S. S. Kresge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 303 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

S. S. KRESGE COMPANY
S. S. Kresge Company and Retail Clerks Union, Local
899, Retail Clerks International Association AFL-
CIO. Case 31-CA-2683
September 27, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On June 21, 1972, Trial Examiner James R. Web-
ster issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, S. S. Kresge Company, Thousand Oaks,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
1 Since the Trial Examiner did not specifically predicate his credibility
findings on the demeanor of the witnesses, the Respondent urges us to reverse
his factual findings, particularly as to the testimony of the General Counsel's
principal witness , Jill Irvine We have therefore carefully considered the
evidence pertaining to the Respondent 's allegations that Irvine's testimony
given on the stand was either omitted from the affidavits given to the Board,
or was inconsistent with such affidavits and the testimony of other witnesses
of the General Counsel. We find that in some instances the testimony given
by Irvine on the stand , which did not appear in her affidavit, was corroborat-
ed by other witnesses and in other instances related to insubstantial matters
which, while relevant, are not essential to our findings With respect to
alleged inconsistencies between Irvine 's testimony and her affidavits, and her
testimony and other witnesses of the General Counsel, we find no basic
inconsistency which would reflect on the accuracy or veracity of her testimo-
ny given at the hearing Except for some confusion regarding the date when
particular events occurred we find Irvine's testimony and affidavit consistent
and, in fact, more consonant with the inherent probabilities existing in the
case than the testimony of the Respondent 's principal witness, Barbara
Clary We therefore find no reason for disturbing the credibility findings of
the Trial Examiner.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
303
JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case, with all
parties represented, was heard in Los Angeles, California,
on March 28, 29, and 30, 1972, on complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of S. S. Kresge Company, herein refer-
red to as Respondent. The complaint was issued on Feb-
ruary 11, 1972, and amended on March 13, 1972, on a
charge filed October 26, 1971. The complaint alleges that
Respondent refused to change the workhours of employee
Jill Irvine and discharged her because of her union activi-
ties, threatened and interrogated employees regarding un-
ion activities, and engaged in surveillance, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
herein called the Act.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent and these have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the wit-
nesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Michigan corporation engaged in the
retail sale of goods and products through its stores located
throughout the United States, including one located in the
city of Thousand Oaks, California. Respondent does an
annual gross volume of business in excess of $500,000, and
annually purchases, receives, and transports into California
directly from points outside the State of California goods
valued in excess of $50,000.
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce and in an operation affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union , Local 899 , Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Un-
ion, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether Respondent refused to change the workhours
of Jill Irvine from full time to part time and discharged her
because of her union activities or because of a need for a
full-time employee.
2. Whether Store Manager Raymond Halub engaged in
illegal interrogation of employees regarding union activities.
3. Whether Personnel Supervisor Barbara Clary threat-
ened employees that Respondent would no longer adjust
work schedules if the employees supported the Union.
4. Whether supervisors of Respondent kept employees
under surveillance in and around the store during their
break periods and lunch periods.
199 NLRB No. 52
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Alleged Surveillance
In the latter part of July 1971, Union Representative
Ronald Shepley began soliciting employees of Respondent's
Thousand Oaks store. In the first part of August, Store
Manager Halub reported to Respondent's regional person-
nel manager, Donald Fritz, that union organizers were in
the store. Fritz told him that "As long as the organizers were
in the store, to keep track of them and see what they were
doing"; he also told him "not to follow them into the grill
area." Halub testified that he instructed Merchandising As-
sistant James Goudy and Operations Assistant Thomas
Boender "to sort of keep track of them [the union represent-
atives] in the store, is about all. It was only to keep track and
not to follow."
Union Representative Shepley visited the store two or
three times a week during the period of July through Sep-
tember 1971. When he entered the store, he would walk
around through the store looking at merchandise and greet-
ing employees. He did this for about one-half to three-
quarters of an hour and then he would meet with employees
during their coffee breaks and/or their lunch periods in the
grill. The grill is located in the center and back part of the
store. It is an area about 40 feet by 40 feet and can be viewed
from the surrounding areas, as there are no walls separating
it from other parts of the store.
When Merchandising Assistant James Goudy and Oper-
ations Assistant Thomas Boender observed Shepley in the
store, they walked about in his vicinity as he moved about
the store and when he entered the grill. While he was in the
grill, Goudy and Boender would sit in one of the booths and
usually have coffee.
I find that Goudy and Boender are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. They are salaried personnel and sit with
Store Manager Halub at employee meetings . Goudy is re-
sponsible for the buying of merchandise for the various
departments and regulates the control of investment. Boen-
der works with the various department heads in the display
of merchandise and the service for customers. They tell
employees what to do in matters coming within their func-
tions with Respondent.
I find that the activities of supervision in keeping Union
Representative Shepley under observation while in the store
did not constitute a violation of the Act: Shepley spent
considerable time walking about the selling areas of the
store while employees were on duty. On one occasion, a
union representative accompanying Shepley picked up a
store telephone and made an announcement over the public
address system, thanking Store Manager Halub for a tour
of the store. In the store grill, Shepley's solicitation of em-
ployees was observable by anyone inside or in the vicinity
of the grill; it could not have been done privately due to the
openness of the grill area. Supervisors frequent the grill and
use the area for business purposes as well as for refresh-
ments, and whether planned or not would have been in the
grill much of the time that Shepley was there talking with
employees on lunch and coffee breaks. There was no inter-
ference with union solicitation. Under the circumstances, I
cannot find that the mere presence of supervisors in the grill
while Shepley was there with nothing more constitutes a
violation of the Act.'
C. Discharge of Jill Irvine
Jill Irvine was employed by Respondent in March 1970.
She was off work 1 month in May 1970, and when she
returned in June 1970 she worked in the domestics depart-
ment. She was employed as a part-time employee from June
1970 until June 1971. As a part-time employee, she worked
from 5 or 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
worked 8 hours on Saturday and/or Sunday. She was a
student at Moorpark College in Moorpark, California.
In the latter part of May 1971, employee Mary Ann Gar-
ris, who was a full-time employee in the domestics depart-
ment, asked Jill Irvine if she would like to trade hours with
her during the summer months so that she could be at home
with her daughter during the day, who would not be in
school during these months. Irvine mentioned this to Jean
Maclntyre, the employee who was in charge of the
domestics department, and it was agreeable with her. Garris
then went to Barbara Clary, the personnel supervisor, and
told her that her daughter would be out of school during the
summer and that she had talked to Jill Irvine about switch-
ing their schedules during these months. She asked Clary if
they could do this and go back in the fall to their other
schedule. Clary said "Yes, as long as we were able to work
it out in the department." A few days later, Maclntyre asked
Clary how she felt about Irvine and Gams switching sched-
ules for the summer, and Clary said that it was fine with her.
In June, Jill Irvine went to the office of Barbara Clary and
asked her if Garris had spoken to her about a change of their
hours for the summer months and Clary replied that she had
and that it would be okay.
Irvinejoined the Union on August 8,197 1, and thereafter
often sat with Union Representative Shepley in the grill
during her break and lunch periods.
In the early part of August, Store Manager Halub called
a meeting of employees. He discussed store merchandising,
rotation of stock, and the volume of business in the re-
spective departments. He showed a film on company bene-
fits and told the employees that he knew that some of them
were interested in the Union, that in the film they were
shown the benefits that they had, and that what the Union
was offering them was just promises. At this meeting, Irvine
asked him if a representative of the Union could come in
and with a representative of the Respondent have a discus-
sion with the employees. Halub answered that this would be
against company policy.
In mid-August, as Irvine was leaving the store, she passed
by employee George Shima and asked him if he would like
to come to a union meeting at her house that evening. She
was preparing to give him a sheet of directions to her house,
and 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and on Friday she was scheduled to
work from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Personnel Supervisor Clary was
not in the store that day. On Tuesday, September 14, Irvine
arrived at the store at 1:57 p.m. That afternoon, Irvine went
to the office of Clary and told her that at the beginning of
i Oertle Management Co, Inc, 182 NLRB 722. W. T Grant Company, 195
NLRB No. 183, cited by the General Counsel, is distinguishable on the basis
of the harassment and intimidation of the union representative and dis-
charged employees by the employer, which included a threat to call the
police, unwarranted eviction, and visibly taking down names of employees
sitting with the union representative in the restaurant.
S. S. KRESGE COMPANY 305
the summer she and Garris had changed work he stated that
she could not talk to him on the floor about this. Merchan-
dising Assistant James Goudy came up and told her that if
she wanted to discuss anything regarding the Union she
would have to do it on her free time. She then told Goudy
that as long as he was there she wanted him to know that
she was 100 percent for the Union and had signed the card
for the Union. He told her that that was her business and
that it was her prerogative to make her choice concerning
the Union.
About September 9, 1971, Irvine reminded Clary that she
would be starting school in September 13. Clary told her
that employee Cecile Lavoie was going on vacation and
would be on vacation through September 14; therefore on
September 13 and 14 they would need someone to cover in
the domestics department; and that she was going to sched-
ule Irvine from 1 to 10 p.m. on both of those days and she
was to come to work as soon as she could after school.2
Respondent's workweek starts on Thursday and runs
through the following Wednesday, and work schedules are
made accordingly and are posted on Mondays for the fol-
lowing workweek.
On Monday, September 13, Irvine finished school at 1:30
p.m. and got to the store at 2:09 p.m. She observed the work
schedule posted for the workweek of Thursday, September
16, through Wednesday, September 22, and noticed that on
Thursday she was scheduled to work from from 10 a.m. to
7 p.m., and on Friday she was scheduled to work from 9
a.m. to 6 p.m. Personnel Supervisor Clary was not in the
store at 1:57 p.m. That afternoon, Irvine went to the office
of Clary and told her that at the beginning of the summer
she and Gams had changed work schedules with the ap-
proval of management and with the understanding that she
would change schedules again when school started. Clary
asked Irvine if she had this agreement in writing. Irvine said
no. Clary stated that K-Mart had scratched Irvine's back for
18 months and now it was her turn to scratch theirs. Irvine
said she did not understand what Clary meant, and Clary
replied that she was not dumb. Irvine said that if it had
anything to do with the Union, it was all done on her own
personal time and not on company time . Clary said she
hoped Irvine would see the light but she had not done so,
and that she took a knife and came right at their back; that
Irvine was to work the hours scheduled and the Company
could not change her hours to suit her needs; that if the
Union were in the store she would not be able to juggle the
hours the way she does now to fit the personal needs of the
people. Irvine told Clary that she would come to work on
Thursday as soon as she could after she got out of school.
Irvine also said that she wanted to speak with Store Manag-
er Halub. Clary said that this was not his decision but that
it was the decision of all of management.
I find that the remarks of Clary's to Irvine are coercive
and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, in that the
z Irvine testified that Clary also said that after September 14, Irvine would
go to part-time hours . Clary denied that the statement was made . I find that
the statement was not made but that Irvine inferred it from Clary's state-
ments regarding the need "to cover" in the domestics department dung the
absence of Lavoie on September 13 and 14 , and from the fact that Clary did
not schedule Irvine to start work on these days until the afternoon.
context thereof is that Irvine's hours will not be changed
because of her antiemployer union activities. In reaching
this conclusion, I do not rely on Clary's statement that "if
we had a union in the store, she wouldn't be able to juggle
the hours the way she does now." I find this statement to
be an expression of her opinion or prediction of restrictions
that the Union might urge if it represented the employees.
Clary denied making this statement about her prospective
ability to juggle hours, but I discredit the denial ; the state-
ment is in context with her other remarks during this con-
versation.
Wednesday, September 15, was Irvine's day off. On
Thursday, September 16, Irvine finished school at 1:30 p.m.
and got to work at 2:15 p.m. Her timecard was not in the
rack. She could not find Clary and she asked Halub why her
timecard was not in the rack. He said that he did not know.
About 5 p.m., Irvine spoke to Clary in her office. She
asked if she could have her timecard. Clary asked why she
had come in late, and Irvine said that Clary knew she could
not be there as she was in school. At this point, Irvine stated
that she wanted to get someone to come in as a witness to
the conversation. Clary said that she did not need a witness;
that it was just between the two of them. Irvine, neverthe-
less, went out and got employee Jean Maclntyre, who was
just checking out, to come in. Clary called Store Manager
Halub into the room. Irvine asked why they were doing this
to her and when was she going to get her part-time hours.
Clary replied that she was not giving out any more special
favors and that they were going to full-time help . Irvine said
that it was not a special favor, that they had an agreement
on the matter at the beginning of the summer. Clary stated
that she did not have the agreement in writing. Irvine then
said that she thought all of this happened because June
Cozda of Respondent's regional personnel office came into
the store on the preceding Saturday (September 11). Clary
said that Cozda had nothing to do with it and that if Irvine
wanted to call Cozda she would give her the telephone
number. Irvine asked if there were any other part-time jobs
in the store that she could have; Clary replied that it was the
Company's prerogative to hire whom they wanted for these
part-time hours.
On Friday, September 17, Irvine finished school at 2:30
p.m. and got to the store at about 3 p.m. Her timecard was
not in the rack. She found Clary in the hardware depart-
ment and asked where her timecard was. Clary asked why
she was late. Irvine answered that it was because she had to
go to school and that Clary knew this. Clary said that Irvine
was going to have to work the hours scheduled, and that she
did not want to discuss it further in the middle of the hard-
ware department.
A little later, Irvine went to the office of Clary and was
handed a note by Clary dated September 17, 1971, which
stated, "You are expected to follow schedule that is posted
on Mondays. No changing is permitted without my person-
al approval. I hope you understand clearly you will be ex-
pected to follow said schedule." After Irvine read the note,
Clary asked her why she was late that day. Irvine stated that
she had to go to school and that Clary knew that. Clary said
that Irvine was going to have to work the schedule that was
posted. Irvine said she could not work that schedule . Irvine
asked if Clary was going to lay her off or was going to fire
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her. Clary said she was not going to lay her off but would
fire her the next time she was late for work.
Irvine then went back to the grill and talked with Union
Representative Ron Shepley. After a few moments, they
went outside the front of the store where Shepley used a
telephone . Halub came to where Irvine was standing and
told her that he felt that this could be settled. Irvine told
Halub that before she would go back to the office of Clary
she wanted to get a witness for her own protection . Employ-
ee Ellen Small was just getting off work and Irvine asked her
to be a witness. Then in the office of Clary and in the
presence of Halub , Clary, and Small, Irvine asked Clary
when she was going to get her part-time hours; that they had
had an agreement that she could go full time in the summer
and part time in the winter. Clary said she could not have
part-time hours; that they needed a full-time person in the
domestics department; that she could not grant special fa-
vors. Clary pointed to a sign posted in her office which
stated, "No special favors." Irvine asked to see the policy
in the Company's policy manual and if it meant that she was
fired since she could not work the hours that were given to
her. Clary said yes and prepared a separation form which
stated as reason for termination that Irvine would not fol-
low the schedule.
To replace Irvine , Clary transferred employee Doris
Montgomery from housewares department to the domestics
department. Montgomery is a full-time employee.
Respondent contends that a decision to change from a
staff of three full-time employees and one part -time employ-
ee in the domestics department to four full-time employees
was made by Store Manager Halub in August 1971.
One evening about the middle of August 1971, Halub was
making a tour through the store when he noticed that the
yarn supply in the needlework section of the domestics de-
partment was not filled and he stated to employee Gams,
who was responsible for this section, that she was having a
rough time keeping up with her section. She stated that she
was and that she could not keep up with it working the hours
(part-time hours) that she was working. A short time later,
Halub told Clary that they needed more coverage in the
needlework section and to see if Gams would work 40 hours
a week.
Based on conversations that Clary had had with Garris
in June , Clary had knowledge that Garris wanted to return
to a full-time schedule in September when her daughter
returned to school.
When Gams had worked full-time prior to June 1971, she
rode to work with employee Mary Ferns. Ferns left the
employ of Respondent dung the summer of 1971. In Au-
gust, Garris told Clary that she would not have a way to
work during the day when school started in September. In
the first part of September, Clary told Gams that she would
look over the records of the employees who lived in Simi,
California, and see if any had schedules so that Garris might
have a way to work. Simi is about 12 miles from Thousand
Oaks. A few days later, Clary told Garris that the employees
who lived in Simi worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
Garris said that she could not come in at 8 a.m. because her
daughter did not leave for school until almost 8:30 a.m. but
that she could come to work at 9 a.m.
When the school term for Garris' daughter started in
September, Gams was given her vacation to see if she could
work out a way to work. Her vacation started Sunday, Sep-
tember 19. Her timecard shows that she worked 7-1/2 hours
on Saturday, September 25, and from 5:57 to 10:03 p.m. on
Monday, September 27. On this Monday evening she ob-
served that Mary Ferris was again working for Respondent.
She told Clary that she would now have a way to work. On
the workweek beginning Thursday, September 30, she start-
ed a full-time schedule. There was an improvement in the
needlework section when Garris became a full-time employ-
ee.
D. Conclusions as to Discharge of Irvine
Irvine's strong feelings and actions on behalf of the Un-
ion were known to Respondent . The crux of the case is
found in the conversation between Irvine and Clary on
September 14. Respondent had accommodated Irvine dur-
mg her period of employment by arranging for her a work
schedule that fitted in with her school schedule. The record
shows that Respondent's Personnel Supervisor Clary has
endeavored to arrange work schedules for other employees
that would accommodate personal matters. Mary Ann Gar-
ris was given a vacation so that she could see if she could
arrange a ride to work; then her work schedule and that of
Mary Ferns were arranged so that they could ride to work
together and so that Gams would not have to leave home
until her daughter had left for school. Respondent has in its
employ 6 or 7 part-time students out of a total of about 80
employees, and Clary has arranged work schedules for them
to permit them to attend school.
It is human for those who give favors to expect favors, and
Irvine instead of returning Respondent's favors with
opposition to the Union, was not only for the Union but
strongly so. I find that the import of Clary's words to Irvine
on September 14 is that as Irvine had reciprocated
Respondent's favors by being a strong union advocate,
Respondent's favors to her would cease, and she would not
longer be given special consideration in the hours that she
would work.
Respondent's principal contention is that the workload
of the domestics department called for four full-time employ-
ees rather than three full-time employees and one part-time
employee. As a part-time employee, Irvine was working 32
hours a week. The difference would be 8 hours a week. If
8 hours more work from Irvine was that important to Re-
spondent, then it is unexplained why no consideration was
given to scheduling Irvine for additional hours in the af-
ternoon and evenings and weekends since the store is open
until 10 p.m. six nights a week and until 7 p.m. on Sundays.
But, Store Manager Halub's principal concern for more
hours in the domestics department was in the needlework
section where Gams worked. I do not find merit to
Respondent's contention of economic justification, and I
find that Respondent refused to give Irvine a work schedule
that would permit her to attend school and that Respondent
discharged her for her failure to work the hours given her
all because of her activities in the Union.
E. Alleged Interrogation
The complaint alleges that Store Manager Halub interro-
gated employees regarding union activities. Employee Ce-
S. S. KRESGE COMPANY 307
cile Lavoie testified that she had a conversation with Halub
in the latter part of September 1971 in which he asked her
if she had been to the union meeting of the night before or
knew who had been. She also testified that she had another
conversation with him in which he said that he felt that the
Union had used Jill Irvine. In an affidavit that Lavoie gave
to the Board, she stated that "Crisp and Mr. Halub ques-
tioned me on the Union and questioned me on the views
and activities of fellow employees." She also stated therein
that in a conversation she had with Crisp he said to her that
"he felt sorry for Jill, that the union was using her as a
guinea pig." Crisp is a nonsupervisory employee in charge
of one of Respondent's departments. There is no mention
in Lavoie's affidavit of a conversation of this nature with
Halub; on redirect examination she testified that she had
the same conversation with both Halub and Crisp on differ-
ent occasions about the Union "using" Irvine. Halub denied
any interrogation of Lavoie, but testified that in August he
had had a conversation with her in which she stated she had
heard from another employee that at a union meeting the
president of the Union was fancily dressed and had a big
"rock" on his finger.
In view of the confused state of Lavoie's testimony as to
whether certain conversations were with Halub or with
Crisp, I do not credit her attributing interrogation about
union activities to Halub.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing to change the work schedule of Jim Irvine
to accommodate her school schedule and by discharging her
for refusal to work the hours assigned to her which conflict-
ed with her school schedule because of her union activities,
Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By threatening an employee that her workhours will
not be changed because of her union activities, Respondent
has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has engaged in no illegal interrogation or
surveillance as alleged in paragraphs 10(a) and (b) of the
complaint.
REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom-
mend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and from like or relat-
ed invasions of the employees' rights as set forth in Section
7 of the Act, and to take certain affirmative action.
I recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer full
reinstatement to Jill Irvine, with backpay computed on a
quarterly basis , less net earnings and plus interest at 6 per-
cent per annum as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing and Heating Company, 138
NLRB 716, from date of discharge to date reinstatement is
offered, and that her hours of work be scheduled to accom-
modate her school schedule, as I find would have been done
in the absence of her union activities. Loss of wages, if any,
should be computed on the basis of this schedule.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:3
ORDER
S. S. Kresge , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting Retail Clerks Union, Local 899,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any
other Union.
(b) Threatening employees that their hours of work will
not be changed because of their union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jill Irvine immediate and full reinstatement to
her former job or, if said job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority
or other rights or privileges, and to arrange a work schedule
that does not conflict with her school schedule, and make
her whole for any,lost earnings in the manner set forth in
the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "Rem-
edy."
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military and Train-
ing Service Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agent, for examination or copying, all payroll ;
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its store in Thousand Oaks, California, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places 11
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings , conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
4 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 be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 WE WILL NOT threaten employees that their work-
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has hours cannot be changed because of their union activi-
taken to comply herewith.5 ties.
IT Is ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union
as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. activities.
3 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board, having found, after a
trial, that we violated Federal law by discharging an em-
ployee for supporting a union:
WE WILL offer full reinstatement to Jill Irvine with
backpay plus 6-percent interest, and we will schedule
her hours of work so that she will be able to attend
school.
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against any
employee for joining or supporting Retail Clerks Un-
ion, Local 899, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, or any other union.
Dated By
S. S. KRESGE COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 12100,
11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024,
Telephone 824-7357.