Lane Drug Stores, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 9, 195088 N.L.R.B. 584 (N.L.R.B. 1950) Copy Citation In the Matter of LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED 1 and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION In the Matter of LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION 1063, AFL Cases Nos. 10-CA-730 and 19-RC-,557.Decided February 9, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On October 27, 1949, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Inter- mediate Report finding that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 2 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and. modifications. This consolidated proceeding looks to a determination from this Board of the following questions: (1) Whether the election held June 3, 1949, should be set aside because of the Respondent's preelection conduct; 3 and (2) whether the Respondent's preelection and other 1 Respondent operates an interstate chain of 74 drug stores located in 9 States. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Mem- bers Houston and Reynolds]. R This question was first raised in formal objections to the election filed by the Union as part of the representation proceeding. As is noted in the Intermediate Report, the Acting Regional Director sustained the objections and recommended that the election be set aside . The validity of his recommendation is now before us on the exceptions of the Respondent to it. 88 NLRB No. 113. 584 LANE DRUG STORES , INCORPORATED 585 conduct warrants findings that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. But for the one post election incident, detailed below, the activities of the Re- spondent forming the subject of the objections to the election and those forming the subject of the complaint are substantially identical.' The Trial Examiner, in disposing of the complaint allegations and the acting Regional Director, in disposing of the objections to the election, both found that the Respondent's preelection activities in- cluded interrogation of employees concerning their union activities and sympathies, threats to discharge employees because of their union membership and activities, and promises to its employees of benefits if they voted against the Union or attempted to influence other employees to do so. We find that the record sustains these findings. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, these activities were proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .5 The Acting Regional Director concluded, and we agree, that these activities of the Respondent created an atmosphere which made im- probable a free and untrammeled expression by employees at the election of June 3.6 Accordingly, we shall adopt the recommendations of the Acting Regional Director that the election be set aside and shall direct a new election at such time as the circumstances permit a free expression by the employees of their desire to be or not to be repre- sented by the Union. 4 We agree with the Respondent that the May 15 reduction in work hours and/or the announcement accompanying it is encompassed by the complaint allegations . We also agree with Respondent ' s further position that, under the circumstances of this case, neither the reduction nor the accompanying announcement constituted conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and we so find. We do not rely on this conduct in deter- mining whether the election should be set aside. e As we have repeatedly held , Employer interrogation , threats of reprisal and promises of benefit constitute acts per se violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, regardless of whether such acts are effective in accomplishing the intended results. Hence, it is not material that , as Respondent points out, employees to whom the coercive remarks were immediately addressed testified that they were not "coerced." See Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB 557 , enforced January 16 , 1950 ( C. A. 8). Nor is it material that these activities occurred in a context in which the Respondent permitted the Union free access to the employees at all times prior to the election . We note, however, that at least in the case of Hazel Rosser „ the coercive remarks addressed to her, including a veiled threat that the Respondent could fire employees by "using reasons other than the Union," had the desired result. For , according to Rosser's testimony , she decided after these remarks that "it would be better " if she did not act as an observer for the election. We note, further , that although Respondent apparently relies on its grant to the Union of free access as demonstrating neutrality to the employees , high officials , including the president of the Company , as well as those lower in the supervisory hierarchy , participated in a deliberate campaign to openly voiced opposition to, and propagandizing against, the Union . Thus it could not but appear to the employees that the coercive acts of the lower- level supervisors reflected high managerial policy. 6 When, as here , the conduct predictably affected more employees than testified, we deem immaterial the fact that employees who testified to threats or promises made to them , or to the interrogation by their superiors , also testified that these activities had not affected their vote. The test is whether the conduct charged was reasonably calculated to interfere with the employees' free choice. See Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc., 87 NLRB 1326 and cases there cited. See also note 4, supra. 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As noted above, the Trial Examiner also found that following the election of June 3, 1949, the Respondent engaged in further conduct violative of 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The conduct in question involves, in brief, the offer of the Respondent's attorney to the union representa- tive on June 6, 1949, to reimburse the Union for its organizational expenses if the representative would withdraw the objections to the election and the charges of unfair labor practice charges which he had filed. The Respondent admits the foregoing conduct, but objects to the Trial Examiner's interpretation of it as an attempt to induce the Union to cease its organizational activity, and to his legal conclusion that it constituted conduct proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We are satisfied from the record as a whole that the Respondent's post election conduct described above was calculated to induce the union representative to abandon its representations of employees.' In any event, and quite apart from the Respondent's subjective motive, we are satisfied that the Respondent's offer constituted unlawful inter- ference with employee organizational activity in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Employees have a right, guaranteed by the Act, to select representatives of their own choosing and to have the full benefit of Board election procedures in aid of the exercise of that right. To ensure that election results reflect the untrammelled will of the voters, parties are afforded a right under Board procedure to test the validity of the election by filing objections thereto, and to seek to pre- vent further interferences with a free election by the filing of unfair labor practice charges. We regard the Respondent's June 8 offer as a direct interference with those rights.8 In the instant case, the vice in the Respondent' s offer was aggravated by the fact that, as found above, the Respondent had previously engaged in unlawful conduct which interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees and actu- ally deprived them of the free exercise of their right to choose repre- sentatives. Thus, by seeking to induce the Union to withdraw the 7 As set forth in the Intermediate Report, the remarks of the Respondent ' s attorney surrounding the offer to reimburse the Union for its organizational expense included ex- pressions indicating that the real interest of the Respondent 's attorney was not so much In the settlement of pending litigation, but in the withdrawal of the Union from the Respondent ' s stores. I It is immaterial that the offer was not made to an employee . For the Union in this case pursuant to prior authorization was acting on behalf of employees in seeking to secure for them the benefits of collective bargaining and the rights incident to obtaining such benefits . Cf. Hollywood-Maxwell Company, 24 NLRB 645 , enforced 126 F. 2d 815 ( C. A. 9) ; Reliance Manufacturing Company, et al., 28 NLRB 1051 , enforced 126 F. 2d 311. See also Northwest Glove Co., 74 NLRB 1697 , where the Board found that the employer violated Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act by offering to pay money to an employee leader of the union movement if she would use her influence to cause defection from the union ranks. The difference between such a situation and that which , as here , involves an offer to a nonemployee leader of employees is one of degree only. LANE DRUG . STORES, INCORPORATED 587 objections and the charges, the Respondent was attempting to perpetu- ate the restraining effects of its prior misconduct on employee organi- zational activity.9 Accordingly, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, by the attempt of its attorney on June 6, 1949, to induce the union representative with an offer of a money payment to withdraw the objections to the election and the charges of unfair labor practices and to abandon its representation of the employees. As urged by the General Counsel, we shall specifically enjoin the recurrence of this conduct in our Order. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Lane Drug Stores, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation and activities; threaten to discharge its employees because of their union membership and activities; promising its employees raises in pay and better working conditions if they vote against the Union; and attempting to induce union representatives with an offer of a money payment to abandon representation of the employees; (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or. all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its stores located at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A.10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional °In this connection it is noted that the withdrawal of objections to the election would also have had the effect of precluding for a period of 1 year the employees' exercise of a right to designate a bargaining representative in a Board conducted election . See Section 9 (e) (3) of the Act. 1° In the event that this Order . is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words : "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after having been duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond- ent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on June 3, 1949, among the employees of Lane Drug Stores, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia, be, and it hereby, is set aside." APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliation and activities; threaten to discharge our employees because of their union membership and activities; promise em- ployees raises in pay and better working conditions if they vote against RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION; or attempt to induce union representatives with an offer of a money payment to abandon their representation of employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi- zation, to form labor organization, to join or assist the above- named union or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 11 When the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free choice of representatives, we shall direct that a new election be held among the Respondent's employees. LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED 589 All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union, or any other labor organization. LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED, Employer. By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated ------------------ This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. William J. Rains, for the General Counsel. Mr. Ralph Williams, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Respondent. Mr. Albert W. Gossett, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by Retail Clerks International Association, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated August 26, 1949, against Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Respondent, by certain of its officers, agents, and employees, from on or about March 1, 1949, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its ewployees by: (1) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies; (2) soliciting employees to find out and report the names of other employees who were members of the Union or were sympathetic toward or active on behalf of the Union; (3) instructing employees to vote against the Union in an election, and accompanying such instructions with threats of dis- charge if employees voted for the Union and with promises of raises in pay and better working conditions if employees voted against the Union; (4) soliciting employees to withdraw from membership in the Union with promises of wage increases and better working conditions; (5) threatening employees with loss of pay and overtime wages if the Union came into its stores; (6) threatening employees with discharge if they participated in any activity on behalf of the Union ; and (7) questioning employees as to how they voted in a representation election and threatening to discharge any employee who had voted for the Union. On September 6, 1949, the Board issued an order consolidating Case No. 10-CA-730 with Case No. 10-RC-557 and directing a hearing on the facts upon which the Acting Regional Director relied for his recommendation to set aside the election of June 3, 1949. The Respondent filed an answer on or about September 7, 1949, in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the com- mission of any unfair labor practices. 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Atlanta, Georgia, on September 12, 1949, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties. At the close of his case, the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint. The motion was granted without objection. The General Counsel moved at the close of the whole case to conform the pleadings to the proof, as to names, dates, and other minor variances. The motion was granted without objection. The General Counsel and the Respondent argued orally before the Trial Exam- iner at the close of the hearing. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both. None of the parties has filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. Both from the entire record in the, case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and central warehouse in Atlanta, Georgia. It operates 74 drug stores located in Georgia, Florida, Ala- bama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Sixteen of the stores are located in or near Atlanta; and this pro- ceeding is concerned only with these stores. All of the stores are supplied from the Atlanta warehouse. The Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Liggett Drug Co., Inc. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations during the period of 12 months preceding the date of the complaint, purchased mate- rials, consisting principally of drugs, appliances, household items, and related general consumer goods, valued in excess of $1,000,000, not less than 50 percent of which value originated outside of the said States where the Respondent's stores are located, and caused said materials to be shipped in interstate commerce to the said stores . During the same period, the Respondent sold and distributed ma- terials and articles at its said stores, valued in excess of $1,000,000, none of which was sold or shipped by said stores out of their respective States. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail Clerks International Association is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background On March 21, 1949, the Union filed with the Board a petition for certification as representative of the Respondent's employees in the Atlanta area stores. The Union and the Respondent on May 6 entered into a stipulation for certifica- tion upon consent election. On or about May 12 the Respondent made an announcement to its employees in the Atlanta area as follows : You are being notified in a separate bulletin that all retail store employees, except Store Managers, Assistant Store Managers, Pharmacists and Fountain Managers, will go on a 44 hour work-week beginning, Sunday, May 15, 1949. LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED 591 It is possible that the AFL Union, which has been attempting to persuade certain of you to join, pay dues and surrender your individual rights to them may contend that the reduction in working hours without any reduc- tion in pay was meant to influence your attitude toward the Union and the Union election which is scheduled to be held on June 3. I want to state plainly and forcefully that the reduction in hours was not so intended. . As a matter of fact, this change in work schedules, to take effect on May 15, has been planned for some time. Besides, it applies to all the stores in the Lane Drug Stores Incorporated group, which, as you know, includes all former Lane and Liggett stores throughout the Southeastern States, and not to the Atlanta stores alone. Only about 10% of the employees whose hours of work are being reduced are employed in the Fulton and DeKalb County stores. The other 90% of the employees whose hours of work are being reduced are not concerned in any way with the local attempts of the Union to obtain dues-paying members. An election to determine whether a majority of the employees in the Fulton and DeKalb County stores want the Union to do their bargaining for them is scheduled to be held on June 3, 1949. We tried to arrange for an earlier election, but the Union insisted that the election be postponed until June ; and June 3rd was the earliest date on which we could arrange to have the election held. It seems to us that it would be grossly unfair to delay making a desirable reduction in the hours of work of the employees who are employed outside of Fulton and DeKalb Counties, merely because a Union is trying to per- suade some of the Fulton and DeKalb County employees to affiliate with it. On the other hand, it also seems to us that it would be grossly unfair to the Fulton and DeKalb County employees to reduce the hours of work in all of the other stores, but not to reduce the hours of work in the Fulton and DeKalb County stores merely because of union activities to which most of the Fulton and DeKalb employees are opposed. The referred to reduction in hours of work is, therefore, being made ef- fective in all former Lane and Liggett Stores in the Southeastern States on May 15th as originally planned ; and this reduction in hours of work will continue in effect regardless of the outcome of the election which is scheduled to be held on June 3rd. You may wonder why this notice has been posted. Strangely enough it would be called an "Unfair Labor Practice" for us to reduce your hours of work unless we also reduce your pay, if in doing so we attempted to in- fluence your attitude toward the Union. Therefore, the reason this notice is posted is to set forth the full story and to state plainly that it is not our .Purpose for this change to influence your attitude toward the Union. We sincerely hope that all of you will realize that there is no need for you to pay dues to a Union or surrender your°individual rights to the Union in order for you to get a square and honest deal with the Company. We sin- cerely hope that you will indicate your confidence in the Company in your vote in the coming election. But what I want to stress here and now is that the reduction in your hours of work without any reduction in your pay comes to you as a general Company policy which applies to all the stores in the Southeastern States, whether affected by Union activities or not, and has not been initiated for the purpose of influencing your attitude nor your vote in the election which is scheduled to be held on June 3, 1949. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As stated in the announcement, the reduction in hours was made effective simul- taneously in all of the Respondent's stores in the southeastern. States on May 15 a The election, which was lost by the Union, was conducted by the Board on June 3. Thereafter the Union filed its objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. It also filed unfair labor practice charges on June 7 and August 25. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Evelyn Poole worked in the Respondent's Decatur store under the supervision of Frank B. Whittaker, the store manager. On about March 25, 1949, Whittaker asked Poole if she had signed a designation card of the Union. When Poole replied that she had signed a card, Whittaker stated, "Wouldn't it be a good idea to get that back?" 2 It is found that Whittaker's interrogation of Poole as to whether or not she had signed a union card constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. Hazel Rosser worked as a cashier in the store located at 477 Peachtree Street. The store manager was H. W. Cheney. Rosser was designated by the Union to act as its observer at a representation election scheduled to be con- ducted by the Board on June 3, 1949. George F. Olsen, Jr., president of the Respondent, informed her of this fact. On about June' 1, Cheney told Rosser that the employees "didn't know that they could be fired and let go for other reasons than the Union." $ Cheney's remark clearly was a threat to discharge employees because of their union membership and activities and, as, such, is found to constitute interference, restraint, and coercion. Ethel Gazell worked as a cashier in the Decatur store under Manager Whit- taker. On about June 1, Whittaker said to Gazell, "You have been inclined towards the Union, haven't you?" Gazell replied, in substance, that she had not made up her mind. Whittaker then said that even if the Union organized the stores, the Respondent's financial condition would not permit the payment of higher wages to employees. He also pointed out the disadvantages of belonging to the Union. Gazell stated that her grievance was low wages and that the Union could get increases for the employees. After some further discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the Union, Gazell said, "Really, I feel like maybe I could swing a large percentage of the votes. What would it mean to me if I could?" Whittaker replied, "Well, I couldn't promise you a raise or anything at this stage. of the game ; it would just be like asking you to buy 1 The complaint does not allege that the above conduct of the Respondent was violative of the Act . However, such conduct was set forth as one of the objections filed by the Union to conduct affecting the results of the election . George F. Olsen , Jr., testified credibly that the reduction from 48 to 44 hours had been planned for about 60 days before the announce- ment, and that the Atlanta area employees comprised approximately 10 percent of the total of Respondent 's store employees. The undersigned makes no finding concerning the above action of the Respondent for the reason that it is not alleged in the complaint. 2 Poole testified credibly to the above conversation with Whittaker . Whittaker in effect denied the statements attributed to him by Poole by testifying that he did not question any employees regarding their membership in the Union . His denial is not credited , as he did not impress the undersigned as a reliable witness. Ethel Gazell testified that she overheard the above 'conversation between Poole and Whittaker . Her testimony in this connection is substantially , the same as Poole's. $ Rosser ; testified without . contradition to the above statement of Cheney. Cheney did not appear as a witness. LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED 593 your vote. But, the first of the week, if the stores say `Yes,' I will see about getting things leveled off and getting you all fixed up." ` On June 2 L. C. Merritt, Respondent's district manager for the Georgia stores, spoke to Gazell. He told her that he would get her a new candy case and asked her what her experience had been with unions. When she told him that she did not have any personal experience, he told her of the disadvantages of the Union. After some further conversation, Gazell made the same offer to influence votes in the election as she had made to Whittaker the previous day. Merritt replied, "Well, listen now, I couldn't promise you any raise. Tomorrow morning you go back there, honey, and vote `No' for me when that election comes off. And the first of the week we will see what we can do out here about getting things fixed up and leveled off and getting you all fixed up."' It is found that Whittaker's and Merritt's interrogation of Gazell as to her union sympathies and their implied promises to her of benefits if she voted against the Union in the election constitute interference, restraint, and coercion. Grace Loy was employed as a bookkeeper at the Respondent's Whitehall Street store. During the latter part of February 1949, at Loy's request District Manager Merritt called at the store in order to .discuss a grievance with% her. During the conversation, Merritt asked Loy if the organizer of the Union had "been around" and if she was going to sign a union card. He also asked her if she ever had belonged to the Union e The undersigned finds that Merritt's interrogation of Loy constitutes interference. Through arrangements made by Merritt, Loy was transferred to another of the Respondent's stores under the supervision of T. D. Chotas. Loy testified credibly and without contradiction that she heard Chotas ask employee Reed if he had joined the Union. Chotas' interrogation of Reed is found to constitute interference. From January until the middle of March 1949, Roy Deadwiler, Jr., worked at the Respondent's Forsyth Street store under Manager R. L. Parsons . At some- time during this period of time an organizer of the Union entered the store and gave Deadwiler a designation card.. Deadwiler signed the union card in the presence of the soda fountain supervisor. That same day Parsons asked Dead- wiler if he had signed a union card. When Deadwiler replied that he had not, Parsons stated that he "wouldn't advise (Deadwiler) to sign it." Parsons' interrogation of Deadwiler is found to constitute interference. At sometime after June 6, 1949, Ralph Williams, the Respondent's attorney, requested Albert W. Gossett, an international representative of the Union, to call at his office. Williams told Gossett, in substance, that the Respondent did not want its stores to be organized by the Union; that Jacob Drug Stores were "vulnerable" for organization ; that he knew that the Union had gone to some Gazell testified credibly to the above conversation . Whittaker did not deny specifically the remarks attributed to him by Gazell. However, he did deny that he at any time, by inference or otherwise , promised her a wage increase if she would withdraw from the Union or if she would vote against it in the election . His denial is not credited. R Gazell testified credibly to the above conversation. Whittaker testified that he told Merritt that he thought Gazell was a member of the Union. Merritt testified that he spoke to Gazell in an, attempt to persuade her to vote against the Union. He denied. that he promised her a wage increase. However, when asked if he had.had the conversation as she related- it in her testimony, lie answered, "I think so; yes." He did not deny specifically the remarks attributed to him by Gazell. Loy testified without contradiction to the above. 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD expense in the campaign to organize Respondent 's stores ; that he was prepared to reimburse the Union for such organizational expenses , provided the Union withdrew its objections in the representation proceeding and its charges of un- fair labor practices ; and that he would arrange the transaction as best suited Gossett z The Respondent contends that the above remarks of Williams to Gossett was an attempt to settle or compromise "the controversy between it and the Union." This contention is rejected . It is clear from the above conversation that through Williams the Respondent was endeavoring to buy off the union representative so that the Union would cease its organizational efforts among the Respondent 's employees , and I so find. Accordingly , it is found that by this offer the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act .3 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations, of Respondent described in Section I, above, 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. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that-the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Retail Clerks International Association, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act: 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated, 'its agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation and activi- ties ; threatening to discharge its employees because of their union membership and activities; and promising its employees raises in pay and better working conditions if they vote against the Union ; Gossett testified without contradiction to the above conversation with Williams. Reliance Manufacturing Company, 28 NLRB 1051. LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED .595 (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist Retail Clerks International Association, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organiaztion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as guaranteed by Section 7 thereof. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its stores located at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, sifter having been duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (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 insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within twenty (20) days from the date of the service of this Intermediate report what steps Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that unless the Respondent shall, within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommen- dations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, filed with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Ilainediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon anti shall be legibly printed or mimeo- graphed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules 882191-51-39 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. Dated at Washington, D. C., this 27th day of October 1949. JOHN H. EADIE, Trial Examiner. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliation and activities; threaten to discharge our employees because of their union membership and activities ; or promising employees raises in pay and better working conditions if they vote against RETAIL CLERICS INTERNATIONAL AssocIA.TION. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union, or any other labor organization. LANE DRUG STORES, INCORPORATED, 'Employer. By -------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation