Okun Brothers Shoe Store, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1019 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

OKUN BROS. SHOE STORE
Okun Brothers Shoe Store, Inc. and Local 36,
United Food and Commercial Workers ' Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-19363
and 7-RC-16334
9 July 1985
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 11 February 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision.
The Respondent ' filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief. and has
decided to affirm the, judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
The Union began its organizational campaign at
the Respondent's retail shoe store in late winter
1981, filed a representation petition 13 April 1981,
and lost the 26 May 1981 election by a 19-to-19
vote.' This case concerns certain alleged unfair
labor practices and related objections to the elec-
tion. The judge found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act
by threatening, interrogating, and impliedly promis-
ing benefits to employees2 and that the unfair labor
practices constituted objectionable conduct.
1. We agree with the judge that Supervisor Ne-
zamus3 unlawfully threatened employees O'Brien
and Weston by telling them that, if the employees
voted the Union in, their hours would be cut from
56 to 40 a week. Nezamus was an admitted super-
visor; he intimated that higher management was in-
volved by saying he would let Store Manager
Steele handle it; and his remarks threatened a sub-
stantial (over 25 percent) reduction in hours.
2. We agree with the judge that Nezamus coer-
cively interrogated Weston by asking him how
many employees had signed up for the Union.
First, Nezamus had the week before threatened
Weston with a reduction in hours; the Respondent
actively opposed the Union; and Nezamus had no
legitimate reason to question Weston. Second, by
asking Weston about his knowledge of the extent
I The election was held pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election The unit found appropriate is
All full-time and regular part-time employees , including all sales em-
ployees, cashiers, and receiving clerks employed by the Employer at
Its facility located at 356 East South Street , Kalamazoo, Michigan,
but excluding all store managers , assistant store managers , confiden-
tial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
2 The judge dismissed the complaint allegation that the Respondent un-
lawfully granted benefits during the Union's election campaign No party
filed exceptions to the dismissal
9 Also referred to as "Nezamis "
1019
of the Union's organization, Nezamus was, at least
obliquely, asking him how active he was in the
Union's organizing drive.
3. We agree with the judge that the Respondent
unlawfully solicited grievances and promised to
correct them. Members of a consulting firm, which
the Respondent hired in response to the Union's
campaign, asked employees about their problems.
This solicitation of grievances carries with it an in-
ference that the Respondent was implicitly promis-
ing to correct the problems it discovered. The Re-
spondent, however, repeatedly emphasized that it
could not promise anything, and the Board, in
Uarco, Inc., 216 NLRB 1 (1974), held that such em-
phasis may rebut the implied promise stemming
from the solicitation of grievances. Uarco, howev-
er, recognized that in some situations an illegal
promise would be found notwithstanding state-
ments that no promises could be made. (216 NLRB
at 2 fn. 4.) Such is the situation here. The Respond-
ent not only solicited grievances, but also, through
the consultants, offered or suggested a specific so-
lution to the employees' problems, namely, an em-
ployee handbook. The Respondent thereby indi-
rectly promised to rectify the employees' problems.
4. We agree with the judge that the above unfair
labor practices constitute objectionable conduct
interfering with the election.
ORDER
The' National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Okun Broth-
ers Shoe Store, Inc., Kalamazoo, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues I would find that the
Respondent did not violate the Act and would dis-
miss the complaint. For the same reasons I would
find that the Respondent has not interfered with
the conduct of the election, would overrule the ob-
jections to the election, and would certify the re-
sults.
1. On 25 April 1981 employees Smirle Weston
and Tony O'Brien were drinking coffee in the,
store's break area when Supervisor Chris Nezamus
approached, talking to himself.' Nezamus said that,
I The judge found it was unclear whether Nezamus was talking to
himself or addressing Weston and O'Brien Weston testified that Nezamus
was talking out loud as he was coming toward them, that he was talking
to himself, which was not at all unusual for him Weston and O'Brien.
however, heard the remarks
275 NLRB No. 145
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if the employees voted in a union, he "assumed"
their hours would be cut from 56 to 40 per week
or that "probably" their hours would be cut. He
said he did not want to have anything to do with it
and, would let Manager Charles Steele handle it.
Nezamus prefaced his remarks by saying, "I don't
know," and ended by saying, "I don't want to get
involved." Nezamus, who held the position of as-
sistant manager, acted principally as a buyer. Al-
though an admitted supervisor, he was held in low
esteem by the employees in general and by Weston
and O'Brien in particular.2 In light of Nezamus'
manner of approach, his use of hedging and discla-
matory words, and his low status, and esteem,
Weston and O'Brien had reasons to believe that
Nezamus was merely expressing his own anxieties
rather than speaking for management. In these cir-
cumstances,: I would find that Nezamus did not
threaten Weston and O'Brien.
2. About a week later' Nezamus talked with
Weston in the receiving area. Nezamus began the
conversation wondering where he was with the sit-
uation the way it was and whether maybe he ought
to join the Union or be on the other side. He then
asked how many people were signed up. Weston
assumed he meant how many had signed up for the
Union and replied that he thought "we had 25."
Weston testified that Nezamus seemed more curi-
ous than anything. Nezamus did not ask Weston
whether he or any other individual supported the
Union. Again, Nezamus appeared to be concerned
only with-his own anxieties-here his fear of being
on the losing side-rather than acting for manage-
ment. In these circumstances, I would find that Ne-
zamus' questioning Weston did not tend to restrain,
coerce, or interfere with employee rights and was
not, therefore, coercive interrogation.
3. In response to the Union's organizational cam-
paign, the Respondent hired a management consult-
ant firm. Every day for more than a week before
the 26 May election either Rober Embry or Greg-
ory Eerbeck, of the consulting firm, came to the
store to talk with employees. They came to answer
questions about the election, provide information,
and listen if the employees had any concerns (ac-
cording to Eerbeck); to get a feel of what 'was
going on (according to employee O'Brien); and to
see what the employees' problems were (according
to employees Weston and Bernard Krause).
Krause, in a conversation with Embry, commented
that the employees had several problems but 'that
he knew of no easy resolution. Krause did not spe-
cifically mention any problems but only alluded to
2 O'Brien, e g, testified that in 1980 he ignored Nezamus' firing him
Another 'employee testified that "nobody really paid any attention to
him "
them. Embry said that his firm had- used employee
handbooks -in the past and- that before writing one
they usually elicited problems from employees.
Krause suggested that any handbook prepared by a
firm hired by management would be one-sided.
Embry said they tried to avoid that by talking -to
employees but that employees had no recourse if a
handbook were strictly promanagement.
On 21 and 22 May members of the - consulting
firm and Respondent General , Manager Marvin
Okun conducted employee meetings in four shifts
at a local motel. The meetings followed a standard
format. Okun opened the meetings saying they
could not promise the employees anything. Eer-
beck explained what would happen on election
day, what would happen -after the election, and
how negotiations would work if the Union won.
Eerbeck then opened the sessions to questions and
answers. Marvin Okun, who had taken over man-
aging the Respondent due to his brother's illness,
closed by asking the employees to give-him an op-
portunity to demonstrate his new management.
During the question-and-answer'periods employees
asked about a handbook or about-alternatives to a
union contract. Frank Barresi, senior partner of the
consulting -firm, said he could not promise anything
but his firm had prepared handbooks in the past,
that they covered the fringe benefits the employees
had discussed, and that his firm- could prepare one
in a short time: -
An employee handbook was 'a -common topic of
discussion during the Union's organizational cam-
paign. It was talked about by the employees among
themselves and discussed at union meetings. How
the topic arose is unclear. The evidence does not
indicate that the consultants or management initiat-
ed the idea. - -
The Respondent in response to the campaign did
hire consultants to conduct meetings and to talk to
employees in the store to find out their problems,
and the consultants did talk to employees about
their problems. Although the Respondent may
have --impliedly solicited complaints and grievances,
"[I]t is not the solicitation of grievances itself that
is coercive and violative of Section-8(a)(1), but the
promise to-correct grievances ' : . ." Uarco, Inc.,
216 NLRB 1, 2 (1974). The issue here is whether
Respondent through its actions or statements im-
pliedly promised to correct grievances by publish-
ing an employee handbook. I would find that it did
not. There is no evidence that the Respondent, by
management or through the consultants, introduced
the handbook issue into the organizational cam-
paign, and at the employee meetings it was the em-
ployees who raised the issue. In responding to the
employees' questions about a handbook and to their
OKUN BROS . SHOE STORE .
complaints, neither management nor the consult-
ants directly promised a handbook or anything
else. Instead they- repeatedly and emphatically
stated they could not and would not promise any-
thing. Accordingly, I would find that the evidence
refutes any inference that the Respondent's discuss-
ing problems with employees impliedly promised
to correct the problems.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint and
overrule the objections.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge.
Charges were filed against Okun Brothers Shoe Store;
Inc. (Respondent) on May 29, 1981, by Local 36, United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO (Union), which resulted in the issuance of a
complaint dated July 22_1981. Subsequently, the Union
filed objections with respect to an election held among
the employees of Respondent and, based on the report to
the objections to the election, an order was served con-
solidating the objections with the unfair labor practice
proceeding in Case 7-CA-19363 on June 9, 1982. The
consolidated proceeding involves determination of alle-
gations that Respondent has violated the Act by threat-
ening and interrogating employees with regard to their
union sympathies, instituting changes in working condi-
tions, and impliedly promising benefits during the course
of the union election campaign. A hearing was held in
this proceeding before me in Kalamazoo, Michigan, on
June 25 and 26, 1982. Briefs were received from both the
General Counsel and Respondent. ,
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS-OF RESPONDENT
Okun Brothers Shoe Store, 'Inc. of Kalamazoo, Michi-
gan, engages in the retail sale of shoes and related prod-
ucts. It has admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the
consolidated complaints. I find that it is an employer
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the 'policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this pro-
ceeding. '
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local '36, United Food and . Commercial Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATIONS
A Background
Respondent is a retail shoe outlet that has-been in op-
eration in Kalamazoo, Michigan, for approximately 60
years and generally employs from 40 to 50 employees
depending on the season of the year. The owner of the
store is Leon Okun, the general manager and chief exec-
utive office of the store is his brother Marvin Okun, and
1021
the store manager is Charlie Steele. At all times pertinent
to the matters in dispute in this decision, Respondent also
employed an admitted supervisor, Chris Nezamus.
The owner of the store, Leon Okun, due to various ill-
nesses, was unable to attend to his management duties
during much of 1980 and 1981.,As a result of his contin-
uous absence, serious strain was placed on Store Manag-
er Steele and his assistant, Chris Nezamus: During 1981,
Leon Okun worked during the month of January and
then, except for 2 weeks in March, he remained away
from the store until the middle of the summer, sometime
around July During that time, Marvin Okun, who owns
and operates an insurance company- in Kalamazoo, took
over the responsibilities of Leon Okun. In the winter and
early spring of 1981, the Union instituted a campaign to
organize the employees of Respondent. On April 13,
1981, a representation petition was filed. On April -30,
1981, a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec-
tion was executed and approved by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7. The date agreed on for the election
was May 26, 1981. Sometime during the week prior to
May 14, 1981, Respondent retained the services of a
labor consulting firm, Craft and Barresi. The actions
taken by this firm which are pertinent to this proceeding
will be discussed in detail at a later point in this decision.
The election was held among the 43 persons comprising
the bargaining unit and resulted in a tie vote.
B. Facts
1. The alleged interrogation and threatening of
employees
About April 25, 1981, Supervisor Chris Nezamus
walked up to two of Respondent's sales employees,
Smirle Weston and Tony O'Brien, while they were
having a cup of coffee in the store's break area. It is un-
clear whether Nezamus, on approaching the employees,
was talking to himself or talking specifically to them, but
in any event he was. overheard by the employees to say
that if the Union were voted in the employees who
joined the Union would have their working hours cut
from 55 or 56 per week to 40 per week. A week or so
after this incident, Nezamus also spoke to employee
Weston about the Union, and asked Weston how many
people he thought had signed up to vote for the Union.
Weston replied approximately 25. Shortly after these in-
stances, Nezamus was discharged from the store.
Respondent contends that Nezamus' statement about a
reduction in working hours does not constitute a threat
because he did not coerce the two employees who over-
heard the statement. It is apparent from the testimony
that the two employees, O'Brien and Weston, held Neza-
mus in low esteem and did not consider him to be part of
the effective management of the Company. However, the
test with respect to.whether the statement constituted an
unfair labor practice is not whether it actually coerced
the employees to which it was made but whether the
statement would tend to be coercive to the employees
generally. I find that a statement from a supervisor
during a union campaign that if a union,was to be voted
in, the employees' working hours (and correspondingly
1022 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their pay) would be cut would tend to be coercive and
does constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
According to Weston, Nezamus asked the question as
to how many people signed up to vote "yes" in the elec-
tion. Coupled with his earlier statement, I find Nezamus'
interrogation of an employee with regard to the union
sympathies of fellow employees to be a violation of the
Act.
2. The alleged changes in working conditions
Prior to May 11, 1981, Respondent had no written em-
ployee break policy. When business was slow- sales em-
ployees were allowed to go to the back area of the store
to get a cup of coffee and to take a short break. Employ-
ees taking breaks were subject to recall to the floor at
any time by management. Apparently, some employees
took short breaks and others took much longer breaks
under the system.
About May 11, 1981, Store Manager. Charles Steele
posted a notice setting out in writing a specific break
policy. This policy was prefaced by a statement reading,
"To eliminate the complaints that some employees are
taking more breaks than others, and to assure that all em-
ployees get breaks that they deserve . ..." Under the
policy set out in the notice, employees were given one to
three 15-minute breaks per day based on the number of
hours worked by the employee during the day. Each em-
ployee was supplied with a timecard to punch in and out
on to ensure that the break policy was followed and also
to keep accurate records for regulatory agencies. The
notice also informed employees that if they skipped one
or more breaks on Saturday they would be paid extra for
their breaktime. The Saturday policy was instituted by
the Company because it was the busiest day of the week
and the Company wanted to encourage the employees to
not take breaks on that 'day. This notice ended with a
statement, "Those who violate the break policy will be
subject to demerits which will be taken into consider-
ation when raise review time comes around or when the
employee has accumulated sufficient demerits to warrant
disciplinary action. These items will be covered in future
policy formulation."
With respect to the last statement, the author of the
notice, Charles Steele, testified that there 'was no wage
review by the -Company and there was no demerit
system in effect. Steele testified that raises had always
been approved by the store's owner, Leon Okun, based
on his own opinion as to whether the employee "de-
served" the raise.
The General Counsel contends that the written break
policy constitutes a beneficial change in working condi-
tions for the store's employees and as such is a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because of its timing. Re-
spondent contends that the policy was posted because
the break policy in effect was not 'working well and that
its timing was primarily the result of Marvin Okun
paying more attention to the store's operations because
of-the absence of his brother Leon Okun.
About the same time the notice with respect to breaks
was posted, Steele posted another notice organizing the
employees' stock program. When employees were not
otherwise engaged in sales, they were expected to tend
to company stock in its various departments. Prior to the
posting of this notice, some employees generally worked
in one stock area as opposed to another and no employ-
ees were actually assigned any specific area. Store man-
agers would pick whomever they wanted among the
salespersons to run stock and keep specific shoes in spe-
cific locations. The notice posted by Steele did assign
specific employees to specific departments. In general,
the only change effected by this-notice-was to-make spe-
cific employee assignments for specific areas of the store.
Upon review of all the evidence with regard to em-
ployee breaks and employee stock assignments, I find
that the posted notices did not constitute benefits granted
by management in hopes of affecting the outcome of the
pending election. The written break notice tended to for-
malize what the Company believed to be the existing
break policy and benefited only those employees who
were abusing the existing unwritten policy. The provi-
sion in the new policy whereby the employees could be
paid for passing up Saturday breaks does not constitute a
benefit in that for an employee to be paid he must give
up something that he theretofore had a right to do. The
stock assignment policy does nothing more than formal-
ize the existing working conditions of the Company and
put the Company's employees on notice as to what area
of the store they were responsible for. If this policy ben-
efits anyone, it would appear to be the management only.
Consequently, as I cannot find that the written policies
instituted by the store's manager about May 11, 1981,
constitute beneficial changes in working conditions de-
signed to affect the outcome of the pending union elec-
tion, I cannot find that they constitute violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Allegations of implied benefits relating to an
employee handbook
As noted earlier, Respondent hired the management
consultant firm of Craft and Barresi in response to the
Union's organizing campaign. On May 14, 1981, Bo
Embry, an employee of the consulting firm, arrived at
Respondent's store. From this date until immediately
prior to the election, Embry would stay,in the store and
make himself available to employees to hear their com-
plaints and comments. Employee Bernard Krause testi-
fied that during this period he engaged Embry in conver-
sation and Embry said that he was there to see what
problems employees were having and to see how they
could be resolved. Krause testified that he mentioned to
Embry problems with pay raises, fringe 'benefits, and the
lack of fringe benefits. Krause testified that Embry re-
plied that his employment firm used an employee hand-
book to solve 'problems in the past and that the firm's
usual method was to solicit problems from personnel and
then to sit down with management to see what could be
worked out. Thereafter, the firm would publish an em-
ployee handbook to help clarify policy and resolve prob-
lems. Thereafter, on May 21, 1981, employees attended
meetings held at the Crosstown Inn in Kalamazoo in
shifts and heard Marvin Okun and the employees of the
Craft and Barresi firm present management's position
with respect to the election. ' At one of these meetings,
OKUN BROS . SHOE STORE
either in direct presentation or in response to a question
by an employee, Frank Barresi, senior partner of,the
firm, said, "I can 't promise you that our Company would
be hired to write an employee. handbook, but we have
written them in-the past, and they cover all fringe bene-
fits that you are talking about.-,Because we have experi-
ence in these matters, we can get this done very quick-
ly." Barfesi also implied that-an-employee handbook was
,as binding ; asa-union negotiating contract.
There is no direct evidence in this case that any
member of Respondent' s 'management or its consulting
firm ever directly-promised the -employees that an em-
ployee handbook would be prepared-and, to the contrary
employees testifying in these proceedings each said that,
at the meetings held at the Crosstown Inn, they were
told repeatedly that management could not promise any-
thing. The matter of the employee handbook, was a
common topic of conversation among the Company's
employees and was mentioned both between them and
union organizing personnel. However, taken with the
consulting firm's solicitation of problems, I find that the
responses by the firm's members-to employees' questions
regarding an employee handbook -constituted an implied
promise. of benefit tending-to coerce the employees into
voting against the Union in violation of the Act.
-As found above, the conduct of Supervisor Nezamus
and the implied promise of an-employee handbook by
Respondent's labor consulting firm, as well as its solicita-
tion of complaints, all violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Conduct affecting the results of election and
objections to the election
I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act during the objections period in the manner
noted immediately above. Accordingly, the Petitioner's
Objections 1, 8; 9, and 10 are'sustained. The conduct- set
forth in these objections violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act and it is the Board's generally stated policy to
"direct a new election whenever an unfair labor practice
occurs during the critical period since `[c]onduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) is, a fortiori, conduct which inter-
feres with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice
in an election ."' Enola Super Thrift, 233 NLRB 409
(1977), citing Dal-Tex Optical Co., 137 NLRB 1782,
1786-87 ( 1962). Accordingly, I recommend that these
objections be sustained and that the election be set aside
and a rerun election be-conducted. i
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1. -Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein an employer : engaged in commerce within the
i meaning of. Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 36, United Food and Commercial Workers
International-,Union, AFL-CIO is and has been at all
times material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act;
3. Respondent, by the threat of its supervisor Chris
Nezamus to two of its employees that if the Union were
i The evidence failed to support•Oblections 3 and 4 and I shall recom-
mend that they be overruled
1023
voted in their hours of work would be cut, has threat-
ened its employees with harsher working conditions in
violation of Section.8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by the interrogation by its supervisor
Chris Nezamus of an employee as to how many of the
employees were going to vote "yes" in the upcoming
election, illegally interrogated its-employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. -
5. By the actions of its consulting firm in soliciting
grievances and problems from Respondent's employees
and by impliedly promising benefits through the intro-
duction of an employee handbook, Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. . -
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and' (7) of the Act.
7. By engaging in the conduct described above, Re-
spondent has interfered with its employees' freedom, of
choice in the election held on May 26, 1981.
8. Respondent has not engaged in other unfair labor
practices as discussed above. - -
1THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent did engage in, and is en-
gaging in, unfair labor practices within- the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.by the threat of its supervisor
Chris Nezamus to the effect that employees' hours of
work would be reduced if the Union won -the election
and by the interrogation of employee Weston by Neza-
mus with respect to the other employees' intentions in
regard to voting in the election. I have further found
that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by the actions of its consulting firm in soliciting griev-
ances and problems from Respondent's employees and by
impliedly promising to them that an employee handbook
would be prepared. I shall recommend that it cease ,and
desist therefrom. I further recommend that Respondent
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
ORDER
The Respondent, Okun Brothers Shoe Store, Inc.,
Kalamazoo, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from -
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and desires.
(b) Threatening employees that their hours of work
would be cut and with harsher working conditions in the
event that the Union was voted to be their representa-
tive.
(c) Unlawfully soliciting employee grievances with an
implied promise of correcting the same.
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with; re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act. '
(a) Post at its Kalamazoo, Michigan store copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60.consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places .
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held
on May 26, 1981,,in Case 7-RC-16334 be set aside, that
the case be remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 7 for the purpose of conducting a new election,
and that the paragraph set forth in the attached "Appen-
dix A" be included in the Notice of Second Election to
be issued by the Regional Director.
3 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX A
Notice To All Voters
The election conducted on May 26, 1981, was set aside
because the National Labor Relations Board found that
certain conduct of the Employer interfered with the em-
ployees' exercise of a free choice. Therefore, a new elec-
tion will be held in accordance with the terms of this
Notice of Election. All eligible voters should understand
that the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives
you the right to cast your ballot as you see fit, and pro=
tects you in the exercise of this right, free from interfer-
ence from any of the parties.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National ' Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has.or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.. .
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through 'representatives
of their own choice - -
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion -
To choose not'to engage in any of'these protect=
ed concerted activities. •
WE WILL NOT interrogate you concerning your union
membership , activities, and desires.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully solicit your grievances with
an implied promise to correct them.
WE WILL'NOT threaten to cut your hours "Of work or
impose harsher working conditions in the, event you vote
a labor organization -to be your representative.
WE WILL NOT-in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
OKUN BROTHERS SHOE STORE, INC.