King Acres Store, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

KING ACRES STORES, INC.
King Acres Store , Inc. and Retail Clerks International
Association , Local 548 , AFL-CIO. Case
15-CA-5435
September 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On March 19, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, both the General Counsel
and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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 Administrative Law
Judge's rulings, findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that cashier
Jackie Pounds was not discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(3). We disagree. Respondent opened its
Bogalusa, Louisiana, grocery store for business on
July 8, 1974. Pounds worked in the grocery depart-
ment as a cashier and stock clerk.
On or about Monday, July 22, during the third
week of business, Billy Moody, a produce clerk, ap-
proached Pounds and asked her to sign a union au-
thorization card. He also sought her assistance in sol-
iciting other employees to join the Union. Pounds
agreed to help him and during the next few days
talked to several other cashiers and produce clerk,
Fred Statham, about joining the Union.
On or about Thursday, July 25, Statham solicited
Howard Sanderson, a stock clerk, and told him
about his efforts, as well as those of Moody and
Pounds, to secure union representation. Sanderson
testified that on the following morning, Friday, July
26, he told Market Manager and Supervisor Elvis
Saucier about Moody's, Pounds', and Statham's
union activities. According to Sanderson,' Saucier in-
dicated that he was against the Union coming into
the store and "he would take it to J. R. King
[Respondent's president] himself . . . ." Later that
day Saucier told Sanderson that Pounds, Moody,
and Statham had been laid off. According to Sander-
son, Saucier said the three "got laid off because of
1 Saucier did not testify.
925
the union or something . . . if that's the way you
want to put it. I said I would take it to J. R. King."
Pounds was, in fact, laid off on that day. When she
left work at 4 p.m., nothing was said to her. However,
Statham lived in her home and when his shift ended
at 11 p.m. he was given a discharge notice for himself
and another to take to Pounds. Enclosed with
Pounds' notice was a note which read, "I won't need
you anymore for a while when I do I will call you.
J. R. King."
In view of Saucier's failure to testify, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge credited Sanderson's testimony.
He did not place much reliance upon the testimony,
however, because in his judgment, "the witness was
not clear . . . ." He noted that Sanderson was some-
what less than precise when he indicated Saucier said
the three had been discharged "because of the union
or something." The Administrative Law Judge con-
cluded that "[w]e do not really know what Saucier
said that day." We disagree.
While the precise language used by Saucier may be
somewhat in doubt, the overall import of his com-
ments to Sanderson is all too clear. He was merely
indicating that the layoffs of Moody, Statham, and
Pounds confirmed the fact that he had followed
through on his earlier threat to inform King of their
union activities. As Saucier triumphantly told San-
derson, "I said I would take it to J. R. King."
Given this. uncontradicted testimony, Saucier's
failure to testify, and Respondent's subsequent
8(a)(1) interrogations of Pounds and Robinson, we
find that a preponderance of the substantial evidence
on the record as a whole supports a finding that
Pounds was laid off in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Add the following as Conclusions of Law 3:
"3. By discharging Jackie Pounds on July 26,
1974, because of her union activities, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act."
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in ad-
ditional unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Jackie Pounds, we shall order that Respon-
dent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to
her former position or, if such position no longer ex-
ists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
220 NLRB No. 130
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privi-
leges and make her whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to the amount she would have earned from the
date of her discriminatory discharge to the date of an
offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during said
period, to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and including
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
King Acres Stores, Inc., Bogalusa, Louisiana, its offi-
cers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association, Local 548, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , by discriminatorily dis-
charging any of its employees or otherwise discrimi-
nating against them in any manner with regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees about their union ac-
tivities, including attendance at meetings and signing
of union cards; telling employees the company repre-
sentatives are watching attendance at union meetings
and thereby creating the impression of surveillance
over their union activities; telling employees the
Company intended to inquire into and learn the
identity of prounion employees, or threatening em-
ployees with reprisal for their continuing union activ-
ities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Retail
Clerks International Association, Local 548, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jackie Pounds immediate and full rein-
statement to her former position or, if that position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
or privileges.
(b) Make Jackie Pounds whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her in the manner set forth in the section
above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Bogalusa, Loui-
siana , copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly
signed by its representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
2 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a hearing, that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail
Clerks International Association, Local 548,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging any of our employ-
ees or otherwise discriminating against them in
any manner with regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about
their union activities, or about their attendance
at union meetings and signing of union cards.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we are
KING ACRES STORES, INC.
keeping an eye on their attendance at union
meetings, thereby creating the impression of un-
lawful surveillance over their union activities.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees we intend to
inquire about and learn the identity of who the
prounion employees are.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with re-
prisal in retaliation for engaging in union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to
join or assist Retail Clerks International Associ-
ation, Local 548, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, or to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer Jackie Pounds full reinstate-
ment to her former position or, if that position
no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent po-
sition, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and pay her for the earn-
ings she lost as the result of our discrimination
with interest at 6 percent per annum.
KING ACRES STORES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this proceeding was held at Bogalusa, Louisiana, on Jan-
uary 28, 1975, on complaint of the General Counsel against
King Acres Stores, Inc., herein called the Respondent or
the Company. The charge was filed by Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, Local 548, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, on September 12, 1974, and the complaint is-
sued on December 4, 1974. The principal issue of the case
is whether the Respondent discharged Jackie Pounds on
July 26, 1974, because of her activities on behalf of the
Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by the Re-
spondent.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
King Acres Stores, Inc., operates a franchise retail gro-
cery store in Bogalusa, Louisiana. It started operations at
this location on July 8, 1974, and a projection of the opera-
tions over a representative 12-month period shows that its
gross annual sales will exceed $500,000, and that during the
same period its purchases of goods directly from out-of-
927
state sources will exceed $50,000 annually. Accordingly, I
find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Retail Clerks International Association, Local
548, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Case In Brief
The events giving rise to this case occurred in a grocery
store which first opened for business on July 8, 1974, and
where all the employees, newly hired, were interviewed and
put to work in a few days before the grand opening in
preparation for public operations. During the third week of
open business-the one ending Saturday, July 27-some of
the employees talked in the store about joining the Union,
and some signed union cards. Jackie Pounds, one of the
original hirees who was working as a cashier and stock
clerk, was discharged at the end of the regular payroll week
on Friday, July 26. She was one of those who had talked
with other employees about the Union and was one of
those who had signed a union card. The complaint alleges
J. R. King, an owner and president of the store, dismissed
her because of these activities , and therefore violated the
statute. Denying any illegal motivation, the Respondent
asserts affirmatively that Pounds was only one of a large
group of employees discharged that day for economic rea-
sons-the volume of sales declined drastically after the
first week and the payroll had to be reduced.
B. The Facts in Evidence: and Their Significance
This is a circumstantial evidence case, where a finding of
unlawful intent in the conduct of the Respondent, if such a
finding can be made, is in reality an inference arising from
the total picture. What this normally means is that the
General Counsel suggests the superficial appearance of
things be disregarded, or at least subordinated, and that
the indirect indications of illegal intent be deemed as out-
weighing the outward appearance of perfectly proper con-
duct. In short, there is no direct evidence of animus toward
Pounds; indeed what was said and done on the day of her
dismissal directly supports the affirmative defense of dis-
charge for cause. Does the total record warrant a contrary
inference? In this case I believe not.
Pounds testified she talked about the Union to several
other employees in the store during her last week, and that
others talked to her. She also said she signed a union card
that last day, Friday, and left it in the glove compartment
of her car; she added nobody-not even her friends who
had given her the card-knew about her signing it, or saw
it, until after 4 p.m. that day, when one of them-Billy
Moody-took it from her car on his way home at the end
of his shift. Pounds finished work at 4 o'clock and went
home. When his shift ended at I I p.m. that night, Fred
Statham, also a store clerk and who lived at her home, was
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given a discharge notice for himself and another to take to
Pounds. The envelope for Pounds had her regular pay-
check-this was the usual end of the payroll week-and a
note reading: "I won't need you anymore for a while when
I do I will call you. J.R. King."
The following Monday Pounds came to the store to talk
to King about her job and her dismissal. The evidence is
clear, as she admitted, that up to that moment-Monday-
there had been no mention whatsoever about the Union in
any talk between her and any member of management.
And the record also shows, as similarly conceded by the
General Counsel, that the Respondent had more than ade-
quate economic justification for reducing the personnel at
that time. In fact, on the very day it discharged Pounds, it
also discharged nine other employees-cutting the rolls
from about 45 persons to about 35.1 In the total group of
10 there were others who had talked about the Union, who
had distributed union cards, indeed who had been the in-
stigators-as distinguished from the relatively only con-
descending Jackie Pounds. And it is of considerable sig-
nificance that two of the other nine persons
discharged-Moody and Statham-were shown on the to-
tal record as having been the prime movers in the union
activity, such as it was. As neither Moody nor Statham are
named in the complaint as having suffered illegal discrimi-
nation, it follows that in the judgment of the General
Counsel it was perfectly proper for the Company to dis-
charge the ringleaders at that time.2 But if summary dis-
missal of Moody and Statham at the very time of the union
activity was economically justified, what was there about
Pounds, or any disparate treatment of her by the Respon-
dent, that set her in a class apart and requires that the
prima facie overall economic picture be disregarded?
An essential element for finding that the decision to re-
lease Pounds rested upon her union activities must be that
management knew, when it made the decision-in this case
of necessity before the end of the workweek on Friday, that
she was involved with the Union. Pounds said that Sta-
tham, who solicited her signature to a union card, placed
a supply of such cards in the glove compartment of her car
on Wednesday or Thursday. "I was unaware that they were
there. Two days went by. I didn't know the union cards
1 The gross volume of sales of the store, starting with the first week which
ended on July 13, were as follows:
Week Ending
July 13 $93,745.00
July 20 - 40,867.00
July 27 31,782.00
August 3 33,836.00
August 10 32,099.0
August 17 29,586.00
It was also stipulated that two more employees went off the payroll dur-
ing the week of August 2, two more during the week of August 9, three
during the week of August 16, and three more during the week of August 23.
Against this, four persons were added to the payroll be -•een July 26 and
August 13.
2 In his brief the General Counsel obliquely suggests that Moody. Stat-
ham, and even a Mrs . Robinson suffered at the hands of King's hostility
when they too lost their jobs. It will not do to rest the case in favor of Jackie
Pounds upon the dismissal of persons not mentioned in the complaint, for
the technique in effect presumes wrongdoing by Respondent when none is
charged.
were in my car." She added the next day-Friday-"On
lunch break I signed the card. Billy [Moody] told me not to
bring it into the store . . . I left it in my automobile."
Finally, she said that at 4 p.m., as she was going home, she
saw Moody, also finishing work at that hour, take the card
from her automobile, hold it up to show her he had it, and
then drive home himself. The decision to release her was
made that same day. If at that moment the Company knew
she favored the Union, it must be because of some other
activity of hers, certainly not the fact she signed that union
card that day.
On Monday, Pounds asked King why she was through,
and he said it was because "business is slow." At this point
in the conversation the testimony is in conflict between the
two. According to Pounds, after King had assured her the
discharge was not because of incompetence or misconduct,
she asked: "What about the Union?" In my considered
judgment as a hearing examiner , what was spoken by
Pounds as a witness after this inquiry on her part to King,
proves the owner knew nothing about her participation in
the union campaign before that moment, or, for certain, at
least had not associated any such activity by her with the
decision to discharge. The witness seemed unsophisticated,
and I think she told the truth. From her testimony:
I said, "May I ask you has it something to do with my
work? Have I taken or stolen something that wasn't
mine? Did my register come short?"
He said, "No, I think you are a damn good cashier. I
think you do your work."
I said, "There is nothing that will go on my work rec-
ord."
He said, "Definitely not."
I said, "What about the Union?"
And he looked at me kind of funny and said, "What
about the Union?"
I said , "There have been a few people in the store
talking about the union."
He said, "Anytime you are trying to organize a union,
you are supposed to let the manager know about it."
King denied there was any mention of the Union, by
either of them, in his talk with Pounds that day. She con-
tinued that he also asked what her involvement was, had
she been at any union meeting , had she signed anything,
and that she denied all. "I haven't done anything." King
kept pressing, according to her: "He looked at me and he
said, `I will tell you what. I have got some people checking
into this. And, within just a couple of days, I will have this
all cleared up. And, if you are innocent, you can come
back to work for me.' But he said, ` I will get to the bottom
of this and I will find out who signed cards and who has
been to meetings and just what has gone on about the
Union.' "
I am inclined to believe the lady in all this, and not
King's blanket denial. But even accepting Pounds' testimo-
ny verbatim, it means King was surprised at her question
about the Union, it means what he was really saying to her
was that her participation was just plain news to him,
KING ACRES STORES, INC. 929
something that had never entered his mind in connection
with her discharge . His next statement-still quoting
Pounds-makes even clearer that he knew nothing of her
union activities . The phrase "You are supposed to let the
manager know about it," is but another way of saying "you
did not let the manager know ," or "why did you not let the
manager know." But this is the same as saying he did not
know . It is unlawful to tell employees they must keep man-
agement informed of their union activities ; it is unlawful to
interrogate employees about going to union meetings, or
signing union cards . But the question of the moment is not
did King restrain and coerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act that Monday . The essential question un-
derlying the Friday discharge is: did he know on Friday of
Pounds' union involvement? Maybe he knew anyhow, and
very deviously concealed his knowledge by asking the
highly distracting questions , but I doubt it.3 In any event,
just like the card which left the premises and therefore
could not have come to management's eyes before the dis-
charge decision, Pounds' testimony of the Monday conver-
sation in no way aids the suggested inference of illegal mo-
tive 3 days earlier.
There are two other items of testimony that do have a
pertinence to the heart question of the discharge . Sander-
son, a stock clerk who left the Company in September,
testified that Statham talked to him about the Union and
that therefore on Friday morning , September 26, he went
to the meat department manager , Elvis Saucier, admittedly
a supervisor, expressly to tell him what he had heard. After
saying that Statham told him [Sanderson] that Moody and
Pounds had "been discussing" the Union , he testified that
he told Saucier that all three-Statham, Moody, and
Pounds-had been talking about it . Sanderson's continu-
ing and uncontradicted testimony [Saucier did not testify]
is that Saucier expressed himself as "against" the Union,
told Sanderson not to talk about it to anyone, and added
that "he [Saucier] would take it to J.R. King." Sanderson
then also testified that late in the afternoon-he finished
work at 5 p.m.-Saucier told him that Moody, Statham,
and Pounds "got laid off because of the union or some-
thing. He said 'If that's the way you want to put it.' " There
is also the testimony of Bertha Robinson , a cashier like
Pounds, who quit on August 12 when , after a name-calling
spat she had with the office secretary, King told her to
apologize or go home . Robinson testified that on the af-
ternoon of Monday, July 29 [this is the day when Pounds
in the morning raised the subject of the Union with King]
the owner asked what did she know about the Union and
had she been at any meetings , and then added he knew a
union meeting was scheduled for that coming Wednesday
and he would find out who was there. Robinson denied
any participation , and so far as this record shows she was
telling the truth. On August 2, still according to Robinson,
7 On cross-examaniation Pounds suggested the owner may have been act-
ing:
Q He was surprised then.
A. Well, he could have acted surprised, yes.
It is enough that King appeared surprised even to Pounds , and to infer
deception then also would mean piling inference upon inference , not a very
substantial way of proving an unfair labor practice case.
King told her no one had gone to the meeting but he would
"check out this business one way or the other." Again, on
August 8, King approached Robinson to say "If you are in
the union business, you better get out. If you are not, you
better stay out of it.... I'm not going to have a bunch of
kids telling me what to do in my store." And finally, on
August 12, Robinson, to spite Produce Manager Darrell
over some gossip in the store, told King that it was Darrell
who had talked of the Union to her. With this, King then
asked her: "By the way, what did Jackie have to do with
it?" When she answered she did not know, the owner said
"I still believe that Jackie and Fred and Billy had some-
thing to do with it."
All circumstantial evidence cases , or suggested inference
cases , have some facts of record pointing a finger of suspi-
cion against the accused. I credit Sanderson, if only be-
cause Saucier did not appear at the hearing. But the wit-
ness was not clear; according to him the meat manager
said three employees had been fired "because of the union
or something." We do not really know what Saucier said
that day. I also credit Robinson, despite the owner's gener-
al denial. And yet, when on August 12, King told her he
thought Pounds "had something to do" with the Union,
was he of necessity saying he knew that, or so believed,
before the discharge, before that Friday evening, or was he
simply saying that his inquiries, which he had been saying
after July 29 he intended to pursue, had so informed him?
Again, suspicion is one thing, but obscure, vague, and very
uncertain testimony falls short of the quantum of proof
normally required to sustain a complaint against any re-
spondent.
Within less than a month the Respondent shrank the
personnel payroll by 16; 4 others resigned. And it is clear
these people had to go because business adversity dictated
it. Some union-minded employees were caught in the mass
layoff. How many were unioneers? What percentage of the
whole had been prounion, against what percentage of the
laid-off 16 who may have been prounion? Who knows. The
only sure things is some union enthusiasts, or card signers,
had to be caught in the net, if only because of the normal
probabilities. In fact the two leaders were so caught, and
no one has suggested their selection was maliciously moti-
vated. Robinson may have summed up the case when King
said to her he believed three particular persons had talked
up the Union; she answered: "If you fired her, Billy and
Fred for that reason . . . You should have fired the whole
store because we all knew about it."
Considering the total evidence, weighing the persuasive
indications of discharge for cause against the indirect evi-
dence of possible illegal intent, I conclude this record does
not sustain the allegation of illegal dismissal of Jackie
Pounds by a preponderance of the substantial evidence on
the record as a whole.4
I do find that by interrogating both Pounds and Rob-
4 At the hearing, and again in his brief, the General Counsel hinted at the
idea there may also have been an unfair labor practice in a later refusal to
recall Pounds . It is by no means clear this argument is really made; certainly
it does not appear clearly in the pleadings and surely the case was not heard
on that basis . In any event there is clear evidence that the Respondent, more
than once after Pounds left the Company, offered her reinstatement and she
refused it . And it is equally clear she never returned to the Company after
July 29 to ask for work.
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inson about their union activities-attendance at meetings
and signatures to union cards ; by telling Robinson he was
watching attendance at union meetings-thereby creating
the impression of surveillance over union activities ; by tell-
ing the employees he intended to inquire and to learn of
the identity of prounion employees , and by threatening
Robinson with reprisal if she engaged in union activities,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
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, have a close , intimate,
and substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct of owner King in interrogating em-
ployees about their union activities , including attendance
at meetings and signing of union cards, in telling employ-
ees he was watching attendance at union meetings and
thereby creating the impression of surveillance over union
activities, in telling the employees that he intended to in-
quire into and learn the identity of prounion employees,
and by threatening employees with retaliation if they en-
gaged in union activities , the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]