Crown Discount Department Stores

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Crown Discount Department Stores; Crown
Merchants Association ; H & C Automotive, Inc.;
Disc Donuts, Inc.; Century Camera , Inc.; Laurel
Sales, Inc.; Lawless Candy Co.; H. F. D., Inc.; J.
& J. Furniture , Inc.; Daylin , Inc.; Elgin Jewelers,
Inc.; Phil Siegel ; Burks Appliances ; Unishops,
Inc.; Benos, Inc.; Pat Mandarino ; Karis Shoes
Ltd.; United Merchandise , Inc.; SAS , Inc.; Bar-
bara Lynn Stores, Inc.; M . Cohen ; Cleaning Bar,
Inc.; and Value Drug , Inc. and Retail Clerks
Union , Local 899 and Retail Clerks Union, Local
905, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO
Southern California Joint Board, Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO (Crown
Discount Department Stores; Crown Merchants
Association ; H & C Automotive , Inc.; Disc
Donuts, Inc.; Century Camera , Inc.; Laurel Sales,
Inc.; Lawless Candy Co.; H. F. D. Inc .; J. & J.
Furniture , Inc.; Daylin , Inc.; Elgin Jewelers, Inc.;
Phil Siegel ; Burks Appliances ; Unishops, Inc.;
Benos, Inc.; Pat Mandarino ; Karls Shoes Ltd.;
United Merchandise , Inc.; SAS , Inc.; Barbara
Lynn Stores, Inc.; M . Cohen ; Cleaning Bar, Inc.;
and Value Drug , Inc.) and Retail Clerks Union,
Local 899 and Retail Clerks Union , Local 905,
Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO. Cases 31-CA-732 and 31-CB-247
July 1, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On February 7, 1968, Trial Examiner David E.
Davis issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion , as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Employers'
' The request of the Respondent Employers for oral argument is hereby
denied , as the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties
r The Respondent Union filed a letter with the Board in which it stated it
adopted and relied on the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent Em-
ployers
' We do not, however , adopt the Trial Examiner 's conclusions that the
threats of discharge involved herein violated either Sec 8 ( a)(3) or 8(b)(2)
of the Act
' The Trial Examiner found that prior to May 27, 1967, the date Respon-
dent Union started organizing Respondent Employers ' employees, there
was an understanding between those parties paving the way for the Union's
"whirlwind " organizational campaign This finding is based solely on the
and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.2
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 these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions 3 and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the
following modification.4
As the record shows, Crown operates it depart-
ment stores at Goleta and Gardena, California,
under license arrangements with the companies
named in the complaint, each of which operates a
department at one or both of the stores. It further
appears that Crown and the individual licensees are
the joint employers of the employees in each de-
partment, that it was those employees whom the
Respondent Union sought to organize , claimed to
represent, and who were covered by the contract
between it and Crown executed on June 1, 1967.
Furthermore, Chertok, a vice president of Crown,
signed that contract on behalf of Crown Merchants
Association which consists of Employers operating
departments in Crown Discount Department Stores
at the locations herein involved. In view of the
above we find merit in the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions to the failure of the Trial Examiner to
name each individual Employer Respondent in his
Recommended Order, and to require each such
Respondent to sign , post, and maintain a copy of
the "Notice to All Employees" attached as Appen-
dix A to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Con-
sequently, we shall make the necessary corrections
in our Order below.
ORDER
A. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
testimony of Supervisor Cockrum to the effect that she attended a meeting
on Friday night , May 26, at which her superior mentioned the Union's or-
ganizational interests However , on cross-examination Cockrum changed
her testimony, stating the first she heard of the Union was on May 27. It is
apparent from the record that she was unclear concerning what had in fact
taken place with respect to the matter here being considered and that she
was possibly confused concerning those events occurnng Friday night and
those occurring Saturday morning after the Union had openly launched its
campaign Consequently, we have concluded that her testimony is not suf-
ficient to support a finding that the Respondents had some prior un-
derstanding about, or had prearranged , the Union's organizing campaign,
and'we do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding to that effect
172 NLRB No. 89
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT . STORES 935
Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order part A of
the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
here modified , and hereby orders that Crown
Discount Department Stores; Crown Merchants As-
sociation ; H & C Automotive , Inc.; Disc Donuts,
Inc.; Laurel Sales, Inc.; Lawless Candy Co.; U. S.
Sewing Centers; Daylin , Inc.; Phil Siegel ; Burks Ap-
pliances; Benos, Inc.; Karls Shoes, Ltd .; SAS, Inc.;
Barbara Lynn Stores , Inc.; M. Cohen ; Cleaning Bar,
Inc.; Century Camera, Inc.; J. & J . Furniture, Inc.;
Elgin Jewelers , Inc.; Unishops , Inc.; Pat Mandarino;
United Merchandise , Inc.; and Value Drug, Inc.;
their officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order , as modified:
Paragraph A, 2, (b), of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order is modified to read as fol-
lows:
"Post at their premises at Gardena and/or
Goleta, California , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A."5 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
31, after being duly signed by Respondent Em-
ployers ' representatives ,6 shall be posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Employers to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material."
B. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National
Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order part B of
the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner,
and hereby orders that Respondent Southern
California Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in part B of the Trial Examiner 's Recommended
Order.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order "
If a respondent licensee employer does not maintain a place of business
at both the Gardena and Goleta stores , it shall be required to sign and post
only those notices to be posted at the store where it does maintain such
place of business
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner : By an original
charge filed on June 7, 1967,1 amended on July 24,
1967, Retail Clerks Union, Local 899, and Retail
Clerks Union , Local 905, herein sometimes called
the Charging Unions or the Retail Clerks, alleged
that Crown Discount Department Stores and other
Employers ,2 herein collectively referred to as
Respondent Crown , engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act.
On June 12, 1967, the Retail Clerks filed a
charge, amended on July 24, 1967, against
Southern California Joint Board , Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO , herein
called Respondent Union , alleging that Respondent
Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
The General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board , herein called the Board , by the Re-
gional Director of the Board 's Region 31, on Au-
gust 3, 1967, issued a consolidated complaint in the
above cases , 31-CA-732 and 31-CB-247, alleging
that since on or about May 20 , 1967, Respondent
Crown interfered with employees ' Section 7 rights
by unlawful interrogation , threats of reprisal, sol-
iciting employees to support Respondent Union,
and threatening employees with reprisal if they sup-
ported the Retail Clerks . The complaint further al-
leged that the Respondent Union threatened em-
ployees with loss of employment and employment
opportunities if they did not join Respondent
Union , that on or about June 1, Respondent Crown
and Respondent Union executed a collective-bar-
gaining agreement which accorded recognition to
the Respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent Crown 's employees in
its Gardena and Goleta stores, that this agreement
included a union -security provision , and that at the
time said agreement was entered into the Respon-
dent Union did not represent an uncoerced majori-
ty of Crown 's employees in the Gardena and Goleta
stores.3
Respondent Crown 's answer essentially con-
stituted a denial that it had engaged in any unfair
labor practices and it averred that it had not given
effect to the union-security provision , nor had
Respondent Crown deducted or collected dues and
initiation fees from employees subject to the collec-
tive -bargaining agreement . The Respondent
Union 's answer was similar to that of Crown's.
All dates referred to herein are for the year 1967 unless otherwise
specified
' Crown Merchants Association, H & C Automotive , Inc., Disc Donuts,
Inc Century Camera , Inc.; Laurel Sales, Inc., Lawless Candy Co., H. F. D.,
Inc., J. & J. Furniture , Inc , Daylin , Inc.; Elgin Jewelers , Inc.; Phil Siegel,
Burks Appliances , Unishops , Inc., Benos , Inc , Pat Mandarino , Karles
Shoes Ltd , United Merchandise , Inc., SAS , Inc., Barbara Lynn Stores,
Inc., M . Cohen, Cleaning'Bar, Inc.; and Value Drug, Inc.
' The complaint was amended in certain respects during the course of
the hearing pertaining to the identity of various employers and names of su-
pervisors
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Issues
The principal issues may be summarized as fol-
lows:
1. Did Crown afford unlawful assistance and
support to Respondent Union 's organizational cam-
paign among Crown 's employees in the Gardena
and Goleta stores?
2. Did Crown and Respondent Union engage in
conduct violative of the Act to induce employees of
the Gardena and Goleta stores to join , assist, or
authorize Respondent Union to act as their collec-
tive -bargaining representative?
3. Did Respondent Union represent an un-
coerced majority when Crown recognized Respon-
dent Union as the collective -bargaining representa-
tive of Crown 's employees in the Gardena and
Goleta stores?
4. Was the collective -bargaining agreement en-
tered into on June 1, 1967, between Respondent
Crown and Respondent Union violative of the Act?
A hearing was conducted before Trial Examiner
David E. Davis on October 31 and November 3 at
Los Angeles , California , and November 2 at Santa
Barbara , California . At the hearing all parties were
represented and were afforded full opportunity to
present evidence , to examine witnesses , to argue
orally , and to file briefs.
In oral arguments presented at the close of the
General Counsel 's case , Respondent Union and
Crown urged dismissal of the complaint in its en-
tirety . The General Counsel opposed dismissal con-
tending that the evidence warranted findings as
charged with the exception of paragraph 13 of the
consolidated complaint . As the General Counsel
joined Respondents in requesting dismissal of para-
graph 13 of the consolidated complaint , I granted
the motion to dismiss that paragraph . All other mo-
tions to dismiss were denied without prejudice to
renew them at the close of the hearing. Sub-
sequently , at the close of the hearing, counsel
renewed the motions to dismiss . In view of the
disposition of the issues on the merits in this Deci-
sion and on the grounds stated herein , the motions
to dismiss are herewith denied.
Briefs have been received from the parties and
have been carefully considered . Upon the entire
record4 and the briefs , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT CROWN
Crown Discount Department Stores is a Califor-
nia corporation operating a chain of retail depart-
ment stores including one at Gardena, California,
and one at Goleta, California , the only two loca-
tions involved in these proceedings . In the course
and conduct of its business , Crown Discount De-
partment Stores annually has gross sales in excess
of $500 ,000 and annually purchases and receives
goods and products valued in excess of $ 50,000
directly from points located outside the State of
California . At all times material herein Crown
Merchants Association has consisted - of all Em-
ployers operating diverse departments in Crown
Discount Department Stores in Goleta and
Gardena , California , under license agreements with
Crown Discount Department Stores, as follows:
Goleta
H & C Automotive , Inc.-Automotive
Disc Donuts , Inc.-Bakery
Laurel Sales , Inc.-Camera and records
Lawless Candy Co.-Candy
U. S. Sewing Centers -Domestics
Daylin , Inc.-Hardware and drugs
Phil Siegel-Jewelry
Burks Appliances-Appliances
Benos , Inc.-Men's
Karls Shoes Ltd.-Shoes
SAS, Inc.-Sporting goods
Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc.-Women's
M. Cohen-Children's
Cleaning Bar, Inc .-Cleaners
Gardena
H & C Automotive, Inc.-Automotive
Disc Donuts , Inc.-Bakery
Century Camera, Inc.-Camera
Lawless Candy Co.-Candy
J. & J. Furniture, Inc.-Furniture
Daylin, Inc.-Hardware and drugs
Elgin Jewelers, Inc.-Jewelry
Burks Appliances-Appliances
Unishops, Inc.-Men's
Laurel Sales , Inc.-Records
Pat Mandarino-Sewing
Karls Shoes Ltd.-Shoes
United Merchandise , Inc.-Sporting goods
Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc.-Women's
M. Cohen-Chignon's
Cleaning Bar, Inc .-Cleaners
Volume D.-Domestics
Pursuant to the allegations of the complaint and
admissions contained in the answers of Crown and
Respondent Union , as well as stipulations entered
into during the course of the hearing , it is found
that Crown Discount Department Stores, Crown
Merchants Association , and the various licensees
named above , herein collectively referred to as
Crown , constitute joint employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. I find that it would effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
' Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT STORES 937
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union, Local 899, and Retail
Clerks Union, Local 905, and Southern California
Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent
Union, and each of them have been and are, at all
times mentioned herein, labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Crown's Version of Events Leading to Execution
of the Agreement With Respondent Union5
The active executive of the two stores of Crown
involved in these proceedings , at all times material
herein, was Lewis Chertok, vice president and
general manager of Crown Discount Department
Stores, who testified to considerable experience as
a management negotiator . Chertok maintains his
office at the Gardena store. There are six California
stores in the Crown Discount chain located in Santa
Ana, Gardena, Goleta, Huntington Beach,
Pacoima , and Compton . Employees in the Pacoima,
Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach stores currently
are represented by a local of the Retail Clerks,
other than either of the charging locals.6 Chertok
testified that he first learned of the Respondent
Union 's organizational drive in the Gardena and
Goleta stores on Saturday morning , May 27; that
outdoor sales were planned for that weekend which
included the holiday of May 30; that minutes after
opening on the morning of May 27, Sam Lesoff, the
manager of the Gardena store, informed him that
there were eight or nine persons from the Respon-
dent Union in the store for the purpose of organiz-
ing the employees. He told Lesoff to usher them
into his office. Chertok could not recall any of the
names of the organizers except Norman Twist and
Virginia Hoffman. Chertok testified that he told the
group of organizers that it was unfair to come into
the store on a holiday weekend as it would disrupt
business at a crucial period of the year but that he
was willing to arrange for them to come back after
the holiday. Twist, according to Chertok, replied in
a very firm manner that they were going to stay
there and talk to the employees, that they would
stay in the snack bar and the parking lot,7 and that
the organizing would be conducted quietly. Cher-
tok then stated that if he could not dissuade them
from commencing the organizing drive at that time,
he requested them to be as unobtrusive as possible,
not to speak to more than one person, or to take
more than one person at a time from any one de-
partment. Twist assured Chertok that this would be
done. Twist also informed him that at the same
time the Goleta store was being visited by another
group of Respondent Union's organizers for the
same purpose.
Chertok instructed Lesoff, who was present dur-
ing the above-described conference, to carry out
the arrangements made . Shortly thereafter Chertok
received a telephone call from Howard Cohen,
Crown's manager of the Goleta store. Cohen in-
formed him of the presence of Respondent Union's
organizers at Goleta and Chertok, in turn, informed
Cohen of his discussion with the organizers in
Gardena , instructing Cohen to have a similar con-
versation with the union organizers at Goleta. Cher-
tok, thereafter, visited Goleta that day about noon-
time, remaining there until about 5 p.m.
On Monday, May 29, Chertok received a
telephone call from Leonard Levy, a representative
of Respondent Union. Levy demanded immediate
recognition of Crown's employees in the Gardena
and Goleta stores, claiming that Respondent Union
represented an overwhelming majority. Chertok in-
formed Levy that the claim would have to be
proved but added that if the claim was substan-
tiated beyond a reasonable doubt, Crown would
recognize Respondent Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees
at the two stores. Later that day Chertok received a
telegram from Harry Block , manager of Respon-
dent Union, which contained a claim of majority
status and a demand for recognition."
Later that same day in another conversation with
Levy, Chertok agreed to a card check to be con-
ducted by Harry Fine, vice president of the Manu-
facturers' Bank, in Fine's office on Wednesday,
May 31. Chertok confirmed this arrangement via a
telegram addressed to Levy.'
Chertok further testified that when he reached
his office on May 30, Lesoff once again informed
him that the organizers were there and that he had
another conversation with the group of organizers.
The organizers informed Chertok that they were
there to see those persons they had been unable to
contact on May 27; Chertok, after protesting that
business was being disrupted, called four or five de-
partment managers into his office in the presence
of the organizers and told the managers of his ar-
rangements with regard to the manner in which the
organizers would approach employees. Chertok
stated that he did not advise the managers that
Crown favored the Union or to assist in the
procurement of signatures.
On May 31, at the appointed hour, Chertok
brought a current payroll list to Fine's office.10
Fine, in Chertok's and Block's presence, made a
check of authorization cards furnished by Block
against the payroll and announced that approxi-
mately 80 of the 120 employees on the payroll had
' Primarily reflecting the testimony of Lewis Chertok 8 Resp Crown Exh i
° Pacoima , Local 770; Santa Ana and Huntington Beach , Local 324 ° Resp Crown Exh 2
The sale, being an outdoor sale, occupied a good portion of the parking 10 Resp Crown Exh 3
lot and 60 percent of the employees, according to Chertok, were stationed
in the parking lot
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed union authorization cards. At the conclusion
of the count, Block informed Chertok that he
would notify him of the date for commencing
negotiations. Chertok replied that he was shortly
planning a trip to Crown's parent corporation in
New York and would be gone for 30 days. As a
result, Block called Chertok 2 hours later and made
arrangements with Chertok to commence negotia-
tions the same day, continuing into the night if
necessary. Negotiations were conducted in Levy's
office with Levy as the principal negotiator for
Respondent Union, although Twist and Block ap-
peared for short periods. Negotiations continued
into Wednesday night and were concluded
Thursday, June 1, about noontime when agree-
ments were signed."
It was stipulated that Retail Clerks Union Local
905 filed a representation petition for the Gardena
store on June 5 which was docketed as Case
31-RC-589, that notice of the filing of the petition
was sent to Crown's Gardena store on June 6, that
it was amended on June 15 to encompass both the
Gardena and Goleta stores, and that the petition is
still pending.
Chertok testified that receipt of the June 6 notice
of the original petition was the first knowledge he
had that the Retail Clerks were interested in or-
ganizing the Goleta and Gardena stores. Chertok
further testified that the agreement, as executed
with the Respondent Union , contained a union-
shop clause requiring membership in Respondent
Union as a condition of employment; that he was
told unofficially that it was not being enforced; and
that he has never been instructed to release any
employee or to make any payroll deductions pur-
suant to the checkoff proviso in the agreement.
B. Additional Evidence of Respondent Union's
Organizational Campaign and Evidence of Employer
Assistance
Leonard Applebaum, when called as a witness by
the General Counsel, testified that he was con-
troller of all stores of Crown Discount Department
Stores including those in Gardena and Goleta; that
in May he was introduced to a group of men and
women associated with the Respondent Union
which included Virginia Hoffman; that on May 29
he had a conversation with several employees of
the Barbara Lynn12 department at the snack bar.
Ruth Wahl, Florence Perkins, and Janet Farmer, as
well as several others whose names Applebaum
could not remember, were present. He testified that
one of the girls told him that Florence Perkins, an
admitted supervisor under the Act, had sent her to
the snack bar; that the girls talked to Hoffman at
the snack bar and that he saw them sign authoriza-
tion cards on behalf of Respondent Union; that he
introduced a representative of Respondent Union
to Farmer and was later informed by the represen-
tative that Farmer did not sign an authorization
card; and that he told Chertok of Farmer's failure
to sign and Chertok said he would take care of it.13
Howard Cohen was called as a witness by the
General Counsel. He testified that during May and
June 1967 he was Crown's store manager at Goleta;
that on Saturday, May 27, the day of the outdoor
sale, he had a conversation with Madeline
Cockrum, the manager of the ladies' department
and one or two other managers of other depart-
ments;'" that he told several of the department
managers there would be some union representa-
tives coming into their departments to talk to their
employees and, as long as they didn't interrupt the
flow of business , they could speak to their em-
ployees; that he did not personally speak to any em-
ployees about the matter except a man named
Burke who was assistant manager of the TV depart-
ment; that early in June he observed some Retail
Clerks representatives in the store talking to em-
ployees and he told them they had received a
notice from the National Labor Relations Board
and he felt as long as the Board was in the situation
the Retail Clerks could not talk to the employees;
that he checked with Applebaum by phone and was
told there was a contract with Respondent Union
and the Retail Clerks had no business talking to any
employees at that time;` that he did not like the
way the Retail Clerks " sneaked " into the store, un-
like the Respondent Union's representatives who
cleared with him before approaching employees;
and that he felt the Retail Clerks should have
spoken to him first. On examination by Retail
Clerks counsel, Cohen testified that the Retail
Clerks representatives did talk to him before circu-
lating among the employees and that he told them
that as long as they didn't take the employees away
from their customers it was all right-but that he
would talk to the main office to doublecheck.16
Madeline Cockrum, manager for Barbara Lynn,
was called by the General Counsel and testified that
she had a conversation about union representation
with Howard Cohen the night before the outdoor
sale; that Cohen called her Saturday morning and
told her the union representatives were there; that
when she arrived at the store on Saturday morning
GC Exh 2
A licensee of Crown Discount Department Stores at the Goleta and
Gardena stores Other testimony indicates that Barbara Lynn is the parent
company of Crown Discount Department Stores
" 1 find this to be Applebaum's testimony even though Applebaum
withdrew the latter part of his answer later in his examination He was an
extremely reluctant witness, raising hypertechnical objections to questions
As a result of his demeanor on the witness stand , I credit his testimony only
to the extent indicated
" Managers of departments which were licensees of Crown Discount De-
partment Stores
'S Later Cohen denied that Applebaum informed him there was a con-
tract I do not credit this denial
16 It is apparent that thereafter Cohen called and talked with Applebaum
and then informed the Retail Clerks representatives that they could not
talk to the employees
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES
Cohen asked her to introduce the union representa-
tives to the employees; that she herself signed a
union card on the following day; that she asked
Diane Pierce, one of the employees, if she had
signed a card because she learned from talking with
the girls that Pierce could not decide one way or
another; that Pierce said she had signed; that she
did not remember whether or not she had ever had
Pierce's card in her possession; that she may have
turned over one or more cards signed by employees
to the union representatives but had no memory of
it; that the night before when she talked with
Cohen after store hours there were several depart-
ment managers present; that she did not remember
why she went back to the store that night; that she
did not remember whether Cohen or another de-
partment manager mentioned something about a
union ; and that she remembered jokingly saying
that she would get double time on her birthday.
When shown a statement that she had previously
given to a Board agent, Cockrum testified that it
refreshed her memory and that Cohen told her he
was expecting "Amalgamated Garments or Amal-
gamated Union," and that Cockrum should in-
troduce them to the girls and cooperate; she did not
remember whether this conversation with Cohen
occurred on Saturday morning or on Friday night."
Kenneth E. Hines testified that he was employed
as an optician18 by Dr. Arnold Stanley, licensee of
the optical department; that on May 31 he had a
conversation with Stanley in which Stanley told him
that if he continued to advise employees of their
rights, Crown would force him to let Hines go; that
immediately prior to Stanley's warning he had seen
Lesoff talking to Stanley. Hines further testified
that Stanley told him that inasmuch as the op-
tometry department would not be involved in any
bargaining with a union , he could not understand
why Hines would interest himself in other em-
ployees; and that Stanely said an agreement had
been made with the Amalgamated and it was com-
ing in whether any of "these slobs" signed or not.19
Stanley testified that he did not have a conversa-
tion with Hines on May 31; that he was in Las
Vegas 2 or 3 days before May 30 and on May 31;
that he did not have any conversation with Lesoff
concerning Hines ; that the word "slobs" was not
part of his vocabulary; that at one time Hines said
the Union was coming in or was there and Stanley
replied it had nothing to do with "us" because of
"our" professional status; and that he had
" Cockrum impressed the Trial Examiner as an extremely intelligent wit-
ness who apparently made a slip when she referred to a Friday night meet-
ing with Cohen at which the forthcoming campaign of Respondent Union
was discussed She attempted to repair this faux pas by pleading poor
memory and when confronted with her previous statement stated she
wasn't sure whether the conversation occurred on Friday night or Satur-
day night. While Cockrum is the only witness to testify to a meeting on
Fnday night, I find that there was such a meeting on Fnday night in which
the ground work was laid for Respondent Union's organizational drive on
the following day It is manifest that under all the circumstances the whirl-
wind organizational campaign resulting in a contract was well planned.
939
discharged Hines and was presently engaged in a
dispute with Hines concerning a bonus check Hines
claimed was due him. On cross-examination Stanley
testified that the Tuesday previous to the hearing
was the first time he had heard anything about the
Union's organizational drive and that he thought
professionals were excluded from unions.20
I find no violation of the Act with regard to
Hines ' testimony, although I note that Stanley ad-
mitted to a discussion with Hines concerning the
Union in which he informed him that the optometry
department was not involved.
Rachel Harrell, employed by Daylin in the
Gardena store, testified that Harold Eno, her super-
visor and the manager of the department, called her
into the office in the presence of a representative of
the Respondent Union; that Eno introduced her to
the representative and told her the company was
not against her joining the Union; and that it would
be good for the employees because now there were
no "job" breaks but with the Union there would be.
She replied "no," the representative wrote "NO"
on his card, and Harrell left the office. Later that
day Chertok, Eno, and another union representa-
tive came to her work area and each of them urged
her and Irene Lohayza, a coworker who'was work-
ing in the same area , to join the Union. Harrell still
replied "no," saying she would like to think about
it. The union representative persisted but met with
no success. At that point Chertok and Eno left and
the union representative left shortly thereafter.
About 7 o'clock that evening , when Harrell was
about to leave, she went over to Eno and asked
him, "Why do they want to force this union on us?"
Eno, according to Harrell's testimony, replied,
"This thing is getting serious, and I would wish you
would sign it before going home tonight." Thereu-
pon Harrell signed the card and gave it to Lohayza
to give to the union representative. Harrell recalled
that while Chertok, Eno, and the union representa-
tive were in her work area, Chertok had asked
Lohayza why she would not join the Union.
Lohayza had her back to Chertok at the time and
did not turn around to face him or offer a reply,
whereupon Chertok said that this was a half million
dollar investment and, "You think I want to lose
it?" Lohayza still did not turn around and Chertok
said, "Look at me when you talk to me. Don't turn
your back on me."
Eno, called by the General Counsel, testified that
on May 2721 he was called into Chertok's office and
Accordingly, Chertok's testimony as recited above is far from convincing
is A technician who grinds glasses, assembles them , and may make adjust-
ments but does not examine eyes
18 It was stipulated that in a statement Hines had given to a Board agent
on June 20 the word "slobs" did not appear
S0 It was stipulated that the optometry department was excluded from the
collective-bargaining arrangement by agreement with Stanley and that
Stanley is not a member of the Crown Merchants Association
21 The transcript reads May 21, this is an obvious typographical error
which is hereby corrected
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
introduced to three or four representatives of
Respondent Union. Chertok told him that they
were there to talk with the employees about or-
ganizing the store, that there was no objection to
that from Eno's company and to assist the union
representatives by letting the employees have time
off to talk with the union representatives. Eno per-
mitted one of the union representatives to use his
office to interview the employees who were brought
in one at a time by Eno and introduced. Later in
the day after the union representative talked to two
or three employees he reported to Eno that he was
concerned because the employees were reluctant to
sign and he asked Eno to remain during the inter-
views. Eno consented. The employees continued to
come into the office and two employees who had
previously spoken to the union representative when
Eno was not present were recalled. Eno and the
union representative then talked to these em-
ployees about the benefits of the Union. Eno re-
membered telling Lohayza that she would have
better security with the Union. Eno then testified in
affirmation of Harrell's testimony concerning the
interchange between Chertok and Lohayza, but
added that Chertok became angry. Eno also ad-
mitted that he asked Harrell if Lohayza was going
to sign and that he may have checked with two
other employees if they had signed cards, although
he had no specific memory of having done so.
Irene J. Lohayza testified that Eno was her super-
visor in late May and that he called her into his of-
fice and introduced a representative of Respondent
Union to her saying that the company was not
against the Union and asked her if she wanted to
sign . She replied in the negative and the union
representative wrote "no" on a card. About 20
minutes later Eno again called her into the office
and said that it was a good union and the em-
ployees would have job security . She again refused
to sign and left. About an hour later Chertok, Eno,
and a union representative came to where she was
putting away stock and Chertok asked, while her
back was turned, "Why wouldn't you sign , Irene?"
She did not answer and Chertok repeated the
question. Again Lohayza ignored the question and
Chertok said, "God damn it , Irene , at least you
could have the courtesy of answering me. Do you
know who I am? I own Crown." At this point, ac-
cording to Lohayza's testimony, Eno interrupted
and said, "I think Irene is a little scared. Is that any
way to talk to an employee?" Thereupon Chertok
and Eno left. The union representative left a little
later but told Harrell and Lohayza that they would
like to have them turn in their cards by the end of
the day.
Jose Stern, manager of Unishops, the licensee
operating the men's and boys' department, testified
he was in Chertok's office when several representa-
tives of Respondent Union were present and was
told by Chertok to cooperate with the Union. Later
he took a union representative into his department
and introduced him to a female employee, telling
her that the representative was from the Union and
wanted to talk to her. Stern did not remain and did
not overhear the conversation. Ruth Wahl, em-
ployed by licensee Barbara Lynn at Gardena,
testified that Supervisor Perkins told her sometime
during the latter part of May that some people at
the snack bar wanted to talk to her and that if she'
wanted to go she could; that she was curious and
went to the snack bar where she talked to Virginia
Hoffman; and that Hoffman discussed the Union
with her, asked her to sign a card, and she did sign
one.
Janet Farmer, an employee of licensee Barbara
Lynn at Gardena, testified that sometime in May,20
while she was working outdoors at the outdoor sale,
Supervisor Perkins told her that Marie Watkins'23
manager of the department, had called on the
phone and said that she wanted all the girls to sign
for the Union; that, a little later on the same day,
Applebaum told her that Watkins wanted to talk to
her on the phone about the Union; that she went in-
side and called Watkins at her home and Watkins
told her that she wanted her to sign for the Union;
and that Farmer said okay and hung up. After this
conversation Applebaum again spoke to her while
she was working outdoors. Applebaum wanted to
know what Watkins had said. Farmer replied that
Watkins had told her that she wanted her to sign
for the Union but that she, Farmer, didn't want to
because she wished to make up her own mind. Ap-
plebaum then told Farmer "the good things about
the union" and she told him that she would not
sign . Applebaum, during this conversation or a later
one (she testified that Applebaum spoke to her
several times), said that the Union was coming
in whether "we wanted it to not."
Farmer further testified that after her conversa-
tion with Applebaum, Perkins came out and told
her that Watkins wanted her on the telephone. She
went inside and Watkins told Farmer that they had
called her from the back office because Farmer
would not sign. Farmer informed Watkins that she
had refused to sign and Watkins asked "why?"
Farmer replied that her sister had advised her that
the "Retail Union" was better. Watkins then told
Farmer that her sister didn't know what she was
talking about and that Farmer should sign because
Farmer was going to have some surgery and signing
would help keep her job; that if Farmer did not sign
she would lose her job. Farmer again said okay and
went outdoors, back to her job. Once again Ap-
plebaum approached her and asked her if she were
going to sign. Again Farmer refused and Ap-
plebaum at that time told her that the Union was
n The evidence shows the date to be May 30
" Watkins' son was married to Farmer 's sister and Watkins had been in-
strumental in hiring Farmer
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES 941
coming in whether anyone wanted it or not. Later
that evening Lesoff brought a union representative
to talk to Farmer. She was ringing up a sale on the
cash register when the union representative laid a
card in front of her and said that he wanted her to
sign . She asked if she would lose her job and the
representative said that if she did not sign she
would lose her job.
On cross-examination Farmer testified that about
3 days prior to the day she signed the union.
authorization card Watkins had spoken to her and
told her that the Respondent Union would soon
make an attempt to organize the employees and
that Watkins did not want the Union to come in.
Farmer further testified that Watkins subsequently
changed her advice because the downtown office
had called her and told her they wanted all the girls
in the department to sign for Respondent Union;
and that she became upset because of the threats to
her job and told other employees about the threats.
Rodney Gustafson, manager of the Crown Au-
tomotive Department, testified that Howard Cohen,
manager of Crown Department Stores in Goleta, in-
formed him, sometime at the end of May,24 that
union representatives would be in the store and that
Gustafson should permit them to talk to his em-
ployees. During the course of the day Gustafson
learned that they were representatives of Respon-
dent Union.
Irene A. Grimes, bookkeeper of licensee Daylin
Incorporated at the Goleta store, testified that on
Saturday, May 27, at Cohen's request, she gave him
a list of the employees in her department together
with their addresses and telephone numbers; and
that she had a long conversation with a representa-
tive of Respondent Union while at work on that day.
and signed a union authorization card.
Gertrude M. Jones, a Daylin employee at the
Goleta store, testified that on Monday25 Cohen
handed her a union authorization card and asked
her to give it to Bill Martin , the warehouseman. She
gave the card to Martin and told him that Cohen
had instructed her to give it to him for his signa-
ture. Martin took the card and stated he did not
wish to sign it . However, he did sign it and returned
it to Jones the next day. Jones, in turn, handed the
signed card to Cohen.
Diane Pierce, a sales employee of Barbara Lynn
at the Goleta store, had not worked on Saturday,
May 27. She testified that when she came to work
on Monday, May 29, her supervisor, Cockrum,
gave her a card and told her that some union men
had been in and they wanted her to sign the card.
Pierce asked if her job would be in jeopardy if she
did not sign and Cockrum replied that she didn't
know but 99 percent of the people had already
signed and if she did not sign she might as well quit.
Linda Kendel, an employee of Barbara Lynn at
the Goleta store, testified that her immediate super-
visor, Cockrum, introduced her to a representative
of the Union who talked to her in Cockrum's
presence and that she signed a union authorization
card in Cockrum's presence.
Janice Olson, an employee of Barbara Lynn at
the Goleta store, testified that Cockrum was her
immediate supervisor and introduced her to a
representative of Respondent Union. Olson after
talking with the union representative signed a card.
Cockrum was not present while Olson talked with
the union representative or when Olson signed the
card.
Bernadette Graibill, an employee of Barbara
Lynn at the Goleta store, testified that on May 27
her supervisor, Cockrum, introduced her to a
representative of Respondent Union saying that he
was in the store with Cohen's permission. After
leaving Graibill to talk to the representative,
Cockrum returned when Graibill was filling out and
signing the union card.
Respondent Union rested at the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case without calling any wit-
nesses
Perkins, when recalled by Respondent Crown,
testified that on May 27 she told the employees
under her supervision that there were some union
representatives at the snack bar and they could go
there and talk to them if they wished; that she
called her supervisor, Watkins, at Watkins' home to
discuss some business matters with her; that during
this conversation Watkins told her "Use your own
judgment" with reference to whether she should
urge the employees to sign union cards; that she
had discussions with some of the employees about
the Union but did not advise them to sign the union
cards;26 and that she, herself, signed a union card
later in the day.
Watkins testified that she was sick on May 30
and was home with the "flu"; that she received a
call from Perkins telling her union representatives
were in the store and she replied the employees
could use their own judgment, that she received a
phone call from Applebaum saying Farmer was
upset and crying and unable to operate the register;
and that she was called because she was Farmer's
relative and to see if she could settle Farmer down.
Watkins thereafter called the store, Perkins an-
swered, and Watkins asked Perkins -to relieve
Farmer at the register and to have Farmer call her
at her home. Farmer called and Watkins related her
telephone conversation with Farmer as follows:
And Janet did call me back. And I says,
"Janet, what's the matter?"
And she says, "The union people," and she
says, "everybody's telling me `Do this' and `Do
that', and `Do this' and `Do that"', and she
says, "I'm all befuttered."
1 fix the date as May 27 " I do not credit Perkins where her testimony is in conflict with Far-
1 fix the date as May 29 mer's
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I says, "Calm yourself. Use your own
judgment." I says to her, "It doesn't mean life
or death."
And she says, "They are trying to tell me
that if I don't sign, you will fire me."
And I says, "Nobody will fire you."
Q. When you said during the conversation-
that is, Janet, that they say "you will fire me",
did she make any reference to any particular
individual?
A. No.
Q. She just used the general "they"?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you during the course of any conver-
sation tell her that she should sign the card?
A. I said to her, "Well, if all the other 10
girls is going to sign the card in the depart-
ment , why be the black sheep? You might as
well join the crowds."27
Q. And what did she say?
A. She says, "Well, we'll see." And by that
time she hung up.
C. Conclusions re Majority Status of Respondent
Union
It is true that the Board and the courts have
recognized that not every accommodation afforded
by an employer to a union violates the Act. How-
ever, where an employer provides active support
and identification with a union's organizational
campaign , its illegal assistance and support con-
stitute the effective cause in the attainment of
majority status by the Union. Consistently the
Board has held such illegal assistance and support
to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act as they restrain and interfere with the rights of
employees to freely select representatives of their
own choosing. It is clear therefore that each em-
ployee, who signs a union authorization card under
circumstances where an employer has afforded a
union illegal assistance and support, has been
coerced.
The crucial evidence as summarized above de-
picts a situation where an employer has substituted
his own judgment and preference of a collective-
bargaining representative for that of the employees.
I view as incomprehensible Chertok's agreements
on May 27, renewed on May 30, to permit
representatives of Respondent Union to solicit dur-
ing working hours during a weekend which was an-
ticipated to be extremely busy because of the out-
door sales being conducted at both the Goleta and
Gardena stores.28 The evidence discloses that even
though Chertok laid down certain conditions to
,minimize interference with business and the or-
" Respondent argues that in giving this advice Watkins was acting in the
role of a relative of Farmer I do not view it in this light inasmuch as the call
was made during business hours and during the time Farmer was under
severe pressure from other supervisors
:" This agreement under the circumstances, together with all the aspects
of the organizational campaign , the hasty recognition, and the speed by
ganizers assented to these conditions, they were
honored more in the breach than in their ob-
servance. Chertok, Cohen, Applebaum, Eno, Wat-
kins, Cockrum, Perkins, and other supervisors re-
peatedly called employees away from their work,
permitted organizers to talk to employees while
they were busy with customers, and each of them
personally and at times in the company of or-
ganizers approached employees while they were
working to induce them to sign union authorization
cards.29 Indeed, on several occasions employees
were told by supervisors and organizers that unless
they signed the union cards their jobs were in
jeopardy. I view all of the incidents described in B,
above, to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
Moreover, as I have indicated above, I am con-
vinced that Chertok's agreement with Respondent
Union's representatives encompassed a promise to
intercede with employees and assist Respondent
Union in its organizing efforts. Only on this basis
can Respondent Union's claim of majority status on
May 29 be explained.
It is admitted that on May 29 Respondent Union
made a claim of majority status and arranged with
Chertok to substantiate its claim by a cardcheck on
May 3 1. Nevertheless, on May 30, representatives
of Respondent Union intensified their organiza-
tional drive. It was on this date, May 30, that
Farmer was subjected to severe and continual pres-
sure to sign a union authorization card by her su-
pervisors and Applebaum. Obviously drastic mea-
sures were necessary on May 30 in order to make
certain that a majority be demonstrated on May 31.
The Lohayza incident, described above, graphi-
cally demonstrates Chertok's personal interest in
the success of the organizational drive. While
Lohayza may have aroused Chertok's anger by fail-
ing to accord him the respect he felt was due him,
nevertheless, his demand that Lohayza explain why
she would not sign the union card exceeded the
bounds of permissive employer conduct and con-
stituted interference and restraint of her rights
under Section 7 of the Act as well as illegal
assistance and support to Respondent Union.
Eno, by making available his office to an or-
ganizer, by sending employees in to talk to the or-
ganizer, by his subsequent assistance to the or-
ganizer in the inducement of employees to sign
union authorization cards, and by his participation
with Chertok in the Lohayza incident, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
I find Farmer a highly credible witness and ac-
cept her version of the various talks she had with
Applebaum, Perkins, and Watkins. I find each of
the incidents involving Farmer, as recited above,
which a collective -bargaining agreement was concluded , warrants a con-
clusion that the parties viewed time as of the essence The precise reason
for this view is not revealed by the record.
"Dixie Bedding Manufacturing Company, 121 NLRB 189, 195-196,
where similar acts were held violative of the Act
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES
constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
8(a)(2), and violated 8(a)(3) where discharge was
threatened.
Cohen's enlistment of Jones to secure Martin's
signature to a union card is another instance of un-
lawful assistance and support of Respondent Union
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 2).30 I credit
Pierce's testimony that her supervisor, Cockrum,
told her that she might as well quit if she did not
sign the union authorization card. This incident
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3). Cockrum's presence when Kindel and Graibill
signed union authorization cards and Cockrum's
presence while the union organizer talked to Ken-
del, likewise constituted illegal assistance and sup-
port in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).31 It
was acknowledged that supervisors, managers of
departments, and various executives of Respondent
Crown introduced employees to organizers during
worktime. Such assistance and support I find to
constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
The above recital of findings inevitably leads to
the conclusion that Respondent Union did not
represent an uncoerced majority of the employees
in the Gardena and Goleta stores on May 31 or at
any time subsequent thereto. Accordingly the
recognition accorded Respondent Union by
Respondent Crown on May 31 constitutes unlawful
support and assistance in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2).32
D. Findings re 8(a)(3), 8(b)(l)(A), and 8(b)(2)
Violations
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case,
Respondent Union rested without proffering any
testimony.
As I fully credit the record testimony of the
General Counsel 's witnesses who testified that
representatives of Respondent Union threatened
them with loss of jobs if they did not sign union
authorization cards, this testimony stands uncon-
tradicted. Despite the failure to specifically identify
the particular representatives engaging in such con-
duct, Respondent Union may be held accountable
for the threats. Accordingly, I find, by reason of the
foregoing threats by its agents that Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act.
It was stipulated that Respondent Union had two
dinner meetings for Crown employees; one at
Gardena on June 8 and another at Goleta on June
9.
I fully credit Jones ' testimony
The evidence shows that Cockrum personally received signed union
authorization cards and turned them over to Respondent Union 's represen-
tatives . Cockrum admitted she "may " have done so
' Topps Kerrmill , Inc , 143 NLRB 694 Although the instant case bears
many similarities to the Topps Kerrmi l case cited above , the cases are quite
943
Although several witnesses' testimony would
seem to indicate that the speeches made by
representatives of Respondent Union at these din-
ners unduly emphasized that unless Crown em-
ployees joined the Union they would be discharged,
I do not find that to be the fact. Rather, I find that
these meetings were called to afford Crown em-
ployees an opportunity to become acquainted with
the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement in-
cluding the union-shop provisions. I find no inde-
pendent violations by virtue of these meetings.
In view of my finding, above, that on June 1 and
thereafter Respondent Union did not represent an
uncoerced majority of the employees in the Goleta
and Gardena stores, I find that the execution of the
agreement containing a provision for a union-shop
clause and checkoff on June 1 and the maintenance
of the agreement thereafter constituted violations
by Respondent Union of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) and that Respondent Crown, thereby, was in
violation of Section 8(a)(I ), (2), and (3) of the
Act.33 Even though the union-security and checkoff
provisions were not enforced, which I find to be
true, the violations are established. As these provi-
sions, union security and checkoff, were at no time
deleted from the agreement, the failure to enforce
them can only operate to affect the remedy but
cannot excuse the violations.
E. Concluding Findings
Throughout the hearing counsel for Respondent
Union voiced objections to the consideration of
evidence against Respondent Union dealing with
conversations between management representatives
and Crown employees outside the presence of
Respondent Union's representatives: I overruled
these objections . I adhere to this ruling . I cannot
ignore what is so fully spread upon the record with
regard to the mutual efforts and aims of Respon-
dents. I reiterate my conviction that there was an
understanding between the Respondents that
resulted in a cooperative effort to organize Crown's
employees regardless of the employees' desires.
Moreover , the widespread assistance , support,
and interference by Crown's supervisory and
managerial personnel warrants the conclusions and
findings, made above, that the majority status of
Respondent Union was achieved by illegal means.
This result obtains even if the protested evidence
were not to be considered with regard to the allega-
tions against the Respondent Union.
distinguishable The conduct in the instant case is much more aggravated
both in quantity and quality Moreover , the theory of the Topps Kerrmill
case was grounded on the disparate treatment of a rival union In the in-
stant case the unlawful coercion of employees, unlawful interrogation, un-
lawful assistance, and unlawful support constitute the violations found
' Accurate Forming Corporation, 128 NLRB 653
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in this case , I make the
following:
11. Allegations against Respondent Crown and
Respondent Union not found herein to constitute
violations of the Act are hereby dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Crown is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the
Act.
2. Respondent Union , Retail Clerks Union,
Local 899 , and Retail Clerks Union , Local 905, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing and entering into a contract
with Respondent Union on June 1, 1967, Respon-
dent Crown has interfered with , restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
assisted Respondent Union in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and ( 2) of the Act.
4. By the conduct of its supervisory and
managerial employees described herein , Respon-
dent Crown has unlawfully coerced , interrogated,
assisted , and supported Respondent Union in the
organization of its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2).
5. By telling its employees that , to keep their
jobs, they were required to sign authorization cards
in behalf of Respondent Union , Respondent Crown
has discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment to encourage membership in Respondent
Union and has thereby engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3).
6. By entering into the agreement with Respon-
dent Union on June 1 , 1967, and thereafter main-
taining a collective -bargaining agreement contain-
ing a provision for a union shop and checkoff when
Respondent Union did not at any time represent an
uncoerced majority , Respondent Crown violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
7. Respondent Union, by threatening Crown em-
ployees with discharge if they failed to sign union
authorization cards, violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A)
and (2 ) of the Act.
8. Respondent Union , by virtue of its entering
into a collective-bargaining agreement with Crown
on June 1, 1967, at a time when it did not represent
an uncoerced majority , violated Section
8(b)(1 )(A) and (2) of the Act.
9. By entering into and maintaining the aforesaid
collective-bargaining agreement containing a provi-
sion for a union shop and checkoff , Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and ( 2) of the
Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with their
operations described in section II, above, have a
close , intimate , and substantial relationship to
trade , traffic , and commerce among the several
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 Crown and
Respondent Union have engaged in and- are con-
tinuing to engage in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that each of them be
required to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
As the collective -bargaining agreement of June 1,
1967, has been found to have been entered into
and subsequently maintained under the conditions
described above and at a time when Respondent
Union did not represent the free choice of a majori-
ty of the employees in the unit or units included in
the agreement, it will be recommended that said
Respondents be required to set aside said agree-
ment and cease giving effect to it or any supple-
ment , extension , or renewal thereof.34
It will be further recommended that Respondent
Crown be required to withdraw and withhold
recognition of Respondent Union unless and until
such time as Respondent Union is certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of Crown em-
ployees in an appropriate unit.
As the evidence shows that dues and initiation
fees were not paid and checkoff provisions of the
agreement were not enforced , a reimbursement
order will not be included.
The unfair labor practices found to have engaged
in by Respondents are of such a character and
scope that they strike at one of the basic purposes
the Act was designed to achieve ; i.e., to provide
employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining a
free and untrammeled choice of their bargaining
representative. It will therefore be recommended
that Respondents cease and desist from in any
manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
employees in their guaranteed rights.
14 Nothing herein shall be construed to require Respondent Crown to
vary wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features of its employees'
working conditions which are currently in effect
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES 945
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that:
A. Respondent Crown, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting and contributing support to
Respondent Union as the representative of any of
its employees at its stores located in Goleta and/or
Gardena, California, for the purpose of dealing with
it concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement entered into on or about June 1, 1967,
or to any extensions, renewal, or modification
thereof, or any other contract or agreement with
such labor organization which may now be in ef-
fect, covering Respondent Crown's employees at its
stores located in Gardena and/or Goleta, Califor-
nia.35
(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any labor organization including Retail Clerks
Union Locals 899 and 905, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such ac-
tivities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership as
a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found necessary and appropriate to effectuate the
policies of the Act:.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Respondent Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees at the
Goleta and/or Gardena, California, stores unless
and until such labor organization shall have been
certified by the Board as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of such employees.
(b) Post at its premises in Gardena, California,
and Goleta, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A."36 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent Crown's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent Crown immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Crown to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Post at the same place and under the same
conditions as set forth in (b), above, as soon as pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 3 1, co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.37
B. Respondent Union, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving effect to the collective- bargaining
agreement entered into on or about June 1, 1967,
with Respondent Crown, or any extension, renewal,
or modification thereoof.
(b) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargainng
representative of Respondent Crown's employees at
the Gardena and/or Goleta, California, stores for
the purpose of dealing with said Respondent Crown
concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless
and until it shall be certified by the Board as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of such
employees.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing
Crown's employees at the Gardena and/or Goleta,
California, stores in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
found necessary and appropriate to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix B."38 Co-
pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 31, after being duly
signed by Respondent Union's representative, shall
be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
- " Nothing herein shall be construed to require Respondent Crown to
vary wages, hours, seniority , or other substantive features of its employees'
working conditions which are currently in effect
36 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words " a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
Crown has taken to comply herewith "
m In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 61
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cluding all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 31
signed copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix B" for posting by Respondent Crown as pro-
vided herein.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as (b), immediately above, as soon as
they are provided by the Regional Director, copies
of the notice attached marked "Appendix A."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.39
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
Union has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist or support Southern
California Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your
job, question you concerning your union sym-
pathies or desires , or coerce you in any other
manner in order to induce you to sign cards
authorizing the above -named labor organiza-
tion to represent you.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you in
order to compel you to become or remain
members of the above -named labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL no longer give effect to the agree-
ment we signed on June 1 , 1967, with the
above -named labor organization or to any ex-
tension , renewal , or modification of that agree-
ment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with,restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of
your rights to organize yourselves , to form,
join, or assist Local 899 and Local 905, of
Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization that
you may choose as your representative.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition
from Southern California Joint Board, Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any successor thereof unless and
until it has been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as your exclusive
representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining at the Goleta and/or Gardena,
California, stores.
You are all free to engage in concerted activity
for your mutual aid or protection, to become or
remain members of a labor organization, or to
refuse to engage in such activities, except to the ex-
tent that such rights may be affected by a lawful
agreement conforming to Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Dated By
CROWN DISCOUNT
DEPARTMENT STORES, ET
AL.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 10th Floor, Bartlett Building, 215 West
Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90014,
Telephone 688-5850.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
JOINT BOARD , AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your
job if you refuse to help this union or refuse to
sign a card authorizing this Union to represent
you.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into on or about
June 1, 1967, with Crown Discount Depart-
ment Stores, covering the stores at Goleta and
Gardena, California, or to any extension,
renewal, or modification thereof.
WE WILL NOT act as your exclusive bargain-
ing representative at the Goleta and Gardena,
California, stores unless and until we have
been certified by the Board as such representa-
tive.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain
or coerce you in the rights guaranteed to you
CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT . STORES
by Section 7 of the Act to freely choose a bar-
gaining representative , to become or remain a
member of this labor organization or any other
labor organization , or to refuse to do any of
these things except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by a lawful agreement
conforming to the provisions of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
JOINT BOARD,
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
947
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 10th Floor , Bartlett Building , 215 West
Seventh Street , Los Angeles , California 90014,
Telephone 688-5850.