Effingham Food Store, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 263 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

EFFINGHAM FOOD STORE 263
Effingham Food Store , Inc. and Local 534, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA-6706
January 15, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On October 4, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Herbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
Effingham, Illinois , on August 2, 3, and 4, 1972. Following
the close of the hearing, General Counsel and Respondent
filed briefs which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Missouri corporation, operates a retail
food market in Effingham, Illinois. From November 1971,
when Respondent commenced operations, until the is-
suance of the instant complaint, Respondent's receipts
from the sales of products from its store was in excess of
$500,000 and, during the same period, its purchases of
products for sale in its store was in excess of $100,000 of
which products in excess of $50,000 were transported
through channels of interstate commerce from points
outside the State of Illinois directly to its store in
Effingham, Illinois . Respondent admits, and I find, that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Effingham Food
Store, Inc., Effingham, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
a charge filed on February 22, 1972, by Local 534,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, a
complaint, dated June 20, 1972, was issued alleging that the
Respondent, Effingham Food Store, Inc., herein called the
Company, has engaged in and is engaging in conduct
constituting unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. In substance, the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, alleges that Respondent on February 10,
1972, unlawfully discharged James Hinkle because he had
joined or had engaged in activities on behalf of the Union
and, by reason of said discharge and other conduct set
forth in the complaint, Respondent also has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Respondent duly
filed answers to the complaint and its amendments
generally denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was held in
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The principal issue in this case is whether, on February
10, 1972, Respondent discharged James Hinkle, who was
employed as a meatcutter in its food market, because of his
membership and activities on behalf of the Union.
Subsidiary issues are whether Respondent unlawfully
interrogated employees about their union activities, threat-
ened employees that it would close its business if the
Union should be successful in its organizing endeavor, and
directed other threats against its employees if they
persisted in their support of the Union.
Respondent's principal officers and stockholders are
James Hastings and his wife, Marcella. James Hastings is
president and the chief operating official of the Company
and Marcella Hastings is its secretary-treasurer and also
assists her husband in managing the store. Respondent is a
franchise affiliate of a substantially larger organization
known as Eisner Food Stores (herein referred to as Eisner).
Among the services which Eisner furnishes the Company is
counseling in regard to store management, store opera-
tions, and personnel administration. Gary Woods, who is
employed by Eisner, is the franchise counselor for the
Company. On occasions when Woods is unavailable
Herbert Schloz substitutes for him. Woods and Schloz are
responsible to Donald Hadley, vice president of the
franchise division of Eisner.
The Company's Effingham store began its operations in
mid-November 1971. Its meat department was staffed by
five persons: Vernon Koerner, manager of the meat
department; James Fecho and James Hinkle, meatcutters;
201 NLRB No. 40
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
David Hoesli, apprentice meatcutter; and Betty Bushur,
meatwrapper. From the outset the operations of the meat
department proved to be unsatisfactory. In mid-December
1971 Vernon Koerner was terminated and James Fecho
was appointed meat manager in his place.' The department
continued with only four employees at least until mid-
February 1972. Unfortunately, Fecho lacked the organiza-
tional ability to successfully manage the meat department,
which resulted in his ultimate removal from that position.
Months before the store opened for business James
Hinkle had applied for employment as a meatcutter. Gary
Woods testified that in the spring of 1971 Hinkle spoke
with him about employment. After their conversation he
gave Hinkle an application to be filled out and returned.
Hinkle did not return the application. Woods further
testified that before Hinkle actually began to work for the
Company he recommended to James Hastings that Hinkle
should not be hired. Nevertheless, according to Woods,
"Mr. Hastings , for some reason unknown to me, was
sympathetic toward Jim Hinkle, and went ahead and hired
him." James Hastings testified that in connection with the
employment of James Hinkle he directed an inquiry to the
latter's former employer who also advised Hastings not to
hire Hinkle. Finally, before Hinkle reported for work with
Respondent, James Hastings was informed of the possibili-
ty that as an employee Hinkle surreptitiously might remove
food from the store. Immediately before Hinkle began
working for Respondent he secured temporary employ-
ment with Mayhood Construction Company. Margaret
Osteen, who is employed as a secretary for that organiza-
tion, testified that in October 1971 she had a conversation
with James Hinkle's wife about Hinkle's prospective
employment with the Company. In that connection Miss
Osteen asked Mrs. Hinkle whether the latter would obtain
a discount on food which she purchased in the store and
Mrs. Hinkle replied, "The only discount you can get on
food these days is what you can carry out the back door."
Miss Osteen reported this conversation to her employer
Gene Mayhood who later informed her that he had
discussed the subject with James Hastings. Despite the
adverse recommendations James Hastings hired Hinkle.
When asked for an explanation Hastings testified , "Well,
first of all, Jim did call and he told me that he had 18 years'
experience as a meat cutter , so I figured that he would be a
good meat cutter. He was a former local boy. There are a
lot of Hinkles in Effingham. I had done accounting for one
of the Hinkles and I thought highly of him. I thought, well,
if [James Hinkle] is [a] relation to him , certainly [James
Hinkle] would be fine."2
The evidence adduced by Respondent at the hearing
indicates that Hinkle's performance on the job was
unsatisfactory. From the very outset, James Hastings
began to receive complaints about Hinkle . Thus , according
I Some inconclusive testimony was adduced at the hearing relating to the
supervisory authority of James Fecho during the period that he was acting
as meat department manager However , it is unnecessary to resolve the
question because General Counsel does not contend that while Fecho was
manager he engaged in unlawful conduct on behalf of the Company or
during such period that any alleged violations of Section 8(axl) arises from
events involving Fecho
2 Marcella Hastings testified that before James Hinkle was hired it was
reported to the Hastings that Mrs James Hinkle had remarked ( to Margaret
to the November 15, 1971, report of Gary Woods he "told
Jim [Hastings ] to keep an eye on the meat dept. There
seems to be a problem there . I don't feel that everyone is
working with the best interest of the business in mind. I
feel that Jim Hinkle may be working against us. He just
doesn't impress me as a meat cutter . He is slow , sloppy and
has a bad attitude." On January 5, 1972, Gary Woods
made the following report : "I told Jim Hastings that Jim
[Fecho] had told me Jim Hinkle not cooperating. He does
not do what Jim [Fecho ] as mkt. mgr. has asked him to do.
Jim [Fecho] had told me that he feels Jim Hinkle is just
plain laying down on job. I reminded Jim Hastings that I
was not in favor of him [Jim Hinkle] be hired in the first
place. I also told him if he kept him on the payroll to keep
a very close eye on the man. I told Jim [Hastings ] I felt that
Jim Hinkle is part of the problem with Dave [ Hoesli]. I feel
Dave can be trained if he had the right man to do this. Jim
Hinkle is not the man." A week and a half later Gary
Woods reported about a conversation he and James
Hastings had with Fecho. Woods' report states : "I told him
[Fecho] to tell Jim Hinkle he is going to have to start
carrying his share of the load. I told him that if Hinkle said
he was going to quit to tell him to hit the door. [Jim
Hinkle's name seems to be coming up quite a bit]. I told
Jim Hastings that he should find someone to replace
Hinkle."
On his direct examination , when James Hastings was
asked why he retained James Hinkle in the Company's
employ against the advice of the Eisner counselors, James
Hastings testified, "I knew that Jim had a lot of personal
problems. Marcella and I personally liked Jim and his wife.
We had nothing against him whatsoever. I had hoped that
we could correlate the meat department together and that
everybody could get along and that we could finally work
it all out . I know that it takes sometime to do this , so that is
what I was waiting for."
B. The Contemplated Reorganization of the Meat
Department
Upon his appointment as meat manager the question
quickly arose as to whether Fecho had sufficient organiza-
tional skill to head the department. This is reflected in the
various reports that Gary Woods submitted. As an
example, Woods' report for January 18, 1972, states, "I
also told Jim Hastings that we need to start looking for a
new [market manager] just in case Jim F. is not able to get
things put together. I'm beginning to think that Jim F. is
not going to get organized. He is having a real problem
directing people. I feel that Jim F. is a very good meat
cutter . He knows how to make money. He would make a
very good 2nd man." A decision to replace Fecho was
finally made on February 7, 1972. On that day, Herbert
Schloz together with another Eisner counselor, John
Osteen ) that the benefits her husband would receive when he begins
working for the Company would be "not really too good, but with what we
can pack out, we will be O.K" Before Hinkle actually was hired, the
Company made an investigation of his qualifications . In that connection
Marcella Hastings testified . "Well, of course, we had contacted Eisner first
We talked to them at great length about it Mr Martin. with 1GA here in
town had contacted them before us I discussed it with him He told me
about his recommendations " They were "very bad" and the recommenda-
tions from Eisner were also bad
EFFINGHAM FOOD STORE
Gaddis, visited the Effingham store. While there they
spoke with James Fecho to determine his reaction should
he be replaced as meat manager . Fecho indicated that he
would be pleased to be relieved of the pressure of the
position and would be willing to continue in the store as a
meatcutter. Schloz made such recommendation to James
Hastings. According to his report: "John Gaddis and I
spent the day here (Effingham Store). Discussed problems
in meat dept. with Jim Hastings. Possible solution arrived
at was hire a new qualified meat dept. manager perferably
a local man, put Jim (Fecho) back as meat cutter and
remove Jim Hinkle from market entirely."
That same evening, February 7, James Hastings offered
the position of manager of the Company's meat depart-
ment to Douglas Louderback, a former meat market
operator in Effingham. Louderback accepted and, accord-
ing to James Hastings, "told me that he would more than
likely give a two-week notice" to his current employer, but
would report sooner should it become possible to do so.
Hastings testified that he had expected to hear from
Louderback on February 8 as to when Louderback could
report for work, but did not hear from Louderback until
February 9.3 A critical issue in this case is when the
decision was reached to discharge Hinkle and as of what
date such discharge would be effective. James Hastings
testified that as of the night of February 7 he had "in
mind" the idea that he would discharge Hinkle. According
to James Hastings, "I just more or less came to this
conclusion that if I brought in a new meat manager,
someone would have to go, and I made up my mind that it
would probably have to be Hinkle, if Fecho approved
going to meat cutter." As of that date the decision to
terminate Hinkle, in part, rested upon whether Fecho
would accept a demotion from the position of manager to
that of meatcutter. Also, the effective date of Hinkle's
termination depended upon when Louderback would
report for work which might have been no sooner than
February 21.4
The next morning, February 8, James Hastings tele-
phoned Donald Hadley and informed Hadley that he had
offered the position of manager of the meat department to
Douglas Louderback. He further advised Hadley that he
was going to speak to Fecho about stepping down from the
job of manager and continuing to work with the Company
J 1 do not credit the testimony of James Whitehurst , who was employed
as manager of the grocery department and as an assistant to James Hastings
in the overall operations of the store, that on the night of February 7, James
Hastings informed him that Louderback would start to work for the store
on February 14 This is contrary to the testimony of both James Hastings
and Douglas Louderback that at the conclusion of their meeting on
February 7 it was uncertain when Louderback would report for work
because the latter felt obliged to give his current employer 2 weeks' notice
which would mean that he would be unable to report for work prior to
February 21
1 I do not credit the testimony of Douglas Louderback that on February
7 he was informed that James Hastings and Mr Whitehurst "decided that
they couldn' t bring me in and then hold three more butchers back there, so
they decided on Hinkle [to be terminated ]." This testimony is contrary to
the testimony of James Hastings and also contrary to the affidavit which
Douglas Louderback furnished an agent of the National Labor Relations
Board on March 14. 1972. In the affidavit Louderback averred that in his
conversation with James Hastings on February 7, "We did not talk about
any specific employees or talk about having to let anyone go "
s James Hastings testified that on February 8 following his conversation
with Hadley he called Fecho into his office and informed Fecho that he had
265
as meatcutter and that Hinkle "would be replaced in the
course of the changes." 5
Because Gary Woods had been ill on February 8, early
the next morning James Hastings telephoned him and
advised him about the hiring of Louderback. Later the
same morning, February 9, Hastings received a telephone
call from Louderback advising that Louderback would be
able to conclude his work with his current employer on
Saturday, February 12, and therefore could begin to work
for the Company on Monday, February 14.6 James
Hastings in the afternoon of the same day telephoned Gary
Woods a second time to inform him of this development.
Thus, as of the close of business on February 9,
Louderback was due to report to work and assume the
responsibilities of manager of the meat department on
February 14, and Fecho had agreed to relinquish his
position as meat manager and continue in the Company's
employ as a meatcutter . It was also contemplated that
following Louderback's employment Hinkle would be
terminated . Marcella Hastings testified that after her
husband had talked to Fecho he and she decided that they
would terminate Hinkle. However, as of Wednesday,
February 9 (presumably after James Hastings received the
telephone call from Douglas Louderback advising that he
would be able to report for work on Monday, February
14), according to Marcella Hastings, "we decided that we
would be letting [Hinkle] go before the weekend was out,"
but a decision had not been reached as to exactly when
Hinkle would be discharged.
C. The Organizational Activities
Both Fecho and Hinkle previously had worked for stores
which had collective-bargaining agreements with the
Union or affiliated locals and had been members of such
organizations. Hastings testified that he was aware of their
prior union membership when he hired them. Hinkle
testified that in May 1971, when he first spoke with
Hastings about employment, Hastings inquired where he
had previously worked. Hinkle replied that he had worked
for A.&P. and after he was bumped from his job with that
store he worked for Johnson's IGA. Hastings asked
whether IGA was union and Hinkle responded, "No."
hired Louderback to become manager of the meat department , that he
considered Fecho was a good meatcutter , a hard worker , and was trying to
do a good job, and he would like Fecho to remain as a meatcutter. Fecho
responded that he would be happy to stay on as a meatcutter . In this
conversation , Hastings testified , he also informed Fecho that because of the
poor financial position of the Company there was no way that he could
retain Jim Hinkle after Louderback goes onto the payroll and that he
wanted the matter to be kept confidential until he had the opportunity to
tell Hinkle Fecho denied that on February 8 he was advised by James
Hastings that the latter had hired Louderback and had decided to terminate
Hinkle Furthermore , Gary Woods testified that the next day, on February
9, he had two telephone conversations with James Hastings In the first
conversation Hastings indicated to Woods that Hastings was thinking about
letting Hinkle go and in the second conversation Hastings indicated that he
had decided to terminate Hinkle . It seems improbable that James Hastings
would inform Fecho of a positive decision to discharge Hinkle before
advising the franchise counselors . I do not credit James Hastings in this
respect
6 On Sunday , February 13, Louderback took an inventory of the
merchandise on hand in the meat department of the store
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, Hinkle acknowledged that he had belonged to a
Union.7
Fecho testified that on November 12, 1971, when he
applied to James Hastings for a job the latter inquired
about his qualifications. Fecho informed Hastings that he
had worked in many stores and volunteered the informa-
tion that a lot of them were union stores. Fecho further
volunteered that he was no longer an active union member
but held a withdrawal card. Hastings responded that he did
not want a union in his store . Fecho assured Hastings that
if the latter was worried about Fecho being a union man,
that he would not join a union and that if "anything like
that came up" he would take a 6 weeks' leave of absence or
just quit. Hastings did not then offer Fecho employment.
However , early the same evening James Hastings tele-
phoned Fecho and informed him that he could begin
working for the Company the next day.8 Although this
conversation reveals Hastings ' antipathy towards the
unionization of Respondent 's employees , contrary to
General Counsel, I find that it did not infringe upon
employees' protected rights. Fecho volunteered the infor-
mation about his past union employment and Hastings'
response merely was that he did not want a union in the
store. It would be a distortion of this remark to imply
therefrom that Hastings was telling Fecho that he would
not hire any person who had formerly worked in a union
store or was a member of a union. Any such possible
inference is rebutted by the fact that Hastings hired Hinkle
despite the latter's admitted union affiliations and the
absence of assurances that he would not again become
active in a union. Fecho's avowed disclaimer of any further
union interest was unsolicited and there is no basis for
believing that Fecho would not have been hired had the
disclaimer not been given.
Towards the end of December 1971, Fecho and Hinkle
began to discuss the desirability of obtaining union
representation. In January, Fecho contacted Jerry Blue, a
business representative of the Union , and a meeting was
arranged for the night of January 12, 1972. Only Fecho
and Hinkle attended . Both signed applications for mem-
bership and union authorization cards. They had invited
Betty Bushur to come to the meeting but she had refused.
Despite several conversations with Fecho and Hinkle
about the Union dunng the month of January 1972
r Hastings denied that he discussed union membership with Hinkle
Hastings explained that "it wasn 't really necessary because I knew , he told
me that he worked for A.& P., so I kind of assumed it "
8 James Hastings denied that he had any such conversation with Fecho
According to Hastings , Fecho was hired by Vernon Koerner and not by
himself . I credit Fecho rather than Hastings in regard to the described
interview In this instance and with respect to other events discussed below
the testimony of James Hastings conflicts with the testimony of witnesses
called by General Counsel. While I am of the opinion that James Hastings
fundamentally is not an untruthful person, I likewise am of the opinion that
his personal involvement in the instant litigation has served to distort his
perspective Furthermore , Hastings ' glib explanation of events and his
general deportment as a witness suggest to me that in his anxiety to prevail
James Hastings has permitted himself to shape his testimony to fit the mold
of the Company's defense rather than to answer the questions put to him
precisely, accurately, and in accordance with the way the events actually
took place
9 1 credit Blue 's version of his telephone conversation with Marcella
Hastings rather than her slightly contradictory version
10 1 credit Mrs Bushur's version of their conversation rather than the
version given by Mrs Hastings Bushur testified in a straightforward . direct
Bushur's indifference continued . David Hoesli also was
approached about the subject prior to the January meeting.
At first he showed no interest . However, on February 9,
Hinkle and Fecho had a further conversation with Hoesli
about the Union and dunng part of the time they were
joined by an independent truckdriver. Hoesli then indicat-
ed a qualified interest. A meeting with Jerry Blue was
suggested to which he agreed . The meeting was arranged
for the same night . At the meeting on the night of February
9 Hoesli signed a union authorization card.
The next day, February 10, about 10 a.m. Blue
telephoned the store and asked to speak with Mr. Hastings.
He was advised that Mr. Hastings was not present and the
call was turned over to Marcella Hastings . The latter
informed Blue that her husband was ill with the flu and not
available and probably would not return to the store before
Monday, February 14. Blue identified himself to Mrs.
Hastings as a business agent for the Union and informed
her that a majority of the meat department employees had
signed applications a for membership in the Union and
that he was interested in obtaining recognition on behalf of
the Union and negotiating a contract . She responded, "We
don't need a Union," and something to the effect that she
was not interested in talking any further to him .9 Marcella
Hastings immediately reported the conversation to her
husband who was in the store's office. According to James
Hastings: "[W]hen she got through [with ] the phone call,
she came in and she said , 'Oh, I didn't know you were
there.' She said, `I think I received a phone call from a
union representative .' She said, `I think I'll go . . . and
check with Betty or Dave or someone over there and find
out if they know anything about it,' which she did."
Marcella Hastings then went to the meat department
where she spoke to Betty Bushur . Mrs. Hastings asked if
there had been any talk about the Union in the meat room
to which Mrs . Bushur responded , "Yes." Mrs . Hastings
then inquired if all the employees were going along with
the Union . Mrs. Bushur answered that she and David
Hoesli were not and that only Jim Fecho and Jim Hinkle
were supporting the Union.10 One or two days later
Marcella Hastings again questioned Bushur about the
Union . Mrs. Hastings asked Bushur whether she was
sincere when she said that she was against the Union.
The most significant and also the most controverted
manner without any equivocation . Although Mrs Bushur was called as a
witness by General Counsel , she was the only meat department employee
who consistently opposed the organization of the meat department She
appeared to have maintained a friendly relationship with Mrs. Hastings
while at the same time her testimony indicated antagonism towards both
Fecho and Hinkle Bushur seems to have had no reason to favor the Union
or any of its supporters Also. at the time of the hearing she was still
employed by the Company and gave her testimony in the presence of both
Mr and Mrs Hastings This would further incline her to favor rather than
to harm the Company by her testimony. In all the circumstances , I find that
Mrs Bushur was a truthful and entirely reliable witness On the other hand.
Mrs. Hastings impressed me as having been concerned by the instant
litigation to an extent that it affected her objectivity . Her interest in a
favorable outcome in this litigation , her resentment at the supposed
faithlessness of her employees in seeking union representation, and her fear
that a successful organizational campaign might mean the financial doom of
the Company of which she and her husband are the principals served to
distort her perspective and to cause her to color her testimony in order to
place it in a light most favorable to the Company 's cause rather than to
describe precisely and accurately what had happened
EFFINGHAM FOOD STORE 267
testimony was given by David Hoesli. It related to
conversations he had on the morning of February 10.
According to Hoesli, between 10 and 10:30 a.m., while he
was in the grocery department area of the store, Marcella
Hastings came to him and inquired if he knew anything
about the Union or its activities . Hoesli replied , "Not very
much." Marcella Hastings questioned him as to whether he
was telling the truth and Hoesli affirmed that he was. Mrs.
Hastings then informed Hoesli that she had received a
phone call from the Union and did not know what was up
and was asking Hoesli to see if he knew anything. Mrs.
Hastings then stated that they couldn't really afford the
Union, and if the Union came in they would probably have
to close the store." This remark is alleged to be and, I find,
is a violation of the Act.12
The conversation with Mrs. Hastings took place as she
was leading David Hoesli to the office . In the office he met
with , in addition to Marcella Hastings , James Hastings,
James Whitehurst, and the secretary, Mary Miller. Upon
their arrival Marcella Hastings told her husband that she
had asked Hoesli whether he knew anything about the
Union and he had said that he did not know very much
about it . James Hastings then asked Hoesli if he was sure
he did not know anything about the Union and Hoesli
repeated that he knew nothing about the Union. James
Hastings then informed Hoesli that Marcella Hastings had
received a telephone call that morning from someone who
said that the Union represented a majority of the meat
department and who wished to make an appointment, that
Mrs. Hastings told the caller that her husband was home
sick and would not be available until Monday, and that the
union representative was going to call again on Monday to
make an appointment. James Hastings voiced his perplexi-
ty at the fact that the union agent had asserted that the
Union represented a majority of the meat department.
Hastings stated that he knew that James Fecho and James
Hinkle held union cards but he could not figure out who
the third person was who had signed a card to give to the
Union the alleged majority. He said he knew that Betty
Bushur probably had not signed a union card. James
Hastings also discussed the fact that plans had been made
to effect changes in the meat department. He stated that he
was going to bring in as manager a man who was 55 years
old, he was going to demote Jim Fecho to James Hinkle's
job, was going to reduce Fecho's wages and then he was
going to fire Hinkle. Hoesli was informed that he would
retain his same job. Hastings also informed Hoesli that
these changes were not scheduled to take place until
Monday, February 14, 1972, but because Marcella Hast-
ings had been contacted by the Union they decided that
they would make the changes in the meat department at
once . James Hastings explained to Hoesli that Marcella
Hastings had been contacted by the Union but he had not
been contacted yet, therefore, he was able to make the
personnel changes in the meat department prior to
receiving direct notification from the Union. Also, Hoesli
was witness to the fact that James Hastings had made his
decision regarding changes in the personnel of the meat
department before Hastings received any notification from
the Union. Hastings then said they were going to let Hinkle
go that same day.
At some point during the meeting James Hastings said to
Hoesli that if the Union came in they would probably have
to close the store. This threat violates Section 8(a)(1) for
the reasons stated above.13 Before the meeting concluded
James Hastings again asked Hoesli whether he knew
anything about the union activities . Hoesli responded that
he did not and stated that he would keep his ears open and
let them know if anything came up or if anybody contacted
him. Also, Hoesli was told not to talk about the meeting, to
keep it quiet.
James Hastings , Marcella Hastings , and Mary Miller
specifically denied that any meeting such as was described
by Hoesli took place. Also, Alberta Bracken, a checker,
testified that she did not see Hoesli in the area of the office
on February 10 and her further testimony is to the effect
that had Hoesli gone to the office she probably would have
seen him.
I was most favorably impressed by the sincerity and
apparent honesty of David Hoesli . Hoesli later decided to
abandon his union affiliations and on February 14
confessed to James Hastings that he had signed a union
card and informed Hastings that he had changed his mind
about the Union. As of the time of the hearing Hoesli was
still employed by the Company and he testified in the
presence of both James and Marcella Hastings. In these
circumstances, there appears to be no reason why Hoesli
would testify falsely to the detriment of the Company. To
the contrary, considerations of self-interest would prompt
Hoesli to support the Company's position. I find Hoesli a
more credible and a more reliable witness than Marcella
and James Hastings. These two, as principals of Respon-
dent, have an important stake in the outcome of this
litigation. While interest does not necessarily determine
ii Marcella Hastings categorically denied that she had any conversation
with David Hoesli about the Union on February 10, 1972 Inconsistent to
some extent with this denial is the testimony of James Hastings that on the
morning of February 10, after Marcella Hastings had informed him about
the telephone call she had received from Blue , she said that she would check
with Betty Bushur or David Hoesli or "someone over there " to find out if
they know anything about "it " According to James Hastings, "she came
back and told me they didn't know anything about it."
i2 "[S Itatements on the part of management to employees that it might
be necessary to close the plant, made during a period when unionization of
its employees was sought to be effected , must be regarded as coercive,
notwithstanding sincere belief that such result would follow ." United
Fireworks Mfg Co., Inc v. N.L R B., 252 F.2d 428, 430 (C.A. 6). Accord-
N L R B v Kolmar Laboratories, Inc., 387 F.2d 833 (C A. 7), and cases
discussed there . Surprenant Manufacturing Co v N L.R B, 341 F 2d 756,
760 (C.A 6). N.L R B v Joseph Ante!!, Inc, 358 F 2d 880, 881 (C A 1) See
also N L R B v Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U S 575, 618 (1969), where the
Court stated.
[An employer 's prediction about the consequences of unionization]
must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an
employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond
his control . . in case of unionization
And Textile Workers Union of America v Darlington Manufacturing Co et
at, 380 U S 263 , 274, In 20 (1965), where the Court stated.
Nothing we have said in this opinion would justify an employer's
interfering with employee organizational activities by threatening to
close his plant
11 During the conversation James Hastings asked Hoesli, "[H low
important all of it was to [ Hoesli ] " Hoesli understood that James Hastings
"was referring to the union and everything else, all of it together " At this
point Mary Miller asked Hoesli how important was hisjob While a veiled
threat might be implied from this exchange . it is unnecessary to do so
because of the other unambiguous , unlawful threats made to Hoesli
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
questions of credibility, in this case, Marcella Hastings and
James Hastings were unable to prevent their interest from
affecting their objectivity. James Hastings, in particular,
and to a lesser extent Marcella Hastings seem to have
developed a scenario to which they tended to adhere in
giving their testimony rather than to answer the questions
put to them directly.
Mary Miller and Alberta Bracken testified only briefly at
the hearing. It is difficult to make any evaluation of them
in the very short period of time they appeared before me.
However, as I am of the opinion that David Hoeslt, who
testified extensively at the hearing, was a truthful and
reliable witness I will credit neither Mrs. Bracken's nor
Mrs. Miller's denial of Hoesli's testimony. 14
The interrogation of Hoesl ► by James Hastings and
Marcella Hastings as to whether he knew anything about
the union activities among the store's employees and the
similar questioning of Betty Bushur to elicit from Bushur
her attitude towards the Union and the names of the
employees who favored the Union constituted violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Such efforts to secure informa-
tion which would be useful for discrimination or harass-
ment, particularly in this case where the Company made
no secret of its opposition to the unionization of its
employees, without any explanation to the employees of
any legitimate purpose for asking the questions and
without giving the employees assurances against reprisals,
were clearly coercive.15 The effect of such coercion became
manifest when Hoesl ► answered falsely that he had no
knowledge of the union activities, thereby indicating "an
effort by one intimidated to conceal his true allegiance." 16
D. Hinkle's Discharge
James Hastings, who was not feeling well on February
10, left the store in midmorning and did not return until 4
p.m. Upon his arrival in the store he called James
Whitehurst and Marcella Hastings to the office and "told
them I had . . . made up my mind what I was going to do,
I said that I was going to try to get . . . hold of Jim Hinkle
and let him go before he left the store." 17 Then, according
to Hastings, "about that time" some meat salesmen came
into the store and kept him occupied until about 5 p.m. by
which time Hinkle had already left the store. i8
Marcella Hastings testified more fully regarding the
afternoon conversation, which lasted 15 or 20 minutes,
between herself, her husband, and James Whitehurst.
According to Marcella Hastings, "February 10, was when
we reached the time that we were going to let [Hinkle] go."
Her husband began the conversation with the remark,
"You realize that with this phone call coming . . . It is
going to really look bad if we still go ahead and let Mr.
Hinkle go." Mrs. Hastings responded that "we have no
other choice." James Whitehurst interjected that it was
unfortunate we were picking this time to act because "it
14 Even Counsel for Respondent was favorably impressed by Hoesh He
stated on the record, "I think the young man is being truthful in spite of the
pressure " The reference is to the alleged pressures sought to be exerted on
Hoesh by Fecho
IS N L R B v Cameo, Inc. 340 F 2d 803, 804-807 (C A 5), cerl
denied 382 U S 926
16 N L R B v Wilco, Inc, et a!. 388 F 2d 133, 137 (C A 2)
was going to really look incriminating" but we must "go
ahead with our plans as they are and stand by that because
this is what we have planned to do all week." Further,
according to Marcella Hastings , part of the reason for the
decision to terminate Hinkle on February 10 was the
information given to them before Hinkle was hired to the
effect that Hinkle's wife had made the remark that his pay
with the Company was "not really too good, but with what
we can pack out, we will be O.K." Also, Mrs. Hastings
explained, "for economic reasons we could not go ahead
and keep another one in the meat department and Jim
[Hastings] said that since Eisner had recommended almost
always every time they came that we get rid of Mr. Hinkle
and let him go and keep Mr. Fecho because he was the best
meat cutter, we had to weigh all of the circumstances and
all of the evidence and come up with a reasonable decision,
and this is what we came to." Mrs. Hastings further
testified that dunng the entire time the store had been in
operation the Eisner counselors had insisted that "there
certainly had to be some meat going out the back door." At
this meeting, according to Marcella Hastings, Jim White-
hurst said, "[W]e know that we are losing meat. We have
been from the beginning. We really don't know where it is
going , but we know that it would be best now, we feel, that
it would be best now if we would go ahead [and discharge
Hinkle] , since we are going to discharge him, and let him
go today. We don't want to go ahead and run the risk of it
any later." While it is not entirely clear from Mrs.
Hastings' testimony what was the precise order of the
conversation, the determination to discharge Hinkle was
made when her husband, James Hastings, said, "We will
go ahead with what we had planned in the early part of the
week. Now, we have determined that Mr. Fecho will stay
when he steps down . . . and he will work under Doug so
we will not be in there with one meat man alone. We will
have two, and we can go ahead and we know that Mr.
Hinkle has been recommended that we let him go and we
will have to go ahead and discharge him."
When asked on her direct examination by Respondent's
Counsel whether there was any particular reason why
Hinkle was discharged on February 10, Marcella Hastings
answered, "Well, we had been advised previously that Mr.
Hinkle was capable or might be capable of removing
merchandise without us knowing about it, and we were a
little apprehensive to let him stay in the store any longer,
and regardless of the circumstances, we had to let him go
that night."
James Fecho was then called to the office. Except for
insubstantial details the four participants to the meeting
generally agree as to what occurred. James Hastings
instructed Fecho to discharge Hinkle because Fecho was
still the manager of the meat department. Fecho strenuous-
ly objected. When pressed he explained that the Company
probably had heard from the Union and the Company
would be in trouble if it were now to fire Hinkle.
11 This confirms Hoesh's testimony that the decision to discharge Hinkle
on February 10 was not made until after the telephone call from Jerry Blue
requesting recognition of the Union as the representative of the meat
department employees
I" Upon being pressed during his cross-examination . Hastings testified
that possibly the meeting with Fecho, discussed below, began at 4 30 p in
EFFINGHAM FOOD STORE 269
Fecho testified that other things occurred which are not
referred to in the testimony of Mr. or Mrs. Hastings or
James Whitehurst. According to Fecho, Marcella Hastings
came to the meat room and instructed him to go to the
office. As he was walking towards the office Mrs. Hastings
asked whether he had heard anything about a Union to
which he answered, "No." Then, the first question from
James Hastings when he entered the office was whether he
had heard anything about a Union and again Fecho said,
"No." Further, according to Fecho, when he advised the
meeting that the Company would get in trouble with the
Union if it fired Hinkle he was pressed to explain how he
knew that. Fecho answered that he had signed a union
card and knew that the Company was going to be notified
by the Union early in the morning. Marcella Hastings
made an exclamation to the effect, "how dirty us guys were
and everything." Also, Fecho testified that during the
meeting , Hastings remarked that he hadn't been notified
by the Union and as he was the president he could fire and
hire whomever he wanted. Finally, according to Fecho,
just before he left the meeting , James Hastings asked him
which way he would go, if he would go Union or non-
Union. Fecho responded that he wouldn't vote. Marcella
Hastings then asked, "Well, how can we believe that?" To
which Fecho responded, "[Y]ou will just have to take my
word for it." 19
After the meeting with Fecho ended James and Marcella
Hastings and James Whitehurst went to Hinkle 's home and
notified Hinkle that he was discharged . Hastings paid him
for the balance of the week and also gave him an
additional week's wages as severance pay.
On his direct examination James Hastings was asked
why he felt it was necessary to discharge Hinkle on the
night of Thursday, February 10. He answered, " Several
reasons, the big reason being that Doug was going to be in
on Friday night and Saturday night. . . . He was going to
take inventory with me2° I didn't want him or anybody
else to be embarrassed. I thought enough time had gone by
and I wanted to tell him as quick as I possibly could."
When asked who would be embarassed, James Hastings
testified, "For example, if I hadn't told Hinkle that night,
the next day Doug would come in. Here he would be
working on the meat cases and Jim wouldn't know
anything about it. It would be kind of embarrassing,
wouldn't it, to all of US?" 21 Fecho testified that he did not
see Louderback in the store on February 11. Betty Bushur
was not asked whether she saw Louderback in the store
before February 14. Also, Hoesli was not questioned about
the subject. In any event, the record indicates no necessity
for Louderback's going to the store on Friday or Saturday
February II or 12, if his presence would have embarrassed
anyone. This reason for discharging Hinkle on February 10
is unconvincing.
19 General Counsel does not contend that any of the incidents on
February 10 involving Fecho constitute violations of the Act. Presumably
General Counsel takes this position because of the uncertainty as to whether
Fecho was then a supervisor
20 Douglas Louderback testified that he took inventory on Sunday.
February 13
21 Louderback continued in the employ of Tractors Supply Company
until the close of business on Saturday, February 12. He informed James
E. Conclusions Regarding Hinkle's Discharge
If full credit were given to all the evidence offered on
behalf of Respondent, by the morning of February 10
arrangements had been made for Douglas Louderback to
begin working in the store on Monday, February 14, as
manager of the meat department. Also, arrangements had
been made for Fecho to step down to the job of meatcutter
and a tentative decision had been made to terminate
Hinkle. However, all these changes were to be effected
simultaneously as of the end of the week on February 12 22
Only after the Company learned of the Union's organiza-
tional interest was the decision made to terminate Hinkle
earlier. The reasons given by James Hastings, Marcella
Hastings, and James Whitehurst for accelerating the time
of the contemplated discharge of Hinkle are inconsistent.
None of the reasons are convincing. Both Mrs. Hastings
and James Whitehurst testified that the possibility of
pilferage was a motivating factor for the decision to
terminate Hinkle on February 10. However, the factors
which gave rise to a suspicion that Hinkle might pilfer were
known to the Company even before he started to work in
mid-November 1971. Furthermore, during the entire
period of the store's operations, from mid-November 1971
through February 10, 1972, there had been excessive
shrinkage of the meat department's inventory and, accord-
ing to Hadley, it raised a suspicion that there might be
pilferage. No adequate reason appears why the Company
had to take precipitate action-by going to Hinkle's home
after work hours, before the end of the workweek to
discharge him-to correct a situation which had been
continuing for 3 months. James Hastings' explanation that
it would be embarrassing to retain Hinkle after February
10 because of the possibility that he might encounter
Douglas Louderback is spurious. If the possibility of such
embarrassment existed no explanation was given as to why
it was necessary for Louderback to go to the store on either
Friday or Saturday of that week. Furthermore, during that
week Hinkle's normal quitting time was 5 p.m. and as
Louderback was elsewhere employed and could not be at
the store except during evening time it was unlikely that
the two would meet. The evidence is overwhelming that
Hinkle was discharged on February 10 as a direct reaction
to the telephone call from Jerry Blue advising that the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the meat
department.
Marcella Hastings denied that she told any employee
that the store would close if the Union was successful in
organizing its employees. However, she testified that a few
days after February 10 she had a conversation with her
mother, who also works in the store, during which they
were discussing "the financial aspect of the thing, and I
told her about the contact that we had received over the
telephone from Mr. Blue, I guess, and I told her that it
Hastings that that would be the case on February 9. It appears from James
Hastings' testimony that Hinkle 's normal departure time that week was 5
p.m Therefore, it is not likely that Hinkle would have met Louderback if
Louderback visited the store in the evenings. Louderback testified that
Friday evening , February 11, he went to the store He did not testify that he
visited the store on Saturday , February 12
22 James Hastings considered that Fecho continued in the position of
manager until he was actually replaced on Monday. February 14.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would make it very difficult if the union would come in
because of our financial status ." Similarly , James White-
hurst testified that sometime after June 3, 1972, Mrs.
Hastings said to him that if the Union came in the store
would have to close.
The Hastings have been of the opinion that the
organization of any of its employees would be financially
disastrous. Hoping to avoid such eventuality Hinkle was
discharged on February 10. Hinkle's discriminatory dis-
charge in such circumstances was designed to discourage
membership in the Union and , accordingly , constituted a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Furthermore, it
interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
F. Additional 8(a)(1) Violations
I find that the following incidents took place and
constitute evidence of further violations of the Act:
In mid-February Marcella Hastings said to James Fecho
in reference to the Union that they were going to have to
close the store and there would be 50 people out of work.
In mid-June 1972, James Hastings remarked to Fecho
with reference to Hinkle, "If you do the way he has, you
are,going to end up at the bottom of the barrel the way he
has." In light of all antecedent events Hastings implied that
if Fecho continued to support the Union he too would lose
his Job with the Company.
About a week later James Hastings remarked to Fecho
that he would close the store before he would permit
Hinkle to return to work. As this present proceeding then
was pending , the import of Hastings ' statement was that
rather than comply with an adverse decision of the
National Labor Relations Board the Company would close
its business.
David Hoesli testified that about mid-July 1972, in the
presence of Douglas Louderback , Marcella Hastings said,
"[S ]he was trying to be fair to everyone and would like to
give everyone a raise , but because . . . of what was going
on, they couldn't say anymore to us, but she did say that
the union would use me . . . . She said the union would use
me and by the time it was all over with that I would be at
the bottom of the barrel." In context of the antecedent
events these Comments meant that because of the penden-
cy of the instant proceeding the Company would not give
its employees a raise which they merited and carried the
further implication that any success the Union might enjoy
in its organizational attempt or in the pending litigation
would result in harm to the employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section 1, 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 has engaged in unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged James Hinkle on February 10, 1972, I shall
recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists , to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned from the aforesaid date of his
discharge to the date of the Respondent 's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period. The
backpay provided for herein shall be computed on the
basis of calendar quarters , in accordance with the method
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added
to such net backpay and shall be computed in the manner
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
There is evidence in this case that prior to February 10,
Respondent contemplated discharging Hinkle at the end of
that week, on February 12, 1972. However, it is conjectural
that such discharge would have occurred . The evidence
shows that, despite the many complaints about Hitkle's
performance at his employment , because the Hastings
liked Hinkle and were sympathetic with his personal
problems they continued him in their employ. Therefore,
whether they would have in fact discharged him on
February 12 is speculative . Also, there is a possibility that
they might merely have placed him in a layoff status with
the understanding that he would be recalled to work when
a vacancy should occur or when business expanded and
the need for an additional meatcutter should arise . Having
discharged Hinkle on February 10 for an unlawful reason
there is no way to establish whether he would in fact have
been discharged for a lawful reason on February 12. The
Respondent , who engaged in the unlawful conduct , rather
than the employee , must assume the risk of any uncertain-
ty.23 Whether or not backpay to Hinkle should be tolled
for any period of time beginning on or after February 14,
1972, because his employment would have been suspended
for nondiscriminatory reasons is a matter for determina-
tion at the compliance stage of this case.
For the reasons which are stated in Consolidated
Industries, Inc., 108 NLRB 60, 61, and cases there cited, I
shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily discharging James Hinkle on
February 10, 1972, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
23 The Lima Lumber Company, 176 NLRB 696
EFFINGHAM FOOD STORE 271
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. By reason of the foregoing conduct and by reason of
the unlawful interrogation of employees, described above,
the threats to close the store should the Union succeed in
its organizational drive or if Hinkle 's reinstatement should
be ordered by the Board, the threats of loss of employment
and other reprisals if employees continue to support the
Union, and withholding merited increases in pay because
of the pendency of the instant case , Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended: 24
ORDER
Respondent , Effingham Food Store, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership or activities or concerning the union
membership or activities of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees that it will close its store or go
out of business if the Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion , should succeed in organizing any of its departments
or if the Board should direct the reinstatement of James
Hinkle.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of employment or
other reprisals if they support the Union , or any other
labor organization.
(d) Withholding increases in wages because of the
pendency of the instant case or of any other proceeding
before the Board.
(e) Discouraging membership in Local 534, Amalgamat-
ed Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging
any of its employees or by otherwise discriminating against
any of its employees in regard to their hire, tenure of
employment , or other terms or conditions of employment.
(f) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to form , join , or assist Local 534, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choice , to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to James Hinkle immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if his job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges , and make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the unlawful discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"Remedy."
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its premises in Effingham, Illinois, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to its employees are customari-
ly posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.26
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
25 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
26 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning
their union membership or activities or concerning the
union membership or activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will
close our store or go out of business if Local 534,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation , successfully organizes any of our departments,
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or if the National Labor Relations Board should direct
the reinstatement of James Hinkle to his former job.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of
employment or other reprisals if they support the
above-named Union , or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT withhold increases in wages because of
any litigation or other proceeding that may be pending
before the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 534,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO , or any other labor organi-
zation , by discharging any of our employees or by
otherwise discriminating against any of our employees
in regard to their hire , tenure of employment, or any
other terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization , to join or assist Local 534,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
WE WILL offer James Hinkle reinstatement to his
former job or, if such job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges and we will
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of our unlawful discrimination
against him.
Dated By
EFFINGHAM FOOD STORE,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above -named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces , in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard , Room 448, Saint Louis , Missouri
63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.