Rose's Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rose's Stores, Inc. and Marianne B. Green and
Mary E. Jamison. Cases 5-CA-11916 and 5-
CA-12035
June 15, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 5, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief in support
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
Respondent Rose's Stores, Inc., operates some
250 department stores throughout the South. The
complaint alleges that Respondent, at its Hopewell,
Virginia store, violated Section 8(a)(1) by terminat-
ing employees Marianne Green, Helga Ripani,
Claudia Hoffman, Nancy Basham, and Mary Ja-
mison because of their protected concerted activity
of protesting Respondent's assignment of manda-
tory Sunday work.2
The Administrative Law Judge, relying on and
crediting the General Counsel's witnesses, indicat-
ed that he did not believe the reasons given by
Store Manager Merritt for the discharges and that
he found the discharges to have been in retaliation
for protected activities. Respondent excepts to the
Administrative Law Judge's findings and the credi-
bility resolutions on which he based his findings.
Respondent contends the Administrative Law
Judge failed to consider the testimony of a number
of its witnesses which proves its defense. 3
i Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's recom-
mended Order and notice to employees as being overly broad, in that he
ordered Respondent to cease and desist from interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and to bargain collectively.
We agree and will modify the recommended Order and the notice ac-
cordingly. In addition, we note the Administrative Law Judge used the
broad cease-and-desist language "in any other manner." In Hickmort
Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), we held that such broad injunctive
language is warranted only when a respondent has been shown to have a
proclivity to violate the Act, or has engaged in such egregious or wide-
spread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employ-
ees' fundamental statutory rights. Inasmuch as we do not find that the
violations found herein meet this test, we find merit in Respondent's ex-
ceptions and will narrow the recommended Order and notice to require
Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Act "in any like or re-
lated manner."
2 The complaint also alleges that Jamison was discharged for protest-
ing the layoff of another employee. Since the uncontradicted evidence
clearly establishes that the decision to terminate Jamison had been made
prior to the layoff of the other employee we shall dismiss this allegation.
3 To the extent that the Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolu-
tions are based on his evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses, we
256 NLRB No. 76
The Administrative Law Judge stated that Mer-
ritt was the only person testifying for Respondent
as to the reasons for the discharges. Merritt testi-
fied he made the decision to terminate these em-
ployees and implemented it without consultation
with or advice from anyone else in the Company.
On December 29, 1979,4 Merritt called in each of
the dischargees individually and informed her that
she had been terminated. He testified that he told
each that 1979 had been a difficult year for him
and he had contemplated transferring to a different
store. However, he stated he had decided to stay
and in 1980 he was going to run an operation that
was "Rose's-oriented." He told each that the prob-
lem he had with her was her attitude and that was
why she was being discharged.
Green, Ripani, and Basham testified that Merritt
also talked to them about not wanting a bunch of
women telling him how to run his store and that
they were not going to drive him out. Green and
Jamison testified that he accused them of "under-
mining his authority," and Hoffman testified that
he told her she had a "bad choice of friends."
Green also testified that he told her he was "tired
of making schedules for Sundays-and tired of
making excuses for certain people who didn't want
to work on Sundays and he was tired of explaining
to other people." Ripani stated Merritt said, "He
could not continue to make schedules to satisfy a
few of us and then have to explain to everybody,"
and Jamison stated that he told her that she only
worked "what Sundays [you] want to." Merritt did
not deny their testimony. Of even greater signifi-
cance is the fact that Assistant Manager Tubbs was
at the interviews but was not called to contradict
the employees or testify as to what Merritt said.
In addition to the reasons he said he actually
gave the employees for their discharges, Merritt
also testified about a variety of incidents which he
claimed formed the basis for his conclusion that
these employees had a "bad attitude." Ten other
witnesses presented by Respondent, including em-
ployees and supervisors, also testified as to these al-
leged derelictions of duty. The dischargees general-
ly denied that these incidents occurred. Since these
alleged derelictions of duty or incidents of miscon-
duct were not given by Merritt when he dis-
charged them, the Administrative Law Judge ap-
parently found it unnecessary to discuss them.
note that our established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
judge's resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall
Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We
have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his
findings.
4 All dates are in 1979 unless otherwise noted.
ROSE'S STORES, INC. 551
Although Respondent contends that the Admin-
istrative Law Judge failed to consider all the evi-
dence, that evidence, which we will briefly summa-
rize, does not suggest a different result in the con-
text of this proceeding.
Marianne Green
Merritt and Tubbs testified to several instances
where Green was allegedly rude to customers or
refused them service. 5 These instances occurred
throughout 1979, with a number occurring in the
"fall." Since the summer of 1978, Tubbs and Divi-
sion Manager Burton, Green's sister, had had diffi-
culty with Green with respect to making the sea-
sonal changes in her department. Green was also
alleged to have upset her coworkers by her criti-
cism of them.
Merritt testified he mentioned to or warned
Green about most of these incidents when they oc-
curred. Green generally denied having received
any warnings although she admitted there might
have been one incident.
Helga Ripani
Merrit testified that in 1978 and 1979 he had re-
ceived a dozen employee complaints about Ripani's
moodiness, grumbling, and sarcastic attitude. As-
sistant Manager Godfrey testified that in the late
summer of 1978, Ripani, like Green, was reluctant
to make the seasonal changes in her department.
On two occasions, one in December 1978 and
again in May 1979, she was alleged to have left the
store without waiting to be released. Merritt,
Tubbs, and Division Manager Brown claimed to
have had customer complaints about Ripani not
providing service throughout 1979, with "several"
incidents allegedly occurring in the "fall," but
these witnesses gave no details about the incidents
which allegedly happened in the fall. There was
little evidence that these complaints had been dis-
cussed with Ripani. Ripani admitted to having dis-
cussed only one of the customer complaints with
management and otherwise denied having received
any warnings.
Mary Jamison 6
Throughout 1978 and 1979, Tubbs and Checkout
Supervisor Emory contended that they had had
6 Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find that even though
this was a self-service store, the employees were still required to render
service to customers, answer questions, or assist them with the merchan-
dise.
' We reject Respondent's contention that Jamison's activities were not
concerted and therefore her discharge could not be violative of the Act.
regardless of its motivation. Jamison had discussed the issue of Sunday
work with other employees who shared concerns. Her protest to her su-
pervisor specifically stated it was not fair for them to make all the em-
ployees work on Sunday Moreover, her protests concerned an issue
problems with Jamison being continually late to
work, refusing to report to the checkout counter
when called to assist there, and leaving the counter
without permission. Her failure to assist at check-
out also resulted in a dozen or more employee
complaints to management. Two incidents of cus-
tomer complaints were alleged in 1979, the last one
in September. She admitted Tubbs questioned her
about her continuing tardiness in October and
promised to try to do better. Finally, she had re-
ceived a written warning in January 1979 when she
refused to move her car from the customer section
of the parking lot.
Nancy Basham
Merritt and Tubbs testifed that throughout 1978
and 1979 they had received employee complaints
about Basham's moodiness. On a number of occa-
sions in 1979 customers were alleged to have com-
plained that she refused to help them set the time
or change batteries of watches they purchased
from her, but only one specific incident in June
was testified to. Basham conceded she did not
always change batteries but added that was because
she did not have enough time and had been given
conflicting instructions by Merritt and Godfrey as
to whether she should perform such tasks.
Claudia Hoffman
Merritt's witnesses testified there was an "accu-
mulation" of customer complaints in 1979 about
Hoffman not being in her area with "several" oc-
curring in the fall. Burton also testified that in late
1979 Hoffman had fallen behind in her paperwork
and ordering responsibilities. Finally, on three oc-
casions-once in early October, again around
Thanksgiving, and again during the last 2 weeks of
December, Merritt testified that Hoffman did not
report to the checkout counter when paged. He
said that he personally ordered her to the front on
the first occasion but did not speak to her on the
other two occasions.
That is the extent of the testimony showing the
alleged actual reasons for the discharges. Merritt's
justification for the fact that these employees were
given no warnings was that when he came to the
store in mid-1977 he thought it was very "uptight"
and as part of his campaign to improve employee
morale, he decided to cease issuing written warn-
ings. Thus, he did not confront employees at every
which had been the subject of a group protest only a month or two
before, It is sufficient to make her activity concerted that other employ-
ees shared her concern and that she was acting on their behalf Diagnostic
Center Hospital Corp. of Texas, 228 NLRB 1215 (1977); Air Surrey Corpo-
ration, 229 NLRB 1064 (1977); Carbet Corporation. 191 NLRB 892 (1971);
Alleluta Cushion Co. Inc., 221 NLRB 999 (1975).
ROSE'S TORES, INC 51
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
transgression, but tried to treat them as adults.
However, when the situation became unbearable in
1979 he determined to discharge the offending em-
ployees after the Christmas rush. He testified that
he had not originally intended to fire Hoffman but
after her third offense in December he added her
to his list. Respondent defended against the appar-
ent arbitrariness of the terminations-the conceded
failure to warn orally or otherwise any of these
employees that they were courting termination-by
indicating that it had no policy of issuing written
warnings. The timing was further explained by a
claim that there was substantial accumulation of in-
cidents in the fall of 1979.
In our opinion Respondent's explanation for the
discharges as set forth above, does not withstand
close scrutiny. While Respondent established that it
had no policy of issuing written warnings, it did
not establish that it had a policy of firing long-term
employees en masse for offenses it had tolerated for
substantial periods of time. Even if one is to believe
Respondent's testimony that of all its employees
these were the only problem ones, it is clear that
the problems were of longstanding duration and
had been repeatedly condoned. There is no evi-
dence that the incidents that allegedly occurred in
the "fall" were of any greater magnitude than
those occurring earlier-indeed, for Ripani and
Basham, no specifics were given of any of the fall
complaints. In addition, Respondent testified that it
did not even raise many of the incidents with the
employees. That those incidents were not raised
with the employees appears inexplicable. If, for ex-
ample, employees were urgently needed at the
checkout counter and they refused to report, that
Respondent would tolerate such conduct without
even telling the employees appears highly unlikely.
On the other hand, Green testified that she had
received numerous compliments on her work and
Merritt conceded that he had told Green her pa-
perwork was excellent when he discharged her.
Basham also testified that Merritt had frequently
thanked her for the service work she had done on
customer's watches and had congratulated her for
doing a good job when she received her 5-year pin
in October.
Of other employees discharged in 1978 and 1979,
none had more than 10 months of seniority. The
discriminatees, to the contrary, ranged from 2-3/4
years for Hoffman to Ripani's 12 years of senior-
ity-virtually the highest in the store. Merritt, him-
self, considered his actions unusual and specifically
informed Marshburn, in advance, of the proposed
discharges, which he did not normally do.
The General Counsel has established the con-
certed and protected nature of the activities en-
gaged in by the employees. That the protest of
Sunday work was the real reason for the discharge
is borne out by the striking identity between the
protesters and the employees terminated (five of
six). Merritt's own statements to these employees as
they were discharged indicated that he resented
being told what to do by "a bunch of women." Al-
though he claimed the Sunday work protest was a
"dead issue" in June, by raising it again himself in
December, he indicated it was still very much
alive. The special schedules enjoyed by Basham
and Green and the resulting complaints by other
employees served to keep the issue festering
throughout the intervening months.
On the other hand, Respondent has not met its
burden of showing the employees were discharged
for cause. The mere presence of possible valid 7
reasons for discipline does not insulate a discharge
if those reasons were not, in fact, the reasons for
the discharge. Much of the behavior raised as a de-
fense by Respondent had been tolerated for months
and years without incident. Coupled with Respond-
ent's conceded and unexplained failure to give any
warning that these long-term employees were in se-
rious danger of discharge, we are unable to find
that this unprecedented mass discharge represented
Respondent's normal pattern of operations, or that
it, in fact, relied on the alleged misconduct in
making its decision to discharge these employees.
Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation (Iron King
Branch) v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966).
See also American Manufacturing Associates, Inc.,
234 NLRB 675 (1977).
Accordingly, we find that, by discharging Mari-
anne Green, Helga Ripani, Claudia Hoffman,
Nancy Basham, and Mary Jamison, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
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, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Rose's Stores, Inc., Hopewell, Virginia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order as modi-
fied:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b):
7 Respondent argues strenuously in its brief that the type of offenses
charged to these employees-rudeness to customers, tardiness, leaving
work without permission-can justify discharge. We, of course, do not
disagree but as set forth, infra, must decide if those offenses were, in fact,
the reason for the discharges.
---
ROSE'S STORES, INC. 553
"(b) In any like related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employ-
ees for the purpose of discouraging their par-
ticipation in concerted activities with respect
to their conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Marianne Green, Helga
Ripani, Claudia Hoffman, Nancy Basham, and
Mary Jamison immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole all five of the forego-
ing employees for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, with interest.
ROSE'S STORES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. RICCI, Administrative Law Judge: A hear-
ing in this proceeding was held on September 10 and 11,
1980, at Petersburg, Virginia, on complaint of the Gener-
al Counsel against Rose's Stores, Inc., herein called the
Respondent or the Company. Two separate complaints
were issued; the first (Case 5-CA-11916) issued on
March 28, 1980, upon a charge filed on February 12,
1980, by Marianne B. Green, an individual. The second
complaint (Case 5-CA-12035) issued on August 29, 1980,
upon a charge filed on March 21, 1980, by Mary E. Ja-
mison. The two complaints were consolidated for single
hearing, and the essential question presented is whether
five individual employees were discharged, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, in retaliation for protected
concerted activities. Briefs were filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent after the close of the hear-
ing.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in
the operation of a number of department stores at many
locations; only its Hopewell, Virginia, location is in-
volved in this proceeding. During the preceding 12
months, a representative period, the Respondent's gross
revenues were in excess of $500,000. During that same
period it purchased and received materials in interstate
commerce valued in excess of $50,000 directly into the
State of Virginia from out-of-state sources. I find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Case in Brief
This entire case presents no more than what is a pure
question of fact: Why did the Respondent one day sum-
marily discharge five long-standing employees without a
moment's advance warning? More precisely put: Does
the record as a whole prove the complaint allegation
that in fact the five women involved were discharged be-
cause they joined, in concerted action, to protest man-
agement's imposition, not on a voluntary basis, of
Sunday work assignments?
That what they joined in protesting directly involved
conditions of employment, and that such common action
on their part was statutorily protected against discrimina-
tory retaliation by any employer, is the clearest estab-
lished Board law. Pabst Brewing Company, 236 NLRB
1543 (1978).
The Respondent is a very large company, operating
250 retail stores with an overall complement of 13,000
rank-and-file employees. One man alone-Thomas Mer-
ritt- 3-1/2 years manager of the one store where these
five women always worked, and the top management
representative in charge there, testified in defense as to
the reason for the group discharges. He said he made the
decision, and implemented it, without consultation with
or advice by anyone else in the Company. He denied any
illegal motive and, affirmatively, contended his sole
reason for the discharges was the long-standing intoler-
able misbehavior of all five women. It is an inference
ROSE'S STORES, INC
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case. There is no direct evidence of improper purpose.
None of the women was told, at the time of discharge,
the reason was her concerted action.
B. The Concerted Activity
For some time Sunday work performed by regular
store employees was voluntary, the necessary comple-
ment always filled by whoever offered to come. In April
1979, the Company announced that thereafter people
would be scheduled, by management, to come on Sun-
days so many times a month, depending upon the needs
of the season. The assignments were to be a compulsory
chore upon whoever management chose. The new
system was first announced at a meeting of store employ-
ees where about 35 were present. For the Company
there was Store Manager Merritt, Operations Manager
Reba Tubbs and Elliott Godfrey, the senior assistant to
the manager.
There is conflict in the testimony with respect to only
a small part of what was said during that meeting. All of
the following is uncontradicted.
When the employees were told they would have no
choice but to come in when told to, employee Marianne
Green spoke up to ask "was it legal to order people to
work on Sundays without first asking them?" Godfrey,
who was then doing the talking, responded to Green by
saying that if she had anything to say to come to the
office to talk. Another employee, Helga Ripani, then said
that if the employees were forced to work Sundays they
should be paid double time. To this Tubbs replied that
the Company did not even have to pay time and a half.
Ripani also recalled that when Green raised the question
of possible illegality in compulsory Sunday work assign-
ments, Godfrey told her to see him individually. This
testimony by Green and Ripani was corroborated by
Claudia Hoffman, another employee. Employee Nancy
Basham, also present, testified that when Green and
Ripani spoke up, Godfrey told them there was nothing
to discuss and to do it in private. Before the meeting
ended, Merritt told Green ahd Ripani if they were in
doubt as to the legality of all this they should inquire of
the city attorney.
As stated, the foregoing is uncontradicted. Green also
testified that when she and Ripani so objected to com-
pulsory Sunday work, Merritt said it was ". . . here to
stay and that we should cooperate," and that Godfrey
said "If we knew what was good for us, we should co-
operate or otherwise we knew where the clock was."
Ripani quoted Merritt as saying at that point: ". . . who-
ever doesn't like it can go up and clock out." Hoffman's
testimony is that Merritt said," . . either you work or
.... " And Basham quoted Merritt as saying "if we
work for Rose's, we would do as Rose's said."
Both Merritt and Godfrey, testifying in defense, denied
having voiced threats of any kind during that meeting to
enforce the new rule. I leave this precise credibility ques-
tion for resolution after consideration of the totality of
Merritt's testimony on the record as a whole.
A week or so later, on May 8, all four of these
women, and a fifth employee, Christine Pettyjohn, went
to the city attorney's office in Hopewell. He gave them a
printed leaflet explaining the so-called blue laws applica-
ble to this geographic area. On May 17, all five of these
ladies were back in Merritt's office and showed him that
paper. What happened at this meeting stands entirely un-
contradicted on the record. According to the employee
witnesses, Merritt said the legal statement about the law
should be forwarded to the Respondent's central office
in Henderson, and when the girls preferred keeping it, he
made a copy for that purpose, and said he would later
get back to the five with a response. As they talked,
Ripani told Merritt that according to law all they had to
do was give him that note. To this Merritt's response
was it was not necessary, that he was "going to work
out a compromise so that everybody will be satisfied."
Green also testified that during this meeting Merritt
asked them if anyone else knew about this, and that
when the women said no, he told them "Keep it among
yourselves and do not spread it around." Ripani's version
here is that when assured no one else knew about this
activity by the five, Merritt said he would appreciate it if
they told nobody. Basham corroborated Green and
Ripani as to this.
With this, the Company went ahead with its unilateral
scheduling of Sunday work to satisfy its requirements.
One day in June Horace Marshburn, personnel man-
ager from the Respondent's main office, came to this
store and separately called Green, Ripani, Basham, and
Hoffman into the manager's office for a private talk. He
said, at the hearing, his purpose was to check into this
Sunday work problem Merritt had reported to him.
Green's testimony is that, as they talked about the blue
law, the two of them sparred back and forth, each asking
the other what did he, or she, intend to do about it. She
quoted Marshburn as saying, in the course of the rather
extended interview, "Aren't you grateful that you have a
job?" "You don't feel any loyalty towards the store?,"
"Aren't you afraid of losing your job?," "If my work de-
pended on it would I work every Sunday?" Green came
back with "the law clearly protects me," and then told
Marshburn Sunday work interfered with her family and
church life.
As to her interview, Ripani said Marshburn asked why
did she not like Sunday work, commented that the law
did not apply to this store, and added he would try to
work something out to satisfy everybody. When Ripani
asked "Do you mean to tell me if we don't want to work
on Sunday, we don't work for Rose's at all?" Marshburn
answered, still according to the employee: "That's the
way it is."
In his talk with Hoffman, Marshburn also spoke of fig-
uring out a Sunday schedule that would satisfy every-
body. Basham's testimony about her interview parallels
with that of Hoffman's. Marshburn said he wanted to
discuss the "seasonal problem," asked how she felt about
Sunday work, and did she like her job here. She told
him she did not like working on Sundays, because of the
"Bible" and her small child at home. Basham said she in-
sisted to Marshburn that she would refuse to work more
than one Sunday a month.
The personnel manager's story is that he did call these
people to the office because he wanted to discuss with
each the Sunday problem that had arisen and its legal as-
------
ROSE'S STORES. INC 555
pects. Marshburn denied having voiced any threats to
any of these employees, or having indicated even ob-
liquely that their continued employment would be en-
dangered if they persisted in protesting against compul-
sory work assigmments. As in the case of the conflict in
testimony on whether Merritt voiced threats of discharge
in April, I will defer this credibility issue, too, until full
consideration of the entire record. The witness stressed
the assertion he had nothing to do with the discharge of
these five employees, that it was all decided and imple-
mented by the local, one store manager as though Mer-
ritt were an independent employer apart from the rest of
the 250 of Rose's stores. The idea here is that even if
Merritt lied at the hearing, and I suppose even if he did
have a prohibited motive in what he did, his behavior or
his personal credibility have nothing to do with Marsh-
burn or with the Respondent. Without comment I will
only say it is not a convincing proposition.
Ripani had worked in this store for 12 years, Green
for 7, Basham for 5, and Hoffman for 2-3/4 years.
Throughout their employment not one of them had ever
before spoken with Marshburn.
Mary Jamison also worked on the floor as did the four
outspoken opponents of forced Sunday work. She talked
with other employees in opposition. She also told her su-
pervisor, Joyce Morissette, that she was opposed to such
compulsory assignments. She did this in the summer and
again in October. What did she say to the supervisor?
"That we shouldn't have to be made to work on Sun-
days, and that I didn't mind working one Sunday that
was mandatory but I didn't want to work every other
Sunday." This lady had worked for 7 consecutive years,
and throughout that period no word of criticism was
ever recorded against her. The listing of her alleged
wrongdoings, spanning many years, as detailed by her
supervisors, fully justifies the General Counsel's refer-
ence to Hamlet in his brief.
From June through the end of the year, the Company
continued to schedule Sunday work to meet its needs.
With Green and Basham insisting they would not come
more often, they were asked to come only one Sunday
each month. The other women were scheduled more
often and worked.
C. The Discharges
On December 29, after all the employees had punched
in and were at work, Merritt called Green, Ripani, Hoff-
man, Basham, and Jamison separately into his office and
fired each of them, then and there. Sitting in the office
with him was his principal assistant, Tubbs. She uttered
not one word during any of the interviews. While talking
to Hoffman, Merritt told her Tubbs was sitting there so
"no words would be twisted."
With a little variance only in the case of Jamison, all
the manager's discharge talks followed a fixed, predeter-
mined pattern. He told each of the women she was fired
because of her "attitude." In diversified synonyms, this
was the sole reason-if it can be called a reason-he
gave them. From Green's testimony: "He didn't want a
bunch of women telling him what to do, how to run the
store," "corrupting my co-workers," "he was tired of
making schedules for Sundays, and tired of making ex-
cuses for certain people who didn't want to work on
Sundays." From Ripani's testimony: "He would not let a
bunch of women drive him out of the store." From Hoff-
man's testimony: "I had a bad choice of friends . . . you
were undermining me for a year and a half-your atti-
tude was bad . . ." By Basham's testimony: "my attitude
was lousy," "he was tired of my attitude." "He said he
was tired of me telling him how to run the store . . ."
"He could not continue to make a schedule to satisfy a
few of us and then explain it to everybody else."
Understandably the women attempted to interrupt him
by asking what was it they had done wrong to justify
such criticism, what misconduct on their part was he
holding against them. Repeatedly he told them to "shut
up," and just listen. Time and again he refused to let
them say a word. And through it all, as he himself ad-
mitted, he gave them no for instances, he referred to no
special incident, or specification of any kind. He did no
more than repeat the continuing generalization that their
"attitude" had long been insufferable. As to each woman
he had checks, previously prepared, for that day's work,
for pay already earned, and for vacation and severance
pay coming to them.
As will be explained below, a very revealing statement
he made to them is also uncontradicted. He told Green,
as he did all the other four, that they were to leave the
premises immediately and not talk to anybody on the
way out. By Green: "To leave the store immediately and
not to talk to anybody." By Hoffman: "Do not say any-
thing to anybody."
As stated above, at the hearing Merritt, the Respond-
ent's top man in charge of this store, took sole responsi-
bility for the discharge of these five women. He not only
said no one above him in the managerial hierarchy had
anything to do with the decision, but even added he
never spoke of his decision with his subordinates until he
informed them about it after having decided to take the
action. He offered an explanation for the significant
timing-immediately after the peak sales season of the
year, the Christmas rush which he said extends from
August to December 25. In colorful language he said he
had decided, during the year 1979, to ask for transfer to
another of the Company's stores in January because the
place had become so terrible he hated to get up in the
morning to come to work. In December he changed his
mind and decided to stay, and in order to put an end to
the "up tight organization" of the store, and make it a
decent place to work in, he had to get rid of these par-
ticular five employees.
Merritt's testimony is an unending diatribe against each
of the five, repetitively detailing their effrontery in flout-
ing his personal authority and their continuing damage to
the business by so disrespectful an attitude towards cus-
tomers as to hurt the sales. The nature of his testimony-
evasive, argumentative, conclusionary, almost entirely
hearsay, and internally inconsistent in very revealing as-
pects-in my considered judgment deprives the witness
of all credibility. I absolutely do not believe he-or the
Respondent, for the store manager and the Respondent
are one and the same under this statute-fired these five
women for the reason Merritt gave at the hearing.
ROSE'S STORES, INC
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The discharges came as a complete surprise to every
one of the five employees in question. Not one had ever
been given the slightest hint of what was coming, not a
word of warning or threat. The essential burden of Mer-
ritt's testimony is that keeping these people in the store
was bad for the business; this has to be the basis of any
manager's dismissal of so substantial a cadre of his older,
more experienced personnel. But the truth-as to how
the store was progressing-is exactly the opposite. Of all
of the Respondent's 250 stores, this one was the 10th
best, during the year 1979, in terms of "sales and profit."
Merritt admitted his salary was-"very much so"-de-
pendent upon the store profits, and that had he trans-
ferred to another store he would have earned less. If
only for this one fact, his countless stories about custom-
ers coming to him-or to his assistants, as reported to
him-complaining of this and that woman among the
five, and then leaving the store in a huff with statements
they would never return-fall flat. This store was doing
extremely well, and companies enjoying such commer-
cial success do not rationally decimate their working
staffs.
It is because the objective facts-and there are
others-make his story very, very unconvincing, that
Merritt tried to separate the business success-and even
the skill and competence of these five, which he also
conceded-from his personal feelings, his sense of com-
fort, when he arrived at the store in the morning. From
an employee of a company like the Respondent, such an
idea, in the light of this total record, invites nothing but
disbelief.
But whatever the problems created by the frailities and
the faults of these women, the next question immediately
becomes: Why did not Merritt do something about it
sooner? A number of times he referred to certain specific
complaints as having come to his attention in "the fall"
of 1979. But again and again, either directly offered by
him, or drawn from him on cross-examination, the dates
went back to 1978, and even 1977. He had been manager
here for 3-1/2 years. "When I first came to that store in
1977, it was very obvious that it was a very tight organi-
zation . . . it reflected in the people's work. It was an
extremely uptight organization." From him, the history
of rules, violations, discourtesies towards customers, and
diversified incidents of misbehavior, was virtually all
hearsay. Much of it, indeed, was double hearsay, for he
kept talking of what lower supervisors had told him they
had heard from customers. Asked had any records been
made of these acts of misconduct, he said no, unequivo-
cally. And, of course, it is not even claimed any of the
five were ever punished, or disciplined, for anything
they ever did. Moreover, as to most of the incidents he
so obliquely talked about Merritt said he did not bring
them to the attention of the employee assertedly in-
volved. And when he did speak to this or that employee,
he always accepted, on his own admission, their denials,
or their different versions of what had happened, and left
it at that.
In a case like this the absence of contemporaneous re-
cordings of misbehavior later said to justify dismissal
always casts a serious doubt upon the asserted defense.
Merritt explained this away by saying that from the time
of his arrival his policy was not to issue any written
warnings. ". . . we were not going to be a hell raiser, or
a big stick carrier, or a threatening image to the employ-
ees . . . we were not going to wave papers in people's
faces and threaten to write them up, threaten discharge."
As the hearing progressed, facts developed which gave
an absolute lie to this entire defense contention.
The General Counsel drew an admission from Merritt
that there were such things as "corrective interviews."
The witness' evasive tactics that followed are but one il-
lustration of his very poor demeanor throughout his tes-
timony. He tried desperately to avoid talking plainly, but
finally admitted: "Yes, sir. They [records made of misbe-
havior, misconduct by these people] were written on
corrective interviews." With the system of properly re-
cording "corrective" talking of every kind in existence,
the total absence of any such for any of the five dis-
charged women proves conclusively there never was any
criticism voiced by management to them before the
sudden dismissal. And this is consistent with their own
testimony that they were never reprimanded or warned
about any wrongdoing. It follows, of course, that just
about all the unending blackening of their service over
the years is a trumped-up story.
That Merritt was not telling the truth about his lar-
gesse towards the employees as a total group is proved
even more conclusively by the fact that he personally
discharged no less than 13 employees of this store during
1978 and 1979, 9 of them during the 9 months before De-
cember 29, 1979. If in his opinion just a warning or a
reprimand was a "big stick" "waved ... in people's
faces" that might unnecessarily disturb the peace and
tranquility of the store, what did he think such outright
discharges would do? The fact is he did reprimand
people when he thought they deserved it, he did make
records of misbehavior, and he did not hesitate to dis-
charge employees when, for one reason or another, he
thought fitting. The five ladies named in this complaint
were completely acceptable to him as employees until
something happened that made them no longer accept-
able as employees. Whatever that "something" was, it
was not the quality of their work performance, as Mer-
ritt now claims.
There are still more reasons why I do not credit the
store manager. He gave too colorful and argumentative a
recital of the ladies' asserted personal defects. An em-
ployer who fires an employee of many years, and is then
accused of having had an improper motive, comes forth
with very specific facts to justify his actions. Here, in-
stead, are some of Merritt's stated reasons for discharg-
ing the women. Basham: She was ".... gripey ...
hard she was to get along with . . . She came in one day
she may be as happy as a lark, the next day she came in
you had to have combat gear to get close to her."
During the course of 2 years [1978 and 1979] ". . . she
was very gripey, grumbly, and moody." Rapani: "I can't
give you specific names on employees, I listened to so
many. It's just an accumulation of hearing, hearing, hear-
ing." "It was an accumulation of 1978 and 1979 . . .
Very gripey, very grumbly to get along with, very sar-
castic lady." Merritt added that when a customer told
ROSE'S STORES, INC. 557
him Ripani had been rude to her, he mentioned the fact
to Ripani and when she told him it was the customer
who had been rude, he said to the employee: "There is a
fine line there. Just because he was rude, you know, you
can't be rude." This was in the spring of 1979. Hoffman:
"... her deteriorating interests in our operation . . . it
was just a number of things .. ."
Q. When did these occur?
A. I can't pinpoint the dates. They just accumu-
lated during 1979.
Q. Can you recall the months?
A. No, I cannot recall the months.
Q. The seasons?
A. I cannot recall . . . I just felt like that her en-
thusiasm wasn't there, and I just felt that she wasn't
oriented towards Roses. I just felt that she was neg-
ative about everything that I-that the Company
wanted to induce . . .
Q. What policies was she negative about?
A. Mr. Levin, I cannot state to you every policy
that somebody . .
Q. Not everyone.
A. I cannot state you. It's just a general feeling.
"We had problems with her in the latter part of
1979, as far as her interests in Roses concerning her
book work, her enthusiasm, this type of thing.
Green: "I discharged that lady for her attitude. It was
atrocious . . . Her attitude . . . her ability to work with
management; all of those were zero." "The basic prob-
lems with Mrs. Green was her attitude . . . being obnox-
ious or being hard to get along with." Jamison: "She has
an ornery streak . .. Is moody ... . Her nonchalant at-
titude about coming or not coming . . . we've had that
problem continually, 1978 and 1979."
A store manager who is glad to retain employees for
so many years, without a word of criticism, before sud-
denly dismissing them without warning, and then testifies
in this manner, does himself no credit.
4. The Hopewell store is a self-service store; the cus-
tomers pick their own purchases from the hangers, or
from the shelves, try on the shoes they wish to buy-for
size, etc., take their own purchases to the checkout
counter where they pay. The store employees, like these
five women, receive the stock, uncrate it, put in on
shelves, display designated clothing on mannequins, price
and reprice the goods, etc. They are not salespersons
who service the customers as was true in retail establish-
ments as of old. One of the complaints said to have
reached management about some of these five is that
they at times refused to service the customers-by ad-
justing watches, by putting batteries into digital time
pieces, by helping people find the right size shoes or
dresses, by refusing to permit customers access to dress-
ing rooms in other departments, etc. Again, almost every
separate incident of such misconduct charged to them
ended either with their being told nothing by their super-
visors or with an explanation which showed the custom-
ers were demanding more service than this Company
chooses to provide under the established work rules. En-
tirely apart from the continuing hearsay aspect of the so-
called customer complaints, all the record shows is that
the women chose to give first priority to the duties
which were charged to them. And again, in a few in-
stances, one or another did have the time to assist a cus-
tomer, but did not care to do so. But it was not a matter,
when it happened, that disturbed the supervisors at all, if
only because they took no step to correct anyone.
5. Another story came to light, one that also points to
how Merritt tried to twist reality into fancied fault find-
ing. The store has a policy that customers may return
any purchase they do not like. This is in keeping with a
sign which announces that the Company guarantees
"customer satisfaction." More than once Green, an old
timer, voiced objections at the checkout counter, when a
customer brought back a purchase which had been dam-
aged after it had been taken home by the buyer. In var-
iously descriptive phrases, Merritt and his assistant Tubbs
called this insubordination, flouting of the rule by the
employee which damaged the Respondent's image.
At the hearing, Green admitted there were times she
objected to accepting a return but only because she
knew, from the records which she kept, that the item
had not been purchased in this place. She also said she
used to inspect the returned article to see whether it had
been damaged after purchase, and in such cases did voice
the opinion it was "wrong" to take it back. Testifying
after her, Merritt started by saying the rule was to take
anything back, damaged by the customer or not.' Then
came Tubbs, Green's immediate supervisor: ". . . I
would take something back, or Mr. Godfrey would, or
whoever. Mrs. Green would jump all over the service
desk person because she had taken it back." Tubbs' testi-
mony then continued:
JUI)GE RccI: When some customer came back
and didn't like something she had bought, it busted,
maybe just damaged it the thing herself; whether or
not and take it back and return her money, did you,
on behalf of the company, exercise an element of
discretion to decide whether you should give her
the money back or not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Along those lines, Mrs. Tubbs, have you ever
refused to take an item back that a customer wished
to return?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How often has that occurred?
i Front the transcript
A Mrs Green was very ocal about taking back returns that she
felt had been damaged or abused ecesslsely
Q W'hat is your policy with respect to customers returning items
A We take it hack
JItxl- R(cc-: Are ou saying that it was the company's policy if
the customer bought something. the next day broke it, damaged it
himself, without question the company would take it back and give
him his money back?
T W t '[INS.: Y es, sir No question
Jtllt; R(I: Even if he smashed it or broke it'
Tilt WINt iss: No question
ROSE'S TORES, INC.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Not very often and it was, you know, when I
thought something was being pulled over on us or
something.
Comparison of the supervisor's testimony with that of
the store manager's shows only one thing clearly: Merritt
was deliberately creating a false impression to make
Green look bad. He could not have said more explicitly
that there was a rule that anything had to be taken back.
No one could know better than he how false his state-
ment was. All this shows, and Tubbs' testimony is all
that is needed to prove Green right, is that the employee
used her discretion, when objecting, in the Company's
interest, just as did her supervisor. I can find no fault in
her behavior.
No useful purpose would be served by continuing with
every jot and tittle in the unduly extended testimony of-
fered in defense. Just one or two more will suffice.
Green was portrayed by Merrit as really the worst of-
fender. During her last 5 years with the Company-unin-
terrupted employment-she was complimented a number
of times. In November 1979-only a month before her
discharge-she was used to organize a fashion show with
some other organization off the premises. Some of the
Respondent's stock, about $2,000 worth, was taken there
for display, and some sales were made. Both Merritt and
Tubbs complimented her for her performance, saying it
had been good advertising. The month before she had
been given a 5-year pin. On that occasion Merritt told
her: "I don't have to tell you what a good job you're
doing. You know that already." All of this, utterly de-
structive of Merritt's testimony, stands uncontradicted.
In late December, after having made his final decision
to fire these people on December 29, Merritt asked
Green to take some extra time off in February, so the
payroll could be kept down in the off season. When she
agreed he thanked her for her courtesy. Merritt also
asked Ripani-during the last week in December--to
take 2 weeks off in January, with the same objective. I
do not know just when the Respondent's decision to dis-
charge these women was made; all I know for sure is
that its principal witness lied when he talked at this hear-
ing.
Analysis and Conclusion
I find, all things considered, that the Respondent dis-
charged all five of these women because they chose to
protest, in concerted action, the imposition of compul-
sory work assigmments. They were selected by manage-
ment for special treatment, i.e., treatment different from
the way the Company handled problems of any kind
when other employees were concerned. When Personnel
Manager Marshburn came to Hopewell in response to
the Sunday work issue these women had raised with the
store manager, he spoke to four of the five; there is no
indication he discussed that matter with any other of the
75 employee complement. When Merritt decided, as he
said, to cure the store of a long-standing pervasive dis-
cord, he picked these five, and only these five, to dis-
charge. And all five of the so selected dischargees had
been involved in the protest against forced Sunday work.
Except for just one other store employee,2 no one else
participated in the outspoken protest on that condition of
employment.
That the protected, concerted activity was limited to
these people-setting them in a class apart for that very
reason-is proved even more significantly by the steps
management took to assure that the expressed independ-
ent spirit of this group did not spread to others. It started
with Supervisor Godfrey telling Green, at the first an-
nouncement of the new system in April, when she asked
was it legal, that if she had anything to say to come to
the office to do it. When, a month later, the women
were in his office again to discuss applicable law, Merritt
asked "if anybody else knew about this besides us;"
when the girls said no, he told them to "Keep it among
yourselves and do not spread it around." As Ripani re-
called it, the manager said: ". . . he appreciated it that
we came to him first and not telling anybody .... "
With the manager himself taking such precautions to
limit the special activity to this group, his later special
treatment accorded them, and only them, points to a
very persuasive causal relationship between the two
events.
Green also testified that at the initial announcement,
when the women first voiced their objections, Supervisor
Godfrey responded: "If we knew what was good for us,
we should cooperate or otherwise we knew where the
clock was." According to Ripani, at that point Merritt
also said: ". . . whoever doesn't like it can go up and
clock out." Although Godfrey and Merritt denied the
threats, I credit the employee witnesses. Merritt stands
discredited on this record. This means his subordinate,
Godfrey, just parrotted him. Basham recalled Merritt
telling the group ". . . if we work for Roses, we would
do as Roses said."
We come to Marshburn's interviews in June. As set
out above, Green and Ripani testified that Marshburn
gave them clearly to understand that if they persisted in
disputing management's right unilaterally to assign
Sunday work, it would be at the risk of their jobs. He
denied having made threats. In the light of the now as-
serted affirmative defense as a whole-a clearly incredi-
ble story-I do not accept his denials. I credit the em-
ployee witnesses instead. Marshburn had never spoken to
these women before. His separate interviews with them
must, therefore, have been of considerable importance to
him in the light of his position in the personnel depart-
ment. When asked what Merritt had told him were the
reasons for his decision to discharge these people out of
a clear sky, Marshburn said he could not recall what the
reasons were. This I can never believe. He was conceal-
ing something; what was he concealing?
I must believe, and I find, that Merritt had a reason
for discharging these women. In the discharge interviews
he did not tell them why; indeed in the face of their of-
fended demands to be told why they were being dis-
missed, he refused to talk at all. No matter how often he
returned to the refrain that it was their "attitude," he
2 A fifth employee. Christine Pettyjohn, joined ith the first four
swomcn in the isit to the city attorney and in the May meeting with
Store Manager Merritt in his office. She was not discharged.
ROSE'S STORES, INC. 559
really was saying nothing. When to this is added the be-
lated affirmative defense advanced 9 months later at the
hearing-an utter falsehood-the inference of illegal
motive is fully warranted. As stated in Shattuck Denn
Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch)v. N.L.R.B., 362
F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966):
If he [the Administrative Law Judge] finds that the
stated motive for a discharge is false, he certainly
can infer that there is another motive. More than
that, he can infer that the motive is one that the em-
ployer desires to conceal-an unlawful motive-at
least where, as in this case, the surrounding facts
tend to reinforce that inference.
In addition to the surrounding facts set out above,
tending to reinforce the inference of illegality in this
case, there are a number of phrases Merritt spoke to the
employees on that last day. To Green: "He also said that
he was tired of making schedules for Sundays, and tired
of making excuses for certain people who didn't want to
work on Sundays .... " To Basham: "He could not
continue to make schedules to satisfy a few of us and
then have to explain it to everybody else." "He just re-
ferred to making out a schedule to satisfy a bunch of us
woman." To Jamison: "He was tired of people under-
mining his decisions . . . You have a bad attitude and
you work what Sundays you want to." All this is sup-
porting evidence that in his mind it was the employees'
assertion of a right to dispute compulsory assignments
that underlay his discharge decision.
And finally, he made it a point to tell every one of
them to get off the premises quickly and not to talk to
anybody. Why should he do that? Again, a reason he
had to have. If he really was seeking to establish a more
obedient attitude in the employee complement as a
whole, what better way than to have the entire group
learn what happens to disobedient dissidents? What he
really feared-and tried to prevent-was a spreading
throughout the store by the five activists of the statutori-
ly protected activities which he resented and was deter-
mined to stop altogether.
In its brief the Respondent relies on the time gap be-
tween Marshburn's interviews with the women on the
subject of Sunday work and the date of the discharges 6
months later. It contends that that fact alone serves to
disassociate the two events completely. But Merritt also
said the rush season starts in August and ends at Christ-
mas. I think the delay is explained by the Company's
need for the desirable services of these ladies, and that
therefore the more logical explanation for the timing is
that Merritt chose December 29 because there was no
hurt to the Respondent then.
I find that by discharging Marianne Green, Helga
Ripani, Claudia Hoffman, Nancy Basham, and Mary Ja-
mison, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
111. THE REMEDY
The Respondent must be ordered to offer all five of
these women reinstatement and to make them whole for
loss of earnings. It must also be ordered to cease and
desist from committing the kind of unfair labor practices
it has been carrying on and even stop violating the stat-
ute in any other manner.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the Respondent described in section 1, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Marianne Green, Helga Ripani,
Claudia Hoffman, Nancy Basham, and Mary Jamison,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER 3
The Respondent, Rose's Stores, Inc., Hopewell, Vir-
ginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against its employees because of their concerted activi-
ties.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Marianne Green, Helga Ripani, Claudia Hoff-
man, Nancy Basham, and Mary Jamison immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such po-
sitions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
(b) Make all five of these employees whole for any
loss of pay or any benefits they may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them,
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
3 In the esent no exceptions are filed as pro,ided bh Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the find-
ings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec 102 4 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted hb he Hoard and
become its findings. conclusions, and Order. and all ohjetlions thereto
shall he deemed "saived fir all purposes
ROSE'S TORES, INC.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). 4
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Hopewell, Virginia,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5
See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
Sates Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by its rep-
resentatives, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order. what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."