F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 945 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

F. W. WOOLWORTH CQ.
F. W. Woolworth Co. and Office and Professional
Employees International Union, Local No. 9,
AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-2564
March 10, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On September 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision and briefs in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her recommended Order, as modified
herein.
THE REMEDY
The Administrative Law Judge denied the General
Counsel's request that the Respondent be required to
reimburse the Union for the postage costs incurred
when the Respondent mailed the unsigned authoriza-
tion cards to the Union. We find merit in the General
Counsel's exceptions to this finding.
Under Section 10(c) of the Act, the Board has a
particular duty to tailor its remedies to the unfair
labor practice which has occurred. While, normally,
extraordinary remedies such as litigation, bargaining,
and organizational expenses are not recoverable by
the Charging Party, we have concluded, in proper
circumstances , that special relief is necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.'
Here, the postage costs incurred by the Union are
not the incidental consequence of an employer's
opposition to a union's organizational campaign.
Rather, such costs are directly attributable to
Respondent's deliberate attempt to cause the Union
additional expense . Thus, during the removal of
i Cf. Paramount Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 190 NLRB 170 (1971); Creutz
Plating Corporation, 172 NLRB I (1968).
2 The parties stipulated that this event took place on or about December
13, 1973.
3 The parties stipulated that on or about December 14 the Union
received in the mail approximately 126 unsigned authorization cards in
prepaid envelopes at the cost of $12.60 . The parties also stipulated that on
or about February II the Union received in the mail approximately 150
unsigned authorization cards at the cost of $15.
945
union literature with authorization cards and prepaid
business reply envelopes attached thereto, Supervisor
Anderson stated "that it was lucky he got there
before the employees and that he would fix the
[U ]nion by mailing the authorization cards back to
the Union so that the [U]njon will have to pay for
them."2 On two occa§ions subsequent to this
statement, Respondent detached and mailed to the
Union a number of unsigned authorization cards
resulting in the Union's expense of $27.60.3
In these circumstances, an order granting the
Union expanded relief is appropriate .4 Accordingly,
we shall order the Respondent to reimburse the
Union for the postage costs which the Union would
not have incurred had the Respondent not mailed
the unsigned authorization cards to the Union, plus
interest at 6 percent per annum.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent,
F. W. Woolworth Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order as
herein modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(a) and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(a) Reimburse the Union $27.60, for postage costs
incurred when the Respondent mailed the unsigned
authorization cards to the Union, with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
MEMBER KENNEDY, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I concur in the finding of a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. However, I agree with the
Administrative Law Judge that the Board's tradition-
al remedies of issuing a cease-and-desist order and
requiring the posting of a notice to employees are
appropriate in this case . In my view the nature of the
unfair labor practice herein does not warrant a
departure from the $oard's customary remedies, nor
is a payment to the Union for postage expenses
4 In disagreeing with our proposed remedy, our dissenting colleague
refers to Union de Tronquistas Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co
of Puerto Rico), 202 NLRB 399 (1973), in which we concluded that the
circumstances therein did not warrant adoption of a backpay remedy. Since
the factual situation in that case is so different from that herein, no useful
purpose would be served by their comparison . In both cases , we exercised
our broad discretionary powers under Sec . 10(c) of the Act with a view
towards implementing the most effective remedy under all the circum-
stances.
216 NLRB No. 155
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary to effectuate the public interest in the
purposes of the Act.
Although my colleagues are providing for reim-
bursement of $27.60 postage fees to the Union here,
by contrast they refused in an earlier case to provide
for reimbursement of lost wages to employees who
did not work because of a union 's threats and picket
line violence . See my dissent with former Chairman
Miller in Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local
901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co. of Puerto Rico), 202
NLRB 399, (1973). L readily acknowledge that the
facts in the instant case are distinguishable from
those in the Lock Joint case . All that is involved in
the instant case is the Respondent's mailing unsigned
authorization cards to the Union in prepaid enve-
lopes for which the Union paid $27 .60 to the post
office . By contrast , in the Lock Joint case , the agents
of Respondent Union committed serious acts of
violence against nonstriking employees . My col-
leagues rejected the recommendation of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge that the Union be directed to give
backpay to all employees who could not work as a
result of the Union's violent unfair labor practices.
My colleagues there concluded that a cease-and-
desist order was an appropriate remedy . In my view,
the public is entitled to an explanation as to why my
colleagues exercise their "broad discretionary powers
under Section 10(c) of the Act" to grant a money
remedy to the Union in the instant case when they
denied a money remedy to the employee victims of
the Union's aggravated conduct in Lock Joint. A
simple observation that the facts and circumstances
are different in the two cases is not an explanation.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with the distribution of
union literature and authorization cards to our
employees in the central accounting office in
order to discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of Office and Professional Employees
International Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL reimburse the Union $27.60, for
postage costs incurred when the Respondent
mailed the unsigned authorization cards to the
Union, with interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER , Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed on December 19, 1973, by Office and
Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 9,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Charging Party or the
Union, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for
Region 30 (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued a complaint and
notice of hearing on January 29, 1974. The complaint, as
amended at the hearing , alleges in substance that F. W.
Woolworth Co., herein called the Respondent, interfered
with the distribution of union literature at its central
accounting office by removing from employee work
stations union pamphlets which had been distributed prior
to the employees ' starting time , and by mailing to the
Union unsigned authorization cards after detaching them
from such pamphlets, and thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Respondent, in its answer duly filed, admits certain
factual allegations of the complaint, but denies that its
conduct has interfered with the Section 7 rights of its
employees.
A hearing in this matter, scheduled to be held on March
4, 1974, was on March 1 postponed indefinitely pending a
ruling by the Board on the General Counsel's motion for
summary judgment, which was filed on March 7. The
Respondent on March 15 filed a motion for dismissal of
complaint and memorandum in opposition to General
Counsel's motion for summary judgment. On March 22,
the General Counsel filed a motion to strike, urging that
certain statements made in the Respondent 's memoran-
dum be stricken. Also on March 22, the Board issued an
order transferring proceeding to the Board and notice to
show cause, providing for cause to be shown in writing
filed on or before April 5 why the General Counsel's
motion for summary judgment should not be granted. On
April 3, the Respondent filed a memorandum in opposition
to General Counsel's motion to strike. The General
Counsel filed a second motion to strike, dated April 9,
urging that certain statements made in the Respondent's
opposition and an affidavit attached thereto be stricken, or
in the alternative that the matter be remanded for a
hearing, and the Respondent filed a memorandum in
opposition to General Counsel's second motion to strike.
On May 30, 1974, the Board issued an order denying
motions and remanding for hearing, in which it denied the
General Counsel's motion for summary judgment and
motions to strike, denied the Respondent's motion to
dismiss the complaint , and ordered that a hearing be held
before an Administrative Law Judge for the purpose of
receiving evidence on the issues raised by the parties, and
that the Judge prepare a decision containing findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations based upon
the evidence received.
Pursuant to orders rescheduling hearing, a hearing was
held before me at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on August 1. All
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.
parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard and to introduce relevant
evidence. The parties called no witnesses, but agreed on the
introduction into evidence of certain documents and
entered into stipulations of fact. The General Counsel was
permitted, over the Respondent's objection as to timeli-
ness, to amend the complaint, and the Respondent
amended its answer. Subsequent to the hearing, the
General Counsel filed a memorandum and the Respondent
filed a brief on or about August 23, 1974, which have been
duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New York corporation, is engaged in
the operation of retail stores located throughout the United
States . It maintains in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a central
accounting office for all its operations, which is the only
facility of the Respondent involved herein. During the past
calendar year, a representative period, the Respondent's
gross receipts exceeded $500,000. During this same period,
the Respondent purchased and received goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside
the State of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges, the
Respondent in its answer admits , and I find that the
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been,
an employer engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges , the Respondent in its answer
admits, and I find that Office and Professional Employees
Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The complaint , as amended at the hearing, alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by (a)
the conduct of admitted Supervisors Anderson, Bolton,
Snortum , and Skong, on or about December 13, 1973, and
February 4, 1974, in interfering with the distribution of
union literature by removing from employee work stations
pamphlets, with union authorization cards attached, which
had been distributed to employees prior to their starting
time ; (b) the conduct of the Respondent, on or about the
same dates , in mailing to the Union unsigned union
authorization cards which the Respondent had detached
from the above-mentioned union pamphlets ; and (c) the
conduct of the above-named supervisors, shortly after the
I The Respondent stipulated to the accuracy of these facts but indicated
that it questioned the relevancy of some of them.
2 Documents introduced into evidence by the Respondent show that
there are four entrances to the premises which occupy two floors , that there
are about four employee lounges at different locations on the two floors,
947
employees' starting time on or about February 20, 1974, in
interfering with the distribution of union literature by
removing from employee work stations , shortly after the
employees' starting time, union literature which had been
distributed to employees prior to their starting time.
The Respondent, in its answer as amended at the
hearing, admitted engaging in the conduct described in (a)
and (b), and in (c) with the caveat that the conduct in
question occurred at unattended work stations, but denied
that this conduct was violative of the Act.
At the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation as to
the following facts:1 ( 1) organizing by the Union began
about November 9, 1973, at the Respondent's central
accounting office in Milwaukee, where about 700 employ-
ees work, of whom about 600 start work at 8 a.m.; 2 (2) on
or about November 20, unit employees went through the
central accounting office before 8 a.m. and placed a
document referred to as ETA Number 13 on the desk or
work station of every nonsupervisory employee, and no
supervisor or member of management collected this
document; (3) on or about December 4, unit employees
went through the central accounting office before 8 a.m.
and placed a document referred to as ETA Number 2 on
the desk or work station of every nonsupervisory employee,
and no supervisor or member of management collected
that document; (4) on or about December 6, the Respon-
dent distributed to all nonsupervisory employees in the
central accounting office, at their work stations during
worktime, a response to the aforementioned documents;
(5) on or about December 13, unit employees went through
the central accounting office before 8 a.m. and placed ETA
Number 3 and attachments on the desks and work stations
of every nonsupervisory employee; (6) on or about
December 13, Supervisors Anderson, Bolton, Snortum, and
Skong removed ETA Number 3 and attachments from
unattended desks and work stations of unit employees
between 7:45 and 8:15 a.m .; (7) the statement of
Supervisor Anderson on or about December 13, while
picking up ETA Number 3 and attachments from the desks
and work stations of unit employees, was "that it was lucky
he got there before the employees and that he would fix the
union by mailing the authorization cards back to the union
so that the union will have to pay for them;" (8) on or
about December 14, the Union received in the mail
approximately 126 unsigned authorization cards in prepaid
envelopes at the cost of $12.60; (9) on or about February 4,
1974, unit employees went through the central accounting
office before 8 a.m. and placed ETA Number 4 with its
attachments on the desk and work station of every
nonsupervisory employee; (10) on or about February 4,
Supervisors Anderson, Bolton, Snortum, and Skong re-
moved ETA Number 4 with its attachments from unat-
tended desks and work stations of unit employees between
7:45 and 8:15 a.m.; (11) the statement of Supervisor
Anderson on or about February 4, while picking up ETA
Number 4 and attachments from desks and work stations
of unit employees, was that he was not interested in the
and that the employees are classified into seven groups for lunch and rest-
period schedules. The Respondent distributes bulletins from time to time
changing these schedules . The beginning of the lunch period , for example,
ranges from 11 :10 a.m. for Group Ito 12:30 p in. for Group 7.
3 These documents are entitled "Employees Taking Action."
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
letters, only the attached cards; (12) on or about February
11, the Union received in the mail approximately 150
unsigned authorization cards at the cost of $ 15, and
another 21 authorization cards were sent special delivery
but were refused by the Union; (13) on or about February
20, unit employees went through the central accounting
office before 8 a.m. and placed ETA Number 5 on the
desks and work stations of unit employees ; ( 14) on or
about February 20, Supervisors Anderson, Bolton, Snor-
tum, and Skong removed ETA Number 5 from unattended
desks and work stations of unit employees between 7:45
and 8:15 a.m.; (15) between November 1973 and February
28, 1974, the Respondent did not issue any written or
verbal instructions to unit employees regarding littering
resulting from the distribution of the ETA's; ( 16) between
November 1973 and March 1, 1974, the Respondent did
not hire extra janitorial staff resulting from the distribution
of the ETA's; (17) between November 1973 and March 1,
1974, the Respondent did not issue any written or verbal
instructions to unit employees regarding security at the
central accounting office as a result of the distributions of
the ETA's; (18) the Respondent does distribute to all unit
employees , at their desks and work stations in the central
accounting office , literature and pamphlets regarding
sports activities sponsored by the Respondent, and
literature regarding certain sales of merchandise by the
Respondent in the "County Store;" and (19) on or about
May 28, 1974, the Union filed a petition docketed as Case
30-RC-2338, a hearing was conducted in that case on June
20 and 24, and on July 24 the Regional Director for Region
30 issued a Decision and Direction of Election for all
employees at the central accounting office , including office
clericals , cafeteria , maintenance , shipping and receiving
employees, and mail drivers, but excluding confidential
employees , nurse , computer programmers , managerial
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Respondent distributed to its employees during
worktime written responses to some of the ETA leaflets,
signed by Bain , the general manager. One, referred to in
stipulated fact (4), supra, was distributed by the Respon-
dent on December 6, 1973, and was introduced into
evidence by the General Counsel. It interpreted ETA to
mean "Evade Truthful Answers," warned that the Union
might bargain away existing employee benefits for union
benefits, and urged that employees should "Remember
these points when one of these `Truth Evaders' or
organizers ask you to sign a card . I am sure you will
refuse."
Two other responses by Bain were introduced into
evidence by the Respondent. In one, which was distributed
on March 1 , 1974, Bain stated that "Last week the union
passed out another of its sheets in this office"; that
although he "never intended to get into a debate with a
group of nameless , faceless organizers ," he had to answer
some of the Union's comments; that the Board "had issued
a complaint alleging that supervisors in this office made a
mistake when they picked up some leaflets left lying
around by people . . . we call it good housekeeping .. .
we have a legal right to pick up any handouts left lying
around the building . . . it is perfectly O.K. to `police up'
this building;" that in mailing material to the Union at the
Union's expense , the Respondent was merely taking the
Union at its word; and that employees would lose their
rights to deal with the Respondent on wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment "if too many
make the mistake of signing cards ." In the other,
distributed on about March 20, Bain referred to the ETA
having "sullied the office again with another of their
handouts , and it needs correction as usual ." One of these
corrections stated that the Respondent "always had the
right to remove the hand bills from your work stations."
The Respondent, just before the close of the hearing,
proposed to stipulate, and the other parties agreed,4 that
since May 28, 1974, unit employees have distributed union
literature on two occasions at the four entrance doors to
the office , and that at the time of such distribution the
Respondent placed trash barrels there "with a sign on the
barrels saying `PLACE TRASH HERE with emphasis on
the E.T.A. portion or letters of that legend."
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel maintains that the Respondent
interfered with the distribution by its employees of union
materials during nonwork time , in violation of their
Section 7 rights.
The Respondent, at the hearing and its brief, urges
dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. It argues that it
did not stop employees from distributing union literature,
that the entire issue is whether an employer is required to
leave union literature at unattended work stations to await
its employees' arrival at the office, that the answer is that it
is not required to do so, and that there was nothing
unlawful in the Respondent's conduct in picking up these
materials from unattended work stations, in mailing back
to the Union, but not signing, "authorization cards in
prepaid envelopes saying sign and mail back," or in the
Respondent's remarks included in the stipulation of facts.
C. Discussion
The stipulated facts show that unit employees distributed
a union leaflet on November 20, 1973, by placing it on
employee desks and work stations before working hours;
that, after a similar distribution was made on December 4,
the Respondent prepared a written response and distribut-
ed it to the employees on December 6 during work time;
that the employees before working hours on December 13
distributed a union leaflet which had an application card
and prepaid envelope attached to it; that, on the same day,
four supervisors of the Respondent removed these materi-
als from unattended work stations between 7:45 and 8:15
a.m., although most of the employees started work at 8
a.m.; that one of the supervisors, Anderson, commented
that he would "fix the union by mailing the authorization
cards back to the union," and the supervisors detached and
mailed to the Union about 126 unsigned cards; that this
conduct was repeated on February 4, 1974, with Anderson
commenting that he was not interested in the letters but
4 The General Counsel stipulated to the accuracy of the facts but
questioned their relevance.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 949
only in the attached cards, and the supervisors mailed
about 171 unsigned cards to the Union ; and that, on
February 20, a union leaflet was distributed in the same
way by the employees , and was removed the same morning
by the same four supervisors.
Bain , the Respondent's general manager, prepared
written responses to some of the union leaflets. These were
distributed to the employees at their work stations during
worktime . In these responses, the Respondent took issue
with statements in the union leaflets , and warned the
employees against signing authorization cards on the basis
of what the Union told them . Bain's responses did not
direct the employees to discontinue or change their method
of distribution . No complaint about such distribution was
made to the employees by any other company official.
There was apparently no company rule forbidding such
distribution . The Respondent from time to time distributed
nonwork literature and pamphlets to the unit employees at
their work stations . There is no showing that the employ-
ees' distribution created a littering problem or safety
hazard, nor that the Respondent removed these materials
to avoid interference with the employees ' performance of
their duties . The contrary is indicated by the fact that the
Respondent on several occasions permitted literature that
had been distributed to remain on the desks or work
stations, and was concerned, as a supervisor stated,
primarily with the authorization cards attached to some of
the leaflets.
It is clear that unit employees distributed the union
materials during nonworking hours . It is likewise clear that
they distributed these materials in the work area, placing
them on the desks and work stations of the central
accounting office employees . There was, however, no rule
prohibiting such distribution , and no such rule was set
forth in the Respondent's responses to the union literature.
I find , therefore , in all the circumstances of this case, that
such distribution before working hours by unit employees
was a protected concerted activity .5 I also find that , as unit
employees had a right to distribute union materials in this
way, other unit employees likewise had a right to receive
these materials , including the attached authorization cards
and prepaid envelopes . The Respondent has presented no
evidence that its confiscation of union materials was
pursuant to a valid rule , necessary to maintain cleanliness,
order, discipline, safety, or production at its central
accounting office, or warranted under special circum-
stances such as have been held to apply to selling areas of
stores . The record in fact indicates that the Respondent
was concerned not so much with the distribution of the
union literature as with the availability of the authorization
cards for the consideration of the unit employees.
The Respondent has maintained, at the hearing and in its
brief, that it was entitled , in accord with Stoddard-Quirk
Mfg. Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962), to pick up at unattended
work stations union materials which had been distributed
in a work area . As stated in the Respondent's brief, "Under
the rationale of Stoddard-Quirk, the Respondent admits it
restricted distribution of literature in work areas-it had a
right to do so." That case was concerned , however, with
the validity of a shop rule prohibiting distribution of
literature in the shop. There is no showing that the
Respondent had such a rule. Moreover, as the Board stated
in that case, at 621 , "where it is shown that the imposition
or enforcement of restrictive rules in this overall area flow
not from the employer's right to protect his legitimate
property interests, but rather from his desire to obstruct the
employees' statutory right of self-organization, the immu-
nity otherwise accorded him in this regard is forfeited
[citations omitted] ." The evidence in the present case does
not show that the Respondent confiscated certain of the
union materials that had been distributed to its employees,
and in some of these instances detached and sent to the
Union unsigned authorization cards , in order to protect its
legitimate property interests.
The Respondent also relies on J.H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co.,
164 NLRB 5 (1967), as "one case whose facts parallel the
instant one." There, an employee brought in union
literature and left it lying around in the warehouse; a
supervisor brought it to the employee and told him to
"throw this trash away" ; the employee refused to do so but
retained it; and the employee , when told by the supervisor
to do so, gathered up the rest of the literature. The
supervisor's comments and action were found not to be
unlawful interference with employee organizational rights.
The employer in that case, however , did not confiscate or
dispose of the union literature , but returned it to the
employee who brought it to the warehouse.
The Respondent asserts in its brief that "General
Counsel appears to take the untenable position that once a
union distributed or has distributed propoganda [sic] in a
working area, the propoganda becomes sacrosanct and
must remain there perpetually ." The union literature here
involved , however, was confiscated by the Respondent
directly after it was distributed . The Respondent also
contends that it had a right to pick up union materials at
the employees' unattended work stations as it did not take
these materials away from the employees in person. The
Respondent has not shown , however, that "the mere
presence of the union material " in the central accounting
office interfered in any way with production or discipline.6
Further, the Respondent contends that it had a right to
mail to the Union the unsigned cards in the prepaid
envelopes because the printed legend thereon so requested.
I find no merit in this contention.
The record as stipulated shows that the Respondent
removed certain union materials from unattended desks
and work stations in the central accounting office , and that
on two occasions it detached unsigned union authorization
cards and prepaid envelopes and mailed large numbers of
these cards to the Union . The Respondent has presented
no evidence that this conduct was pursuant to a valid rule
or was necessary to maintain production or discipline. I
find, in all the circumstances of this case , that the
Respondent confiscated and disposed of union authoriza-
tion cards and other union materials not on the basis of a
valid business purpose but in order to discourage union
membership and activities, that this conduct of the
Respondent constituted an unreasonable impediment to its
8 See Halllburion Co., 168 NLRB 1091 (1968); Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 211
NLRB 423 (1974).
8 Hyland Machine Company, 210 NLRB 1063 (1974).
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees ' self-organizational rights, and that the Respon-
dent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(axl) of the
Act.7
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I , 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
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(aXl)
of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from infringing
in any like or related manner upon its employees' Section 7
rights, and that it take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The General Counsel in its brief requests that the
Respondent be directed to reimburse the Union for the
postage costs incurred when the Respondent mailed the
unsigned authorization cards to the Union. This request is
hereby denied as I deem the cease-and-desist provisions
and posting of a notice adequate in the present circum-
stances to remedy the violations herein found.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, F. W. Woolworth Co., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Office and Professional Employees International
Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By confiscating union literature that had been
distributed to unit employees in its central accounting
office , and by mailing to the Union the unsigned
r See Champa Linen Service Company, 140 NLRB 1207, 1210 (1963);
Zayre Corporation, 154 NLRB 1372, 1379 (1965); Plasticoid Company, 168
NLRB 135, 137 (1967); Schwarzenbach-Huber Company, 170 NLRB 1532,
1535 (1968); Dixie Wire Corporation, 182 NLRB 211 (1970); Hyland
Machine Company, supra, Larand Leiswelies, Inc., 213 NLRB No. 37 (1974).
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec.
authorization cards in the prepaid envelopes that had been
attached thereto , in order to discourage membership in and
activities on behalf of the above-named union, the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the 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.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER8
The Respondent, F. W. Woolworth Co., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with the distribution of union literature
and authorization cards to its employees in the central
accounting office in order to discourage membership in
and activities on behalf of Office and Professional
Employees International Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its operations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies
of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 30, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, 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 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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.
9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."