropriate footnotes 20 Kottler denied making this statement 557 tone , and to "be a gentleman ." At about this point in their conversation Kottler said to Stevenson that he had been informed by Casper that Stevenson "told [him] to accept [the check] ... that the man was a teacher and that it was a good check." Stevenson 's rejoinder was that Casper was "a liar," and that he was "not ... listening to any more of this s-."21 Immediately after he said this Stevenson was discharged by Kottler. During the trial Kottler and Casper , respectively respondent 's general manager and the manager of respondent's Baileys Crossroads store , placed the termina- tion of Stevenson s employment on conflicting grounds. The former testified that he discharged Stevenson because of his behavior at the meeting just described and not be- cause "he declined to pay [the]check ." Casper, on the other hand , stated that Stevenson was discharged "because he wouldn't even listen to the terms that [Kottler] wanted to make with him insofar as this check was concerned." 3. Vogin's threats As has been previously found, on March 21, 1970, after his discharge, David Stevenson went to respondent's Tysons Comer store where he obtained signatures to union authori- zation cards from employees who worked there. Upon being informed that cards were being signed, Nathan Vogin, the store manager, announced to employees "that they were stupid for signing the cards and that anyone that had signed them would be fired as of that evening." On the same da', or erhaps a few days later, Vogin told clerks in the store s office "that they weren 't going to have their jobs ... very long if they signed that Union card."22 4. Employees' requests for the return of their cards and related events When David Stevenson left respondent's Tysons Comer store after obtaining signatures from employees to union authorization cards he was followed by Nathan Vogin, the store's manager, who, outside the store, demanded that Ste- venson give back to the employees their signed cards. Ste- venson refused and Vogin returned to the store. Coming upon Martin Flynn, who was then employed in respondent's Tysons Comer establishment, Vogin asked him whether he had signed a card. Receiving an affirmative reply, Vogin told Flynn, as Flynn testified, that he was "dumb and stupid" for having done so, and ordered Flynn to "chase after" Stevenson and "get [his] and the other employees' cards back." Stevenson did not return the cards to Flynn. However, he told Flynn that employees who wanted their cards could obtain them by writing to the Union. Flynn gave this infor- mation to Vogin. Vogin's reaction was to tell Flynn, as the latter related, that if he wrote a letter to the Union recuest- ing that his card be returned he "wouldn't be fired.' Voggiin, the manager of respondent's Tysons Comer store, also directly solicited other employees to write to the Union for their cards. In the process, two, Robert Shaw and John Ruby were asked by Vogin whether they had, in fact, signed cards. Shaw, Ruby, and two other employees, June Clark and Flynn, who agreed to write such letters at Vogin's behest, ZI Although Stevenson denied that he used "any profanity or obscenity," and that he called Casper "a bar," he admitted that he told Kottler "that Cas,per's version of the story and [his] differed somewhat." 2 The quotations appearing in the text are taken from testimony given by Martin Flynn and John Ruby, who worked in respondent 's Tysons Corner store at the time in question . Both appeared to be credible witnesses. 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were given the Union's address, furnished with stationery and certified mail forms, and asked to make copies of what they wrote. These employees did not provide the postage for their letters, nor did they mail them. Instead they handed the letters and the copies to Vogin. The Union received the on als by certified mail. Inn addition to receiving letters by certified mail from Shaw, Ruby, Clark, and Flynn, the Union, by certified mail, received letters of like import from Walter Seymour and Lois Schottler, who also worked in respondent's Tysons Corner store. Of these letters, all of which are in evi- dence ,23 four are dated March 25, 1970, one bears the date of March 26, and one the date of March 27. Two employees who at Vogin's urging wrote to the Union seeking the return of their cards received help from him in preparing their letters. Thus, as Flynn testified, Vogin, the manager of respondent's Tysons Corner store, "told [him] an approximation of what [he] should write [and] was coaching [him]." In similar vein, Vogin showed Ruby the letter written by Walter Seymour, the manager of the small appliance department of respondent's Tysons Corner store, and said, as Ruby related, Make up a letter like this and you can pet your card back." Ruby did so, but, as he further stated, `just changed the wording in it a little."24 While this was going on in respondent's Tysons Corner store employees in two other stores operated by respondent were also being asked by representatives of respondent to write letters to the Union requesting that the cards they had signed be returned. In this regard, one Carroll, the manager of the small appliance department in respondent's Baileys Crossroads store, inquired of Gregory Curti, a young part- time salesman in that department, as to whether he had signed a card. Curti told Carroll that he had done so. Curti, who appeared to be a credible witness, recounted that as his conversation with Carroll continued, Carroll informed him that his having signed the card "means that [he had] joined a Union which means that they can take dues out of your check and . . . if the company goes on strike they can take so much out of your pay to support the strike." Finally, Carroll said to him, as Curti further testified, "I think it's a pretty good idea that you get our card back." After talking to Carroll, Curti asked Morris Kottler, respondent's general manager, how he could get his card back. Kottler told him to write a letter to the Union at an address appearing on a piece of paper which Kottler gave him and to make a carbon copy. Curti wrote such a letter 25 in the store and gave it togeth- er with the copy to Kottler26 Curti did not provide the postage for his letter, nor did he prepare a certified mail form. In addition to Curti, Kottler spoke to other employees in respondent's Baileys Crossroads store about the authoriza- tion cards they had signed. Among other things, Kottler told them that in order to withdraw their cards they would have to write to the Union. Casper, the store's manager, gave these employees stationery upon which they wrote their letters and respondent supplied the postage and certified mail forms. Some of the letters thus written were given to Casper, who turned them over to Kottler, respondent's general manager. 23 General Counsel 's Exhibits (G.C Exhs) 5b, 5d, 5f, 5h, 5j, and 51 24 The similarity of the two letters , G C Exhs 5b and 5f, is patent 25 G.C. Exh 3e 26 My finding as to Curti 's delivery of his letter and the copy to Kottler is based on testimony given by Curti and Casper , the manager of respondent's Baileys Crossroads store Kottler denied receiving Curti's letter In view of the mutually corroborative nature of the evidence given in this regard by Curti and Casper, I reject Kottler ' s denial Some employees handed their letters to Kottler. Regardless of whether he obtained the letters directly or from Casper, Kottler mailed to the Union all letters seeking the return of their cards written by employees who worked in respondent's Baileys Crossroads store. The Union received six such letters by certified mail, including the one written by Curti. Except for Curti's, which is undated, all the letters so received by the Umon are dated March 25.27 Ira Bleetstein formerly worked for respondent as a sales- man in its Marlow Heights store. While so employed he signed a union card. In response to an inquiry from one Huntsberger, the assistant manager of the store, Bleetstein told Huntsberger that he had done so. In the ensuing conversation in which George Haje, the manager of respondent's Marlow Heights store, participat- ed, Haje told Bleetstein , as the latter testified, how to " o about getting the card returned, destroyed or nulled." Haje's advice to Bleetstein was that this could be accom- plished by writing to the Umon. Accordingly, Bleetstem wrote a letter to the Union, making a carbon copy in ac- cordance with Hake's further suggestion, asking it to "return the application card [he] filled out and signed ."2s Bleetstem's letter was written on paper supplied by Haje. Bleetstein did not mail it, nor did he furnish the postage or prepare a certified mail form. This letter and five letters of like import written by employees of respondent's Marlow Heights store, all bearing the date of March 25, were re- ceived by the Union by certified mail 29 Three of these 30 appear to have been written on stationery in all respects similar to that on which Bleetstein's letter 31 was written. D. Contentions and Concluding Findings Concerning Respondent's Alleged Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 1. Respondent's alleged interrogation and threats Respondent has denied the complaint's allegation that its agents interrogated and threatened employees. It having been found that they did so, what remains for determination is whether the interrogation and threats were violative of the Act. As to this, much need not be said. Threats such as those uttered by Morris Kottler and Na- than Vogin, respectiveli respondent' s general manager and manager of respondents Tysons Corner store, to discharge employees for signing union authorization cards, are clearly in contravention of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . See, e.g. Borek Motor Sales, Inc, 173 NLRB No. 155, enfd. 425 F.2d 677 (C.A. 7). Where, as here, interrogation of employees concerning their signing of the cards and their attitude to- ward the Union is associated with the discharge threats, "the threat[s], being intrinsically coercive, imparted a coer- cive nature to the interrogation." Edmhurg Manufacturing Company, 164 NLRB 121, 126, enfd. 394 F.2d I (C.A. 4). This being so, the interrogation by Kottler and Vogin, like their threats, is also within the ambit of Section 8(a)(1).32 27 These letters are in evidence as G.C Exhs 3a, 3c, 3e, 3h, 3j, and 31, and were written , respectively, by Claude Gilbert, Cheryl Munnerlyn, Curti, Anne Johnson, Mary Abell, and Rodney Ayers 2'G C Exh 4c 29 These letters were received in evidence as G.C Exhs 4a, 4c , 4e, 4g, 41, and 4k, and were written , respectively, by Harriet Beach , Bleetstem , Christine Pohl, Charles Proctor, George Bryant, and George Timms 30 G C Exhs 4g, 4i, and 4k 31 G C Exh 4c 32 In view of this, it becomes unnecessary to make findings concerning the nature of the interrogation carried on by Huntsberger, the assistant manager at respondent's Marlow Heights store , and by Carroll, the manager of the C. W. F. CORPORATION Accordingly, I conclude that, by coercively interrogating employees concerning their attitude toward the Union and their signing of union authorization cards and by threaten- ing them with discharge for having signed such cards, re- spondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Respondent's alleged solicitation of employees to revoke or withdraw their union authorization cards "[I]t is a recognized form of unlawful interference for an emplo er to induce employees to sign statements repudiat- ing [a]union." Deutsch Company etc., 180 NLRB No. 1. Recognizing this principle, respondent argues on brief that it "did not ... solicit employees to revoke or withdraw their cards ." Rather , respondent 's argument continues, after "employees had independently concluded [that this] should be done ," its "general manager and various store managers rendered minor , ministerial assistance to several employees who wished to withdraw their union cards." Being persuad- ed by the evidence that respondent's management person- nel in fact induced and solicited employees to request the Union to return their cards, I must reject respondent's con- tention. One need go no further in the record to arrive at this conclusion than to take account of what occurred at respondent's Tysons Corner store. There, Nathan Vogin, the manager of that store, threatened that employees who signed cards would be discharged. He then, himself, tried to get the cards back from David Stevenson, at whose request they had been executed. Failing in this, he ordered Martin Flynn, an employee, to ask Stevenson to return the cards. this also failed, Flynn reported to Vogin that he had been informed by Stevenson that employees could ob- tain their cards by writing to the Union. Hearing this, Vogin modified his threat. He told employees that they wouldn't be discharged if they wrote such letters.33 In addition, Vogin actually assisted two employees in preparing their letters. Greater efforts on the part of an employer in soliciting and inducing employees to repudiate a union are difficult to imagine. Nor were respondent's activities in this regard limited to its Tysons Corner store. Inducement, albeit of a more subtle sort, to write to the Union asking that their cards be re- turned was also brought to bear by respondent on employ- ees in its Baileys Crossroads and Marlow Heights establishments. Although the evidence does not disclose that employees at those stores were threatened, as were employees at Ty- sons Corner, respondent nevertheless made clear to them its interest in their writing such letters. Thus, an employee at respondent's Baileys Crossroads store was told by the man- ager of his department that getting his card back was a "pretty good idea." At another of respondent's stores, the one located at Marlow Heights, a salesman was informed by the store manager of the method by which his card could be "returned, destroyed or nulled." Notwithstanding this array of facts warranting a conclu- sion that respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, small appliance department at Baileys Crossroads 33I am mindful that the evidence discloses only that Vogin told this to Flynn However , this gives rise to two inferences The first is that news of what Vogin said to Flynn soon came to the attention of other employees The second is that Vogin made similar statements to other people who worked in the store The result is the same regardless of which inference is drawn Inasmuch as the two are not mutually inconsistent , I draw both Cf N L R B v Clement Brothers Company, Inc, et at, 407 F 2d 1027, 1029-30 (C A 5) See also Cohen Bros Fruit Company, 166 NLRB 88, 90 559 respondent makes the argument that it innocently offered only "minor, ministerial assistance" to its employees in the writing of their letters repudiating the Union by furnishing them with stationery and postage, preparing certified mail forms, and actually mailing the letters . If ministerial assist- ance in a matter of this nature is ever innocuous ,34 it was not so in this case. Furthermore , assuming that rendering ministerial assist- ance to employees in withdrawing union designation cards is not contrary to the Act, respondent went beyond that point. By preparing the certified mail forms and by furnish- ing the postage for, and actually mailin g, the letters written by its employees , respondent ` exerted [an influence] upon such employees to complete the process of withdrawing from the Union which interfered with the rights of the em- ployees not to do so if, at any point, they chose not to complete the process." Cumberland Shoe Company, supra. To the same effect, see also S. E. Nichols-Dover, Inc., et al., 167 NLRB 832, 833, enfd. in this respect 414 F.2d 561 (C.A. 3). In further support of its position respondent cites KDI Precision Products, Inc., 176 NLRB No. 18. Respondent's reliance on this case is, however , unavailing . If anythin KDI, in my opinion , dictates a finding that respondent s conduct was violative of the Act. In KDI it was expressly stated that "the Board has found illegal assistance and employer interference in situations where a company mails [its employees ' withdrawal ] letters [to a union]; furnishes envelopes , paper , and postage for mailing; keeps copies of the letters; summons its employees to the office and requests them to sign letters prepared by the employer." Specifically noting the absence of these fac- tors and the absence, as well, of "threats of reprisal," the Board concluded, in KDI, that the employer involved had not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, notwithstanding its suggestion of language for employees to use in writing let- ters revoking their union authorization cards. Implicit in this is the proposition that had these factors been present the Board would have come to a contrary conclusion. Here, many of the elements which were absent in KDI are present, including, as I have found, "threats of reprisal." This being so, the conclusion which was not reached in KDI because of their absence is required, namely, that respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, I conclude that by soliciting employees to revoke or withdraw their union designation cards and by assisting them in doing so respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. E. Contentions and Concluding Findings Concerning Respondent's Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Absent an unlawful motive on the part of an employer, his discharge of an employee cannot be questioned. `Man- agement can discharge for good cause , or bad cause, or no cause at all. It has, as the master of its own business affairs, complete freedom with but one, specific , definite qualifica- 34 In Cumberland Shoe Company , 160 NLRB 1256, 1259, the Board cast doubt upon the validity of a contention that an employer who furnished assistance of the type under consideration in connection with employees' withdrawal from a union was performing a "ministerial act" not cognizable under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act In this regard the Board said , "That term implies that [ the employer] was legally obligated to do what [ it] did under the circumstances and that no judgment on [its] part was involved as to the propriety of the conduct " Apart from the question of "judgment as to the propriety of the conduct ," it needs no citation of authority to establish that respondent was not "legally obligated" to do what it did here 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion : it may not discharge when the real motivating purpose is to do that which Section 8 (a)(3) forbids ." N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, et al, etc., 233 F .2d 406 , 413 (C.A. 5). Respondent was given cause , as it posits , to discharge David Stevenson , a salesman in its Baileys Crossroads store. He did mouth obscenities in his final conversation with Morris Kottler , respondent 's general manager . Further, he called respondent 's store manager, George Casper , a liar. There is , thus, a factual basis for respondent 's contention, set forth in its brief , that it discharged Stevenson "because of his improper conduct toward his manager and his use of insulting and vulgar language toward his manager and respondent's general manager ." However , this does not end the matter . What must further be determined is whether this factual basis was seized upon b respondent as a pretext for doing "that which Section 8 (a))(3) forbids ."35 The General Counsel asserts , and I agree , that this is the situation here. As respondent was aware , Stevenson was responsible for the Union's organizing campaign among its employees which culminated in the "blitz" 6 on Friday, March 20, 1970. The very next day , with knowledge of the "blitz," Kottler , res ondent 's general manager, went to respondent 's Balleys Crossroads store determined, I am convinced, to discharge Stevenson for his part in the Union 's campaign. That this was Kottler's intention is made apparent by his statement to Eudailey , a salesman at Baileys Crossroads, that Stevenson would be discharged that day . The timing of this remark constitutes persuasive roof as to respondent's motive 37 for dismissmgStevenson . 1t was made while Kott- ler and Eudailey were talking about the Union on the day following the "blitz" and, significantly , before Stevenson committed the transgressions which respondent contends gave it cause for his discharge. However, a seemingly proper basis had to be found to justify the termination of Stevenson 's employment. As to this, Kottler knew that Stevenson had already refused to reimburse respondent for the dishonored check he was in- strumental in causing Casper , the manager of respondent's Baileys Crossroads store , to accept, and it required no great prescience , in the circumstances , to foretell that Stevenson would continue in his refusal . It appears clear that Kottler's original plan was to rely on this as the ground for dis- charging Stevenson. This is evident from Kottler 's opening gambit at the backroom meeting on March 21 in which he gave Stevenson the alternative of making the check "good" or suffering discharge. As the meeting continued Kottler was soon given what on its face appeared to be a better ground for eliminating Ste- venson as an employee , one which would not conflict with respondent 's policy of not requiring a salesmen "to absorb . bad checks ." Stevenson called Casper a liar and used unseemly language in addressing Kottler. That respondent seized upon the opportunity so offered it as a pretext to rid itself of -Stevenson because of his union activities is shown further by the different reasons for the discharge given by respondent 's two ranking agents on the scene at the time . Thus , Kottler, respondent s general man- ager, stated that Stevenson was discharged because of his behavior at the meeting and not because of the position he took respecting the check . Contrarily , Casper , the manager of respondent's Baileys Crossroads store , assigned as the ground for Stevenson s dismissal his refusal to listen to the terms Kottler wanted to offer concerning the manner in which he could reimburse respondent for its loss occasioned by the dishonoring of the check . "The ... giving of ... inconsistent , or contradictory reasons by management for the discharge of [an employee ] properly, may be considered by the Board . . . in determining the real motive which actuated the [dischargge]" N.L.R.B. v. Radcliffe, et a!., 211 F.2d 309, 314 (C.A. 9), cert . denied 348 U.S. 833. Therefore, I reject respondent's contention that Stevenson's improper conduct was the basis for the termina- tion of his employment . I find , rather , that Stevenson was discharged because of the support he gave to the Union. Accordingly , I conclude that by discharging Stevenson, respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF RESPONDENTS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's unfair labor practices, as found above, oc- curring in connection with its operations described in sec- tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, my recommended Order will require respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of the Act, including an immediate offer of full reinstatement to David Stevenson. Any backpay found to be due to Stevenson shall be comput- ed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include interest in the amount and manner provided for in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In this connection, the Union urges on brief that this case "requires more than the usual cease and desist, sixty-day notice posting, reinstatement and back pay remedies which the Board [generally] afford[s]. " Thus, the Union proposes that, among other things, respondent be obliged to post notices for 6 months, instead of the usual period of 60 days; that each employee be given a personal copy of the notice; and that respondent be ordered to make its premises availa- ble to the Union for organizational purposes. Although respondent s unfair labor practices were fla- grant, they can be adequately remedied, in my opinion, by an order, the entry of which I shall recommend, containing broad cease-and-desist provisions and a requirement that respondent post notices in all the stores it operates under the trade name of Sun Radio. In view of this, there is no need to depart from the Board's normal remedial policies in the extreme manner suggested by the Union. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 35 McGahey, supra. 36 As I have found, this consisted of the Union's sending organizers to every store operated by respondent for the purpose of distributing cards to all employees 37 See, in this connection , N L R B v. Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 242 F 2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 355 U S 829 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. C. W. F. CORPORATION 3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their attitude toward the Union and their signing of union au- thorization cards and by threatening employees with dis- charge for having signed such cards, respondent has engaged , and is engagin g, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By soliciting employees to revoke or withdraw their union authorization cards and by assisting employees in doing so, respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By discharging David Stevenson because of his ad- herence to, and his activity in support of, the Union, thereby discouragmg membership in the Union, respondent has en- gaged, and is engagin , in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. The unfair labor practices engaged in by respondent as set forth in Conclusions of Law 3, 4, and 5, above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Board issue the following: ORDER 38 C.W.F. Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: - I. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their, or other employees', membership in, relationship to, activi- ties in support of, attitudes toward, desires regarding, or matters involving, Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor organization. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their, or other employees', having signed cards authorizing Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor organization, to represent them for purposes of collective bar aining. (cg) Threatening employees with discharge, or any other form of reprisal, or effectuating any such threat, for signing cards authorizing Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor organization, to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining, or for joining or assisting in any other manner the foregoing named labor organiza- tion, or any other labor organization. (d) Ordering, directing, instructing, urging, soliciting, sug- gesting, or in any other manner inducing or encouraging employees to withdraw, revoke, cancel, or nullify cards signedby them authorizing Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor organization, to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining. 561 discriminating in any manner against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of said Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Offer to David Stevenson immediate and full rein- statement to his former job, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any of his rights and privileges, and make him whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings he may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him. (b) Notify David Stevenson, if presently serving the Armed Forces of the United States , of his right to ull rein- statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at all its stores operated under trade name of Sun Radio copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."39 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5 of the National Labor Relations Board, after being duly signed by respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec- utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.40 (e) Assisting employees in writing or preparing letters or other documents for the purpose of withdrawing, revoking, canceling, or nullifying cards signed by them authorizing Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor organization, to represent them for purposes of collec- tive bargaining by furnishing them with sample forms, sug- gestmg language for inclusion in such letters or other documents, furnishing addresses, providing stationery or postage, providing or preparing registered or certified mail forms, mailing or transmitting such letters or other doc- uments, or in any other manner facilitating the writing, preparation, mailing, or transmission of such letters or other documents. (f) Discouraging membership in Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor organization, by 38 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 39 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice readmg "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 40 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 5, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the order of the Board , and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT question you in any way about Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO , or any other union ; or whether you, or any other employee, signed a card for Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400 or any other union ; or about your, or any other employee 's, membership in Retail Store Employees Union Local No 400 or any other union ; or about how you, or other employees , feel about Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400 or any other union. E WILL NOT fire you, or threaten to fire you, to prevent you from signing a card for Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400 , or any other union, or because you have already done so. WE WILL NOT order , urge , suggest , or ask that you cancel, revoke , or get back cards that you signed for Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400 or any other union ; and WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you unless you do so. WE WILL NOT help you in any way to write or mail letters to cancel , revoke , or get back cards that you signed for Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other union . By this we mean that: WE WILL NOT give you the Union's address. WE WILL NOT give you paper or envelopes for such letters. WE WILL NOT tell you what you should say in such letters. WE WILL NOT give you stain ps , or registered or certified mail forms for such letters. WE WILL NOT fill out registered or certified mail forms for such letters. WE WILL NOT mail such letters for you. WE WILL NOT do anything else which might help you in writing or mailing such letters. WE WILL NOT fire you, lay you off, suspend you, fail or refuse to give you back your job, or take any action against you because you engage in union activity, or do Wan thing for Retail Store Employees Union Local No. or any other union or because you do anything to bring in a union to represent you, or because you have already done any of these things . As it has been decided that we fired David Stevenson, a major appliance salesman in our Baileys Crossroads store, for doing these things WE WILL offer to put David Stevenson back to work at his old job, or if that job no longer exists to a job just like his old job , and WE WILL pay David Stevenson for any wages he lost because we fired him. WE WILL NOT in any way interfere with , restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of any rights guaranteed to you by the National Labor Relations Act. In this connection , WE WILL respect your rights to self-organization , to form , join , or assist any union, to bargain collectively through any union or representative of your choice as to wages, hours of work, and any other term or condition of employment. You also have the right , which WE WILL also respect, to refrain from doing so. All our employees are free to become or remain, or not to become or remain , members of Retail Store Employees Union Local No. 400, or any other labor union. C.W.F. CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 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 Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822.