J. C. Penney Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. and Teamsters Local
507, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Case 8-CA-4620
June 27, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
On December 14, 1967, Trial Examiner Jerry B.
Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other alleged unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting
brief, and Respondent filed cross-exceptions and an
answer to the exceptions of the General Counsel
with a supporting 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(1)
findings.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner 's dismissal
of the 8(a)(5) allegation, but not for his reasons.
The Trial Examiner found that in seeking recogni-
tion on May 24, 1967, Union Representative Fried-
man failed to define adequately the unit which the
Union sought to represent and that Friedman's
statements at that time gave the impression that the
unit would comprise all Auto Center employees in-
cluding the salesmen although it represented a
majority only if the salesmen were excluded. We
find it unnecessary to reach this issue, although we
note that Respondent did not indicate any concern
with respect to the scope of the unit at the time the
Union requested recognition, although it did ex-
press a doubt as to the Union's majority. Rather, we
find that General Counsel failed to establish bad
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
faith on the part of Respondent in refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union,' and that
Respondent's illegal conduct limited to the state-
ments of Supervisors Radick and Frank was not so
flagrant as to vitiate its good faith in questioning
the Union's majority, or necessarily have had the
object of destroying the Union's majority status.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, J. C. Penney Company,
Inc., Richmond Heights, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
' Aaron Brothers Company of California, 158 NLRB 1077 Member Jen-
kins adheres to his views expressed there.
' Hammond & Irving, 154 NLRB 1071, 1073 Member Zagoria agrees
that a finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and a bargaining
order are unwarranted here , for Respondent 's illegal conduct clearly did
not create a situation adversely affecting the Union's ability to establish its
representative status in a Board-conducted election.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due
notice before Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone on
September 20, 21, and 22, 1967, at Cleveland,
Ohio.
The charge in Case 8-CA-4620 was filed on
May 25, 1967, and the complaint in this matter was
issued on July 6, 1967, alleging violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
The main issues raised by the pleadings are: (1)
whether Dan Frank, Steve Radick, and Richard
Sperling are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act; (2) whether the aforesaid persons, as Respon-
dent's supervisors, engaged in coercive interroga-
tion of employees about union activities, in making
threats of reprisals toward employees because of
union activities, and in making promises of benefits
to employees to dissuade employees from union ac-
tivities; (3) whether a certain described bargaining
unit is an appropriate bargaining unit; (4) whether
the union represented a majority of the employees
in the aforementioned bargaining unit on May 23
and 24, 1967, and was the representative of such
employees for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing; (5 ) whether the Union made an appropriate
demand of the Respondent to bargain collectively
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. 663
for the employees in the aforementioned bargaining
unit; and (6) whether the Respondent has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union since on or
about May 24, 1967.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to par-
ticipate in the proceeding. The General Counsel
and the Respondent filed briefs which have been
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, it is hereby found as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER1
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., the Respondent, is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a
corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. At all
times material herein, Respondent has operated
chain stores throughout the United States at which
it is engaged in the retail sale of general merchan-
dise, including automotive parts and services.
Further, Respondent at all times material herein
has operated, as one of its said chain stores, a retail
store known as Store No. 46, located in the city of
Richmond Heights, Ohio, the only store involved in
this proceeding, herein called Respondent's
Richmond Heights store. Further, at all times
material herein, Respondent has operated at its
Richmond Heights store a department thereof,
commonly referred to and designated as an Auto
Center, herein called the Auto Center, where it is
engaged in the retail sales of tires, batteries, other
automotive accessories, and in automotive repair
and maintenance services. Further, Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its aforesaid business
operations, annually sells and distributes products
at its Richmond Heights store, including its Auto
Center, the gross value of which exceeds $50,000.
Further, Respondent annually receives products
valued in excess of $50,000 which products are
transported to its Richmond Heights store, includ-
ing its Auto Center, in interstate commerce directly
from States of the United States other than the
State of Ohio.
As conceded by the Respondent and based upon
the foregoing, it is concluded and found that the
Respondent is now, and has been at all times
material herein, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED2
Teamsters Local 507, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, the Union , is now , and has
been at all times material herein , a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Refusal To Bargain
The General Counsel contends that on May 24,
1967, the Union requested the Respondent to bar-
gain collectively with respect to an alleged ap-
propriate bargaining unit,3 and that on that date the
Respondent commenced refusing to bargain with
the Union with respect to the alleged appropriate
bargaining unit.
The alleged appropriate bargaining unit was:
All full-time and regular part -time employees
of Respondent at its Auto Center , but exclud-
ing all salesmen , office clerical emoloyees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act....
The Respondent by its pleadings placed in issue
the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and the
appropriateness of the request to bargain. The
Respondent contended at the hearing that the al-
leged bargaining unit was not an appropriate unit
but that the appropriate bargaining unit was either
(1) a storewide bargaining unit consisting of em-
ployees in the departments in the main store build-
ing and the Auto Center employees or4 (2) an
overall Auto Center employee unit including
salesmen and the office clerical working in the
Auto Center.'
It is my conclusion from the evidence that the
Union 's request for bargaining was defective in that
the bargaining unit sought was not properly defined
by the Union to the Respondent.
Briefly summarized , the facts reveal that the
Respondent operates one of its chain stores, known
as Store No. 46, in the city of Richmond Heights,
Ohio . This store consists of a main store building,
an adjacent Auto Center building with nearby gas
islands . The Auto Center building is located some
128 feet to the south of the main building . Between
the main store and the Auto Center building there
is asphalt pavement used by pedestrians and au-
tomobiles . The main store building is approximately
256 feet long and 96 feet wide and has three floors.
Departments or selling floors are located on two
' The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein
2 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein.
' The General Counsel's complaint alleged that a certain bargaining unit
constituted an appropriate bargaining unit. The General Counsel's com-
plaint alleged that a request to bargain was made on May 24, 1967, but did
not specifically set forth that the request was with respect to the alleged ap-
propriate unit At the trial in this matter the General Counsel clarified his
pleadings as being to the effect that the request to bargain was made with
reference to the alleged appropriate bargaining unit . The General Coun-
sel's complaint alleged that the Respondent had refused to bargain, com-
mencing on May 24, 1967, with respect to the alleged appropriate bargain-
ing unit
' The Respondent in its brief abandoned its contention that a store-wide
unit (main store and auto center) was the appropriate unit, and conceded
the exclusion of the office clerical from an appropriate bargaining unit
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
floors and an office on the top floor of the main
store. The Auto Center building is approximately
128 feet long and approximately 48 feet wide and
has one floor.
The daily starting time for the main store office
force is 8 a.m., for the main store selling depart-
ments, 9:30 a .m. (although some employees report
earlier to set up their counters) and for the Auto
Center, 8:30 a.m. The various employees at the
Auto Center, however, work various hours. Some
report at 8:30 a.m., some at 1 p.m., and some at 6
p.m., as an example.
The main store building can be said to house in
effect a general department store and to display
and sell items such as clothing , hardware , sporting
goods , furniture, television sets , and refrigera-
tors 5Although there is no evidence of regular dis-
play or sale of any of the items sold in the Auto
Center, there is testimony to the effect that there
has on occasion been display and selling of some
items of the type found in the Auto Center.6
The Auto Center employees' contact with the
main store appears limited to going to the office at
the main store in connection with personnel
benefits and obtaining or leaving cash and getting
their pay.
Although the Auto Center had cash daily to carry
on its transactions and maintained certain records
of its own relative to pay rates of Auto Center em-
ployees and similar type information, the Auto
Center cash was taken to the main store for keep-
ing overnight . It appears that personnel and payroll
records for the Auto Center employees were main-
tained at the main store?
There were meetings for the Auto Center em-
ployees at the main store . At these meetings there
was discussion of maintenance , security , and sales
at the Auto Center.8
As to supervisory and other contact, Williams,
department manager of the Auto Center, credibly
testified that he had telephonic contact with the
main store and that if a question arose in his
absence , the problem could be brought to the at-
tention of a certain supervisor at the main store.
The Auto Center building was located some 128
feet to the south of the main store. The Respon-
dent's Auto Center involved the sale and display of
tires , batteries , and related auto accessories and the
sale of gas and oil at its gas islands.9
' Some of the departments in the main store were a greater distance
apart than the department in the main store closest to the Auto Center was
apart from the Auto Center
° The testimony of Williams on this point was in answer to a question as
to whether such was "ever" done . The testimony was not precise as to how
often or exactly the type of merchandise At most it would appear very sel-
dom that such merchandise was displayed or sold and that when done the
sales were by main store personnel.
' It appears likely that there was some duplication of records and that
some basic records for Auto Center employees' daily work were main-
tained at the Auto Center and summarized information forwarded and kept
at the main store.
° The evidence was insufficient to reveal that Auto Center employees
were at meetings in which main store employees attended
In addition to admitted Supervisor Donald Wil-
liams, the manager of the Auto Center department,
the following supervisors and employees worked in
the Auto Center in the areas designated,10 at the
hourly rate designated, and as full-time or part-time
employees as indicated.
It is undisputed that Donald St. Julian was the
service manager and a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act. It is disputed as to whether or not C.,
Dan Frank, Stephen Radick, and Richard Sperling
were supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The employees who are designated as having
worked in the service department , diagnostic lane,
gas island , and stockroom all wore company-rented
shirts and pants of a uniform type. All of these em-
ployees except Donald St. Julian, Frank, Radick,
Crane, and Sperling wore blue-type uniform shirts
containing writing or description indicating em-
ployees engaged in pit or automotive service func-
tions . tt The salesmen generally wore business suits
and attire ( white dress shirts with ties, etc .). 12 In the
absence of the evidence to the contrary and since
Department Manager Williams and office clerical
Dezort worked in the sales area, it appears that
they also dressed in business or street attire.
St. Julian , service manager , wore a white uniform
shirt and blue uniform trousers. On St . Julian 's shirt
on the left front pocket were words indicating his
first name and that he was the "service super-
visor."13 Sperling, Radick, Crane, and Frank wore
white uniform shirts and blue uniform trousers. Ex-
cept for the color, the uniform shirts of Sperling,
Radick , Crane , and Frank were similar insofar as
writing thereon to the "blue shirts."
The facts reveal that the employees in the service
department changed tires , replaced carburetors,
and generally performed mechanical and main-
tenance work on automobiles. Employees who
worked in the service department sometimes helped
out on the gas island and filled in on work on the
diagnostic lanes.
The gas island employees in addition (to the
filling station type work of servicing cars with gas
and oil ) helped maintain shelves in the sales area.
Diagnostic lane employees performed overall
checks of cars to determine mechanical and other
needs . On the days that the regular diagnostic lane
employees were off, employees from the service de-
partment were temporarily assigned such -work. The
' The diagram of the physical layout of the Auto Center based upon a
stipulated exhibit is revealed in Appendix B attached hereto.
10 Since the relevant time involved, there have been some changes in the
identity of persons performing some of the jobs.
" The employee 's first name was indicated on the left front pocket of the
shirt. On the back of some of the employees' shirts were the words "Pit-,
Boss, Service ." Apparently there was also a letter "P" on the front of the
shirt
" Williams testified to the effect that the salesmen sometimes wore "ser-
vice" coats
" The white uniform shirts apparently had the employee's or supervisor's
first name over the left hand pocket , and a letter "P" on the front. On the
back were words such as " Pit-Boss , Service."
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC.
office clerical performed clerical duties in the Auto
Center and maintained certain confidential records
pertaining to wages , rates , etc., in connection with
her job. On occasion the office clerical operated
the cash register in the sales area.
Stockroom employees engaged in the work of
handling, storing , and supplying parts when needed.
All service employees, gas island employees, and
diagnostic employees, in addition to their duties as
described, had duties and responsibility to attempt
to sell the items mechandised in the Auto Center.
For such sales the employees received a set bonus
per item.
Salesmen primarily engaged in selling parts and
services to customers and on occasion conferred
with service department personnel as to such work
and service. Salesmen were paid on an hourly rate
and commission ( on sales of items ) basis.
On a few occasions salesmen in the past had
worn the "blue shirt and pants" uniform and en-
gaged in service-type work.
All Auto Center employees enjoyed the same
fringe benefits. The time records for all employees,
except the office clerical, were kept on the same
timesheets.
Except as indicated there is a failure of evidence
to otherwise form a comparative basis of the Auto
Center employees and main store employees.
On May 23, 1967, around 9 a.m., Cimino con-
tacted the Union and made arrangements for a
meeting with a union representative." Later that
day, around noon, Union Representative Friedman
met with Cimino and several of Cimino's fellow em-
ployees at the Manners Restaurant and discussed
unionism and the question of obtaining recognition
for bargaining. At this meeting Cimino, DeVito,
Fulton, Hebert, and Knebusch, all employees of
Respondent's Auto Center, executed union
authorization cards. Friedman gave the employees
union buttons. These buttons were circular and yel-
low and contained the words, "I have joined Team-
sters Union No. 507." Friedman asked the em-
ployees about arrangements to meet other em-
ployees. The employees told Friedman to, "Just
give us the cards and we will get everybody
signed ." The employees told Friedman that they
would call him when the cards were signed or when
they wanted to ask him something.
At the time that Friedman gave the employees
the union buttons he told them that the buttons
were a great protection for them and that when he
went in to ask for recognition they should all put
the buttons on at the same time . Friedman told the
employees that they should all wear the buttons and
before it was decided to pass the buttons out that
they should be sure that they all wanted to wear the
buttons.
665
Cimino had asked Sperling to accompany him to
the meeting with Friedman. Friedman, noting that
Sperling was wearing a white uniform shirt as
contrasted to the blue uniform shirt of the others,
questioned Sperling as to whether he was a super-
visor or not. Friedman told Sperling that the Union
allowed supervisors to join if the employees did
not have an objection.
After the foregoing meeting, by around 2 p.m.,
10 other employees had executed union authoriza-
tion cards. These employees were Ralph Crane,
Dave Gelbach, Frank lannetta, Kenneth Kor-
powski, Richard Imbry, Allan Lang, Tom Linn,
Robert McDonnell, James Perine, and Richard
Rohl.
On the morning of May 24, 1967, around 10
a.m., Cimino took the 10 authorization cards that
had been signed on the afternoon of May 23, 1967,
to Union Representative Friedman at his office.
Friedman told Cimino that he was going to go to
the Auto Center and present the cards to Depart-
ment Manager Williams and request recognition.
Cimino thereupon left and went to the Auto Center
ahead of Friedman in order to tell the cardsigners
to put their union buttons on.
The employees who had signed union cards and
who were working commenced wearing their union
buttons around the time that Friedman arrived at
the Auto Center. Friedman arrived at the Auto
Center around 10:30 a.m.
Of the employees who signed union cards, all
wore the blue shirt and trouser uniforms except
Ralph Crane. Crane customarily wore a white
uniform shirt and blue uniform trousers. Cimino
testified to the effect that all the employees who
were working who wore blue shirts except two
commenced wearing the union buttons. I am con-
vinced that Cimino thought that he was truthfully
testifying to this point. I am not convinced, how-
ever, that his recollection was accurate. Cimino
testified to the effect that Fulton was working and
wore a union button. The payroll records reveal
that Fulton was not working. The payroll records
reveal that Rupp, Boczek, Skufca, and Azelis were
working on the morning of May 24, 1967. The facts
reveal that the aforesaid employees customarily
wore blue shirt and trouser uniforms. As of the
time of Friedman's visit to Williams' office none of
the aforenamed four had signed union cards. Boc-
zek and Skufca, around 5 p.m. on May 24, 1967,
did however sign union cards. Under all of the cir-
cumstances I find it hard to believe and don't be-
lieve that Boczek, Skufca, Rupp, or Azelis wore
union buttons on the morning of May 24, 1967,
upon which was inscribed, "I have joined Teamster
Union No. 507."
" Whether this meeting occurred on Monday or Tuesday is not of great
moment . Under all of the facts, I am convinced that the totality of the
evidence reveals the incident to have occurred on Tuesday, May 23, 1967
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Considering all of the evidence and a fair in-
ference therefrom, I conclude and find that in the
service department Dan Frank was working at the
service desk and wearing a white uniform shirt, that
service department employees Hebert, Knebusch,
Korpowski, Linn, and Imbry were working, wearing
blue uniform shirts and wearing union buttons, that
service department employees Rupp, Boczek, and
Skufca were working, wearing blue uniform shirts
and were not wearing union buttons , that Sperling
was working in the diagnostic lane and was wearing
a white uniform shirt but was not wearing a union
button , that Allan Lang was working on the gas
island and was wearing a blue uniform shirt and a
union button, that Leon Azelis was working in the
stockroom and was wearing a blue uniform shirt
but was not wearing a union button, that Terry
Lewis and Walter Zipperle were working in the
sales area and were dressed in business suits with
shirts and neckties and were not wearing union but-
tons, and that Mary Lou Dezort was working in the
office in the sales area and was wearing street
clothes but not a union button.
In addition to the foregoing, Cimino and DeVito
were present but were not at work. When working,
Cimino and DeVito wore blue uniform shirts and
trousers. On this occasion Cimino and DeVito were
apparently dressed in street attire and were wearing
union buttons.
Around 10:30 a.m. on May 24, 1967, Union
Representative Friedman arrived at the Auto
Center. What transpired there is revealed by the
following excerpts of his credited testimony.15
A. I walked into the salesroom, which was
the front part of the Automotive Service De-
partment, and went up to one of the fellows in
there and asked to see Mr. Williams, and he
went into the office in the rear of-the rear
part of that building and he came out and
showed me the way to go in there.
We went in there and I introduced myself,
and Mr. Allison was there, and Mr. Williams. I
opened my briefcase and handed him the
cards . The fellows gave me permission to show
him these cards. I told him that I represented
507 and I had the majority of his people signed
up, and I offered him the cards.
At that time he says, "I don't believe you
have the majority and I don't want to look at
any cards." At that time I took them, signature
side up, and put them on Mr. Williams s desk,
spread them apart a little bit, and at that time
Mr. Williams leaned forward and Mr. Allison
said, "Don't look at the cards. And again I will
tell you to go to the National Labor Relations
Board."
" Williams testified to the effect that Friedman did not refer to the but-
tons in the encounter . Both Friedman and Williams impressed me as wit-
nesses attempting to tell the truth Considering all of the surrounding cir-
cumstances , I am convinced that Friedman 's testimony is more reliable on
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At that time I pulled out a button and I said,
"All your men are wearing these buttons. You
can walk through the shop and look at the but-
tons."
He said, "The men can wear the buttons. I
don't have to look at them. And again I will tell
you to go through the National Labor Rela-
tions Board."
At that time I picked up the cards and
walked through the Sales Department and
went to the door to go into the Service Depart-
ment. A fellow said, "May I help you?" I said,
"No. I am just walking through the Service De-
partment."
He says, "We don't want you talking to none
of the help." I said, "I am not talking. All I
want to do is see if they are wearing their but-
tons" and kept walking.
Just as I got to the outside, on the west side
of the building-
A. Yes. As I walked through I saw Phil
Cimino. He was wearing street clothes and he
had his button on. I saw a few fellows with a
blue uniform on and they also had buttons.
They waved to me and I don't remember who
they were at this time. Phil Cimino came out-
side and said , "They are all wearing buttons."
As is apparent from the foregoing excerpts of
Friedman's testimony, the testimony does not set
forth that the bargaining unit is the unit alleged in
the General Counsel's complaint. On cross-ex-
amination questions were directed to Friedman to
pinpoint the unit for which Friedman was seeking
recognition. The following excerpts from Fried-
man's testimony reveal such questions and answers.
Q. When you walked in and talked to Mr.
Williams you just said to him, "We represent
your men or your people"?
A. The people of the Automotive Center.
Q. That's not what you said.
A. Well, on May the 24th, and I don't be-
lieve you or I-I am not arguing with you, but I
don't believe that I could remember every
word and I have been organizing 10, 15 places
and I don't mean to be nasty or smart about it.
Q. It could be, however, that you did say
"your men" or "your people"?
A. I said, "Your service people," I'm fairly
certain I said that.
Q. You are fairly certain, but you are not
sure?
this point and so credit it and discredit Williams' denial. I am convinced
that Williams, because of the totality of the events, has honestly forgotten
part of the conversation.
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. 667
A. Fairly certain.
Q. You said before when Mr. Motil asked,
you said, "Your men." Which is it? Can you
say for sure yes or no what you said?
A. "Your people in the Service Depart-
ment." It's not just word for word.
Q. You did say that?
A. Yes.
Q. How about the Gas Island people?
A. Pardon me?
Q. How about the Gas Island people or the
Stockroom?
A. The people that signed the cards.
Q. Aren't you really saying, Mr. Friedman,
that you don't know for sure what you said?
A. I know what I said when I went in there,
not word for word.
Q. It is conceivable what you did say could
have been "your men" or "your people"? Do
you deny that this is what you might have said?
A. I could have.
Considering all of the foregoing , I am convinced
and conclude and find that Friedman did not speci-
fy that he was seeking representation for the unit
alleged in the complaint but merely told the
Respondent in effect that he represented all his em-
ployees.1e
The General Counsel contends that the external
circumstances of the employees wearing blue shirt-
and-trouser uniforms and union buttons and the
failure of the other employees to be wearing the
union buttons combined with Friedman 's statement
to the Respondent about the employees wearing the
union buttons clarified the definition of the
requested bargaining unit. I do not agree. As in-
dicated , the facts reveal that the unit contended for
by the General Counsel includes at least one man,
Crane , who customarily wore a white uniform shirt.
Although Crane was not working on the morning of
May 24 , 1967 , Crane had signed a union card and
it is undisputed that he was in the now-contended
bargaining unit . The facts reveal that Friedman told
the Respondent that , "All your men are wearing
these buttons. You can walk through the shop and
look at the buttons." The facts reveal furthermore,
however, that not even all of the blue shirted em-
ployees were wearing buttons. Insofar as the
salesmen were concerned , there were only two
salesmen present and working at the relevant time.
These salesmen were dressed in normal street attire
and were not wearing union buttons . It is also noted
that the one stockroom man, who was working and
wearing a blue uniform shirt , was not wearing a
union button. The stockroom man, Crane, who was
not working , it is noted , had signed a union card,
normally wears a white uniform shirt , and is un-
disputedly included in the alleged bargaining unit.
Considering all of the foregoing, including such
facts as previously set forth with reference to the
Company's operations and employee functions, I
am convinced, conclude, and find that the state-
ments by Friedman in connection with the external
facts and circumstances did not define the bargain-
ing unit in such a way as to put the Respondent on
notice that the bargaining unit requested excluded
the salesmen. Although the statements by Friedman
as to the bargaining unit are not clear, I am con-
vinced and persuaded that the statements tended to
indicate that the Union was requesting a bargaining
unit of all the Auto Center employees, including
the salesmen.
Questions concerning bargaining obligations are
serious questions. Because of this the Board does
not require the party requesting bargaining to spell
out the bargaining demand in a super-legalistic
manner. On the other hand, the seriousness of the
question involved demands that the request be
made in such a way that the parties are on notice,
among other things, as to a properly defined unit.
Considering the totality of the evidence, I am con-
vinced, conclude, and find that the Union did not
properly define the bargaining unit requested in
such a way that the Respondent knew that the
salesmen were to be excluded from the unit. In
short, the facts do not reveal that the Union
requested that the Respondent bargain concerning
the alleged bargaining unit. Accordingly, since the
Union did not properly define the alleged bargain-
ing unit in its bargaining request, the facts are insuf-
ficient to support a finding of a refusal to bargain
(8(a)(5), as alleged). I conclude and find that the
General Counsel has failed to establish a violation
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as alleged.17
B. Interference , Restraint , and Coercion
1. Supervisory issue
The General Counsel contends and the Respon-
dent denies that Dan Frank, Steve Radick, and
Richard Sperling were agents and supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
The General Counsel adduced evidence to the ef-
fect that the wearing of the white uniform shirts
denotes supervisory status. The Respondent ad-
duced evidence to the effect that the wearing of the
white uniform shirts did not denote supervisory
status but was in order to identify the persons
whom customers were to seek out relative to having
their work performed.
As has been previously set forth with respect to
the Auto Center personnel, the salesmen, Williams,
and the office clerical all wear business or street at-
tire. The employees working in the stockroom, ser-
14 Considering Friedman 's entire testimony on direct and cross-examina-
tion , I find it unreliable to establish that he referred to a bargaining unit in
more specific terms than as set out in the facts herein.
"It is therefore unnecessary to resolve certain other issues relating to
the bargaining issues.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vice department, and on the gas island all wear
uniform shirts and trousers. All except five (St. Ju-
lian, Frank, Radick, Sperling, and Crane) wear
blue uniform shirts and trousers. St. Julian, Frank,
Radick, Sperling, and Crane wear white uniform
shirts and blue trousers. Donald St. Julian, admit-
tedly the supervisor of the service department,
wears a white uniform shirt upon the front of which
is writing indicating that he is " service supervisor."
There is no writing on the white uniform shirts of
Radick, Frank, Crane, or Sperling to indicate that
they are supervisors or not. It is undisputed that
Crane is an employee in the alleged bargaining unit.
It would appear that if the Respondent wished to
identify Frank, Radick, or Sperling as supervisors
by the use of white uniform shirts the Respondent
would have had writing on said shirts to indicate
such status as was done in the case of Donald St.
Julian."' Considering the totality of the facts includ-
ing the fact that Crane, admittedly not a supervisor,
wore a white uniform shirt, I am convinced that the
wearing of the white uniform shirts does not con-
stitute persuasive evidence of supervisory status.
The determination of Frank's, Radick's, and
Sperling 's status is thus left to the evaluation of
other facts.
Donald St. Julian is service supervisor of the ser-
vice department and has responsibility over the ser-
vice department, stockroom, and diagnostic lane.
St. Julian 's hourly rate of pay is $4.40. During the
relevant time involved herein St. Julian worked 40
hours per week and during his hours of work was
principally stationed at the service desk in the ser-
vice department. While at the service desk St. Ju-
lian was in contact with customers desiring automo-
tive service and made assignments to the various
employees in the department to do such services.
The work schedules of St. Julian, Radick, and
Frank were arranged in such a manner that one of
the three was customarily on the service desk at all
times . Thus Radick was on the service desk for 18
hours a week and while there made the same type
of work assignments as St. Julian did when he was
on the desk. Frank was also on the service desk for
18 hours a week and while there made the same
type of work assignments as St. Julian did when he
was there.
Radick's and Frank's rate of pay was $3.50 per
hour as compared to St. Julian's $4.40 per hour.
" Williams testified to the effect that the difference between Sperling's
uniform shirt and the "blue shined " employees was color Accordingly, I
am convinced that his testimony , that on the back of Sperling 's shirt was
the word "Pit-Boss," was inadvertently incomplete and that on the back of
Sperling 's shirt were the words " Pit-Boss, Service."
19 Knebusch testified to the effect that he did not believe that Radick or
Frank spent half their time doing mechanical work The questions and an-
swers as to this point although somewhat indicative that Radick and Frank
did not do a great deal of mechanical work was relatively fragmented and
was not sufficient to reliably determine the extent of such mechanical
work . Especially is this so since the assignment of St . Julian , Radick, and
Frank to the service desk was staggered throughout the week.
10 Based upon Fulton 's credited testimony and the logical consistency of
all the facts . To the extent that Williams' overall testimony may appear
Radick's and Frank's rate of pay was equal to the
rate of pay of Kraus, was less than Sperling's $3.75-
per-hour rate of pay and from $.75 to $1.50 higher
per hour than the other employees. Kraus regularly
performed mechanical work but on occasion was
utilized at the service desk when neither St. Julian,
Radick, nor Frank, was available.
When Radick and Frank were not working at the
service desk, they assisted the service employees if
the latter had problems, engaged in road-testing
cars, and engaged in general mechanical work.19
As to the road-testing of cars, it is noted that St. Ju-
lian, Radick, Frank, and, the salesmen were the
ones normally supposed to road-test cars. On occa-
sion , however, other employees did some road-test-
ing. Radick and Frank occasionally checked to see
how various work jobs had been performed.20
Radick and Frank, at cleanup time, helped em-
ployees to clean the floors and to do other duties.
On occasion after employees had been assigned
specific jobs, customers would contact the service
desk with reference to other incoming jobs. Ap-
parently at times either St. Julian, Radick, or Frank
would determine that the type of job required or
the overall plan of work necessitated taking an em-
ployee off a previously assigned job and reassigning
the employee to a new job. On such occasions, St.
Julian, Radick, or Frank took employees off a job
before completion and made new job assignments.
Service Supervisor St. Julian on various occa-
sions told employees that Radick and Frank were
assistant service managers .Y1 Frank on one occasion
told employee Knebusch that Radick was the other
assistant service manager and would be around to
kind of kick you in the a- every once in a while,
too."
Williams testified to the effect that the supervi-
sion in the Auto Center was as follows: that Wil-
liams was overall supervisor and immediately han-
dled the sales area and the gas island; that St. Julian
was over the service department, the stockroom,
and the diagnostic lane, that when St. Julian was
absent there was no supervision over the service de-
partment, the stockroom, and the diagnostic lane;
that when he, Williams, was absent, there was
no supervision over the sales area or gas island; that
if a problem came up that a Mr. Massie, a merchan-
dising manager in the main store, or an assistant
main store manager would handle it.22
contradictory of the facts found above , it is discredited as being not as
complete or detailed as Fulton 's on this point and consequently not as relia-
ble when considered in total context with other facts
Si To the extent that Williams ' testimony is to the effect that he did not
know how employees would consider Radick or Frank as assistant service
managers , such testimony is discredited The facts as to their duties at the
service desk overwhelmingly support a finding that Radick and Frank func-
tioned as assistant service managers and that all involved would know it
'r To the extent that Williams testified to the effect that there was no su-
pervision over the service department and diagnostic lanes in the absence
of St Julian , it is discredited I found Williams to be a truthful witness but
this portion of his testimony constitutes conclusions of a legal nature and is
not reliable when considered with all of the facts in the record
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC.
Williams also testified to the effect that Radick
and Frank had made recommendations pertaining
to employees, that he used his own judgment on
such matters, that on occasions that he checked
with Radick or Frank to verify his own judgment,
that as to raises and other matters he conferred
with Service Supervisor St. Julian. The type of
questions and answers involved in the question of
effective recommendation is one which is complex
insofar as a witness is concerned. I am convinced
that Williams' testimony to the effect that he
checked with Radick and Frank to verify his own
judgment reveals that he did give weight to their
opinions and recommendations and that he did as-
sume full responsibility for the judgments he made
thereupon.
As indicated previously, the facts reveal that
Radick and Frank and all employees enjoyed the
same fringe benefits. Radick and Frank were both
hourly paid. On various occasions during the rele-
vant time involved, Radick and Frank worked over-
time but elected to take time off in lieu of their
overtime pay.
Considering all of the facts, I am convinced that
the facts clearly reveal that Radick and Frank are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. I find it
hard to believe and don't believe that the Respon-
dent would leave the service department and diag-
nostic lane without supervision during such times as
the department and lane were open and St. Julian
was not present. If so, this would mean that for 40
hours per week the service department employees
had supervision and for 36 hours the service de-
partment had no immediate supervision. The type
of work involved in the service department appears
to be the type that would continue throughout the
time that the department was open for business.
The facts are clear that Radick and Frank exercised
the power of assignment of work. It is clear that as
to many of the assignments the need for judgment
to be exercised was slight. As an example, it is clear
that on many occasions the service manager (or
Radick or Frank) had jobs to assign which could be
assigned to any available employee. On other occa-
sions, it is clear that the service manager (or
Radick or Frank) had to consider the capabilities of
the employees available and the type of job up for
assignment . As indicated , on occasion the service
manager (or Frank or Radick) had to take em-
ployees off previously assigned jobs and assign the
employees to new jobs. It is thus clear that it was
essential for the service manager or the person
functioning in his stead to have the power to make
assignments in a nonroutine fashion. The facts
clearly establish that Radick, the service manager
and the ones functioning in his stead exercised the
power of assignment in a nonroutine fashion. Since
" It is therefore concluded that the evidence fails to establish illegal con-
duct on the part of the Respondent by Sperling , as alleged
$4 The facts are based upon a composite evaluation of DeVito's credited
and uncontradicted testimony and the logical consistency of all the
evidence and a fair inference therefrom. Since the time records reveal that
Radick 's working hours on the date involved started at 1 p.m., I set the time
669
Radick and Frank possessed and exercised the
power of assignment of work in a nonroutine
fashion, the facts clearly establish that Radick and
Frank, during the relevant time involved, were su-
pervisors within the meaning of the Act. I so con-
clude and find.
Sperling worked in the diagnostic lane. Sperling's
rate of pay was $3.75 per hour as compared to
$3.50 per hour for Radick and Frank (found to be
supervisors herein) and Kraus and as compared to
Service Supervisor St. Julian's rate of pay of $4.40
per hour. Sperling's rate of pay was approximately
$1 to $1.75 per hour higher than that of employees
other than those mentioned above.
The diagnostic lane was normally open from 9 to
12 a.m. and from I to 6 p.m. The employees who
normally worked in the diagnostic lane (Sperling
and Cimino) performed a large number of checks
on cars to determine the mechanical needs of the
car. On the days that Sperling or Cimino were off,
St. Julian, the service supervisor, assigned an em-
ployee from the service department to work in the
diagnostic lane.
There is no evidence that any official or super-
visor ever made statements to employees to the ef-
fect that Sperling was a supervisor. Cimino credibly
testified to the effect that Sperling assigned him his
duties and told him what to do. It is noted, how-
ever, that Cimino credibly testified to the effect
that on several specific occasions it was St. Julian,
the service supervisor, who told him of his assign-
ment to or away from the diagnostic lane. Cimino
credibly testified to the effect that Sperling was an
older person and that he never questioned
Sperling's directions. Cimino a:so credibly testified
to the effect that when he and several employees
went to see the union representative about organiz-
ing a union , he asked Sperling to go along. Cimino
also credibly testified to the effect that Sperling
worked along with him in cleaning up the area.
Considering all of the facts in this case, I am con-
vinced that the totality of the evidence reveals that
Sperling is an older and skilled employee and that
his direction of the work of Cimino was that of an
older and skilled employee directing a helper. In ef-
fect such direction constituted routine accommoda-
tion of leadership of an older and more skilled em-
ployee to a younger and less skilled employee. Ac-
cordingly, I conclude and find that the facts do not
reveal that Sperling was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.23
2. Conduct of Steve Radick
a. Threat to De Vito 24
On May 24, 1967, around 1 p.m., Gary DeVito
who was off for the day, was at the Auto Center in
of the incident around that time Since the time records indicate that Patek
did not work on that date , I infer that for some other reason he happened to
be at the Auto Center at the time involved. Since I am convinced that
DeVito correctly timed the incident as being the same date as Friedman
made his demand , I am convinced that the event occurred on May 24
rather than some other date
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
street attire. DeVito was wearing a union button
upon which was written, " have joined Teamsters
Union No. 507." DeVito purchased some gasoline
and went in to the sales area to where the cash re-
gister was located to pay for the gasoline. Salesman
Bob Patek, who was off for the day but who was in
the Auto Center, said to DeVito "What's that on
your shirt?" DeVito replied to Patek, "It's my but-
ton." Supervisor Steve Radick, who was present,
said, "No, that's your discharge button."
Considering the foregoing, I conclude and find
that the Respondent, by Supervisor Radick, on May
24, 1967, threatened employee DeVito with
discharge because he was wearing a union button.
Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. I so conclude and find.
b. Threats to Gelbach
On the evening of May 24 , 1967, Supervisor
Radick spoke to employee Gelbach . What trans-
pired is revealed by the following excerpts of Gel-
bach 's credited testimony:
Q. Now, calling your attention to the 24th
of May, 1967, and in particular the evening
hours, did you have occasion to speak to Mr.
Steve Radick on that day?
A. Yes.
Q. All right . Will you tell us from the
beginning what you and he said to each other?
A. We were standing at the service desk and
Steve and I and a customer were standing
there , and the customer looked at me, he
looked at my badge and he said , "Local 507.
What is that? " Steve Radick said, "That's his
discharge button."
Q Was there any more said at that point?
A. No.
Considering the foregoing , I conclude and find
that the Respondent, by Supervisor Radick, on May
24, 1967, threatened Gelbach with discharge
because he was wearing a union button . Such con-
duct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so
conclude and find.
On the evening of May 25 , 1967, Supervisor
Radick again spoke to employee Gelbach. What
transpired is revealed by the following excerpts
from Gelbach 's credited testimony.
A. About 7:00 o 'clock.
Q. Where were you at that time?
A. I was in one of the bays.
0. Who else was present?
A. A customer and Steve.
0. Will you tell us everything that happened
from the beginning on that occasion?
A. We were standing there and the
customer looked at the badge and he said,
"What 's that?"
" Although the complaint did not allege this incident , at the hearing it
was made clear to the parties and the Trial Examiner that the General
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Steve looked and he said, "That's his walk-
ing papers."
Q. Was there anything more that was said?
A. I turned around and walked away.
Considering the foregoing, I conclude and find
that the Respondent, by Supervisor Radick, on May
25, 1967, threatened Gelbach with discharge
because he was wearing a union button. Such con-
duct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Conduct of Dan Frank
a. Interrogation of Fulton
Around June 6, 1967, 2 weeks after May 23,
1967, Supervisor Frank and employee Fulton had a
conversation.25 What occurred is revealed by the
following credited excerpts from Fulton's
testimony:
0. Can you tell us approximately, that is by
saying within a few days, within a week, within
a month, something of that nature, when this
conversation occurred?
A. About two weeks, three weeks after we
had signed the cards.
Q. About what time of day was it?
A. 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, if I re-
member right.
Q. You were there together, alone, no one
else was near enough to be able to overhear
the conversation?
A. That's right.
Q. Who initiated the conversation?
A. I did.
Q. Will you tell us-
A. I was doing a front end alignment on a
car and I had run into a problem and I called
him over to ask him a question and we started
talking.
He asked me what my feelings on the Union
were, what my opinion was, and I told him that
we had talked, the men had talked together,
that we felt that after talking to the Company
that we weren't getting anything, we were told
that things were going to be done but they
weren't-maybe they were being done, it's a
long process, but to us it didn't seem that
anything was happening, what we had asked
for, and we decided the only way we could get
anything was to stand together, to stick
together, was to form a union.
Q. Is that all you can recall of what you and
he said to each other on this occasion?
A. Yes.
Considering all of the foregoing, and in connec-
tion therewith the illegal conduct of Supervisor
Radick previously described, I conclude and find
that the Respondent, by Supervisor Frank, on or
Counsel contended that this incident constituted alleged illegal interroga-
tion by Frank . I find it clear that the incident was litigated as such
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. 671
about June 6, 1967, engaged in interrogation of
employee Fulton about his union beliefs and desires
in a manner constituting interference , restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of the Act. Such con-
duct is violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act. I so
conclude and find.
the Recommended Order below, which is found
necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of
the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
b. Alleged threat to close down
Around 2 or 3 weeks after May 23, 1967, Super-
visor Frank and employee McDonnell (spelled Mc-
Donald in transcript ) engaged in a conversation.
What transpired is revealed by the following
credited excerpts from McDonnell's testimony:
A. Once in the locker room jokingly I said
to Mr. Frank, did he drop his Union button
and he said "No." Then seriously I asked him
what he thought of the whole situation, and he
was kind of hesitant to speak, but he said he
was afraid if we asked for too much we would
just get nothing and they wouldn't meet our
demands, they would just close the store if we
asked for too much.
I said, "Well, they could raise the prices if
they had to." He said they wouldn't be able to
raise the prices. I asked him why not and he
said that they were nationwide prices or
something like that and they couldn't be
changed, but I felt that if the Company wanted
to change them they could.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and
find that the evidence fails to establish that Super-
visor Frank's statements to McDonnell constituted
a threat that the Respondent would close down or
cease operations at the Auto Center if the Union
became the collective-bargaining representative of
the Auto Center employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the Respondent described in section
I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended
that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action of the type which is con-
ventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in
2° In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words " a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
1. Teamsters Local 507, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is now, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., the Respondent,
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices 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 this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their
or other employees' union affiliation or activities in
a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge, or
with other reprisals, because of their activities on
behalf of a labor organization.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such rights may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization 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.
(a) Post at its plant in Richmond Heights, Ohio,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."26 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order"
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for Region 8, after being
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
The Respondent shall take reasonable steps to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing , within 20 days from the date of this
Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.27
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their or other employees' union
affiliation or activities in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge or with other reprisals because of
their activity on behalf of a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and to
refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Dated By
J. C. PENNEY COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive 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, Federal Office Building Room 1695, 1240
East Ninth Street , Cleveland, Ohio 44115,
Telephone 522-3725.
APPENDIX B
PERSONS EMPLOYED AT J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.
RICHMOND HEIGHTS STORE AUTO CENTER
ON MAY 24th 1967
SERVICE DEPARTMENT
NAME HOURLY RATE
FT-FULL TIME
PT-PART TIME
Donald St. Julian $4.40 FT
C. Dan Frank 3.50 FT
Stephen Radick 3.50 FT
Raymond Kraus 3.50 FT
Robert Fulton 2.75 FT
Jeff Hebert 2.60 FT
Robert McDonnell 2.60 FT
Robert Rupp 2.75 FT
Al Boczek 2.75 FT
Richard Rohl 2.60 FT
Norman Knebusch 2.50 FT
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. 673
Kenneth Korpowski 3.25 FT
Thomas Linn 2.60 FT
Dennis Skufca 2.60 FT
Gary DeVito 2.00 FT
James Perine 2.60 FT
Richard Imbry 2.60 FT
Frank lannetta 2.00 PT
Bernard Barry 2.00 PT
Ken Sawyer 2.00 PT
William Carlton 2.00 PT
Wayne Hillkirt 2.00 PT
Dave Gelbach 2.00 PT
James Krager 2.00
DIAGNOSTIC LANE
PT
Richard Sperling $3.75 FT
Phil Cimino 2.75
GAS ISLAND
FT
Allan Lang 2.00 FT
Timothy McCarthy 2.00
STOCKROOM
FT
Ralph Crane 2.00 FT
Leon Azelis 2.00
SALES
FT
Robert Patek 1.75 FT
Terry Lewis 1.50 FT
Walter Zipperle 1.50 FT
George Aspern 1.75 PT
Joseph Case 1.75
OFFICE
PT
Mary-Lou Dezort 1.70 FT
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 44