Kuhns, Earl, d/b/a Frenchy's K & T and Earl's News Stand

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1982

263 N.L.R.B. 45 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

FRENCHY'S K & T
Earl Kuhns, d/b/a Frenchy's K & T and Earl's
News Stand and Subhas C. Bansra. Case 20-
CA- 16430
July 30, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER
On April 26, 1982, Administrative Law Judge
Jerrold H. Shapiro issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,l and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Earl Kuhns,
d/b/a Frenchy's K & T and Earl's News Stand,
San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERROLD H. SHAPIRO, Administrative Law Judge:
This proceeding, in which a hearing was conducted on
March 1, 1982, is based on an unfair labor practice
charge filed against Earl Kuhns, d/b/a Frenchy's K & T
and Earl's News Stand, herein called Respondent, by
Subhas C. Bansraj, herein called Bansraj. The charge
was filed July 16, 1981, and on August 26, 1981, a com-
plaint was issued against Respondent by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 20, of the National Labor Relations
Board, on behalf of the Board's General Counsel, alleg-
ing that on July 14, 1981, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
263 NLRB No. 7
called the Act, by discharging Bansraj, who was a super-
visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, be-
cause Bansraj refused to commit unfair labor practices.
Respondent filed an answer which admitted certain fac-
tual allegations but denied engaging in the alleged unfair
labor practices.
Upon the entire record,2 from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the
post-hearing briefs filed by Respondent and the General
Counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Background
Respondent is a sole proprietorship owned by Earl
Kuhns which operates a chain of adult bookstores, four
of which are located in San Francisco, California, on the
following streets: 16th, Mason, Geary, and Taylor.
During the period of time material herein the Taylor
Street store, which is the main store, was undergoing ex-
tensive remodeling. Kuhns has little contact with the
day-to-day operation of the stores. During the time mate-
rial herein Bansraj, who was employed by Kuhns as Re-
spondent's general manager, was responsible for the day-
to-day operation of the stores. Assistant Manager Ken-
neth Garrett, who is admittedly a statutory supervisor,
assisted him.
In December 1978, the Union commenced a campaign
to organize the clerks employed in Respondent's San
Francisco stores. In March 1979, this campaign culminat-
ed in a Board-conducted representation election which
the Union won. Upon charges filed by the Union in
Cases 20-CA-14319 and 20-CA-14456, the Board in
Earl Kuhns d/b/a Frenchy's K & T and Earl's News
Stand3 held that during the period from January to
March 1979 Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) and (1)
of the Act by discharging seven employees and reassign-
ing two employees to more onerous work because of the
employees' union activities and further violated Section
8(aXl) by interrogating employees about their union ac-
tivities; by rewarding employees for providing Respond-
ent with information about the union activities of other
employees, by threatening employees with different kinds
of economic reprisals if they supported the Union; by
promising employees improved benefits of employment if
they did not support the Union; by creating the impres-
sion that the employees' union activities were under sur-
veillance; and by informing employees that it would be
futile for them to support the Union.
In June 1979 after the close of the hearing in Cases
20-CA-14319 and 20-CA-14456, Kuhns, Bansraj, and
I In its answer, Respondent admits that it meets the National Labor
Relations Board's applicable discretionary jurisdictional standard and is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and
(7) of the Act. Also, Respondent admits that the labor organization in-
volved in this case. Retail Clerks Union, Local 648, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
2 The General Counsel's motion to correct the spelling of the names of
Danny Meadow and Mahendre Prashad in the transcript is granted.
3 247 NLRB 1212 (1980).
45
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Garrett met with Respondent's attorney Joseph Rhine.
Attorney Rhine informed Kuhns that he thought it was
"most likely" Kuhns would have to reinstate the dis-
charged employees who were alleged in the unfair labor
practice cases to have been illegally discharged. Kuhns
indicated he was not happy about this prospect because
he did not want the Union "to run his stores." Rhine
told him that if the Court ordered him to reinstate the
employees he would have no choice. Bansraj asked how
they expected him to cope with the reinstated workers.
Rhine suggested that Bansraj create a separate personnel
file for each of the clerks who were employed during the
Union's organizational campaign and that whenever
Bansraj observed one of these employees doing some-
thing wrong to issue them a written disciplinary warning
and place a copy of the warning in the employee's per-
sonnel file. Rhine stated that if these written warnings
were appropriately issued the recipients would be unable
to grieve to the Union or the Board. Kuhns agreed with
Rhine's suggestion and specifically instructed Bansraj
that he was particularly interested in having Bansraj
issue written warnings to those employees who were em-
ployed by Respondent during the union election and
who testified against the Company during the unfair
labor practice hearing in Cases 20-CA-14319 and 20-
CA-14456.
On August 30, 1979, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California pursuant to a petition
filed by the Board for a preliminary injunction, pending
the Board's disposition of the unfair labor practices al-
leged in Cases 20-CA-14319 and 20-CA-14456, ordered
Respondent to reinstate the several employees whom the
Board in these cases alleged were illegally terminated.
On October 25, 1979, the court, pursuant to the Board's
petition alleging that Respondent was in civil contempt
of the court's August 30, 1979, Order, issued an order
adjudging Respondent to be in civil contempt, as alleged,
and ordered Respondent to comply with the terms of the
August 30 order under threat of penalty. Immediately
following the issuance of this order Bansraj went to at-
torney Rhine's office to execute an affidavit to be sub-
mitted to the court stating that Respondent had reinstat-
ed the employees and had otherwise complied with the
court's order. Kuhns, who was also present, told Bansraj
that as soon as the employees who were reinstated came
to work that Bansraj should get rid of them as quickly as
possible.
Prior to Kuhns' instruction to Bansraj in June 1979 to
maintain a personnel file for each of the employees who
had been employed during the Union's organization cam-
paign, to issue written disciplinary warnings to these em-
ployees when he observed them engage in misconduct,
and to place a copy of the reprimand in the employees'
files, Respondent did not maintain personnel files for its
employees and there is no evidence that Respondent pre-
viously employed a system of written disciplinary warn-
ings. Bansraj complied with the instruction to maintain
personnel files for the employees who had been em-
ployed during the Union's organizational campaign. He
kept these files in his briefcase. Kuhns never asked to see
these files.
Besides instructing Bansraj to issue written disciplinary
warnings to the employees who had been employed
during the Union's organizational campaign, if they en-
gaged in misconduct, Kuhns later in June 1979 directed
Bansraj to issue written disciplinary warnings to any em-
ployee who was late for work or who was absent due to
illness without a doctor's excuse.4 Thereafter, from 1979
until Bansraj's discharge in 1981, Kuhns, on several occa-
sions told Bansraj he felt that employee discipline was
not strict enough and to be sure to issue written disci-
plinary warnings to employees if they violated work
rules. Kuhns told Bansraj that he wanted employees to
be issued three disciplinary warning notices before they
were fired.
Despite Kuhns' above-described instructions about is-
suing written disciplinary warnings to the employees,
Bansraj, from 1979 until his discharge in July 1981,
issued only one such warning. When Kuhns during this
period asked whether Bansraj was issuing employees
written disciplinary warnings, Bansraj falsely answered
in the affirmative.
During the period from 1979 to 1981 on several occa-
sions when Kuhns received correspondence from the
Union grieving about a matter or from the Board asking
that Kuhns comply with the Board's Decision and Order
in Cases 20-CA-14319 and 20-CA-14456, Kuhns in-
formed Bansraj that the Board and the Union were "just
f- me over" and asked Bansraj whether he was issuing
written disciplinary warnings to the employees and
whether anyone was scheduled to be discharged and in-
structed Bansraj to get rid of the union members as
quickly as possible. Bansraj falsely replied that he was in
fact issuing written warnings and with respect to Kuhns'
question about who was next to be discharged gave an
evasive answer.
In 1981 Bansraj was scheduled to take his vacation
June 15. However, in May 1981 Garrett asked whether
Bansraj could postpone his vacation until late June be-
cause on June 15 Respondent was closing the 16th Street
store and transferring everything from that store to the
Taylor Street store and because of this Bansraj's pres-
ence was necessary. Bansraj agreed to delay his vacation
until July 1, 1981.
On Friday, June 26, 1981, Bansraj, in the presence of
the Company's bookkeeper, Danny Meadows, informed
Kuhns that "the live show has finally begun and so I'll
go on my vacation the Ist of July." Kuhns answered,
"you deserve one."
On Tuesday, June 30, while Bansraj was working at
the Taylor Street store, Respondent's accountant Mike
Franklin, in the presence of Kuhns, asked Bansraj to do
a lengthy project for Franklin which would take several
days. Bansraj informed him that he was starting his vaca-
tion the next day and would return July 15. Neither
Franklin nor Kuhns responded.
Later on June 30, in the evening, Garrett phoned
Bansraj at his home and stated that Kuhns did not want
Bansraj to go on vacation July 1 because he needed him.
Garrett did not explain why Kuhns needed him. Bansraj
4 The record reveals that these two work rules were new rules institut-
ed for the first time by Kuhns in June 1979.
46
FRENCHY'S K & T
replied that he had already made his vacation plans. Gar-
rett advised him that Kuhns did not want him to take his
vacation at that time and warned Bansraj that if he went
on vacation he would no longer be Respondent's general
manager but instead would be the manager of the Taylor
Street store. Bansraj answered that he accepted the de-
motion and would go on vacation. Garrett told him to
turn in whatever belonged to the Company in his posses-
sion. The next day, July 1, before leaving on his vaca-
tion, Bansraj went to the Taylor Street store and gave
Garrett his keys, the combination to the safe, and all of
the files he had in his possession which included the em-
ployees' personnel files he had been maintaining. 5
On July 14, 1981, upon his return from vacation, Bans-
raj phoned the Taylor Street store and spoke with Gar-
rett. Bansraj stated he was back from vacation and
would come to work the next day. Garrett informed him
that Kuhns did not need him. Bansraj asked "why." Gar-
rett stated that when Respondent needed him the most
he went on vacation. Bansraj replied that he realized that
Kuhns was no longer going to employ him as general
manager but, as he had told Garrett on June 30, he was
accepting the "option" offered to him of being manager
of the Taylor Street store. Garrett replied that Kuhns
was withdrawing that "option." Bansraj asked "why."
Garrett replied that Bansraj had not paid the bills and
taxes on time. Bansraj asked Garrett how he could pay
the bills and taxes when there was no money for him to
do so because of the cost of the remodeling of the
Taylor Street store. Garrett in response stated, "there
were various other reasons" for his discharge. Bansraj
asked "such as what." Garrett replied that Kuhns had
discovered that Bansraj had not issued written disciplin-
ary warnings to the union members and that because of
this Respondent could not get rid of the union members
as quickly as they intended and that Bansraj had cost Re-
spondent a lot of money by his failure to issue the afore-
said written warnings.6
It is undisputed that Bansraj, who, as general manager
was responsible for the payment of Respondent's bills
5 The above description of the events immediately leading up to Bans-
raj's leaving for vacation on July 1, 1481, is based upon Bansraj's testimo-
ny which conflicts in significant respects with Garrett's Garrett testified
that on June 29 he asked Bansraj not to take his vacation because the
"live show" was opening. That on June 30, when he phoned Bansraj at
home, Garrett told him Kuhns did not want him to take his vacation be-
cause the "live show" was ready to open and since they were short of
clerks they needed Bansraj's services and warned Bansraj that if he went
on vacation he would lose his job. Bansraj told Garrett he had to take his
vacation because he had already made the arrangements. Garrett repeat-
ed that if Bansraj went on vacation he would lose his job. Garrett specifi-
cally denies stating that Bansraj would be demoted from general manager
to manager of the Taylor Street store and denies that Bansraj gave him
the employees' personnel files before he left on vacation. I have rejected
Garrett's testimony in favor of Bansraj's because in terms of their testi-
monial demeanor Bansraj impressed me as the more credible witness.
a The above description of the July 14 conversation between Bansraj
and Garrett is based on Bansraj's testimony which conflicts with Gar-
rett's in significant respects. Garrett testified that when Bansraj told him
he was back and wanted to start work that Garrett told him there was no
job available for him and this ended the conversation. Garrett specifically
denies giving Bansraj any reason for his termination or that there was
any discussion about Bansraj returning to work as manager of the Taylor
Street store. I have rejected Garrett's testimony in favor of Bansraj's be-
cause in terms of their testimonial demeanor Banisraj impressed me as the
more credible witness.
and taxes, failed to pay a substantial number of bills
which were past due. It is also undisputed that the
reason for his failure to pay these bills was that there
was no money available to pay the bills and that Kuhns
knew this.
B. Discussion and Ultimate Findings
Since supervisors as such are excluded from the pro-
tection which Section 7 of the Act affords to statutory
"employees," 7 usually the discharge of a supervisor is
not violative of the Act. However, there are situations in
which the discharge of a supervisor is violative of the
Act because it infringes upon the employees' statutory
rights. One situation where employees' statutory rights
are infringed upon is where a supervisor is discharged
for refusing to commit unfair labor practices. Local No.
207, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Or-
namental Iron Workers Union, et al. [William B. Pallack
Co.] v. Jacob Perko, 373 U.S. 701, 707 (1963); Jackson
Tile Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764, 767, 789-
791 (1958), enfd. 272 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1959); N.L.R.B.
v. I. D. Lowe. et al., 406 F.2d 1033, 1035 (6th Cir. 1968).
This principle protects rank-and-file employees by per-
mitting their supervisors to respect the employees' statu-
tory rights without fear of reprisal.
In the instant case, counsel for the General Counsel
contends that the record shows that Respondent dis-
charged its general manager, Bansraj, because he failed
to obey the instructions of Respondent's owner, Kuhns,
to issue written disciplinary warnings to prounion em-
ployees. Under the above-described principles, if the
General Counsel is correct in his assessment of the
record, Bansraj's discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. I am of the view, for the reasons set forth below,
that the General Counsel proved a prima facic case that
Bansraj's failure to issue written disciplinary warnings to
prounion employees was a motivating factor in Respond-
ent's decision to discharge him and that Respondent did
not rebut the General Counsel's prima Jfcie case.
As established by the Board's decision in Cases 20-
CA-14319 and 20-CA-14456, supra, Respondent is ex-
tremely hostile to union representation and is not reluc-
tant to discharge employees for supporting the Union or
to otherwise engage in unfair labor practices in an effort
to dissuade its employees from supporting the Union.
And in June 1979 when Respondent's owner, Kuhns, re-
alized he would have to reinstate the employees whom
Respondent had discharged because of their union activi-
ties, Kuhns instructed Bansraj to maintain personnel files
for the employees who were employed during the
Union's organizational campaign and further instructed
Bansraj that when Bansraj observed these employees
engage in misconduct to issue them written disciplinary
reprimands and to place a copy of said warnings in their
personnel files. Respondent had previously not main-
tained such a system of discipline. Thereafter, on several
occasions between June 1979 and Bansraj's discharge in
July 1981, Kuhns told Bansraj to get rid of the prounion
7 Sec. 2(3) of the Act provides that the "term 'employee' . shall not
include . . . any individual employed as a supervisor
47
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees as quickly as possible, asked whether Bansraj
was issuing the written disciplinary warnings to the em-
ployees and whether anyone had received sufficient
warnings to be discharged. In response to Kuhns' inquir-
ies about whether he was issuing written disciplinary
warnings to the employees, Bansraj, who during this 2-
year period only issued one written disciplinary warning,
always answered in the affirmative. Since Bansraj kept
the employees' personnel files in his briefcase and since
Kuhns never asked to see any of the written disciplinary
warnings which Bansraj was supposedly issuing to the
employees, Kuhns did not realize that Bansraj was not is-
suing written disciplinary warnings to the employees.
However, on July 1, 1981, Bansraj, before leaving for a
2-week vacation, gave the personnel files to Assistant
Manager Kenneth Garrett, who lived with Kuhns. Upon
Bansraj's return from vacation on July 14, 1981, Garrett
told Bansraj that he had been discharged by Kuhns be-
cause he failed to pay Respondent's bills and taxes on
time and that Kuhns discovered Bansraj was not issuing
written disciplinary warnings to the employees who
were union members and that because of Bansraj's failure
to issue the written disciplinary warnings Kuhns could
not get rid of the union members as quickly as he had
intended. It is undisputed that Bansraj was unable to pay
Respondent's bills because Respondent had insufficient
funds and that Kuhns knew that this was the reason
Bansraj had not paid the bills and taxes.
The foregoing circumstances-Respondent's extreme
union animus, Respondent's desire to get rid of the
prounion employees and his instruction that Bansraj issue
written disciplinary warnings to these employees, the
timing of Bansraj's discharge coming as it did immediate-
ly after Respondent learned Bansraj was not issuing writ-
ten disciplinary warnings to the employees, Garrett's
confession to Bansraj that Respondent discharged him
because he had not issued written disciplinary warnings
to the prounion employees thereby making it more diffi-
cult for Respondent to get rid of these employees, and
the blatant falsity of the other reason offered to Bansraj
by Garrett to justify his discharge-persuade me that the
General Counsel has made a prima facie showing that it
was Bansraj's failure to issue written disciplinary warn-
ings to the prounion employees that was a motivating
factor in Respondent's decision to discharge him.
I shall now describe and evaluate the evidence pre-
sented by Respondent in support of its contention that
Bansraj's discharge was motivated by legitimate business
considerations. Respondent called one witness, Assistant
Manager Kenneth Garrett. He testified that on June 30
Respondent Kuhns was in the process of getting ready to
stage a live show with dancing girls, and that on July 3
the show in fact opened. Garrett further testified that on
June 29 Kuhns instructed him to tell Bansraj to postpone
his vacation for a few weeks, explaining to Garrett that
the live show was already to open and that because of
this Bansraj's presence was needed. Kuhns also told Gar-
rett, according to Garrett's testimony, that if Bansraj re-
fused to postpone his vacation to advise Bansraj that his
employment was terminated. I have rejected Garrett's
testimony in its entirety because: (1) In terms of his testi-
monial demeanor Garrett did not impress me as being a
credible witness; (2) Respondent Kuhns, the person who
made the decision to discharge Bansraj, was not called to
corroborate Garrett's testimony or to otherwise explain
his reason for discharging Bansraj; (3) Bansraj, who im-
pressed me as a credible witness, testified that the live
show was already open when he left for vacation, having
opened June 26, 1981; and (4) Bansraj's testimony that
the live show was already open when he left on vacation
was corroborated by former employee Mahendre Prasad,
who impressed me as a credible witness.
It is for the foregoing reasons that I have rejected
Garrett's testimony and conclude that the reason he ad-
vanced for Bansraj's discharge was false. Accordingly, I
further find that Respondent failed to demonstrate that it
would have discharged Bansraj even if he had not failed
to issue written disciplinary warnings to the employees
who were union members. 8
Based on the foregoing I find that the General Coun-
sel has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
on July 14, 1981, Respondent discharged Bansraj because
he failed to issue written disciplinary warnings to proun-
ion employees. I further find that by engaging in this
conduct Respondent interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its nonsupervisory employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, there-
by violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Earl Kuhns, d/b/a Frenchy's K & T
and Earl's News Stand, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union, Retail Clerks Union, Local 648, United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Subhas C. Bansraj on July 14, 1981,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist from its unlawful conduct and take affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. In
view of the extensive and serious unfair labor practices
which Respondent has been previously found to have
committed (Earl Kuhns, d/b/a Frenchy's K & T and
Earl's News Stand, 247 NLRB 1212 (1980)), I shall also
recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any
other manner infringing upon the rights of employees
a I recognize that the record shows that Bansraj acted contrary to Re-
spondent's instruction by failing to issue written disciplinary warnings to
the employees in general, not just to the prounion employees. Nonethe-
less, the preponderance of the evidence as described above establishes
that it was Respondent's animus against Bansraj for failing to issue warn-
ings to prounion workers which resulted in his discharge.
48
FRENCHY'S K & T
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. See Hickmotr Foods,
Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
I have found that Respondent discharged Subhas C.
Bansraj and thereby, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its nonsu-
pervisory employees in the exercise of their rights guar-
anteed under Section 7 of the Act. In order to restore to
the nonsupervisory employees their full freedom to exer-
cise these rights and thus to effectuate the policies of the
Act, I shall recommend the reinstatement with backpay
of Bansraj. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent offer him reinstatement to the position of man-
ager of Respondent's Taylor Street store9 or, if that posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and that he be made
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of his dis-
charge, as prescribed in F: W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed
in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER' 0
The Respondent, Earl Kuhns, d/b/a Frenchy's K & T
and Earl's News Stand, San Francisco, California, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
a I have not recommended Bansraj's reinstatement to the position of
general manager because the record establishes that on June 30. 1981.
when Bansraj refused to postpone his vacation, that Respondent, prior to
learning that Bansraj was not issuing written disciplinary warnings to the
prounion employees, had decided to demote Bansraj when he returned
from vacation to the position of manager of the Taylor Street store
io In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(a) Discharging or otherwise disciplining any supervi-
sor because said supervisor failed or refused to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Subhas C. Bansraj immediate and full rein-
statement to the position of manager of Respondent's
Taylor Street store or, if such position does not exist, to
a substantially equivalent one, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as the result of his discharge on June 14, 1981, in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(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 of this Order.
(c) Post at its stores in San Francisco, California,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
49