Jefferson Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1291 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

JEFFERSON STORES, INC. 1291
Jefferson Stores, Inc. and Stephan A. Sonn . Case No. 12-CA-
2806. September 24, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 5, 1964, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the De-
cision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
'Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following
additions :
1. Paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
is amended to read as follows :
Interrogating any employee with respect to his own activities or
the activities of other employees in or on behalf of any labor orga-
nization in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
2. The following is added as paragraph 2 (b) to the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order and the subsequent paragraphs are re-
numbered as paragraphs 2 (c), 2 (d), and 2 (e) :
Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
1 At one point in his Decision the Trial Examiner refers to a meeting between Silverman
and Sonn on march 5. The correct date is December 5.
148 NLRB No. 125.
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on December 6, 1963, by Stephan A. Sonn, an individual,
the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 12, on
January 9, 1964, issued a complaint against Jefferson Stores, Inc., hereinafter called
the Respondent , alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8 (a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. In its duly
filed answer , Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was
held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker at Miami, Florida, on February 12,
1964. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be beard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to
file briefs with me. The General Counsel presented oral argument and on March 2,
1964, filed a memorandum with me.
Upon consideration of the entire record I and the memorandum of the General
Counsel, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , Jefferson Stores, Inc., is a Florida corporation which operates a chain
of retail stores, including Jefferson Stores No. 3, situated at Kendall , Florida, and
is engaged in the retail sale of department store merchandise . Respondent 's prin-
cipal office and place of business is located in Miami, Florida.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint
herein, Respondent 's gross retail sales exceeded $500,000. Further , it has an-
nually purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000, which goods and
materials have been received at its Florida operations directly from sources located
outside the State of Florida.
Upon these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Aircraft and Engine Maintenance and Overhaul, Building & Construction, Manu-
facturing, Processing and Distribution and Allied Industries Employees, Local 290,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, hereinafter called the Union, is admitted by Respondent to be a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that Respondent interfered with its
employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act by virtue of asserted interrogation con-
ducted by Respondent 's agent and merchandise manager, Melvin Shore, an admitted
supervisor 2 Further, the complaint alleges that , in violation of Section 8 (a) (3 )
of the Act , Respondent , on December 5, 1963, discharged employee Stephan Sonn
and has since failed and refused to reinstate him, the reason being that he engaged
in union and concerted activities . With respect to the termination of Sonn, Re-
'In accordance with the motion to correct the record filed by the counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel on March 6 , 1964 , and absent opposition by the Respondent to said motion,
the official transcript is corrected Documents relating to the General Counsel's motion
have been received in evidence as Trial Examiner ' s Exhibits Nos 1, 2, and 3.
2In light of certain testimony of Melvin Shore at the hearing, that, as hereinafter con-
sidered, subsequent to Sonn's discharge , he made certain statements and conducted certain
Inquiry of employees concerning the union activity of Sonn , the General Counsel amended
the complaint to include these alleged incidents to which Shore had testified as violations
of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act The General Counsel's amendments were in the nature of
alternative allegations, for, on the developed record, the original allegations of the com-
plaint relating to the two alleged incidents of interrogation and the allegations entered
by amendment were mutually exclusive . In view of the determinations made herein, the
amendments to the complaint perfected at the hearing relating to the asserted post-
discharge interrogation of Shore are dismissed.
JEFFERSON STORES, INC. 1293
spondent admits it discharged him on December 5, 1963, but asserts that it was un-
aware of his union activities at the time it discharged him, and , further, contends that
Sonn was discharged because of customer complaints concerning his work.
A. Prefatory facts
The operation of Jefferson Stores No . 3, the only store of Respondent involved
in the instant proceeding , is under the direction of Manager Edward Silverman,
Operations Manager Joseph Brawer, and Merchandise Manager Melvin Shore. At
times material herein, Richard Wetmore was manager of the camera department
where Stephan Sonn was employed as a sales trainee ( from which employment he
was allegedly discriminatorily discharged ), and Murray Milbauer was employed as
a salesman in the camera department . Neither Wetmore nor Milbauer had super-
visory authority , although it is conceded that Silverman and Brawer (as well as
Shore ) were endowed with supervisory authority at all relevant times.
The normal complement of employees at the store here involved numbers ap-
proximately 200.3
Stephan Sonn was employed by Respondent from November 13 to December 5,
1963. Sonn had had no experience selling photographic equipment prior to being
employed as a trainee in Respondent 's camera department . His training was to be
accomplished on the job where he was to observe the work of and be instructed by
other experienced employees , particularly Murray Milbauer . In the camera depart-
ment are sold, in addition to camera equipment , shavers, radios, tape recorders, flash-
lights, binoculars , and other miscellaneous items such as phonographic needles.4
B. The union activities of Stephan Sonn '
Within a few days after entering Respondent 's employ, Sonn began advocating
unionization among his fellow employees , and within a week Sonn contacted a repre-
sentative of the Union . His discussions with other employees of grievances and
alleged deficiences in wages and working conditions were carried on during break
periods, lunch hours, and as Sonn moved about the store during working hours, as
well as during after-hour conversations with fellow employees.s
C. The interrogation of employees
On or about November 22, Shore approached Sonn on the sales floor and called
him aside . Shore stated that he understood Sonn was "trying to form a union."
Sonn denied this , asserting that, rather , he was "trying to arrange some kind of
protection for [employee] parking in the rear of the building " Shore replied, "It
is just as well , because we don't like unions around here ." At this juncture, Shore
added , referring to Murray Milbauer who was nearby , "Right , Murray?" Murray
Milbauer laughed and answered , "Huh?" 6
On December 5, during a discussion in Shore's office regarding an advertising
memorandum and inventory , Shore asked employee Richard Bernay "who was try-
ing to go union " Bernay answered , "The man in the camera department ." Shore
asked , "Which man," and Bernay stated that he "wasn 't going to name names" but
that he thought Shore knew which man it was.7
3 Manager Silverman so testified credibly. Shore estimated store personnel at approxi-
mately 100 during the period of Sonn's employment . I discount this estimate and credit
Silverman for his estimate is supported by testimony of Stephan Sonn.
4 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Stephan Sonn as supported
by that of Murray Milbauer and Richard Wetmore
6 The credited testimony of Sonn. I have considered also the testimony of Richard
Wetmore, Richard Bernay, and Murray Milbauer, which lends support to Sonn's testi-
mony concerning his discussions of grievances and working conditions with his fellow
employees and which additionally establishes Sonn's advocacy of a union among the
employees
6 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Stephan Sonn I do not
credit Melvin Shore 's denial of the occurrence I found Sonn a credible witness who
impressed me on the whole as a more reliable witness than Melvin Shore.
4 The credited testimony of Richard Bernay. Bernay testified that the conversation
occurred prior to Sonn 's discharge . I credit him in this respect Moreover, his testimony
regarding the substance of the exchange between him and Shore, which I credit , reveals
that he and Shore spoke In terms of an employee in being and not in the past tense I do
not credit Shore 's testimony that after Sonn was discharged , Bernay, of his own volition,
informed Shore that there had been a "troublemaker or an organizer in the store," whom
he identified as Sonn. Bernay 's testimony was more convincing with respect to this
incident.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Similarly, on December 5, prior to Sonn's discharge, Shore spoke to employee
Richard Wetmore in the camera department, and asked if Sonn were in. Upon
being told by Wetmore that Sonn was at lunch, Shore inquired, "Has Steve Sonn
ever mentioned anything to you pertaining to the Union." Wetmore answered,
"Briefly." Shore answered, "When Steve returns, have him come to my office." 8
D. Customer complaints concerning Soren
Approximately a week before Sonn was discharged, Shore received a complaint
from a female cuAorner in the store who informed Shore that she had inquired about
camera equipment and the salesman had been unable to intelligently assist her
because he did not know where the merchandise was kept. The physical description
given by the customer of the salesman was that of Stephan Sonn. After speaking
with the customer, Shore informed Sonn that if he needed information concerning
merchandise he should seek assistance from other personnel in the department.9
Subsequently, according to the credited testimony of Manager Edward Silverman,
a day or two prior to December 5, Silverman received a telephonic complaint from
a woman who asserted that she had been rudely treated by a salesman in the camera
department whose description was that of Stephan Sonn. Her grievance was that
she felt the salesman had been abrupt and had not been attentive to serving her.
E. The discharge of Stephan Sonn
On the morning of December 5, approaching the lunch hour, Manager Silver-
man conversed in his office with Sonn. Silverman discussed the matter of customer
complaints,10 and he informed Sonn that management "did not tolerate" such com-
plaints. He further told Sonn that he was dissatisfied with Sonn's work, and he
asserted that he expected his personnel to "measure up to certain standards but he
felt that Sonn did not." He informed Sonn that he would discuss the matter with
Melvin Shore. For his part, during the conversation, Sonn inquired as to the
reason for management's dissatisfaction with his work Sonn further stated that he
felt the employees were not able to contact management freely enough and asserted
that the employees desired some type of protection in the parking area of the store
for their property 11 He further discussed the "attitude of certain people in the
store" and the general treatment of employees. Further, he suggested establishing
a graduated pay system for long-term employees and a commission for employees
in the camera department who sold "expensive merchandise." Silverman responded
in a courteous manner to Sonn, stating that he "liked people who came in with ideas
about improving the situation in the store," and he further remarked that under the
company's incentive program, he paid $5 for "good suggestions" but asserted
that he did not think Sonn's suggestion for a commission payment to employees in
the camera department was a good one.iz
8 The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Richard Wetmore. I do not
credit Shore's testimony that after Bernay had volunteered information concerning Sonn's
activities, he inquired of Wetmore concerning Sonn merely to satisfy his "personal
curiosity."
0 The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Melvin Shore.
10 Presumably with reference to the specific telephonic complaint lodged a day or two
earlier
n That 'thefts had occurred in the store parking area is established by the testimony
of Shore and Sonn
12 The foregoing is based on it composite of the testimony of Sonn and Silverman. I do
not resolve the apparent conflict in the testimony of Sonn and Silverman as to who took
the initiative in convening the conference between them, i.e , whether, as Sonn testified,
Sonn sought first to see Silverman but found him out of his office and requested Opera-
tions Manager Braver to notify Silverman of Sonn's desire to speak with him, or whether,
as Silverman testified, he independently and without knowledge of Sonn's attempt to see
him called Sonn to his office Neither witness impressed me as duplicitous in this respect
Entirely possible is a coincidence of effort by the two individuals to confer without prior
knowledge of the other's desire Suffice to find, the conference did transpire and in the
manner above found I am convinced that Silverman did raise the issue of Sonn's asserted
unsatisfactory performance and I am equally convinced that Sonn responded by raising
the issues concerning which he testified. Silverman's testimony, in final analysis, is not
to the contrary. He testified on cross-examination that Sonn made quite a few "rambling
remarks" which lie asserted he did not remember As I observed Sonn as he testified at
the hearing, he impressed me as an intense young man who articulated well, and who
spoke rapidly, with feeling. It is quite likely that in speaking with Silverman concern-
ing the matters aforesaid, Sonn displayed an intensity and fervor which Silverman, from
his point of view, characterized as discursive.
JEFFERSON STORES, INC. 1295
After meeting with Sonn, Silverman contacted Shore by telephone and discussed
with Shore the telephonic complaint he had received. Shore informed Silverman
of the complaint he had received. During the conversation, Silverman directed
Shore to discharge Sonn on the ground that he was "not satisfactory for the
department " 13
Shortly .thereafter, Shore went to the camera department and after inquiring
of Wetmore whether Sonn had ever mentioned the Union to him, as found above,
Shore instructed Wetmore to request Sonn to report to Shore's office upon his return
from lunch.14
Upon his return, Sonn reported to Shore but was told by Shore that he would
speak with him later in the afternoon. Thereafter, at approximately 3:30 or 4
o'clock the same afternoon, Shore came into the camera department and informed
Sonn that he was being terminated because he had informed others that he was
dissatisfied with his compensation and because Sonn did not "meet the standards of
the department." In substance, Sonn disavowed having complained about the
adequacy of his compensation and further protested that as he had been hired as
a trainee in the department, 3 weeks' time was insufficient in which to acquire the
skill of a trained camera salesman. Shore reiterated his intention to dismiss Sonn,
whereupon Sonn asserted that he considered the reason given for his discharge to be
lacking in validity and stated that he was "going to the National Labor Relations
Board and lodge a complaint." Shore answered, "Perhaps you had better see Mr.
Silverman about this." Sonn said that he would
Sonn endeavored then to see Manager Silverman but found that he was not in his
office. Sonn worked the balance of the day and upon leaving the store he observed
Silverman and Shore speaking together in the parking lot Sonn approached Silver-
man, stating that Shore had instructed him to speak further with him. Sonn asked
Silverman if he were going to be discharged. Silverman replied, in substance, that
he supported Shore's decision. Sonn protested the decision as "unfair" and stated
that he was going to "lodge a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board."
Silverman replied, in essence, that Sonn was free to do so. Sonn spoke further with
Shore at this juncture, asking Shore if he considered his action "fair." Shore
answered, in substance, that he regretted the necessity of his action but believed
the discharge necessary in the best interest of the store 15
Conclusions
This proceeding involves a young man endowed with an activist nature who, upon
being employed by Respondent, went immediately about the task of stimulating em-
ployee interest in achieving correction of asserted deficiencies and shortcomings in
employee compensation and working conditions. That he sought to promote union-
ization of the employees is adequately established on this record, and, as Respond-
ent's witness Murray Milbauer credibly testified; Sonn achieved during his short
tenure notoriety among the employees as being an advocate of unionization That
Sonn, in some measure, conducted his campaign during working hours is not seri-
ously disputed. That as a consequence, for this and other purposes, he was away
from his work station on the order of four or five times a day has ample record
support from Milbauer's credited testimony and that of Shore. Moreover that
Sonn'was but an "average" employee whose knowledge of cameras and skill in their
sale was deficient is convincingly established by Milbauer's credited testimony and
that of Wetmore.
Against this background the Respondent's motive in discharging Sonn must be
assessed. Well ingrained is the basic principle that an employer may discharge,
demote, or refuse to reinstate an employee for any cause or no cause at all so long
as it is not for union activities. Not open to doubt is the proposition that Respond-
ent's management, in the exercise of its business judgment, could have discharged
Ii The credited testimony of Silverman, as supported by that of Shore.
14 The credited testimony of Richard Wetmore.
Ir, The foregoing summation of the conversations incident to the discharge of Sonn is
predicated principally upon the credited testimony of Stephan Sonn as supported in essen-
tials by that of Shore and Silverman. ,With respect to the details of the initial conversa-
tion between Shore and Sonn whereiii Sonn was apprised at his discharge and the last
conversation between them in the parking lot, I credit Sonn, for he impressed me as hav-
ing a more accurate recollection of all facets of these conversations. I am convinced his
testimony more accurately reflects the details of these two conversations between them.
Shore's testimony inipresaed nie as being sketchy and purposely cast in conclusionary
terms
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sonn with impunity for shortcomings as a salesman if the discharge were predicated
upon that basis alone and was devoid of antiunion considerations . However, as I
view this matter, Sonn 's union activities , which I find were known to both Manager
Silverman and Manager Shore, prior to his discharge constituted the moving cause
for his discharge . While I am persuaded that grounds existed for Respondent's
displeasure over Sonn 's work performance , I am nonetheless convinced that Re-
spondent precipitously discharged Sonn not because of his shortcomings as an
employee, but in order to eradicate the source and spearhead of the germinal
unionization effort. Thus , as found above , by his remarks to Sonn on or about
November 22. Shore displayed both his suspicion of, and opposition to, efforts by
Sonn to introduce a union among Respondent 's employees . Additionally, on the
morning he discharged Sonn, Shore gained further insight from Bernay concerning
Sonn's advocacy of a union among the employees. Subsequently , and most
significantly , also on December 5 , just prior to discharging Sonn, Shore disclosed
his concern over Sonn 's activities on behalf of the Union when he interrogated
Wetmore concerning his knowledge of Sonn's union activities . In context of these
incidents displaying a marked preoccupation with Sonn 's union activities , Sonn was
discharged . Manager Silverman denied having knowledge of Sonn's union activities
prior to Sonn 's discharge and further testified he made the decision to terminate
Sonn. Shore 's testimony supports that of Silverman with respect to the latter ele-
ment of Silverman 's testimony . Silverman testified that he decided to discharge
Sonn after their conference in Silverman 's office and before he conversed by tele-
phone with Shore wherein Shore was instructed to discharge Sonn. But if before
his conversation with Shore, Silverman was predisposed to discharge Sonn, he
resorted , nonetheless , to a further discussion of Sonn with Shore before he in-
structed Shore to terminate Sonn's employment . While there is no direct evidence
establishing that at any time prior to Sonn 's discharge Silverman , like Shore, was
aware of Sonn 's union activities , credulity does not permit the conclusion that in
face of Shore 's manifest concern with Sonn's unionization efforts both in late Novem-
ber and immediately preceding Sonn's discharge , Shore had kept his own counsel and
had left his immediate supervisor in the hierarchy of store management uninformed
of the very matter concerning which he himself had evinced such singular interest.
Rather, I am convinced that the earlier suspicions of management concerning Sonn's
union propensities became confirmed before Silverman 's conference with Sonn dur-
ing the late morning hours of March 5 and , fortified by further impression of Sonn
as an advocate of increased employee benefits gained from his conference with him,
as well as by a further discussion with Shore about Sonn , Silverman caused Sonn's
discharge to be effected . The fact of Sonn's extensive promotion of unionization, his
notoriety among the employees as a union advocate , considered together with the
coincidence of timing between Shore's interrogation of Bernay regarding the identity
of the employee union proponent , the prelunch hour conference between Sonn and
Silverman , the subsequent telephone conference between Shore and Silverman fol-
lowed by Shore 's further display of concern over Sonn 's union activities as shown
by his interrogation of Wetmore , and the summary termination of Sonn constitutes
substantial evidence requiring a finding that the discharge of Sonn was for union
activity and that the complaints concerning his work were not causative factors.16
Accordingly , in view of this conclusion , I find that the discharge of Sonn was viola-
tive of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.17
Further, I conclude and find that By Shore's interrogation of Sonn on or about
November 22, concerning his union activities , and of Wetmore and Bernay on
December 5, concerning the identity of the employee advocate of unionization, Re-
spondent interfered with the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act and thereby
violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent , set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent , as described in section I, above, have
16 See N.L.R.B. v. Texa8 Bolt Company, 313 F. 2d 761, 763 ( C.A. 5).
17I do not pass upon the further contention of the General Counsel that Sonn was dis-
charged for his conduct in serving as a representative of employees in submitting their
grievances to Manager Silverman.
JEFFERSON, STORES, INC ., • - i .1297
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor. practices, I
.shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discharged Stephan Sonn and has since failed and
refused to reinstate him, thereby discriminating against him with respect to his
,tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, I shall recom-
mend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom, and offer Stephan Sonn immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. I shall also recommend
that Respondent make whole Stephan Sonn for any loss of earnings that he may
have suffered because of the discrimination against him, by payment of a sum of
money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date
,of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, backpay to be computed in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, and interest to be added in accordance with the formula set forth in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
.case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent occur in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Stephan Sonn because he engaged in union activities, the Re-
,spondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interrogating Stephan Sonn concerning his union activities and by similarly
interrogating other employees concerning the union activities of their fellow em-
ployees, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
.Section 8,(a) (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I will recommend that the Respondent, Jefferson
Stores, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating any employee with respect to his own activities or the activities
of other employees in or on behalf of any labor organization.
(b) Discouraging membership in Aircraft and Engine Maintenance and Overhaul,
Building & Construction, Manufacturing, Processing and Distribution and Allied
Industries Employees, Local 290, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of
,its employees, by discriminatorily discharging them, or in any other manner dis-
criminating against employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
terms or conditions of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
-the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
-the Act-
(a) Make Stephan Sonn whole in the manner described in the portion of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him, and offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
'rights and privileges.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
,amount of backpay due under the terms hereof.
760-577-65-vol. 148-83
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at Jefferson Stores No. 3, in Kendall , Florida, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 12, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that said notice is not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of his Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.19'
38 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. If the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and
Order "
ie IC this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the 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 Labor Management
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Aircraft and Engine^Maintenance
and Overhaul , Building & Construction , Manufacturing , Processing and Dis-
tribution and Allied Industries Employees, Local 290, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in
any other labor organization of our employees , by discharging them or in any
other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their own union ac-
tivities or the union activities of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor orga-
nizations , to join or assist the above -named labor organization or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or
protection or refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL make Stephan A. Sonn whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of his discharge , and offer him immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges.
All our employees are free to become or remain, and to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of the above -named labor organization or any other labor
organization.
JEFFERSON STORES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 706,
Federal Office Building , 500 Zack Street, Tampa , Florida, Telephone No. 228-7711;
Room 826 , Federal Office Building, 51 SW. First Avenue, Miami , Florida, Tele-
phone No. 350-5391, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
r