Heights Thrift-Way, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 52 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

.52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- [The Board clarified the certification by specifically including
therein the job categories of research supervisor, research associate and
senior research associate, and patent advisor, and by specifically exclud-
ing the 'job categories of project manager, project manager and re-
search supervisor (dual capacity), aniilytic.a]. supervisor, senior patent
advisor, superintendent of engineering services, engineering services
supervisor, supervisor of automotive laboratory services, and
librarian.]
Heights Thrift -Way, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union No. 7, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case No. 27-CA-
1736. October 7, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 18, 1965; Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
'the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with the General Counsel and Respondent represented by coun-
sel, was heard before Trial Examiner Alba B . Martin in Denver, Colorado, on
March 26, 1965, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Heights Thrift-
.Way, Inc., Respondent herein.' The issues litigated were whether Respondent
.violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by threatening and committing acts of violence
and intimidation against the persons of union agents engaged in peaceful picketing
at Respondent 's premises in the presence of or in a manner so that such acts would
1 The original charge was filed by the Union • on December 21, 1964 . The amended
charge was filed by . the Union on February 16, 1965.
155 NLRB No. 9.
HEIGHTS THRIFT-WAY, INC. 53
come to the attention of Respondent 's employees , and by relating such acts in the
presence of and to its employees . At the conclusion of the hearing Respondent pre-
sented a short oral argument . After the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent
filed helpful briefs which have been carefully considered . After the hearing the
General Counsel also moved to correct the transcript of the hearing in two respects.
As this motion corrects the transcript and as Respondent has filed no objection to
the motion , it is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Colorado corporation , at all times material herein has been engaged
in Broomfield , Colorado, in the business of retail selling of groceries . During the 12
months prior to the issuance of the complaint , a representative period, Respondent
sold and distributed products the gross value of which exceeded $500,000. During
the same period Respondent received goods valued in excess of $10 ,000 transported
to its place of business in interstate commerce directly from States of the United
States other than the State of Colorado . Respondent is and has been at all times
material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Local No. 7, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO,
herein referred to as the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The basic facts are in little dispute. Respondent operates with a few employees
an independent retail grocery supermarket in Broomfield , Colorado, a town of about
4,500 to 5,000 people located some 15 miles northwest of Denver , Colorado.
Respondent has no collective -bargaining contract with any labor organization, and
there is no evidence that any of its employees belong to a labor organization.
Respondent began doing business October 15, 1962.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Respondent's president, Louis E.
Hill, in the spring of 1964 during a strike of employees of a competitor two or three
blocks from Respondent , the Union , which represented the employees of the com-
petitor, came to Respondent 's store several times and tried, with some vigoi but
unsuccessfully , to persuade President Hill to sign a contract with the Union.
On or about July 30, 1964, the Union sent Hill a letter advising him that his
establishment was not observing the prevailing union standards in the area as to
wages, hours , and other employee benefits ; that this failure undermined and endan-
gered the job security and employment conditions of union members employed by
Respondent 's competitors in the area ; and that the Union had decided "to take all
steps possible to correct this situation ," including picketing and boycotting of the
store. The letter stated that "we wish to make it clear to you that we do not
represent these employees , nor do we seek such representation or a collective bar-
gaining contract covering your employees ," and that "our sole objection [sic] in this
campaign is to secure observance on your part of the standard referred to." The
letter also enclosed a copy of the applicable area contract , stated that Respondent
would be given "a reasonable opportunity to meet these standards should this be
your decision," and requested a reply.
Respondent did not reply to this letter but published a so-called answer to it in
the August 13 edition of the local weekly newspaper , together with excerpts from
the union letter. At the hearing Respondent offered no reason for not answering
the Union 's letter.
There was no further contact between the Union and Respondent until December
1964. The Union peacefully picketed Respondent 's premises during the pre-Christmas
period , from Friday , December 18, through Wednesday , December 23, and this
picketing was countered by President Hill with profanity , violence, threatened vio-
lence, and a loudspeaker campaign of name calling and vilification.
A few moments after two union pickets started picketing near the two doors to
the supermarket about 4 : 30 p.m. on December 18, President Hill, when it was
called to his attention , immediately called the police and then went out and con-
fronted the pickets. The pickets were wearing sandwich signs bearing legends
addressed to the public saying this store is not a union store and that the wages,
hours, benefits , and working conditions were below standard . The Rickets were
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
passing out leaflets addressed to the public saying that the picket line "is for the sole
purpose of letting the public residing in the area know that the Working Conditions,
Wages and Hours in this establishment are below Union Standards." The leaflet
stated further that its message was addressed to the public and not to any employer
or any employees, there was no attempt to induce employees to cease work, no
request that anyone cease doing business with any person, and no intent to seek
recognition or start bargaining.
President Hill was described by one witness, who had served as one of his
checkers, as a "nervous person . . . flighty . . . under a lot of pressure ... quick
tempered . . . nervous person." President Hill accosted the two pickets, both busi-
ness agents of the Union, one at a time. With a "volley of oaths" and cursing he
demanded that Melvin Johnson leave his property, his parking lot. Johnson refused.
Hill then pushed Johnson with his hands on Johnson's shoulders the 45 feet to the
street curb, telling him the while that he had called the police and that he was going
to get an injunction. Then, on the parking lot, Hill confronted Robert Vallero with
a similar demand that Vallero get off his property and proceeded to push him also
to the curb. While doing so he interrupted himself to go into the store and bring
out Respondent's vice president. Hill also told Vallero he was going to get an
injunction While accosting Vallero, Hill tore the picket sign off Vallero, breaking
one corner of it. Hill hit Vallero twice with his fist, once on the chin and once on
the side of his head, breaking the skin. While Johnson was on or just off the curb
on the street, Hill kicked him in the groin, sending him to the ground in pain.
About this time a local police car arrived and Hill told a policeman that if the pickets
did not get off his property he would kill them. The policeman explained that he
could not get an injunction until Monday and that meantime the pickets could picket.
During Hill's encounters with Johnson and Vallero and during the presence of
the police car, a small crowd gathered on the parking lot. Johnson and Vallero
both credibly testified that they glanced up at the front of the store and saw people
looking out at them through the plate-glass windows, including some men and women
and boys dressed in aprons and smocks such as were worn by Respondent's employ-
ees. Respondent employed men and women and boys who wore smocks. Checker
Helen Watkins, who was on duty at the time, testified that she saw pushing and
shoving on the parking lot and saw a man fall. Later that day she heard that the
Union had come to picket and that Hill had hit the pickets. Checker Viola Nace
credibly testified that as she returned from lunch (her luncheon hour was 3:30 to
4:30 p.m.) she noticed Hill and Vallero in the crowd near the police car and that a
few minutes later, after the crowd had dispersed and the police gone, she heard Hill
telling a customer in the supermarket that the Union was picketing, that he was
aggravated, and that he had hit one of the pickets. Hill also directly told employee
Nace that pickets had been out there and he had hit them, that he was going to get
an injunction against them, and "since he had hit this fellow he was afraid they were
going to swear out a warrant for him so he was going to leave the store." Nace
testified further that Hill told other people in the store, friends and customers, about
the incident and that the incident was discussed among the store's employees.
Beginning the following day and continuing until the Union ceased picketing
December 23, President Hill spent much of his time speaking over a loudspeaker
wfiich was on the outside of the building. On Saturday, December 19, interspersed
with legitimate advertising, Hill kept up a more or less continuous tirade against
the pickets, calling their activity un-American and communistic, and referred to them
as Larimer Street (skidrow) winos. He and the market manager of the store, over
the loudspeaker into the parking lot area where customers parked, referred to one
of the pickets as "Baldy," to another as "Smiley," and referred to the Union's agent
who had written Hill the July 30, 1964, letter as the "Little Tin God " These
epithets and this vilification of the pickets continued intermittently as long as the
pickets continued picketing, although at all times after the first day the picketing
was conducted on the curbline or just inside it on the blacktop parking lot. On the
other side of the curb was the street.
On Sunday, December 20, the Union had only one picket. Edward Grisham, who
was walking on the parking lot blacktop near the street. The store was open for
business. President Hill testified that "we were using automobiles as the best we
could to prevent any pickets from being seen." The record showed that employees'
cars were so used. Using cars for this purpose continued the rest of the days there
was picketing. He explained that the idea was to block the pickets from being seen
by passers-by in the street. Cars in the parking lot tended to hide the pickets from
people at the store entrances 45 feet away. Early Sunday afternoon Hill moved his
small truck, allegedly for this purpose, from one position on the street next to the
curb to another position nearer to where Grisham was picketing. In doing so he
HEIGHTS THRIFT-WAY, INC. 55
twice drove so close to Grisham, according to the latter's credible and credited
testimony, that Grisham had to step quickly to the side to avoid being hit. When
Hill got out of the truck he told Grisham he ought to kick the stuffing s out of him.
He added that he was going to lunch and that if Grisham was still there when he
returned "that is what I think I will do " When Hill returned from lunch Grisham
called the Union for instructions and then quit picketing for the day.
One other day after Hill moved a vehicle down to the curb area near the pickets
he got out, walked over to picket Johnson, and told him "he should stomp me down
into the ground."
Through its testimony Respondent contended in substance that President Hill's
actions and statements were motivated by the necessity of self-defense and to evict
trespassers from his private property, rather than by hostility towards the Union.
The record did not support this contention. Hill testified that he struck Vallero when
"Mr. Vallero turned to me like he was coming towards me and this is when I took
the first swing at him"; and that "he stepped back up on the curb like he was coming
towards me, and this is where the second blow took place." Hill made no attempt
to explain, in terms of alleged self-defense or otherwise, his violent grabbing of
Vallero's picket sign and tearing it off him; violent to the extent that he broke off a
corner of the composition board sign. Hill testified that "Mr. Johnson started back
up on my property at exactly the same time that I took the second blow at Mr.
Vallero, and I raised my left foot and shoved him back into the street." There was no
proof that anything Vallero or Johnson allegedly said or did was of a character or
done in a manner which reasonably should have incited even the excitable Hill to
the violence he indulged in. Hill did not even testify that Johnson came toward
him but simply that Johnson started back from the street onto Hill's property. There
was no evidence of any statement or action by Vallero or Johnson which gave Hill
cause to do anything in self-defense. Pursuant to leading questions calling for "yes"
or "no" answers, Hill testified that he was in fear of physical violence toward him
when he hit Vallero and kicked Johnson. But when asked for his own statement as
to what was in his mind just before he kicked Johnson, President Hill testified,
"Well, in my mind at that moment was my rights to protect my business and my
customers and my clientele, which is very hard fought for, to protect my money and
my general business scope." In this testimony Hill was saying in other language,
"I wanted to keep the Union out." Then, prodded by counsel's leading questions,
Hill stated that he had fear for his physical well-being.
Upon the testimony in the above paragraph, in view of his name-calling antiunion
loudspeaker campaign, and upon the entire record considered as a whole, I believe
and find that in hitting Vallero with two blows of the fist and violently grabbing his
picket sign, in kicking Johnson; and in threatening to kill them both, Hill was
primarily motivated with hostility toward the Union and the possible organization of
his employees, and he was not acting in self-defense. It follows that Hill's actions
and statements were not necessary in self-defense or to evict trespassei s from Respond-
ent's parking lot.
In the absence of the private property issue, Respondent's assaults and threats
were a clear violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. H. R. McBride d/bla H. R.
McBride Construction Company, 122 NLRB 1634, enfd. 274 F. 2d 124 (C.A. 10).
As in McBride the pickets were engaged in lawful "standards" picketing of a non-
union employer, and there was no evidence of present oiganizational effort by either
the Union or any of Respondent's employees. The Union's letter to Hill, the lan-
guage of the placards and the handbills, and the entire record all demonstrate clearly
that the Union's objective was to induce Respondent to meet union standaids. I do
not credit the suggestion in President Hill's testimony that the pickets interfered with
ingress to or egress from the store. The record contained no suggestion that the
picketing was anything other than peaceful and orderly. The record proved that
the Union was not attempting to, and did not, give false and misleading information
to the public.
President Hill's conduct, his cursing, his violence, his loudspeaker name-calling, his
threats to stomp and to kill and to kick the stuffing out of the pickets, and his attempt
to hit or frighten a picket with his truck were of much the same character as that
termed "outrageous" by the circuit court in McBride. To be noted is that this conduct
continued over a period of days and revealed a bitter antiunion attitude. That his
real motive was to put an end to or render completely ineffectual the picketing was
his admission that he moved cars around in order to block the pickets from being seen.
2 Witness Grisham used the word "stuffing " and then added , "only he didn 't use that
word Re used profanity , and he used quite a lot of profanity against me."
-56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent contended in substance that President Hill's outrageous conduct and
language toward the pickets was something less than unlawful because the pickets
were trespassers on Respondent's private property. Respondent did not own the
property but rented it. All the shares of stock of Respondent were owned by Pres-
ident Hill and Respondent's vice president and their families. The store, which was
not a part of a shopping center, faced west, and was surrounded on three sides by
parking areas. Beyond the parking areas to the west and north were streets, sep-
arated from parking areas only by a narrow concrete curb There were no side-
walks. After President Hill forced them off the parking lot the first day, the pickets
thereafter picketed on the curb and just inside it on the edge of Respondent's parking
lot to the west in front of the store. This is the area where President Hill threatened
to kill and stomp and kick the pickets and kicked Johnson and to lilt or frighten
Grisham with the truck. Beyond the curb was the street, and along the curb cars
were permitted to and in fact did park on the street. If the pickets were not lawfully
permitted to do their picketing along the curb and just inside it on Respondent's
property, where by his actions President Hill had forced them to be, the only other
place they could have picketed with any degree of effectiveness was in the street
beyond the cars and in the stream of traffic at the risk of their lives. Of course they
could have picketed in the vacant land behind the store or in the vacant land across
the streets to the west and north or in the bowling alley parking lot to the south,
but in any of these places the picketing would have been totally ineffectual. As the
store was not a part of a shopping center and there were no sidewalks, presumably
most of its customers visited the store by automobile. The customers' cars in the
parking area in front of the stoie would have blocked the view toward the pickets
of many customers. Thus by his actions in forcing the pickets away from the
entrances to the store and down to the curb President Hill effectively insulated
Respondent from handbilling and effective picketing.
Of course the parking lot was open to the general buying public. In addition
President Hill testified that he has permitted sales of tickets by approved groups
inside the store, that he "supposed" that "gas stations" have placed leaflets in the cars
parked in the parking lot. Hill's testimony suggested that other business organiza-
tions had put leaflets in the cars, but not with his express permission. Hill testified
further that he had never found people putting leaflets in the cars and had never run
anybody off the parking lot for doing that. He volunteered, "It would depend upon
the cause whether I would or not [run them off]. I am civic minded and I believe
in doing what I can in a civic way. If it was such as that, this would have my blessing
and my permission." It thus appears that approved causes were permitted to be on
the parking lot for their own purposes, and that only the Union was deemed to be a
trespasser because Hill did not believe it to be making a proper civic contribution,
and because, as the entire record proved, Hill was bitterly hostile to the Union.
Respondent had not posted its parking lot as private property and had no sign
restricting the use of the parking lot in any fashion. There was no evidence that
Respondent had ever before even considered denying access to the property.
From the above it appears, and I find, that Respondent discriminated against the
Union in denying it access to its parking lot while permitting the public and other
groups such access; and that by its actions in evicting the pickets from Respondent's
property and then using automobiles to screen the pickets from the vision of people
on the street, Respondent made it almost impossible for the pickets to display their
placards and distribute their handbills anywhere else where they could be effective.
Conclusions
The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the Section 7 rights of its
employees to join, form, or assist the Union, if and when they ever wanted to, by the
actions of President Hill within their vision and by his relating these actions shortly
thereafter to them and within their hearing. As the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit said in enforcing the McBride case (supra), the violent conduct
there, although not directed primarily at McBride's employees, was nevertheless
violative of the employees' rights protected by the Act in that:
[I]n all probability it would be viewed by them as an indication of the dangers
and obstacles awaiting them should they in the future show any interest in a
union organization. It is a reasonable inference that the normal effect of
respondent's conduct would be to cause his employees to weigh the possibility
of incurring reprisals or other hostile employer reaction before undertaking to
exercise their rights secured by the Act. Such conduct displayed to the employ-
ees McBride's bitter opposition to unions and the extent of the measures he
would resort to in resisting them.
HEIGHTS THRIFT-WAY, INC. 57
Here, as in McBride, it is reasonable inference that, regardless of whether President
Hill's treatment of the Union's representatives occurred on private property or on
the street outside the curb, the normal effect of his conduct upon the minds of his
employees who saw it or who soon thereafter were told about it by him or employees
or others, was to cause them to weigh the possibility of incurring Hill's reprisals or
other hostile reaction against them if they ever undertook to exercise their rights
secured by the Act. Of note is the fact that in relating the incidents to employees
afterwards Hill said nothing about private property or evicting trespassers. By Hill's
actions and statements Respondent's employees learned of, if they had not known it
before, Hill's bitter opposition to unions and the extent of the measures he would
resort to in resisting them. Thus by his actions and statements Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past.
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive
with the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent
guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and
thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, I recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the
case, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Heights Thrift-Way, Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Local No. 7, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to and committing acts of violence and intimidation against the
persons of agents of the Union while said agents were engaged in peaceful picketing
at Respondent's premises, in view of or in a manner so that it would come to the
attention of Respondent's employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By relating to employees and in their presence the threatening and violent acts
it had committed against agents of the Union while they were engaged in peaceful
picketing at Respondent's premises, Respondent has further engaged in and is further
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case considered as a whole, I recommend that Heights Thrift-
Way, Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to commit and committing acts of violence and intimidation
against the persons of agents of the Union while said agents are engaged in peaceful
picketing at Respondent's premises, in view of or in a manner so that it will come to
the attention of Respondent's employees.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Relating to employees and in their presence the threatening and violent acts
it has committed against agents of the Union while they were engaged in peaceful
picketing at Respondent 's premises.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Retail Clerks Local No. 7, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Broomfield, Colorado, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 27 (Denver, Colorado), shall, upon being signed by the representative of
Respondent, be posted by Respondent and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to all employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith .4
2 If 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. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the notice will further be amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and
Order "
4 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT kick down any union agent while he is picketing peacefully at
our premises.
WE WILL NOT threaten to kill any union agent while he is picketing peacefully
at our premises.
WE WILL NOT with profanity and violence force a union agent, who is picket-
ing peacefully, off our premises
WE WILL NOT strike any union agent with a blow of the fist or otherwise,
while he is picketing peacefully at our premises.
WE WILL NOT tear off the picket sign of any picket while he is picketing
peacefully at our premises.
WE WILL NOT tell any of our employees or say in their presence that we have
said or done any of the things prohibited above
WE WILL NOT, over the loudspeaker or otherwise, degrade or belittle union
agents with name-calling, or refer to peaceful picketing and handbilling as
un-American or communistic.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with. restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor orga-
nization, to join or assist Retail Clerks Local No. 7, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ-
ities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
WORTHINGTON CORPORATION 59
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named' labor organization except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring- membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
HEIGHTS THRIFT-WAY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they' may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609
Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone
No. 534-4151, Extension 513.
Worthington Corporation and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 22-RC-2897. October 7, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed'under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Gordon L. Fine. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit : ,
The Petitioner is seeking a unit of all office clerical, plant clerical,
and technical employees of the Employer's pump and heat transfer
division,2 Harrison, New Jersey. Alternately, it requests separate
units of clerical and technical employees at the Employer's P. & H.T.
division, or a unit,comprised of all clerical and technical employees
located at both the Employer's P. & H.T. division and its administra-
tive offices in Harrison, New Jersey, The Employer contends that the
first two units requested by Petitioner are inappropriate. It agrees
' The Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs with the Board which have been duly
considered.
3 Hereinafter referred to as P. & H.T. division.
155 NLRB No. 7.