173 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 5, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL F. W. Woolworth Company and Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union , Local 823 , Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO F. W. Woolworth Company and Retail Clerks Union, Local 870 , Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO F. W. Woolworth Store No . 1646 and Retail Clerks Union , Local 870 , Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 20-CA-4290-1, 20-CA-4290-2, and 20-RC-7319 December 5, 1968 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On July 10, 1968, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. In addition, the Trial Examiner found that certain objections to the election filed in Case 20-RC-7319 warranted setting aside the election of July 7, 1967, at Respondent's Livermore store. Thereafter, the Charging Parties filed exceptions, a brief, and a Motion to Remand the Proceedings. Respondent filed an answering brief in opposition to the Charging Parties' Motion and exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner' s Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith. 1. The Charging Parties move that the Board remand the instant proceedings to the Region for the purpose of reopening the record and taking additional evidence which, they claim, would warrant the issuance of Section 8(a)(5) remedial bargaining orders for the 10 stores involved in the underlying repre- sentation case involved herein. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record establishes, however, that meritorious objections have not been filed to the elections conducted in 9 of the 10 stores. We shall assume therefore, in accordance with our established policy, that the validity of the elections conducted among these 9 stores stands unimpaired, and that the elections, which the Charging Parties lost, truly expressed the employees' desires as to representation. With respect to the 10th store (the Livermore store), and as hereinafter set forth, meritorious objections have been filed which establish that Respondent engaged in certain proscribed activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and that such activity interfered with the conduct of the election conducted at the Liver- more store on July 7, 1967. We are of the opinion, however, that the requested bargaining order is not an appropriate remedy under the circumstances here present, and that further proceedings are not war- ranted.' 2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by Traveling Personnel Supervisor Boatwright's statement to em- ployee Hillery that "When you are in this store, you work for this store only." Hillery testified that she had been speaking to other employees about the Union during working hours, and, on cross-examina- tion, she stated that she understood that Boatwright was only forbidding such activity during working hours. Further, Boatwright testified that she merely instructed Hillery to devote her on-duty time strictly to the business of her employer. On such facts, we do not find that Respondent forbade Hillery to engage in union activities on store premises while not actually working. 3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the speech made by Respondent's Branch Store Manager Wrest at the Livermore store in December 1966, included statements which unlawfuliy threatened employees with loss of employment op- portunities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). As these threats were made after the representation petition was filed in Case 20-RC-7319, and as they inter- fered with the election subsequently conducted at the Livermore store on July 7, 1967, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the results of the July 7, 1967, election should be set aside and that another election be held. 4. The Trial Examiner also found, and we agree, that Respondent engaged in other objectionable activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1). He recom- mended, therefore, that Respondent post at each of the 10 stores involved in this proceeding the same 1 Cf. Irving Air Chute Company , Inc, Marathon Division , 149 NLRB 627, and Koplin Bros. Co, Inc, 149 NLRB 1378. 173 NLRB No. 173 F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 1147 notice. As there is only one violation (the attempted polling) common to the Respondent's ten stores, and as each store has been found to be a separate and independent unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the proposed common posting is not warranted under the facts here present. Accordingly, we shall order Respondent to post at each store individual notices which conform to the specific violations committed therein, as thereinafter set forth. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, F. W. Woolworth Company, Alameda County, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Post at Store No. 1646, the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 2. Post at Store No. 323, the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 3. Post at Store No. 2012, the attached notice marked "Appendix C." 4. Post at Store Nos. 826, 2294, 2287, 1103, 2405, 1329, and 5251, the attached notice marked "Appendix D." 5. Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall, be posted by it immediately thereafter and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. 6. Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on July 7, 1967, in Case 20-RC-7319 be, and it hereby is, set aside. 2 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. [Direction of Second Election2 omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question you in any coercive cir- cumstances about your desire or lack of desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union, Local 823, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or Retail Clerks Union, Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organizations. WE WILL NOT threaten you with more onerous working conditions or threaten or warn you that your employment opportunities with other employers may be adversely affected because of your activity in behalf of or interest in either of the above-named Unions or other labor organizations. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Unions, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and 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, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment in conformity with the limitations unposed by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. F. W WOOLWORTH COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question you in any coercive cir- cumstances about your desire or lack of desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union, Local 823, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or Retail Clerks Union, Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zations. WE WILL NOT tell you that you need not obey the command of a subpoena lawfully issued by the National Labor Relations Board or warn you that such obedience will result in any notation in your personnel record. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Unions, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and 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, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment in conformity with the limitations imposed by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Dated F. W WOOLWORTH COMPANY (Employer) By (Representative ) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: - WE WILL NOT question you in any coercive cir- cumstances about your desire or lack of desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union, Local 823, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or Retail Clerks Union, Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zations. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Unions, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and 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, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment in conformity with the limitations imposed by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. F. W WOOLWORTH COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Of- fice, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. APPENDIX D NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to Decision , Order , and Direction of Second Election of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question you in any coercive cir- cumstances about your desire or lack of desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union, Local 823, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, or Retail Clerks Union , Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zation. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with , restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of your right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist the above-named Unions, or any other F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and 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, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment in conformity with the limitations imposed by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALLACE E ROYSTER, Trial Examiner- This matter was tried before me in San Francisco, California, on March 28 and 29, 1968 The consolidated complaint' as amended at the hearing alleges that F W Woolworth Company, herein the Respondent, at 10 of its retail stores situated in Alameda County, California, encouraged, aided, and solicited employees to withdraw support from Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union Local 823, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, herein the Culinary Workers, and from Retail Clerks Union Local 870, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, herein the Retail Clerks (both organizations sometimes herein called the Unions), at one store disciplined an employee because she attended a representation hearing conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, herein the Board, in response to a subpoena, at another store threatened an employee with more difficult working conditions if the Retail Clerks became bargaining representative, at still another threatened to prevent employees from obtaining work at other retail stores in the community if they supported the Retail Clerks; and finally, at one of its stores, instructed an employee not to solicit for the Retail Clerks anywhere on Respondent's premises at any time. By this conduct, it is alleged, the Respondent interfered with restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Elections were conducted at a number of Respondent's stores involved here on July 7, 1967. Where the Unions did not 1 Dated April 28, 1967, based upon charges filed October 26, October 31 , and November 4, 1966, and upon further charges filed January 27 , March 13, and March 3'1, 1967. 1149 prevail, they filed objections to the conduct of the elections and the Regional Director for Region 20 thereafter caused an investigation to be made as to their merit. He concluded that except for one objection arising in connection with threats made to employees at Respondent's Livermore Store #1646, the objections were either unsupported by persuasive evidence or were without merit. He certified the results of the elections except at Store # 1646. The as yet unresolved objection is also alleged to constitute an unfair labor practice in the instant complaint and has been mentioned above A recommendation concerning the disposition of this objection will be made in this Decision During the hearing and by motion to reopen after its close, the Unions have urged that evidence be accepted in this proceeding which they assert will establish that they had made requests to bargain of the Respondent affecting each of the units in which elections were conducted and that the Unions were in fact, despite the election results, the majority choice of the employees comprising those units. I declined to accept such evidence at the hearing and I now deny the motion to reopen the record to receive it. Except with respect to Store #1646, and the circumstances affecting that election will be set forth and discussed later in this Decision, the Regional Director has overruled the objections and has certified the results of the elections The Unions have had their day in court on the objections and have received an adjudication They may not retry that case before me. The Board has spoken clearly and finally to the point We will not grant such relief [a bargaining order] , however, unless the election be set aside upon meritorious objections filed in the representation case Were the election not set aside on the basis of objections in the present represen- tation case, we would not now direct a bargaining order even though the unfair labor practice phase of this proceeding itself established the employer's interference with the election.2 Even if the Board's expression set forth above be regarded as dictum, as it well may be, it nonetheless articulates a rule of decision and it is followed here Upon the basis of the entire record3 in the case, from my observation of the witnesses, and in consideration of the briefs filed, I make the following- FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a New York corporation engaged in the sale of general merchandise at retail at numerous locations throughout the United States Its annual gross revenues exceed $500,000 and in the past year it has received at its California stores goods and supplies valued at more than $50,000 shipped directly to it from suppliers located outside the State of California. I find as is conceded that the Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2 IrvingAir Chute Company, Inc., 149 NLRB 627, 629-630 3 Each of the parties has filed a motion to correct the transcript in minor particulars . Some of the motions point out the same errors and no such motion has been opposed . With the exception of the change sought by counsel for the Respondent affecting 1. 3 of p. 13 of the transcript (I believe it to be correct as it stands), the motions are granted and the moving papers are hereby made a part of the formal exhibit file. 1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE UNIONS The Culinary Workers and the Retail Clerks are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Laura Eckerdt, an employee in Store #232, testified that on October 18, 1966, after working hours, she was served with a Board subpoena, issued at the request of the Retail Clerks, requiring her to attend a Board representation hearing on October 19. Shortly after 8 in the morning of the latter day, she telephoned her personnel supervisor, Helen Stones, at the store and told Stones that she had been subpoenaed to attend a "meeting" in San Francisco Eckerdt attended the hearing. She returned to work whenever she was next scheduled to do so on October 20 or 21 and in the afternoon of that day was called to Stones' office Stones told her, Eckerdt testified, that she need not have obeyed the subpoena as it was not "official" Stones asserted that Eckerdt had attended a "union" hearing and thus had engaged in union activity on Respondent's time. Stones said that she was giving Eckerdt a warning not to answer another such subpoena and that the fact of the warning would be noted in Eckerdt's personnel record Stones denied that she spoke disparagingly of the subpoena, denied that she accused Eckerdt of attending a union meeting, and testified that there was no mention of a warning which would become part of Eckerdt's personnel file. Stones ad- rmtted, however, that although she knew from another source that Eckerdt had been subpoenaed to attend the hearing and that this information had come to her even before Eckerdt telephoned to announce her intended absence, she did require that Eckerdt submit some sort of explanation concerning her failure to report for work on October 19 and that this explanation was placed in Eckerdt's personnel file. Respond- ent's employees are not usually required to explain in writing the necessity for an absence for a day or two and Stones offered no reason for calling upon Eckerdt to do so except that the store manager, James L Mount, had asked Stones to find out where Eckerdt had been on October 19. Eckerdt and Stones remain employed in the same store in the same relative positions. Concededly Stones is a supervisor within the Act's meaning Eckerdt's testimony could not benefit her directly and it seems unlikely that she would fabricate an incident or embroider it falsely when such deceit would surely worsen her relations with Stones and with all her superiors. I think that Eckerdt was a truthful witness and that she gave from the stand a substantially accurate account of what passed between her and Stones To the extent that Stones contradicted Eckerdt, Stones testimony is not credited. I find that in relation to the representation hearing on October 19, 1966, Stones told Eckerdt that she need not have honored the subpoena, that her presence at the hearing constituted the engagement in union activity on her em- ployer's time, that she should not respond to another such subpoena, that she must report in writing her whereabouts on the day of the hearing, and that her record at the store would reflect that she had been given a warning. This petty harassment of an employee because she obeyed the lawful command of the subpoena was an interference with her right to participate in proceedings before the Board and constituted an impediment to the exercise of the Board's power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Such conduct has the tendency to deprive employees of vindication by the Board of their statutory rights and constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 Livia Hillery was employed at Store #2012 from September 1965 until she quit in January 1968 Hillery testified that in January 1967, the store was visited, as it was periodically, by Delila Boatwright, a traveling personnel supervisor. During this visit Boatwright told Hillery, the latter testified, that com- plaints had been made by some of Hillery's fellow workers that she had been bothering them in attempting to get them to join the Unions and to collect their home addresses for the Unions. Boatwright said, still according to Hillery, "When you are in this store, you work for this store only " Hillery testified that she had been speaking to other employees about the Unions and that she did so during work time. On cross-examination Hillery said that she understood Boatwright to forbid such activity while she was in duty status. Boatwright testified that during this visit to the store she was informed that Hillery was annoying other employees by attempting to get their addresses and telephone numbers and reputedly discussing unions while on duty However, according to Boatwright, in speaking to Hillery she made no mention of unions but merely instructed Hillery to devote her on-duty time strictly to the business of her employer. I doubt that Boatwright limited her admonition to Hillery to the matter of Union activity while in duty status. The complaints that had come to Boatwright were that Hillery was bothering other employees by inquiries and solicitations not that she was interfering with their work Even Boatwright's testimony does not clearly evidence a concern about work interference However, she was speaking to a situation which in fact did exist. Hillery was engaging in such activities on her work time and with employees who were also on duty. Furthermore, Hillery understood that she was being forbidden to use her work time for that purpose. I think it probable, and I find, that Boatwnght's warning was sweeping in its compass; that the words used by her literally forbad any Union activity within the store. The incident is a minor one but I suppose that the Respondent should be required to instruct its supervisors to speak carefully in the area of its employees Section 7 rights. I find that by the warning to Hillery the Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced Hillery in the exercise of such rights and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On October 20, 1966, a letter was mailed to all employees working in the 10 stores involved in this proceeding over the signatures of the several store managers, reading For nearly two years, professional union organizers have been trying to wedge their way into our Store During this period, the organizers have tried every way possible to entice store personnel into signing a slip authorizing a Union to represent them. At no time was anyone asked or given the opportunity to make it known that a Union was not wanted. Because of the action now being taken by the Clerks and Culinary unions, it seems most timely that those who have remained silent as well as those who signed something to stop organizers from bothering them, make their feelings known-TO SPEAK OUT! One way to do this is by simply signing and forwarding to the Union the enclosed WHITE slip. If this is done, please give me the GREEN copy, and keep the YELLOW copy for personal record. 4 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, 128 NLRB 574, 577-579 F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 1151 Now is the time to let outsiders know they are not wanted or needed. Obviously, the Respondent was trying to do more than urge its employees to withdraw previously signed designation cards or to tell the Unions that they were not interested in representation, it was also attempting to poll its employees on the question of Union preference. Employees have a stat- utorily protected right to keep their desires respecting union. representation inviolate from the prying inquiries of their employer. Not only are they free to remain silent before such interrogation but they are also free by virtue of Section 7 of the Act from such officious busyness. Here, without warrant, the employees were forced by circumstances to make some sort of a revelation to their employer If they signed the forms and returned the green copy to the store manager then they were on record as opposing the Unions and could hardly believe that they were doing other than bringing gratification to their employer. If they ignored the whole thing, their lack of action would support an inference that they wanted a union and in this respect were thwarting the wishes and hopes of the Respondent. Nothing in the letter suggests that the recipients had a right to stand mute and nothing in it gives assurance that inaction would not adversely affect their employment. The attempted polling was a part of Respondent's campaign against the Unions. The vice in this attempt is that the Respondent was thus bringing pressures to bear upon employees to divulge a choice which they had a protected right to keep to themselves. I find that the October 20 letters with their enclosures interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that by sending them the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' On some date in November 1966, Gloria Williams, then a sales employee in Respondent's Livermore Store # 1646, intending in response to a subpena to attend a hearing in one of the representation cases in which the Unions and the Respondent were then involved, told her supervisor, Darlene Finders, that she wanted to take the following day off. A little later in the day, Finders told Williams that she knew why Williams wanted to be absent and added, "that she hoped the union did not get into our store because Mr Wrest would make it hard on everyone " The Mr. Wrest referred to was the store manager, James D Wrest. Finders did not testify. The testimony of Williams concerning what Finders said to her is thus undenied and is credited. Shortly before Christmas that year, still according to the testimony of Williams, at one of the regular bi-weekly meetings of store personnel, Manager Wrest said that the Respondent was having more troubles with "the Union". Wrest went on to say that he had been talking to the managers of other retail enterprises in Livermore, that he had supplied these managers with the names of the employees in Respondent's store, and that he had identified them to the other managers as those who were "pushing the union." Wrest warned his audience that in a small town such as Livermore it would be hard for them to get other employment "because of the union " Elaborating, Wrest said that after the elections had been held, the employees would look like fools because the Unions would not succeed Several jobs were open at Sears Roebuck, Wrest continued, but that it would be futile for any in the store to attempt to gain employment there; once it was learned that the applicant worked for the Respondent, she would not be 5 Cf Blue Flash Express, Inc , 109 NLRB 591, 592-595 considered. Another employee, Edna Holmes, asked Wrest if he would recommend any of them for another job. Wrest answered, "Yes, as far as your ability to work goes." Williams quit her job with the Respondent in early 1967. Edna Holmes testified that she was in attendance at this meeting and that Wrest told the assembled employees he would make it difficult for them to get other employment because they had been active in supporting the Unions On cross-examination Holmes varied her testimony somewhat, attributing to Wrest a statement that the managers of other stores in Livermore didn't want Respondent's employees to apply to them for work as they did not want "union troubles in their stores." Holmes left her employment with the Respondent in February 1968. Wrest, in his testimony, agreed that such a meeting as Williams and Holmes described was held in November or December of 1966. Wrest testified that he opened the meeting by commenting upon the "harassment" of employees by the Unions in following them home, telephoning them, and awaiting them outside the store He then told the assemblage that other store managers in the area did not want Respond- ent's employees to apply for jobs because of the union activities in Respondent's store. He told them specifically that the manager of Sears Roebuck didn't want such applications from them for that reason. He denied saying that he had given the employees' names to the other store managers but conceded he had warned them that because they had been supporting the Unions they would face difficulties in obtaining other employment in their community. In response to a question from Holmes, he testified, he answered that he "would be more than happy and willing to stand up or give them recommendations." He testified that he could not recall whether he warned them that because of their union activities no manager of any other retail store would want to employ them. The vital content of the testimony of Williams and of Holmes thus stands undenied or admitted. The Respondent through Manager Wrest used the occasion of the meeting to warn the employees that their activities in behalf of the Unions lessened or even destroyed their chances of finding work in a retail store in the area. The obvious purpose of Wrest's remarks was to frighten the employees away from their union loyalties and coercively to cause them to abandon the right of free association which the Act guarantees them. I find that the meeting when this occurred took place in December 1966 as Williams and Holmes testified and that the account of these former employees as to what was said on that occasion is credible. To the extent that the testimony of Wrest is at odds with that of Williams or Holmes I do not credit him. It follows, and I find, that by the warning given to Williams by Finders in November and by the threats and warnings uttered at this December meeting the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The conduct of Manager Wrest at the December meeting is urged by the Unions as grounds for setting aside the election held the following July in that store. Further, the Unions argue, the only appropriate remedy for this unfair labor practice is to require the Respondent to extend recognition to and to bargain with the Unions as the representatives of the employees in that store. The assertion is made that, if opportunity is provided, the Unions can demonstrate that before the unfair labor practice was committed they had been 1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD designated as such representative by a majority of the employees in that store. The request to reopen the record to receive evidence of the majority standing of the Unions among the employees in the Livermore store is denied. Although the unfair labor practices committed there by the Respondent-the circulation of the managers letter of October 20, the November threat to Williams, and the remarks made by Wrest at the December meeting-are not insubstantial, they took place seven months or more before the election was held. Although it cannot be said with certainty that the effect of these transgressions had been dissipated by the election date, they had by then acquired some quality of remoteness Nothing after the December meeting occurred to accentuate, or to remind the employees of, the October, November and December hap- penings. There seems to be no reason why, after an appropriate posting period of the Appendix [Board's Appendixes substi- tuted for Trial Examiner's Appendix] which will be attached to this Decision, a free and fair election may not be conducted among Respondent's employees in the Livermore store. Thus the risk of imposing an unwanted representative upon the persons who are now Respondent's employees at that store will be minimized. In respect to the representation Case 20-RC-7319, it is recommended that the election of July 7, 1967 be set aside and that another election within the limits of that case be held on a date deemed by the Regional Director to be appropriate. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The acts of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action. 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. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Culinary Workers and the Retail Clerks are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the interrogation concerning the disposition of employees toward union organization by means of the October 20, 1966, letter, by the threat of Respondent's supervisor, Finders, to its employee Williams, by the threats and warnings voiced to employees in the Livermore store by Manager Wrest in December 1966, by the admonishment of Eckerdt by Stones concerning honoring a Board subpoena and attending a representation hearing, and by the instruction to Hillery that she must not engage in any union activity in the Responent's store, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, I recommend that F.W. Woolworth Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall. 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Interrogating its employees concerning union attitudes without compelling reason and without giving assurance that any reply will not affect employment standing, warning employees that the advent of a union might mean more onerous working conditions, threatening and warning employ- ees that their support for a union may result in their inability to obtain other employment in a retail store in the Livermore, California, area, admonishing an employee because she honored a Board subpena and attended a representation hearing, and telling an employee that she may not engage in union activity in Respondent's store (b) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the Culinary Workers or the Retail Clerks or any other labor, organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act- (a) Post at each of the stores involved in this proceeding copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." [Board's Appendixes substituted for Trial Examiner's Appendix.] 6 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately thereafter and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken in compliance.7 6In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 7In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith "