F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 941 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 941
F. W. Woolworth Co. (Store No . 2288) and Retail
Clerks Union, Local 1119, Retail Clerks Internation-
al Association, AFL-CIO.
F. W. Woolworth Co. (Store No . 2288) and Retail
Clerks Union . Local 1119, Retail Clerks Internation-
al Association , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 20-
CA-5647 and 20-RC-8654
March 11, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On October 22, 1970, Trial Examiner Herman Cor-
enman issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examin-
er further recommended that the election in Case 20-
RC-8654 be set aside and that it be dismissed in its
entirety. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief. The Charging Party filed briefs in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision. The General Counsel filed
a brief and by letter called the Board's attention to
certain inadvertant omissions by the Trial Examiner
in his Decision which are hereinafter corrected.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that the Respondent, F. W. Woolworth
Co., at its store No. 2288, Corte Madera, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.'
1. In footnote 17 of the Trial Examiner's Decision
substitute "20" for "10" days.
2. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Trial
Examiner's Appendix.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case
20-RC-8654 be set aside and that all proceedings
therein be vacated.
1 These findings are based , in part, upon credibility determinations of the
Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted . After careful review
of the record , we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary to
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find
no basis for disturbing these findings Standard Dry Wall Products, inc., 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 363 (CA. 3)
2 We correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion which in no wise affects our disposition of the case - The Trial Examiner
upon the basis of testimony by Respondent 's witness Nelson found that
employee Gillespie attended a meeting of employees called by Nelson on
June 6 . The record discloses that employee Gillespie was scheduled to attend
this meeting but was unable to do so
3 Chairman Miller agrees that a bargaining order is appropriate herein but,
in accordance with his separate position in United Packing Company of Iowa,
187 NLRB No . 132, he would predicate his remedy solely upon the serious
8(a)(l) violations found herein
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had the chance to
present evidence and arguments, the Board decided
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and ordered us to post this notice; we shall carry out
its order and do the following:
WE WILL NOT promise you or grant wage in-
creases or new or improved benefits if you vote
against or otherwise refrain from supporting Re-
tail Clerks Union, Local 1119, Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association, AFL-CIO, or threaten
hard and prolonged bargaining without the
granting of improved wages or benefits if you
support the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of
your right to engage in self-organization, to form,
join, or help Local 1119, Retail Clerks Union, to
bargain collectively through Local 1119, to act
together with other employees for the purpose of
bargaining collectively or for other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any of these ac-
tions.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collective-
ly in good faith with Local 1119, Retail Clerks
Union, at its request over your wages, rates of
pay, hours, and other conditions of employment.
188 NLRB No. 119
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
collectively with Local 1119, Retail Clerks Un-
ion, as the exclusive representative of our em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, and, if an
understanding is reached, put such understand-
ing into a written signed agreement.
The unit is: All full-time and regular part-
time selling and nonselling employees em-
ployed by F. W. Woolworth Co., Store 2228,
at Corte Madera, California, excluding cas-
ual employees, the manager, assistant man-
agers, personnel supervisor, office manager,
confidential office employee, guards and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, Box 36047,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN , Trial Examiner : This matter, a pro-
ceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at
San Francisco , California, on June 30 , July 1, 2, and 13,
1970, with the General Counsel, the Respondent and the
Charging Party participating, participating , pursuant to the
notice to all parties , upon an amended complaint issued by
the General Counsel on May 20, 1970, and obj ections to the
election filed by the Union on June 25 , 1969. The amended
complaint of the General Counsel alleges violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by F.-W. Woolworth Co.,
herein called the Respondent , or Woolworth . The charge
was filed in this matter of Retail Clerks Union, Local 111-9,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , on June 25 , 1969. The Respondent's an-
swer denied it committed the unfair labor practices alleged
in the amended complaint.
On February 27, 1969, in Case 20-RC-8654, a petition for
certification of representatives was filed by the Union with
the Board 's Regional Office at San Francisco , California,
and on May 16 , 1969, a Decision and Direction of Election
was issued by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the
Board in a unit of employees described as follows:
All full-time and regular part-time selling and non-
sellingg employees employed by F. W. Woolworth Co.,
Store 2289, at Corte Madera, California, excluding cas-
ual employees, the manager , assistant managers, per-
sonnel supervisor, office manager, confidential office
employee, guards and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Pursuant thereto an election was conducted under the su-
pervision of the aforesaid Regional Director which the Un-
ion lost by a vote of 10 in favor of the Union and 10 against
the Union. On June 25, 1969, the Union filed and thereafter
served timely objections to conduct affecting results of the
election. Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, as amended, the hearing on objections in
the representation matter has been consolidated with the
amended complaint herein.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to adduce evi-
dence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file
briefs. Briefs were received from the General Counsel, the
Respondent and the Union and have been carefully consid-
ered
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The pleadings establish, and I find, that the Respondent
is a New York corporation engaged in the retail sale of
general merchandise through variety stores located
throughout the United States, including a store in Corte
Madera, California, sometimes referred to by Respondent
as its Store No. 2288. During the past year, Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, received
gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During the past year,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business oper-
ations, purchased and received at its California stores goods
and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped
directly to said stores from sources located outside the State
of California. I therefore find that the Respondent has been
at all times material herein, and is now, an employer en-
r7 ed in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union , Local 1119, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO , herein called the Union, at
all times material herem has been , and is now , a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues raised by the ammended complaint and the
answer thereto are whether the Respondents admitted re-
fusal to recognize and bargain with the Union on and after
February 27, 1969, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act and whether the Respondent after receiving the Union's
demand for recognition on or about February 27, 1969,
thereafter engaged in unfair labor practices undermining
the Union's majority status by alleged interrogation of em-
ployees, making promises of benefits if the employees re-
jected the Union and threats of reprisal if the employees
selected the Union in the pending election, and by an-
nouncements of benefits to the employees 2 days after the
election results.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 943
The objections to election comprise substantially the
same issues of fact involved in the unfair labor practice
proceedings.
B. Background
The only store of the Respondent involved in these pro
ceedings is Store No. 2288 situated in Corte Madera, Cali-
fornia. The union organization among the employees began
on or about February 25, 1969, when a group of employees
employed at the Respondent's Corte Madera store met with
Union Business Representative Harold Barling at the
Union's office. These employees signed individual member-
ship applications in the Union authorizing the Union to
represent each of them for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and handling of grievances. Barling gave blank
membership applications to employee Gertrude Woods for
signature by other employees desiring to have the Union
represent them. These blank applications were handed out
to other employees in the store on the following day, Feb-
ruary 26. By February 27, 1969, the Union had received
signed union membership applications and authorizations
from 16 employees in a unit of 22 employees; and by March
11, 1969, d more employees had signed authorizations
bringing the total number of union authorizations to 20
empployees out of a unit of 22 employees.'
Under date of February 27, 1969, the Union through its
attorneys, the law firm of Davis, Cowell & Bowe , directed
a letter to Respondent, as follows:
The undersigned represents Retail Clerks Union, Lo-
cal 1119. Please be advised that a majority of your
Company's employees at this store have designated
1 Among the 20 authorization cards were authorizations from Caroline
Burke and Myra Rousseau who, the Respondent claimed , were supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, and therefore should be excluded from the
unit Even if the Respondent's claim had merit, it would not affect the
Union's majority as the Union on February 27, 1969, would still have a
majority as the Union on February 27, 1969, would still have a majority of
14 out of 20 employees . Contrary to the contention of the Respondent,
however, I find that Burke and Rousseau are not supervisors . This finding,
while independently made on the basis of the evidence in the record, is in
accord with the Regional Director's finding made in his Decision and Direc-
tion of Election issued May 16, 1969, in Case 20-RC-8654.
Caroline Burke , labeled by the Respondent as "stockroom supervisor," is
no more than an ordinary stockroom employee and shipping room receiving
clerk She works alone most of the time except during the peak seasons during
which she receives assistance . She is without authority to hire and fire or to
effectively recommend such actions or any other authority traditionally exer-
cised by management as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. Myra L Rous-
seau, labeled "sales floor supervisor" by the Respondent , likewise is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. She and another employee named
Lois Kline are salesgirls , one at the front of the store and the other in the
rear . They also have additional duties of routinely scheduling the hours of
their fellow salesgirls , they handle layaways, make refunds , approve checks
for the amount of the purchase , have keys to the cash drawer and make
change at the request of the salesgirls . Although I find that Kline and Rous-
seau exercise responsibilities in addition to that of the regular salesgirls,
nevertheless these additional duties do not constitute authority responsibly
to direct other employees which is inherent in true management especially
when it is noted that the overall management at the Corte Madera store
consists of the store manager and two assistant store managers who are
concededly supervisors within the meaning of the Act Imposing titles grant-
ed to menial employees do not make them supervisors No reason in the
record appears which warrants disturbing the determination of the Regional
Director , in his Direction of Election issued May 16, 1969, finding that two
sales-floor supervisors (Rousseau and Kline) and the stockroom supervisor
(Burke) were not supervisors within the definition of Section 2(11) of the Act
This is especially true with respect to Kline and Rousseau as Woolworth's
request for review with respect to their alleged supervisory status was denied
See N LR B. v. Magnesium Casting Co., 427 F 2d 114 (C.A.I .), enfg. 175
NLRB 397; also Meyer Dairy, Inc. v. N.L R B. (C.A 10, July 1970), J-5972.
said Union as their exclusive collective bargaining rep-
resentative in a unit appropriate for bargaining.
The unit in which recognition is sought by this Union
is composed of all selling and non-selling employees of
your company employed at this store, excluding your-
self, as store manager , two assistant store managers,
personnel manager, and your confidential office em-
ployee.
We have this date on behalf of the Union filed a
Petition for Election with the National Labor Relations
Board. However, we are ready, willing and able to
demonstrate the majority status of this Union by
means of a cross check through an impartial third party
in order to expedite the matter of recognition should
you have any good faith doubt of our majority status.
I would appreciate your contacting either myself or the
Union directly so that we may be advised of your
Company's position.
The Union has designated Gertrude Woods as chair-
man of the in store bargaining committee and Mrs.
Woods will serve on our negotiating committee should
the Company agree to recognize and bargain forthwith.
Under date of March 7, 1969, counsel for the Respondent
replied to the Union's request for recognition, as follows:
With reference to your letter dated February 27,
1969, addressed to Mr. Nelson, Store Manager, F. W.
Woolworth Co., Corte Madera, California, we have
been asked to answer it.
Our client has a genuine doubt that your union rep-
resents an uncoerced majority in an appropriate unit.
If your union becomes certified following a validly
conducted election by the NLRB, then our client will
do whatever it is legally obligated to do at the appropri-
ate time.
C. The Respondent 's Campaign to Defeat
the Union at the Election
The Company initiated its campaign to defeat the Union
in the upcoming election by the visit of Mr. Melvin L. Small,
the Respondent's director of public and employee relations
for the Pacific Region of the F. W. Woolworth Company.
Mr. Small visited the Corte Madera store in early March
1969 and arranged for Store Manager Duane Nelson to
introduce him to saleslady Gertrude Woods whom, the Un-
ion had previously notified the Respondent in its February
27, 1969, letter requesting recognition, had been designated
as the "chairman of the in store bargaining committee" and
a member of the "negotiating committee should the Compa-
ny agree to recognize and bargain forthwith." Mrs. Woods
credibly testified that after Nelson had introduced Small to
her as the "trouble shooter for F. W. Woolworth" Small told
her that they usually learned sooner "before the outsiders
are brought in," and he wanted to know "what was wrong."
Woods told Small that one of the problems was Mr.
Nelson's aloof and unfriendly attitude toward the girls and
the other problem was the girls' need for a raise in pay.
Small asked Woods if it was possible to meet with the girls,
to get some of this straightened out; but according to
Woods the girls refused to talk to Small in Nelson's pres-
ence.
The election was scheduled for June 19, 1969. In the
2-week period preceding the scheduled election date, Small
conducted five separate meetings with groups of approxi-
mately 10 employees each, in the girls' lounge at the Corte
Madera store. According to the testimony of Gertrude
Woods, a witness called by the General Counsel, at the
meeting she attended in June presided over by Mr. Small,
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Small showed the employees copies of the Respondent's
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union for the
Richmond store which had a beginning rate of $ 1.33 per
hour . This contract was about to expire . At this meeting,
according to Mrs . Woods, Small wanted to know "why the
girls had got some outsider to represent them and see if we
couldn't get it straightened out.
Mrs. Woods testified further "it was brought up about
our 6 month merits ... according to Woolworth they have
what is a 6 month merit , every 6 months they put you up
for a raise and Mr . Small said that was out . That was not
no more , that they don 't do that and that there would be no
raise paid of any kind because we had brought the union in
and as of right now everything was frozen , their hands were
tied ; they could do nothing and he also told the girls that
if they did get the union in that they would have to go out
on strike and they absolutely would not settle . It would take
years for us to get a settlement ... it would take the years
because they would keep it going and going ." Mrs. Woods
further credibly testified that on the Saturday morning after
the election ,2 Store Manager Nelson assembled the employ-
ees in the store in the girls ' lounge as he usually does on
Saturday morning . At this meeting, according to Woods'
credible testimony , Nelson thanked the girls "for giving him
a vote of confidence and letting him show that he could
have a chance," and, according to Woods , Nelson then
stated , "you girls may not have got the union in but you
certainly got yourself heard ." Nelson further promised the
girls that Woolworth was going to try and give the girls a
dental plan and a better medical plan and he also told the
girls they would receive a pay raise . The pay raise showed
up on the following week 's pay , and Woods ' increase was
a 25-cent per hour raise.
On cross-examination by counsel for Respondent, Woods
elaborated further concerning Mr. Small 's preelection ad-
dress to the employee group . Woods testified further that
Small told the girls "that if the union did get in there would
be absolutely no settlement , that it would go on and on and
the girls would have to go out on strike . He also said ... we
had to go to union meetings and if we didn't appear at so
many meetings we would be fined ." Testifying further on
cross-examination , Woods stated that Small said " . . . the
main thing they was interested in was getting across to the
girls about the union, if we did get the union in we would
be out on strike and we would never get nothing settled and
in between this time the pay raises would be frozen." In
response to counsel for Respondent 's question , Mrs. Woods
testified the meeting "was all about the union and pay raises
and the petty grievance the girls were having ." On further
cross-examination, Woods again testified as follows con-
cerning what Small told the employees: "One of the main
things they said was that if the union got in that the only
way we would ever get anything settled was to go out on a
strike and then it would take years , they would keep pro-
longing stuff until it was too late and in this meantime there
would be no raises of pay because everything was frozen,
their hands were tied and that is what scared some of the
older girls , their jobs depends on it and if they go out on
strike that would ...."
Nina Field, a saleslady called as a witness by the General
Counsel , attended one of the employee preelection meetings
called by Store Manager Nelson which was presided over by
Small. Among other emlpoyees, approximately 8 or 10 in
number who attended this meeting , were Gertrude Woods
and Lillian Gillespie . Testifying as to what occurred at this
meeting, Field recited that Small showed the girls an old
contract between Woolworth's Richmond store and the Un-
ion. Field also testified that Small told the employees that
their wagees were frozen and that they would never get a
contract with the Union unless the employees went on
strike. On cross-examination, Field testified further that
Small told the employees that Woolworth could do as much
for the employees as the Union, and, referring to the Rich-
mond contract, told the employees that they would get very
low wages similar to the Richmond contract. Field testified
she and Gertrude Woods told Small the Richmond contract
was an old contract. Concerning the employees' wages
being frozen, Small explained to the employees that he had
advised the store manager not to grant increases since a
petition had been filed by the Union. Field repeated, on
cross-examination, that Small told the employees they
would never get a contract unless they went out on strike.
She further testified that Small told the employees that ne-
gotiation of a contract "would be a slow process."
Field further testified that Store Manager Nelson told a
group of employees on the Saturday before the election
that wages were frozen-that we could not get a raise-
that he would like to give raises but he absolutely could not
on account of the Union." Field testified further than on the
Saturday following the election, Mr. Nelson spoke to a
group of employees including herself. At this meeting he
thanked the employees for the way the election had turned
out and he informed them that Woolworth was getting the
employees better health and dental benefits. He also told
the employees that he would live up to his promises that he
had made to them before the election and he told them, "he
would see if he couldn't get the raises through as soon as
possible for us girls."3
Salesgirl Lillian Gillespie, produced by the General
Counsel, testified she attended two employee meetings in
the 2 weeks preceding the election. At the first meetin ,
attended by approximately 10 or 12 employees. Small
showed the girls the Richmond contract which was about to
expire. Testifying to what Small told the employees, she
said:
We were told that with a union we would have strikes
and we would be put on picket lines and we would be
paying union dues and we would be compelled to go
to monthly union meetings or be fined and also we
were told we wouldn't be able to get a raise until after
the election, that there hands were frozen, and that we
kind of spoiled it for ourselves-that we would have
quite a time getting the contract-it would take years
probably before a contract would ever go through if we
did get one.
On cross-examination, Gillespie testified further that Small
said "his hands were tied, and we spoiled it for ourselves-
there would be no raise-take forever to get a contract."
Gillespie attended the meeting conducted by Nelson on
the Saturday following the election, with approximately 12
employees, including among others Gertrude Woods and
Nina Field. At this meeting, according to Gillespie's testi-
mony, "Nelson thanked everybody for voting against the
Union" and told them he would try to live up to all his
promises, that he would check the present medical plan and
see if there could be improvements, and he would try to get
a dental plan. Nelson further announced that the following
week the girls would all get a raise. Gillespie testified further
that in the following week she received a 20-cent per hour
raise.
2 The election was held Thursday, June 19, 1969. The following Saturday 3 It is established without dispute that a general wage increase was given
was June 21 effective June 26, 1969
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 945
D. Respondent's Witnesses Concerning the
Speeches Made by Small and Nelson
Mr. Small conceded that after receiving the Union's Feb-
ruary 27, 1969, letter requesting recognition , he visited the
store in early March 1969 and talked to Gertrude Woods.
Mr. Small testified he told Woods his position with Wool-
worth and that his purpose in coming to the store was "to
learn what the situation was-we like to feel that our poli-
cies are adequate and that there is no need for employee
unrest when the policies are applied." Mr. Small testified
that he told Mrs. Woods that he wanted to learn the causes
of the employees ' dissatisfaction and she replied that since
his arrival as store manager Nelson had been aloof and
unfriendly whereas the previous manager had been very
friendly to the employees . Small told Woods he wanted an
opportunity to talk to the employees and he invited ques-
tions from store employees.
Small testified he had five separate meetings with the
employees before the election . According to Small, there
were two meetings on June 6 , 1969 , one in the morning and
the other in the afternoon . Testifying to what was said at the
afternoon meeting on June 6 , which he testified was attend-
ed, among others , by Nina Field, Diana Pierce, Gertrude
Woods and Store Manager Nelson , Small testified that he
told the employees his position with Woolworth and that
the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the pending peti-
tion filed with the National Labor Relations Board by the
Union . He testified that he explained to the employees their
rights and function of the NLRB , of the secret ballot elec-
tion to be held-if the Union won there would be a 1-year
certification, that the Union would meet with the employees
and solicit proposals for bargaining purposes-that man-
agement of the store would then be required to meet and
consider union proposals at reasonable times and in a rea-
sonable manner-that management of the store was not
obligated to agree to anything but must consider any pro-
posals submitted by the Union. Small further testified that
he mentioned a number of Woolworth stores in the Bay
Area presently operating under union contracts , about eight
elections held in Woolworth stores in Alameda where the
Union won an election in only one store . According to
Small, he mentioned that the problems in those stores would
appear to be personnel matters not being properly handled
by management . He distributed copies of the Richmond
contract, expiring June 30, 1969, and went through it clause
by clause . The Richmond contract contained a $1.33 per
hour rate and this provoked a question from employee
Woods concerning the low rate . According to Small, he
explained to the employees that no one in the Richmond
store was getting less than $1 .60 per hour . Small testified he
further told the employees that if the Union lost the election
they would not be permitted to file for another year. Small
testified he talked about store policies and practices and he
made reference to two documents posted in the lounge on
the employees ' bulletin board relating to Woolworth store
policy. Small testified that he indicated to the employees
that it was possible that the Corte Madera store was out of
line with working conditions that prevailed in the imme-
diate are . He asked employees to give Mr . Nelson , the new
store manager , a chance and he told the employees that if
they had any questions to feel free to speak to Mr. Nelson
or to him while he was in the store . According to Small, he
em hasized to the em loyees his hope they would proceed
Concerning the question of wages, Small testified that at
one or more of the employee meetings the question had
been brought up concerning rates of pay. Mr. Small told the
employees that Mr. Nelson had been advised not to grant
wage increases in the period from the time the Union's
petition was pending.
Small denied that he told the employees that wages were
frozen, that the employees would never get a union contract
unless there was a strike. Small testified that he also con-
ducted two meetings on June 11, 1969. According to Small,
eight employees including Lillian Gillespie attended the
6:15 p.m. meeting on June 11. Small testified he followed
the same outline as in earlier meetings. According to Small,
during the June 11 meeting at 6:15 p.m., some questions
were raised and complaints made by employees which he
noted on a slip of paper. Among complaints listened to and
noted were people working beyond the normal quitting
time, scheduling of worktime for students and about
changes made in the store without explanation by manage-
ment as to the reason for the changes. Concerning the com-
plaints, Small testified "I simply listened and made a note
on a slip of paper."
Testifying further concerning his remarks to the employ-
ees, Small denied that he told the employees that if they
went union there would be strikes and they would have to
go out on the picket line, that employees would have to pay
union dues and they would have to go to union meetings or
be fined .4 Small further denied that he told the employees
that they would not get a raise until after the election. He
further denied that he told the employees that his hands
were frozen and the employees could only blame themselves
if they did not get a wage increase or that it would take years
for the Union to get a contract.
Small testified he also conducted a morning meeting on
June 18, 1969, attended, among others, by Lillian Gillespie
and Diana Pierce. This June 18 meeting, according to Small,
was to cover some of the questions and comments brought
to management's attention since the last meeting and during
the meetings. Small told the employees at this June 18 meet-
ing, concerning the question of "withdrawing from union
membership", that withdrawal cards would be issued by the
Union only to employees who left the "retail industry."
Small also commented on material posted on the bulletin
board and told the employees the material was not "fairy
tales." In response to complaints about Mr. Nelson's aloof-
ness , Small testified that he pointed out to the employees
that Nelson had been in the store only since February 1, and
he should have "an opportunity to succeed as well as an
opportunity to fail." Small testified he then made available
to the employees copies of contracts for several of the Wool-
worth stores in the Bay Area. Small testified he then
commented that most of the complaints brought to his at-
tention had little or no bearing on union representation, the
complaints consisting of such matters as employees being
allowed to eat on or off the store premises and procedures
for making purchases during rest periods. Small testified
that he then expressed his feeling that he hoped Mr. Nelson
would be given a chance to operate as manager without
union interference and said "vote as you feel is right; be sure
to vote. Whatever the outcome, it should reflect what the
majority wants."
On cross-examination, Small admitted that he had ad-
vised Store Manager Nelson not to give any raises during
with an open mind and consider the pros and cons of union
membership, or having a union in the store and should
decide what they felt was in the best interests of their future
and in the best interests of the store.
° Small conceded that at one of the meetings a question came up concern-
ing union fines and he told the employees that some unions do impose fines
for nonattendance at union meetings but he was nqt aware whether the Retail
Clerks Union followed this practice.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the pendency of the Union 's petition . But notwithstanding
this, Small stated his belief that Lois Kline and Myra Rous-
seau were granted wage increases during this period because
of their other duties and responsibilities as a result of the
termination of the personnel supervisor . Small testified that
the announcement concerning the withholding of wage rais-
es during the pendency of the Union's petition came up at
the last meeting held on June 18 in response to a question
from employee Lisa Clark . Small also admitted that at one
of the meetings , in describing the collective -bargaining
procedure , he indicated that "this sometimes took a consid-
erable length of time . It wasn't something that happened
.. I made remarks that it could take a length of time:'
With respect to Small's meeting with Gertrude Woods in
early March 1969 , Small testified he told Woods that his
primary reason for talking to her was to get acquainted with
her and he "indicated that one of my functions was to find
out what in the store would cause employees to be interested
in representation from the outside ." On cross-examination,
Mr. Small further testified that during the meetings the
employees would ask questions or register complaints. He
further testified there were two meetings on June 18, one at
9:30 a .m. and the other at 1:15 p.m.
Diana Pierce , employed as a saleslady and called as
Respondent's witness , testified she attended one of the em-
ployee preelection meetings , a morning meeting. According
to Pierce , Small first addressed the girls and then gave them
an opportunity to ask questions . She testified that Small
showed them different union contracts from different stores
in the Bay Area . Concerning wages , Pierce testified "that
someone mentioned they agreed with us that we were un-
derpaid but that they didn 't feel that they could do anything
about it at that time because the union would interpret it as
a bribe if it was offered to us and given to us before the
election but I believe that they did agree with us that we
were underpaid." Asked whether Small said "you will never
get a union contract unless you go out on a strike ," Pierce
answered : "No, I don't think so. I think he said that they
of course would have to negotiate and that sometimes these
things take a while but I don't think he made the statement
that we would definitely have to go out on strike before we
would get a contract ." Asked by counsel for the Respondent
"Did Mr . Small say if the union won the election the store
would refuse to negotiate with the union ," Pierce replied,
"No, I am quite sure I didn't hear that ." Asked if Small said
that if the Union were voted in , all the employees would do
is have strikes and be put on the picket line, she testified:
"I don't remember hearing that and I think I would remem-
ber if I had heard that." Concerning union dues or union
fines , Pierce testified she was sure the statement was made
either by Small or one of the girls , that "we would probably
have to attend union meetings and of course any wage
increase that we might get through a contract , union dues
would have to come out of that.
Duane Nelson , manager of the Corte Madera Woolworth
store , called by the Respondent , testified he attended three
of the employee meetings conducted in the store by Mr.
Small before the NLRB election , namely the two meetings
of June 6 and the afternoon meeting of June 18 . He testified
that Small made substantially the same remarks at both the
morning and evening meetings of June 6 . He further testi-
fied that Gertrude Woods, Nina Field, Lillian Gillespie, and
Diana Pierce , among other employees , were present at the
afternoon meeting of June 6 . At the afternoon meeting of
June 6 , Small brought out the union contract at the
Respondent's Richmond store and read the contract from
one end to the other , and during this reading questions were
asked by the employees in the group . Mr. Small told the
employees that Nelson had been there only a short time and
should be given a chance to prove himself as manager.
Small agreed with the employees that the Richmond con-
tract was about to expire and was up for renegotiation at the
time. Nelson further testified that "other discussions were
that we would try to pay the employees the rate that prevails
in the area." In rebuttal to testimony of General Counsel's
witnesses, Nelson denied that Small said that wages were
frozen, denied that Small stated that the employees would
never get a union contract unless they went out on strike,
testified no mention was made of strikes or picket lines.
Nelson further testified that in response to a question from
one of the employees whether they would have to join the
Union to work, Small replied to the effect "that in order to
work in the store if the store became union the employees
would have to join ... and they would have to pay dues to
the union and there would be meetings they would have to
attend and possible fines for not attending."
Concerning raises, Nelson testified as follows:
Mr. Small had told them that at this time we would like
to keep things as they are until after the election. He
didn't want to be construed one way or the other to
influence the election one way or the other.
In rebuttal to General Counsel's testimony, Nelson denied
that Small said that the employees wouldn t get a raise until
after the election, that his hands were frozen , and they could
blame themselves for bringing in the Union.
Concerning the negotiation of a contract, Nelson testified
as follows:
Mr. Small explained to the employees that after an
election and if the employees voted the union into the
store it didn't necessarily mean that it was an automatic
raise, that what it meant was that our company would
have to sit down at a reasonable hour at a reasonable
time and reasonable place to negotiate with the union,
that we didn't have to agree to anything that the union
proposed, that we had to sit down with them and bar-
gain.
In rebuttal to General Counsel's testimony, Nelson denied
that Small stated at the meeting "that it would take years
for a contract to go through even if they got the union in."
Nelson testified that the store had no posted policy con-
cerning wage increases and had no policy of ment increases
for employees every 6 months .5 In rebuttal to General
Counsel's testimony, Nelson denied that Small said that if
the Union got in, the employees would have to go out on
strike and it would take years to settle the strike and further
denied that Small said the Company would not negotiate
with the Union.
In rebuttal, Nelson, although conceding that he conduct-
ed the regular Saturday morning meeting on the Saturday
immediately preceding the election attended by the regular
crew, testified wages or raises were not mentioned at this
meeting . He denied stating at this meeting that wages were
frozen or that he would like to give raises but could not on
account of the Union.
Nelson concedes that on Saturday, June 21, following the
election on Thursday, June 19, which the Union lost, he
conducted his regular Saturday morning meeting with the
5 Somewhat at variance with this testimony of Nelson is a booklet pub-
lished by Woolworth for the information of Woolworth employees which
recites at p. 17 the following
WHEN YOU PLACE YOUR JOB FUTURE WITH WOOLWORTH
YOU CAN EXPECT THESE ADVANTAGES
Merit Increases At Woolworth, you are considered on an individual
basis. You merit an increase based on your actual work performance,
your taking on of extra responsibilities , and your promotion to a higher
position
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 947
employees . Nelson testified that first of all he thanked the
employees for the outcome of the election and their show
of confidence in him as manager . He concedes that he also
told the employees that in the near future there "may be a
change and it may be possible to get a new dental program
here in the store.... and there would be some wage adjust-
ments in the near future ." In rebuttal to General ounsel's
testimony , Nelson denied that he told the employees that "I
would live up to the promises I made before the elect-
ion.... that I would see if I could get the raises that I
promised.... or that you didn 't get the union but you sure
got heard." Nelson conceded that wage increases were given
to the employees effective June 26, 1969.
Nelson also testifeid that in the week following the filing
of the representation petition on Februa ry 27, 1969, Small
instructed him not to make any wage adjustments in the
critical period between the date the petition was filed and
the election.
Analysis and Conclusionary Findings
Section 8(c) of the Act provides that:
The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or
the dissemination thereof.... shall not constitute or be
evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the
provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no
threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
The question for determination, then, is whether the pre-
election meetings conducted by Small and the post election
wage increase announcements made by Nelson were privi-
leged by Section 8(c) of the Act, or, to the contrary, whether
as alleged in the amended complaint they constitute unlaw-
ful interrogation of employees, promises of benefits, threats
of reprisal, and the granting of benefits in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I am satisfied, and find, on the basis of the testimony of
the three witnesses produced by the General Counsel,
namely Woods, Gillespie and Field, as well as the three
witnesses produced by the Respondent, namely Small, Nel-
son and Pierce, that the allegations of the amended com-
plaint have been sustained by the proof.
Initially it appears without dispute that the Respondent,
upon receipt of the Union's February 27, 1969, written re-
quest for recognition and bargaining as majority representa-
tive, declined the proferred cross-check by an impartial
third person and ambiguously agreed only to do "whatever
it is legally obligated to do at the appropriate time" if the
Union became certified. Small visited the store and sought
out salesgirl Gertrude Woods and questioned her as to why
the employees wanted a union and requested her to arrange
meetings between Small and the store employees to air their
questions, complaints and grievances. Additionally it is ad-
mitted and undisputed that Small utilized the preelection
employee meetings called by Store Manager Nelson for the
purpose of eliciting employee questions, complaints and
grievances . I find that this conduct of Small violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that, inter alia, the meetings were
called for the purpose of learning from the store employees
what grievances or complaints they had which might cause
them to want a union as their representative, and of causing
the employees to believe Woolworth would adjust such
complaints, Small's object being to bring about a defeat of
the Union. The mere act of an employer in soliciting em-
ployees to air their grievances is, without more, sufficient to
warrant an inference by the employees that their employer
intends to try to do something about their grievances. By its
very nature, this conduct amounts to an implied promise of
benefit proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Fairchild
Camera & Equipment Corporation, 169 NLRB No. 11; H. L.
Meyer Co. v. N.L.R . B. (C.A. 8 , May 19 , 1970), 74 LRRM
2330, enforcing in part 177 NLRB No . 75 (employee's in-
stallation of a suggestion box for employees to submit ques-
tions); NLRB. v. Delight Bakery, Inc., 353 F.2d 344, 60
LRRM 2501 (C.A. 6, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. Larry Faul Oldsmo-
bile Co., 316 F.2d 595, 53 LRRM 2071 (C .A. 7, 1963).
On the basis of the entire record, including the testimony
of the three witnesses for the General Counsel , namely
Woods , Gillespie , and Field, and the three witnesses for the
Respondent , namely Small , Nelson , and Pierce , I am con-
vinced and I find that the message conveyed by Small to the
store employees was calculated to and had the effect of
promising immediate benefits if they rejected the Union at
the forthcoming election and of threatening prolonged bar-
gaining with possible strikes if the employees selected the
Union . Although Small conceded to the employees that the
Corte Madera store "was out of line with working condi-
tions that prevailed in the immedaite area" 6 and told the
employees "we would try to pay the employees the rate that
prevails in the area,"' and that "they were underpaid,"s he
further told them Woolworth "couldn't do anything about
it at that time because the union would interpret it as a bribe
if it was offered [to us] and given [to us] before the elect-
ion."' Then having told the employees that they were under-
paid but that Woolworth's hands were tied while the
Union's petition was pending , Small by implication pre-
sented the employees with the two options open to them: (1)
if they selected the Union , the Respondent's duty to bargain
did not mean that the Respondent would reach agreement
or that there would be an' automatic raise ," 10 that negotia-
tions would be prolonged and could go on for an undeter-
mined length of time, "that it [the bargaining] bargaining]
would go on and on and the girls would have to go out on
strike"," that "they would never get a contract unless the
employees went on strike.", 12 that' it would take years prob-
ably before a contract would ever go through if we did get
one."13
On the other hand , the implication was clear, from
Small's remarks suggesting that the employees were under-
paid but that his hands were momentarily tied by the
Union's petition , that the employees needed only to reject
the Union and thereby free the Respondent's hands to grant
them increased wage benefits . This conclusion is further
enhanced by Store Manager Nelson's remarks to a group of
employees on the Saturday before the election "that wages
were frozen-that he would like to give raises but he abso-
lutely could not on account of the Union." 14 Further sup-
port for this conclusion is gaind by the undisputed fact that
on Saturday , June 21 , 1969, e two days after the election,
Store Manager Nelson , thanking the employees , announced
an improved medical and dental plan any a general wage
increase which was subsequently instituted effective June
6 The quote is from Small's own testimony.
The quote is from Store Manager Nelson's testimony.
8 The quote is from Respondent 's witness Diana Pierce.
9 The quote is from Respondent's witness Diana Pierce . In this connection
it is undisputed, and Small admitted, that he told the employees that Nelson
had been advised not to grant wage increases while the Union's petition was
pending
10 From Nelson's testimony.
11 The quote is from the credible testimony of Gertrude Woods
12 The quote is from the credited testimony of Nina Field
U The quote is from the credited testimony of Lillian Gillespie
14 The quote is from the credited testimony of Nina Field I do not credit
Nelson's denial that he made this remark , especially when considered in the
light of Small's preelection conduct and the postelection conduct in hastily
announcing the increased wage benefits.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
26, 1969.
Although there is disagreement between the General
Counsel's witnesses and the Respondent 's witnesses as to
the precise language used by Small in his several preelection
meetings with his employees , I am satisfied , and1 find, that
in their entire context . Small's remarks and his solicitation
of questions , coin laints , and grievances on the whole con-
veyed a clear andpunmistakable message to the employees
that a union defeat at the polls meant prompt relief for their
wage demands , whereas a union victory prolonged bargain-
ing and labor strife . The Respondent, it is clear, kept its
promise by Nelson 's announcements of increased wage and
health benefits two days after the election . Under all the
circumstances in this case , I find that the Respondent's
conduct in withholding raises during the pendency of the
petition , when viewed in the light of Smalls remarks to the
employees which I have found implied a promise of benefits
if the employees would reject the Union and veiled threats
of reprisal if the employees would select the Union , violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act . J. J. Newberry 183 NLRB No.
69; Dorn 's Transportation Company , Inc., 168 NLRB No. 68;
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 166 NLRB 27, 29;
McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc., 158 NLRB 1237;
May Aluminum, Inc., 160 NLRB 575, 606-607.
f further find that Nelson 's action in announcing wage
increases and improved fringe benefits on Saturday, June
21, 1969, before the expiration of the time period for filing
objections to election , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
and thereby interfered with the Board's election procedure
and made a fair election impossible . In Ralph Printin &
Lithographing Co., 158 NLRB 1353, where it appeared, as
here , that on the next day following the election but before
the Union had filed its objections to the conduct of the
election , the Employer informed its employees that there
would be "improvements" within 30 da s, the Board found
that such conduct violated Section 8(a))(l) of the Act and
warranted setting the election aside . The Board said at foot-
note 3 (page 1354):
An election under Board auspices to determine a ma-
jority bargaining representative does not consist solely
of the physical balloting of the employees in the appro-
priate unit . Necessarily , the vote of the employees and
the validity of the election itself must await the Board's
post election investigation of objections properly filed
with respect to the conduct of the election . In the in-
stant case the Petitioner filed its objections on January
12, 1965 , in compliance with the Board 's Rules and
Regulations . At the time , therefore , when the Employer
announced that benefits would be distributed to the
employees , the election of January 6 was clearly subject
to invalidation if the objections were meritorious. We
must therefore view the precipitous haste of the
Employer's promise of improvements to its employees
immediately after a bare majority had cast physical
ballots against the Union as an attempt to gain their
support and to assure a continued majority against the
union representati representation in the event a second
election was directed b the Board . As the Supreme
Court stated in N.L. R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company,
375 U.S. 405 , 409, "We have no doubt that [§8(a)(1)]
prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but
also conduct immediately favorable to employees
which is undertaken with the express purpose of im-
pinging upon their freedom of choice for or against
unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that
effect .... The danger inhereint in well -timed increases
in benefits is the suggestion of a fist inside the velvet
glove . Employees are not likely to miss the inference
that the source of benefits now conferred is also the
source from which future benefits must flow and which
may dry up if it is not obliged ." The situation in this
case is essentially the same as in Exchange Parts, for the
election proceedings here had not become final when
the wage increase was announced . By such conduct, we
find , the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
and also thereby interfered with the Board 's election
procedure and made a fair election im ossible.
See also Decorel Corporation, 163 NLRB 146, 151; Collins
Mining Co., 177 NLRB No.55 (TXD); Northwest Engineer-
ing Company, 148 NLRB 1136 , 1145; and Gal Tex Hotel
Corporation, 154 NLRB 338, where the Board held that the
increases were granted as a reward to the employees for
having rejected the union in the election and as a further
inducement to employees to vote against the union in the
event a second election was directed.
Objection to Election
The Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of election on June 25 , 1969, with the Board's
Region 20 . The objections are as follows:
1. That the Employer by and through its supervisory
employees within forty-eight hours Ur to the holding
of the election , indeed , up to one hour preceding the
election held both indiviual and group meetings with
the employees disseminating false and misleading in-
formation relative to contracts that the Company had
with other Retail Clerks Unions and relative to the cost
and rights of membership in the Union and misleading
employees as to their rights to an election under the
Act. Due to the proximity of these statements to the
election there was not time for Union to respond with
the true facts and to adequately disseminate same to
the employees.
2. Moreover, the Employer advised employees that
it could give no wage increases because the Union had
filed a petition for an election , although in fact, the
Employer did give wage increases to certain selected
individuals . Further, the employees were advised by
the Company that even if the Union won an election,
it would take at least a year to get a contract since the
Compan would not have to agree to anything and that
the employees would probablhave to strike to get a
contract .' Further, the Union is informed and believes
that certain employees were given additional benefits
in an attempt to influence the vote in the said election.
3. Finally, the issue of the unit placement of stock-
room supervisor Burke was , by telegram from Robert
Volger, Associate Executive Secretary of the National
Labor Relations Board , dated June 18, 1969, directed
to be handled by permitting stockroom supervisor
Burke to vote subject to challenge . Accordingly, since
the Board directed this procedure to be utilized, the
Union was not advised that an individual challenge
had to be interposed and, instead , relying on the tel-
egram, assumed that such challenge would be made by
the representative of the Board conducting the election
and did not instruct its observer to make such chal-
lenge.
I have already found heretofore that certain conduct of
the Respondent, by its agents and supervisors, Small and
Nelson , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that the
aforesaid conduct substantiates Objection 2 above and in-
terfered with the employees ' free and uncoerced choice in
the election and constitutes sufficient grounds to set aside
the election . I will, therefore , recommend that the election
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.
be set aside . Bernel Foam Products Co., Inc., 146 NLRB
1277.
The Remedy for the Refusal to Bargain
In agreement with the Regional Director's Direction of
Election, issued May 16, 1969, in Case 20-RC-8654, I find
that the unit in which the election was directed is the appro-
priate unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. I
have found that on the date that the Union requested the
Respondent to bargain, namely on or about February 27,
1969, and thereafter, the Union, as represented to the Re-
spondent in its February 27, 1969, letter, did in fact repre-
sent a majority of the Respondent's employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit.15 I have hereinabove recommended
that the election conducted by the Board on June 19, 1969,
be set aside by reason of the Respondent's aforesaid acts of
coercion and restraint which interfered with the employees'
free and uncoerced choice in the election. I further conclude
that the conduct of the Respondent earlier described herein
found to have coerced and restrained employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act was of such a serious and
coercive nature both before and following the election as to
warrant a bargaining order pursuant to the teachings of
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575. It is the teach-
ing of Gissel, supra, that the results of a Board-conducted
election shall be ignored and the union's card majority hon-
ored when the employer has prevented a fair election by
conduct clearly intended to undermine the union's majority
status. I find that in the face of the Respondent's past un-
lawful conduct, it is unlikely that another free and fair elec-
tion could be held to ascertain the employees' uncoerced
choice. Gibson Products Co., 185 NLRB No. 74. The remain-
ing appropriate alternative is to accept the signed unambi-
guous authorization cards of a'majonty of the employees in
the appropriate unit as proof of the Union's majority status
and to require the Respondent to bargain with the Union
on that basis. See, e .g., Louisburg Sportswear Co., 180 NLRB
No. 114; World Carets, 176 NLRB No. 138; C & G Electric,
Inc., 180 NLRB No. 52.
I find that the Respondent, by refusing to recognize and
bargain with the Union on and after February -27, 1969,
engaged in, and is engagin in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
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 , F. W. Woolworth Co., is an emplo yer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union , Retail Clerks Union , Local 1119 , Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time selling and nonsell-
mg employees employed by F. W. Woolworth Co., Store
2288 , at Corte Madera , California , excluding casual em-
ployees, the manager , assistant managers , personnel super-
visor, office manager, confidential office employee , guards
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining under
15 The majority is based on unambiguous authorization cards clearly desig-
nating the Union to represent the signer for collective bargaining I do not
credit Diana Pierce's testimony that Gertrude Woods told her that the sign-
ing of the card was only to secure an election as no other card signer testified
to the same effect
949
Section 9 of the Act.
4. Since February 27, 1969, the Union has been the duly
designated majority representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to wages, hours, rates of pay, and other
conditions of employment.
5. By interrogating employees concerning their griev-
ances, bypassing the Union and dealing directly with em-
ployees concerning their wages, hours, grievances, and
working conditions; by withholding wage increases to dis-
credit the Union; by promising to grant wage increases
promptly if the Union should lose the election and by
threatening hard and prolonged bargaining if the Union
should win the election; and by announcing the granting of
wage increases and improved benefits two days after the
Union lost the election, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, undermined the Union s majority
status in the unit, and prevented a fair election, thereby
violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
6. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I
recommend that F. W. Woolworth Co., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a)Directly or indirectly threatening employees in the
aforesaid unit with economic reprisal for supporting the
Union, promising them or granting them economic benefits
for desisting from such support, dealing directly with em-
ployees in derogation of the Union's representative status,
or in any related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing them in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Failing or refusing to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployes in the unit heretofore found appropriate.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in the unit heretofore found appropriate with re-
spect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other
working conditions of such employees, and execute a signed
agreement containing any understandings reached.
(b) Post at its premises in Corte Madera, California, cop-
ies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 16 Im-
mediately upon receipt of copies of the notice on forms
furnished by Region 20, the Respondent shall cause copies
to be signed by an authorized representative and posted and
maintained in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employess are customarily placed, For 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered
16 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 , recommendations , 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 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 Rela-
tions Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant To A Judgment Of
The United States Court Of Appeals Enforcing An Order Of The National
Labor Relations Board "
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by other material. The Union's June 25, 1969 objections to the June 19,
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, 1969, election are sustained to the extent indicated in the
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, findings and conclusions set out heretofore and the election
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.17 in Case 20-RC-8654 is, therefore, set aside, its results void-
ed, the petition filed in that case dismissed, and all proceed-
ings thereunder vacated.
n In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this gion 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Re - it has taken to comply herewith."