Goldblatt Bros., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 747 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

GOLDBLATT BROS., INC.
Goldblatt Bros., Inc. and Retail Store Employees
Union Local 36, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-6737(l),(2),(3)
February 25, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On October 29, 1968, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He further found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions and a brief in
support of the exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and for the additional
reasons set forth below hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, as modified below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the wage
increase granted by the Respondent to the
employees at its Benton Harbor store in May 1968,
which was announced and made effective at a time
when the Respondent was aware of the Union's
organizing campaign, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Although, as found by the Trial Examiner, the
business considerations advanced by the Respondent
in justification of the increase are not free from
doubt, the record reveals no basis for doubt that the
wage increase was also prompted by reasons other
than business considerations. The timing of the
increase and the credited evidence that it was
announced to the employees in the context of
individual interviews in which they were questioned
about their job satisfaction and gripes, and that
some were admonished against the necessity of
having to "go for any outside help", warrants the
conclusion that the increase was predicated, at least
in part, on the presence of the Union and the
Respondent's desire to impress on the employees
that it was the source of benefits which could be
747
granted or withheld on the basis of their union
activities.'
We similarly agree with the Trial Examiner that
the reason advanced by the Respondent for the
discharge of Ernestine Hampton was pretextual, and
that her discharge violated Section 8(a)(3). The
action promised by Hampton to Terry Butler in
response to his change of mind about signing a
union card, while indeed not phrased in the language
of the parlor, must necessarily be viewed in the light
of other evidence that Butler often engaged in
jocular banter with Hampton, as well as with other
employees. Moreover, contrary to the Respondent's
contention that Hampton's remark constituted a
serious threat of bodily harm to Butler, she assured
him before the conversation concluded, and in
response to his protestation that Hampton would
not take the action promised, that no harm was
done and that Butler had his rights. Butler, who
admits to being a supervisor, agreed that he did not
construe Hampton's remarks as serious, and the
record also reveals that at a later time he agreed to
sign a statement for Hampton that she had not
threatened him. Nevertheless, within the hour
following the conversation Butler reported to
management that Hampton had threatened him with
bodily harm. On the basis of Butler's report alone,
and without affording Hampton an opportunity to
explain, the Respondent made the decision to
discharge her. Having made this decision the
Respondent's management officials then summoned
Hampton to the office, informed her of the
complaint, and upon her reply of "Oh, Terry
Butler," summarily dismissed an employee whose
record was free from prior misconduct. On these
facts, and in view of the Respondent's other unfair
labor practice attesting its union animus, we find
that Hampton's discharge was motivated not by the
alleged misconduct, but in fact by her union
activities.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Goldblatt Bros., Inc., Benton Harbor, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
'See Dorn 's Transportation Company, Inc, 168 NLRB No 68; The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc, 166 NLRB No . 36, and
cases cited therein.
'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Trial Examiner's
dismissal of the allegations of unlawful surveillance , and the discharge of
Head, pro forma, and do not pass upon the allegations of unlawful
interrogation , as to which the Trial Examiner failed to make findings.
174 NLRB No. 114
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR=RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the above-named employee, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of
her right,to full reinstatement, upon application, in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
2. Add the following as the last indented
paragraph of the Appendix-
WE WILL notify the above-named employee, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of her right to full reinstatement,
upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed
May 8 and May 17, 1968, by Retail Store Employees
Union, Local 36, herein the Union, against Goldblatt
Bros., Inc., herein the Respondent, the General Counsel
issued complaint dated July 30, 1968, alleging Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The answer of
Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard
by me at St. Joseph, Michigan on October 3 and 4, 1968.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived the
filing of briefs and oral argument.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
L THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Illinois corporation having its office
and principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
Respondent maintains other retail stores in the States of
Indiana and Michigan engaged in the sale of clothing,
household goods, notions and related products. The store
at Benton Harbor, Michigan, is the only store involved in
this proceeding. During a representative 12-month period
Respondent had a gross volume of sales in excess of
$500,000 at its Benton Harbor store. During the same
period Respondent purchased goods and materials valued
in excess of $100,000 which were transported to its Benton
Harbor store from places outside the State of Michigan.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
(a) During a period starting on or about May 2,
1968, and continuing until at least May 17, 1968, the
Respondent coercively interrogated its employees in its
offices regarding their dissatisfactions with working
conditions and promised them benefits in order to
discourage their membership in, support for, and
activities on behalf of the Charging Party.
(b) On or about May 2, 1968, Respondent granted
wage increases to its employees in order to discourage
their membership in, support for, and activities on
behalf of the Charging Party.
(c) On or about May 6, 1968, Respondent through
its supervisor and agent John,Fox engaged in acts of
surveillance of a meeting of its employees which had
been called at the Vincent Hotel in Benton Harbor,
Michigan by the Charging Party.
The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Ernestine
Hampton on May 2, 1968, and Carl Head on May 9,
1968, because said employees had assisted the Union or
engaged in other protected activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.'
B. Violations of Section 8(aX l )
During the early part of May employees were called
into the office of Herbert A. Silver, manager of the
Benton Harbor store, asked if they were happy about their
working conditions and if they had any "gripes" and were
also told they would receive a pay raise.' No mention was
made of any union in these discussions although Chris
Schieyer, one of the employees who tes`ified, stated he
was told by Silver that "they" knew he was happy on his
job and did not have to "go for any outside help." Pay
raises were granted to all regular full-time employees in
the week following May 4.'
Chester Malin, Respondent's vice president and director
of personnel, testified that he was present at the Benton
Harbor store on May 1 and 2 on a visit he described as
routine. One of his purposes was to explain Respondent's
profit-sharing plan to the employees and a second was to
make a study of wage rates in the Benton Harbor area to
determine if Respondent's rates were competitive. It was
as a result of this study that raises were given employees
at the Benton Harbor store. Silver, however, testified that
he had made such a study in April and that as a result of
this study, Respondent granted its wage increases. Both
Malin and Silver knew at the time the pay raises were
granted that the Union was attempting to organize the
store. Malin further testified that during the month of
May wage increases were granted employees at
Respondent's Lake Meadows, Hammond, Lincoln and
Belmont stores and that in the month of June, 10 to 12
other stores were granted wage increases and that during
July some 12 to 15 stores were granted increases. A
general wage increase had been granted at the Benton
Harbor store in February to conform to the increase in
the federal minimum wage.
The third allegation of the complaint relating to 8(a)(1)
violations refers to surveillance of a union meeting on the
part of John Fox, operating superintendent of the store
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act in the following respects:
'Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1968.
'Employees who testified to these interviews with Silver were Beverly
Sherwood, Ron Papke, Joyce Anderson and Chris Schreyer
it was stipulated that substantially all of the full-time employees were
called into Silver's office during the week ending May 4 and notified of the
raise The raise was made effective the following week
GOLDBLATT BROS., INC.
and admittedly a supervisor, on May 6
Jesse Brent testified that he worked in stock under the
immediate supervision of Fox and that it was among his
duties to lock up on the nights he worked and that he
usually left the building at the same time as Fox. On the
evening of May 6, Brent left the building and drove to the
Vincent Hotel, located at Sixth and Main Streets in
Brenton Harbor for the purpose of attending a union
meeting. At Sixth and Main, he recognized Fox in his
(Fox's) car and observed Fox looking at the Vincent Hotel
from his car with binoculars. Brent was driving west on
Sixth Street and Fox's car was parked on Sixth. Brent
further testified that shortly after he passed Fox's car, Fox
pulled out of the position in which he was parked and
drove off.
John Fox testified that he saw Jesse Brent downtown
on the evening of May 6 as he was getting into his own
car. He had parked downtown to do some shopping at
J.C. Penney. He denied that he observed the Vincent
Hotel through binoculars and that anyone was in the car
with him at the time. This is all the testimony relating to
this allegation of the complaint
C. Violations of Section 8(a)(3)
1. The discharge of Hampton
Ernestine Hampton testified that she had been
employed by Respondent at its Benton Harbor store from
October of 1966 until she was terminated on May 2, 1968.
At the time she was terminated she was employed in
ladies sportswear as a saleslady. She first "became
acquainted with the Union" about one month before she
was terminated, which would be during the month of
April. She met Mr. Barry, a union organizer, and from
him she obtained union authorization cards to be signed
by other employees. These cards she circulated in
Respondent's parking lot and at the timeclock near the
ladies' room. She estimated that she distributed a total of
100 cards. On May 1, Terry Butler, employed as display
manager by Respondent, came to her and told her he had
a union card and that he would fill it out, sign it and give
it to her the next day in the parking lot. The next day he
came to her while she was standing by the cash register
with Judy Marshall, her department head, gave her the
card and told her he was not going to sign it. He told her
he had discussed it with his mother-in-law and decided the
Union would not do him any good because he would have
to paint with smaller brushes and that he was a supervisor
and could not sign. Hampton then stated:
"Okay. We need a union in this store , Terry, and we
are going to get a union in it . You are going to benefit
by it. `And,' I said, `when we do 1[ am going to meet
you in the lot and kick your ass.' Just like that."
Butler told her she would not do that and she told him
there was no harm done and that he had his rights.' She
fixed the time of this conversation as about 1.30 p.m.
When she returned from her supper hour she was told
she had been paged and she went to the office where
Silver, Malin and Windner were ' sitting. Silver told her
they had a complaint that she had threatened another
employee. Hampton said, "Oh, Terry Butler " Silver
replied in the affirmative, told her they had her money
'On cross-examination Hampton testified that Butler did not appear
frightened when she threatened to kick him and that they "teased" each
other alot and that she thought nothing of it
749
and asked her to sign certain papers, which she signed.
This was her complete termination interview.
Herbert Silver testified that he discharged Hampton
after she returned from supper on May 2 and that she was
discharged in the presence of Malin and Windner. (Silver
described Windner as his merchandise man). The decision
to terminate her was made before she was summoned to
his office.' The decision was made after Terry Butler
visited his office at about 2:30 p.m. on May 2 and
reported that Hampton had threatened him with bodily
harm. Without seeking Hampton's version of the threat,
Silver put in a call to Respondent's attorney, Frederick N.
Richman, in Chicago and, because he knew Hampton was
engaged in union activities, asked if he was within his
rights in firing her for threatening a fellow-employee.
When advised that he was, he made the decision and when
Hampton returned from supper she was called to his
office and precipitately terminated.
Terry Butler testified that he was employed as display
manager for Respondent in May, 1968. On May 2, he
gave Ernestine Hampton an unsigned union card, telling
her that he could not fill it out and that he did not think
he would be able to be in the Union. Hampton then told
him that after the Union got in she would personally
"wallop my ass." The conversation took place in the
sportswear department of the store and after Butler
returned from lunch. While he did not take the threat
seriously at the time the more he thought about it the
more seriously he took it and went to Silver's office and
reported it to Silver in the presence of Malin.6
2. The discharge of Head
Carl Head testified that he was employed by
Respondent from November of 1967 until May 9, 1968.
On February 13, 1968, he was made department head in
the marking room. About 2 weeks prior to his termination
he had a conversation with Ernestine Hampton in which
she asked him if he had signed a union card and he told
her that he was willing to sign one. The next day he
obtained six cards from Hampton. He signed one card
which he returned to Hampton and gave the others to the
girls who were working in the marking room. Terry Butler
was present when he distributed the cards and asked him
what they were. He told Butler they were union cards and
that the employees were trying to get a union in. The next
day he asked Hampton for more cards and tried to get
other employees to sign them. This was the extent of this
union activity.
On May 1, as he was leaving work, Frank Fardello,
employed in the garden shop, stopped him and asked him
if he knew he was going to be replaced by Paul Ohman,
dock manager. The following day he saw John Fox,
operations manager, asked him if he was going to be
replaced and told Fox to get Ohman in the marking room
if he was to replace him. At about 3 p.m. on May 2 Silver
called him to his office and asked him what he was "mad
about." He also told him it was not true that he was
going to be replaced but that he had been missing too
much time and was not doing the job right. Head testified
that he had been put in the marking room in January and
had no training when he was assigned to it. Silver told
'Silver testified that Hampton was satisfactory in sales and that he had
had no prior occasion to reprimand her.
'Butler also testified that sonic time after her discharge, Hampton asked
him if he would sign a statement that she had not threatened him and that
he agreed to do so No such statement was ever signed.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him they would give him one more week "to get it
straightened up and cleaned up."'
On Thursday, May 9, he was called to Silver's office
where Fox and Windner were present. Silver told him they
had to let him go because he could not handle the job.
Head asked Silver if it was because of the Union and was
told it was not. Silver also told him that the workload was
heavier in his department than on the previous week and
paid him off.
Silver testified that he had put Head in charge of the
marking room in February and that he was discharged on
May 9 because he could not do the job. In his corrective
interview on May 2 Head admitted to Silver that he was
not a pusher and Silver stated that when his work did not
show improvement after one more week he was fired.
John Fox testified that he was operating superintendent
at the Benton Harbor store and was the immediate
supervisor of Carl Head and that on May 2 Head came to
him and asked if he was going to be replaced. Fox told
him they were considering it because his work was not
satisfactory. He was discharged the following week by
Silver.
D. Conclusions
1. As to violations of 8(a)(1)
I find that the wage increases granted employees in the
week following May 4 were granted, at least in part, to
discourage membership in the Union. Granted that the
issue is not free from doubt, this conclusion rests on the
fact that the increase was granted shortly after union
organization had been started in the plant,' that it was not
a part of any general wage increase program affecting all
stores' and there is ambiguity in the testimony of Silver
and Malin as to the necessity for the increases to meet
competitive wage standards in the area. In reaching this
conclusion I have considered the fact that the wage
program of Respondent was on a store-to-store basis and
that wage increases were granted at other stores in
Respondent's chain during the same and the following
months. I find further support for this finding in the
interviews with employees advising them of the raise in
which they were asked if they were happy with their jobs
and if they had any gripes." I find that by promising and
granting its employees a wage increase during the month
of May, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act."
As to the allegation of surveillance of union activity by
Fox on May 6, I do not find General Counsel sustained
his burden of proof. The issue is largely one of credibility
between Fox and Brent. It is true that Fox was parked in
the vicinity of the Vincent Hotel (where a union meeting
'On cross-examination Head testified that his interview with Silver on
May 2 was a "corrective interview," that he had been absent some 10 or
12 times and that he did not think he was right for the job because he was
not a pusher and did not know the job
'Knowledge of union activity on the part of Respondent was admitted as
early as May 2
'Cf. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 165 NLRB No.
127
"Specifically I refer to the credited testimony of Ron Papke that Silver,
when advising him of the raise , asked him if there was any reason why
they (the employees ) should need outside help for anything. See also
Schieyer' s testimony to the same effect, quoted supra
"In reaching this and the other conclusions herein I have given weight to
the testimony of Malin that Respondent had never been found guilty of
unfair labor practices at any of its stores . Cf. Goldblatt Bros. Inc., 135
NLRB 153, in which the Board, on remand , found Respondent guilty of a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
was being held) on the night of May 6 It was equally true
that he gave a plausible reason (shopping at the J'C.
Penney store) for being there. I do credit Fox's testimony
that he had no binoculars and that he was not observing
the hotel through binoculars. I shall recommend that
paragraph 8(c) of the complaint be dismissed.
2. As to violations of Section 8(a)(3)
a. The discharge of Hampton
The facts are brief and not seriously in dispute.
Hampton, a known organizer for the Union, was told by
Butler that he had a union card, would sign it and give it
to her the next day. The next day, May 2, he told her he
would not sign the card, gave it to her and she tore it up.
She then threatened that, if the Union came in, she would
kick his ass.12 Butler, after thinking over the threat for
perhaps an hour decided it was not to be taken lightly and
reported it to Silver." Malin, Respondent's vice president,
happened to be visiting the Benton Harbor store that day,
and was present. Silver, and presumably Malin, accepted
the threat at face value and, after conferring with
Respondent's attorney, decided to discharge Hampton
without further inquiry or investigation. She was
discharged as above set forth when she returned from
supper
I do not believe that Hampton's threat to Butler was
the actual cause for discharge but rather that it was a
pretext seized by Respondent to rid itself of a known and
outstanding union adherent. The threat and its
phraseology is now a part of a common parlance and used
more to express displeasure than to convey the intent of
actual bodily harm. Hampton testified that she used the
expression in this sense and Butler apparently so
understood it until he had time to think it over. This was
the opinion of the other employees who heard of the
threat.' ° Since the record is clear that she was at least
satisfactory in sales and had received no prior reprimands
for her conduct. I can only conclude that it was her union
activity that caused her termination. Men as experienced
in the handling of personnel as Silver and Malin must be
aware that vulgarity of language is as commonplace in the
plant, the shop, and the store as it is in country clubs,
hunt clubs and Park Avenue apartments. I have also
considered the fact that the decision to discharge
Hampton was made without inquiry as to the truth of the
charge and before Hampton was even summoned to
Silver's office. She was summoned there only to complete
the formalities of a termination already agreed upon.
"Butler testified that she would "wallop" his ass I do not find this
disparity in testimony sufficiently substantial to call for a resolution of the
language employed
"No proper evaluation of the threat can be made without an appraisal of
the physical characteristics of the parties involved for ordinarily such a
threat made by a female employee toward a male employee would receive
scant consideration Hampton was , however, about 5'10" in height and
amply but well proportioned Butler, on the other hand , stood about 5'4"
and testified that he weighed 120 pounds Hampton appeared fully capable,
physically, of implementing her threat effectively. The threat, however, was
directed to that portion of the anatomy best cushioned to receive it so
danger of serious injury was minimal But Butler, on the other hand, gave
the appearance during his testimony of being more than somewhat fright
prone It should also be noted that Hampton, from her demeanor as a
witness, gave no indication that she was either ill-tempered or
hot-tempered The testimony of her fellow-employees suggests that she was
both well-liked and respected
-Ron Papke, Joyce Anderson and Beverly Sherwood so testified
GOLDBLATT BROS., INC.
I find that the discharge of Hampton on May 2
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
b. The discharge of Head
I do not find that the discharge of Head was motivated
by discrimination. While it is true that Head, according to
his own testimony, distributed union cards to other
employees, there is no evidence that this activity was
known to any other representatives of management except
John Fox and that this was not known of Fox until after
May 2, the date on which Head had his corrective
interview. But on Head's own testimony it appears that he
was not a satisfactory employee as department head of the
marking room.15 He had a record of frequent absenteeism,
his department was behind and had to work overtime, and
he admitted that he was not a "pusher." In view of these
facts his participation in union activity does not suffice to
protect him from discharge for cause. It may be true that
the Respondent's management was not sympathetic to his
complaint of lack of training in the job but, then, it is not
required to be.
I do not find that the discharge of Carl Head violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
W. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices it shall be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found the Respondent unlawfully discharged
Ernestine Hampton because of her union or other
concerted activity and in order to discourage membership
in a labor organization I shall recommend that
Respondent offer her full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges and make her
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination practices against her. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By promising and granting its employees a wage
increase for the purpose of discouraging their union
membership Respondent interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
2. By discharging Ernestine Hampton because of her
union membership and other concerted activity and in
order to discourage membership in the Union, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
"Although supervisory status bears no import on the issues of the case
the evidence clearly establishes that department heads were not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
751
It is hereby recommended that the Respondent,
Goldblatt Bros., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Promising and granting its employees wage
increases to discourage membership in Retail Store
Employees Union, Local 36.
(b) Discriminating against any employee in regard to
his hire or other term or condition of employment to
discourage membership in said Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Ernestine Hampton full and immediate
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority and other rights
and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay or
other monetary loss she may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination practiced against her, in the manner set
forth in that part of this Decision entitled, "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of
backpay due and all other rights under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its store at Benton Harbor, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
said notice on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall
be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations of the
complaint not specifically found to be violations of the
Act shall be dismissed.
,.In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT promise or give our employees wage
increases to discourage membership in RETAIL
STORE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 36, or any
other union.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee because he
has engaged in union activity or become a member of
any union.
WE WILL offer Ernestine Hampton her job back
without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges
and we will give her backpay for any loss of pay she
may have suffered since we fired her.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
above-named or any other labor organization, except to
the extent that such right might be affected by a lawful
union-security clause executed between Respondent and a
labor organization in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) and
Section 7 of the Act
Dated By -
GOLDBLATT BROS. INC.
(BENTON HARBOR STORE)
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone Number 313-226-3200.