Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 453 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC.
Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc. and Retail Clerks
Union, Local 1015, chartered by Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association , AFL-CIO. Cases
18-CA-4387 and 18-RC-10189
September 18, 1975
DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On May 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
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, Richman-Gordman
Stores, Inc., Council Bluffs , Iowa, store No. 10, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on November 12, 1974, in Case 18-RC-10189,
among employees in the unit found appropriate by
the Regional Director at the Employer's 1800 North
16th Street, Council Bluffs, Iowa, facility, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior fn.
omitted from publication.]
' The Administrative Law Judge found an unlawful interrogation of em-
ployee Brandt by Store Manager Clifford, based on Brandt 's testimony to
that effect , even though General Counsel had stated that his examination
would relate solely to a specific portion of the complaint which alleged only
solicitation . Respondent excepts partly because this particular interrogation
was not alleged in the complaint . In these circumstances , we do not adopt
this finding.
Although the Administrative Law Judge did not specifically enunciate a
finding of interrogation of certain employees by Department Manager Rob-
erts, as described by employees Coffman , Hadar, and Ellis, we interpret his
crediting of witnesses as establishing that he did in fact find that Roberts
had violated Sec. 8 (a) (I) of the Act by her conduct, as reflected by his
Conclusion of Law 3.
Member Jenkins does not agree that employee Coffman 's testimony was
sufficiently corroborated by employee Ellis to be the basis for finding inter-
rogation by Department Manager Roberts
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
453
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This
consolidated proceeding, under Section 10(b) and Section
9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was
tried, pursuant to due notice, before me, on March 4 and 5,
1975, at Council Bluffs, Iowa. The charge in Case
18-CA-4387 was filed on November 18, 1974, by Retail
Clerks Union, Local 1015, charter by Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as
the Charging Party-Petitioner.' The complaint, originally
issued on January 10, 1975, and amended at the hearing,
alleges that Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc., hereinafter
called Respondent-Employer, has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by engaging in surveillance, interrogations,
promises to adjust solicited grievances, and various other
types of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In its answer, the Respondent-
Employer denies having violated the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
The petition for certification of representative in Case
18-RC-10189 was filed on August 14, and thereafter, pur-
suant to the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election dated October 15, an election was held on No-
vember 12 among certain employees of the Respondent-
Employer? The Charging Party-Petitioner lost the election
and thereafter filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. By a Supplemental Decision and
Order dated January 16, 1975, the Regional Director, hav-
ing investigated the objections, directed a hearing on
Charging Party-Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13
which alleged in substance, that the Respondent-Employer
engaged in surveillance and other acts of restraint and
coercion during the critical period, and "that these and
other related acts and conduct illegally interfered with the
exercise of free choice by the employees as to the election
conducted." Since the conduct described in paragraph 8,
subparagraphs (a) thru 0) of the complaint, as amended, in
Case 18-CA-4387 coincides with that alleged in
Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13, in Case
18-RC-10189, these cases were ordered consolidated for
hearing.3
All parties were afforded a full opportunity to partici-
pate in the hearing and to argue orally. The General Coun-
sel and the Respondent have filed briefs which have been
i All dates are in 1974 unless otherwise specified.
2 All full-time and regular part-time selling and nonselling employees em-
ployed by the employer at its 1800 North Sixteenth Street, Council Bluffs,
Iowa. facility; excluding store manager, assistant store managers, area su-
pervisors, department managers, confidential employees, casual employees,
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act
3 Only the events occurring between the date of the filing of the petition
and the date of the election may serve as a basis for objections to an elec-
tion The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 N LRB 1275 (1961)
220 NLRB No. 78
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
carefully considered .4 Upon the entire record in the case
and from my observations of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINIiINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent-Employer, Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc.,
a Nebraska corporation, maintains its principal office and
place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Respondent-Em-
ployer is engaged in the retail-sale of general merchandise.
Only the Council Bluffs Iowa store No. 10 is involved in
this proceeding. During the past calendar year, a represen-
tative period, in the course and conduct of its operations,
Respondent-Employer received gross revenues in excess of
$500,000. During the same period of time, Respondent pur-
chased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were transported and delivered to Respondent's
places of business directly across State lines. Based upon
the foregoing, as admitted in its answer, I find and con-
clude that Respondent-Employer is now and has been at
all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party-Petitioner is now and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Supervisory Status and Agency
At the hearing, Respondent-Employer amended its an-
swer to admit that the following named persons were at all
times material herein, supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. Based upon credited record testi-
mony concerning their titles, official duties, and conduct
with respect to the issues before me, I find that they were,
at all times material herein, supervisors and agents within
the meaning of the Act, and occupied the positions as set
forth following their respective names : Daniel J. Clifford,
store manager ; Lyle Karre, assistant manager, hardlines;
Frank Rayer, assistant manager , softlines ; Thomas P. Paz-
derka, pharmacist manager ; Deborah Roberts, department
manager , women's straight wear; and Hal C. Urban, assis-
tant manager , shoe department.
meetings in one of the meeting rooms of the Holiday Inn at
Council Bluffs, Iowa, on October 4 and November 4. No
other meetings were held there during those months. Ac-
cording to the credited testimony of employees Tracy
Fancher and Anne Marie Gilmore, they drove together to
the October 4 union meeting, and as they were walking
from the car across the parking lot, toward the motel, they
saw Store Manager Daniel Clifford pass through the light-
ed motel driveway at a distance of between 2 to 10 feet
away.5 Clifford was driving a blue volkswagon. Both em-
ployees called out "Hi, Dan" as he drove by. On cross-
examination both witnesses insisted that they were positive
in their identification of Clifford.
Gene L. Babb and Gary K. Lundin, president and secre-
tary-treasurer, respectively, of Local 1015, credibly testified
that they observed Clifford and Hal Urban together sitting
in Clifford's other car, a red Chevrolet, in the parking lot
of the Holiday Inn on the night of November 4. Babb and
Lundin arrived before 9:30 p.m. They planned to attend
the last part of the first meeting, which had begun at 8
p.m., and then to be present for the second meeting sched-
uled for 10:30 p.m. Upon entering the meeting room, they
were informed by some of those present, that Clifford had
been seen at a service station at the intersection of Avenue
N and North 25th Street, about two blocks away. Babb
and Lundin left the meeting and proceeded to search for
Clifford in Babb's car. After making a circuit of the streets
in the general vicinity of the motel area, they returned to
the parking lot about 10:30 to 10:45. There they saw Clif-
ford and Urban sitting in Clifford's car in the lighted motel
parking lot approximately 150 feet from the glass doors of
the separate entrance to the meeting room area. Babb
pulled his car next to the driver's side and asked Clifford
what he was doing there. Clifford replied that he was there
to see some people. Babb asked, "How dumb can you be,
being there in the light and watching the meeting, because
you've been caught at it once?" Then Babb rolled the win-
dows up, drove to the front of the motel, and parked. Then
he and Lundin stood outside until Clifford started his car
and drove away, honking the horn and waving as he
passed.
Clifford admitted owning a 1972 blue Volkswagen and a
1966 red Chevrolet, but denied ever having been present
in the Holiday parking lot, or in any way spying on the
October 4 and November 4 union meetings at the Holiday
Inn .6 Clifford denied having a conversation with Babb or
Lundin on November 4, but agreed he knew in advance
B. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Within
the Critical Period
1. Surveillance
It is undisputed that as a part of its organizational drive
among Respondent's employees, Local 1015 held union
Respondent's motion made at the outset of the hearing and renewed in
its brief, to dismiss the complaint based on the General Counsel's refusal to
answer certain interrogatories , is denied for the reasons set forth in my
original ruling on the record.
Fancher estimated the distance to be from 2 to 4 feet . Gilmore estimated
it was about the length of a courtroom bench.
6 Hal Urban did not testify. However, I draw no adverse inference to
Respondent from this fact , since at the time of the hearing he was no longer
employed by the Respondent and the circumstances concerning his depar-
ture, as described in the record, are such as might normally be expected to
make him a hostile witness.
RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC. 455
about the meeting, and that it would have been possible for
someone to have observed him on that night between 10
and 10:30 p.m. at a filling station at the intersection of
North 25th Street and Avenue N. Clifford's normal route
home, after working in the evening at the store, is to pro-
ceed down North 25th Street to an entrance ramp to Inter-
state 29. He agreed that he passed this location approxi-
mately 10:30 p.m. that evening and that Hal Urban
accompanied him. Clifford stated that closing time at the
store is 10 p.m. He normally works on Monday, Wednes-
day, and Friday nights, leaving about 10:30 p.m. He testi-
fied that he had no recollection of any particular events on
October 4. I have carefully considered Clifford's denial of
surveillance and his testimony that he had been advised by
counsel not to engage in such conduct, against his admis-
sions and the detailed and mutually corroborative testimo-
ny of Fancher and Gilmore and Babb and Lundin, which
withstood searching cross-examinations.' I credit the Gen-
eral Counsel's witnesses and find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on October 4 and November 4
by its supervisors' surveillance of employee union meet-
ings.
2. Interrogation and other alleged interference, restraint,
and coercion
According to David Brandt, Clifford and he discussed
the Union about 10 a.m. one morning in mid-October, just
after the store opened. Brandt was alone in the stockroom
at the time, near the receiving doors, when Clifford ap-
proached and asked how things were going. Brandt an-
swered that they were going pretty smooth, except for a
few people who were not keeping up their end of the job.
Then, after a few more specific questions about Brandt's
work in the stockroom, Clifford said that he and the rest of
the managers were looking at Brandt as possible manage-
ment material. He explained that this would involve going
from punching a timeclock to a salary, plus an increased
discount from 15 to 20 percent. After a few additional
questions about the stockroom, Clifford asked if Brandt
knew anything about the employees' gripes with manage-
ment. Brandt answered that a few people had been upset in
July, during inventory, when after having been required to
work 4-hours overtime, the Company required them to
take a whole day off to compensate for the overtime
worked. Clifford responded that he had straightened this
out with a few of the full-time employees who had come to
him and asked about it. Then Clifford asked if Brandt re-
spected him as manager, and said that his door was open
any time Brandt had a problem. Next Clifford asked
Brandt how he felt about the Union, or if he felt the people
really needed a third party to get their problems straight-
ened out between employees and management. Brandt re-
sponded that he did not know much about it at that time,
and the conversation ended.
Clifford agreed to having had a conversation with
Brandt in mid-October about the Union, but denied inter-
rogating him concerning his union sympathies. Clifford
7 A sequestration motion , made by Respondent at the outset of the hear-
ing, was granted.
stated that he did not remember telling Brandt that he
would take care of any grievances Brandt might have, but
did remember Brandt mentioning the July inventory over-
time problem, which Clifford agreed was remedied prior to
the time of this conversation. Clifford admitted asking
Brandt if he had any questions about the Union. To the
extent that Clifford's version of the conversation differs
from that of Brandt, I credit Brandt. I have considered and
credit Clifford's testimony that, at various times during the
election campaign, he and other company supervisors met
with their attorneys and received legal advice concerning
what they could and could not do in talking with employ-
ees concerning the Union and answering their questions. I
have likewise considered that it is difficult for a layman, in
the give and take of actual conversation, to strictly apply or
adhere to such advice. In the final analysis, Brandt im-
pressed me as a forthright and candid witness who was
doing his best to tell the truth. Clifford did not. In testify-
ing, concerning this conversation, and with respect to other
allegations in the complaint dealing with his conduct, Clif-
ford impressed me as a witness carefully prepared to tell a
winning version for the Company, and thus avoid the con-
sequence of a possible rerun election. Furthermore, despite
his somewhat glib and polished demeanor, Clifford's recol-
lection failed him at certain crucial points in his testimony
while at other points he made admissions which corrobor-
ated the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses.
Consequently, where conflicts appear between Clifford's
version of events and those testified to by the witnesses for
the General Counsel, I have credited the testimony of Gen-
eral Counsel's witnesses, except where specifically noted.
Janice Sweeny credibly testified that on or about Octo-
ber 23, Clifford talked with her while she was stocking
shelves in her department. Clifford asked "What was going
on with the situation of the Union and voting and, you
know, just asked me what was going on." Sweeny answered
that she was confused. Then Clifford said he did not think
the store needed the Union, that he would take care of his
people, and the employees did not need someone to speak
for them. He ended the conversation with an example. He
said if there was a union in the store and the customer
broke a bottle of catsup in front of the check-out stand, the
cashier or someone near by could not be told to clean it up
because the cashier would say it was not her job.
Although I find that Clifford's questioning Sweeny con-
cerning what was going on with the Union constituted un-
lawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, I do not find that Clifford's rather general statement,
that he would take care of his people and the employees
did not need a union to speak for them, violates the Act as
alleged in paragraph 8(b) of the complaint. There is no
evidence that Clifford asked Sweeny to identify her griev-
ances , or that any complaints were voiced. The hypotheti-
cal example outlined by Clifford alluded to an allegedly
rigid union position concerning job duties, and did not re-
fer to grievances. I further find that in Clifford's remarks to
David Brandt he did unlawfully solicit and promise to ad-
just grievances. Thus, after specifically asking Brandt to list
employee "gripes," and Brandt responded, Clifford de-
scribed how the "gripe" which Grant mentioned had been
resolved. Immediately thereafter, Clifford asked Brandt if
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he respected him as manager , and said that his door was
open any time Brandt had a problem. In this way, Clifford
strongly implied that future grievances would be remedied.
However, Clifford continued, removing any room for
doubt, by unlawfully interrogating Brandt concerning
whether he felt the people really needed a third party to get
their problems straightened out between employees and
management . In this context , I find that Clifford's remarks
clearly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .8
Paragraph 8(c) of the complaint alleges that during the
week of October 21, Lyle Karre unlawfully held individual
meetings with employees at the store for the purpose of
discouraging their union sentiments and desires . In support
of this allegation, the General Counsel offered testimony
which I credit, from employees Janice Sweeny and Randall
Town. According to Sweeny, on October 23, she was called
to the office for the purpose of switching her from the toy
department to the vestibule. While she was there alone
with Kane, he asked her if she had any questions. Sweeny
replied she was confused, and Kane responded "Richman-
Gordman will take care of us , and we don't need a union
for our store situation ." This was all of the conversation
Sweeney was able to relate , although she insisted that it
lasted from 45 minutes to an hour. Kane did not testify.
Kane talked with Randall Town in the office for about
2-1/2 hours beginning about 1 p.m. sometime between the
second and fourth week in October. Kane handed Town a
copy of a letter the Company had sent to the employees
and asked him to read it.9 Town responded he had already
read it , but Karre asked him to read it again to see if he
had any questions about it. Although Town testified on
direct examination he did not have any questions , he later
testified on cross-examination that much of the interview
time was taken up by questions he asked and voluntary
comments which he made . However, Town did not specify
what his remarks were except to say that he talked about
his job and his future-"trying to ask him, you know, like
where the union thought they might help, if he could do the
same thing or what he thought the union was about. It was
about like that."
In urging that Karre's conduct described above violated
the Act, the General Counsel places great emphasis on the
fact that the interview was held in the assistant managers'
office. This, however, is only one of the criteria considered
by the Board in assessing whether or not such incidents as
these constitute Section 8 (a)(1) violations and/or objec-
tionable conduct; I find that Karre did not violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, considering his interviews with Sweeny
and Town in their total contexts. Furthermore, as noted by
Respondent in its brief, the Board has held that such meet-
ings with employees are not invalid per se. NVF Company,
Hartwell Division, 210 NLRB 663 (1974). Therefore, I also
find that Karre's interviews with Town and Sweeny did not
constitute objectionable conduct.
8In my view, Uarco Incorporated, 216 NLRB No 2 (1974); and Draggoo
Electric Co. Inc, 214 NLRB No. 120 (1974), cited by Respondent, when
considered against the background of Respondent's other violations as
found herein , tend to support rather than weigh against the finding of a
violation in this respect
9 It is not contended by the General Counsel that the letter, in evidence as
G C.Exh. 3, is per se violative of Sec . 8(a)(1). I make no such findings.
Patricia Walck was hired by Respondent in October in
1973, as a sign maker. She testified that Dan Clifford
talked to her from 3:45 until 5 p.m. in the sign shop on
October 31. Clifford asked if she had any questions about
the Union and if she understood about the Union. Walck
replied she did not have any questions and she understood.
She then asked for a copy of the letter the Company had
sent out and Clifford responded that she was going to get
one in the mail, but he would show her one anyway. He
brought her a copy and they talked about the contents of
the letter. Then Clifford asked if she thought that the
Union would be a good thing. Walck answered she wasn't
sure , and asked why the letter wasn 't signed . Clifford re-
ferred her to the heading of the first page, and then he said
that if the Union was a good thing, the Grant and Target
stores would have one. He said that if Richman-Gordman
got a union in, it would be ridiculous for their store, be-
cause grocery stores and retail stores were different and it
would not work for a retail store. Then Clifford asked if
she had been talking to other employees about the Union,
and if employees had asked her questions about the Union.
He asked how many, and if a lot of people knew what was
going on, and did they know if there was going to be an
election or not. Walck answered, she wasn't sure but knew
that a lot of people were talking about it. Walck said she
was not going away from her job to talk to people about
the Union. Then Clifford asked if she thought the store was
a better place to work since he had taken over. Walck an-
swered, said it was, but, "we thought that there were a lot
of things that weren't right." Clifford asked who she meant
by "we." Walck responded, "the employees." Then Clif-
ford told her she should not have employees gathering in
the sign shop. He said she was having gatherings in there,
and that he did not want to see people standing around in
there just talking. Walck responded was it just because
people were standing there talking to her or talking about
the Union. She also said they could be talking to her and
still be working. Then Clifford stated he did not want to
see her run around behind his back talking about the
Union, and he did not want to waste his time watching her
all the time. Walck denied the accusation and asked, "Do
you want me just to quit talking to people altogether about
this?" Clifford answered, "Yes, I would like that." He then
said she should not be going around talking to the part-
time people. He said she was influencing them because
they were naive. Then according to Walck it was time for
her to leave for the day, but Clifford stood in the doorway
barring her exit until after she had promised to stop talking
to employees about the Union.
Clifford admitted having a 10 minute conversation with
Walck in the sign shop in which the topics of the
Company's letter, the differences between retail stores and
grocery stores, and Walck's talking with other employees
were discussed. Clifford denied interrogating Walck or tell-
ing her to stop talking about the Union. He stated that the
Company had no policy prohibiting employees from talk-
ing while working. Walck impressed me as a person with
an excellent memory in that she unhesitatingly recounted
in detail the contents of the lengthy conversation with Clif-
ford. For these reasons, and others discussed earlier in this
decision, I credit her testimony over that of Clifford con-
RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC.
cerning what was said during the October 31 conversation.
I do, however, credit Clifford's denial of Walck's accusa-
tion that he barred her exit from the sign shop by standing
in the doorway, since Clifford testified without contradic-
tion that the entrance way to the sign shop is open and
without a doorway which could be blocked in this manner.
I find that Clifford interrogated Walck and instructed her
not to talk to her employees or influence them about the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.10
According to Tanya Donney, her supervisor, Pharmacist
Manager Thomas P. Pazderka, talked to her about the
Union in late October. Pazderka asked why Donney was
still involved with the Union. He said it would not do the
employees any good, and they would settle for the mini-
mum wage, and that by the time they paid their union dues
they would not be making any money. Pazderka contin-
ued, saying they would settle for the same insurance pro-
gram that they already had and the Company had been
good to Donney, who should not complain, because she
had received a paid vacation. Pazderka said the Company
could not afford to pay them any more than they were
paying right then, and that she should keep quiet about the
Union, not say anything, and act like a dummy when
someone asked her about it. Later in the day, Pazderka
came to Donney again , repeated many of the things he had
said before, and added that he was sure, once the Compa-
ny got on their feet they would make her health and beauty
aids department manager.
Pazderka admitted talking to Donney about the Union
prior to the election, but denied telling her not to discuss
the Union, or that she would be promoted if she would
abandon the Union . He admitted on occasion, to have jok-
ingly made such comments as "Here comes the ring lead-
er." I credit Donney's version and find that by Pazderka's
conduct described above, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 8(e) and (j) of
the complaint.
Barbara Hailar testified that, on a Wednesday during
the latter part of October, Women's Department Manager
Deborah L. Roberts questioned Hailar about the Union by
her desk in the fitting room. Nancy Gustafson and Linda
Ellis were present . Roberts asked how they were going to
vote. Hailar responded that it was her concern, not Rob-
erts . The other two employees said they had not decided
yet. Roberts ended the conversation by saying she thought
they had made up their minds by then.
Clara Coffman, a sales clerk, testified that Roberts
talked to her and Linda Ellis about the Union in late Octo-
ber. The two employees were in the women's department at
that time when Roberts approached, said she would like to
discuss a few things with them about the Union, and led
them to the snack bar. She began by telling them that the
store would not be as nice a place to work if they had a
union because they would only be able "to do one thing
and one thing only," and they would probably go out on
strike. Then Roberts asked Coffman where her husband
10 No evidence was presented through Walck or any other witness that on
October 31 , Daniel Clifford solicited and promised to adjust grievances to
discourage employees ' union sentiments and desires as alleged in paragraph
8(g) of the complaint.
457
worked, and if he were union. Coffman replied, "Yes, defi-
nitely, there is no other way to go." Then Roberts asked
how Coffman was going to vote, and Coffman replied she
did not know yet. The conversation which lasted about 15
to 20 minutes, ended at that point.
Roberts denied having any conversation at all with
Barbara Hailar about the Union. She admitted having a
conversation prior to the election in the snack bar with
Clara Coffman and Linda Ellis in which she asked if their
husbands worked for a labor organization. However, she
denied asking them how they were going to vote or if they
had signed a card. Roberts testified that she had been ad-
vised not to ask this type of question, and that in talking to
the employees she used the Company letter (G.C. Exh. 3)
as a basis for her remarks. Linda Ellis testified that Roberts
explained what would happen if the Union came in and
what would happen if it did not. She said Roberts glanced
from time to time at a blue piece of paper, but was unable
to identify it as General Counsel's Exhibit 3. On direct
examination Ellis testified that she did not remember if
Roberts asked anyone how they were going to vote, and
that she could not say if she did or did not. On cross-
examination, Ellis testified that Roberts asked if their hus-
bands worked for the union, and in addition asked, "Have
you made up your mind?" to which Ellis answered "Yes, I
have made up my mind." Ellis was unable to remember
anything concerning a conversation involving herself, Gus-
tafson , Hailar, and Roberts in the fitting room. Since Rob-
erts' admissions and the testimony of Ellis tend to corrob-
orate Coffman, I credit Coffman's version. I also credit
Barbara Hailar's testimony instead of Roberts' denial. Hai-
lar impressed me as a straightforward and honest witness,
and her testimony about the conversation with Roberts
closely conforms to the other employees' version of Rob-
erts' remarks.
C. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Following the November 12 Election
Tanya Donney had a third conversation with Pazderka
on November 13. Donney told Pazderka that she was
afraid the Company would find a reason to fire her. Paz-
derka said not to worry about it because he had talked to
Lyle Karre who had said he would not fire her because
she was good help and he did not want to see her go. Then
Pazderka told Donney that Karre had said that if it had
not been for her union activities she could be making 50
cents an hour more. Pazderka stated that he had talked to
Clifford about it, and that Clifford had also said that he
would not fire her. Pazderka told Donney she was good
help, for her to take 10 minute breaks, and not to talk to
anyone about the Union. He said she should act like she
was deaf and dumb when it came to talking about the
Union. He said she should tell him where she was going all
the time, and what she was going to do. If she did that, and
they tried to fire her, he could stick up for her.
Pazderka agreed that he talked to Donney on the day
following the election because Donney was worried about
losing her job because of her union involvement. He testi-
fied that he told her "Well, if you applied yourself to your
work, you could be making more money. In other words,
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
your extracurricular activities, if you applied yourself more
to your work, you could make more money." Pazderka
testified that this was the only statement that he ever made
to her about making more money, but that he could not
recall the words he used in attempting to calm Donney's
fears about losing her job. Here again Donney exhibited a
better memory, and thus gave a more detailed version than
did Pazderka. I credit her, and find that Pazderka's re-
marks, as she related them, constituted an implied threat of
discharge if Donney did not discontinue all of her activities
on behalf of the Union.
Steve L. Markussen testified that in early December he
asked shoe department Assistant Manager Hal Urban in
the stockroom if he had been talked to by any union peo-
ple or anyone represented by them. Urban replied he had
not. A couple of days later, Urban told Markussen that he
was supposed to appear and was going to, but that Clifford
had told him to lie and not to endanger the Company's
position in any way. Urban continued saying he had al-
ready perjured himself a couple of times and it would not
hurt him anymore. Patricia Walck also testified that she
had a similiar conversation approximately December 3 or
4, on the day before the Board agent came to the store."
During the conversation which took place in the shoe de-
partment, Urban told her that the Board agent was going
to talk to him, and if he did not tell her what the Company
wanted him to tell her, they would fire him. Markussen's
and Walck's testimonies are mutually corroborative. They
are credited. Since Urban was a supervisor for Respon-
dent, at the time he made these remarks, it is clear that
Respondent must bear the responsibility for the coercive
impact of these statements, regardless of their truth or fal-
sity. I find that Urban's remarks to Markussen and Walck
violated Section 8(a)(1) in that they clearly were designed
to impress employees with the message, true or not, that
the Respondent-Employer was willing to break the law and
abuse the processes of the Board in order to frustrate its
employees' efforts to secure redress from Respondent's un-
fair labor practices, and to obtain another election.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent-Employer is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Charging Party-Petitioner is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
meetings on October 4 and November 4, by soliciting and
promising to adjust their grievances, and by interrogating
them, threatening them, and engaging in other conduct
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion as de-
scribed in this decision, the Respondent-Employer violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent-Employer has not violated the Act in any
respects other than those specifically found.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It Apparently to investigate the charge and objections which gave rise to
this proceeding.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent-Employer has engaged
in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
necessary to order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including posting appropriate notices at
its Council Bluffs, Iowa, store No. 10. 1 shall also recom-
mend that Charging Party-Petitioner's Objections 11, 12,
and 13 be sustained, and that the election held on Novem-
ber 12 be set aside and a new election held.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 12
Respondent-Employer, Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
meetings and activities.
(b) Soliciting and promising to adjust its employees'
grievances for the purpose of discouraging its employees'
union sentiments and desires.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union sym-
pathies, activities, and desires, and the union activities,
sympathies, and desires of other employees.
(d) Instructing employees not to discuss the Union with
each other.
(e) Promising employees benefits to discontinue or to
refrain from engaging in union activities.
(f) Threatening employees that a cessation of all their
union activities would protect them from being discharged
by the Company.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Council Bluffs, Iowa, store No. 10, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix" 13 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 18, shall be signed by an authorized representative
of the Company and posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all locations where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18 in writ-
e 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 he
deemed waived for all purposes.
IS In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC.
ing within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Charging Party-
Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13, as set forth in the
Regional Director 's Supplemental Decision and Order Di-
recting Hearing and Order Consolidating Cases and Notice
of Hearing (G.C. Exh. 1(j)) be sustained and that the re-
sults of the election of November 12 be set aside and a new
election directed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in
all other respects.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence , it has been decided that we violated
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by
the following:
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employ-
459
ees' union meetings and activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit and promise to adjust our em-
ployees' grievances for the purpose of discouraging
our employees' union sentiments and desires.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
union sympathies, activities, and desires, and the
union activities, sympathies, and desires of other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees not to discuss the
Union with each other.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits to discon-
tinue or refrain from engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that a cessation of
all their union activities would protect them from
being discharged by the Company.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to engage in union activities
on behalf of Retail Clerks Union, Local 1015, chartered by
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection. Our employees are also free
to refrain from any or all such activities.
RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC.