Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 13 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC.
Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc. and Retail Store
Employees Union , Local 300, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO. Case
13-CA-8220
January 8, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On August 7, 1968, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations
be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, ; the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Sheridan-Peter Pan
Studios, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'We find without merit the Respondent 's allegations of bias on the part
of the Trial Examiner . There is no basis for finding bias or partiality
existed because the Trial Examiner resolved important factual conflicts
arising in this proceeding in favor of the General Counsel 's witnesses. As
the Supreme Court has stated , "Total rejection of an opposed view cannot
of itself impugn the integrity of a trier of fact ." N.L.R B. v. Pittsburgh
Steamship Co. 337 US 656, 659 Moreover , as it is the Board's
established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to
credibility except where , as is not the case here , the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces it that the resolutions were incorrect, we
find , contrary to the Respondent 's contention , no basis for disturbing the
Trial Examiner 's credibility findings . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C A 1).
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
13
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed on January 17, 1968, by Retail Store
Employees Union, Local 300, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or the
Charging Party), the complaint' herein issued on May 1,
1968.' The complaint alleged that Sheridan-Peter Pan
Studios, Inc. (herein called the Company or the
Respondent), had violated Section,8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act),
by the unilateral grant of benefit, the promise of benefit if
the employees reject the Union, and by other promises or
threats. At the hearing General- Counsel amended the
complaint to allege that certain interrogation by
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1). Respondent was
alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by its
discharge of Morris Krugman. Respondent denied all the
material allegations of the complaint.
All parties participated in the hearing in Chicago,
Illinois, on June 4, 5, and 6, 1968, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument,
and to file briefs. General Counsel argued orally at the
close of the hearing and briefs were filed by the
Respondent and General Counsel. -Respondent's motions
to dismiss parts or all of the complaint, on which I
reserved ruling, are disposed of according to my findings
below.
Upon the entire record in the case, from my reading of
the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an Illinois corporation with its principal office and
place of business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged
in the business of making and selling portrait
photographs.
During the calendar year 1967 Respondent realized
gross receipts in excess of $500,000 from the operations
described above and during the same period it purchased
goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 within the
State of Illinois, which goods and services originated
outside the State of Illinois. During the same
representative period the Respondent sold and', furnished
goods and services valued in excess of $200,000 at points
outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent is now and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the
Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Store Employees Union, Local 300, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
'The complaint was a consolidated one combining with the instant
matter a refusal -to-bargain allegation set forth in Case 13-CA-8348. At the
close of General Counsel 's case a motion to sever Case 13-CA-8348 from
the instant proceeding was granted and the severed case has been disposed
of in a separate decision.
174 NLRB No. 3
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interrogation, Threats, and Promises of Benefit
1. Interrogation
On October 16, 1967, the Union conducted an
organizing meeting attended by a large number of
Respondent's portrait salesmen. All of Respondent's
employees who attended that meeting signed authorization
cards for the Union.
The following day, Gilbert M. Greenberg, a proof
passer,' was in Respondent's office carrying out certain of
his regularly assigned duties. Greenberg testified that
Company Secretary-Treasurer Burton L Shender, who
was holding a piece of paper in his hand, asked if
Greenberg had attended the union meeting and then
inquired about the meeting and who had been present.
Shender also asked if Greenberg had signed a union card.
Greenberg stated that he had done so but protested that
Shender was putting him on the spot. In reply Shender
claimed that he knew who had been in attendance but was
merely seeking to confirm his information. Shender then
read off a list of names including some who had not been
at the meeting. At this point Greenberg told the company
official the names of those who had been incorrectly listed
as having been at the meeting.
Shender claimed that Greenberg had initiated the
discussion concerning the Union and that Shender's only
comment from time to time as Greenberg listed the names
of those who had not been at the meeting was the single
word "oh." Shender denied questioning Greenberg and
testified that beyond the repeated word "oh," his part in
the conversation had been argument against unionization
of the proof salesmen.
Greenberg impressed me on the stand as a frightened
witness whose testimony concerning his conversation with
Shender was given reluctantly but honestly. Shender on
the tither hand did not evoke any feeling of confidence in
his veracity. I credit Greenberg's account of his
interrogation by Shender following the union meeting and
find that by this interrogation Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3
2. Threats and promise of benefit
On October 30 and November 17, 1968, Company
President Sheridan Stein addressed the proof passers
assembled=on company premises. The findings herein as to
those speeches are based solely on the purported texts
submitted as exhibits by Respondent. There is in the
record much testimony concerning those speeches by
witnesses called by General Counsel. In his direct
'As explained by Company President Sheridan Stein , Respondent's
business consists of on-location portrait photography . After the pictures
have been taken, add developed, the proofs are returned to the customers
by salesmen , known as proof passers, who attempt to sell pictures to the
customers in addition to various free portraits which were the inducement
to secure the initial appointment The proof passers, who are compensated
on a commission ,,, basis, were found by the Board to constitute an
appropriate unit for, purposes of collective bargaining:
'In addition to this incident with Greenberg , Shender was alleged in the
complaint unlawfully to have questioned proof passer Katz. However, Katz
was unable or unwilling to testify with sufficient clarity to enable me to
make a finding concerning that allegation In any event, to remedy the
violation found I shall recommend that the Board order Respondent to
cease and desist from questioning employees about their own or the
concerted activities of fellow employees . Accordingly, the incident
involving Katz could add nothing to the Recommended Order.
testimony Stein stated that the documents offered, were
the full texts of his speeches, other than "connecting
words," such as "and," "if," or "but," which he added in
delivering the talks. Under examination it developed that
Stein's use of the term "connecting words" was at best a
loose one and that in fact the documents were outlines
and notes for the speeches rather than full texts as
claimed. However, the documents introduced by the
Company, while not complete texts, are sufficient for
purposes of decision.
The complaint allegation was limited to statements by
Stein made on or about November 17, 1967 During the
course of the hearing it developed that Stein had made the
two speeches. Counsel for, Respondent argued, strongly
against the necessity of defending against any statements
which may have been made during the October 30 talk.
However, counsel for Respondent did introduce the
documents which were submitted as Stein's texts for the
two speeches. In response to Respondent's objection to the
receipt of evidence concerning the October 30 address, I
ruled that "In view of the pleadings I will ... make no
findings of unfair labor practices as to any statements
which were made at the meeting of October 30."
However, I then alerted counsel that "In looking at the
evidence as to what was said on November 17, 1 will view
it in the background of what was said on October 30 or at
other times. The statements of October 30 will add
connotations to those made on November 17."
In his November 17 speech Stein started by declaring
Respondent's opposition to the Union and by pointing out
thatt)thewproof passers' current working conditions were
notit ppressive, that they had not been cheated, and that,
if they worked, their earnings were high. Stein then went
on to say "We will talk to you as a group" and in
contrasting the posture of proof passers under organized
or unorganized conditions Stein listed as one of the assets
of a nonunion situation "possible benefits through group
discussion." In his October 30 address Stein had stated
We suggest that in the future, depending on the
outcome of election, ways could be worked out for
meetings so that this complaint could be alleviated -
we can't legally go into details now but we have always
kept our word. You would lose nothing by going along
If you vote the Union down now, and give us a try, you
could always petition again for another election.
I find that the above statements not only contain
implied promises of benefits to the employees if they
refrain from selecting the Union as their bargaining
representative,4 but also constitute an unlawful
encouragement to the employees to bargain with the
employer through their own group rather than through the
bargaining representative of their choice. Encouragement
of the employees to bypass the Union in favor of this
"group" interferes with employee rights.'
Later in the speech Stein pointed out that, in addition
to the Union having a right to make demands, the
Company can do so as well, saying-"We can ask for such
things as higher averages, a minimum of number of stops
etc., etc., etc., as part of our demands."6
Standing alone, the foregoing statement could be
interpreted as a mere statement of an employer's right to
put forward demands in collective bargaining with the
'Sherman Distributing Company. Inc , 'd/b/a Schroeder Distributing
Company, 171 NLRB No. 194; Viking of Minneapolis , Division of the
Telex Corporation , 171 NLRB No. 7
'International Metal Specialties , Inc, 172 NLRB No 39.
'Similar statements were made in the October 30 speech
SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. 15
representative of its employees . However in the context of
the promise of benefit if the employees eschewed union
representation , encouragement of the employees to deal
with the Company without intervention of an outside
representative , and repeated strong statements in
opposition} to the Union ,' I find that Stein was threatening
reprisal and a worsening of working conditions in the
event the employees selected the Union to represent them.
N.L.R B. v. Kropp Forge Co., 178 F,2d 822, 828 (C.A.
7).
3. Grant of benefit
On November 20, 1967, a majority of Respondent's
employees voted to have the Union represent them as
their bargaining agent. On November 28, 1967,
Respondent raised the maximum travel allowance paid to
proof salesmen employed in selling portraits generated by
the sittings of church groups. The complaint alleged that
this act was undertaken to undermine the majority status
of the Union.
The only evidence pertaining to this complaint
allegation was testimony by Company President Stein
when he was called as a witness by the General Counsel.
Stein explained that a growing part of the Company's
business was the preparation of pictorial directories for
churches . The Company not only photographs all church
members and their families but also prepares and prints
the directory with the photographs included. As with,the
other parts of its business the proofs are shown to>;tlie
persons photographed with an effort made cto tikelh,
additional pictures . Unlike Respondent ' s baby "picWrd '
business which is in the Chicago metropolitan area, the
churches solicited for the directory business are located in
States other than Illinois and the preparation of the
directories and the showing of proofs involve considerable
travel. Stein explained that when this type of business was
first entered into, proof passers were allowed $2.50
expenses for trips up to 60 miles. As the work went
further afield the allowance was raised to $5 for trips up
to 150 miles and then to $7.50 for trips of distances
between 150 and 200 miles. Stein testified without
contradiction that during the week of November 27, 1967,
Respondent for the first time required proof passers to
travel more than 200 miles to show proofs in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. At that time a new bracket of travel
allowance, again in a multiple of $2.50, was created for
trips over 200 miles.
While I am loathe to base a finding on Stein's
unsupported testimony,' I note that General Counsel
failed to test the truthfulness of this evidence by use of the
subpoena power to explore original company sales-
records. Accordingly , I cannot find a violation in the
creation of this new travel allowance bracket. It is not an
increased benefit in the sense that a higher allowance is
paid in place of it prior lower level of payment. Rather,
Respondent faced with a new measure of travel obligation
for proof passers followed established practice in adding
an additional $2.50 of travel allowance for an additional
distance of travel . Accordingly , I shall recommend
dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
'Stein closed his speech by stating "And finally I want to repeat that we
are opposed to the Union but win or lose we will own this business We
will bargain with the Union, but the day to day operation, the financial,
the production, the schedules and the assignment of calls we run."
On the basis of his two appearances as a witness in this proceeding I
did not find Stein to be a credible witness.
B. The Discharge of Morris Krugman
Morris Krugman, a proof passer employed by the
Respondent for over 12 years was discharged in January
1968 for the stated reason that his average sales had been
unsatisfactory.
At the Board-conducted election on November 20,
1967, when the Union was selected as the bargaining
representative of Respondent's proof passers, Krugman
served as the Union's observer, As disclosed by the record
herein the union activities engaged in by the employees
consisted solely of their attendance at the union meeting
on October 16, 1967, and Krugman's service as the
Union's observer at the election. Almost all of the proof
passers attended the meeting on October 16, only
Krugman acted as a union observer. Thus, alone among
Respondent's employees Krugman's protected activities
stood out.
During his employment as a proof passer by the
Respondent, Krugman consistently turned in average sales
lower than those of most of the proof passers. About the
middle of December 1967 Shender, Respondent's
secretary-treasurer, remarked to Krugman that he was
doing better, that his average sales were up. However,
when Krugman was advised by Stein and Shender early in
January 1968 that his employment was to be terminated,
he was told that this action was taken because his average
sales were low and Respondent' s business was slowing
down, resulting in fewer sittings for portraits and fewer
proofs to be shown. Discharged with Krugman were
Schaffer, who had been with Respondent as a proof passer
for approximately 1-1/2 years, and two salesmen, who
had been employed for only several months, Waldman
and Zak. Retained were Victor Goddard who had been
employed only 6 weeks and Robert Leduc who had
worked as a salesman for Respondent for 4 weeks.
Company President Stein first testified that the only
factor taken into account in the decision to discharge
Krugman was his low standing in average sales among the
proof passers, in fact, second from the bottom. Later,
Stein expanded the reasons for discharge testifying:
Mr. Krugman was a bad employee. Mr. Krugman
didn't work hard.... Mr. Krugman refused to call on
Negro customers. Mr. Krugman didn't close his calls -
several other salesmen closed his calls. He left a lot of
calls that he didn't consider "good calls." leads - , and
customers would call up; complain that he didn't close
these calls.
In his speech to the employees on November 17, 1967,
Stein had said:
Have you chosen your leaders well? Are you sure that
they are not the very ones who are guilty of not
working too hard, sluffing the calls, keeping out choice
callbacks (devising means of not turning them in)
leaving choice calls in the mail box, taking the other
man's straight calls, and taking unnecessary time off.
Stein further testified that during 1967 he had spoken
to Krugman three or four times about his poor sales
performance. Stein claimed that there also had been
discussions about Negro customers with! Krugman and
that Krugman, alone among the Company's employees,
had refused to call on Negro customers.
Krugman denied having had any conversation at all
with Stein during 1967, let alone sessions during which
Stein had pointed out his deficiencies as a salesman.
During cross-examination counsel , for Respondent.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apparently seeking to prove that Stein had not
interrogated Krugman about his union activities,' made a
point of establishing that there had been no conversations,
regardless of subject, between Stein and Krugman in 1967.
On the other hand proof passer Richard Max credibly
testified that on two occasions in 1967 Stein had spoken
to him about a slippage in his average sales and salesman
Martin Boxer credibly testified that' he had had a similar
conversation with Stein in February 1968, about a month
after Krugman's discharge. I credit Krugman and
discredit Stein's claim that Krugman's performance as a
salesman had been a matter of concern and that Stein had
called this to Krugman's attention in 1967.
Having gratuitously created a credibility conflict
between his client and Krugman, counsel for Respondent
seeks in his brief to avoid its resolution by deprecating the
weight of the evidence concerning which they are in
disagreement. However, credibility of the witnesses and of
the documentary evidence they prepared is in essence the
sole issue governing this case. I have found that Stein was
untruthful in claiming that the documents introduced
constitute the full text of his speeches. Shender was
equally contemptuous of the truth in testifying about his
interrogation of Greenberg. In cross-examination, counsel
for Respondent has further pointed out Stein's lack of
credibility by reaffirming Krugman's contravention of
Stein's claim that on a number of occasions in 1967 he
had warned Krugman about his sales deficiencies. It is in
light of their established disregard for the truth that I turn
to the exhibits purportedly prepared by Stein and Shender
from company records.
In response to a subpena from General Counsel,
Respondent produced a number of statistical tables
purporting to show various aspects of sales performance
by the proof passers. Thus, one table (introduced as
Respondent's Exhibit 2) lists proof salesmen as of
December 1967, showing the number of calls each had
closed, their gross sales, average sales, and ranking within
the group of proof passers for each classification. Another
exhibit (introduced as Resp. Exh. 3) purported to show
the names of proof passers employed in the year 1964
through 1967 with their average sales for each year and
their ranking within the peer group. Upon examination,
however, it appears that names such as those of Leduc
and Goddard while appearing on Resp. Exh. 3 are missing
on its Exhibit 2. Additionally, Shender admitted that
names might have been omitted in the years prior to 1967
explaining that the records showing average sales by proof
passers were not considered important enough by
Respondent to keep and when the book in which they are
entered became full, material was taken out because "It is
nothing we have to keep, and nothing we thought we had
to keep." Thus, apart from the lack of credibility of those
who prepared these exhibits the apparent and admitted
omissions and inconsistencies cast serious doubt upon
their probative value.
Stein testified that a consideration in the decision to
discharge Krugman was a company projection that sales
would be off in 1968 and fewer proof passers would be
needed. A further table prepared by Respondent
(introduced as G. C. Exh. 2-a), showed the total number
of sittings by year from 1962 through 1967, broken down
by month from 1965 through January 1968. This table
reveals that sittings for January 1968 were approximately
7 percent higher than those in January 1967. Subsequent
to Krugman's discharge two new proof passers were hired.
'There was no complaint allegation that Stein had done so
Stein testified that when Krugman was discharged
Respondent retained Goddard and Leduc because they
had higher averages, realized more gross sales, and closed
more proofs than Krugman. As noted, Goddard had
worked only 6 weeks when the decision to discharge
Krugman was made. During that period his average sale
was $14.83. However, for a comparable 6-week period"
Krugman's average was $15.78. Leduc's average of $17.82
for the 4 weeks which he worked was above that of
Krugman for a comparable 4-week period" while his total
of customer calls for those weeks was only 14 higher than
that of Krugman. Moreover, Shender acknowledged that
Leduc's and Goddard's averages were weighted in their
favor as against that of Krugman since they worked only
during the busy Christmas sales season and his was
computed for a full year's work.
All things considered, I find that Krugman was selected
for discharge because he had singled himself out as the
leading union adherent. As demonstrated in Stein's
November 17 speech Respondent was strongly opposed to
union representation of the proof passers. In that same
speech Stein questioned the employees' selection of
leadership from their midst, and his description of the
suspected union leadership is strikingly similar to the
,listing of Krugman's deficiencies given when Stein was
pressed for his reasons for selecting Krugman for
discharge. In addition to this indication that Stein believed
Krugman to be the Union's leader among the proof
pq>ssers,, Krugman and Krugman alone by serving as the
Uninri1s observer at the November 20 election disclosed an
adherence to the Union above and beyond that of all
other,proof passers. While I do not gainsay Krugman's
standing in the lower ranks of Respondent's proof passers,
his failure to achieve high average sales was not a new
thing-and had been accepted by Respondent during his 12
years of employment.': Krugman's low average sales
became unprofitable to Respondent only after he had
identified himself as the leading union adherent among the
proof passers. Moreover, analysis of the statistical
evidence presented by Respondent reveals that the two
proof passers, hired subsequent to the Union's victory at
the election, who were retained when Krugman was
discharged had not been during the 'period of their
employment the superior salesmen as claimed by the
Company when their sales records are compared with
Krugman's during the same period of time.
I conclude that Krugman's standing among the lower
ranks of Respondent's proof passers was seized upon by
Respondent as a pretext to rid itself of the- lone known
union activist as part of the Company's continuing effort
to avoid meeting its statutory obligation to recognize and
deal with the Union as the proof passers'
collective-bargaining agent. The situation was one where
the Union was seeking initial recognition against active
company opposition. Krugman was the only' known active
union adherent and Respondent had much to gain by
'Weeks of November 11 through December 16
"An average of $16.21 for the weeks of November 25 through December
16.
"The Respondent called as a witness one Leo Gentn , a supervisor, who
testified that in a conversation with Krugman subsequent to the discharge,
Krugman had stated in reference to a new job that he had "stopped
monkeying around " Krugman denied having made this statement. It
appears that Respondent would have me infer that Krugman's poor
average sales while employed by the Company had been the result of
"monkeying around ." Genin was a totally incredible witness. I credit
Krugman's denial
SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC.
getting rid of him . See Ostertag Optical Service, Inc., of
Oklahoma, 171 NLRB No. 182, fn 1.
W. 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 Respondent's
-operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall
-recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Morris Krugman , I shall recommend that Respondent be
-ordered to reinstate him to his former or a substantially
equivalent position of employment without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges and to make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result
of Respondent's unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be
computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in
the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating2Co., 138
NLRB 716. n3aona^
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
herein above, in section III, A, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in certain conduct described in section
III, B, above, Respondent discriminated against Morris
Krugman in regard to his tenure of employment in order
to discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not committed other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their own
activities on behalf of the Union or the activities and
sympathies of other employees; promising benefit to
employees if they refrain from selecting the Union as their
17
bargaining representative; encouraging employees to
bargain with the Company through their own group rather
than through the bargaining representative of their choice,
thereby bypassing the Union, and threatening reprisal and
a worsening of working conditions in the event the
employees selected the Union to represent them.
(b) Discouraging or coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by
the discharge of Morris Krugman.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Morris Krugman immediate and full
reinstatement to his, former or a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to any rights or privileges he
may have enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered-by reason of the discrimination
practiced in the manner provided hereof, in the section
entitled "The Remedy."i 3
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of
backpay due and all other rights under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Chicago, Illinois, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix .1114 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith! I
It is further ordered that the compalint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically
found herein.
"In view of Mr. Krugman 's age, I shall omit from the Recommended
Order and notice the standard provision requiring Respondent to notify the
discrimmatee if presently serving in the Armed Forces.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Store
Employees Union, Local 300, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging and
refusing to, reinstate any of our employees, - or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any terms or
conditions'of employment.
WE WILL offer to Morris Krugman reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and we will make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by him as a result of his discharge.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their
activities on behalf of the Union or the activities and
sympathies of other employees.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees
because they refrain from selecting the Union as their
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT encourage our employees to bargain
with the Company through their own group rather than
through the bargaining representative of their choice
and thereby bypassing the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals and a worsening of
working conditions in the event the employees selected
the Union to, represent them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Dated
SHERIDAN-PETER PAN
STUDIOS, INC.
(Employer)
By
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice 1
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219- South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
828-7572.