Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc . and Retail Store Employees
Union, Local 381 , Retail Clerks International As-
sociation, AFL-CIO and Retail Store Employees
Union, Local 367, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CA-5171 and 19-
CA-5180
March 7, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
On November 30, 1971 , Trial Examiner George
Christensen issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the -record and the Trial
Examiner 's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner 's rulings,
findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Sprouse-
Reitz Co., Inc., Tacoma, Washington, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
' In affirming the Trial Examiner, we are not necessarily relying on his
finding that the Industrial Conference Board possessed full and unqualified
authority to execute a contract, for, in any event, the late insistence on a
countersignature by Respondent without prior notice of any limitation on
ICB's authority would in and of itself violate Section 8(a)(5). Inasmuch as
agreement had been reached on all terms of the contract, Respondent, in our
opinion, had the duty to implement it
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Trial Examiner: On July 29 and
30, 1971, the Trial Examiner conducted a hearing at Seattle,
Washington, to try issues raised by a consolidated complaint
issued on May 17, 1971, based on charges filed by Retail Store
Employees Union, Local 381, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation, AFL-CIO,' on March 5, 1971, and by Local 367
on March 11, 1971. The complaint alleged that Sprouse-Reitz
Co., Inc.,' violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereafter the Act) by
refusing to honor an agreement allegedly executed on its
' Hereafter called Local 381.
'Hereafter called the Company
195 No. 142
behalf by, a representative of the Industrial"Conference Board'
and a representative of Retail Store Employees Union, Local
367, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO,'
and by conditioning negotiations with Local 381 on prior
consummation of an agreement with Local 367.
The Company denied the authority of the ICB to enter into
the alleged agreement with Local 367, denied that it condi-
tioned negotiations with Local 381 on first reaching final
agreement with Local 367, and denied any violation of the
Act.
All parties appeared by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine
witnesses, argue, and file beefs. Briefs were filed by the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Company.
Based on his review of the entire record,' observation of the
witnesses,' perusal of the briefs and research, the Trial Exam-
iner enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The commerce facts and the qualification at all pertinent
times of the Company as an employer engaged in commerce
in a business affecting commerce and Locals 367 and 381 as
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5),
(6), and (7) of the Act are conceded, and the Trial Examiner
so finds.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ,
A. Representation and BargainingPrior to 1970
For many years the Company has recognized Local 367 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of an ap-
propriate unit6 of employees at two of its retail variety stores
in Tacoma, Washington, and has similarly recognized Local
381 for an appropriate unit' of employees at its Bremerton,
Washington, store.
The Company has always followed the practice of negotiat-
ing separate and independent agreements with each local.
Since 1966 the Company has been a member of the ICB
and since that date has utilized the services of that organiza-
tion in negotiating agreements with both locals.
' The Industrial Conference Board is an association of employers in the
Puget Sound area whose principal functions are the negotiation of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with unions representing employees of its mem-
bers and processing of grievance disputes arising thereunder It shall here-
after be called ICB.
Hereafter called Local 367.
The Company's motion to.correct the record, without opposition, is
granted. The corrections appear in Appendix A [Omitted from publication ]
6 The parties agreed to the appropriateness under Sec. 9 of the Act of the
following unit
All employees employed by the Company or by concessionaires and/or
operators of leased departments in the Company's retail variety stores
located at 2625 N Pearl and 8218 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Washing-
ton, engaged in handling or selling merchandise including employees
designated by the ensuing classifications. window trimmers and assist-
ants, mail order departments, bundle wrappers, floor cashiers, outside
salesmen, marking room employees, and all other employees not com-
ing under the jurisdiction of any other union, excluding supervisors
The Trial Examiner finds the unit just described appropriate for collective-
bargaining purposes under Sec 9 of the Act
' The parties agreed to the appropriateness under Sec. 9 of the Act of the
following unit
All employees employed by the Company at its retail variety store
located at 623 North Callow, Bremerton, Washington excluding store
manager, assistant managers, manager trainee, fountain employees,
condidential employees, and supervisors.
The Trial Examiner finds the unit just described appropriate for collective-
bargaining purposes under Sec 9 of the Act
SPROUSE-REITZ CO. 749
The last agreement between the Company and Local 381
covering the Bremerton employees was negotiated and ex-
ecuted by T. S. McCulloch of the ICB and Oliver Helms of
Local 381. It was signed on December 21, 1967, for a term
extending from June 1, 1967, through February 1, 1970, with
provision for automatic 1-year renewals thereafter unless ter-
minated by written notice 60 days prior to February 1, 1970,
or any anniversary date thereafter.
Neither Local 381 nor the Company served termination
notices prior to February 1, 1970, so the agreement continued
in effect to February 1, 1971. Local 381 served a termination
notice upon the Company on November 18, 1970, terminat-
ing the agreement on February 1, 1971.
The last agreements between the Company and Local 367
covering the Tacoma employees were negotiated and ex-
ecuted by the same T. S. McCulloch of the ICB and Ray Rich
of Local 367. A basic contract was signed on September 25,
1967, for a term extending from October 1, 1967, through
June 1, 1969, subject to termination by notice 60 days prior
to the latter date. On July 11, 1969, Charles Lyon of the ICB
and Rich signed a "supplemental agreement" extending the
basic contract to February 1, 1970, subject to the same termi-
nation procedure. Local- 367 served a timely notice on the
Company terminating their agreement effective February 1,
1970.
B. The 1970-71 Tacoma Negotiations
Serious negotiations between Local 367 and the Company
over a new contract following'the February 1, 1970, expira-
tion of their previous agreement did not commence until
Local 367 secured a settlement in its negotiations with Wool-
worth Company in July 1970.8 Lyon of ICB and Rich of
Local 367 conducted the negotiations. They quickly disposed
of the wage issue with an agreement matching the Woolworth
settlement, but had difficulty over the issue of whether the
Company would provide its own plan for dental care or ac-
cept the trust plan sought by Local 367 (Woolworth had
agreed to bring its Tacoma employees under a companywide
plan).
The Company initially expressed a preference for installing
its own dental plan rather than contributing to the trust plan,
inasmuch as it had followed this procedure when it agreed to
establish pension benefits at the time the 1967-69 Company-
Local 367 contract was signed.' Local 367, however, con-
tinued to insist on the trust plan. After some time and study,
the Company determined that it would be impracticable to
establish its own dental plan and decided to accept Local
367's proposal, and so notified Lyon. Lyon then proceeded to
draw up a contract draft. He included in that draft a provi-
sion requiring the Company to place pensions under the trust
plan. When he sought to remove that language from the draft
and substitute the language of the previous contract, Rich
objected on the ground that the Company had failed to "es-
tablish a Retirement Plan for the employees ... which will
provide retirement benefits identical to or superior to those
provided under the Retail Clerks Pension Trust."'° Rich con-
a Woolworth-Local 367 settlements normally set the pattern for Compa-
ny-Local 367 settlements in the Tacoma area.
' Local 367 engaged in a long strike before the 1967-69 agreement settle-
ment; one of the issues was a Local 367 demand for company agreement to
participate in the Retail Clerks Trust Fund pension plan. The Company held
out for establishment of its own plan, on the grounds the Woolworth-Local
367 agreement provided for coverage of the employees under a company-
wide plan. The issue was compromised by the Company's agreement to
establish a plan of its own providing benefits identical or superior to those
of the trust fund.
'° Quoted from the 1967-69 agreement.
tended the company plan benefits were inferior to those pro-
vided by the trust and demanded that the Company remedy
this alleged deficiency by agreeing to participate in the trust
fund for pension coverage as well as dental coverage. The
Company denied that its pension coverage was inferior and
refused to come under the fund's pension coverage. Without
abandoning his position that the company pension plan was
inferior to the trust plan, Rich nevertheless finally withdrew
his demand for a change from the 1967-69 contract language
on pensions, commenting he would take up the question of
whether the Company's pension coverage was equal to or
superior to that of the trust fund through the contract griev-
ance and arbitration procedure at some later date. The Com-
pany was reluctant to leave this possibility open, but finally
Miller Chestnut, the Company's district manager for the Pu-
get Sound area (17 stores), authorized Lyon to prepare a
contract incorporating the language of the prior contract
with the agreed modifications thereto and attach as a separate
addendum the language of the prior pension agreement.
Lyon prepared the suggested documents, telephoned Rich,
and read him the language of the addendum (they had al-
ready agreed on the items other than the pension issue, and
that agreement was embodied in the basic contract). Rich
accepted the language, and Lyon stated they had an agree-
ment. Both signed the contract (and the addendum) on Janu-
ary 14, 1971.
The contract's signature page was captioned as follows:
RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL NO. 367, AFL-CIO
By Ray L. Rich (signature)
RAY L. RICH, Secy-Treas.
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD
By Charles R. Lyon (signature)
CHARLES R. LYON, Agent
SPROUSE-REITZ COMPANY, INC.
Countersigned:
By
The addendum contained the same captions and signa-
tures.
Rich testified, without contradiction by Lyon (who also
testified), that Lyon informed him he wanted to send all the
signed copies of the contract to the Company for execution
of the space left blank under the heading "Countersigned" to
cover himself, since the Company did not seem to have a clear
understanding of the contract terms. Rich further testified,
again without contradiction, that he was not informed at any
time by Lyon or anyone else that Lyon was not authorized
to execute a final and binding contract and he so viewed the
situation after he and Lyon signed. His testimony is credited,
as it conforms to previous practice, previous company au-
thorization (admittedly never withdrawn) giving the ICB full
power to negotiate and execute collective-bargaining agree-
ments with unions representing the Company's employees,
and the fact it was not contradicted by Lyon.
Shortly after execution of the contract in question (several
copies were executed), Lyon hand-delivered all the copies to
Chestnut and he in turn forwarded them to the Company's
main office in Portland.
While Chestnut was in Los Angeles, California, attending
a companywide conference in early February 1971, he was
informed that Local 367 was threatening to picket the Com-
pany's Tacoma stores unless it received a signed contract;
Chestnut went to the company comptroller, who said the
contracts were in his brief case and he hadn't had time to do
anything over them yet. Chestnut brought the contracts to
one of the cofounders, Mr. Sprouse and informed Sprouse of
his reservations about the possibility of further dispute over
the adequacy of the pension benefits provided by the com-
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany plan, his dissatisfaction over Lyon's failure to settle that
issue and over Local 367's belligerent attitude. Sprouse in-
structed Chestnut to confer with the Company's attorneys.
On such contact, Chestnut voiced the opinion that Local 367
did not represent a majority of the employees within the
Tacoma unit heretofore described and that the signed docu-
ments did not constitute a contract binding upon the Com-
pany in the absence of a countersignature by a company
official. The Company attorneys thereupon advised filing of
a petition challenging Local 367's majority representative
status and rejection of the contract.On March 1, 1971, peti-
tions were filed covering the two Tacoma stores."
On learning of the foregoing, Local 367 filed a charge
which led to the complaint herein considered, thereby block-
ing processing of the company petitions.
C. The 1970-71 Bremerton Negotiations
As noted heretofore, Local 381 served timely (on Novem-
ber 18, 1970) notice on the Company to terminate their con-
tract on February 1, 1971.The notice was addressed to T. R.
McCulloch of the ICB (McCulloch had negotiated and
signed the previous Company-Local 381 agreement) by Oli-
ver Helms, secretary-treasurer of Local 381 (Helms had like-
wise negotiated and signed the previous Company-Local 381
agreement.)
The ICB assigned Lyon to conduct negotiations with Local
381 and Helms was apprised of this when he contacted the
ICB by telephone to discuss a new agreement.
Subsequent to service of the November 18, 1970, termina-
tion notice, all contacts between Helms and Lyon were by
telephone. Helms testified he made six telephone calls in all
to Lyon.12 He stated that on several occasions he requested
a meeting date but each time he so requested Lyon replied
that he had a busy schedule, that he was in negotiations with
Local 367 at Tacoma, and that there was no point in their
meeting until the Tacoma dispute was resolved. Helms tes-
tified that while the Company's contracts with Locals 367
and 381 were identical with regard to the wage scale and
some fringes, other provisions differed, but he did not testify
that he so stated to Lyon as a basis for insistence on a meeting.
Lyon confirmed that he talked to Helms several times by
telephone, that in one of the earlier conversations he stated
he had a busy schedule and was engaged in negotiations with
Local 367, but states in that early conversation he simply
suggested they defer meeting until there was further progress
in the Tacoma negotiations , Helms accepted the suggestion
without comment, and in the later conversations he simply
reported to Helms the status of the Tacoma negotiations and
there was no change in Helms' acquiescence to the delay in
setting a meeting'date.
Helms further testified that Lyon asked for a copy of Local
381's contract settlement with Woolworth and Kress at Bre-
merton, and he agreed to forward it but could not recall if he
did; he also testified the Woolworth-Local 381 negotiations
were not concluded until sometime either in February of 1971
"or later.""
" Cases 19-RM-896, 897.
" Helms produced telephone records showing calls from Local 381's
office to the ICB office on November 30, 1970, December 1 and 2, 1970,
and January 18 and 26 and February 9, 1971. He further testified that Lyon
was not in the office on December 1, 1970, so he actually spoke to Lyon on
only five occasions.
" On July 14, 1967 the Company and Local 381 signed a contract
wherein the Company agreed to institute future wage increases for its Bre-
merton employees represented by Local 381 which were agreed to by Wool-
worth and Kress covering their Bremerton employees represented by the
Local; the 1967-70 Local 381-Company agreement consists of a printed
Helms testified that after receiving a letter from Chestnut
challenging Local 381's majority representative status not
long after his last (February 9, 1971) telephone call to Lyon,
he made no further effort to secure a meeting for negotiations.
On March 1, 19.71, the Company filed a petition with the
Regional Office seeking to determine if Local 381 represented
a majority within the Bremerton unit."
D. The Issues
In the Tacoma situation, it is argued by the General Coun-
sel that the Company by its duly authorized agent, the ICB,
on or about January 14, 1971, agreed to a settlement of all
issues in dispute with Local 367 and executed by that agent
a final and binding contract embodying that settlement and
thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its subse-
quent refusal to honor that agreement.
With regard to Bremerton, it is argued by the General
Counsel that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by conditioning negotiation of an agreement with
Local 381 supplanting the one which terminated February 1,
1971, on settlement of the contract dispute between the Com-
pany and Local 367.
The Company's primary defense with regard to Tacoma is
that the January 14, 1971, contract signed by Lyon of the ICB
and Rich of Local 367 were not final and binding upon the
Company in the absence of a countersignature by an official
of the Company and therefore its subsequent refusal to honor
that agreement did not violate the Act. The Company con-
tends the presence of the word "Counter-signed" followed by
a blank put Local 367 on notice that the contract was not final
and binding until and unless a company official signed it.
Insofar as Bremerton is concerned, the Company argues
that there was joint agreement or, at the very least, Local 381
acquiescence through February 9, 1971 (the date of Local
38 l's last telephone call to Lyon), a complete absence of any
request or demand for a meeting, and neither a conditional
refusal to meet pending conclusion of the Tacoma negotia-
tions or any insistence by Local 381 on any meeting prior
thereto; the Company further notes that the Woolworth and
Kress negotiations with Local 381, on which the Tacoma
settlement was normally patterned, still were not concluded
on the date of Local 381's last telephone call concerning
negotiations.
The issues thereby created are (1) whether the January 14,
1971, contract is final and binding upon the Company and (2)
whether Lyon conditioned bargaining with Helms upon set-
tlement of the Company-Local 367 contract dispute.
E. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The Company-Local 367 dispute
The Trial Examiner finds and concludes that the January
14, 1971, agreement and contract between Lyon and Rich
were final and binding upon the Company despite the absence
of any signature in the space following the word "Counter-
signed."
It is undisputed that since 1966 the ICB has had full and
unqualified authority from the Company to negotiate and
execute the successive collective-bargaining agreements be-
tween Local 367 and the Company and that Local 367 has
been so informed and has bargained for and executed con-
tracts with the ICB covering the Company's employees repre-
sented by it in good faith reliance upon the ICB's possession
copy of the Woolworth-Local 381 agreement on which "Woolworth" is
simply scratched out and the Company's name inserted wherever "Wool-
worth" appears.
" Case 19-RM-895.
SPROUSE-REITZ CO. 751
and exercise of full power so to act. At no time during the
1970-71 negotiations for a new contract, settlement thereof,
and execution of a contract containing such settlement, was
Local 367 informed to the contrary. The retention of all
copies of the new agreement by Lyon is explained by Lyon's
representation to Rich that he, Lyon, wanted to have the
Company's countersignature thereto to avoid any later claim
of a misunderstanding as to just what Lyon had negotiated
on its behalf. Whatever reservations Chestnut may have had
were never communicated to Local 367, and Chestnut's later
actions appear inspired more by personal pique over Local
367's picketing threat and dissatisfaction with the terms Lyon
had agreed upon than a good-faith doubt of the validity of the
contract.
The Trial Examiner therefore finds and concludes that by
its refusal to honor the Januray 14, 1971, contract subsequent
to its execution by Lyon and Rich, the Company has violated
and continues to violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner further finds and concludes that the
unit specified in footnote 5 is appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining under Section 9 of the Act and that at
all times pertinent Local 367 has been the duly authorized
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
therein. 15
2. The Company-Local 381 dispute
The Trial Examiner finds and concludes that the General
Counsel did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Company failed or refused to bargain with Local 381
at its request concerning the wages, rates of pay, hours and
working conditions of the Company employees represented
by Local 381.
The evidence discloses that the Bremerton settlements be-
tween the Company and Local 381 were normally patterned
on Local 381's settlements with Woolworth and Kress, and
that as of the date of Helms' last telephone call to Lyon, those
settlements had not been finalized. It is significant that, by
Helms' own admission, he had promised to provide Lyon
with a copy of those settlements-obviously as a basis for a
new agreement with the Company-and those copies still were
not available when he last telephoned.
It is undisputed that Helms never demanded a meeting and
never voiced any objection to Lyon's suggestion that they
delay meeting to a later and unspecified date, whatever men-
tal reservations he may have had.
While it is clear the status and progress of the Tacoma
negotiations were mentioned and discussed in the course of
the various telephone calls between Helms and Lyon, the
Trial Examiner credits Lyon's testimony that a future meet-
ing was not conditioned upon their completion, as this ap-
pears more logical and in conformity with prior practice.
The Trial Examiner therefore finds and concludes that the
Company did not condition negotiations with Local 381 upon
prior completion of negotiations with Local 367 or otherwise
fail or refuse to bargain in good faith with Local 381 and will
recommend dismissal of the complaint allegations that by so
doing the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce in
a business affecting commerce, and Local 367 is a labor orga-
nization as those terms are defined in Section 2(2), (5), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. All employees employed by the Company or by conces-
sionaires and/or operators of leased departments in the Com-
pany's retail variety stores located at 2625 N. Pearl and 8218
Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Washington, engaged in handling
or selling merchandise, including employees designated by
the ensuing classifications : window trimmers and assistants,
mail order departments, bundle wrappers, floor cashiers, out-
side salesmen, marking room employees, and all other em-
ployees not coming under the jurisdiction of any other union,
excluding supervisors, constitutes a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
3. At all times pertinent Local 367 has been the duly au-
thorized collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit just described.
4. Since January 14, 1971, the Company has failed and
refused to bargain with Local 367 in good faith by refusing
to honor and comply with terms of the contract (and adden-
dum thereto) signed by Lyon and Rich on that date and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. Since March 1, 1971, the Company has failed and
refused to bargain in good faith with Local 367 by refusing
to recognize Local 367 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in the unit specified above and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.16
6. The Company has not otherwise violated the Act.
7. The unfair labor practices herein specified affect com-
merce as defined in the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company engaged in unfair labor
practices, it shall be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
To restore to employees within the Tacoma unit the rights
and benefits they lost by virtue of the Company's refusal to
honor its January 14, 1971, contract (and addendum) with
Local 367, it shall be necessary to require the Company to
make employees whole for such expenses and losses they
suffered which they would not have incurred but for such
refusal, including, but not limited to, compensable claims for
penalty pay, jury duty, funeral leave, vacation pay, holiday
pay, surgical and hospital outlays and coverage, life insurance
benefits and coverage, disability pay, wage increases, dental
care costs and coverage, pension benefits and coverage, etc.,
together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on
the moneys lost from the date of their accrual, such interest
to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
To restore to Local 367 the rights and benefits lost by virtue
of the Company's refusal to honor the January 14, 1971,
contract (and addendum) and refusal to recognize it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees within the Tacoma unit, it shall be necessary to direct
the Company to observe and apply the terms of the January
" There is no evidence that the Company challenged Local 367's repre-
sentative status in the employee unit at any time prior to the execution of
the Januray 14, 1971, contract continuing unchanged from the prior agree-
ment its recognition of Local 367 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees within that unit. On these facts the con-
tinued majority representative status of Local 367 within the unit is pre-
sumed. Also see fn. 5.
16 In view of the foregoing findings of the validity of the January 14, 1971,
contract, the Company's March 1, 1971, petition is untimely filed but never-
theless constitutes evidence of the first occasion Local 367 received any
notice of the Company's refusal to continue to recognize it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its Tacoma employees within the
specified unit.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14, 1971, contract (and the addendum thereto), including any
retroactive payments due thereunder (unless otherwise
affected by applicable law), to recognize and bargain with
Local 367 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees within the Tacoma unit at its request,
and to satisfy any obligations owing under the union-security
provision of the contract.
It shall also be necessary to direct the posting of appropri-
ate notices to the employees, to direct that the Company
cease and desist from commission of the unfair labor practices
it has committed, and to dismiss those allegations of the
complaint which were not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
To accomplish the above, based upon the foregoing
findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c)of the Act, the Trial Examiner
recommends that the Board issue the following recom-
mended:"
ORDER
Sprouse-Reitz Company, Inc., its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to recognize and to bar-
gain in good faith with Retail Store Employees Union Local
367, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the unit covered by the January 14, 1971, contract
between it and Local 367 and cease and desist from refusing
to comply with all the terms and conditions of that contract
(and the addendum thereto).
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Recognize Local 367 as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees covered by the Janu-
ary 14, 1971, contract between it and Local 367, bargain with
it at its request, and make it whole for any losses it may have
suffered by virtue of the Company's refusal to honor that
contract, including, but not limited to, the union-security
provision of that contract.
(b) Make all employees within the unit covered by that
contract whole for any losses they may have suffered by virtue
of the Company's refusal to honor the contract in the manner
set out in the "Remedy" section of this Decision.
(c) Comply with all the terms and conditions of the Janu-
ary 14, 1971, contract (and addendum) both retroactively and
for the balance of its term except and to the extent such
compliance is affected by law.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records
necessary for the determination of any payments or obliga-
tions due under this Order.
(e) Post at its Tacoma, Washington, stores where em-
ployees covered by the January 14, 1971, contract are em-
ployed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B.""
Copies of that notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by the Com-
" 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.
t° 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."
pany's authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintainted by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps the
Company has taken to comply herewith."
" 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 19, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found , after a
trial , that we violated Federal Law by refusing to honor a
contract signed on January 14, 1971, by our representative
and Retail Store Employees Union Local 367, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO, covering the wages,
rates of pay , hours, and working conditions of employees at
our two Tacoma stores and by refusing to recognize and
bargain with Local 367 as the exclusive collective -bargaining
representative of those employees . Therefore, to comply with
that Decision:
WE WILL recognize LOCAL 367 as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the following em-
ployees:
All employees of Sprouse -Reitz Co., Inc . or conces-
sionaires and/or operators of leased departments in
the Company 's retail variety stores located at 2625
N. Pearl and 8218 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Wash-
ington, engaged in handling or selling merchandise,
including employees designated by the ensuing clas-
sifications : window trimmers and assistants, mail
order departments , bundle wrappers , floor cashiers,
outside salesmen , marking room employees , and all
other employees not coming under the jurisdiction
of any other union , excluding supervisors.
WE WILL meet and bargain with Local 367 at its re-
quest concerning the wages, rates of pay, hours, and
working conditions of the employees in the unit just
described.
WE WILL . pay to the employees in that unit such
amounts as may be necessary to reimburse them for
compensable claims to which they are entitled under the
Januray 14, 1971, contract provisions for wage increases,
dental care costs and coverage , funeral leave , medical
and hospital costs and coverage , holiday and vacation
pay, pension benefits, credits and coverage , jury duty,
etc., with interest at 6 percent per annum on the sums
due.
WE WILL make Local 367 whole for any losses it may
have suffered by virtue of our refusal to honor the Janu-
ray 14, 1971, contract.
WE WILL comply with all the terms and conditions of
the January 14, 1971, contract (and addendum) both
retroactively and for the balance of its term except and
to the extent such compliance is affected by law.
SPROUSE-REITZ CO. 753
SPROUSE-REITZ CO., INC. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
(EMPLOYER) from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this
Dated By notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to
(Representative) (Title) the Board's Office, Republic Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 442-5536.
one.