Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 582 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Karoll 's Pants-A -Plenty, Inc. and Retail Store Em-
ployees Union , Local 1453 , Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO. Cases 13-CA-12880
and 13-RC-13199
December 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
Union's objections to conduct affecting the results of the
representation election with the aforesaid unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding for hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges
violation by the Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act The Respondent filed an answer denying the commis-
sion of unfair labor practices The Union's objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election alleged conduct
which are also the subject of the unfair labor practice charges,
and would constitute grounds for setting aside the election.
On July 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent-Employer filed exceptions and
a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in
support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
For the reasons set forth in his concurring and dissenting opinion in
Steel-Fab, Inc, 212 NLRB 363 (1974), Member Jenkins would find a viola-
tion of Sec 8(a)(5) as well as entering a bargaining order
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge: The consolidated
hearing in these cases was held in Chicago, Illinois, on Mal
8 and 9, 1974, based upon unfair labor practice charges filed
by the Union on December 14, 1973, and upon objections to
conduct affecting the results of a representation election
timely filed on December 6, 1973 A complaint issued in the
unfair labor practice proceeding on March 19, 1974, on be-
half of the General Counsel by the Regional Director for
Region 21. The representation petition was filed on October
5, 1973, and an election was conducted on November 30
pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated Octo-
_ ber 29, 1973. At the election six votes were cast against the
Union and none for the Union. On March 19, 1974, the
Regional Director also issued an order consolidating the
Issues
Whether Respondent by its agent and supervisor violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully: (a) interrogating its
employees, (b) threatening to reduce the hours of their em-
ployment, to take away certain benefits, to limit wage in-
creases, and to discharge certain employees; (c) promising
higher pay increases and additional hours, and (d) granting
promotions and wages increases.
Whether the unfair labor practices which may be found are
such as to preclude the conduct of a fair election and require
the issuance of a bargaining order.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. The General
Counsel, Respondent, and Charging Party submitted briefs
which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record of the case, and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc., the Respondent,' is an Il-
linois corporation, engaged in the retail sale of pants and
accessories at various stores in the Chicago, Illinois, area. In
the course of its operations during the past 12 months, Re-
spondent received revenues from the retail sale of its products
in excess of $500,000 and also received goods valued at more
than $10,000 from points outside the State of Illinois which
were shipped directly to its facilities within that State. I find
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION- INVOLVED
Retail Store Employees ' Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
The name of the Respondent-Employer appears as amended at the
hearing
215 NLRB No. 111
KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Allegations that the Respondent Violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
1. Background
The Respondent operates a number of retail stores in the
metropolitan Chicago area selling pants and other female
apparel and accessories. Its Hillcrest Shopping Center store
in Joliet is the sole store involved in this proceeding. At
Hillcrest Respondent employed seven employees' and a
store manager (Philip Gallo), during the period of the events
to be described. Of the seven unit employees, five were high
school students who worked part-time and two, Nancy Wil-
liams and Ellen Adamic Mattox, were full-time. The Union
initiated its organizational drive with the recruitment of
Nancy Williams on September 5, 1973, who by September 17,
had obtained signed authorization cards from the other six
employees. On October 2 the Union wrote requesting recog-
nition, a letter which Respondent acknowledged receiving on
October 3. Thereafter on October 5, the Union filed a petition
for representation election.
Upon receipt of the Union's demand for recognition, top
management of Respondent called into the office the district
manager, George Yambnsak, to discuss the matter. As it
appeared that Yambrisak was unaware of the Union's activi-
ties, he was advised to visit the store to ascertain what the
employees wanted and "keep them informed as to what their
rights are." Yambrisak was district manager with responsibil-
ity for seven stores, having been employed in that capacity
since June 15, 1973. His status and activities after the Union's
demand are the subject of this case.
2. The status of George Yambnsak
According to Executive Vice President Saitlin, Yambnsak,
as district manager, was the overseer of seven stores including
the Hillcrest store here involved. His duties were to go around
to the stores, discuss with the store manager their needs and
problems, make certain the stores are kept orderly, that there
is merchandise to sell, sufficient help, and report his needs to
company officials if their assistance is required. Store manag-
ers are responsible to the district manager who has authority
to hire and discharge employees; the store manager's au-
thority in this area is limited to emergency action regarding
part-timers. Wage increases and promotions are granted by
the district manager. He also makes recommendations con-
cerning appointment or discharge of store managers.
Yambrisak spent about half his time in the Company office
and the other half visiting the seven stores. The timing of
these visits was at his own discretion; upon occasion he would
be instructed to visit a particular store where there may, have
been a problem.
Yambrisak was employed as district manager from June 15
to December 31, 1973, when he was terminated by letter of
that date, having failed to appear since December 20 3 It is
2 The parties stipulated to a unit of all regular full-time and part-time
employees employed at Hillcrest They further stipulated that the following
seven employees comprised the unit Nancy Williams, Ellen Adamic Mat-
tox, Diane Flores, Maureen Whitmer, Debbie Hester, Naomi Wilker and
Tina Kennedy
583
clear from the foregoing that Yambrisak was a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent
of Respondent acting on its behalf within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act and I so,find.
3 The alleged threats
Preliminarily it must be noted that the testimony is uncon-
tradicted that from early October to November 30, 1973, the
date of election, Yambnsak visited and was present at the
Hillcrest store constantly. The witnesses testified they saw
him four or five times a week and that he most often remained
until the store closed. During that period of almost 2 months
he talked to the employees about the Union as much as
several times a week. Prior to October, he was seen by some
employees only once or twice in total and after November 30,
about once a week.
As indicated the part-time employees who testified (Hes-
ter, Flores, Wilker and Kennedy) were high school students.
They were, of course, young, some timid and shy, but all
properly respectful and serious. I found these witnesses to be
credible. Their testimony was on the whole consistent and
supportive of one another Although in one or two areas, such
as the threat to cut commissions, there appeared to be a
discrepancy between the testimony of two witnesses, I believe
this to be due to either their immaturity in understanding fine
distinctions or the fact that Yambrisak discussed these mat-
ters on more than one occasion with each of them individu-
ally, rather than a lack of credibility
Early in October, Diane Flores reported to work in the
afternoon and Yambrisak called her to the back of the store
where he began to talk to her about the Union. At the time
the part-time sales clerks were working between 17-22 hours
a week. Yambrisak told Flores that if the Union got in she
would only be getting 12 hours. This was of particular signifi-
cance to Flores because she was in a work program at school
which required her to work 15 hours a week to obtain credits.
She mentioned this to Yambrisak who replied that her hours
would be cut. Debbie Hester came in about 5 p.m. that day
and joined Flores and Yambrisak at the back of the store.
Hester was brought up to date as to the conversation. In sum,
Yambrisak told them that the hours of the part-timers would
be cut to 12; that the three girls with least seniority (Hester,
Flores and Kennedy) would be laid off. He further told them
that if the Company had to negotiate with the Union; any
increase would be limited to a dime, that they would have to
strike to get more and that the Company would then go out
of business and close the store. According to Hester and
Flores, Yambnsak said their commissions (1 percent of sales)
would be taken away. In addition Yambrisak told Hester that
the Company would start a system of recording their mis-
takes and an employee would be fired if three things were
done wrong. He told Flores on one occasion that the Com-
pany would be a lot more strict; e.g., she would not be able
to smoke a cigarette in the back. Hester and Flores testified
that Yambrisak repeated these remarks many times between
early October and November 30.
3 Yambrisak and Nancy Williams did not testify at the hearing, their
whereabouts being unknown It appears that he and Williams, the erstwhile
union protagonist , were enacting their own labor relations adaptation of
Shakespeare ' s Romeo and Juliet
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Naomi Wilker, a bright young lady, who responded di-
rectly and in a forthright, logical manner, impressed me as a
very credible witness. Indeed her testimony, after cross-
examination , was unshaken and remains uncontradicted in
this record. Wilker, during the period in question, was work-
ing 27 to 30 hours a week, sometimes from 12 to 5 p.m.°
and other times from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Early in October, Wilker had a conversation with Yam-
bnsak about the Union. Her account is as follows:
Q. Where did this conversation take place?
A. In the back of the store.
Q. How did you happen to take part in this conversa-
tion?
A. George was already at the store when I came into
work, and when I went in the back room to put my
things away he told me he wanted to talk to me about
the union.
Q. What did he say, if anything, about the union?
A He told me that if the union got in we would get
no more than 12 hours a week. He said that the union
could give us no more than a nickel or a dime raise, and
he said that the only ones that would benefit from the
union would be Ellen Mattox and Nancy Williams, be-
cause they were working-they were like full-time, and
that it wouldn't benefit any part-time, and he said that
we wouldn't get any commission because if we,got a raise
that the store would take away our commission, and he
said that Maureen Whitmer and I didn't have anything
to worry about because we were the first two girls there,
but the last three girls would be laid off.
He spoke to Wilker during the daytime and said "if the
Union gets in because you are part- time you will have to work
at night."
Wilker stated that Yambrisak spoke to her several times on
the subject. She insisted that he always prefaced his remarks
by saying "if the Union won . . . ." She denied that he said
whatever happened would be determined by collective bar-
gaining.
In similar vein , Yambrisak spoke to Tina Kennedy at the
back of the store when she came to work one evening early
in October He also told her that the hours of part-timers
would be cut to 12 hours per week, commission would be cut,
part-time help could only work at night, the last three girls
with the least seniority would be laid off or fired, and a raise
would be limited to 5 or 10 cents, if the Union got in.
Kennedy testified that she worked approximately 15 hours a
week during the October through November period.
The foregoing testimony by the four employees is uncon-
troverted and I have already stated that I found these wit-
nesses to be credible. As noted Yambrisak was unavailable
and did not testify and counsel for Respondent sought on
cross-examination to elicit admissions to the effect that Yam-
brisak had indicated that the matters here alleged as unlawful
threats would be merely normal consequences of collective
bargaining . While a seniority provision may provide for the
least senior employee to be laid off in the event of an eco-
It is clear from the testimony of several of the employees that they
preferred to work in the afternoon immediately after they concluded their
school day
nomic layoff, that was not the tenor of Yambnsak's remarks,
according to these witnesses. He told them all that the least
senior three employees would be laid off should the Union
win the election. Yambrisak did not indicate how the eco-
nomic result of collective bargaining would require the layoff
of three employees. Nor does Respondent suggest how the
ensuing collective bargaining would cause the hours of part-
time employees to be cut to 12, or that a strike to obtain more
than a 5 cent raise would lead inevitably to.the shutdown of
the stores. He even threatened more onerous working condi-
tions such as recording of mistakes and not permitting smok-
ing. The message of Yambnsak to these unsophisticated em-
ployees was quite clear-dire consequences would result
unless they abandoned the Union.
I find, therefore, that Respondent through its agent Yam-
brisak, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its
employees with a loss of hours,' layoff of three least senior
part-time employees,' cut in commissions, preventing part-
time employees from working daytime hours, more onerous
working conditions,' limitation of wage increase to 5 or 10
cents, and shutdown of the store in event of a strike,' unless
they voted against the Union.
4. The alleged interrogation
General Counsel alleges that Yambrisak interrogated em-
ployees Hester and Whitmer. Although I find no evidence
that he spoke to Whitmer on the subject of the election, Ellen
Mattox, a witness for Respondent, testified that Yambrisak
asked employee Naomi Wilker how she was going to vote in
the election, and the record clearly shows that Yambrisak
asked Hester the same question He queried Hester at the
time he made the threats found to be violative of the Act. In
view of the sudden appearance of Yambrisak, the district
manager, and the context in which he spoke, such interroga-
tion was coercive and Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The promises of benefits
Debbie Hester testified without contradiction that Yam-
brisak told her that as soon as the election was over and they
voted no, he would get them a raise. Yambrisak also asked
Flores what hours she would like to work and when she said
1:00 to 6:00 p.m., he changed her schedule accordingly and
then said "if the Union got in you wouldn't be able to work
these hours." Although he did not actually change Flores'
existing working schedule, his statement inferred she would
receive the schedule she wanted only if the Union lost. The
Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
promising Hester that wages would be increased and Flores
a favorable work schedule.
5 Diamond International Corporation, 206 NLRB 828 (1973)
6 Butler's Shoe Corporation, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Zale
Corporation, 208 NLRB 404 (1974)
7 Brown Specialty Company, 180 NLRB 969 (1969)
8 Glacier Packing Co, Inc, 204 NLRB 597 (1973)
KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC 585
6. The promotions and wage increases
At the hearing the complaint was amended to allege that
Respondent granted wage increases and promotions to unit
employees in order to discourage membership in the Union.
Respondent's own witnesses testified that early in October
1973, the two full-time employees in the unit, Ellen Adamic
Mattox and Nancy Williams were promoted to assistant
managers and each received wage increases. Gallo, the store
manager since August or September 1973, had previously
held the post of assistant, and the assistantship was vacant for
at least a month or two. Mattox, who testified that she had
been earning $1.90 per hour and 1 percent commission on her
sales, was increased to $115 per week and 1 percent commis-
sion of the total sales of the store. Nancy Williams received
the same increases. The Respondent's explanation was that it
was (a) filling a vacant position and (b) appointing two people
to one job with a view of transferring one to another store.
Respondent's vice president also stated "that we felt it would
be in good taste as far as the individuals were concerned to
make them both assistant manager . . ," and that they were
equally qualified and had the same tenure. I cannot credit this
explanation. The post had been left open for 1 or 2 months
prior to the Union's advent but was doubly filled immediately
thereafter. Mattox and Williams were the only full-time em-
ployees in the unit , and their promotions created a hierarchy
one store manager, two assistant managers and five part-
timers. Both received sizable increases, particularly as to
commissions, and this was the first time two assistant manag-
ers were appointed for one store, and they were the first
females to be appointed to that position Their additional
duties were minimal and even if management was grooming
one for another store, she could easily have been instructed
while still in her previous classification. Williams also had
been the union protagonist, a fact obviously well known to
Yambrisak. I can find no justification for this double promo-
tion during the union campaign and conclude that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promoting Mattox
and Williams and giving them substantial wage increases in
order to discourage their support of the Union.9
B The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(5)
1. The Union's majority status
The parties stipulated that there were seven employees in
the appropriate unit10 at the time of the Union's demand for
recognition. All seven had signed authorization cards for the
Union, of whom six testified at the hearing and authenticated
their own cards. The card of the seventh employee, the absent
Nancy Williams, was authenticated by a business agent of the
9 In the representation proceeding, their status was litigated and the
Regional Director determined that the assistant managers were unit em-
ployees and not supervisors within the meaning of the Act No one has
asserted otherwise in this proceeding and it is quite clear from this record
they possess no supervisory authority Indeed, the store manager himself
was the last to know of their promotion, the employees having been directly
informed by Yambrisak
10 In the representation proceeding the parties also stipulated and the
Regional Director found the appropriate unit to consist of all regular full-
time and part-time employees employed at the Employer's store located at
the Hillcrest Shopping Center
Union who had witnessed her signature. The cards author-
ized the Union to represent the employees in collective bar-
gaining, and were received in evidence without objection
Some of the employees who signed authorization cards also
received a card from the Union waiving payment of initiation
fees. Respondent contends that under the reasoning of
N.L.R.B. v Savair Manufacturing Co., 414 U S 270 (19,73),
a union who "buys endorsements" should not be entitled to
a bargaining order In Savair, the Supreme Court held that,
in certain circumstances such as where the waiver was availa-
ble only to those who join before the election, such conduct
by the Union interferes with the employees' right of free
choice An election won by the Union which obtained cards
in that manner would therefore be set aside. Here the Em-
ployer, not the Union, won the election. In any event, there
is no evidence in this case that the Union obtained authoriza-
tion cards as a result of an offer to waive fees. There is solely
testimony to the effect that after signing an authorization
card, some employees received a card from the Union which
certified that initiation fees are waived. The waiver card itself
provides that initiation fees will not be required until a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement has been signed Thus, on its face
the offer would be open to all employees who joined before
or after an election. Since Savair, the Board has held that a
waiver available to all eligible voters, optionable before or
after the election, was clearly not conditioned upon the ex-
pression of support for the Union in any form during the
electoral process " Accordingly I find that assuming, ar-
guendo, an extension of the Savair doctrine to bargaining
orders, none of the authorization cards in this case were
tainted by any considerations in connection with the Union's
policy of waiving initiation fees
2. The refusal to bargain
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the nature and extent
of the Respondent's unfair labor practices which cannot be
cured by traditional remedies, a bargaining order in accord-
ance with the doctrine of N.L R.B. v Gissel Packing Co.,
Inc., 395 U S. 575 (1969) is the only effective remedy Thus,
immediately upon receipt of the Union's demand for recogni-
tion, Respondent's officials dispatched Yambrisak, the dis-
trict manager, to the Hillcrest store Yambrisak, theretofore
seen only once or twice by the employees despite his incum-
bency of several months, proceeded to spend 5 days and
nights each week at the premises for a period of almost 2
months prior to the election He then engaged in a constant
campaign to undermine the Union's status. In a unit of seven,
he threatened the three least senior employees with layoff if
the Union won the election He promoted the only two full-
time employees and gave them immediate substantial wage
increases Needless to say he spoke to every employee, threat-
ening the loss of benefits such as commissions and that the
store will be closed down in the event of a strike The Board
has made it clear that threats to layoff or discharge employees
(three of seven in this case), and indeed, ultimately closure of
the store are of such gravity as to render a reliable election
11 Endless Mold, Inc, 210 NLRB 159 (1974)
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unlikely." I conclude and shall recommend that the Re-
spondent be directed to bargain with the Union.
In a recent case, Steel-Fab, Inc., 212 NLRB 363 (1974), has
held and stated as follows:
Under Gissel, to determine whether or not a bargaining
order should issue as part of the remedy, we evaluate the
seriousness of the employer's misconduct and its impact
on the holding of a fair election (or rerun election). In
effect, by issuing a bargaining order, we are remedying
an employer's 8(a)(1) violations that have dissipated a
union 's majority and prevented the holding of a fair
election. It serves no real purpose to find additionally a
violation of Section 8(a)(5).
The Board went on to say that it will dispense with finding
an 8(a)(5) violation in these situations.
Accordingly, I shall recommend that the 8(a)(5) allegation
of the complaint be dismissed but will include a bargaining
order as part of the recommended remedy.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth` in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning union
activities, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed to them by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4 By threatening employees with economic reprisals, in
cluding closing the store, laying off the least senior em-
ployees, and more onerous working conditions if the em-
ployees supported the Union, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. By promoting employees and granting wage increases to
induce them to reject the Union, and further promising wage
increases to all employees should the Union lose the election,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
12 Genera/ Stencils, Inc, 195 NLRB 1109 (1972) See also fn 7 at 1111,
where the Board stated it was inappropriate to consider employee turnover,
a contention raised by Respondent herein
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc , its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
activities on behalf of Retail Store Employees Union, Local
1453, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or
any other union.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals, in-
cluding the closing of the store, laying off the least senior
employees, and more onerous working conditions if the em-
ployees support the above-named Union.
(c) Promoting employees and granting wage increases to
induce them to reject the Union; and promising wage in-
creases to all employees should the Union lose the election
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain with Retail Store
Employees Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in a unit of all regular full-time and
part-time employees employed at the Employer's store
located at the Hillcrest Shopping Center, Joliet, Illinois, ex-
cluding the manager and all supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours, or
other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at its Joliet, Illinois, store, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."14 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not,
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing,
17 in the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided by Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
14 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC. 587
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in-
sofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on
November 30, 1973, in Case 13-RC-13199, be set aside, that
the petition therein be dismissed, and that the proceeding in
Case 13-RC-13199 be vacated
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides were represented by their
attorneys and presented evidence , it has been found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain
respects To correct and remedy these violations , we have
been directed to take certain actions and to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic re-
prisals, including the closing of the store, laying off the
least senior employees, and more onerous working con-
ditions, if the employees support a union
WE WILL NOT promote employees, and grant or prom-
ise them wage increases to induce employees to reject a
union
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Retail Store Em-
ployees Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all our employees in the bargaining unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time and part-time employees em-
ployed at our Hillcrest Shopping Center, Joliet, Il-
linois, store, excluding the manager and all supervi-
sors and guards as defined in the Act
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the
rights of our employees under the law to organize and/
or bargain collectively through that Union or any other
labor organization, or to refrain from such activities.
KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC.