Heritage House, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 242 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DI4('ISIONS OF NAIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Heritage House, Inc. of New Castle, Indiana and
Blanche N. Gillock and Margaret L. Trueblood
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO and Audrey L. Williams.' Cases 25 CA
8577 2, 25 CA 8810 2, and 25 CA 2902
September 24, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBLRS JNKINS
AND PENFI.LO
On May 25, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent Employer, Respondent
Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent Union failed in its duty to fairly and im-
partially represent employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act when it failed to include
the names of Blanche Gillock and Audrey (Williams)
Griffis on a list of employees to be recalled because
they failed to engage in picketing during the Union's
economic strike against Respondent Employer. The
Administrative Law Judge found that this violation
occurred on September 1, 1976, when the parties
agreed to the strike settlement and recall list. The evi-
dence shows, however, that Respondent Union un-
lawfully dropped Griffis' and Gillock's names from
the list of employees seeking reinstatement on July 25
and then continued to omit their names on all subse-
quent lists. We find, therefore, that this continuing
'The case caption has been changed to correctly identify the (Charging
Party for each case. The Region and the Administrative Law Judge had
erroneously listed as charging parties all persons who were named as alleged
discnminatees in the original charges.
2 Both Respondent have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. II is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
violation commenced on August 11, 1976, the earliest
date permitted by Section 10(b) of the Act.
We also agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Gillock, Griffis, and Trueblood are entitled to
reinstatement and backpay. We do not agree with his
determinations that Gillock and Griffis should be
made whole from the dates that the first nurses aides
were hired after September 1. 1976, and that True-
blood should be made whole after March 31, 1977.
Inasmuch as we are unable to determine from the
record when these three employees would have been
recalled absent the unlawful conduct, we shall defer
that matter to the compliance stage of the proceeding.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that:
A. Respondent Heritage House, Inc. of New Cas-
tle, Indiana. its offices, agents, successors, and assigns.
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to reemploy or reinstate, or otherwise
discriminating against employees who are economic
strikers in regard to their hire, tenure of employment,
or other terms and conditions of employment, in or-
der to discourage membership in Retail, Wholesale
and Department Store Union, AFL CIO, or any
other labor organization.
(b) Terminating the employee status of continuing
strikers or failing to reinstate them to existing vacan-
cies, or by discriminating against them in any other
manner with respect to the hire, tenure, or any terms
or conditions of employment.
(c) Removing from a recall list and terminating the
preferential hiring rights of unreinstated employees
who unconditionally applied for reinstatement.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Margaret Trueblood immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, if she would have been
recalled since March 31, 1977, but for Respondent
Employer's unlawful conduct, and make her whole
for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discriminatory failure to reinstate her,
paying her a sum equal to what she would have
earned, less any net interim earnings plus interest, in
the manner set forth in the section of the Administra-
245 NLRB No. 33
242
HERITAGE HOUSE IN(C
tive Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy," as
modified in the Board's Decision and Order.
(b) Offer Blanche Gillock and Audrey (Williams)
Griffis immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
mer jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed, if they would have been recalled since Septem-
ber 1, 1976, but for Respondent Employer's unlawful
conduct, and make them whole jointly and severally
with Respondent Union for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discriminatory
failure to reinstate them, paying each of them a sum
equal to what she would have earned, less any net
interim earnings plus interest, in the manner set forth
in the section of the Administrative Law Judge's De-
cision entitled "The Remedy." as modified in the
Board's Decision and Order.
(c) Rescind its termination of the recall rights of
Bell, Hasty, and Thurston and reinstitute and abide
by the recall procedure set forth in the agreement
between Respondent Employer and Respondent
Union dated September 1, 1976.
(d) Offer Bell, Hasty, and Thurston immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed, if they would have
been recalled since March , 1977, but for Respon-
dent Employer's unlawful conduct.
(e) Make whole Bell, Hasty, and Thurston for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
the discriminatory failure to reinstate them, paying
each of them a sum equal to what she would have
earned, less any interim earnings plus interest, in the
manner set forth in the section of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying.
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Post at its New Castle, Indiana, facility, and
mail to each of the unreinstated economic strikers,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."'3
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed
by Respondent Employer's authorized representative.
shall be posted by it and mailed to said employees
t In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment ol a United States
Court of Appeals, the ords in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
immediately upon receipt thereof and the posted
copies shall be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter. in conspicuous places. including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken hb Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by an, other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps have been taken to comipl herewith.
B. Respondent Retail. Wholesale and l)cpartment
Store Union. AFL IO('10 its officers. agents, and rep-
resentatives. shall:
1. C(ease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to fairly and impartiall
represent employees, including Blanche (Jillock and
Audrey (Williams) Griffis, with respect to including
their names on a list of economic strikers who were
unconditionally offering to return to work. for arbi-
trary and invidious reasons including their refusal to
engage in picketing.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent
Employer to discriminate against certain employees
by fariling to include their names as economic strikers
who were offering to return to work and thereby
causing the Employer to violate Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees of Respondent Employer in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole, jointly and severally with Re-
spondent Employer. Blanche Gillock and Audrey
(Williams) Griffis for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discriminatory failure
of Respondent Employer to reinstate them, in the
manner set forth in the section of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy," as
modified in the Board's Decision and Order.
(b) Post at its office copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B."4 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
25. after being duly signed by Respondent Union's
representative. shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof and mailed to the above-named em-
ployees and members, and the posted copies shall be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
4 See fn. 3, lqrli
243
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 25
signed copies of the said notice for posting by Re-
spondent Employer in places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com-
plaints be dismissed as to all allegations not found
specifically herein to be violative of the Act.
APPENDIX A
NoICE-F To EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THEI
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and ordered us to post this notice.
We intend to abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or ac-
tivities on behalf of Retail, Wholesale and De-
partment Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, by terminating the employees
status of continuing strikers, or failing to rein-
state them to existing vacancies with full senior-
ity, or by discriminating against them in any
other manner with respect to their hire, tenure,
or terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Re-
tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
removing from a recall list and terminating the
preferential hiring rights of unreinstated eco-
nomic strikers, so long as such strikers have not
abandoned their employment with our nursing
home for other substantial and equivalent em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL offer Blanche Gillock, Margaret
Trueblood, and Audrey (Williams) Griffis imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, if they would have been recalled but for
our unlawful conduct, and WE WIL.L make them
whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them, with interest.
WEi WiLL rescind our termination of the recall
rights of Georgia Bell, Maxie Pauline Hasty, and
Betty Thurston, and reinstate and abide by the
recall procedure set forth in the strike settlement
agreement. and wE Wll. reinstate them to their
former jobs or, if' those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, if they would
have been recalled but for our unlawful conduct,
and wI; Witi. make them whole for any losses
suffered by them as a result of our failure to so
reinstate them.
HERIIA(;E HO)USE, IN(C. ()F NEW CAS IIE, IN-
I)IANA
APPENDIX B
NoricE TO MEMBtERS
PosUIED BY ORDER OF THiE
NAIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we have violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this
notice. We intend to abide by the following:
WE WI.L NorT fail or refuse to fairly and im-
partially represent employees, including Blanche
Gillock and Audrey (Williams) Griffis, with re-
spect to including their names on a recall list of
economic strikers who are unconditionally offer-
ing to return to work, for arbitrary and invidious
reasons including their refusal to participate in
picketing.
WE WIl. NO( refuse to include the names of
employees on a recall list of strikers maintained
by their employer, Heritage House, Inc. of New
Castle, Indiana, in order to cause or attempt to
cause such Employer to discriminate against em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) because of
our refusal to include those employees on a strike
recall list.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of
Heritage House, Inc. of New Castle, Indiana, in
order to cause or attempt to cause such Em-
ployer to discriminate against employees in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) because of our refusal to
include those employees on a strike recall list.
WE WII.L NOT restrain or coerce employees of
Heritage House, Inc., of New Castle, Indiana, in
any like or related manner in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, except to the ex-
tent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organiza-
244
HERITAGE HOUSE. INC.
tion as a condition of employment in accordance performed
with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. plaint alleg
WE WILL make jointly and severally with it is an eml
Heritage House, Inc. of New Castle, Indiana, of Section
Blanche Gillock and Audrey (Williams) Griffis
for any losses they may have suffered, with inter-
est, by reasons of our discrimination against
them. Respond
meaning of
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT
STORE UNION, AFL-CIO
DECISION
The Eml
STATEMENT OF HE CASE home, a h,
Since Nove
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge: This proceed- exclusive c
ing was heard at New Castle, Indiana, on May 8. 9, and 10, dent Emplc
1978. Upon charges filed by various individuals the Re- keeping m
gional Director for Region 25 issued the complaints in this April 14,
proceeding an an Order consolidating cases for hearing on agreement
June 21, 1977. The complaints alleged generally that Heri- new agreen
tage House, Inc., New Castle, Indiana, violated Section bargaining
8(aX)() and (3) of the Act by failing at the end of a strike to ensued, ant
include certain individual employees on a list for recall and Responden
by refusing to reinstate such employees to their former po- separate str
sitions in violation of their rights as economic strikers. A manner in
complaint also alleged that Retail, Wholesale and Depart- Basically. ii
ment Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent status, and
Union, failed properly to represent certain employees with they were
respect to their rights to recall and reinstatement as eco- ceeding cer
nomic strikers in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of respect to c
the Act. Both Respondents filed answers denying the com- the agreemn
mission of unfair labor practices.' some who
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to tions. As t
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine were not al
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General rately.
Counsel and Respondents submitted briefs which have
been carefully considered. On the entire record in the case B. The
and fom my observation of the witnesses and their demea-
nor I make the following:
At the o
tional Repr
FINDINGS OF FACT tional Reprsentative in
its second v
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER not represei
ing. This ty
Respondent Employer, an Indiana corporation, main- a number oi
tains a principal office and place of business at New Castle, at union me
Indiana. During the year preceding the issuance of the General
complaint herein Respondent Employer, which is engaged testified to t
in the operation of a nursing home, purchased transferred, However. L
and delivered to its facility goods and materials valued in and present
excess of $50,000 which were transported to its facility in that in July
Indiana from States other than the State of Indiana. In not support
addition, during the same period Respondent Employer the picket i
words regar
At the hearing the parties entered into an all-party informal settlement of nection witl
the complaint issued in Case 25 CA-8947 1, and that case was severed from another wit
this proceeding. ently emplc
245
services valued in excess of $250.000. The com-
es. Respondent Employer admits, and I find that
loyer engaged in commerce within the meaning
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
ent Union is a labor organization within the
f Section 2(5) of the Act.
THE ALLEGED UNFAIR I.ABOR PRA([I(ES
A. Background
ployer has operated and maintained a nursing
ealth related facility, in New Castle, Indiana.
ember 1969 the Union has been certified as the
:ollective-bargaining representative of Respon-
oyer employees in a unit consisting of all house-
aintenance, kitchen, and dietary employees. On
1976, the then existing collective-bargaining
expired, and thereafter, the negotiations for a
lent having not succeeded, the employees in the
unit struck at 12:01 a.m., May 9. 1976. Picketing
d the strike continued until September I when
ts reached agreement on a new contract and a
ike settlement agreement which set forth in the
which strikers were to be recalled to their jobs.
t provided for the strikers to be placed in layoff
they were listed by department in the order that
to be recalled as openings occurred. This pro-
nters around the conduct of Respondents with
ertain strikers, some of whom were not named in
ent, others who were removed from the list, and
were denied reinstatement to their former posi-
he factual patterns affecting these employees
I similar, their situations will be dealt with sepa-
Unair Lahbor Practice Allegations Against the
Union
utset it is alleged that Walter Kensit. Interna-
esentative of the Union and the Union's repre-
charge of the negotiations and the strike since
week, threatened strikers that the Union would
nt them if they did not participate in the picket-
pe of statement was alleged to have occurred on
f occasions in June and July on the picket line or
eetings.
Counsel presented a number of witnesses who
this effect, most of whom were Charging Parties.
Letha Woodward, not one of the complainants
ly employed by Respondent Employer, testified
Kensit told the strikers that the Union would
anybody to get back to work who did not walk
ne. While she said that he could have used these
rding strike benefits. he also used them in con-
h helping them get back to work. Helen Parker,
ness who is not a Charging Party and is pres-
oyed, stated that Kensit told the strikers to do
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their duty on the picket line and they would have a better
chance of going back in. In addition, Charging Parties
Dona Wilkinson, Maxie Pauline Hasty, Blanche N. Gil-
lock, Georgia Bell, Audrey (Williams) Griffis, and Margaret
Trueblood testified similarly and more specifically that
Kensit said he would not represent them, particularly with
respect to their going back to work for Respondent Em-
ployer at the conclusion of the strike.
Kensit categorically denied making these statements con-
cerning the Union's representation of employees who did
not participate in the picketing. However, he did admit stat-
ing that he would not represent employees in connection
with claims for strike benefits if they did not participate in
the picketing. Kensit stated that he became aware some
time prior to July 6 that some strikers were obtaining strike
benefits who had not participated in the picketing. He then
announced at the July 6 meeting that in accordance with
the rules of the International Union people who did not
picket were not eligible for strike benefits. Particularly, he
told Gillock and Griffis quite plainly that either they picket
or they do not get paid. He added that he would not repre-
sent anyone on the strike fund who does not picket.
I credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses
to the effect that Kensit did threaten employees or strikers
that the Union would not represent those who do not
picket, as they generally corroborate one another. More-
over, in a report prepared and signed by Kensit at the end
of the strike in early September Kensit said the following;
"This means that those who saw fit to quit the Union and
failed to support the strike properly were considered as
quits and the Union no longer represented those who quit
them on the picket line." This is an indication of Kensit's
thoughts that the Union would not represent unit employ-
ees who did not support the strike and lends credence to the
fact that Kensit had indeed threatened these strikers.
Although it is clearly unlawful to threaten employees
that representation by the Union would be conditioned on
the extent of their participation in picketing, the credited
evidence reflects that Kensit's remarks were made during
the months of June and July. As the charge against the
Union in Case 25-CB-2902 was filed on February 11, 1977,
more than 6 months after the threats, a violation of the Act
cannot be found because of the limitation provided in Sec-
tion 10(b) of the Act.
However, in agreement with the General Counsel, I find
that as such threats were actually made they may be con-
sidered as background evidence.2 In this connection the
General Counsel urges that the threats be considered in
determining the Union's motivation for not including the
names of Wilkinson, Trueblood, Gillock, and Griffis on the
strike settlement agreement of September 1.
I. Gillock and Griffis
Both these employees were on sick leave at the time of
the strike and continued for some period of time thereafter.
Both were also members of a six-employee negotiations
committee. However, by July 6, the date of a Union meet-
I Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists. A FL -CIO
[/ryan Manufacturing Co.] v. N. LR.B., 362 U.S. 411 (1960).
ing, they were the only remaining committee members, the
others having abandoned the strike or obtained other em-
ployment. Accordingly to Kensit, Gillock told him that she
was on sick leave and under doctor's orders not to walk a
picket line. If she did she would lose her sick pay, and she
had no intention of walking the picket line. When informed
by Kensit that he was going to cut off her $30 strike benefit,
Gillock told him that she wanted nothing to do with him
any longer. Kensit testified that Griffis also told him she
was on sick pay and therefore not on strike. During the
union meeting that night Kensit recommended that Gillock
and Griffis be removed and a new committee be constituted
from the four picket captains; the recommendation was
passed at the meeting. According to Kensit, Gillock then
told him that if she did not get her picket pay she would
have nothing to do with the Union and that she would go to
the Company and ask for her job back. He said she could
do whatever she wanted.
At the meeting Kensit circulated to the strikers an outline
of the Union's position with regard to the strike issues as of
that date. This also detailed the Employer's offer as to the
return of strikers and provided a space for the strikers to
sign an authorization for the committee to accept the pro-
posal on their behalf. Kensit testified that those who signed
this "petition," as he characterized it, indicated their desire
to return to work and were included on the list submitted
by the Union to the Employer. Both Gillock and Griffis
signed the "petitions" at the July 6 meeting indicating their
acceptance and authorization.
Thereafter, at a July 15 meeting at the office of the me-
diator, Kensit prepared a "seniority list of those willing to
return" which included the names of Gillock and Griffis
(then Williams). On it he noted that they as well as others
were on sick leave and also indicated by the initials N.P.
that they were not picketing. By letter dated July 25 ad-
dressed to Respondent Employer's counsel Kensit sent an-
other list of employees who wished to return: the list no
longer contained the names of Gillock and Griffis. Finally,
the strike settlement agreement of September I did not-in-
clude their names either. Kensit had no explanation for the
dropping of their names after July 15 from the lists of strik-
ers who wished to return. He merely stated that as he had
not heard from Gillock or Griffis he assumed that they had
returned to the Employer and therefore removed them from
the list. I do not regard his attempted explanation as ade-
quate. If he assumed they were returning to work and aban-
doning the strike as a result of the confrontation on July 6,
his last contact with them, then it is not likely that he would
have included Gillock and Griffis on the July 15 list. More-
over, if he believed they had returned to work this informa-
tion was available from the Employer at the time of settle-
ment. Curiously, in the case of another employee,
Trueblood, Kensit relied on the fact that he had not re-
ceived from her the signed petition that she was willing to
return to work, which he claimed he used as a basis for
formulating his list. On the other hand, Gillock and Griffis
had indeed signed these forms. I conclude that Kensit re-
moved their names because of their refusal to participate in
the strike.
It is clear that the Union has an obligation to represent
all the unit employees, and that Gillock and Griffis were
246
HERITAGE HOUSE INC.
still employees while on sick leave and on strike. I find that
the Union failed to fulfill this obligation and. indeed. did
not represent Gillock and Griffis at the strike settlement for
arbitrary and invidious reasons; i.e., their refusal to partici-
pate in picketing. By such conduct the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
In addition, the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
by causing Respondent Employer to discriminate against
Gillock and Griffis in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
As their names were not included on the list, for reasons
known to the Employer as will be later discussed, Respon-
dent Employer refused reinstatement to these two economic
strikers who later offered to return to work.
2. Dona Wilkinson
Wilkinson was hired on March 13. 1976, as a nurses aide,
and pursuant to provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement she was on probation for 45 days. Some time in
April her supervisor, Elizabeth Emerson, told her that her
work was not satisfactory, but that she was going to keep
her on probation for another 14 days.
Emerson testified that on May 7 she told Wilkinson ei-
ther in person or by telephone that her work was still not
satisfactory, and therefore she was being terminated, By
letter dated May 14, received by Wilkinson on May 15,
Emerson referred to their conversation of May 7 and con-
firmed the termination. Wilkinson denied having spoken at
all to Emerson on May 7, stating that the telephone call
came on May 14, the day before she received the letter. It is
established by her payroll card that Wilkinson, in fact,
worked on May 8, and did not work on May 7, her day off.
Thus, her last day of employment was on May 8, and at
12:01 a.m. May 9 the strike commenced.
Wilkinson began picketing immediately, and when she
received the May 14 letter from Respondent Employer she
showed it to Kensit, telling him she had been fired. Kensit
stated that he asked her a few questions and said that he
would try to represent her and see what he could do. He
said that Wilkinson told him she had been called into the
office and had been informed that her work was not satis-
factory and also that she was on probation. Although the
contract unit includes probationary employees, it is also
clear that probationary employees had no rights under the
grievance procedure.
Kensit said that he met her at the picket line around the
middle of June and told her there was nothing he could do
because she was a probationary employee who had no se-
niority rights or right to file a grievance. She asked him if
she could still walk the picket line. He said that would be
fine, and that he would retain her on the picket fund. Kensit
said he did not talk to her again and had no further contact.
He nevertheless included her name on the list of July 6
and submitted it. However, when it was pointed out to him
by the Employer that she was a probationary employee he
removed her name from the list. Wilkinson continued to
picket until July when she became ill and left.
Wilkinson stated that she did not recall being told by
Kensit that she was probationary and he could do nothing
for her. However, since her recollection is not clear on this
point I credit Kensit to the effect that he did so inform her.
Thereafter, the Union included her name with (Jillock.
Griffis. and Trueblood in a letter dated March 31. 1977. bh
which the Union's attorneN informed Respondent Em-
ployer that those individuals requested unconditional rein-
statement. In any case. Wilkinson testified that she never
requested representation from the Union in connection
with getting her job back at the Employer. nor did she re-
quest Respondent Employer for reinstatement to her job
during that period.
Clearly, Wilkinson was a probationary employee at least
until May I I. Since we are dealing with an alleged violation
of Section 8(b)( 1 )(A) against the Union. it is not necessar'
to resolve the question as to whether Wilkinson ma3 have
been discriminatorily discharged b Respondent Employer
or the issue as to whether she was discharged on Ma, 7. as
stated by Emerson, or on May 14. as testified to by Wilkin-
son.' The issue in the charge against the Union is whether
the Union failed for arbitrary or invidious reasons to repre-
sent Wilkinson in not submitting her name on a list of strik-
ers who were offering to return to work. On the basis of the
evidence outlined above I find that the Union has not vio-
lated the Act as charged. Kensit relied on Emerson's letter
exhibited to him by Wilkinson and the contract providing
that probationary employees could not avail themselves of
the grievance procedure. He actually submitted her name
as being willing to return to work on July 6 because she had
indicated that she was desirous of doing so and onlk
dropped it when Respondent Employer pointed out that
Wilkinson had been on probation. While it is conceivable
that he may have been misled as to the exact date of her
discharge so that her status may have changed if she had
been discharged on May 14 rather than May 7. neverthe-
less, there is no evidence from which one may conclude that
he reached his determination to drop her from the list for
unlawful reasons. Moreover, the testimony of Wilkinson is
clear that at no time did she ask Kensit or the Union to
represent her in this matter. Accordingly. I find that the
General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Union had failed properly to repre-
sent Wilkinson, and I shall dismiss so much of the com-
plaint alleging violation of Section 8(b)( I )(A) and (2) of the
Act with regard to its representation of' Wilkinson.
3. Margaret Trueblood
Trueblood had been employed since 1973 as a nurses
aide and was a member of the Union. She went on strike
with the other employees on May 9 and picketed until the
middle of June. when she quit because she lived so far away
that it was costing her more than the $30 strike benefit in
order to commute.
With a letter dated Jul), 9 the Union enclosed the "peti-
tion" and requested that the employee sign and return it at
once if the Employer's proposal as to recall of strikers % ~as
acceptable to her. In conclusion the letter stated. "If 'you
have no desire to return simply disregard this petition." Ac-
cording to Kensit, these letters were mailed to all striking
iNo allegation is being pursued that Wlkinson was discharged bs Re-
spondent Employer in violation of Sec. 8(aH3) of the Act. as General (oun-
sel concedes that such an allegation is barred bh Sec I)hi ot the Act
247
DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who did not attend the meeting on July 6. He
stated that he received no response to his letter from True-
blood. Trueblood's testimony was vague and at some points
inconsistent with regard to this letter. She said once that she
remembers getting some kind of letter which he asked her
to sign, which she did. She then said that she does not recall
receiving the letter which was shown to her as she testified,
but she does recall receiving some other kind of letter. Since
Kensit testified that these letters were sent out in the regular
course of his operation and answers were received from at
least three employees who did not attend the meeting, I
credit his testimony and find that Trueblood did receive the
letter and did not return it. This finding is bolstered by her
later conduct or, more accurately, a lack of conduct or ac-
tion with regard to seeking reinstatement to her job. Thus,
she testified that she received a telephone call from another
employee, Mayme Guffey, who told her that she was not on
the list to return to work, and if she contacted Kensit her
name would be put on the list. Trueblood said that she
made no effort to ask Kensit to put her name on the list.
On March 31, 1977, counsel for the Union wrote to the
Employer requesting unconditional reinstatement for four
employees including Trueblood. After receiving this letter
Trueblood did call the Employer but admitted that until
then she had not contacted either the Union or the Com-
pany about returning to work.
I find on the basis of the above that Respondent Union
did not violate its obligation to fairly represent Trueblood,
despite the fact that she ceased picketing. Unlike Gillock
and Griffis, who signed the "petition" on July 6, as a result
of Trueblood's inaction and failure to respond to communi-
cations the Union could have been justified in believing
that she was no longer interested in returning to work. Ac-
cordingly, I shall dismiss so much of the complaint against
the Union as alleges violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(2) in connection with the Union's failure to include
Trueblood on the strike settlement list of employees seeking
reinstatement to their previous positions.
C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act
The law in this area is well settled. In N.L.R.B. v. Fleet-
wood Trailer Co., Inc., 389 U.S. 375 (1967), the Supreme
Court held that an individual whose work ceases due to a
labor dispute remains an employee if he has not obtained
other regular or substantially equivalent employment, and
that an employer refusing to reinstate strikers must show
that the action was due to legitimate and substantial busi-
ness justification. Thereafter, the Board held that replaced
economic strikers who have made an unconditional appli-
cation for reinstatement and who have continued to make
known their availability for employment are entitled to full
reinstatement to fill positions left by the departure of per-
manent replacements.4 In Fleetwood the Court further held
that the burden of proving economic justification was on
the employer. In the instant case no such proof of economic
justification has been offered. Finally, the right of reinstate-
4 The Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), enfd. 414 F.2d 99 (7th
Cir. 1969) cert. denied 397 U.S. 920 (1970).
ment continues to exist so long as the strikers had not aban-
doned the employ of their employer for other substantial
and equivalent employment, and once having signified their
intent to return by their unconditional application for rein-
statement it is incumbent on Respondent to seek them out
as positions are vacated. Failing to fulfill the obligation to
reinstatement employees to their jobs as vacancies arise
constitutes a violation by the employer of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.'
I. Margaret Trueblood
As described above, Trueblood was not included on the
list of employees submitted to Respondent Employer by the
Union, nor did she herself for many months make any offer
to return to work. However, as also noted, the Union on her
behalf made an unconditional offer by letter dated March
31, 1977. The following day, having received a copy of this
letter, Trueblood called Respondent Employer and in-
quired when she would be able to return. This also consti-
tuted a request on her part, which was refused. Respondent
Employer seeks to rely on the fact that Trueblood's name
was not included on the recall list submitted by the Union.
The obligation to offer reinstatement to economic strikers
who make an unconditional offer to return to their former
employment rests upon the employer, who cannot avoid it
on the ground that the Union failed to make an earlier offer
for them. Moreover, Respondent Employer's reliance on
Section 10(b) as a bar to Trueblood's application is also
misplaced. Section 10(b) of the Act does not apply to the
rights of an economic striker to make an unconditional of-
fer to return to work.6
Accordingly, I find that by refusing to reinstate Margaret
Trueblood who made an unconditional offer to return to
her former employment by letter dated March 31, 1977,
Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
2. Audrey (Williams) Griffis and Blanche N. Gillock
I have previously found that the Union violated Section
8(a)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act by arbitrarily excluding
the names of Griffis and Gillock from the strike settlement
list of September I.
Griffis, a nurses aide, went to the nursing home sometime
in July and submitted a return-to-work slip signed by the
doctor. Although Griffis testified that she spoke to her su-
pervisor, Emerson, and asked when she was going to be
able to return to work, Emerson denied speaking to her on
that occasion. Emerson is corroborated in this regard by
Gail Coffey, who works in the business office. Coffey re-
called seeing Griffis in July and gave her the return-to-work
slip. Coffey said that she went to find Emerson but she was
not in her office, and when she returned to where she was
talking to Griffis the latter had left. Coffey testified in a
credible manner, and I therefore credit Emerson's denial
that she spoke to Griffis that day. In any case, the General
The Laidlaw Corporation, supra.
6 The Board has rejected a contention that time limits must be placed on
the reinstatement of economic strikers. Brooks Research & Manufacturing,
Inc., 202 NLRB 634 (1973).
248
HERITAGE HOUISE. IN(C.
Counsel has not contended that on this particular occasion
Griffis made an unconditional offer to return to work which
was denied.
However, Griffis did speak to Emerson when she sub-
mitted her resignation on August 30. Griffis was examined
very extensively as to why she submitted her resignation.
and she testified credibly to the effect that she did this be-
cause she believed it would help her obtain another job as
she felt that other employers would not hire her if she did
not resign and was still on strike. Griffis also testified with-
out contradiction that in December she filled out a new job
application at the office of Respondent Employer. Although
she obtained another job in February 1977, she stated that
she was unable to go back to work for Respondent Em-
ployer because she had not been recalled, and she was
available, as indicated by the Union's letter of March 31.
Gillock, an employee in the dietary department, had also
been on sick leave until released on August 2. 1976, by the
doctor. Gillock called Respondent Employer on September
2 and spoke to its administrator, Robert Dorsett. Gillock
told him that she understood that the strike was over and
asked whether he was calling any of the girls back to work.
He said they were on call back. and when she asked if her
name was on the list to return he replied that she was not.
He told her that the girls on the negotiation committee the
first time in 1976 were laid off and would not return. He
further said that it was up to the Union, the Company, the
supervisor, and the ability of the employee. Dorsett was
called as a witness by the General Counsel at the outset of
the hearing and was then recalled by the General Counsel
after his other witnesses, including Gillock. had testified. Of
course, Dorsett was subject to cross-examination by Re-
spondent Employer. Nevertheless, Dorsett did not allude to
or in any way deny the testimony of Gillock concerning the
substance of her telephone call to him on September 2. Ac-
cordingly, as Gillock testified credibly on this matter and
her statement is uncontradicted on the record. I credit her
testimony concerning the telephone call. On September 3.
the day after his telephone call, Gillock appeared and sub-
mitted a resignation to the Employer. As with Griffis, she
also stated that she took this action because she believed
other employers would not hire while she was on layoff
status.
Respondent Employer contends that the resignations of
Griffis and Gillock resulted in an abandonment of their
jobs. The Board has frequently dealt with the question of
whether strikers abandon their jobs and thereby became
ineligible to vote in a representation election. In that area
the Board has held that the party opposing eligibility must
show that the striker evidenced an intention to abandon his
interest in the job and permanently sever the employment
relationship. See Pacific Tile and Porcelain Company. 137
NLRB 1358 (1962). In other areas the Board has appar-
ently made a distinction between strike situations and oth-
ers where employees resigned because of some dissatisfac-
tion with conditions. The Board has held that an employee
who resigns during a strike may not in fact intend to perma-
nently sever his relationship with the employer where he is
on strike but only to convince other employers that he is
not merely seeking interim employment with them. See S &
M Manufacturing Company. 165 NLRB 663 (1967); Missis-
,ippi Stel (orporation, 19 NRB 47 (196(8). More re-
cently the Board affirmed without ctmient simillar tind-
ing in Coca-Cola Bottling Compani of Melemp.'li. 232 N I.RB
794 (1977). In these cases the Board has recognized that
resignations were not intended as an abandonment of the
strike but rather because of economic hardship.
In the instant situation the uncontradicted e idtlnce is to
the effect that both Griffis a.d (illock resigned because
they felt that their laxoff status would he an impedimllent to
their obtaining new employment. An indication that the,
did not intend to abandon their interest in their jobs with
Respondent Employer is the tact that they individuall? filed
applications, one in November and the other in l)ecember.
as new employees the only mode acceptable to Respondent
Employer. Finally, both continued through the Illion to
seek reinstatement. and in their behalf the I nion wrote the
letter of March 3 1. Theretore. I ind that the resignations oft
Gillock and Griffis did not constitute an abandonment, and
they retained their rights as economic strikers.
Moreover I find, based on the uncontradicted testimion
of Gillock to the effect that [)orsett told her that the girls on
the first negotiating committee (riffis and Gillock) kcere
laid off and would not return, that Respondent Employer
discriminated against them in violation of Section (a)( 3). It
knew the reason for their names not being included bh the
Union on the strike settlement list of September I and
agreed to their exclusion with knowledge of the unlalful
conduct of the Union. Accordingly. I find that Respondent
Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and I ) of the Act by
agreeing on September I that the names of Gillock and
Griffis not be added to the list of employces seeking rein-
statement. It is noted that Respondent Emploser denied
employment to Gillock again on September 2. to both s hen
they individually applied in November and December. and
again when the Union's letter of' March 31. 1977. as re-
ceived.
3. Georgia Bell. Maxie Pauline fasty, and Betty
T'hurston
It has been stipulated that effective March . 1977. Re-
spondent Employer removed the names of Bell, Hast. antd
Thurston, three of' the striking employees. from the recall
list in the strike settlement agreement of September 1. I'his
action was taken pursuant to a provision in the collectiv.e-
bargaining agreement that seniority be lost and terminated
if employees are on layoff status in excess of 6 successive
months.
The contention of Respondent Employer that economic
strikers be equated with laid-off employees has been re-
jected by the Board which stated. "The reinstatement rights
of economic strikers under Fleetwood Tradiler and L.ilf
are statutory as distinguished from the rights of' laid-off em-
ployees. A layoff constitutes a discontinuance of ",ork for
an employer which does not rise to the lesvel of a latful
economic strike. participation in which is protected under
Section 7 and 14 of the Act." See Brook. Rwc.arh ,lilu-
fileturing, In,. suprol at 636. The Board also rcjected an\
contention that a time limit should he placed on the rein-
statement of economic strikers, saving that such a i is
contrary to the principles enutnciated in lfelt,,ud anti
249
DE('ISIONS ()1: NAI()ONAI. ILABOR RI,.ATIONS BOARI)
Laidlaw. Accordingly, I find that Respondent iolated Scc-
tion 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act bh removing the names of
Bell, Hasty. and Thurston from the recall list on March I.
1977.
IV. Iti ETFF ("I OF Ill UNFAIR .ABO()R PRA('II('I:S I P()N
(')MMI R('I
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent Employer described in section I. above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic.
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. tI'eF REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I shall recommend that they be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent Employer unlawfully re-
fused to reemploy Margaret Trueblood on April 1, 1977, I
shall recommend that Respondent Employer offer her Im-
mediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position.
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered by reason of Respondent Employer's re-
fusal to reinstate her by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to that which she normally would have earned from
the date of the hire of the first nurse's aide after April 1,
1977. when her unconditional offer to return was received.
to the date of Respondent Employer's offer of reinstate-
ment. The backpay shall be computed in accordance with
F. ': NWoolworth C(ompanv, 90 NLRB 589 (1950). with in-
terest thereon as provided in Florida Sleel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).
I have found that Blanche Gillock and Audrey (Wil-
liams) Griffis were discriminatorily refused employment by
Respondent Employer on September 1, 1976. Moreover, I
have found that Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)( )(A) and 8(bX2) by its failure to include their names
on the strike settlement list on September I as employees
willing to return to their former jobs. Therefore, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent Employer offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs in accordance
with the foregoing remedial provisions. I shall also recom-
mend that Respondent Employer and Respondent Union
be jointly and severally required to make them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have sustained by reason of
the discrimination against them from the date that the first
nurse's aide was hired after September I. 1976, until Re-
spondent Employer offers them unconditional reinstate-
ment. except that the Union's liability shall cease on March
31, 1977, when it made an unconditional offer to the Em-
ployer in behalf of Gillock and Griffis. Backpay with inter-
est shall be computed as described above.
'See, generally. Isis Heating & Plumbing Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
having found that Respondent Employer violated Sec-
tion X(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act hs unlawfully terminating the
preferential hiring rights of Georgia Bell. Maxie Pauline
Ihasty, and Bettv Ihurston. economic strikers, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent Employer rescind the action take
on March 1,. 1977. and reinstate their names to the recall list
and implement the recall procedures agreed to on Septem-
ber 1. 1976. Further. the reinstatement rights of said em-
ployees shall he continued in accordance with the principles
set forlh in Fleetwood and Lalidlaw, and as vacancies occur,
whether due to the departure of employees, increases in the
work force, or otherwise. the said three employees shall be
offered such positions unless they have obtained other regu-
lar and substantial equivalent employment. Moreover. any
of the above-named three employees who would have been
recalled since March 1, 1977. but for Respondent Employ-
er s unlawful conduct shall be reinstated to the positions in
which the, would have been placed had they been recalled,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and made whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discriminatory failure to
reinstate them in accordance with F W. Woolworth, mupra,
with interest as provided in Florida Steel (Corporation, vupr.
('()(m l.ti(oNS ()' LA\'
1. Respondent. Heritage House, Inc.. New Castle. Indi-
ana. is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent-Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. B failing to reinstate Margaret Trueblood on April 1.,
1977, after her unconditional request for reinstatement Re-
spondent-Employer has discriminated with respect to hire.
tenure, and terms and conditions of employment and has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (I1) of the Act.
4. By tailing to include the names of Blanche Gillock
and Audrey (Williams) Griffis on a recall list of September
1, 1976, with knowledge that Respondent-Union had not
included their names for discriminatory reasons Respon-
dent-E mployer discriminated against Gillock and Griffis
with respect to their hire. tenure, and terms and conditions
of employment. thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I ) of the Act.
5. By removing, on March 1, 1977, the names of Georgia
Bell. Maxie Pauline Hasty. and Betty Thurston from a re-
call list and terminating the preferential hiring rights of
these unreinstated employees who had unconditionally ap-
plied for reinstatement at the cessation of an economic
strike Respondent-Employer has discriminated in regard to
their hire, tenure, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
6. Respondent Union. by not including the names of Gil-
lock and G(riffis on the September I recall list for arbitrary
and invidious reasons, failed in its duty to represent those
employees in violation of Section 8(b)( 1)(A) of the Act, and
by causing Respondent-Employer to deny reinstatement to
those employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
Respondent Union thereby violated 8(b)(2) of the Act.
250
HERITAGE HOUSE, INC.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Except as specifically found herein Respondents have
not otherwise violated the Act with respect to the allega-
tions in consolidated complaints.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 1(c) of
the Act I hereby issue the following recommended:
OR[)ER
A. The Respondent, Heritage House. Inc.. Nesw Castle.
Indiana, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to reemploy or reinstate or otherwise dis-
criminating against employees who are economic strikers in
regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or other terms
and conditions of employment in order to discourage mem-
bership in Retail. Wholesale and Department Store Union.
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Terminating the employee status of continuing strik-
ers or failing to reinstate them to existing vacancies or by
discriminating against them in any other manner with re-
spect to the hire, tenure, or any terms or conditions of em-
ployment.
(c) Removing from a recall list and terminating the pref-
erential hiring rights of unreinstated employees who uncon-
ditionally applied for reinstatement.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Margaret Trueblood immediate and full re-
instatement to her former or substantial equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination prac-
ticed against her in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer to Blanche Gillock and Audrey (Williams)
Griffis immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of the discriminatory failure to reinstate them in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Rescind its termination of the recall rights of Bell.
Hasty, and Thurston and reinstitute and abide by the recall
procedure set forth in the agreement between Respondent
Employer and Respondent-Union dated September I. 197 1.
(d) Offer immediate and full reinstatement, with back-
pay as set forth in "The Remedy." to Bell, Hasty, or Thur-
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
ston or any or all of them if they would have been recalled
since March 1, 1977, but fr Respondent-Employer's un-
lawful conduct.
(e) Preserve and, upon request. make available to the
Board or its agents. for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security pa ment records, timecards.
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(f) Post at its New Castle. Indiana. facility and mail to
each of the unreinstated economic strikers copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix A."T Copies of the notice,
on forms provided b the Regional Director for Region 25.
after being duly signed b Respondent-Emplo er's autiho-
rized representative, shall be posted bh it and mailed to said
employees immediately upon receipt thereof, and the
posted copies shall be maintained b it fr 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places. including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken b Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered. defaced, or covered b any other
material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director fi`r Region 25. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Retail. Wholesale and Department
Union. AFL CIO. its officers, agents. and representatives.
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to include the names of employ-
ees on a list of economic strikers who were unconditionally
offering to return to work, because they had not engaged in
picketing.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent-Em-
ployer to discriminate against certain employees by failing
to include their names as economic strikers who were offer-
ing to return to work and thereby causing the Employer to
violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees of Respondent Employer in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole. jointly and severally with Respondent
Employer. Blanche Gillock and Audrey (Williams) Griffis
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
the discriminatory failure of Respondent-Employer to rein-
state them in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its office copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B," 0 said copies on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 25. Copies of said notice, after
being duly signed by Respondent Union's representative.
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and
mailed to the above-named employees and members, and
9 In the event that this Order is enforced hb a Judgment ol'a niled States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted hb Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the nited States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of' the National
labor Relallons Board.
'o See fn. 9, rupra
251
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the posted copies shall be maintained by it for 60 consecu- Employer in places where notices to employees are custom-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all arily posted.
places where notices to members are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writ-
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered have been taken to comply herewith.
by other material. Ii Is FRI HFER ORD)ERED that the consolidated complaints
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 25 be dismissed as to all allegations not found specifically
signed copies of the said notice for posting by Respondent herein to be violative of the Act.