Heck's, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 951 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

HECK'S, INC.
Heck 's, Inc. and Food Store Employees Union Local
No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-4429
March 3, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On May 29, 1968, Trial Examiner James T.
Barker issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations
be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel, and
the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs'
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as modified herein.'
The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's findings that the
poll conducted by Respondent on September 12,
1967, was not in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, that as a result of such poll Respondent had a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority when
On October 7, 1968 , the Charging Party filed a Motion to Reopen
Record for Further Hearing The motion is hereby denied as being without
merit
in the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt , the findings of the Trial
Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(I) of the Act by
threatening its employees concerning their union activities, by threatening
employees with discharge should they execute a union authorization card
or otherwise engage in union activities , by informing employees that a
former employee who had engaged in union activities had been discharged
[for stealing ] and urging an employee to so inform fellow employees, by
requesting an employee to inform management concerning the union
activities of other employees , and by instructing employees to abstain from
contact or association with union representatives We also find , as did tht.
Trial Examiner , that the Union possessed a majority of valid designations
and accordingly possessed authorizations of a majority of the unit
employees at the time the Union made its demand for recognition by the
Respondent The Trial Examiner erroneously recapitulated the number of
valid union designation cards as 22 However, we find that the Union, at
such time, possessed 23 valid cards We note that the Trial Examiner in
the last sentence of the final paragraph on page 5 of his Decision
inadvertently referred to Haddad instead of Darnall His Decision, is
corrected accordingly
951
Respondent declined recognition on September 12,
1967, and that Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(5) We find merit in these exceptions.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
criteria set forth in Struksnes Construction Co.,
Inc.,3 are the proper measure for determining the
validity of an employer conducted poll and in that
decision the Board stated, inter alia, that a poll of
employees concerning their support for a union
would be lawful only if the employer had not
engaged in unfair labor practices.' Here, however,
the record clearly establishes, and it was so found by
the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent engaged in
acts violative of Section 8(a)(1) by illegal
interrogation, threats of discharge, and surveillance
which were committed by the Respondent during its
continuous campaign against organization by the
Union prior to September 12, 1967 - the date of
the polling.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner we find it
irrelevant with respect to the legality of the poll that
the unlawful Section 8(a)(1) conduct, which has not
been remedied occurred about 3 months prior to the
balloting. Consequently, as the safeguards
established by the Struksnes decision were not fully
complied with, we find that Respondent's polling of
its employees on September 12, 1967, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
The rule in Struksnes was adopted after due
consideration of our past experience and with a view
of protecting employees' rights as well as the
legitimate interests of the employer under the Act.
Accordingly, we determined that the purposes of the
Act would be best served by adopting a rule that
provides that the polling of employees by an
employer is, absent unusual circumstances, violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act unless the enumerated
safeguards, which are in the conjunctive, have been
fully observed by the employer. Thus, where the
employer elects to resort to the polling method of
ascertaining his employees' union sympathies, such
poll is presumed to be violative of the Act and the
burden is upon the employer to establish that he has
observed all of such required safeguards and thereby
lawful In simple language an employer who resorts
to the poll must come to it with clean hands
'165 NLRB No 102
'in Struksnes we stated the applicable rule to be as follows Absent
unusual circumstances , the polling of employees by an employer will be
violative of Section 8(a)(1) unless the following safeguards are observed
(1) the purpose of the poll is to determine the truth of a union ' s claim of
majority , ( 2) this purpose is communicated to the employees, (3)
assurances against reprisal are given , (4) the employees are polled by secret
ballot, and (5) the employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices or
otherwise created a coercive atmosphere
'See also Heck 's Inc, 159 NLRB 1151, enfd 387 F 2d 65 (C A 4),
wherein the Board and the court found the Respondent ' s polling to be
unlawful and Heck 's, Inc , 171 NLRB No 112, and Heck's, Inc, 172
NLRB No 225 , all showing that the Respondent ' s labor relations policy at
all its stores is based, in part , upon rejection of the concept of freedom of
choice by employees with respect to selection of a collective - bargaining
agent
174 NLRB No. 138
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We are here faced with the overall record of this
Respondent showing continual engagement in
impermissible interrogation, surveillance,'
discharges, and illegal polls, nearly all of which are
unremedied, a record permeated throughout with
constant evidence of company antipathy toward the
Union together with a single overall established
labor policy that flagrantly opposes the provisions of
the Act. As we stated in a recent decision involving
the same Respondent:
We cannot at this time, overlook a course of
conduct engaged in by this Employer on a
companywide scale. The Board has, in eight
different cases found this Employer has violated
the Act. The violations have included polling
similar to that in the instant case, threats,
interrogation, and discriminatory discharges. The
Respondent operates several retail stores, all
located in western West Virginia, and nearby
Ashland, Kentucky and most, if not all, of these
stores have been the site of unlawful conduct.
Employees at all stores receive a monthly
company publication, which, on occasion, has
been utilized to comment upon union
organizational developments. President Haddad
actively participated in conduct found to be
unlawful in five of the cases set forth in footnote
5, although not in the instant case Vice-president
Darnall has engaged in unlawful conduct in five of
these cases, and has again engaged in unlawful
conduct in the present case. [Citations omitted.]
It is clear that the Respondent has the same
labor relations policy affecting all employees at
all of its stores, and this policy is based, in part,
on opposition to the freedom of choice by its
employees in regard to collective bargaining. It is
also apparent that the company newsletter, the
proximity of the stores, and the active
participation of top company officials in carrying
out this illegal labor policy, all have the effect of
emphasizing individual incidents of unlawful
conduct. The repetition of conduct which had
earlier been found unlawful at this same store and
to many of the same employees further indicates a
disregard for the policies of the Act, and the
impact of such repeated conduct therefore is much
greater than in the initial incident [Citations
omitted.]'
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that,
in the circumstances, the Respondent's poll was
'We would generally find, under circumstances that do not exist here,
that a secret ballot was an important factor favoring the legitimacy of an
employer ' s poll, but where an employer has engaged in surveillance efforts,
as is the case here , the veil of secrecy becomes meaningless since the vote
merely informs the employer as to the degree he must extend his
surveillance efforts to root out employees seeking to exercise their rights
guaranteed by the Act Further , in reviewing this Respondent ' s past history
in conducting polls of its employees it is clearly evident that our Blue Flash
decision made no impression on Respondent , and we are constrained to
believe that Struksnes made no more impression , except possibly to be
used as another vehicle by Respondent to gain an illegal objective
'Heck 's Inc , 171 NLRB No 112
taken in a coercive atmosphere created by the
Respondent, thus failing to meet another standard
required by Struksnes.
We find, that as the poll was unlawful it cannot
be used to establish the Respondent's good-faith
doubt concerning the Union's majority status.
Therefore, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that the Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union
on September 12 and thereafter was not based on a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority' status.
Consequently, as the Union represented a majority
of the Respondent's employees at times relevant, we
further find that the refusal to recognize the union
was unlawful within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act
It having been found that the Respondent refused
to bargain and continues to refuse to bargain in
good faith with the Union, which represents a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, it
will be ordered that the Respondent recognize and
bargain, upon request, in good faith with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
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,
Heck's. Inc , Kanawha City, West Virginia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified below.
1. Delete paragraph 5 of the Trial Examiner's
Conclusions of Law and substitute therefor the
following:
"5 By refusing since September 12, 1967, to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act "
2. Add the following as paragraph 1(c) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order:
"(c) Refusing to bargain concerning rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment with Food Store Employees Union,
Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all employees in its
Kanawha City, West Virginia, store, including office
clerical employees, but excluding the store manager,
assistant store manager, and all guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act."
3. Add the following as paragraph 2(a) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and reletter
the following paragraphs accordingly
HECK'S, INC. 953
"(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good
faith with Food Store Employees Union, Local 347,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all employees of the Respondent in
its Kanawha City, West Virginia, store, including
office clerks, but excluding guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement."
4. Add the following paragraph as the first
indented paragraph of the notice
WE WILL recognize and WE WILL bargain in
good faith, upon request, with Food Store
Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment,
and, it' an understanding is reached, embody it in
a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is.
All employees at our Kanawha City, West
Virginia, store, including office clerks, but
excluding guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner Upon a charge filed
on September 12 by Food Store Employees' Union, Local
347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the
Union, the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for Region 9 on November 30, 1967,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the
Act
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at
Charleston, West Virginia, on January 16, 17, and 18,
1968. All parties were represented at the hearing, were
accorded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce
relevant evidence and to file briefs with me The
Respondent filed a brief on February 23 and on February
26 the General Counsel filed a brief with me
Upon the entire record in this case' and after due
consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and of
the Respondent, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a West Virginia corporation maintaining
'The transcript of the first 2 days of hearing in this case contained
manifold errors in the recordation of colloquy between counsel inter se and
between counsel and the Trial Examiner No motion to correct the record
has been filed and no error affecting substantive findings pertaining to the
merits of the case are apparent As the colloquy, read in context of the
record, is sufficient to apprise the reader of the record of the general intent
and purport of the inaccurately recorded exchanges, I shall order no
correction of the record
a principal office at Nitro, Kanawha County, West
Virginia, and is engaged in the retail department store
business at various locations in West Virginia and
Kentucky.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, Respondent in the course
and conduct of its business operations had a gross volume
of retail sales in excess of $500,000. During the same
12-month period, Respondent had direct inflow of
merchandise, in interstate commerce, valued in excess of
$50,000, which was purchased and shipped directly to it in
West Virginia from points outside the State of West
Virginia.
Upon the foregoing admitted facts, I find that
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an
employer engaged in operations affecting commerce as
defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Food Store Employees Union, Local 347,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO , is admitted to be a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
and so find.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
The principle issues in this case are whether
Respondent (1) in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act unlawfully for the purpose of undermining the
Union interrogated its employees concerning their union
activities and conducted a poll among them to ascertain
their union sympathies, (2) in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act constructively discharged employee
Chessie Eplin, and (3) in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act refused to grant recognition to the Union and to
meet with its agents The latter issue involves the further
questions of the appropriateness of the unit in which the
Union requested bargaining, the Union's numerical
majority in the unit and the existence of Respondent's
good-faith doubt as to the Union's numerical majority
B Pertinent Facts
1. Prefactory facts
At relevant times Respondent has operated 10 retail
stores in the States of Kentucky and West Virginia all
within a 200-mile radius of Respondent's Charleston,
West Virginia, central office Single, separate stores are
located in the State of Kentucky, and in St Albans,
Parkersburg, Clarksburg, Wheeling, and Morgantown,
West Virginia. Two stores are located in Huntington and
Charlestown, West Virginia. Additionally, Respondent
operates eight Heck's Jr 's, health and beauty aid stores
and a warehouse t Fred Haddad is president and general
manager of Respondent and Roy 0 Darnall is vice
president Respondent's Kanawha City store, situated in
the environs of Charleston, West Virginia, and the only
'The General Counsel contends a unit of all Respondent's Kanawha City
store employees is appropriate while Respondent asserts that only the 10
Heck's retail stores constitute an appropriate bargaining unit
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
store here in issue, is managed by General Triplett At
times pertinent Naomi Marie Gibson was a department
head in the Kanawha City store.
2 The Union's organization campaign
During the early summer of 1967, the Union undertook
an organizational campaign among Respondent's
employees employed at the Kanawha City store.
Authorization cards were distributed among the employees
and at the hearing the General Counsel introduced 25
authorization cards assertedly executed by employees in
the unit Fourteen of the cards bear various dates in June
As of September 7, - the date of the Union's bargaining
demand - 45 individuals were employed at Respondent's
Kanawha City store. However, the General Counsel would
exclude, as a supervisor, Ernestean Woods and, on the
other hand, Respondent would exclude as a supervisor
Cha'sie Eplin 3 Moreover, the parties are in dispute with
respect to the unit placement and September 7 eligibility
of Jack White and Jean Price. The General Counsel
would exclude these individuals while the Respondent
would include them
Further, the Respondent would invalidate the
authorization cards of Charlotte King, Kay Ferrell, and
Connie Cook on the grounds that they were obtained by
threats and coercion on the part of union representatives
who solicited their signatures.
The authorization cards of Madge Hicks, David
Tapley, Alice Chafin, Glenda Walker, and Darrel
Coleman were received in evidence upon their respective
authenticating testimony '
Additionally, authorization cards were solicited from
unit employees by union representatives, Brooks, Gunnoe,
Skaggs, and Saunders. Each of the aforesaid union
representatives testified to having witnessed the execution
of the cards which they authenticated The authorization
card of Majorie Steele was thus authenticated by Brooks;
the cards of L. M Thomas, Kay Ferrell, Gertrude Cool,
James Cox, Dean Cregger, and Connie Cook were
obtained and authenticated by Gunnoe; those of Dottie
Holstein, Martha Whittington, and Esta Lucas were
obtained by Ronnie Skaggs; and the cards of Donald
Smolder, Jose Rose Lutz, Charlotte King, Shirley Price,
Leonard Hager, Goldie Covey, Chessie Eplin, Ardenna
Epling, and Tommy Jerrell were obtained by Saunders.'
3. The Alleged Interrogation of Employees
a The alleged interrogation of Shirley Hicks
I By Naomi Gibson
Madge Hicks testified that in mid June after the union
organizational campaign had commenced but before she
had signed her authorization card she conversed with
Naomi Marie Gibson, department head of the clothing
department in which Hicks worked Gibson stated that
'The Respondent contends that in any event Eplin terminated her
employment on July 31, by refusing to accept a transfer to another store in
the chain
'David Tapley credibly testified that he executed his authorization card
on June 7, 1967 He testified , however, that he originally dated the card
June 6 , but observed the error in date and made the correction himself by
striking over the numeral 6 and inserting the numeral 7
'The eligibility list stipulated into evidence by the parties does not
contain the name of Tommy Jerrell A Christie Terrell is listed among the
unit employees but there is no record evidence to suggest that Tommy and
Christie Jerrell are one and the same person
Hicks' name and that of employee Glenna Walker were
listed in the office as having joined the Union Hicks
disclaimed having joined and the conversation that
followed became acrimonious. Hicks asserted that those
individuals who had informed Gibson were "lying."
Gibson asserted that she was not lying and invited Hicks
to go to the office to state her views to Manager Triplett
According to Hicks she did so and upon conversing with
Triplett recounted to him her conversation with Gibson.
Triplett answered that he did not think that either Hicks
or Walker had joined the Union and stated that he
appreciated this. He expressed his thanks to Hicks
Thereupon Hicks returned to the clothing department
and Gibson told her to be certain to let Chessie Eplin
know that her name was in the office also.
Hicks testified that she again conversed with Mrs
Gibson in mid June in the clothing department. Employee
Barbara Daniels was also present In the presence of
Hicks, Gibson asked Barbara Daniels if she had joined the
Union and stated that anyone that joined the Union would
be fired. Daniels answered that she had not joined and
Hicks interjected that she had not joined Hicks testified
that Gibson said that "was good because they would all be
fired "
2. By President Haddad
Hicks further testified that 2 or 3 days later, in June,
she conversed with President Fred Haddad. The
conversation transpired in the clothing department. Hicks
informed Haddad that she and Glenda Walker had been
accused of joining the Union She stated to Haddad that
neither of them had signed authorization cards and further
said that the blank cards were in her pocket if Haddad
wanted them In response, according to the testimony of
Hicks, Haddad said, "Don't ever double cross rae "
According to Hicks, Haddad added that he could "'get
rid" of her if he desired to do so by falsely accusing ,her of
taking store merchandise Additionally, according to
Hicks, Haddad emphasized to Hicks that she should
remember that it was she who brought up the matter of
the Union. Haddad continued that he could find out about
the employees' union activities because management had
received four or five telephone calls concerning a former
employee When Hicks observed that employee had quit
his employment Haddad said, "Do you think that he quit
by choice)"
Hicks further testified that still later in June she had a
further conversation with Haddad in tht^ clothing
department Haddad approached Hicks and asked if "the
men had talked to [her] anymore." He stated t`iat he was
getting a list the next day of those who had signed union
cards
Hicks further testified that on September 12 when she
reported to the lounge to participate in the poll that was
conducted that day, she was approached by Darnall who
stated that management had heard that she and Glenda
Walker had voted for the Union to represent the
employees. Darnall endeavored to convince Hicks that she
should vote for the Company in the upcoming poll. Hicks
observed "there has to be a Democrat and a Republican "
In response Darnall said "this is no vote " Four or five
other employees were assembled at this time. Hicks
further testified that soon thereafter she voted in the
company election and that as she entered the room to cast
her ballot Darnall observed her from a vartage point of
approximately 2 feet away actually mark her ballot She
testified however that during the prior balloting of the
HECK'S, INC. 955
employees she observed Darnall standing with his back to
the balloting employees.
The management representatives assertedly involved in
the conversations with Hicks each deny having conversed
with her concerning the Union or in the manner which
Hicks asserts they spoke to her
Specifically, Gibson testified that her only discussion of
the Union or union cards occurred when she remarked to
Hicks that she had heard Hicks had "signed a card," She
testified that she had worked with Hicks, considered her a
friend and had heard Hicks speak adversely about unions
generally. Gibson further testified that when she told
Hicks of what she had heard, Hicks became angry and
denied having signed. Accordingly, Gibson observed that
she "believed" if she had not signed a card she would tell
Manager Triplett so.
Gibson denies all other aspects of Hicks' testimony.
I am convinced that the version of Gibson relating to
her initial, mid-June conversation with Hicks is a
rationalized one and that the exchange was as testified to
by Hicks Although Hicks impressed me as bearing
hostility to the Company and as being not all together
dispassionate in her views, she impressed me as a
believable witness with respect to these conversations with
Gibson Further, Gibson's remarks to Hicks are not
unlike those she made to employee Walker, as found
below.
Moreover, I credit Hicks with respect to the later
conversation wherein Barbara Daniels was present
Similarly, I credit Hicks' testimony with respect to the
two separate mid-June conversations with Haddad, but I
am unable to accept her version of the alleged September
12 exchange with Haddad Initially, I am convinced that
the circumstances were not such as to have conduced to or
have permitted Haddad to converse with her in the
manner she asserted he did Further, upon advice of
counsel, Haddad was endeavoring to conduct the poll in
keeping with Board standards and it is doubtful that he
would have jeopardized this objective for so marginal a
gain .1 do not credit Hicks in this regard nor do I accept
this testimony that Haddad observed her mark her ballot
He appears to have otherwise endeavored to accord
secrecy to other balloting employees and I am not
convinced that Hicks was an exception
b The alleged restraint of Glenna Walker
Glenna Walker testified that in early June during the
course of the Union's organizational campaign and while
she was on vacation, Gibson called her by telephone at her
home and stated that the union representatives were going
to the homes of employees and if they came to her home
that Hicks should not let them in.' Gibson also further
observed that the union representatives were frequenting
the store and that Walker should not talk with them at
the store.
After returning from vacation in mid-June Gibson
again spoke with Walker in the department Union
Organizer Ronnie Skaggs went by as Walker and Gibson
were conversing and Walker observed that Skaggs was
"good looking." In response Gibson said, "Not if you
knew about him what I do " Walker asked Gibson what
she meant and Gibson did not answer. However Gibson
stated that Walker should inform Madge Hicks not to
converse with Skaggs Gibson added that it was all right
'Walker testified that a few days before the call Union Representative
Charles Saunders had been to her home
for Eplin to talk with him but that she did not want either
Walker or Hicks to do so.
As the conversation proceeded Walker asked Gibson
what she should do if the union representatives visiting the
store desired to have an employee wait on them Gibson
answered, "They never buy anything "
Gibson denies having engaged in the aforesaid
conversations with Walker However, I credit Walker who
impressed me as a truthful witness whose testimony was
unaffected by bias or interest Moreover, Gibson's conduct
is consistent with her conceded concern over employee
interest in the Union
c. The alleged conversations with David Tapley
1 The Southern Kitchen
Employee David Tapley testified that in mid-June he
was summoned over the public address system to come to
the office of Manager Triplett He was asked by Triplett
if he knew anything about the Union Tapley testified that
he answered in the affirmative and Triplett thereupon gave
him a $1.50 to buy a meal at a nearby restaurant known
as Southern Kitchen As a prelude to proffering the
money to Tapley, Triplett asked Tapley if he would like
to eat lunch. Upon receiving an affirmative reply Triplett
said that he wanted Tapley to go to the Southern Kitchen
and see if he could find out anything about the Union
Triplett advised Tapley that if it were necessary to get in a
conversation with union representatives that he should do
so Tapley testified that he went to the Southern Kitchen
and no union representative was there and he reported this
to Triplett
Tapley further testified that 2 days later essentially the
same events transpired except that he went to the
Southern Kitchen and saw two union representatives
there. However, he reported to Triplett that he had seen
no one
Triplett denied having conversed with Tapley
concerning the Union or having asked him if he knew
anything about the Union. He denies having requested
Tapley to undertake a surveillance or inquiry into the
union activities of the union representatives or of
employees but asserts, in substance, that he had
confidence in Tapley as an employee and that, as a
consequence, he took him into his confidence and
requested that Tapley observe and inform him of the
activities of fellow employees on their breaks and in the
performance of their work tasks Triplett testified that he
made this request of Tapley in furtherance of his efforts to
maintain an even distribution of the workload and to
maintain efficient operations. Moreover, Triplett testified
that it was practice at the store to maintain a lunch fund
and that it was the prerogative of managers to have their
meals at the store and to send an employee to the
Southern Kitchen to obtain lunch for them. He testified
that he had on occasions sent Tapley to the Southern
Kitchen to obtain lunch for him and had similarly
dispatched other employees Triplett testified that in
compensation to the employees who served them in this
manner it was frequent practice to give them a dollar and
suggest that they get themselves some lunch
2. The Skaggs discharge discussed
Tapley further testified that in early July, he conversed
with Triplett at the store concerning Ronnie Skaggs. On
this occasion, according to Tapley, Triplett asked him if
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he knew Skaggs and Tapley answered that he did
Thereupon Triplett asked Tapley if he knew why Skaggs
had been dismissed from the "Heck's Organization "
Tapley stated that he did not and Triplett asserted that
Skaggs had been accused of stealing '
Thereafter the conversation turned to the Union and
Triplett requested that Tapley convey the information
which he had given him about Skaggs to other employees
He counseled Tapley to interject this information into his
conversations with other employees. The conversation then
continued concerning the Union and Triplett stated that
he had worked around unions in the coal fields and that
he knew how the unions operated He stated that he did
not think the Union would be a fair union
General Triplett testified that he did converse with
Tapley during the first week of August concerning Ronald
Skaggs He testified that the conversation was initiated by
Tapley and other employees and that Tapley was
commenting about what a "nice guy the Company had
discharged." Triplett answered, "Well, to put it blunt [he
was discharged] for stealing " Triplett denies having
interrogated Tapley concerning his union activities
I credit the testimony of David Tapley concerning these
conversations with General Triplett As I observed
Triplett testified at the hearing, he impressed me as a
reticent witness and his explanation of the Tapley
conversations seemed strained On the other hand, Tapley
testified in a convincing and straightforward manner in
the presence of management representatives 8
3. The "constructive discharge" of Chessie Eplin
Chessie Eplin was employed by Respondent initially on
September 25, 1965 and continued in Respondent's
employ until July 31, 1967 Eplin commenced her
employment at Respondent's St Albans store and within
a few days was transferred to Respondent's Washington
Street store in Charleston, West Virginia. She worked at
the Washington Street store until the Kanawha City store
opened in August 1965 From August 1965 until July 31,
1967 Eplin worked continuously at the Kanawha City
store
Eplin credibly testified that within 2 or 3 months after
commencing her employment at the Charleston store she
was made department head of the toy department Upon
her transfer to the Kanawha City store she continued in
this capacity until April 1967 at which time the toy
department was combined with the housewares
department and the consolidated department was placed
under the direction of Jerry Coon who, prior to the
consolidation, had been department head of the
housewares department.
Eplin testified that as department head of the toy
department she was charged with the responsibility of
assigning employees their hours of work and that she
maintained the markdown book and checked merchandise
Eplin testified that approximately 8 months a year as
'At the time of the above - alleged conversation Ronald Skaggs was
serving as a representative of the Union
'In evaluating the credibility of Tapley ' s testimony the record reflects
that Tapley testified that in conversing with Fredrick Holroyd a few days
prior to the hearing he informed Holroyd that no company representative
had discussed the Union with him nor had they threatened him When
confronted with a signed affidavit to this effect which was taken by
Holroyd from Tapley on the occasion of this interview , Tapley conceded
the signed affidavit was to the same effect , but explained that he
considered himself not to have been " threatened " This minor disparity is a
little weight in evaluating the accuracy of Tapley ' s testimony
department head she had working under her in the toy
department one employee Commencing the month of
September or October this complement was increased to
take care of the Christmas holiday demands The
Christmas season complement numbered six to eight
employees As a department head Eplin attended
department head meetings
After the consolidation of the toy department with the
housewares department Eplin remained on salary but did
no scheduling or assigning of hours for other department
employees However, soon after the consolidation she was
requested by Store Manager Triplett to attend department
head meetings and she refused to do so, asserting that as
she was no longer a department head she would not attend
the meetings
The normal complement of employees in the combined
toy and houseware department during non-Christmas
periods numbered approximately seven or eight After the
consolidation of departments Jerry Coon, the new
department head, worked on a shift different from that
worked by Eplin Eplin testified that the three other
employees with whom she worked on her shift would work
together with her in the performance of their duties and
that if any questions arose concerning work in the
department on their shift they would seek advice from
Manager Triplett or his assistant, George Cassis
Ray Darnall, vice president of Respondent, testified
credibly that a determination was made prior to April
1967, in consultation with Fred Haddad, president of
Respondent, to consolidate the toy and houseware
departments in all of Respondent's stores, including the
Kanawha City store He further testified credibly that at
the time of the consolidation decision there were, in most
of the stores, separate department heads of the toy and
the houseware departments He further testified that as a
consequence of the consolidation the deposed department
heads were maintained on a standby basis awaiting a now
store opening or a department head vacancy which might
arise as a consequence of a termination. Specifically,
Darnall testified that Chessie Eplin remained as a standby
department head, on salary, awaiting just such an
eventuality '
The credited testimony of Triplett and Cassis reveals
that Triplett, in the presence of Cassis, informed Eplin of
the decision to consolidate the departments He further
informed her that she would no longer be department
head of the toy department However, Triplett told her
that in the event another department head job became
available she would be given consideration for the job if
she were qualified to fill it Specifically, Triplett
mentioned the possibility Eplin would be consideied for a
job opening at another store should one arise 1s
'The credited testimony of record also reveals that in addition to the
consolidation of the toy and housewares department at the same point in
time the decision to consolidate the jewelry and sporting goods
departments of the Respondent 's stores was also made and that the same
personnel policy was followed with respect to the deposed departments
heads of those combined departments
"The testimony of Triplett, Cassis and Eplm reveals that at this
interview Eplin was informed that she would be given a department head',
job when one came available The testimony of Triplett was to the effect
that the job opening would be at another store and the testimony of Eplin
revealed that Triplett mentioned the possibility of a new store being opened
with the resultant possibility of the transfer of Eplin to that store
I credit the testimony of Triplett and Cassis that Triplett and not Cassis,
as Eplin on direct examination testified, informed Eplin of the
consolidation of departments
HECK'S, INC.
In late April, after the consolidation, Triplett informed
Eplin of his desire that she attend a department head
meeting that was to be held In requesting her attendance
he told her of the need at that meeting for information
which she could supply the department heads and
managerial personnel attending the meeting She informed
Triplett that she would not attend the meeting and did not
do so.
As a consequence on April 26, Triplett recorded the
substance of this interview in a supervisory report and
thereafter spoke with Ray Darnall concerning Eplin's
refusal to attend the meeting.
George Cassis testified that he instructed Eplin of the
desire of management that she continue to attend
department head meetings However, she refused to attend
asserting that she was no longer a department head ii
Darnall thereafter met with Eplin and informed her
that he had received several calls from Triplett concerning
Eplin's refusal to attend department head meetings and
her failure to perform the work that had been set forth for
her to do Darnall informed Eplin that so far as
management was concerned she was still a department
head and was expected to do the work that was assigned
to her. In response Eplin denied that she remained a
department head and Darnall pointed out to her that the
Company considered her to be in this category; that she
was still salaried and that her salary had not been cut
from the level that she had received while acting in the
capacity of department head of the toy department.
Darnall informed Eplin that she still had duties to
perform and that the Compaiiy expected her to carry out
those duties.
Documentary evidence of record reveals that on or
slightly before May 23 Triplett advised Darnall that Eplin
should be transferred from his jurisdiction at the Kanawha
City store to another store
Eplin testified that in late May or early June she was
visited at her home by two union representatives who
spoke with her concerning the Union and left a union
authorization card with her. They returned a few days
later and she signed the card Thereafter, she spoke with a
few fellow employees concerning the Union and held a
meeting at her home which was attended by Messers
Gunnoe and Skaggs and other employees, including
Glenna Walker, Madge Hicks and Gertrude Cool 12
"The testimony of George Cassis at the hearing is supported by a
document dated May 12 entered in evidence which he testified he prepared
as a report to Manager Triplett on the incident The authenticity of this
document was not convincingly placed in dispute and I rely upon that
document as supportive of Cassis ' oral testimony of record
" I do not credit the testimony of Eplin to the effect that in late June,
Darnall called her to his office and there apologized for not having
informed her of the consolidation of the departments and then made
adverse statements concerning the Union Neither do I credit the testimony
of Eplin to the effect that during that conversation Darnall inquired if she
desired to accept a transfer to the St Albans store
Moreover , I do not credit the testimony of Eplin to the effect that on
the evening of the aforesaid conversation she conversed with President
Haddad wherein her pending transfer was discussed and wherein she was
interrogated concerning the execution of an authorization card and the
identity of employee supporters of the Union Moreover , I do not credit
Eplin ' s testimony that during this conversation Haddad made threats
implying her subsequent discharge in the event she were found to be a
supporter of the Union or a card signer
Both Darnall and Haddad deny the comments attributed to them by
Eplin and I credit them Ephn impressed me as a witness whose testimony
was affected by her subjected involvement in the outcome of the
proceeding and who tended to inaccuracies as evidenced by her
ambivalence with respect to her first awareness of the pendency of a
transfer to St Albans store and by her inaccurate testimony with respect
957
Ray Darnall testified that in mid-July a decision was
reached to separate the combined housewares and toy
departments and to return them to their former separate
status as department He further testified that as a partial
consequence of this action a decision was made to transfer
Chessie Eplin to the St. Albans store to assume the
position of department head of the toy department at that
store Darnall further testified that this decision to
transfer Eplin was predicated, in part, upon a need for her
services at the St Albans store and, in part, upon the
changed attitude toward her work which she had displayed
commencing with the earlier consolidation of the toy and
housewares department."
On Monday, July 31, Triplett called Eplin to his office
and informed her of the decision to transfer her to the St
Albans store as a department head. Eplin informed
Triplett that she did not desire the department head's job
as she could not afford to drive the distance from her
home to the St. Albans store Eplin requested that she be
permitted to speak with Darnall concerning the proposed
transfer and, in Eplin's presence, Triplett contacted
Darnall by telephone and an arrangement was made for
Eplin to meet with Darnall at Darnall's office
Eplin spoke with Darnall during the afternoon of July
31. At the outset of the conversation Eplin requested to
know the reason for he. transfer to the St. Albans store
Darnall answered that there existed a need for her at the
St Albans store and that the Company could not afford
to retain her at Kanawha City store at her present salary.
Eplin answered that she did not desire to serve as a
department head and that she could not afford to drive
the distance from her home to the St Albans store
Darnall answered that it was at the St. Albans store that
the Company had a need for her services and that if she
would like to consider the matter for 2 or 3 days she
could do so He assured her that he would keep the job
open for her pending her decision In further explanation
of the need for Eplin's services at St. Albans Darnall
explained that her knowledge of the toy department was
superior to that of the individual who was then serving in
the capacity of department head at the St Albans store.
Darnall emphasized that Eplin had done a good job for
the Company and that he desired her to accept the
transfer He indicated that the choice was not Eplin's to
make but that the vacancy existed at the St. Albans store
and he could not retain Eplin at the Kanawha City store
Eplin offered to take a cut in wages to remain at the
Kanawha City store but Darnall asserted that the
Company needed her at the St Albans store At this point
in the conversation Eplin stated that the reason Darnall
was transferring her from the Kanawha City store was
because of her union activities and because she had signed
a union card Darnall answered that this had not been a
factor in his determination The conversation ended on
this note and Eplin left Darnall's office Eplin did not
to the identity of the individual who first informed her of the consolidation
of departments and the timing of the advisory As she had been earlier
informed of the consolidation which had transpired nearly 2 months
earlier, it is unlikely that Darnall would have dwelled upon this matter in
his conversation Moreover, I am convinced that as Respondent had at the
time of the conversation , reached the decision to transfer Eplin, Haddad,
knowledgeable in labor matters , would not have made the remarks
attributed to him thus placing the transfer in jeopardy of being viewed as a
discriminatory one
"in this regard General Triplett testified credibly that he had difficulty
communicating with Eplin following the consolidation Eplin's own
testimony reveals that she refused to attend department head meetings as
requested and that she did not view the consolidation with equanimity
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
return to work at the Kanawha City store and did not
report the next day for duty The Respondent became
aware of her decision to terminate her employment when
it received a notice that Eplin had applied for
unemployment compensation
Eplin testified that had she accepted the transfer to the
St Albans store her present cost of transportation would
have increased from $30 per month to $60 per month and
that the travel time from her home to place of work
would have doubled, increasing from 45 minutes to an
hour and a half for a one-way trip
Eplin testified that after the consolidation of the toy
and housewares department the employees in the
consolidated department worked on rotating shifts. The
hours of the day shift were from 10 a m. to 4 p m , except
on Thursday, Friday and Saturday when the hours were
from 10 a.m. to 6 p m. The evening shift hours were from
4 p.m to 10 p.m The employees worked I week on the
day shift and the following week on the evening shift and,
in this manner, rotated each week
Eplin testified that in early July she was on vacation.
She returned to work on Tuesday, July 18'
The first week of work following her vacation Eplin
worked on the day shift On Monday, July 24 Triplett
informed her that she should report to work on the
evening shift Eplin protested that she should properly be
on the day shift and Triplett said that he would check
with Jerry Coon, the departmental head, and in the
meantime he informed Eplin that she should continue to
work on the day shift "
Eplin testified that Triplett further informed her during
this conversation that he was going to have an employee
named Helen learn the toy department and Ernestean
Woods learn the work of the housewares department
Eplin protested that this was going to interfere with her
work transportation arrangements because she "shared
rides " Triplett responded that this made no difference
and, in substance, told her business demands took
precedence Eplin testified that she reported to work the
following day again on the day shift
4. The Union's bargaining demand
On the night of September 7, 1967, the Union sent a
telegram to Respondent , addressed to President Haddad,
demanding recognition and claiming majority status.
On September 8, Jack Brooks and Gunnoe called at
Respondent ' s store and met with General Triplett, store
manager Gunnoe informed Triplett that the Union
represented a majority of the employees in the store unit.
He requested that the Union be accorded recognition and
that the Company bargain with the Union on behalf of
"Eplin testified that she returned to work from her vacation on July 18
In support of this testimony she produced a calendar which she testified
she maintained at home Although , in her earlier testimony she lacked
certitude as to the date of her return from vacation and placed it as being
"around the 18th," she testified convincingly that her day off fell on
Monday and her first day of work following her vacation was a Tuesday
This testimony does not convincingly negate the validity of a personnel
report dated July 17, relating to a conversation between Eplin and Triplett
Triplett testified that he recorded the substance of personnel interviews in
written form as time and opportunity provided Although an elapse of
more than 2 weeks ' time seems excessive, it is in the realm of possibility
and finds possible explanation in the effort of Triplett to memorialize in
the file his difficulties with Eplin prior to the actual effectuation of her
transfer , which had been decided upon
"Eplm's explanation of this rotation and instruction is confused and
intrinsicly inconsistent However , the foregoing comports with the essence
of her testimony
the employees Brooks further asserted that they were
appearing as representatives of the employees and
reiterated the desire of the Union for recognition and
collective bargaining Triplett answered that this matter
was not within the province of his authority and suggested
that they write a letter to President Haddad Triplett
asserted that his responsibility was to run the store and to
make a profit He stated that he did not desire individuals
from outside coming into the store and telling him how to
run the store. Brooks asked Triplett if he doubted the
Union's majority and Triplett stated, "No, we are not
concerned with that. We are just concerned with running
the store." In context with this discussion, Gunnoe held
out authorization cards that he had in his hand and asked
Triplett if he desired to check the cards to prove the
majority. Triplett declined. He reiterated that Brooks and
Gunnoe should contact the office.16
Thereafter on September 11 Sherwood Spencer,
secretary-treasurer of the Union, sent the following letter
to Fred Haddad, president and general manager of
Respondent
On Thursday September 7, 1967, I sent you a
telegram requesting recognition and bargaining for all
the eligible employees in your Kanawha City store as
had been found to be an appropriate unit in all the
other cases before the National Labor Relations Board
I requested a date to prove our majority status so you
could have no reasonable doubt about our majority
status I had called you earlier that day but you did not
return my call
On Friday, September 8, our representative asked
your store manager for recognition and bargaining for
the employees of that store for the eligible employees in
an appropriate unit Today, our representatives asked
your attorney, Mr Frederick Holroyd, for recognition
and bargaining and offered to present the cards to him
to prove our majority status
Inasmuch as our requests for bargaining and
recognition have not been replied to we are today filing
charges with the Board in Cincinnati, alleging refusal to
bargain along with other violations of other portions of
the law
We are confirming here we do represent the majority
of the employees in a unit which has been found to be
appropriate and are offering you again signed
authorization cards to prove our majority status We
further intend that this be considered a continuing
demand
5 Respondent conducts poll of employees
On September 12 Respondent conducted a ballot
election or poll among its employees wherein the
employees were given the opportunity to mark the
following ballot
SECRET BALLOT
THE FOOD STORE EMPLOYEES UNION
(MEAT CUTTERS) CLAIM THAT THEY
"The foregoing is predicated upon a composite of the credited testimony
of Jack Brooks and General Triplett Brooks ' testimony which is more
detailed in nature than that of Triplett , is credited in its full extent
Triplett's testimony is not, upon careful analysis , inconsistent with the
testimony of Brooks Brooks impressed me as I observed him testify at the
hearing as a credible witness Triplett who testified subsequent to Brooks,
did not offer testimony contradictory of Brooks ' assertion that Gunnoe
offered the authorization cards to Triplett to facilitate a card check of the
Union ' s asserted majority Nor did he refute Brooks' testimony to the
effect that he, Triplett , did not articulate any doubt of the Union's
majority status
HECK'S, INC.
REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES AT THIS STORE IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE IF THIS CLAIM IS VALID,
PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU WANT THE UNION
TO REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR DEALING
WITH HECK'S?
_YES -NO _NO COMMENT
THERE WILL BE NO REPRISALS AGAINST
YOU BY THE UNION OR THE COMPANY
BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS OF THIS BALLOT
DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME
Preceding the September 12 poll or election, Roy
Darnall consulted with his Attorney Fredrick F Holroyd
concerning the Union's demand for recognition During
the consultation the conduct of a secret ballot election was
discussed Holroyd advised Darnall concerning the legality
of such an election and outlined to him the manner in
which it should be conducted Fredrick Holroyd credibly
testified that prior to the election he drafted the language
of the ballot to be subsequently used and he further
testified that the ballots were prepared under his direction
A master copy of the ballot was first prepared and the
ballots were then multilithed On the day of the election
Holroyd inspected the ballots which were to be used in the
election, and determined that those available for use were
exact duplicates of each other and contained the language
above found " He handed the ballots to Darnall who then
proceeded, at approximately 3 p m , to the store lounge,
which is a room adjoining the warehouse and is
approximately 10 feet by 18 feet in dimension The lounge
and the warehouse are separated by a door
In preparation for the election, Darnall selected from
his office a small box and sealed it with scotch tape
leaving a slit in the top for the insertion of ballots. He
took the box to the lounge . Prior to the balloting Darnall
requested two or three employees to inspect the box to
determine that no ballots were in it They did so He
placed pens and pencils on the balloting table
The ballot box was placed on a small table just inside
the door which provides entry into the lounge from the
warehouse First shift employees had been informed by
Assistant Manager Cassis to proceed to the lounge to
participate in the election When they appeared Darnall
informed them that the Union had demanded recognition
and claimed to represent a majority of employees Darnall
stated he was there to conduct a secret ballot election to
determine whether the Company should recognize the
"I am given pause with respect to the above findings by the fact that a
visual inspection of these ballots reveals that on six of the ballots the space
between the disclaimer paragraph and the "yes," "no," and "no comment"
line is less than on the rest of the 42 ballots The General Counsel in his
brief contends that this discloses , contrary to the record testimony, that
these ballots were printed in two stages and that the disclaimer paragraph
was added subsequent to the balloting While the General Counsel is
manifestly correct in his contention that the ballots were not all printed
from the- same master copy, and although there was a difference of
recollection among the employee witnesses as to whether the ballot they
cast contained the disputed paragraph , Attorney Holroyd testified
convincingly under oath that the paragraph was contained on all ballots
used in the poll, and that he retained the ballots in his possession, under
original seal , at all times subsequent to the election and until proffered in
evidence at the hearing In light of the record testimony, I must conclude
that the ballots introduced were the product of two separate reproductions
both of which preceded the balloting
959
Union or not 18
The employees entered the lounge one at a time As
they entered they were handed a ballot by Darnall and
were informed that they were to cast their vote They did
so at a table located in the center of the room While the
employees were balloting Darnall stood at the door which
was ajar, with his back to the balloting employee, facing
the queued employees awaiting their turn to enter the
lounge to ballot."
The night shift employees who commenced work at 4
p m were similarly requested by Cassis to proceed to the
lounge for the purpose of balloting After the balloting
had ceased, at approximately 4 45 p m Darnall sealed the
ballot box with a piece of masking tape and in the
company of an employee proceeded to the office with the
ballot box. Upon reaching the office he requested
employees Sue Lineville and Christie Jarrell to open and
count the ballots contained therein . They did so. Sue
Lineville opened the ballot box and withdrew the ballots
from the box and Christie Jarrell recorded the results on a
piece of yellow lined legal paper Their recordation
revealed 10 "yes" votes, 26 "no" votes, 5 "no comment"
and one blank ballot . Lineville and Jarrell both affixed
their signature to the bottom of the sheet of paper and
indicated the time as 445 dating the paper 2-12-67.
With Fredrick Holroyd present the ballots were then
bound in scotch tape by Sue Lineville and Holroyd took
custody of them He testified credibly that he retained
custody of the sealed ballots until produced in evidence at
the hearing.20
"The testimony of record establishes that this was repeated to each
group prior to balloting
"Roy Darnall testified credibly that during the balloting he turned his
back to the balloting employees and further testified that he personally
handed a ballot to each of the employees as they entered alone into the
lounge for the purpose of voting Glenna Walker and Alice Chafin,
witnesses called by the General Counsel , support Darnall in his testimony
that he turned his back to the balloting employees Darnall's testimony is
contrary to the testimony of employees Hicks, Tapley and Chafin in that it
specifically contradicts their testimony that the ballots were placed on the
balloting table in a pile I credit the testimony of Darnall as supported by
that of Walker I reject that of the three employees I do so not only
because the testimony of Darnall and Walker impressed me as being
accurate but because I am convinced that, in light of the preparations
made for the conduct of this balloting - including legal advice given - it
is inherently implausible to believe that the Respondent would so carelessly
leave to the disposal and acquisitive powers of employees the ballots which
have been prepared
"At the hearing employees Cool, Hicks and McGhee testified that the
ballots which they had cast were not included among those produced at the
hearing Cool testified that in pen she had commenced to make a Y in the
"yes" blank but had scratched it out and had voted "no", Hicks stated
that she had voted "yes" and had folded the ballot in a certain manner,
while McGhee testified that her ballot did not contain the disclaimer of
reprisals language at the bottom of the ballot
As compared with the convincing testimony of Darnall , Lineville and
Holroyd concerning the procedures followed in connection with the
counting and retention of the ballots cast I am unable to credit the
testimony of McGhee concerning her recollection and reject it, partially
out of recognition of the effect upon recall of the passage of time and
partly because in her testimony McGhee showed marked hostility and
antipathy toward the Company The testimony of Hicks concerning her
ballot suffers from the same frailties and, upon my observation of her
testimony at the hearing , I am similarly convinced that she bears such
antipathy toward the Company as to render her not an entirely
dispassionate and disinterested witness
While the testimony of employee Cool stands on firmer grounds, an
evaluation of the ballots indicates that a ballot ultimately marked "yes" is
peculiarly identifiable by the imperfect formation of the first letter "y "
The letter is marred in its formation by seeming horizontal scratches
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the results of the election had been determined,
Darnall prepared and transmitted to the other stores a
teletype message recording the results of the election A
copy of this teletyped message was placed on the bulletin
board at the Respondent's Kanawha City store
Thereafter, on September 12, Respondent transmitted
to the Union by telegram its refusal to recognize the
Union and to honor its request for bargaining
Conclusions
I The bargaining unit
I find that at all times material herein the following
described unit of Respondent's employees was a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All employees of Respondent's Kanawha City, West
Virginia, store, excluding the store manager, assistant
store manager and all guards, professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act."
2. Inclusions and card computation
The parties stipulated that Jean Price was employed by
Respondent on September 7, 1967, and commenced work
in the employ of Respondent on September II, 1967.
Additionally, the parties stipulated that Jack White was
employed on September 6, 1967, and that his first day of
work was September 10, 1967
The General Counsel contends that their names should
be stricken from the eligibility list However, the
Respondent contends that they should be included
because, although they were hired prior to the eligibility
date in the election which was scheduled, they qualified as
employees on the September 12 refusal date, which in this
case, according to the Respondent, is the critical date for
determination of the validity of authorization cards.
Controlling precedent is to the contrary" and I
accordingly find that neither Jean Price nor Jack White
were in the unit on September 7 and are not to be
included in the computation of the union's majority
At times pertinent prior to the consolidation of the toy
and housewares department Ernestean Woods was
employed in Respondent's Kanawha City store. Woods
commenced her employment with Respondent in 1960 and
worked for Respondent continuously except for a brief
hiatus when she worked in the employ of another
employer During the term of her employment by
Respondent Woods worked in the clothing department,
the houseware department and in the toy department She
served briefly during an early period of her employment
as head of the clothing department Immediately prior to
the consolidation of the toy and housewares department
and for a period during that consolidation Woods worked
as a rank-and-file employee Manager Triplett testified
credibly that soon after the consolidation of the
departments Eplin refused to attend department meetings
and that as a consequence Woods was designated to
attend the meetings in Eplin's place. Woods' role in
similar to those testilied to by Cool Cool' s testimony is explainable by the
possibility that , despite her intentions to the contrary , or perhaps , despite
her protestations at the hearing , when she balloted she suffered from an
ambivalence of intention with respect to the Union and marked her ballot
"yes" instead of "no" as she testified at the hearing
"See Heck 's, Inc . 159 NLRB 1151
"The Crossett Company , 140 NLRB 667, 675-676, Ra-Rich
Manufacturing Corporation , 120 NLRB 1444
attending the meeting was to bring the necessary data to
the department head meetings for consideration During
this period of time and until mid-October Woods had no
authority to schedule or assign hours of work to
employees in the combined department
In mid-October Woods was designated to serve as
acting head of the toy department In this capacity she
received merchandise, made appropriate markdowns on
the merchandise and saw that the merchandise was
properly priced Additionally, she attended department
head meetings
Contrary to the General Counsel I find that Earnestean
Woods was not a supervisor on September 7, and,
accordingly, she is included in the unit While she served
as department head at a prior remote time, she was a
rank-and-file employee in the toy department on
September 7 and at pertinent times prior thereto
Although she attended department head meetings, as some
nonsupervisory employees did, her attendance was the
purpose of serving as a conduit of data and complier of
information and was necessitated by Eplin's unwillingness
to attend There is no showing that she contributed advice
or recommendation to management on personnel actions
or personnel matters, or that in her work in the
department she possessed any of the statutory indicia of
supervisory status
Moreover, there is no credible evidence of record that
on September 7 she had any reasonable expectations of
being elevated to the position of department head, and
there is no evidence to suggest that she was being trained
for such an eventuality."
Employees Kay Ferrell, Charlotte King and Connie
Cook testified to having executed authorization cards at
the request of representatives of the Union Ferrell and
King signed their cards following conversations with
Union Representative Woodrow Gunnoe while Cook
conversed with Representative Charles Saunders before
executing her card
Both Ferrell and Cook testified that they were shown a
collective-bargaining agreement in effect between the
Union and another company which provided for a starting
wage of $2 per hour and which also reflected a $2.85 per
hour wage maximum Ferrell, King, and Cook each
testified they were told that a majority of the employees
had signed cards2' and that by signing now they could
avoid payment of a fee which would be charged
nonsigners if the Union were successful Additionally,
Ferrell and Cook testified they were told that employees
who didn't sign cards were letting other employees do
their "dirty work."
King additionally testified she was informed that if the
Union did not wish to accept an employee into
membership it did not have to do so and if the Union
were successful and if an employee did not join the Union
the employees would be discharged
Additionally, King testified that prior to signing her
authorization card she discussed the matter with Chessie
Eplin who informed her that if she did not sign a card,
later a fee of $25 or $30 would be charged by the Union 2S
According to King, Eplin further informed her that if the
Union did not desire to accept her into membership. it did
not have to do so
"Her mid-October assumption of supervisory duties does not derogate
from this conclusion
"Ferrell testified she was told 80 percent of the employees had signed
"King could not recall which amount was specified by Eplin
HECK'S, INC.
King testified that she read a portion of the
authorization card which she executed prior to signing tt
Eplin denies having discussed the matter of fees with
King Saunders did not testify concerning the substance of
his conversation with King but he did testify that this was
the first organizational campaign in which he had served
the Union and that he had been instructed what to tell the
employees whom he approached. However, save for
specific instructions to the effect that there would not be
an election, Saunders recalled little He appears to have
followed his own impulses in the matter utilizing no
format. He was reluctant to recount what he informed
employees whose signatures he obtained
Gunnoe denies having informed either Ferrell or Cook
that a fee would be imposed if they did not sign a card
Rather, he testified he informed Ferrell that if the Union
were successful in its endeavor to organize the employees
and obtained a union security agreement, after 30 days an
employee who had not signed a card would be required to
join the Union and that a standard $25 initiation fee
would be charged. He denies having made any
representation to Cook pertaining to a fee. Moreover,
Gunnoe testified that he did show Cook a
collective-bargaining agreement covering employees of
another company containing a $2 per hour starting wage
and a higher hourly rate of $2 85 However, he denies
having informed Cook that the Union had signed 80
percent of the employees. Rather, he testified that he told
her the Union endeavors to obtain that percentage before
seeking recognition
While I am not disposed to reject King's undisputed
testimony concerning the representation made to her by
Saunders, I do credit the testimony of Gunnoe to the
extent that it is at variance with that of Ferrell and Cook
I conclude upon these findings there arises no basis for
rejecting the cards of Ferrell, King, or Cook from
statements to the effect that their failure to sign a card
prior to the election might result in the need to pay a
union initiation fee 36 Nor, in any event, would a rejection
of their authorization be required by alleged statements
that the majority of the employees had signed cards Z'
Moreover I do not consider King's signature to have
been coerced by virtue of the statement to the effect that
the Union had the option, in the event it were successful
in winning the election, to accept or reject the membership
of employees who had not joined the Union The effect of
this representation is too speculative to be viewed as a
coercive influence Indeed, King's own testimony reveals
that she was moved, not by this representation, but by the
desire to avoid paying initiation fee. In my view, both
representations, in the circumstances, occurring during the
organizational phase of the Union's campaign do not
"smack of coercion but rather a promotional persuasion "
See N L R B v Irving Taitel, d/b/a I Taitel and Sons,
261 F 2d 1 (C A. 7) cert. denied 359 U S. 944
There is no warrant for invalidating the authorization
cards of any employee by reason of the participation of
Chessie Eplin assuming her to have been at pertinent
times a supervisor - in the organizational effort which
included attendance at one meeting and a degree of
conversation on her part with other employees relating to
the signing of cards Eplin is not shown to have been
instrumental in obtaining any of the card signatures in
evidence and although she may have been present at a
meeting where cards were signed this does not warrant the
"General Steel Products , Inc , 157 NLRB 636, 646
"S E Nichols - Dover, Inc, 167 NLRB No 121
invalidation of those cards.28
3. The status of Chessie Eplm
961
I find that on September 7 Chessie Eplm was no longer
an employee and was therefore not in the unit on the
eligibility date This conclusion is based upon the
determination that her separation from employment was
voluntary and not forced, that her transfer to the St.
Albans store was not discriminatory "
Thus, I am not convinced that the assignment of Eplin
to the position of department head at the St Albans store
was undertaken for the purpose of precipitating her
resignation or removing her from the bargaining unit
The original consolidation of the departments had no
antiunion foundation and no management effort was made
at the time of the consolidation to derogate Eplin's salary
status or to diminish her special role as a complier and
conduit of statistical information pertaining to the
department, which duties set her apart from rank-and-file
clerks in the department. Eplin's refusal to attend
department head meetings following the consolidation was
self-generated as was her uncooperative attitude, which
management found, marked her postconsolidation
conduct. The decision to separate the consolidated
departments was similarly based on business
considerations unrelated to the organizational efforts of
the employees; and it was this decision, coupled with the
unsatisfactory work relationship between Eplin and her
superior, Manager Triplett, which, I find, led to the
decision to transfer Eplin That she was not informed of
adverse supervisory entries against her attitude and refusal
to attend supervisory meetings does not militate against
the existence of a state of disharmony for, as found,
Triplett, Cassis and Darnall spoke to her of the matter
and she must have recognized their displeasure
The record warrants a finding that Respondent knew of
Eplin's affinity to the Union, but, when weighed against
legitimate business considerations which prompted the
decision to transfer Eplin, her role was neither so
prominent nor her sway among employees so significant
as to warrant the conclusion that her transfer was
arranged to remove her from the unit Eplin had served
efficiently as head of the toy department and it was a
reasonable exercise of business prudence for Respondent
to have desired to use her services in a different
environment under different management direction. This
objective could not have been achieved by her retention at
the Kanawha City store as a rank-and-file employee under
Triplett at a reduced rate of pay As the record establishes
that transfers between the stores of the chain were not
uncommon," it was not unreasonable to expect and
"United Mineral & Chemical Corporation 155 NLRB 1390, 1394,
Southland Paint Company, Inc, 156 NLRB 22, 42, cf NLRB v
Hamilton Plastics Molding Co, 312 F 2d 723 (C A 6), wherein cards of
the unit employees were rejected by the court in circumstances wherein the
supervisor actually procured the signature of the employee
"This determination renders unnecessary a determination whether by
virtue of her former supervisory duties, her retention on a salary basis and
her presumptive status for imminent assignment to a department head
opening constituted her a supervisor at the time of her transfer on July 31,
or may, arguendo, have dictated her exclusion from the unit under then
prevailing circumstances
"Eplin had worked at three stores in 2 years Mary Nafees who had
served as department head of the jewelry department at the Kanawha City
store prior to the consolidation was assigned to the Charleston store in the
same capacity when these departments were separated
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
require Eplin to accommodate her transportation
arrangement to the needs of the Company for her services
Eplin's suspicion of mischievous motivation in the
modification of her shift during the 2 weeks prior to her
discharge seems overdrawn in light of the record
suggestion that it was precisely at this time tnat the chain
of reassignments and personnel adjustment was being
undertaken resulting from the separation of the previous
reconsolidated departments. In sum, I am convinced that
Eplin's •transfer resulted from a legitimate business
judgment of management, based in part upon the
unsatisfactory relationship between her and the manager,
and predicated entirely upon nondiscriminatory
considerations
4. The Union's majority
The foregoing establishes that on September 12 the
collective-bargaining unit consisted of 42 employees 'i On
September 12 the Union possessed 22 valid designations,J2
and accordingly possessed authorizations of a majority of
the unit employees Thus, Respondent was obliged,
pursuant to the Union's valid September 7 request, to
recognize the Union unless it entertained a good-faith
doubt of the Union's majority
The following findings bear upon this issue and warrant
the ultimate conclusion reached that the Respondent did,
in fact, entertain a good-faith doubt
5 Interference, restraint, and coercion
a. Interrogation and threats
I find that Supervisor Gibson violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act by informing Madge Hicks that she had heard
Hicks had signed an authorization card and that her name
was listed in the office as a signer, inquiring, in the
presence of Madge Hicks, if employee Barbara Daniels
had signed a union authorization card; and by remarking
that employees who did sign cards would be discharged I
further find and conclude that she similarly violated the
Act by twice instructing Glenna Walker not to speak with
the union representatives who were participating in the
organizational effort of the Union.
Further, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act was transgressed by
Triplett's request of David Tapley to serve as an informer
as to the union activities of employees and by his request,
in early July, that Tapley convey to other employees that
Union Representative Skaggs had been discharged for
stealing
Moreover, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act was violated by
President Haddad when he warned Hicks not to
doublecross him by becoming active in the Union and
implying that if she did her discharge would be
accomplished Further, Haddad violated the Act when he
inquired in late June whether Hicks had been approached
by union representatives and by informing her that he was
compiling a list of employees who had signed union cards.
These incidents which occurred in June and early July
were not thereafter augmented by conduct of like kind
" Without merit is Respondent's contention that only a chainwide unit of
all employees is appropriate See Heck's, Inc , 156 NLRB 760, Heck's,
Inc, 159 NLRB 1511, Allied Stores of New York, Inc dlb/ a Stern's
Paramus , 150 NLRB 799
"The card of Tommy Jerrell is not included in this computation
b. The poll
The poll of September 12 was conducted against this
backdrop The Respondent contends the poll was
conducted in accordance with the standards of Strukness
Construction Co., Inc , 165 NLRB No. 102 wherein the
Board established the following criteria for conducting a
poll of its employees In Strukness the Board stated:
Absent unusual circumstances, the polling of employees
by an employer will be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act unless the following safeguards are observed (1)
The purpose of the poll is to determine the truth of a
union's claim of majority, (2) this purpose is
communicated to the employees, (3) assurances against
reprisals are given, (4) the employees are polled by
secret ballot, and (5) the employer has not engaged in
unfair labor practices or otherwise created a coercive
atmosphere.
Factual findings previously made reveal that the
employees were informed the purpose of the poll was to
determine the truth of the Union's demand-related claim
of majority; they _were given assurances against reprisals
and they were polled by secret ballot Thus, three of the
five criteria of Strukness were met I further find that the
poll was conducted to determine the truth of the Union's
claim of majority The Union had engaged in other
organizational efforts at Respondent's chain and had
claimed majority status in instances where it had failed to
substantiate its claim " Although aware of a sustained
effort by the Union to organize the Kanawha City store,
there is no evidence of record to suggest that Respondent
had an objective basis for concluding that the Union had
achieved strong, widespread support among the
employees The reticence of Store Manager Triplett to
accord the Union a color of recognition and to agree to a
cardcheck on September 8 is not indicative of bad faith or
a rejection of the collective-bargaining principal for it was
with President Haddad and Attorney Holroyd that
authority to act in this regard resided. The passage of 5
days from the dispatch of the September 7 telegraphic
demand until September 12 when Respondent conducted
the poll is reasonable in the described circumstances and
in absence of any contemporaneous unfair labor practices J°
I conclude' therefore that the poll was conducted for the
purpose of testing the truthfulness of the Union's majority
claim
In the absence of contemporaneous unfair labor
practices, and as 3 months had passed since the incidents
of Section 8(a)(1) conduct which I have found were
perpetrated, I conclude and find that the conduct was not
of a sufficient time proximity to the September 12 poll to
have created a coercive atmosphere nor to warrant a
finding that the Strukness criteria was not followed.
I am of course aware of the decisions of the Board and
courts involving Respondent which disclose Respondent's
union animus, its opposition to efforts undertaken to
unionize its chain and the aggressive counteractions
employed to combat them 35 While pervading propensity
to violate the Act warrants close scrutiny of subsequent
conduct of like nature, past violations fill no void when
"See Heck's, Inc, 159 NLRB 1151, and Heck's, inc, 159 NLRB 1331,
cf Heck's, Inc, 166 NLRB No 32, and Heck's, Inc, 156 NLRB 760
"See Aaron Brothers Company of California, 158 NLRB 1077
"E g, 166 NLRB No 38 (Charleston, W Va ), 166 NLRB No 32
(Ashland, Ky ), 159 NLRB 1331 (Huntington, W Va ), 159 NLRB 1151
(Huntington , W Va.), affirmed 387 F 2d 65 (C A 4), 158 NLRB 121
(Parkersburg, W Va ) 156 NLRB 760 (Parkersburg, W Va ) enfd in part
386F2d317(CA 4)
HECK'S, INC. 963
record proof of present unlawful conduct is lacking. This
standard has been applied in finding no discrimination in
the transfer of Chessie Eplin and in making findings
adverse to the General Counsel with respect to certain
conduct alleged violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The instant poll conducted in the absence of
contemporaneous unfair labor practices, and otherwise in
conformance with Strukness criteria, is not deemed
tainted by past unlawful conduct of Respondent at other
stores, among a different complement of employees, even
though the inference is warranted that employees were
made aware of these events and from them inferred
Respondent's antiunion tendencies ;b
6. Respondent's good-faith doubt
The separate question remains whether the employees
had been inhibited by this past conduct in their willingness
in a company-conducted poll to freely express their
preference. Doubtless some inhibition resulted and thus it
may reasonably be concluded that Respondent was not
warranted in placing conclusive reliance upon this poll as
an indicator of the choice employees would make in a
Board election However the margin of negative votes over
prounion votes in the poll was large and Respondent was
justified in concluding, as a consequence, that in some real
measure this poll reflected an on-balance disinclination on
the part of unit employees toward union representation I
find that Respondent, in the circumstances delineated did
not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by conducting the
September 12 poll, nor does an implication of a lack of
good faith arise from this permissible act of gauging union
strength
In light of the foregoing, I further find that Respondent
entertained a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
when it declined recognition on September 12. No adverse
inference may be drawn from Respondent's abstention
from a cardcheck for there was no recantation or
inconsistent conduct of a variety which the Board has
found indicative of bad faith," and its good faith is not
diminished by its acts of posting on the store bulletin
board the results of the poll in which the employees had
participated.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss the allegations of the
complaint alleging an unlawful refusal to bargain within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic and
commerce and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
"Cf Heck 's, Inc, 159 NLRB 1151, 1157
"See Fred Snow , Harold Snow and Tom Snow d/b/a Snow & Sons,
134 NLRB 709, enfd . 308 F .2d 687 (C.A 9), Greyhound Terminal, 137
NLRB87,enfd 3I4F2d43(CA 5)
the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Food Store Employees Union, Local 347,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 All employees of Respondent's Kanawha City, West
Virginia, store, excluding the store manager, assistant
store manager and all guards, professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act is a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act
4 By interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities; by threatening employees with discharge should
they execute a union authorization card or otherwise
engage in union activities, by informing employees that a
former employee who had engaged in union activities had
been discharged and urging an employee to so inform
fellow employees, by requesting an employee to inform
management concerning the union activities of other
employees and by instructing employees to abstain from
contact or association with union representatives, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
5. Except as specifically found the Respondent has
engaged in no conduct otherwise violative of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act or of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
recommend that Respondent, its officers, agents,
successors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities, threatening employees with discharge if they
executed a union authorization card or otherwise engaged
in union activities, informing employees that a former
employee had been discharged for engaging in union
activities, similarly requesting employees to so inform
fellow-employees, requesting employees to inform
management concerning the Union activities of
fellow-employees, and instructing employees to abstain
from contact and association with union representatives
(b) In any like or related 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 labor organization, or any other labor
organization, to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by the
proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its store in Kanawha City, West Virginia
store, and the nine other stores comprising its retail chain,
964 DECISIONS GF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix 39
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region shall, after being duly
signed by the representatives of Respondent, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of at least 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places including places
where notices to employees are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith 39
"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
for engaging in union activities or for signing a union
authorization card
WE WILL NOT, in an unlawful manner, inform our
employees that a former employee has been discharged
for engaging in union activities Nor request our
employees to so inform other employees
WE WILL NOT request our employees to inform
management concerning the union activities of their
fellow employees
WE WILL NOT, in an unlawful manner, instruct our
employees to refrain from contact or association with
representatives of Food Store Employees Union, Local
No 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any
representative of any other labor organization
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner,
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in the labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
Dated
HECK'S, INC.
(Employer)
By
(Representative ) (Title)
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 interrogate our employees concerning
their union activities or unlawfully inquire whether they
have signed a union authorization card
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
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, Room 2407,
Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 684-3663