Hancock Fabric Outlet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 249 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

HANCOCK FABRIC OUTLET, INC. 249
Hancock Fabric Outlet , Inc. and Retail , Wholesale
& Department Store Union , AFL-CIO. Cases
15-CA-3293, 15-CA-3356, and 15-RC-3894
April 7, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On December 20, 1968, Trial Examiner Thomas
S. Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found merit in Union objections
to the election held on July 18, 1968, and
recommended that it be set aside. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
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
entire record in this case, including the Trial
Examiner's Decision and Respondent's exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications:
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
Respondent's April 26 - May 2 interrogations of
employees as to Union membership and sympathies
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In making his
finding, the Trial Examiner stated that Respondent
11. . . made no assurances [to employees] that
reprisals would not ensue." However, in testimony
credited by the Trial Examiner, Donaldson appears
to have given some such assurances during his
interrogations. Even so, however, all the
circumstances attending the interrogations amply
indicate their coercive nature. See Struksnes
Construction Co., Inc., 165 NLRB No. 102.
2. The Trial Examiner has found that the July 18,
1968, election should be set aside. We agree.
However, in doing so we rely only on Respondent's
unlawful conduct after the filing of the Union's
representation petition on May 2, 1968. The Ideal
Electric Mfg. Co., 134 NLRB 1275, 1278. In this
respect, the record shows that, on July 4, 1968,
Respondent announced for the first time that it
would pay double time for work on this and other
holidays. The facts show, as we find, that the
purpose of this new benefit, which was reflected in
July 17 paychecks, was to induce a "no" vote in the
July 18 election. The announcement of the extra
benefit with this coercive purpose violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act;' and, with the realization of the
extra pay on July 17, it clearly interfered with
employee free choice in the election. Accordingly,
we shall set the election aside as recommended by
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
herein modified, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Hancock Fabric Outlet, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, 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(c), and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their 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 seventh indented
paragraph of the Appendix:
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case
15-RC-3894 be, and it hereby is, set aside and that
the petition therein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The Trial Examiner inadvertently misstated certain facts We hereby
correct his Decision to show that ( 1) employee Jordan telephoned the
Mobile Labor Council on April 16, 1968 (subsection III, A, second
paragraph ), (2) Manager Donaldson interviewed employee Dorothy Light
on April 26 (subsection III, A, 16th paragraph), and (3 ) on May 4,
Calderaro told Walton that he thought Donaldson wanted to find out
about the Union's majority (subsection III, A, 35th paragraph)
'In arriving at our conclusions herein, we have found it unnecessary to
adopt the Trial Examiner's characterizations of Respondent's conduct in
providing aid for employee withdrawals from the Union
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS S. WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
duly filed on July 24, 1968, by Retail, Wholesale &
Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
the Union or the Charging Party, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred
'N L R B v Exchange Parts Co. 375 U S 405
175 NLRB No. 42
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to as the General Counsel' and the Board respectively, by
the Regional Director for Region 15, New Orleans,
Louisiana, issued its complaint dated September 13, 1968,2
against Hancock Fabric Outlet, Inc., hereinafter referred
to as the Respondent. The complaint alleged that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein
referred to as the Act.
Respondent duly filed an answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint, but denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was thereon held before me
in Mobile, Alabama, on October 23, 24, and 25, 1968. All
parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by
counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
produce and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence material and pertinent to the issues. At the
conclusion of the hearing, oral argument was waived
Briefs were received from Respondent and from General
Counsel by November 16, 1968.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Hancock Fabric Outlet , Inc., is, and has been at all
times material herein, a corporation duly organized under,
and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of
Alabama. It owns and operates a series of retail fabric
stores, selling primarily to the general public from a stock
consisting of cloth, piecegoods, and other fabric materials,
patterns, buttons, drapery accessories, and other notions
and personal sewing accessories. The home office of
Hancock Fabric Outlet, Inc., is Tupelo, Mississippi. The
only store involved in the instant charges is the one
operated by the Respondent in Mobile, Alabama.
During the past 12 months, which period is
representative of all times material herein, Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business above, had a gross
volume of sales in excess of $500,000. During the same
period, Respondent purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped
directly to Respondent from points outside the State of
Alabama.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent is now, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II THE UNION INVOLVED
Retail , Wholesale & Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICI
A. The Facts
On April 15, 1968, Respondent employee Georgia
Jordan, a cashier employed by Respondent continuously
since December 1965,' and employee Virginia P. Knox
discussed the possibility of securing union representation
for the store employees at the store . Later this same
discussion was carried on by telephone after working
hours.
On July 16 Jordan telephoned the Mobile Labor
Council office and arranged to have a meeting of
Respondent 's employees on April 20 with Dave Walton, a
union representative , at the union hall for the purpose of
organizing Respondent ' s employees into the Union.
The following day Jordan reported these arrangements
to Knox.
Jordan was absent from work due to sickness on April
17, 18, and 19 . During this period of time Knox contacted
a number of Respondent ' s employees and made
arrangements for them to attend the scheduled April 20
meeting.
On the evening of April 20 employees Jordan , who had
returned to work that day with a medical certificate,
Annie O. Gibson , Opal Rudder , Alice Sossaman , Voncille
Morrison , and Knox° met with Walton as arranged and
each personally executed unambiguous authorization cards
on behalf of the Union.
On April 23 employee Annie O. Gibson , an employee
of Respondent since July 1967, gave union authorization
cards to fellow employees Robert Riley and Dorothy
Lights in the store . Each accepted the card , filled it out
completely , and voluntarily returned the executed card to
Gibson.
On April 25 Knox gave employee Elizabeth Van
Buskirk a similar card which Van Buskirk brought to the
Knox home that evening and voluntarily executed.'
On April 26, between 11-11:30 a.m . Respondent's
25-year old Manager Byron W. Donaldson received,
opened , and read the following letter from the Union over
Walton ' s signature:
This letter is to inform you that a majority of your
employees have become members of the Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO,
Local 102-A.
I would like to meet with you concerning conditions,
pay and fringe benefits for these employees.
I will be glad to submit the signed cards to an
uninterested person for a card check to prove my
majority.
Donaldson , totally inexperienced in labor law and labor
relations, testified he "was stunned " by the letter . His first
move was to telephone L. D. Hancock, Respondent's
owner , at his headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi, but,
according to Donaldson ' s testimony , was unable to reach
Hancock because of his absence from the store caused by
the impending birth of a grandchild at a Tupelo hospital.
Donaldson then had his assistant manager , Charles R.
Calderaro , equally young and equally unknowledgeable
about labor law, read the aforementioned letter . Calderaro
was equally "shocked" by the matter . They then
speculated as to the employee "dissatisfactions" which
'This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing
'The complaint was subsequently amended and consolidated with
Objections to Election
'Respondent ' s Mobile store opened for business under Manager Byron
W. Donaldson in July 1965.
'The latter two employees were accompanied by their husbands
'Dorothy Light , another cashier, became Mrs Cash subsequent to the
events here at issue but poor to the hearing herein.
`Thus 9 of Respondent's 14 employees had voluntarily executed union
authoriza tion cards by April 26.
HANCOCK FABRIC OUTLET, INC. 251
had caused them to join a union.
By noon Calderaro had commenced making the rounds
of the employees to satisfy his "curiosity" as to which
employees had joined the Union and as to what
"dissatisfactions" had caused them to do so. Calderaro's
efforts in this regard had the tacit, at least, approval of
Donaldson.'
The first employees Calderaro interrogated were
Rudder and Jordan who were on their lunch break.
Calderaro first inquired if they had been approached to
join any union. Receiving no answer he then asked
Rudder if she belonged to a union. Rudder admitted that
she did. Calderaro then asked as to what
"dissatisfactions" with Respondent she had. Rudder
denied being dissatisfied. Calderaro then asked if Rudder
had seen either Donaldson or himself about the
dissatisfactions which had caused her to join the Union.
Following another negative answer, Calderaro turned to
Jordan and asked if she "paid dues to a union." Jordan
denied paying dues but answered the question as to
whether she was a member of a union by admitting that
she was not only a member of the Union but also was a
"charter member" of that Union!
A little time thereafter Calderaro approached Annie
Gibson and inquired if she was a member of the Union.
Gibson's answer was, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell
you no lies." The question was repeated only to have the
answer repeated. This exchange convinced Calderaro that
Gibson was a leader of the union movememt. He so
reported to Donaldson.
Calderaro acknowledged that by the end of the day of
April 27 he had asked each of Respondent's employees
about his or her union membership. Admittedly Calderaro
failed to inform any of these employees as to the purpose
of his inquiry, i.e., to determine the accuracy of the
Union's claim of majority representation, or to inform the
employees that there would be no reprisals regardless of
the employee's answer.
That afternoon Donaldson also made inquiries of the
employees as to their union memberships. His first inquiry
was made of employee Winn, a cutter, who denied being a
member or having any knowledge of the union effort.
Apparently after this interview Winn telephoned Virginia
Knox who was at home on her day off. Knox admitted to
her that she was a member of the Union This admission
was promptly reported by Winn to Donaldson on the
afternoon of April 26.9
Among others Donaldson interviewed on April 26 was
Ruth Light. During this conversation Light acknowledged
that she had signed a union card and informed Donaldson
that she had been invited to the meeting of April 20 but
had been unable to attend.'°
With Jordan working the cash register about 3 p.m. on
April 26 customer Nell A. Reynolds, whose job at Y.B.A.
caused her to buy considerable merchandise from
Respondent, came to the cashier's desk seeking to
exchange a purchase made previously. Reynolds
admittedly did not have the cash receipt for the purchase
she was attempting to exchange. In accord with the store
policy that no exchanges were to be made without such
cash receipts, Jordan refused to make the exchange for
her. Reynolds left the cashier's desk and wandered into
another part of the store. About this time Light relieved
Jordan on the cash register whereupon Reynolds returned
to the cashier's desk and made the same request for the
exchange. Light permitted the exchange even without the
cash receipt.
After Jordan had returned to the rear of the store on
her break for a few minutes, Calderaro called her over to
his desk and said that Respondent did not need her
anymore and that she was fired. When Jordan inquired
"why?" Calderaro answered that Respondent did not like
her "attitude." Jordan stated that she thought Calderaro
"ought to be able to do better than that" and asked why
she had not been told about her poor "attitude" before
during her 2-1/2 years of employment When Jordan
indicated that she was not going to check out, Calderaro
told her that Donaldson was in the store and would
confirm that she was discharged. Thereupon Jordan went
out into the front of the store near the cashier's desk, told
Donaldson that Calderaro had discharged her, and asked
to have words with him in the back of the store.
Donaldson followed her to the back of the store where
Jordan asked why she was being discharged. Donaldson's
answer was that she was being fired because of her
"attitude," adding that "some lady at his church had
complained to his wife" the previous week about Jordan's
attitude." Jordan then inquired if she was being fired on
account of the Union. Receiving no answer from either
Donaldson or Calderaro, she soon left the store convinced
that she was discharged.':
Jordan then left the store as ordered and has not since
been reinstated.
About 5 p in Donaldson finally, according to his
testimony, got in telephonic communication with his boss,
'Donaldson certainly made no effort to stop Calderaro even after he
began receiving reports about I p m from Calderaro as to the probable
union membership of the employees he had interrogated
'Calderaro originally testified that Jordan did not answer his inquiry as
to her union membership His first testimony was that the statement about
Jordan being a "charter member" of the Union was made by Jordan after
he had notified her of her discharge later that same day Calderaro's
memory of his interviews with both Jordan and Gibson proved to be
anything but clear, certain, or complete Calderaro , like Donaldson, also
exhibited a propensity to testify that certain compromising events occurred
after the discharges . Accordingly , I find as above in accordance with the
testimony of Jordan who gave the appearance of being an honest witness
But, in any event , Calderaro came away from the interview "suspecting"
that Jordan was not only a member of the Union but had "organized this
union for her own purposes " Calderaro so reported to Donaldson about
1 30 that afternoon
'At times during the examination of Donaldson, Donaldson seemed to be
placing the date of his interview with Winn on April 27 and at other times
on April 26 However , as Knox was on her day off on April 26, it is
obvious that the Donaldson -Winn conversations had to be on April 26, the
day Winn telephoned Knox at Knox's home and reported the results to
Donaldson
"Light testified that she thought that her conversation with Donaldson
had occurred about a week before the discharge of Jordan Except for the
fact that Light did not sign her union card for Gibson until April 23, the
interview could have happened at that time because with the "grapevine"
which existed in the plant , due as far as this record shows to employees
Winn and Nix, it is hard to believe that in a store with as few employees in
it as Respondent 's, the news of the April 20 meeting had not reached
Respondent's officials until April 26 However, as there is no evidence to
corroborate Light's testimony as to the date of the interview with
Donaldson , the Trial Examiner accepts the testimony of Donaldson that
his first talk with Light occurred promptly after the receipt of the Union's
letter on April 26.
"According to Donaldson 's testimony , he also told her that he had just
received a complaint about Jordan's attitude again at the cashier's desk It
is noteworthy that neither Jordan nor Calderaro mentioned the Reynolds'
complaint in their description of the termination interview
"Both Donaldson and Calderaro testified , and Jordan denied , that as
Jordan was leaving she turned to Calderaro, reminded him of his inquiry
as to her union membership earlier , and stated that she not only was a
member of the Union but was "a charter member" thereof See footnote 8,
above
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
L D. Hancock, in Tupelo, Mississippi, explained that he
had received this letter from the Union and was instructed
by Hancock, "Just fire everybody that is connected with
the Union "
Donaldson's answer was an emphatic, "Yes, Sir."' 3
After the store closed at 9 p.m. that evening Donaldson
and Calderaro held what Donaldson described as a
"dissatisfaction meeting" in which they discussed the
"dissatisfactions " they had with various employees of the
store. The "dissatisfied" employees discussed specifically
that evening included Gibson, Alice Sossaman, Dorothy
Light, and Opal Rudder." It is noteworthy that
Respondent had discovered or "suspected" that each of
the above was a member of the Union through their
earlier interrogations that day. In addition Donaldson
testified that some weeks before this time he had been
informed by employee Beatrice Nix that Gibson at that
time was so disgusted at being required to work 10 hours
every other Monday that she threatened to take that
matter to the Wage Hour Division and subsequently Nix
informed Donaldson that Gibson was going to take
employment with one Kelle Thompson, a Mobile fabric
designer. These unconfirmed reports from Nix along with
their definite suspicion that Gibson was a leader of the
union movement convinced Donaldson and Calderaro of
Gibson's "dissatisfactions," that "her mind was not in the
store" and on the basis that, as Respondent expressed it,
Gibson was "high man on the raft," they came to the
conclusion that Gibson should be discharged first thing in
the morning 15
At some unspecified time following his telephone call
with Hancock, Donaldson telephoned an unnamed fellow
church member "with a law degree" but without labor law
experience who did not think it quite right that Donaldson
should follow the above order given by Hancock and
advised against it"
When Gibson reported for work the next morning,
April 27, Calderaro took her into the backroom and told
her that he "had been elected" to tell her that due to her
"attitude," discourtesy to employees, and because of her
"disinterest" in the store, she was fired. When Gibson
inquired as to who was more interested in the store than
she, all Calderaro did was to grin.
"Although there is no probative evidence to the contrary as to the actual
time of this telephone call, I have great difficulty in believing that
Donaldson , "stunned " by the receipt of the union letter , was unable to
reach Hancock even under the stress of an impending new grandchild until
5 p m - and thus supposedly after the discharge of Jordan Although
denied, Jordan testified that soon after the receipt of the union letter or
about noon , she had overheard Donaldson make almost the identical
statement to Calderaro which Hancock had made during their telephone
conversation Although I would be inclined to accept the testimony of
Jordan as to this noon remark over the denial of Donaldson and
Calderaro , I am here making no such finding largely because the very
possible corroboration thereof by employee Rudder was not produced at
the hearing , as Rudder did not testify , and thus this conflict was left as one
word against another The similarity between the supposed noon remark of
Donaldson and the admitted 5 p in order of Hancock was, however,
startling
"Onginally Donaldson had testified that the only employee discussed at
this "dissatisfaction meeting" was Annie 0 Gibson
"Admittedly Donaldson did not check the accuracy of these Nix reports
about Gibson because , in Donaldson 's words, "I didn't think it was needful
to, at the time and I didn't consider it at the time any great thing
"That Sunday at church this fellow church member "with a law degree"
gave Donaldson the name of Respondent's present attorney who apparently
confirmed the church member ' s advice and , hence, the following Monday,
Donaldson advised Hancock by telephone that on advice of his attorney he
was not going to follow Hancock ' s orders Hancock, according to this
evidence , told Donaldson to follow the attorney's advice
Thus Gibson was discharged. She has never been
reinstated."
Virginia Knox returned to work on the morning of
April 27 after her day off during which she had received
the telephone inquiry as to Knox's union membership
from employee Winn and gave the answer which Winn
had reported to Donaldson.
Earlier that morning employee Nix had reported to
Donaldson that, upon her return to work, Knox had said
that Respondent officials were "hopping in the store
because I signed a union card "
Promptly thereafter Calderaro called Knox to his desk
in the back of the store where, after keeping Knox waiting
for a while, he explained that he wanted to let Knox know
they "were not hopping" in the store because she had
signed a union card and that they had not fired Gibson
and Jordan because they had signed union cards. Knox
answered that, "if he was trying to fire me, make me mad
and quit, that I wasn't going to quit He would have to
fire me." At that point Donaldson joined the conversation
stating that he did not know that Knox was "dissatisfied"
with her job and inquiring what it was that the employees
wanted. Knox told them that the employees wanted higher
wages, time and a half for holidays, and insurance.
Donaldson answered, "some of the stores had all these
benefits that [the employees] were asking for and all the
benefits were in the making for us and we were going to
have them." Calderaro then informed Knox that two of
the girls in the store had already withdrawn their cards
and that Respondent "would like for" Knox to consider
withdrawing her card Knox was then asked how the
union movement got started and answered that it got
started because two of the employees had gotten mad.
After telling Knox that he would have appreciated it if
Knox had come to him first about the employee
dissatisfactions, Donaldson sent her back to work.
Following his conversation with Knox, the next
employee Donaldson spoke to was Robert Riley.
Donaldson described this conversation at the hearing as
follows:
Q. What did you say to Robert Riley9
A. I, I told - I asked him - I started off - I said,
"I understand you have joined the Union " He said,
really, that he didn't know, for sure that he was joining
the union, there, to begin with He said, "I was asked if
I wanted a raise and other benefits and insurance and
stuff, to sign this card." He said he signed it and he
said "Well - " I said, "Well, from my understanding,
you joined the union." He said, "Well, that is what I
have been told " And, I told him, I said, "well, I just
want you to know that I do not - " One thing I want
to clear up, here, is that I told him that I just wanted
him to know that I did not - that that was not the
purpose of firing Georgia Jordan and Mrs. Gibson
because of the union, and I had seen, you know, some
- some unrest really, among the employees because
they seemed to be afraid they were fixing to be fired
and stuff, so I did assure him of this And I told him
that I would not take any reprisals against him for
joining it and I also told him what I told you I told
Mrs Winn, a while ago, that if I believe strongly
enough in the union, myself, I would join one, myself
and he said, "Well, I believe that strong in it."
"Following her discharge Gibson did secure employment with Kelle
Thompson and went to work for him , according to Thompson , on May 2
but was discharged on or about May 10
HANCOCK FABRIC OUTLET, INC. 253
I asked him what were the main things that he was
dissatisfied with and he named, basically, the same
things Virginia Knox had about the hospital insurance
and pay on holidays and I don't know, when, if he
mentioned vacations or not, but this - And, I told him
the same thing, that - that from - that I thought all
the employees had understood that we - we were
supposed to get some of these things after the third
fiscal year, and that was, basically, the conversation
with him
I just assured him, once again, before he left, that
there would be no reprisals. I wanted him to go on
about his job as normal and that I would take - I
mean - certainly, no action against anyone because of
the union
Donaldson interrogated all Respondent's employees
during the following week, including the new employee
hired to replace Gibson. The conversations were similar to
those with Knox and Riley.
On April 30 employee Sossaman, according to the
testimony, came to Donaldson saying that she had signed
a union card at the union meeting and "just knew that she
had done the wrong thing and she asked me what she
should do." Donaldson told her, in his own testimony,
"The best thing, Mrs. Sossaman, I could tell you to do, I
really hate to advise you on what to do, I imagine the
only thing to do would either be call Mr Walton or write
him a letter and tell him that you are sorry that you just
didn't know what you were doing " So that day on
Donaldson's desk using Respondent's paper, envelope,
stamps, and carbon paper and with Donaldson assisting in
phrasing the letter, Sossaman wrote the Union as follows:
April 30, 1968
Mr Dave Walton, Ref.
Retail, Wholesale & Dept. Store Union.
Mr Walton
Last week I attended a meeting in your office, with
several other employees of Hancock Fabric Center
I signed a card saying I wanted to join a union.
However since then, even on the way home that
night, I knew I had acted too hasty
I have talked it over with a very good friend of mine.
She and I together decided it would be best that I not
join any union
Believe me, I was sorry I signed the card and still
am
Will you please be so kind as to send me my card
back immediately. My address is 1213 Gorgas St
This is my own personal decision and I will expect
my card immediately
Sincerely
Alice Sossaman
Sossaman testified at the hearing that she wanted a
copy of her letter to Walton as "proof" of her resignation
therefrom so Donaldson had supplied her with the carbon
paper to make a copy. When the task was finished,
Sossaman handed the carbon copy to Donaldson and
asked him to keep it for her Donaldson did so
Also on April 30, Light decided that she wanted to
write a letter similar to that by Sossaman, so the same
process was repeated even to the carbon copy and having
Donaldson keep that copy for Light The Light letter read
as follows:
Dave Walton
Retail, Wholesale &
Dept. Store Union
Mr. Walton.
I am an employee of Hancock Fabric Outlet. I called
you April 29, 1968 concerning getting my card that I
signed back.
I was approached here at the store and told to sign
the card if I wanted a raise, nothing was said about
joining the Union.
Since then I have been told that I joined the Union
when I signed the card.
When I found out about this, that is when I
immediately called you And ask you to mail my card
back to me.
I do not want to join any Union. I have thought this
over carefully & want my card back immediately.
I would appreciate your immediate attention to this.
Thank you
Mrs. Light
My address:
Mrs Dorothy Light
115 Providence St
Mobile, Ala.
By letter dated May 2 Donaldson answered the union
letter of April 26 as follows-
I received your letter April 26, stating that you had
received a majority of my employees into your union
This letter is to inform you that I will meet with you on
an appointed date for you to venfy that you have a
majority of these employees.
This is the only reason I do want to meet with you.
If you will call me and make an appointment, I'll be
glad to talk to you about the majority subject
Waiting to hear from
you,
Upon receiving Respondent's answer on May 4, Walton
telephoned to Respondent. As Donaldson was not in at
that time, Walton spoke to Calderaro and asked if
Respondent recognized him as the majority representative.
Calderaro told Knox that he "thought Mr. Donaldson
wanted to find out if I still had a majority of the cards
signed and still had a majority." Walton asked that
Donaldson return his call upon his return to the store.
Donaldson did not return the call.
On May 20, having learned that Abe Phillips was
Respondent's attorney, Walton called and made an
appointment to meet Phillips on May 21. At that meeting
Walton asked Phillips if Respondent would recognize the
Union on the cards without an election Phillips stated
that he would have to check with his client. A few days
thereafter Walton called Phillips back and again inquired
if Respondent would recognize the Union on the basis of
the cards. Phillips stated that his client said they would
not recognize the Union and that the Union would have to
go through the normal proceedings of the Board.
Thereafter a representation hearing based on the
Union's petition of May 2 was heard on May 31 with the
Regional Director's Decision issuing June 11 finding that
all full-time and regular part-time employees at
Respondent's Mobile, Alabama retail store; excluding
professional employees, guards and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act constituted an appropriate unit.
When Respondent's employees appeared for work on
July 4 Donaldson informed them, for the first time, that
Respondent had determined that it would pay them
double time for working July 4 and other unnamed
holidays. On July 17 Respondent's employees received
their paycheck covering the period which included the
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
holiday pay for July 4
The following day, July 18, the representation election
was held resulting in four votes for union representation
and eight against such representation.
The Union duly filed objections to the election on July
25. By order dated August 9, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 15 concluded that two of the Union's
objections raised substantial and material issues which
could best be resolved at the instant hearing: (1) the
interrogation by Respondent's manager at its Mobile store
of some nine employees regarding their union activities,
membership, and sympathies, and (2) the objection that
the employer granted economic benefits to its employees
in order to induce them to refrain from union activities.
B. Conclusions
1. Discharges and interference
On the facts presented on this record there is, and can
be, but one decision, here made, that on April 26 and 27,
1968, Respondent discharged Georgia Jordan and Annie
0. Gibson, respectively, because the Respondent knew or
suspected that each was a member of the Union and was
engaging in union activities in order to secure union
representation in Respondent's store in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The admitted facts here prove that about 11.30 a.m. on
April 26 Respondent received a letter from the Union
claiming majority representation among Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit at the Mobile store,
requesting recognition together with an offer of having the
cards checked by a mutually agreeable third person.
Although admittedly "stunned" by this letter, Respondent
within the hour began a systematic interrogation of its
employees individually to determine their union
membership and sympathies.
Respondent was definitely antiunion. Hancock's order
to Donaldson, "Fire everyone you find connected with the
Union" is sufficient proof of Respondent's animosity to
union organization. Donaldson and Calderaro showed the
same animosity in some of their interviews
However Respondent contended that the discharges
were for cause, Jordan because of "customer complaints"
and absenteeism, and Gibson because of her "attitude." It
is now time to examine the proof of these "causes."
Within 3 or 4 hours of the receipt of the union letter
Respondent discharged Georgia Jordan allegedly for
"rudeness" to customers and within 8 or 9 hours had
determined to discharge Annie O. Gibson the next
morning allegedly because of her "attitude." The timing
of these events alone create a prima facie case of
discrimination.
But there is more, much more. Through these blunt
intimidatory interrogations, above mentioned, by both
Donaldson and Calderaro, Respondent learned prior to
the discharges that employee Winn was not a union
member, then, through a little investigation by Winn, that
Knox was a member of the Union, and from the
interrogation of employee Light that she had been invited
(by Knox) to attend the April 20 organizational meeting
(arranged by Jordan) which she was unable to attend for
some reason and that she had signed a union card (given
her by Gibson). Respondent also determined the union
membership or lack thereof of all its employees through
these same interrogations, particularly of Jordan, Gibson,
and Knox. Although the testimony does not specifically
indicate the disclosure of the names by Light during her
interrogation, it is a fair inference that they were disclosed
during the Calderaro interrogation of her because, as
Calderaro testified
TRIAL EXAMINER That is not the question.
Did you ever discover that the employees in the store
had held a meeting on April 20th9 .. `,and, if so, when
did you discover it?
THE WITNESS [Calderaro]:, The date I didn't hear
about, the meeting I did hear about.
TRIAL EXAMINER When did you first hear there
would or had been a meeting of the employees?
THE WITNESS It, was, probably, maybe, a week or
four or five days afterwards, after the 26th of April.
TRIAL EXAMINER How did you find out?
THE WITNESS Dorothy Light told me
TRIAL EXAMINER How did Dorothy Light happen to
tell you?
THE WITNESS Well, she told me by saying that they
asked her to go to a meeting but she didn't go because
she had a date, or something like that and when I
asked her when or where and what have you and she
told me
TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you ask her those questions of
Dorothy Light on the 26th?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER Did you ask her those questions on
the 26th?
THE WITNESS Oh, no.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Was it a week after the 26th, or so,
that you first ask her - Dorothy Light about that?
THE WITNESS Uh-huh
Through these interrogations Respondent had on April
26 convinced itself that Jordan had organized the Union
"for her own selfish purposes" and that Gibson, by reason
of her answering Calderaro's questions by "Ask me no
questions and I'll tell you no lies," was one of the leaders
of the movement. The other employee picked by
Respondent as a leader of the union movement was Knox
even though Knox was not even in the store that day nor
spoken to by either Donaldson or Calderaro. Between
employees Winn, Nix, and Light Respondent had a
speedy, efficient, but occasionally inaccurate, grapevine at
work in the store.
The above not only confirms, but greatly strengthens
the prima facie case.
In his brief Respondent's counsel has helpfully set forth
a "chronological sequence of occurrences concerning Mrs.
Jordan" with approximate dates1e upon which Respondent
relies as proof of cause
Respondent's description of the first "occurrence" reads
as follows:
January 1968: First complaint came to the manager
concerning Mrs. Jordan's conduct. The customer
complained of Mrs. Jordan's attitude and said she was
extremely rude. Mrs. Jordan was reprimanded by the
manager for her rudeness to the customer as well as for
her failure to refer the customer, as instructed, to he or
the assistant manager when difficulty arose.
Donaldson gave such indefinite testimony. No names
nor incidents made the incident identifiable. However the
"Many of these approximate dates appear incorrect although
Respondent's counsel cannot be faulted therefor because- ( I) counsel wrote
his brief without benefit of the transcript, and (2) the almost undue
uncertainty , indefiniteness , and changeability in the testimony of both
Donaldson and Calderaro as witnesses See footnote 8, above, for an
example by Calderaro About the only testimony as to times or dates upon
which either witness remained constant was that the telephone order from
Hancock came "between 4 and 5 p in " on April 26
HANCOCK FABRIC OUTLET, INC.
incident was, according to Respondent, the first customer
complaint against Jordan after her employment began in
December 1965.
The next "occurrence" in late February or early March
1968 was described by Respondent in its brief as follows
Two Negro female customers, taking exception in
the manner in which Mrs. Jordan treated them in going
through their shopping bags, returned to the store and
but for the intercession of the assistant manager, would
apparently have assaulted Mrs. Jordan.
This one is identifiable. The undenied testimony showed
that Jordan had been warned by clerks that the two
women were engaged in shoplifting in the store.
Respondent made it a part of the cashier's duty to detect
and prevent shoplifting. In performing this duty,
successfully on this occasion, Jordan angered the women
who berated her from outside the store to such an extent
that Calderaro testified, "I do believe that they would
come back in and there might have been some violence" if
he had not spoken to them. Obviously this constituted a
"shoplifter" - rather than a "customer" - complaint. If
Respondent insists upon adding detective-law enforcement
duties to that of cashier, Respondent must necessarily
accept the concomitant result that its cashiers may not
remain the favorite people of both customers and
shoplifters. Respondent and its brief stress the extreme
competence of Jordan both as cashier and preventor of
shoplifting.
The next episode occurring, according to Respondent's
brief, in the last week in February or first week in March
is described in the brief as:
A Negro female customer called the manager by
telephone and complained that Mrs. Jordan had the
previous night unjustly accused her of stealing as she
was coming through the check-out line The Negro
woman had called Mrs. Jordan a bitch, Mrs. Jordan
had complained to her husband who happened to be in
the store and was standing nearby, and he told Mrs.
Jordan, "You got a mouth, call her a bitch back."
This description omits a few salient facts. The customer
had, in fact, telephoned Donaldson to apologize for her
own use of words to Jordan. Mrs. Jordan's husband, who
happened to be standing nearby conversing with
Calderaro, heard the epithet and instructed his wife as
above. The evidence proves that Mrs. Jordan did not
obey. There was no reprimand to Jordan nor was one
deserved
Respondent's brief described the next episode in the
middle of March as follows.
A customer complaining of being overcharged
apparently made a nuisance of herself. When she
confronted Mrs. Jordan with this, Mrs. Jordan
informed the customer that if she [the customer] did
not leave her [Mrs. Jordan] alone, she, Mrs. Jordan,
would slap the . . . out of her [the customer]. The
assistant manager reprimanded Mrs. Jordan when this
came to his attention.
Again a few salient facts are missing. The customer had
a reputation in the store, as Calderaro pointed out, of
being "very much of a nuisance." On the occasion in
question Calderaro testified "she [the customer] came
directly to me, first." Calderaro then informed the
customer that she would have to bring her cash receipts in
in order to exchange merchandise and then turned on his
heel. The customer began complaining to other employees
of the store. Finally she approached Jordan. Jordan then
made the above-quoted statement The evidence of
Calderaro further shows that the customer made no
255
complaint about Jordan. Her complaint was against
Calderaro. The language was reported by a fellow
employee. Although Calderaro testified that Jordan
admitted making the above statement, there is no showing
that Calderaro reprimanded her.
This episode is interesting in that it shows that even the
assistant manager was unable to handle certain complaints
without raising the ire of the customer even without
shoplifting being involved. It also shows that the store
might well have been better off without this customer.
Respondent's next episode was as follows:
April 15 or 16, 1968:" A regular customer, a Mrs
Cumbest, complained to the manager that Mrs Jordan
had been rude to her in the handling of an exchange of
merchandise. The manager reprimanded Mrs. Jordan
upon receiving this complaint.
At the discharge interview with Jordan, Donaldson
mentioned specifically a complaint some unnamed woman
attending his church had made to Mrs Donaldson a week
before the discharge. The church woman's complaint is
not mentioned in Respondent's enumeration. Mrs.
Cumbest may well be that woman.
If this Cumbest episode is the same as the incident of
the church woman who had complained to Donaldson's
wife which Donaldson mentioned at the discharge
interview to Jordan, then there are serious discrepancies in
Donaldson's own testimony. It seems strange that
Donaldson failed to mention the Cumbest incident at the
discharge interview, although mentioning the church
woman's episode because they both allegedly happened at
approximately the same time. Respondent objected
strenuously that General Counsel had not called Mrs.
Cumbest. But Respondent failed to call her also. It is
further noteworthy that, despite the fact that Cumbest was
supposedly a very good customer, Donaldson issued no
reprimand to Jordan nor mentioned it at the discharge
interview.
Those then are the alleged "customer complaints"
against Jordan. Actually all except the first indefinite,
unidentifiable one and the last one would be more
properly classed as "shoplifters' complaints." If
Respondent makes its cashier its law enforcement officer
so far as shoplifting is concerned, it must anticipate
shoplifters' complaints against that cashier. Also if the
cashiers cannot exchange goods in accordance with
Respondent's rules without the cash receipts, Respondent
must anticipate complaints against cashiers who abide by
its rules. As noted above, Calderaro found that out the
hard way - even though he allegedly "reprimanded"
Jordan for her language on that occasion. Individually or
collectively these incidents hardly warrant a reprimand,
much less a discharge To have even brought these matters
up to prove "cause" indicates that Respondent was
grasping for any straw that it could possibly find in order
to explain the discharge of Jordan. The testimony as given
by Donaldson and Calderaro confirm this. They obviously
were dredging their memories
According to the testimony of both Donaldson and
Calderaro, they had at some misty, indefinite time, about
a week prior to April 26, had occasion to discuss the
"complaints" about Jordan and decided to terminate her
services if another "complaint" arose. Why this in an
organization where employment had been very stable for
"The transcript shows Donaldson testifying as follows
A It was around the first of April to the middle of April, I guess,
around there, or could have been right at the end of March I don't
recall right off hand
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at least a year and a half and where Donaldson had grave
trouble in trying to remember any previous discharges of
employees, except assistant store managers. The last
"discharge" of an employee occurred in December or
January because of physical troubles which caused her to
faint on the job. For such a meeting as described to have
occurred would seem to have required some rather
outstanding complaint against Jordan Calderaro knew of
none such and Donaldson's testimony gives us no clue.
The meeting itself, except for the decision supposedly
made there, is as misty and indefinite as its timing. It may
have occurred but it seems more likely that this meeting
with its decision was a rather obvious attempt to evade
the inference which arises from the discharge of Jordan
within hours of the discovery of her union activity.
The evidence of this alleged meeting and its decision is
far from convincing
Then came April 26, the Union's request for
recognition, the Respondent's systematic interrogation of
the employees, Nell A. Reynolds' "complaint," and the
Jordan discharge. Respondent maintains that the
Reynolds' complaint alone triggered that discharge in
accordance with the supposed decision reached at the
aforementioned misty meeting. This theory conveniently
omits the fact that Respondent had convinced itself prior
to the discharge, and thus prior to the Reynolds'
complaint, that Jordan was the organizer of the union
movement for "her own selfish purposes." Furthermore,
as Respondent's brief admits, in this instance, as in the
others, Jordan complied with Respondent's rule requiring
cash receipts before cashiers had authority to exchange
merchandise - and Reynolds admittedly had no cash
receipt. Reynolds' own testimony showed that she actually
made no complaint about Jordan but continued her
shopping until Light replaced Jordan as cashier when
Reynolds made the exchange Jordan had previously
refused her without the cash receipt The Reynolds'
complaint, if any, was against the application of
Respondent's cash receipt rule as applicable to her She
knew the rules but desired preferential treatment.
Reynolds' testimony was further noteworthy in that
nowhere does she quote one word Jordan said to her in
order to prove the "rudeness" counsel suggested to her
and for which Respondent supposedly discharged Jordan.
The Reynolds' episode was thus fortuitously timed in that
it provided Respondent a palpable excuse to discharge the
employee whom Respondent had already selected as the
"organizer" of the union movement
The palpable lack of merit in the above episodes, singly
or cumulatively, as cause for discharge merely serves to
strengthen the discriminatory nature of Jordan's
discharge.
The same thing is true as to Respondent's claim that
"absenteeism" constituted the "secondary" reason for the
discharge Superficially the fact that Jordan had been
absent from work over 100 days during her employment
since 1965 would seem to amount to "cause." The facts,
however, prove the contrary. The facts show that in 1966
Jordan underwent surgery causing the loss of about 90
days At that time Jordan suggested that she be
permanently replaced. Respondent, however, temporarily
replaced her and welcomed her back when physically able.
Since that time Jordan had missed 7-10 days in 1967 due
to a death in the family and in 1968 was absent from
April 17 to 20 due to illness. Such a record hardly
qualifies as "absenteeism." Even Respondent's brief omits
mention of absenteeism.
Obviously Jordan was not discharged on April 26 for
cause.
According to the Respondent, it discharged Gibson
because of her "attitude." However Respondent first
mentioned this "attitude" after determining that Gibson
was one of the three union leaders from her "Ask me no
questions - " answer to Calderaro's inquiry as to her
union membership. According to the Respondent this
"attitude" was based on four things: (1) in March Gibson
had some unpaid for materials under her desk - as did
all the other employees; (2) on one occasion Gibson split a
piece of material with a customer and the customer
thought she got the dirty piece, (3) the "grapevine" (Nix
in this instance) had previously reported that Gibson was
threatening to report to the Wage Hour Division that she
was required to work 10 hours per day every other
Monday, and (4) the grapevine (Nix again) had reported
that Gibson had said she was going to work for one Kelle
Thompson.
These four bases as to Gibson can be quickly disposed
of Neither of the first two alleged complaints was
sufficient to cause Gibson's discharge at the time of their
occurrence and, in fact, the first one was the accepted
practice for employees at that time According to the
testimony of Donaldson, the last two were so
"unimportant at the time" that he did not even check the
accuracy of the reports with Gibson although the
complaint to the Wage Hour Division might well have
been as bad in the Employer's eyes as helping to organize
a union. The last one, of course, was inaccurate as
Respondent's witness, Kelle Thompson, did not even claim
that he had hired Gibson until after Respondent had
discharged her.20
Donaldson and Calderaro made much of the fact that
Gibson had other material under her desk at the time of
her discharge This, however, was not discovered until
after her discharge and hence, as Respondent's counsel
pointed out, it could have played no part in the decision to
discharge Gibson
The excuses given by Respondent for the discharge of
both Jordan and Gibson are so flimsy and so lacking in
any merit as to serve only to strengthen the finding of
discrimination made heretofore
Accordingly I must, and hereby do, find that
Respondent discharged Georgia Jordan on April 26 and
Annie O. Gibson on April 27 because of their membership
and activities on behalf of the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. Interference and obiections to election
As already found, Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees by its systematic
interrogation of all its employees individually as to their
union membership and activities during a period which
extended at least until May 3 or thereafter. If this
interrogation had been conducted under proper safeguards
for the limited purpose of determining the accuracy of the
Union's claim of majority, it would have been legal and
proper Here none of the safeguards required were
provided. Respondent made no assurances that reprisals
would not ensue No attempt was made to prevent these
interviews from being coercive In fact Calderaro admitted
that, when Gibson answered his inquiry as to her union
'"As a matter of fact Thompson volunteered during his testimony that he
was so ethical that he did not want Respondent to even think that he had
hired an employee away from it
HANCOCK FABRIC OUTLET, INC.
membership with "Ask me no questions and - " he
demanded the truth from her on the grounds that, "We
will find out anyhow "
The interrogations were intended to be, and in fact
were, coercive Even Donaldson testified that subsequently
when he interrogated Robert Riley, he told Riley that
Jordan and Gibson had not been fired on account of the
Union because "I had seen, you know, some - some
unrest really, among the employees because they seemed
to be afraid they were fixing to be fired and stuff, so I did
assure him of this." Such interrogations coupled with the
immediate discharge of two of the three union leaders
would tend to create "unrest" among the employees.
Nor were these interrogations limited to the question of
the union majority After having created this "unrest,"
Donaldson began using the interrogations for the purpose
of asking why the employees were dissatisfied and then
promising them the things they wanted. For instance, he
asked both Knox and Riley what "dissatisfactions" they
had and, upon being told that it was holiday pay,
vacations, and insurance promised that "We were
supposed to get some of these things after the third fiscal
year" and that some were already on the way Such
promises of benefits also violate Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Then on July 4 Donaldson announced to the employees
that they would be paid double time for work that day,
not the time and a half requested The reason Hancock
had given Donaldson for this "double time" payment at
the time it was approved was that "This [double time]
should entice [Donaldson's] workers to feel more
encouraged about working and working on a holiday "
Due to the timing of this double time announcement and
the date of its actual appearance in the paychecks on July
17, the day before the representation election, this benefit
would also tend to "entice" the employees to vote in that
election against the Union, a clear violation of Section
8(a)(I) See N L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co, 375 U.S.
405 (1964).
There can be, and is, no question but that by the
actions aforementioned, as well as the discharges,
Respondent deliberately made the expression of the
Respondent's untrammeled desires for or against union
representation in an election an impossibility.
Consequently, I will order that the election of July 18 be
set aside and held for naught
3. The refusal to bargain
As of the date of the Union's request for recognition,
April 26, the Union held unambiguous authorization cards
voluntarily signed by 9 employees out of an appropriate
unit of 14 employees. Thus at the time of the request the
Union was clearly the representative of the majority of the
Respondent's employees in that unit.
Through its systematic interrogation of the employees
on April 26-27, Respondent was promptly cognizant of
the Union's majority status
On April 26 Respondent promptly discharged two of
the union leaders for the illegal, discriminatory reasons as
found above.
By its interrogations of April 26 Respondent
successfully coerced two employees (Sossaman and Light)
into renouncing their voluntarily signed authorization
cards
True it is that the letters of resignation by Light and
Sossaman were not written until April 30. But by the
morning of April 27 Donaldson and Calderaro were able
257
to inform Knox that two employees (obviously Sossaman
and Light because no other employees followed their lead)
had already agreed to renounce their union affiliation and
requested that she do likewise while promising her that the
benefits she desired were already on the way to the
employees without union help. Hence Respondent's
coercive tactics paid off for the Respondent on the very
first day of their use on two employees at least
So by the end of April 26, or at the worst April 27,
Respondent had already used the time before answering
the Union's request to dissipate the known union
majority By the end of April 27 the Union held only
cards of 5 employees out of a then unit of 12 and had thus
succeeded in eliminating the numerical majority among
those employees still remaining in its employ at that time.
However Respondent carefully made no answer to the
Union's request until it had in its hands and under its
control copies of letters written and signed by Sossaman
and Light requesting the return of their signed
authorization cards. By permitting, even if not requiring,
that these two employees write, execute, and deposit
copies with Respondent of letters demanding the return of
the union cards written at Respondent's desk in
phraseology suggested by Respondent on Respondent's
stationery, mailed in Respondent's envelopes, stamped
with Respondent's stamps during working hours,
Respondent clearly overstepped the bounds of neutrality
required of an employer by law in such situations. Such a
blatant violation of the required neutrality by an employer
has hardly been heard of since the late 1930's when the
Supreme Court rejected the well-publicized decision of the
lawyers for the Liberty League that the Act was
unconstitutional. Since that decision more sophisticated
techniques have come into vogue Today tactics such as
used here are almost unique.21
By its deliberate, immediate, and continuous flaunting
of the statutory right of its employees to be represented in
collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing by discharging union members, by long
continuous coercive interrogations, by promising benefits,
and by actually fulfilling one such the day before the
election, the Respondent here has used the time prior to
the election for the illegal purpose of dissipating and
eliminating the Union's majority through the use of
coercion and, in addition, made the holding of a fair
election where employees could freely express their own
unfettered preference for or against union representation
an impossibility 22
Consequently, as Respondent has itself deliberately
made the holding of a fair election impossible, and as
previously thereto the employees themselves had freely
and voluntarily indicated their desire for union
representation in collective bargaining which Respondent
rejected, and as Respondent thereafter dissipated the
Union's majority only by flagrantly flaunting the law by
the acts aforementioned, I find that Respondent thereby
refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and will
order Respondent to bargain collectively in good faith
"This Trial Examiner is making no finding that this aforementioned
letter writing episode was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because
the making of such a finding would have to be based upon inference due to
the fact that the only testimony in this record was given by Donaldson,
Sossaman , and Light and was to the effect that each employee acted
entirely "voluntanly" in so doing This testimony, however, is so contrary
to all the other proven facts here, the admissions of Respondent, and the
probabilities of the situation as to be totally unbelievable and unworthy of
credit
"Joy Silk Mills, Inc, 85 NLRB 1263
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Union as the representative of its employees Z'
Actually from Respondent's brief I glean the fact that
Respondent ' s real defense to all the charges of unfair
labor practices against Respondent is that Donaldson and
Calderaro were young men totally unversed in the law of
labor relations and particularly unversed in the Act so
that they knew not what they did. However ignorance of
the law has never been a legal defense and is not here
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations described in section I , above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Georgia Jordan
and Annie 0 Gibson by discharging each of them on
April 26 and April 27, 1968, respectively, because of her
known and/or suspected membership and activities on
behalf of the Union, I shall recommend that Respondent
offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges
and make each whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of said discrimination against her by
payment to her of the sum of money equal to that which
she would have earned from the date of the discrimination
against her to the date of her reinstatement, less her net
earnings during such period in accordance with the
formula set forth in F W Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Having found that Respondent refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act, I will recommend that, upon request,
Respondent recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an agreement is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit
is:
All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed at Respondent's Mobile, Alabama retail
store; excluding professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent, I
will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in
any other manner interfering with , restraining, and
coercing its employees in exercising their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following.
"Bernet Foam Products Co, 146 NLRB 1277 (1964)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent Hancock Fabric Outlet, Inc., Mobile,
Alabama, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize , meet, and bargain
collectively with Retail, Wholesale & Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment: All full-time and
regular part-time employees employed at Respondent's
Mobile, Alabama retail store, excluding professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
(b) Discouraging membership in the above -named or
any other Union by discriminatorily discharging any of its
employees or by discriminating in any other manner with
respect to their hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(c) Interrogating employees with respect to their union
membership or sympathy, their knowledge and support of
any union petition , or in any other manner constituting
interference , restraint , or coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(d) Promising employees wage increases or any other
economic benefits to refrain from continuing to seek or to
support the above-named or any other Union as their
bargaining representative.
(e) Announcing and granting wage increases to induce
the employees to refrain from continuing to seek and to
support the above-named or any other Union as their
bargaining representative
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form , join , or assist the above-named
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by the provisos in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively in
good faith with Retail, Wholesale & Department Store
Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the above-described appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in
a signed agreement any understanding reached
(b) Offer to Georgia Jordan and Annie O. Gibson
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by
reason of their unlawful discharge in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
HANCOCK FABRIC OUTLET, INC.
(d) Post at its Mobile, Alabama, store copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix "Z° Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 25
"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 said Regional Director, 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
WE WILL NOT discharge any employees or
discriminate in any other manner against any of our
employees because of their union activities or for
antiunion reasons.
WE WILL NO' I promise to give, announce , or grant
wage increases or any other economic benefits to induce
our employees to refrain from having a union as their
bargaining representative.
259
WE WILL NOT make unilateral changes in wages or
working conditions without first notifying and
consulting with the exclusive collective -bargaining
representative of our employees ' own choosing
WE W11 1, NOT ask employees about their union
membership or sympathies or those of other of our
employees.
WE WILL recognize and bargain with Retail,
Wholesale & Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of all our employees in our
Mobile, Alabama, store in the following appropriate
unit
All full-time and regular part - time employees
employed at our Mobile, Alabama retail store,
excluding professional employees , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL offer to Georgia Jordan and Annie 0
Gibson immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed and we will make each of them
whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered
by reason of their discriminatory discharge with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce any of our employees in the exercise
of their nghts guaranteed under the Act to assist
Retail , Wholesale & Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization or to engage
in concerted protected activities
Dated By
HANCOCK FABRIC
OU-I LET, INC
(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, T6024 Federal
Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Lousiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361