Duane Reade, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DUANE READE, INC. 943
Duane Reade, Inc. and Allied Trades Council

Local 340-A, UNITE, AFL–CIO and Allied Trades
Council. Cases 2–CA–32871–1, 2–CA–33148–1,
2–CA–33177–1, 2–CA–33424–1, 2–CB–17982–1,
2–CB–18005–1, and 2–CB–18146–1
April 14, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS SCHAUMBER, WALSH, AND ACOSTA
On May 17, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Howard
Edelman issued the attached decision. Respondent
Duane Reade, Inc. (the Company) and Respondent Local
340, UNITE, AFL–CIO (UNITE) filed exceptions and
supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed an answer-
ing brief to the other parties’ exceptions. The Company
filed a brief in reply.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions as
modified and to adopt the judge’s recommended Order as
modified and set forth in full below.2
As more fully set forth by the judge, the Company rec-
ognized two different unions, Allied Trades Council
(ATC) and UNITE, as its employees’ bargaining repre-
sentatives at its various stores during the relevant time
frame. The Respondents except to the judge’s findings
that the Company unlawfully assisted UNITE in its ef-
forts to organize employees at company stores 192, 240,
241, 242, 252, 261, and 264 on the basis, inter alia, that
the assistance was not coercive. In support, the Respon-
dents cite to Tecumseh Corrugated Box Co., 333 NLRB
1 (2001), in which the Board found no 8(a)(2) unlawful

1 The Company and UNITE have excepted to some of the judge’s
credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an
administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are in-
correct. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 In certain respects, the judge’s numbered conclusions of law do not
accurately reflect the findings delineated in the rest of his decision. For
example, Conclusions of Law 1(a) and (b) and 2(a), (b), and (d) are
supported by or reflected in the judge’s findings, as acknowledged in
the General Counsel’s answering brief. We have therefore modified
the judge’s numbered conclusions of law, recommended Order, notice
to employees, and notice to members to more accurately conform to the
judge’s findings and to the format typically utilized by the Board in
these types of cases. See, e.g., Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities,
310 NLRB 579 (1993), enfd. as modified 13 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1994);
Vernitron Electrical Components, Inc., 221 NLRB 464 (1975), enfd.
548 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1977). The new notices also reflect modifications
suggested by the Board’s decision in Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc.,
337 NLRB 175 (2001).
assistance violation. However, we find that case is fac-
tually distinguishable from the instant cases.
In Tecumseh, the employer held an employee meeting
for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to the
employer’s acquisition of the predecessor company and
to inform employees of changes that would be occurring
as a result of the acquisition. The employer permitted
the union to address the employees at that meeting, but
the employer’s supervisors left the meeting after intro-
ducing the union representatives. Before leaving the
meeting, the employer’s human relations vice president
told employees that while the employer liked to work
with unions, “it was their choice if they wanted to be-
come union.” Id. at 3. The union obtained signed au-
thorization cards from a majority of the employees, and
presented the cards to the employer who then granted the
union recognition the same day after performing a card
check. Id. at 3–4. Thus, the employer did nothing more
than provide meeting space to the union to address and
solicit signed authorization cards from employees on
company time, and then recognize the union after con-
ducting its own card check.
Unlike the employer in Tecumseh, the Company here
did more than simply provide meeting space to UNITE
on company time and voluntarily grant UNITE immedi-
ate recognition. The Company assisted UNITE in nu-
merous ways.3 Despite its no-solicitation policy prohibit-
ing union organizational visits, the Company invited
UNITE into its stores for the purpose of organizing its
employees either the day before the store opened (Stores
192, 241, 242, 261, and 264), a few days before it opened
(Store 252), or the day after it opened (Store 240). The
Company directed its employees to meet with UNITE
representatives on store premises during paid worktime
for the purpose of signing authorization cards. Signifi-
cantly, the store managers were present during most of
these meetings (Stores 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264). In
3 Regarding the Company’s reason for providing this assistance, the
judge credited the testimony of John Morro, ATC president, that James
Rizzo, the Company’s vice president of human resources, informed
Morro in a phone conversation that the Company decided to select
UNITE as the collective-bargaining representative for certain stores
because it “would be beneficial financially.” The judge also credited
Morro’s testimony that during a subsequent meeting in Rizzo’s office,
Morro asked Rizzo “what was going on,” and Rizzo repeated that “an-
other Union has been brought in and that this would be beneficial fi-
nancially,” and that “the Employer had gotten a good deal.” According
to Morro, Rizzo explained that there would be some nonunion stores,
that UNITE would get some stores and the Union would get some
stores. Based on this credited testimony, the judge found that the Com-
pany “made a decision at the highest levels of management to select
UNITE as the collective-bargaining representative for the stores set
forth in this complaint because they could get a better deal with
UNITE, a purely economic decision.”
338 NLRB No. 140
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 944
Store 252, the store manager was not only present, but
informed the employees that UNITE was the only union
with whom the Company was affiliated, that they had to
sign UNITE’s authorization cards, and that they were
forbidden from signing with any other union. At two
stores, UNITE representatives met with employees as the
Company was handing out employment applications to
those employees (Stores 261 and 264).
Moreover, with regard to at least two stores (Stores
192 and 241) UNITE submitted written demands for rec-
ognition based on a claimed majority even before it
signed up any employees. As found by the judge, this
premature demand further supports the finding of pre-
recognition communication and collusion between the
Company and UNITE. Based on the Company’s failure
to produce the letters it admittedly received from UNITE
demanding recognition with regard to the other five
stores (Stores 240, 242, 252, 261, and 264), the judge
inferred that those letters would have revealed the same
premature demand for recognition before any meeting
between UNITE and the Company’s employees. Simi-
larly, with regard to one store (Store 240), the Company
prepared a letter to an arbitrator requesting a card count
verification to determine majority status the day before
UNITE first met with employees at the store. The Com-
pany also attempted to conceal from ATC representatives
its intended ownership of two stores in which UNITE
obtained recognition (Stores 192 and 242). Finally, after
performing these unlawful acts of assistance, the Com-
pany proceeded to deny ATC equal access to its employ-
ees in all seven stores, and in at least three stores (Stores
192, 240, and 261) it ordered ATC representatives to
leave under threat of arrest.
The above acts of assistance at each of the stores, in
combination, reasonably tended to coerce employees in
the exercise of their free choice in selecting a bargaining
representative.4 The Company provided the acts of assis-
tance to UNITE described fully in the judge’s decision,
in contravention of its own no-solicitation policy, while
denying equal access to ATC representatives. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the judge’s findings that the Company
provided unlawful assistance and recognition to UNITE
in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) and UNITE vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by accepting the same.
We therefore also affirm the judge’s findings that the
Company and UNITE, by entering into, maintaining, and
enforcing collective-bargaining agreements, including

4 Because we find that the combined acts of assistance provided to
UNITE by the Company at each of the seven stores constitute unlawful
assistance in violation of Sec. 8(a)(2) and (1), we find it unnecessary to
pass on the judge’s findings that certain of these acts, by themselves,
constitute independent 8(a)(2) and (1) violations as well.
union-security clauses, have violated Section 8(a)(3) and
8(b)(2) respectively.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. On June 17, 2000, the Company, by Frank Wilder
at Store 252, directed employees not to speak with ATC
representatives in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
2. On June 21, 2000, the Company, by Frank Wilder
at Store 252, engaged in surveillance of its employees’
activities on behalf of and in support of UNITE, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
3. On April 24, 2000, the Company by Supervisor En-
rico Moses at Store 247, in the presence of employees,
confiscated and tore up an authorization card distributed
by ATC in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. With regard to Stores 192, 240, 241, 242, 252, 261,
and 264, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by
unlawfully assisting UNITE in obtaining union authori-
zation cards from its employees; by refusing ATC access
to its premises and employees for organizational pur-
poses while according such privileges to UNITE; and by
recognizing UNITE as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of its employees.
5. With regard to Stores 192, 240, 241, 242, 252, 261,
and 264, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by en-
tering into, maintaining, and enforcing collective-
bargaining agreements, including union-security clauses,
with UNITE when UNITE did not represent an unco-
erced majority of the Company’s employees.
6. By accepting the Company’s unlawful assistance
and recognition, UNITE violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
7. By entering into, maintaining, and enforcing collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, including union-security
clauses, with the Company when UNITE did not repre-
sent an uncoerced majority of the Company’s employees,
UNITE violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
8. The above acts are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that the
Respondents, Duane Reade, Inc. and Local 340, UNITE,
AFL–CIO (UNITE), New York, New York, shall take
the action set forth in the Order as modified.
A. Respondent, Duane Reade, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
DUANE READE, INC. 945
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Directing its employees not to speak with represen-
tatives of Allied Trades Council (ATC).
(b) Surveilling its employees’ activities on behalf of
and in support of UNITE.
(c) Confiscating, in the presence of its employees, au-
thorization cards distributed by ATC.
(d) Unlawfully assisting UNITE in obtaining union au-
thorization cards from its employees, and refusing to
provide equal access to ATC to its premises and employ-
ees for the purpose of organizing its employees while
according such privileges to UNITE.
(e) Recognizing and bargaining with UNITE as the ex-
clusive representative of its clerks, pharmacy clerks, and
cashiers at Stores 192, 240, 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264,
unless and until UNITE has been certified as their exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative by the Board.
(f) Maintaining and enforcing the collective-bargaining
agreements with UNITE, dated April 1, 1999, to Sep-
tember 21, 2002, and from April 2001 to March 31,
2004, including the union-security clauses, or any exten-
sion, renewal or modification thereof; provided, how-
ever, that nothing in this Order shall authorize, allow, or
require the withdrawal, or elimination of any wage in-
creases or other benefits that may have been established
pursuant to such agreements.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
UNITE as the collective-bargaining representative of its
clerks, pharmacy clerks, and cashiers at Stores 192, 240,
241, 242, 252, 261, and 264, unless and until UNITE has
been duly certified as the exclusive representative of
such employees by the Board.
(b) Jointly and severally with UNITE reimburse all
present and former employees covered by the aforesaid
collective-bargaining agreements (see par. A(1)(f)) for all
initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other moneys they
may have paid or which were withheld from their pay
pursuant to those collective-bargaining agreements to-
gether with interest on the moneys due, to be computed
as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if
stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of all initiation fees, dues, assessments or other
moneys due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at the stores set forth above copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix A.”5 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 2, after being signed by Duane Reade’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by Duane Reade immedi-
ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Duane Reade to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, Duane Reade has gone out of business or
closed any of the stores involved in these proceedings,
Duane Reade shall duplicate and mail, at its own ex-
pense, a copy of the notices to all current employees and
former employees employed by Duane Reade at any time
since February 29, 2000.
(e) Post at the same places, and under the same condi-
tions as in the preceding subparagraph, as they are for-
warded by the Regional Director, signed copies of
UNITE’s notice to members marked “Appendix B.”
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Duane Reade has taken to com-
ply.
B. Respondent Local 340-A, UNITE, AFL–CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Accepting unlawful assistance from Duane Reade
in obtaining authorization cards from Duane Reade’s
employees.
(b) Acting or claiming to act as the collective-
bargaining representative of the clerks, pharmacy clerks,
and cashiers, employed by Duane Reade, at Stores 192,
240, 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264, unless and until
UNITE has been certified as the exclusive representative
of such employees by the Board.
(c) Maintaining and enforcing the collective-
bargaining agreements with Duane Reade, dated April 1,
1999, to September 21, 2002, and from April 2001 to
March 31, 2004, including the union-security clauses, at
Stores 192, 240, 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264, or any ex-
tension, renewal, or modification thereof.

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 946
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally, with Duane Reade, reimburse
all present and former employees described above for all
initiation fees, dues, assessments, or any other moneys
that may have been paid or which were withheld from
their pay pursuant to the aforesaid collective-bargaining
agreements, together with interest on the moneys due, to
be computed as set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(b) Post at its union offices copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix B.”6 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2,
after being signed by UNITE’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by UNITE immediately on receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
UNITE to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Forward to the Regional Director for Region 2
signed copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix
B” for posting by Duane Reade, at its store locations, as
set forth above in this Decision, for 60 consecutive days
in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that UNITE has taken to comply.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint herein be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.

APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf

6 See fn. 5, supra.
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT unlawfully assist Local 340-A UNITE,
AFL–CIO, herein called UNITE, in obtaining union au-
thorization cards from our employees, and refuse to pro-
vide equal access to Allied Trades Council, herein called
ATC, to our premises and employees for the purpose of
organizing our employees while according such privi-
leges to UNITE.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce our collective-
bargaining agreements with UNITE, dated April 1, 1999,
to September 21, 2002, and from April 2001 to March
31, 2004, including the union-security clauses contained
therein, covering Stores 192, 240, 241, 242, 252, 261,
and 264, or any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof; provided, however, that nothing in this Order
shall authorize, allow, or require the withdrawal, or
elimination of any wage increases or other benefits that
may have been established pursuant to such agreements.
WE WILL NOT direct our employees not to speak with
representatives of ATC.
WE WILL NOT engage in any surveillance of our em-
ployees’ activities on behalf of and in support of UNITE.
WE WILL NOT confiscate in the presence of our em-
ployees, authorization cards distributed by ATC.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
UNITE as the collective-bargaining representative of all
our clerks, pharmacy clerks, and cashiers at Stores 192,
240, 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264, unless and until
UNITE has been duly certified as the exclusive represen-
tative of such employees by the Board.
WE WILL jointly and severally with UNITE reimburse
our employees for all initiation fees, dues, assessments,
or other moneys they may have paid or which have been
withheld from their pay pursuant to the aforesaid collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, plus interest.
DUANE READE, INC.

APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
DUANE READE, INC. 947
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT accept unlawful assistance from Duane
Reade in obtaining union authorization cards from its
employees.
WE WILL NOT act or claim to act as the collective-
bargaining representative of the clerks, pharmacy clerks,
and cashiers, employed by Duane Reade, at Stores 192,
240, 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264, unless and until we
have been certified as the exclusive representative of
such employees by the Board.
WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce our collective-
bargaining agreements with Duane Reade, dated April 1,
1999, to September 21, 2002, and from April 2001 to
March 31, 2004, including the union-security clauses
contained therein, or any extension, renewal or modifica-
tions thereof covering Stores 192, 240, 241, 242, 252,
261, and 264.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally, with Duane Reade, re-
imburse all present and former clerks, pharmacy clerks,
and cashiers, employed by Duane Reade, at Stores 192,
240, 241, 242, 252, 261, and 264, for all initiation fees,
dues, assessments, or any other moneys that they may
have paid or which have been withheld from their pay
pursuant to the aforesaid collective-bargaining agree-
ments, plus interest.
LOCAL 340-A, UNITE, AFL–CIO
Bert Pearlstone, Esq., Suzannah Ringel, Esq., and Christian R.
White, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Brent Garren, Esq., Daniel F. Murphy Jr., Esq., for UNITE,
and Sean H. Close, Esq. (Putney, Twombly, Hall, & Hirson
LLP), for the Respondent.
William K. Wolf, Esq. (Friedman, Wolf, & Grisi), for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me December 19 and 20, 2001, and February 5
and 6, 2002, in New York, New York.
Upon charges filed by Allied Trades Council (the Union),
against Duane Reade, Inc. (the Employer), and against Local
340-A, UNITE, AFL–CIO ( UNITE), a complaint and notice of
hearing issued dated August 22, 2001.1 The complaint alleges
various acts of assistance by the Employer to UNITE in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and violation against
UNITE in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Based upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses and briefs submitted by counsel
for the General Counsel, counsel for Respondent Employer,
and counsel for Respondent Union, I make the followings of
facts and conclusions of law.2
At all material times, the Employer has been a domestic cor-
poration with an office and place of business at 440 Ninth Ave-
nue, New York, New York, has operated retail drug stores
throughout New York City, and Nassau County. The Em-
ployer, in the course and conduct of its business operations
annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000. The
Employer also in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions annually purchases and receives goods and supplies val-
ued in excess of $5000 directly from suppliers located outside
of the State of New York. It is admitted, and I find that the
Employer has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
It is also admitted, and I find that the Union and UNITE are
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.

1 During the trial of this case, counsel for the General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint. Such motion was granted and counsel
for the General Counsel thereafter submitted a conformed complaint
which was admitted into evidence as GC Exh. 2.
2 On April 23, 2002, counsel for the General Counsel made a motion
to strike an attachment to counsel for Respondent Union’s brief. Re-
spondent Union included as Attachment 1 to its brief: (1) the notice of
hearing on objections and the order consolidating Cases 2–RC–22403,
2–CA–34119–1, and 2–CA–34231–1; (2) Petitioner New York Joint
Board, UNITE’s objections and supplemental objections in Case 2–
RC–22403; and (3) the consolidated complaint in Cases 2–CA–34119–
1 and 2–CA–34231–1.
Respondent never introduced the above-cited documents at the in-
stant trial and they were never made part of the record. Since they were
never introduced, or received, or made part of a rejected exhibit file,
they may not be appropriately considered. For this reason alone, I grant
counsel for General Counsel’s motion to strike. See EDP Medical
Computer Systems, 284 NLRB 1286, 1287 (1987).
In addition, the documents attached to this brief are irrelevant. The
attached objections and complaint concern Duane Reade Stores not
named in the instant trial which constitute completely different bargain-
ing units. They also allege violations concerning events occurring in
the year 2001, over 1 year after the events occurring at the eight named
stores in the instant proceeding.
Counsel for Respondent Union wanted me to consider as evidence in
this case, the above complaints and objections against Allied Trade
Counsel alleging at other store locations, not involved in the trial, that
Allied Trades Counsel received assistance from Respondent Employer.
(See p. 34 of the trial record.) I refused to take evidence in connection
with these complaints and objections because they were not before me.
(See p. 36 of the trial record.) That Respondent Employer may have
assisted Allied Trades Counsel at other stores not involved in the com-
plaints before me, is not relevant as to whether Respondent Employer
assisted Respondent Union in the instant complaint before me.
Accordingly, I grant counsel for the General Counsel’s motion to
strike.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 948
The Employer operates nearly 200 retail pharmacies in the
New York City Metropolitan area. It was not disputed that at
the time of the trial the Employer recognized two different
Unions at various different stores: the Union which represented
approximately 140 of the stores, and UNITE, which repre-
sented at least 40 stores as of May 2001. It was also undisputed
that the two unions were and are actively competing to organize
new stores in the chain. James Rizzo, Duane Reade’s vice
president, human resources, characterized the situation of the
last 3 years since he became employed by the Employer as one
of “continuing struggle between these two unions” to represent
Duane Reade stores. There is also no dispute that the allega-
tions in the instant case concern only eight of those stores, as
set forth below and concern events that occurred during calen-
dar year 2000.
Store 242
Store 242 was the first of the seven in the instant case to be
visited by UNITE. UNITE representatives visited the store on
February 29, 2000, the day before it opened to the public on
March 1, 2000. Seventeen employees signed authorization
cards for UNITE on February 29, 2000.
Alicia Alvarado and Jason Valentin, both former employees
of Duane Reade at Store 242, credibly testified about the cir-
cumstances surrounding the card signings on February 29.
Both credibly testified that the store manager, Gary Ober-
decker, instructed all employees to come to the back of the
store that day. Alvarado testified that Oberdecker first told the
employees that there would be people coming in to tell them
about a union and that they would have cards for the employees
to fill out. Valentin recalled Oberdecker making only one an-
nouncement on the loudspeaker to order the employees to re-
port to the back of the pharmacy. In any event, it is clear that
most if not all of the employees present went to the back of the
store as instructed. Once there, there was a “little meeting” for
the purpose of telling the employees about the Union and pass-
ing out authorization cards. It is undisputed that the meeting
occurred on worktime in the afternoon and that the employees
were paid for the time spent at the meeting. Present at the
meeting were Oberdecker, and at least two representatives from
UNITE. Both employees testified that Oberdecker was present
during the meeting where the employees signed cards. Valen-
tin’s recollection was that Oberdecker participated in distribut-
ing and collecting the cards. Alvarado had no such recollection
although she was not asked specifically if Oberdecker actually
handled any of the union authorization cards at the meeting.
Oberdecker was not called to testify for Respondent Employer.
Bertha Wilson, UNITE representative, testified that she and
two other union representatives, Guillermo Mayora and Pedro
Galarza, visited Store 242 and approached workers and that she
“thinks” this was at the end of February 2000. Wilson testified
that Oberdecker told them they were not supposed to be talking
to the employees while they were working. According to Wil-
son, she then asked Oberdecker if she could talk to the employ-
ees when the workers were on break. Wilson testified she also
talked to some of the workers while they were on break. Wil-
son offered no further details to explain how they happened to
be permitted into the store when it was closed to the public, or
how much time was spent in the store that day such that they
were able to get 17 signed cards.
According to the credible testimony of Union Vice President
Ray Rosado, the Employer’s representatives concealed from
him the fact that there even existed a Store 242 or that UNITE
had signed up the majority of employees at that store. In this
connection, Rosado testified that in late February or early
March 2000, he was at the Employers headquarters at Ninth
Avenue speaking to employees from stores represented by his
union when Carol Baretto, a human resources manager told him
to refer any employees from Store 242 to her. At that point in
early 2000, the Union, represented the Employer’s employees
at some 140 stores. Rosado had never heard of any store num-
bered 242 and was curious as to whether Baretto had misspo-
ken. He asked Human Resources Director Seymour Stein, and
Stein replied that he did not know of any Store 242. Rosado
testified that he did not press the matter further at that point,
supposing that Baretto might have been mistaken as to the
number. A few weeks later, in mid-March, union representa-
tives learned, contrary to what Rosado had been told by Stein
weeks earlier, Store 242 had in fact opened at 401 E. 86th
Street and had already been “organized” by UNITE. At about
this same time information about the existence of Store 241
also surfaced. On March 17, 2000, a day or two after the Union
learned of these two stores, John Morro, president of the Union,
visited Store 242, and Ray Rosado, vice president, separately
visited Store 241.
Morro visited Store 242 on East 86th Street in Manhattan in
the morning, and was approached by Store Manager Ober-
decker. Morro identified himself and told the store manager he
was there to sign employees up. Oberdecker responded that
Jim Rizzo, employer vice president for human resources, had
instructed him that Morro was not to be allowed to sign em-
ployees up. Oberdecker proceeded, apparently as per instruc-
tions, to telephone Rizzo while Morro was still in the store.
Oberdecker then handed the telephone to Morro. Morro testi-
fied that Rizzo told him that he should not be in that store.
Morro asked, “why”? and Rizzo replied, “because it is another
Union’s store.” Morro asked how that could be, and Rizzo
replied that “Tony Cuti, CEO of the Employer had spoken to
some representatives of UNITE and had invited them in to
come to the store to sign people up.” Morro protested that it
should not have been another Union’s store and asked Rizzo
why the Employer had done this. Rizzo replied, “because it
would be beneficial financially for Duane Reade.” Morro then
commented, “what did Tony Cuti do shop around?” At that
point Rizzo invited Morro to come to his office in person to
speak further. Morro proceeded to leave Store 242 and traveled
across town to Rizzo’s office at 440 Ninth Avenue.
At the office, Morro asked Rizzo “what was going on?” and
Rizzo replied that “another Union has been brought in and that
this would be beneficial financially.” Morro protested that this
was not right, but Rizzo said that “the Employer had gotten a
good deal.” Morro protested further, and Rizzo explained that
there would be some nonunion stores, that UNITE would get
some stores and the Union would get some stores. Rizzo spe-
cifically mentioned that there would be a store opening up at
the Port Authority, Store 217, and that the Union would have
DUANE READE, INC. 949
that store. Morro inquired if that meant that the Union would
get the rest of the stores, but Rizzo said he did not say that. The
conversation ended with Morro giving his opinion that the mat-
ter would probably end up at the National Labor Relations
Board, and Rizzo agreed.
Rizzo did testify that he recalled a telephone conversation
with Morro while Morro was in Store 242. However, Rizzo
asserted that he did not recall the date or the day of the week of
the call. According to Rizzo, he actually recalled two
conversations the same day, with Morro telling him he had
spoken to his attorney, Henry Hamburger, in between the two
calls. Rizzo said he told Morro that the Employer had recog-
nized UNITE in the first conversation. Rizzo denied telling
Morro that CEO Cuti had invited UNITE into the store. Rizzo
did admit asking Morro to leave the store in one of these phone
conversations. According to Rizzo, he told Morro that Morro
could stay as a customer but could not stay disrupting employ-
ees doing their job. Rizzo testified that Morro said he was not
disrupting because it was early in the morning and there were
no customers in the store. Rizzo claimed that he told Morro a
second time that he had to leave and then invited Morro to his
office. Rizzo testified that once Morro arrived at the office, the
two simply “discussed what was going on,” regarding the fact
that there was another union that the employees wished to rep-
resent them. Rizzo testified that “I do not recall doing that and
I would never do that” when asked if he in fact offered to give
the Union recognition at a new Employer’s store scheduled to
open at the Port Authority.
It is my impression that the 13 employee or former employee
witnesses, taken as a whole, testified forthrightly and obviously
without guile. For the most part these witnesses were young,
inexperienced, and spent only a short time with the Employer’s
employees. They were testifying pursuant to subpoena and it
became necessary to seek enforcement of some of the subpoe-
nas to secure the presence of several of the former employees.
Thus they were not particularly eager to testify and did not have
any personal interest or bias which would predispose them to
color their testimony.
I take note that employee witness Milagros Guzman (Store
192) who is currently employed by the Union, was not hired by
the Union until July 2001. She had cooperated with the
Board’s investigation by giving an affidavit on February 6,
2001, substantially before her employment with the Union.
Moreover, no evidence was adduced at trial by either Respon-
dent that her affidavit was inconsistent with her testimony at
the hearing.
In addition to being relatively disinterested witnesses, the
testimony of the employees as to the circumstances surrounding
their signing of union authorization cards at each of the seven
stores involved in this trial, was much more detailed than that
of the Employer’s witnesses present on those occasions. In
some instances, Employer witnesses offered only general deni-
als in response to leading questions. In other instances, the
Employer witnesses present on the day cards were signed did
not testify, justifying an adverse inference that such testimony
would not have supported the contentions of the Employer.
Where General Counsel put on more than one employee wit-
ness to the card signing meetings at the stores, such testimony
was mutually corroborative on the material points supporting
the unfair labor practices, although there were inevitable minor
discrepancies caused by normal memory differences as to
events occurring 2 years ago. To the extent that two of the
witnesses, Olivia Andre and Patricia Ramkirath (Store 264), are
current employees of Duane Reade and thus testified against
their current employer, I give their testimony additional weight.
See Natico, Inc., 302 NLRB 668, 689 (1991).
Moreover, the testimony of all General Counsel’s witnesses
establishes a clear pattern over a wide geographical area en-
compassing the seven store locations alleged in this instant
complaint. There is no evidence that these employees knew
one another, and therefore, I conclude there is no way they
could have manufactured such consistent testimony. Accord-
ingly, I conclude General Counsel’s employees witnesses are
100-percent credible.
I credit Union President Morro’s testimony in connection to
his conversations on the telephone and thereafter at Rizzo’s
office, with Rizzo. In this regard his testimony had the ring of
truth. It was very detailed, and explained totally why he and
his representatives was not allowed to speak with the Em-
ployer’s employees at Store 242 and the other stores in issue.
Moreover, the credible testimony of the employees called by
counsel for General Counsel virtually establish the truth of
Morro’s testimony.
The Employer’s witnesses were not credible. They had a in-
credible lack of memory when asked about card signings and
recognition, and Rizzo’s lack of memory as to his conversation
with Morro was a perfect example. Rizzo testified that during
his office conversations with Morro they merely “discussed
what was going on.”
The Employer did not call Store Manager Oberdecker (Store
242), Husian (Store 241), or Alvarez (Store 240). As to these
witnesses I draw an adverse inference that such testimony
would not have supported the Employer’s contentions.
I also find that UNITE’s sole witness, Representative Bertha
Wilson was not a credible witness. Of course my credibility
conclusions, described above are sufficient to discredit Wil-
son’s testimony. However, Wilson’s testimony itself is simply
not credible.
Bertha Wilson was present at each of the stores in this case
when the majority of cards were signed. Wilson, when ques-
tioned by General Counsel chose not to attempt to explain the
coincidence that she and the other union representatives who
accompanied her seemed always to be signing up the majority
of employees at one session either the day before the store
opened (Stores 192, 241, 242, 261, and 264), a few days before
it opened (Store 252), or the day after it opened (Store 240). In
two of those cases, she and the other UNITE reps managed to
be present at the exact time that Duane Reade was handing out
employment applications to employees of the store it was buy-
ing (Stores 261 and 264). Clearly this was no coincidence. In
Wilson’s very vague testimony, she asserted in repetitive fash-
ion that she and the others signed up employees individually at
each of these stores without any assistance from managers.
This testimony is diametrically at odds with the detailed and
credible testimony of the employees about meetings called by
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 950
the store managers to meet the Union and sign cards, which
meetings in most of the cases were attended by those managers.
The credible testimony in this case establishes that the Em-
ployer made a decision at the highest levels of management to
select UNITE as the collective-bargaining representative for the
stores set forth in this complaint because they could get a better
deal with UNITE, a purely economic decision.
Counsel for General Counsel sets forth in his brief the appli-
cable principles of law relating to the facts of this case.
The Board has long held that an employer violates Section
8(a)(2) of the Act if it renders unlawful assistance to the forma-
tion of a Union by its employees. In determining whether an
employer has gone beyond lawful cooperation with a Union,
the Board examines the totality of the employer’s conduct to
determine whether its support would tend to inhibit employees
in their free choice regarding a bargaining representative or
interfere with the representative’s maintenance of an arms
length relationship with it. In undertaking this analysis, the
Board considers such indirect pressure such as directing and
paying employees to attend union meetings during worktime,
and direct pressures such as permitting the Union to solicit
authorization cards in front of management representative. The
Board looks to whether the quantum of these types of pressures
would reasonably tend to coerce employees in the exercise of
their free choice in selecting a bargaining representative. The
Board in Vernitron Electrical Components, Inc., 221 NLRB
464, 465 (1975), found a violation where both of the above
factors existed, coupled with a rapid and unverified grant of
recognition by the employer. In Vernitron, there was no other
competing union involved seeking to organize the employees,
but the Board found a violation nonetheless. The Board rea-
soned that the presence of the supervisors observing the execu-
tion of the authorization cards, coupled with almost instant
recognition the same day, prevented employees who might
have felt pressured by the presence of supervisors from having
the opportunity to either revoke their authorizations or bring
another union into the organizational campaign.
The Board has also viewed harshly and found unlawful
8(a)(2) assistance when a employer discriminates against one
union in the face of a competing organizational campaign. So
where, for example, an employer sponsors or permits a union to
solicit cards on its premises and denies similar access to a com-
peting Union, the Board has found unlawful 8(a)(2) assistance.
Ella Industries, 295 NLRB 976, 979 (1989) (assistance found
based on a second union’s request for meeting with employees
after it learned rival union had met with employees). Similarly,
in Price Crusher Food Warehouse, 249 NLRB 433, 438–439
(1980), the Board found a violation where the employer sum-
moned its employees to a meeting on its premises, which it
turned over to the union for the purpose of soliciting union
membership. In that case, the Board found that an additional
element present there was also a violation: the employer’s re-
fusal to grant a second union the same opportunity to solicit
membership on the store premises on working time. The Board
noted, in that case, that there were no threats or promises and
the employer did not directly inform the employees that they
were required to join the favored union. But the Board stressed
that the employer never informed the employees that they had
any choice in the matter, but instead created conditions leading
the employees to believe that management expected them to
sign cards for the favored Union and to do so promptly. In so
finding, the Board noted that many of the employees were
young and inexperienced in the working world.
In addition to sponsoring meetings on working time, direct-
ing employees to attend such meetings, having supervisors
present while cards are solicited, granting hasty and almost
instant recognition without independent verification, and treat-
ing competing unions disparately with respect to access, the
Board has found the issuance of union authorization cards dur-
ing the hiring process violated Section 8(a)(2). Fountainview
Care Center, 317 NLRB 1286, 1289 (1995) (employees re-
ceived union authorization cards along with applications for
employment for the employer). In Fountainview, supra, the
Board found that any union cards so obtained were tainted
since the joining of the two forms was likely to give applicants
the impression that there was a link between the signature on
the card and the hiring process. In Fountainview, the union
cards were given out by the security guards for the builder of
the facility before Fountainview took possession of the facility
from the builder. Nonetheless, the Board found that the em-
ployer in that case engaged in unlawful assistance at the early
juncture.
Another important principle in this area applicable to the in-
stant case is that in order to void recognition agreements based
on any combination of factors discussed above, “the General
Counsel need not prove with mathematical certainty that the
union lacked majority support at the time of recognition where
there is evidence that the employer unlawfully assisted a un-
ion’s organizational campaign.” Fountainview Care Center,
supra at 1287, 1289, quoting Siro Security Service, 247 NLRB
1266, 1271 (1980). The Board and courts have made it clear
that the General Counsel, in order to void a recognition as
tainted and thus not based on an uncoerced majority, need only
demonstrate a pattern of employer assistance. Famous Cast-
ings, Corp., 301 NLRB 404, 408 (1991); Amalgamated Local
355 v. NLRB, 481 F.2d 996 fn. 8 (2d Cir. 1973).
Further, the Board has long held that in evaluating whether
such a pattern of assistance exists, it will examine the totality of
circumstances, including both prerecognition conduct and post-
recognition conduct, to determine whether such conduct tainted
the union’s majority status. Caldor Inc., 319 NLRB 728, 738
(1995), and cases cited therein. Finally, it is longstanding
Board law that in order to establish an 8(a)(2) violation, it is not
necessary to establish antiunion animus or a specific motive to
interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights or to probe for the
employees’ subjective reaction to the employer’s support of the
Union. NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding Co., 308 U.S. 241
(1939); Ladies Garment Workers (Bernhard Altmann Texas
Corp.) v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731, 739 (1961).
A union that accepts unlawful assistance from an employer
violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Sweater Bee By Banff
Ltd., 197 NLRB 805 (1972). Where an employer and a union
are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement with a union
security clause, and they enforce such a clause in the face of
recognition tainted by unlawful support and assistance, they
DUANE READE, INC. 951
violate Section 8(a)(2) and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) respec-
tively. See Sav-On Drugs, 267 NLRB 639 (1983).
In fashioning remedies for such violations, the Board gener-
ally issues a cease and desist order prohibiting the employer
from recognizing the assisted union and from giving effect to
any contract between it and the union unless and until the union
is properly certified. Safeway Stores, 276 NLRB 944 (1985).
But the Board has also provided that such orders should not be
construed to authorize or require the elimination of wage in-
creases or benefits established under the agreement. Caro
Bags, 285 NLRB 656 (1987). In terms of make-whole relief,
the Board will find the Union and employer involved jointly
and severally liable to reimburse employees for any dues pay-
ments obtained under circumstances where recognition has
been voided due to unlawful assistance and support. Caro
Bags, supra.
Applying the applicable law to the credible testimony of un-
ion president, Morro, and the credible testimony of employees
Alvarado, and Valentin, in connection with Store 242, I con-
clude that the Employer assisted UNITE by directing employ-
ees to a meeting on February 29, 2000, for the purpose of sign-
ing up with that particular Union. The meeting was mandatory
and on paid worktime. Most significantly, Oberdecker re-
mained present at the meeting while 17 employees, a majority,
signed union cards for UNITE.
Further, his granting of this assistance while remaining pre-
sent further constitutes just the kind of coercive atmosphere
sufficient to taint the cards signed that day and hence the sub-
sequent recognition of UNITE. This is especially true when
one considers this assistance and coercion in combination with
James Rizzo’s subsequent conversation with John Morro on
March 17, admitting the Employer invited UNITE in because it
was in their financial interest; the Employer’s actions in first
concealing the existence of Store 242 from the Union, the Em-
ployer’s subsequent refusal to grant access to the union repre-
sentatives after its unlawful recognition of UNITE.
There is really no dispute that Morro visited Store 242 on
March 17, and was completely denied access to the facility or
to the employees. Contrast this with the preferred treatment of
UNITE on February 29, where they were invited in for the
express purpose of signing up employees and were accommo-
dated by directing the employees to attend a meeting on work-
time for that purpose. This disparate treatment in access to
employees was quite stark, and as discussed below was re-
peated at the other stores in the instant case.
The Employer’s “official” policy regarding solicitation for
the purposes of organizing is stated very plainly and in fact was
pled as an affirmative defense in the Employer’s answer in the
instant case:

Pursuant to its “no-solicitation” policy, Duane Reade does not
permit any organizational visits to any Duane Reade Stores.
After a valid recognition of representation of any labor or-
ganization by Duane Reade, Duane Reade permits a labor or-
ganization to monitor and enforce its collective bargaining
agreement.

The only problem with this stated strict no-solicitation policy
is that the policy was applied only to the Union with respect to
the stores at issue in this case. UNITE on the other hand, was
clearly permitted, and was, as set forth below, specifically in-
vited in for organizational visits inside the Employer’s prem-
ises. The Employer sponsored these meetings is shown by the
role of the store managers in calling the meetings and in most
cases remaining present during the meetings.
With respect to Store 242 in particular, in addition to the de-
nial of similar access to John Morro on March 17, James Rizzo
admitted directly to Morro on that day that he invited in UNITE
because the Employer felt it would be beneficial financially.
As set forth above, Morro’s quite detailed testimony of his
conversations with Rizzo that day, on the phone and in person,
was fully credited over Rizzo’s more general denials. Not only
did Rizzo speak about Store 242, but he went on to explain to
Morro the Employer’s apparent intent to pick and choose
whether a particular store would have a union and if so which
union would be “given” that store.
Given, what I have concluded to be the 100 percent absolute,
unassailable credibility of the employees above, which rein-
forces Morro’s credibility, I conclude the employer assisted
UNITE, the six other stores as set forth in the complaint, in a
similar manner as in Store 242, because it was economically
desirable to do so.
Thus, with respect to the seven stores in issue, my findings
of fact are based entirely on the credible testimony of the em-
ployees called by General Counsel and the testimony of the
union representatives. To the extent that the testimony of the
Employer’s witnesses and UNITE’s witness, Wilson, are con-
tradictory, such testimony is not credited.
In summary, with respect to Store 242, I find the combina-
tion of; (1) the assistance in signing up workers on February 29;
(2) the presence of manager while the cards were signed; (3)
the initial concealment of the existence of this store from union
representatives; (4) the disparate treatment of Union in denying
that Union similar access on March 17; and (5) the expressed
intent of the Employer’s highest management to pick and
choose which Union, if any would represent each of its stores,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).
Store 241
At Store 241, a majority of employees were signed up by
UNITE in the same manner as in Store 242, above. In this
regard, on March 16, Store Manager Zafar Husain instructed
the employees to go to meetings in groups for the express pur-
pose of signing UNITE cards. They were on paid company
time. I conclude this is an independent act of 8(a)(2) assis-
tance, though two of the three employee witnesses differed
somewhat as to their memory of exactly how long Zafar stayed
at those card signing meetings. The third witness thought it
was a different Employer representatives, I conclude, the requi-
site element of coercion was present. When a manager directs
employees to go to a meeting on paid worktime for the express
purpose of signing cards for a particular union, and then ac-
companies them to the meeting for even a short period of time,
such conduct is coercive. See Famous Castings, Corp., supra
at 406–407. This is especially true where such conduct assist-
ing in the card signings on March 16, is compounded by the
subsequent denial of access to the store to, another union, in
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 952
this case the union vice president, Rosado, was denied access
the very next day. As with Store 242, I find this denial of ac-
cess constitutes an independent violation of Section 8(a)(2).
Moreover, at Store 241 there existed two additional factors
evidencing a pattern of assistance and coercive atmosphere not
present at Store 242: (1) a very hasty, “instantaneous” recogni-
tion agreement dated the same day (March 16) as the card sign-
ing meetings; and (2) a written demand for recognition by
UNITE based on a claimed majority dated March 10, 2000—6
days before the Union signed up any employees!
General Counsel contends that the assistance and coercion
on March 16, by the manager, coupled with the instant recogni-
tion dated the same day, and the next day’s blocking of any
ability of the Union to have equal access to attempt to organize
the employees is more than enough to find the recognition
tainted. I agree. NLRB v. Vernitran Electrical Components
Inc., 548 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1977), enfg. Vernitran, supra at 221.
NLRB 464.
The fact that the meetings occurred on paid worktime, as in
Vernitron, would only tend to reinforce these findings. The
presence of the managers at or in the vicinity of the meetings
adds to the coercion. Finally, as in Vernitron, the instant rec-
ognition the same day as the coercive card signings served to
lock in majority support which otherwise might have eroded
after the employer-assisted organizing ceased. Thus, these
factors present in Vernitran is also part present in the instant
case at Store 241. Accordingly, I conclude, the recognition
therefore, was thus based on a coerced majority in violation of
8(a)(1) and (2).
Another issue is the matter of UNITE’s premature demand
for recognition dated March 10, 2000. I conclude that such
letter supports an inference that UNITE expected to be recog-
nized at Store 242, even before its representatives visited to
sign up the employees. It suggests pre-recognition communica-
tion and collusion between the Employer and UNITE in an
effort to keep the Union out of this particular store, and Rizzo’s
admission to Morro. Such fraudulent or tainted demand for
recognition, at a time when the Union had no support, is not an
isolated instance. As set forth below, UNITE also submitted a
demand for recognition dated March 16, 4 days before it was
invited in to Store 192 on March 20. General Counsel contends
that no further such “anticipatory” demands for recognition
were introduced into evidence because the Employer refused to
produce them, although General Counsel, subpoenaed them.
General Counsel contends that an adverse inference is war-
ranted that the rest of the written demands for the remaining
stores would not support the Employer’s contentions in this
case. The reason is that James Rizzo testified that he had re-
ceived written demand letters for all of the seven stores in-
volved in the instant case. Rizzo also admitted that he had
those written demand letters in his possession. Pursuant to
General Counsels subpoena, only two such letters covering
three of the seven stores had been produced as of the time
Rizzo testified that he in fact possessed the remainder of them.
But the next day, pursuant to General Counsel’s request for
production, the Employer claimed it could not locate the re-
maining demand letters. I conclude such nonproduction, after
Rizzo’s admission that he did have possession of all seven de-
mand letters, results in the adverse inference requested, by
General Counsel.
Store 192
As set forth above, the mutually corroborative and credible
testimony of employees Milagros Guzman and Nadine Jones as
to the circumstances of the card signings at this store is unre-
butted. Store Manager Kevin Shields was not called to testify.
I concluded that this warrants an adverse inference. Shield’s
conduct the day before and the day of the meetings on March
20, 2000, where 19 cards were signed, clearly constitutes
unlawful assistance to UNITE. In this connection Shields an-
nounced the day before the meeting that UNITE would be com-
ing to sign them up, as if it were a fait accompli. The next day,
when the UNITE representatives arrived, Shields announced to
all the employees that they had to go downstairs to sign up.
Shields arranged for the employee to go downstairs in groups
of six. The involuntary nature of this became apparent when
Guzman protested that she was not finished with her work and
Shields instructed her to go down and that he would send
someone to her workstation so she could be released. It is fur-
ther undisputed that the organizational meeting took place on
paid worktime. As was true of all the stores in this case except
Stores 240, 261, and 264, UNITE’s organizational meeting took
place on company premises at a time when the store was closed
to the general public. So, not only did the Employer com-
pletely ignore its stated strict no-solicitation policy in order to
assist UNITE, but it specifically permitted the representatives
inside the store at a time when they could not have come in as
customers. I find this conduct to be an independent violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) by providing meeting space to UNITE
and requiring its employees to attend the meeting.

In addition to finding an independent violation described
above, I also conclude that the totality of circumstances war-
rants a finding that the recognition so obtained at Store 192 was
tainted and thus not based on an uncoerced majority. While not
every factor present at Stores 242 and 241 was present at Store
192, the totality of factors, considered in connection with
Rizzo’s store policy statement set forth above, show the Em-
ployer’s continuing pattern of conduct, at the named stores, to
actively assist and prefer UNITE over the Union. In this re-
gard, John Morro credibly testified about how he specifically
asked, in late 1999 or early 2000, Director of Human Resources
Seymour Stein if the Employer planned to take over the store-
front which eventually became Store 192. At that time, Stein
flatly denied the Employer had any interest in that store. This
concealment of its intent to take over a store in an effort pre-
clude the Union’s organization was not isolated. As discussed
above, Stein was also untruthful to Ray Rosado about the exis-
tence of Store 242.
Another factor to consider in connection with Store 192,
which was also present elsewhere among the stores in this case,
is the premature, “anticipatory” written demand for recognition
by UNITE, based on an asserted majority, albeit at a time when
it had not yet visited that store. In the case of Store 192, the
letter demanding recognition, was dated March 16, 4 days be-
fore the organizational meetings of March 20, where the vast
DUANE READE, INC. 953
majority of employees signed 19 cards. Further, at Store 192
there exists another instant recognition, dated March 20, which
served to lock in employee support and prevent employees
pressured by the manager’s order to attend the organizational
meetings from having the opportunity to either revoke their
authorizations or bring another Union into the organizational
campaign. I conclude, that this combination of factors, based
on the cases cited above, has been considered by the Board
enough to invalidate a recognition so obtained even where there
was no other Union in the picture. Where as here, there is
clearly another, rival union on the scene trying to actively or-
ganize the same employees, and the Employer is taking con-
scious steps to block that union from organizing those workers,
employee free choice is even more severely undermined. As in
the other stores, John Morro, when he attempted to access Store
192 in late May 2000, was prevented from doing so on threat of
arrest. I therefore conclude, the totality of circumstances sup-
port a finding that the recognition at this store was not based on
an uncoerced majority and should be invalidated.
Store 240
In Store 240, Morro, without any assistance from the Em-
ployer, somehow got to the Employer’s store on May 26, the
day after the store opened. Initially, the store manager, Al Al-
varez did not prevent Morro from soliciting the two or three
employees present at that early hour. But his statement to
Morro that he was “expecting” him, when Morro identified
himself as from the Union, he did not state which union he
represented, suggests a prior arrangement where UNITE must
have been invited in that day to sign up employees. Alvarez
was obviously confused and thought that Morro was from
UNITE. Since there were only a few employees present in the
early morning, Morro asked when the majority would be in and
was told to come back in the early afternoon. By the time he
got back to the store at 1 p.m., UNITE had been to the store
already and had signed up 12 to 13 employees, a majority. By
the time Morro got back, it was clear that the Employer’s man-
agers had figured out Alvarez’ “mistake” that morning in per-
mitting Morro to enter the store. At 1 p.m., Morro was greeted
by the Employer’s district manager, Vigliotti, who would not
let him speak to any employees and threatened to have him
arrested if he did not leave. That UNITE had been expressly
invited into sign up employees at Store 240 is supported by
Alvarez’ reaction to Morro, cited above. But there is further
documentary support for such a finding. If this had not been
preplanned and the Employer had not already determined that
Store 240 would be a “UNITE store,” once again, consistent
with Rizzo’s March 17-policy statements to Morro, how else
does one explain a May 25 letter from the Employer to an arbi-
trator setting up a card count verification for that store? The
May 25 letter requests a card check to determine majority status
the day before UNITE visited the store. It is indeed hard to
imagine stronger evidence that the Employer planned to recog-
nize UNITE at Store 240 even before the UNITE secured a
majority. The Employer was sure that the UNITE would actu-
ally obtain a majority because they obviously had invited the
UNITE in on company paid time to facilitate the card signings.
Not only did they assist UNITE at Store 240, and prevent the
Union from securing a majority, but the stark contrast in treat-
ment occurred on the same day within an hour or two. It is of
no moment that there was not instant recognition at Store 240,
it was in the bag anyway, in fact, the Employer did not sign the
recognition agreement until June 2. The egregious disparate
treatment and the absolute denial of equal access to premises to
the rival Union completely undermined any employee free
choice at this store. Additionally, Morro testified that he was
ejected from the store in full view of employees present, which
I find coercive.
I conclude the Employer denied equal access to the Union
for the purposes of organizing its employees at Store 240, to be
a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. In addition,
the totality of its conduct in connection with that store warrants
a finding that the recognition so obtained was tainted, and thus
not based on an uncoerced majority, also in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
Store 252
Latrice Jacobs a former employee was particularly forthright
and credible on direct and cross examination. Her credible
testimony establishes that store manager, Frank Wilder, called a
meeting of all of the employees on paid worktime on June 17.
Wilder introduced UNITE’s representatives and remained at the
organizational meeting as the organizers spoke about the Union
and distributed authorization cards. The UNITE representa-
tives were invited in, contrary to Duane Reade’s professed
strict no-solicitation rule referenced above. Moreover, they
were permitted inside on a day that the store was not yet open
to the general public. Wilder, however, was not content to just
remain present at the meeting, he interrupted the UNITE repre-
sentatives presentation at least once. He told the 15–20 em-
ployees present that UNITE was the only Union the Employer
was affiliated with and that they had to sign the cards. He for-
bid the employees from signing with any other union. Seven-
teen employees signed cards at that meeting. Wilder’s vague
denials similar to all other Employer representatives, left no
doubt whatsoever as to the truthfulness of Jacobs’ account.
Further, Bertha Wilson’s equally disjointed and implausible
version of how so many cards came to be signed in such a short
time was laughable, not convincing, and as set forth above
discredited. I conclude the blatant assistance by Wilder clearly
is an independent violation of the Act, as is his coercive state-
ments about UNITE being the only union, and his order to the
employees not to sign up with other union. Morro’s unrebutted
and credible testimony that he was denied equal access 4 days
later, June 21, and prior to any recognition, completes this
unlawful picture. On that occasion, employer managers,
Abrams and Wilder, followed Morro and attempted to surveil
his attempts to speak to employees that day. I find such con-
duct, as alleged in the conformed complaint is an additional
independent violation of the Act.
I also conclude the above-described assistance and coercion,
in particular Wilder’s presence at the card signing meeting and
his coercive statements during that meeting, in combination
with the denial of equal access to the Union 4 days later, taints
the majority on which the June 22 recognition was based, such
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 954
that it was not based on an uncoerced majority, as alleged in the
complaint.
Store 261
The mutually corroborative testimony of employees Jessica
Durgha and Brendaliz Torres established that UNITE obtained
its majority at the store on July 21, the day before the store
officially opened to the public. Most significant, however, is
that on July 21, a Friday, the union cards were solicited at the
same time as employer director of human resources, Seymour
Stein, was present handing the same their employees employ-
ment applications for employment. As noted above, the Board
has held in Fountainview Care Center, 317 NLRB 1286, 1289
(1995), that union cards obtained during the hiring process in
this manner are tainted because of the obviously coercive cir-
cumstances. Durgha gave vivid and clearly credible testimony
of how she was in the same room with other employees filling
out employment applications distributed by Seymour Stein and
then proceeded to fill out the union card in the same room sev-
eral feet away from Stein. Stein’s vague memory, and totally
untruthful and fabricated testimony as to the presence of union
representatives that day is almost not significant, except as to
his character, because Bertha Wilson, the UNITE representative
admitted Stein was there the day the cards were signed, and she
admitted that the employees were approached after the workers
spoke with Stein. However, Wilson, an otherwise incredible
witness, offered no convincing explanation of how she and the
other UNITE representatives happened to be there on the exact
day and at the precise time that Stein was handing out employ-
ment applications, or why it was that she was not accosted by
managers and escorted out of the store pursuant to Duane
Reade’s professed strict no-solicitation policy, as were union
representatives. Durgha’s testimony in particular was detailed
and had the “ring of truth.” As set forth, in detail above, all the
employee witnesses were in my view, 100-percent absolutely
truthful.
General Counsel contends, and I conclude that the recogni-
tion at Store 261 would have been tainted based on the majority
of cards signed that day in the presence of Seymour Stein and
at the same time as Stein signed up the workers as the employer
employees. However, the Employer engaged in further acts of
assistance later in the week when it denied equal access to the
Union. In this regard, Morro visited the store on July 24 or 25,
a few days after the above-described card signings. He was
told first by Store Manager, Victor Goriah how Seymour Stein
had been in the store with representatives of UNITE when the
union cards were signed, corroborating the testimony summa-
rized above. Goriah then put Morro on the phone with Stein,
who stated that the store was a UNITE store, which was not
true, because the recognition was not accomplished until July
28, days later. Stein told Morro he had to leave or he would be
arrested. Neither Goriah nor Stein made any real attempt to
rebut this testimony of Morro. Thus this denial of equal access
to the Union, at a time prior to recognition of UNITE, is a fac-
tor which further supports a finding that the July 28 recognition
cannot be considered to have been based on an uncoerced ma-
jority, and is a further violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).
Store 264
The pattern of assistance and coercion at this store closely
resembles that of Store 261 above. It is clear that the majority
of UNITE cards were signed at that store during the hiring
process, while two high ranking employer officials, Seymour
Stein and District Manager Bill Farrington, were present in the
same room. As set forth above, the mutually corroborative
testimony of Emily Alvarez and current employer employee
Olivia Andre was detailed and credited by me in its entirety.
The hiring and union signings took place in rapid succession in
the small “baler” room at the back of the pharmacy where
boxes are crushed. Once again, the UNITE representatives
were present handing out authorization cards while Stein and
Farrington were in very close proximity, signing up as em-
ployer employees. These employees came down in a continu-
ing stream, shepherded back to that room. Employee Andre
described the UNITE officials as two, three steps away from
the Employer’s officials. For the same reasons discussed above
with respect to Store 261, I conclude this highly coercive situa-
tion taints that any cards so obtained, approximately 17 cards.
Moreover, just as with Store 264, the Employer did not give the
Union a chance at equal access so as to facilitate employee free
choice. When Union Representative Rosado, tried to gain ac-
cess to the store to solicit employees on July 28, Store Manager
Enrico Moses told Rosado that he was not allowed to be there
or to talk to employees because the store “belonged” to another
Union. The Employer had not yet recognized UNITE as of
July 28, rather the recognition was dated July 31. Therefore, in
no possible sense did that store “belong” to UNITE at that
point. As with Store 261, I find this additional element of de-
nial of equal access to the rival Union even before any recogni-
tion took place constitutes an additional act of assistance sup-
porting a finding that the recognition was tainted at Store 264.
Store 247
Sometime in late April 2000, union officials Morro and Ray
Rosado visited Store 247. The store manager at the time was
Enrico Moses. Morro and Rosado entered the store and imme-
diately began distributing union authorization cards. At some
point, Moses accosted them and told them the could not speak
to the employees and that they had to leave the store. Moses
does not dispute this point. Rosado credibly testified that in
addition, Moses went to the employees who had already re-
ceived cards and demanded that they give him the cards be-
cause he was not supposed to have allowed them in the store,
and they were not supposed to sign anything from the Union.
Morro and Rosado credibly testified further that Moses took
one of the cards he had confiscated and tore it in half. Moses
admits that he took authorization cards, but only after they were
given to him “voluntarily” after he came over and asked the
employees “what are you doing?” when he saw Morro solicit-
ing cards from them. He denied tearing up any of the cards he
received. Morro and Rosado testified that they observed Moses
tear up one of the cards and only taped it back together after
Morro told Moses that it was illegal to do so. Morro produced
the taped up card and it was introduced into evidence. I find
this reinforces the union representative’s credibility, and is
DUANE READE, INC. 955
consistent with the Employer’s policy to assist UNITE as ad-
mitted by Rizzo.
According to his own testimony, Moses accosted employees
as Morro was soliciting them and stated, “What are you do-
ing?” I conclude this was interference and coercion in and of
itself under the circumstances. See Service Employees Local
144 (Sands Point Nursing Home), 321 NLRB 399, 402 (1996).
(Telling employees they were not allowed to sign cards for
another union and that they should retrieve the cards deemed
coercive.) I also find its is absurd to construe as voluntary, the
employees’ surrender of the cards to Moses, or his collection of
them under those circumstances. Accordingly, I conclude such
conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As set forth above, the Board has consistently held that a la-
bor organization commits a derivative violation when it accepts
unlawful recognition based on a coerced or assisted majority, as
is the case for the seven stores named in the instant complaint.
UNITE accepted and continues to accept recognition at those
locations, and thus has violated, and continues to violate Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As was noted during the trial, Gen-
eral Counsel has not pled each and every act of unlawful assis-
tance by the Employer as an independent violation, although I
conclude the totality of those acts does support findings of
tainted recognitions at the seven of the stores named. Where,
however, specific acts have been pled as independent viola-
tions, and were set forth as such in the sections above pertain-
ing to each individual store, I conclude in receiving and accept-
ing these independent acts of assistance and support, Local
340-A has also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
As set forth above, where an employer enters into a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with a Union which does not repre-
sent an uncoerced majority, and enforces the provisions of the
agreement, including the union-security provisions, both the
employer and Union have committed violations as a matter of
law. In this case there is no dispute that the relevant contracts
have been enforced, including but not limited to the union-
security provisions. Hence, by so doing, both the Employer
and UNITE violated Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
In summary, the Employer engaged in numerous acts of co-
ercion, and unlawful assistance and support to UNITE at the
stores enumerated in the conformed complaint. At seven of
those stores, the pattern of assistance and coercion was suffi-
cient to taint the recognitions obtained at those stores. In addi-
tion, I conclude the acts enumerated as such above constitute
independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
UNITE, as a party to these unlawful recognitions and inde-
pendent acts of assistance, has coerced employees within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Both Respondents,
by entering into the collective-bargaining agreements set forth
above and enforcing such contracts, including the union secu-
rity provisions have additionally violated the act by giving and
receiving further assistance, and by discriminating within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
Conclusions
1. The Employer
1. The Employer, by the supervisors, at the locations, on or
about the dates indicated below, directed employees not to
speak with union representatives, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) of the Act.
(a) By Zafar Husain at Store 241, on or about March 17,
2000.
(b) By Gary Oberdecker at Store 242, on or about March 17,
2000.
(c) By Frank Wilder, at Store 252, in or about mid-June
2000, prior to June 22, 2000, the exact date being presently
unknown.
2. The Employer, by the supervisors, at the locations, on or
about the dates indicated below, engaged in surveillance of its
employees’ activities on behalf of and in support of the Union,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
(a) By Gary Oberdecker at Store 242, on or about March 17,
2000.
(b) By Enrico Moses and Bill Farrington at Store 247, on or
about April 24, 2000.
(c) By Frank Wilder, at Store 252, on or about June 21,
2000.
(d) By Victor Goriah, at Store 261, on or about late July
2000 prior to July 28, 2000, the exact date being presently un-
known.
3. On or about April 24, 2000, the Employer by Supervisor
Enrico Moses, at Store 247, in the presence of employees, con-
fiscated and tore up an authorization card distributed by Allied,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. The Employer, at the locations, and on or about the dates
indicated below rendered various assistance and support to
UNITE:
(a) At Store 192, by supervisor, Kevin Shields, in or about
mid-March 2000, prior to March 20, 2000, the exact date being
presently unknown provided meeting space at its facility and
required employees to attend organizational meetings con-
ducted by UNITE.
(b) At Store 240, by supervisor, Lou Vigliotti, on or about
May 26, 2000, provided meeting space at its facility for UNITE
organizers and denied equal access to the Union for the pur-
poses of organizing its employees.
(c) At Store 241, by supervisor, Zafar Husain, on or about
March 17, 2000, provided meeting space at its facility and re-
quired employees to attend organizational meetings conducted
by UNITE.
(d) At Store 241, by Zafar Husain, on or about March 17,
2000, denied equal access to Allied for the purposes of organi-
zation its employees.
(e) At Store 241, by supervisor, Chris Foster, on or about
March 17, 2000, denied equal access to Allied for the purposes
of organizing its employees.
(f) At Store 242, by supervisor, Gary Oberdecker, on or
about Mid-March 2000, provided meeting space at its facility to
UNITE and denied equal access to Allied for the purposes of
organizing its employees.
(g) At Store 242, by Gary Oberdecker and vice president,
James Rizzo, on or about mid-March 2000, directed Allied
organizers to leave the facility.
(h) At Store 252, by supervisor, Frank Wilder, on or about
June 17, 2000, provided meeting space at its facility to UNITE
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 956
and denied equal access to the Union for the purposes of orga-
nizing its employees.
(i) At Store 264, by director of human resources, Seymour
Stein, Bill Farrington, and Susan (LNU), on or about July 14,
2000, provided meeting space at its facility and required em-
ployees to attend meetings conducted by UNITE.
(j) At Store 264, by supervisor, Enrico Moses, on or about
July 28, 2000, denied the Union equal access for the purposes
of organizing its employees. Such conduct has unlawfully
assisted UNITE in violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act.
5. (a) At all material times, the Employer and UNITE have
been parties to successive collective-bargaining agreements,
effective by their terms from April 1, 1999, to September 21,
2002, and from April, 2001 to March 31, 2004, which cover all
clerks, pharmacy clerks, and cashiers employed by Respondent
Duane Reade at various stores.
(b) Article lB of the collective-bargaining agreement effec-
tive by its terms from April 1, 1999, to September 21, 2002,
described above in subparagraphs (a) and (b) provides:

It shall be a condition of employment that all employees of
the Employer covered by the Agreement, who are members
of the Union in good standing on the effective date of the
Agreement shall remain members in good standing, and those
who are not members on the effective date of this Agreement
shall on the 30th day following the effective date of this
Agreement, or after the execution of the Agreement, which-
ever is later, become and remain members in good standing in
the Union. It shall also be a condition of employment that all
employees covered by this Agreement and hired on or after its
effective date shall on the 30th day following the beginning of
such employment become and remain members in good
standing in the Union.

(c) Article lB of the collective-bargaining agreement effec-
tive by its terms from April 2001 to March 31, 2004, described
above in subparagraphs (a) and (b) provides:

It shall be a condition of employment that all employees of
the Employer covered by this Agreement, who are members
of the Union in good standing on the effective date of this
Agreement shall remain members in good standing, and those
who are not members on the effective date of this Agreement
shall on the 60th day following the effective date of this
Agreement, or after the execution of the Agreement, which-
ever is later, become and remain members in good standing in
the Union. It shall also be a condition of employment that all
employees covered by this Agreement and hired on or after its
effective date shall on the 60th day following the beginning of
such employment become and remain members in good
standing in the Union.

(d) Article lX A of each of the collective-bargaining agree-
ments described above in subparagraphs (a) and (b) provides:

During the second week of each and every month, the Em-
ployer agrees to deduct and remit to the Union the Union’s
regular membership dues and initiation fees, upon condition
that the Union shall furnish the Employer with a lawful
checkoff authorization form executed by the employee.

6. (a) Since on or about the dates listed below, the Em-
ployer, through its officers, agents, and representatives, has
recognized UNITE as the exclusive representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining of all clerks, pharmacy clerks,
and cashiers at the stores identified below:

#192 March 20, 2000
#240 June 2, 2000
#241 March 16, 2000
#242 March 16, 2000
#252 June 22, 2000
#261 July 28, 2000
#264 July 31, 2000

(b) The Employer, on or about the dates, at the stores set
forth above in subparagraph (a), applied the terms of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements described above in Paragraph 5 to
all clerks, pharmacy clerks, and cashiers.
7. Since on or about the dates, at the stores set forth above in
paragraph 6 the Employer and UNITE have maintained and
enforced the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements
described above in paragraphs 5 and 6.
By the conduct described in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, the Em-
ployer has unlawfully assisted UNITE in violation of Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3).
8. The Employer and UNITE engaged in the conduct de-
scribed above in paragraphs 5 and 7, even though UNITE did
not represent an uncoerced majority of the clerks, pharmacy
clerks, and cashiers employed at the stores identified above.
9. Since on or about the dates, at the stores set forth above,
the Employer has rendered assistance and support to UNITE by
deducting sums of money as union dues, initiation fees and
assessments from the wages of all clerks, pharmacy clerks, and
cashiers, pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement as
described above, and remitting the same to UNITE.
10. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 4 through
8, UNITE has received assistance and support form the Em-
ployer and has been restraining and coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
11. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5, 6, and
7 UNITE has been attempting to cause and causing the Em-
ployer to discriminate against its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the
Act.
REMEDY
In summary, the Employer engaged in numerous acts of co-
ercion, and unlawful assistance and support to UNITE at the
stores enumerated in the instant conformed complaint. At
seven of those stores, the pattern of assistance and coercion was
sufficient to taint the recognitions obtained at those stores. In
addition, the acts enumerated as such above constitute inde-
pendent violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
UNITE as a party to these unlawful recognitions and independ-
ent acts of assistance, has coerced employees within the mean-
ing of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Both Respondents, by
entering into the collective-bargaining agreements referenced
above and enforcing such contracts, including the union-
DUANE READE, INC. 957
security provisions have additionally violated the Act by giving
and receiving further assistance, and by discriminating within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
An appropriate remedy should be ordered, which in the in-
stant case should include: (1) an order to cease and desist from
giving effect to the recognition agreements or collective-
bargaining agreements covering Stores 242, 241, 192, 240, 252,
261, and 264, unless and until Local 340-A becomes lawfully
certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining agent for the
employees in the appropriate units at those stores; (2) a proviso
that nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize or
require the elimination of wage increases or benefits estab-
lished under the agreements; and (3) an Order that the Em-
ployer and UNITE shall be jointly and severally liable to reim-
burse employees for any dues payments obtained pursuant to
the relevant collective-bargaining agreements.
Respondent Employer and Respondent Union shall be re-
quired to jointly and severally reimburse the employees (all
clerks, pharmacy clerks, and cashiers) for all initiation fees
dues, assessments, or other moneys they may have been paid or
withheld from pursuant to the aforesaid collective-bargaining
agreements, together with interest on the moneys dues, to be-
computed as set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]