Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

SPROUSE-REITZ CO., INC.
Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc . and Retail Clerks Local 629,
Chartered by Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-5610
October 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On June 13, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Henry S. Salim issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions 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
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief,
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 3 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc.,
Aberdeen, Washington, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
i The title of "Thal Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3) We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings
The Adnumstrative Law Judge found that Debra White, the store
manager's wife and an employee of Respondent , violated Sec 8(a)(1) in
certain respects , but failed to articulate the basis for holding the Respondent
responsible for her actions . The complaint had alleged that Debra White was
an agent of the Respondent The record shows that Debra White took care
of the register, handled the payroll, checked in freight , transferred employees
from job to job, and gave directions to employees in marking merchandise
and making changes at the counter . In view of Debra White's close relation-
ship to the store manager, the fact that a small variety store is involved
employing only about five employees , and the special authority granted her
in the store , as set forth above , we conclude that Debra White was reflecting
company policy and that the employees could reasonably believe that she
was speaking and acting for management . We find, therefore , that Debra
White was an agent of the Respondent and that the Respondent was respon-
sible for her actions American Door Company, Inc, 181 NLRB 37, 43
3 On the findings and analysis set forth in his Decision, we agree with the
Administrative Law Judge that Respondent discriminatorily selected Tyler
for layoff and Prosch for a reduction in hours in violation of Sec 8(a)(3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
943
HENRY S. SAHM, Trial Examiner: This case , heard at
Aberdeen, Washington, on April 25, 1972, pursuant to a
charge filed January 21, 1972, and a complaint issued April
5, 1972, presents questions whether Respondent, herein
sometimes called the Company, discriminatorily reduced
the number of hours of one of its employees and also dis-
criminatorily discharged or laid off another employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) because of their membership in
and activity on behalf of the Charging Party, herein called
the Union. It is also alleged that Respondent engaged in
other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in viola-
tion of employee rights under Section 8(a)(1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the
Act.
Upon the entire record, including observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by General Counsel and by the Respondent,
there are hereby made 'the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Company, an Oregon corporation with its princi-
pal office in Portland, Oregon, operates a chain of retail
variety stores in various States, including a retail variety
store in Montesano, Washington, at which the alleged un-
fair labor practices herein occurred. The Company' s annual
gross sales exceed $500,000, and it annually receives directly
from outside the State of Oregon goods and materials val-
ued in excess of $50,000. Upon these facts, it is found, as the
Respondent Company admits, that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In October 1971, Retail Clerks Local 629, Chartered
by Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, the
Charging Party herein, commenced organizing employees
at Respondent's store in Montesano, Washington. On No-
vember 19, 1971, the Union filed a representation petition
with the Board in Case 19-RC-6055 and, pursuant to a
stipulation for certification upon consent election, an elec-
tion was conducted on January 14, 1972, by the National
Labor Relations Board among the Respondent's employees
working at said store. The Union won the election by a vote
of four to one, and there were two challenges. On January
24, 1972, a certificate issued designating the said Union as
the bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
who worked at its Montesano store.
199 NLRB No. 157
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Testimony
Judith Green was employed as a full-time salesclerk by
the Respondent store from March 1970 to March 12,
1972.1 She testified that she went to the office of the Union
herein in the "middle" of October and spoke to a man by
the name of Compton, who is secretary-treasurer of the
Union, about the possibilities of organizing a union at the
Montesano store . Compton gave Green union authorization
cards and told her that she should have these cards signed
by the store's employees, which she and Linda Prosch, an-
other salesclerk at the Montesano store, had some of the
other employees do, and then she returned the cards to the
Union at the end of October. Green testified that on No-
vember 26, James White, who is manager of the Respondent
store, called her to his office and told her "he wished the
union wouldn't come in" and not to worry about the Union,
"and that I would be retained." Also, according to Green,
in the course of this conversation, White told her that the
"union was no good," that "they wouldn't let the store go
union," and that the "raises wouldn't be what we expected
them to be." Green's testimony continues that Debra White,
wife of the store's manager and who works there as a part-
time clerk,2 spoke to her on November 30, and told her she
knew that employees Rosalie Tyler and Linda Prosch were
"instigators" of the union activity at the store, and that
Rosalie Tyler would be laid off after the Christmas season.
Also, testified Green, Mrs. White stated that the Union's
medical plan was no good and that "our raises would only
go up to about $2.09," and "Linda and Rosalie would be
dropped in pay. She wanted to know also if I or Marlene
Muller were under pressure from Linda and Rosalie." After
the election, testified Green, Mrs. White spoke to her in the
store and chided her for her interest in the Union. Later, the
same day, White, the manager, told her, testified Green,
"Not to ask for any special favors. He told me not to ask
for any days off. I was to work the schedule. If I made any
wrong moves, I would be fired."
Linda Prosch was hired on May 14, 1971, and is pres-
ently employed by Respondent at its Montesano store.
Two or three months after she was hired, her hourly pay rate
was raised from $1.80 to $1.85, but there have been no pay
increases since that time. She testified that about the end of
October 1971, she accompanied Judith Green to the
Union's office where they were given cards by a union
official, and that she gave two of these union cards to Rosa-
lie Tyler and Marlene Muller. Some of the employees later
attended meetings with union officials. Her testimony con-
tinues that on November 21, 1971, about 2 days after the
Union filed its representation petition with the Board,
White, the store manager, told her that "if the union did
come in, I wouldn't have a job." On or about November 27,
which was payday, reads her testimony, she asked Judith
Green if she had received a raise, to which Green replied in
the negative. Thereupon, Dana Copeland, assistant manag-
er of the store, who was present, said that Green "can't
[receive a raise] because of the union." Shortly after this
1 James White , the store manager, defined a full-time clerk as one who
works 38 to 40 hours a week , whereas a part- time employee works from 8 to
32 hours Green testified she was employed "fulltime."
2 Debra White worked at the store until January 1972.
incident, testified Prosch, Manager White "told me regard-
ing my remarks to Dana [Copeland] that we were all going
to get a raise on Saturday but we couldn't because [of] the
paper from the Union and because of the price freeze on the
budget." Before the Union had filed its petition, Prosch
testified, White had complimented her work and that White
and Copeland and their wives had all been "friendly," but
after the Union's representation petition was received by
White on November 21, their attitude toward her suddenly
changed, and White "didn't talk very much anymore. He
would just give me orders ...."
Prosch, who had been employed full time, had her
hours of work reduced on January 2, after the Christmas
rush, from 40 hours to 16 hours, and on January 15, they
were further reduced to 8 hours of work a week. After the
Board election on January 14, 1972, Prosch testified that she
asked White why her hours had been reduced from 40 hours
to 8 hours , and he answered "because business was slow."
"I told him I didn't believe that because I was fulltime and
[Hayni] was part-time and she had no more days than I did
or the same amount. Then I asked him why Doris Copeland
and Hilde Hayni both had more days [of work] than I did
when I had been there a lot longer .... He said that Doris
got to work fulltime because it was the store policy that the
assistant manager's wife got fulltime. I asked him about
Hilde and he didn't say anything."
Prosch testified that she was the union observer at the
Board-conducted election on January 14, and at that time
she challenged both Debra White, the manager's wife, and
Hildagarde Hayni because Hayni had been working for
Respondent only since the first week in December 1971.
When she challenged White, continued Prosch, Mrs. White
said to her, " 'Oh, that is what you are going to do?' She just
kept giving me dirty looks. The NLRB man told her she
couldn't be giving me dirty looks, that I was just an observ-
er, but she kept on giving me dirty looks anyway ." Imme-
diately after the election, continues Prosch's testimony,
Copeland, the assistant manager, "kept giving me dirty
looks so I asked him if he was mad ... because I was an
observer." Prosch's testimony reads as follows:
He said it wasn't just that, he said I had challenged
Debbie White and Hilde Hayni so they only got one
vote. He told me I had really did it. He wanted to know
why I ever went to the union in the first place and why
I didn't go talk to Mr. White . He said Mr . White had
always been fair to us because Mr. White would give
us a raise. He wanted to know if we wanted better pay.
I asked him if the union won and he said yes, four to
one. He said Doris was the only one who voted no. He
said the union won the election but that didn't mean we
had won a thing.
Copeland's version of the incident is that he was "dis-
appointed and depressed" after he heard the election re-
turns and that Prosch asked him, "What was the matter?"
His response reads as follows:
I told her that she should know what was the matter,
that after all Mr. White had done for them, why did
they go and do this to him and if they had any prob-
lems, they should have talked to Mr. White. We dis-
cussed the election further and she said, "Well, don't
blame it all on me." I said, "I don't blame it on you."
SPROUSE-REITZ CO., INC. 945
Then I said, "Just because the union won the election
does not mean the store would be a union store."
There had been talk earlier before the election what the
election meant. There was talk that if the union won the
election, the store would automatically be a union store
and have a so-called standard union contract, which
wasn't the case at all. There would have to be negotia-
tions before any agreement would be signed, before the
store would be a union store, and that is all it meant.
There was no hidden message.
On or about April 1, 1972, 3 weeks before the hearing
in this case was held, Prosch returned to work for the Re-
spondent on a full-time basis.
Marlene Muller, who has been employed by the Re-
spondent store for over 2 years, stated that she was hired at
an hourly wage rate of $1.75 and received her first pay
increase before Christmas 1971, when she was raised to $2
an hour. On the morning of the day of the Board election,
which was held at 4 p.m., Muller testified that Debra White,
the manager's wife, told her that her husband "would lose
his job and that would mean six years down the drain for
him." Muller testified that the distract manager of the Re-
spondent Company, Mr. Chestnut, spoke to her on January
14, election day, before voting commenced, and stated that
he would appreciate her voting against the Union. After the
election , the same day, Debra White asked her, testified
Muller, "how could I do this to her husband after all he had
done for me" and she called her a "worm." Muller began
to cry, whereupon Copeland came over to her, continues
Muller's testimony, and he asked her if the Union had
promised her anything, to which she replied, "I was just
under pressure from both sides and from Mr. Chestnut and
Debbie [White]." Shortly thereafter, the same day, testified
Muller, the following was said to her by Chestnut: "Well,
the only way we can change the election now is if you
consent we will bring a lawyer down and you can write a
statement that you were under a lot of pressure when you
voted." On cross-examination, Muller testified that she
"was getting pressure from both sides." And when Chestnut
asked her to sign a statement, "I agreed because I was so
upset."
The day following the election, Copeland, the assistant
manager, called Muller into the office and asked her if she
believed that by signing a union card, this meant that she
had to vote for the Union, to which she replied, "No." Then,
continued Muller, Copeland asked her to sign a statement
declaring that she had been placed under pressure. Muller,
for reasons stated below, did not sign a statement.
Rosalie Tyler testified that she was hired by Respon-
dent in the latter part of July 1971 on a part-time basis and
was promoted to the position of full-time salesclerk in Au-
gust the same year.3 She signed a union authorization card.
Tyler testified that shortly after the union representation
3 White, the manager, testified Tyler's hours were increased sometime
after she was hired "but not to fulltime" although she worked full time "on
a few occasions " Although Tyler, at one point in her testimony , described
herself as a full -time salesclerk , at another point she testified that her hours
of work "went up and down all the time . I worked fulltime and part-
time . . [until] I was laid off December 30." On cross- examination, she
petition was filed, White, the store manager, told her that
"I would pay for it but he didn't mention the union." She
testified that before the Union's petition was filed, she got
along very well with White and that he was "nice" to her
but after the petition was filed, his treatment of her changed
for the worse, which she described as "pretty bad." She also
testified that after the Umon filed its petition, Copeland, the
assistant manager, commenced to make it difficult for her.
After the Christmas rush was over, Tyler testified, White
told her on December 30 that she would not be working the
following week, whereupon she inquired of White whether
he was "firing" her or "laying [her] off," and "he just didn't
really say anything." On April 8, she was notified by Cope-
land to report for work April 10, and she has been working
part time since that date. However, Tyler claims both White
and Copeland have continued to harass her since her recall.
James C. White, manager of the Respondent's Monte-
sano store, testified that the first time he became aware the
Umon was attempting to organize the store's employees was
when he received the Union's representation petition on
November 20, 1971.4 On December 26, 1971, states White,
he had a conversation with Judy Green at which time he
told her not to worry about the Union and that she would
not lose her job because he considered her an excellent
clerk.
With respect to Rosalie Tyler, who, it is alleged in the
complaint, was "discharged or laid off" on December 30,
1971, White testified that he originally hired her in July 1971
"on a part-time basis" with the understanding that she
would work only through the Christmas rush, "if we needed
her," and that she would be "laid off" in January. Accord-
ing to White, it had been so understood and agreed to by
Tyler because she told him that she did not care to continue
to work after the Christmas rush was over. White testified
that Tyler was "laid off" due to a decline in business after
Christmas and that he had selected her for layoff and re-
tained Haym because Hayni, although having been hired in
December, 4 months later than Tyler, and likewise on a
part-time basis, was a "far better clerk" than Tyler and "she
got along with the customers better." Moreover, testified
White, Tyler "wasn't a good employee. Of all the clerks that
I had at that time, I would put her on the bottom of the list
as far as the good employees go." He went on to explain that
he kept her on because they were shorthanded and needed
clerks during the Christmas rush. Then he continued: "She
wasn't that poor of a clerk. She wasn't the best one I ever
had either. She never did anything directly to warrant me
saying you are a rotton clerk, you are fired or anything like
that. She just wasn't the best of the clerks." On cross-exam-
ination, he described Tyler as being "the poorest clerk."
When Haym resigned on April 8, 1972, Tyler was recalled
even though, White testified, that of all his salesclerks, Tyler
"was graded at the bottom of the list as far as ability was
concerned."
stated that from the time she was employed up to December 30, she worked
40-hour weeks on five or six occasions
° At that time , the Montesano store's sales personnel consisted , in part, of
Green, Mullbr, Tyler, Dons Copeland, the assistant manager's wife, and
Debra White , the wife of the manager, who was hired fulltime in October
1971, but who became a part-time employee in January 1972 when she
became pregnant . Debra White received $2.25 an hour; Muller, $2; Doris
Copeland, $1 90; Prosch, $1.85; and Tyler, $180.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the allegation in the complaint that
Respondent discriminatorily reduced the number of hours
Prosch worked, White testified that she was hired as a part-
time salesclerk and later worked full time. He described her
as an "average" salesclerk because of her problems with her
"boyfriend." He testified that her boyfriend frequently
came into the store and spoke to her for unreasonable
lengths of time, resulting in her failing to give customers her
concentrated and uninterrupted attention. Prosch's testimo-
ny that her boyfriend complied when she told him not to
come to the store stands uncontradicted in the record.
White corroborated Prosch's testimony that her boyfriend
ceased coming to the store "in December" and that he was
not a "problem at the time he reduced Prosch's hours" of
work.
Dana Copeland, who has been assistant manager since
October 18, 1971, testified that he spoke with Muller about
the election. He described what he told her about the Union
as being "negative" but he denied that he ever threatened
her. The day after the Board election, testified Copeland,
Muller was crying and he heard her tell Chestnut, the dis-
trict manager, that the Union had pressured her, whereupon
Chestnut asked her if she would make a written statement
to that effect, to which she agreed but later changed her
mind stating, according to Copeland, that she "had voted
for the union and she would stick with it ... I told her that
perhaps if I was in her shoes I would have done the same
thing and if she really felt she done the right thing, she did."
In evaluating the work of the various clerks, Copeland
testified that he rated Tyler "at the bottom of all the em-
ployees." He described the quality of Prosch's work as being
"unsatisfactory, but when she stayed with a job she did a
good job." He described Hayni as being "not a very good
clerk" but better than Tyler. He concluded this phase of his
testimony with respect to his evaluation of the clerks' abili-
ties by stating that if it were up to him, he would have "laid
off" Tyler, Prosch, and Hayni. He related the incident with
respect to Prosch's boyfriend coming to the store frequently,
stating he reprimanded her twice and warned her that if this
continued that he would consider terminating her, but since
this was around the Christmas season and they were short-
handed, he decided not to do anything about it.
Patrick Bonner, a schoolteacher who worked as assist-
ant manager under White at Respondent 's Montesano store
from June 22, 1971, to September 5, 1971, evaluated the
quality of Prosch's work performance as being "fair ...
mediocre." He described the incident of Prosch's boyfriend
coming into the store frequently to talk to her as leaving a
"bad impression on the other employees." He mentioned
this to White, testified Bonner, who told him to reprimand
Prosch, to warn her that she nught be fired if her boyfriend
continued to come into the store to speak to her. He evaluat-
ed Tyler as being "at the tail-end of all the employees" and
Prosch, he listed as being "next to the last."
Discussion and Conclusions
The question here then is whether the unfair labor
practices delineated supra, have been proved. Based upon a
ties of the facts detailed above, to ask the question is to
answer it, particularly so when it is found that the testimony
of Respondent's salesclerks is to be credited as they ap-
peared to be truthful and forthright witnesses . In many
respects, the testimony of White and Copeland concerning
events, incidents, and conversations surrounding the layoff
and reduction in working hours of Tyler and Prosch con-
form to the versions related by the General Counsel's wit-
nesses. Where there is a conflict in the testimony, however,
and for reasons explicated below, the versions related by
Green, Muller, Prosch, and Tyler are credited. Moreover,
their versions of what occurred were not appreciably shaken
by able counsel for the Respondent who cross- examined
them thoroughly.
The Respondent, from the initiation of the Union's
organizational campaign, has pursued a course of conduct
which contravenes the fundamental purposes of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. It has interrogated, threatened,
harassed, and discriminated against union adherents. In
arriving at this conclusion, the Trial Examiner was not
obliged to consider the facts and incidents above referred
to, separately and in isolation. It was incumbent to consider
them compositely and to draw inferences reasonably jus-
tified by their cumulative, probative effects. So considered,
the timing of Respondent's activities, actions, and conduct
with reference to its employees and the impending election
are highly significant.
Among the significant indicia which support the salient
allegations of the complaint are the following: There is no
question that the Respondent was strongly opposed to the
presence of the Union at its Montesano store and did not
hesitate to make its feelings known to its employees. It
stretches credulity too far to believe that this concatenation
of the employees signing union cards, and the Respondent
being served with the Union's representation petition, with
the onset shortly thereafter of the unfair labor practices, was
merely a temporal coincidence. The inference is inescapable
that Respondent laid off Tyler and reduced the working
hours of Prosch in reprisal for their union sympathies and
activities, and interrogated and threatened various employ-
ees, as found infra. Accordingly, such action on the part of
Respondent constituted an interference with, restraint, and
coercion of these employees in the exercise of their rights
provided for in Section 7 of the Act, and constituted dis-
crimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act. More-
over, the unconvincing character of the proferred and multi-
ple melange of differing reasons advanced by Respondent
for such conduct is also a probative factor in determining
whether Tyler and Prosch's layoff and reduction in their
hours of work was motivated by proscribed considerations.5
Considering the circumstances under which the dis-
charges occurred as explicated above, and the unconvincing
testimony adduced by Respondent to justify its action, it
can validly be concluded that Respondent had prohibited
motives in laying off Tyler and reducing Prosch's hours of
work. Moreover, Respondent's evidence justifying its ac-
preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabih- 5 Cf Shattuck Den„ Mining Corp v N L R B, 362 F 2d 466 , 470 (C A. 9).
SPROUSE-REITZ CO., INC.
tions with respect to their layoff and reduction in hours is
unpersuasive when weighed against the discriminatees' un-
ion activities and sympathies in the context of Respondent's
patent union animus . Furthermore, since it is natural for an
employer to retain its most senior employees in a layoff by
virtue of their superior experience, proficiency, and service,
the failure to do so here, when these senior employees are
union activists, supports the inference that the actual motive
for the discharge was unlawful .6 The absence of a contractu-
al requirement that the Company follow seniority in staff
reductions does not rebut this inference, for it is predicated
not on a legal obligation but on normal sound business
practice .7 Furthermore, Respondent's discriminatory con-
duct and the other 8(a)(1) unfair labor practices found be-
low corroborate the conclusion that the measures taken
against Tyler and Prosch were discriminatorily motivated.
Where Respondent's case falls down is in failing to meet
and overcome the facets of the General Counsel's case
which are indicative of discriminatory motivation, the more
significant of which are noted above. In these circumstances
and upon the evidence in its entirety, it is concluded and
found that the discriminatory treatment accorded Tyler and
Prosch was unrelated to the ascribed reasons but was due
to their union activities. It is found, accordingly, that be-
cause of Respondent's hostility to the Union, its motives
were to discourage interest in the Union, to forestall organi-
zation of its employees, and to quench the union ardor of
an irritating nucleus of union adherents and sympathizers
and thus abort the Union's organizational efforts.8
Prosch's conduct, in the context of her boyfriend's fre-
quent visits to the store during working hours, is not con-
doned, but it has been considered in the light of the
uncontradicted fact that this store liaison collapsed imme-
diately upon Respondent's complaining to Prosch, and at a
time prior to the date when her hours of work were reduced.
This cogent fact, therefore, has been weighed in the balance
with other contemporaneous conduct indicative of a dis-
criminatory motive.
In summary, it is found and concluded that Rosalie
Tyler was laid off on or about December 30, 1971, and
Linda Prosch's hours of weekly employment were reduced
on or about January 2, 1972, because of their protected
concerted activities. The events leading to their discrimina-
tory treatment began in November 1971, when White
learned of their interest in and activities on behalf of the
Union. As the record reflects, both White and Copeland
considered such activities to be inimical to the interests of
Respondent, as further evidenced by their union animus
and other activities considered in later sections of this Deci-
sion.
In arriving at the above findings and conclusions, there
have been considered not only the events listed above but
also the following conduct, all of which are violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in that they interfered with, re-
6 N L R B. v American Casting Service, Inc, 365 F 2d at 174 (C A. 7).
7 Differential Steel Car Co, 75 NLRB 714, 716
8 The existence of valid economic grounds for a reduction in staff is no
defense where it is reasonably concluded that the employer effected the
reduction discnmmatonly to remove union activists from the work force.
N.L.R.B v. Ambox, Inc, 357 F 2d 138, 142-143 (C A. 5); A & P Tea Co. v.
N L R.B, 354 F.2d 707, 709 (C.A. 5).
947
strained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act .9 There-
fore, it is concluded and found that by the following con-
duct, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as
it interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in
their freedom to choose to be represented by the Union
herein or no union:
(1) When White told Green on November 26, about a
week after he received the Union's representation petition,
that "they wouldn't let the store go union";
(2)When Debra White, the store manager's wife, told
Judith Green, a salesclerk, on November 30, that Tyler and
Prosch were "instigators" of the union activity at the store,
and that Rosalie Tyler would be "laid off" after the Christ-
mas rush;
(3) When Debra White told Green on November 30
that Tyler and Prosch "would be dropped in pay";
(4) When Debra White on November 30 questioned
Green as to whether she and Muller "were under pressure"
from Prosch and Tyler;
(5) When James White, the store manager, on Novem-
ber 30 notified Green not to ask for any special favors or
for days off as she would be required "to work the sched-
ule" and "if [she] made any false moves, [she] would be
fired";
(6) When James White warned Prosch on November 21
that "if the Union did come in, [she] wouldn't have a job";
(7) When, shortly after White received the Union's rep-
resentation petition, he warned Tyler that she "would pay
for it but he didn't mention the Union";
(8) When Dana Copeland, assistant store manager,
queried Prosch as to what prompted her to go to the Union;
(9) When Dana Copeland, shortly after the election
results were announced on January 14, asked Muller if the
Union had promised her anything; and,
(10) When Dana Copeland, on the day after the elec-
tion, summoned Muller to the office and requested her to
sign a statement declaring that she had been placed under
pressure at the time that she voted.
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II
above have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, there are
hereby made the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Retail Clerks Local 629, chartered by
Retail Clerks Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
9 N L R.B. v Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U.S. 9, N.LR B v. Burnup
& Sims, 379 U.S 21; Electromec Design and Development Co v. N.L.R B, 409
F 2d 631, 632-635 (CA 9)
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engag-
ing in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Rosalie Tyler and Linda Prosch, Respon-
dent discouraged membership in the aforementioned Union
and committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The allegations of paragraphs 6(a)(3) and 6(b)(1) of
the complaint are dismissed.
THE REMEDY
It is recommended that the Respondent cease and de-
sist from violating Sections 8(a)(1) and 8 (a)(3) and that it
reimburse both Rosalie Tyler for the period of time she was
laid off, and Linda Prosch for the number of hours she was
deprived of work, with said reimbursement to be computed
as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, there is issued the following recommended:
ORDER 10
Respondent, Sprouse-Reitz Co. Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminatorily laying off, reducing the working
hours of its employees or otherwise discriminating against
any employee because of his or her activity on behalf of, or
membership in, Retail Clerks Local 629, Chartered by Re-
tail Clerks Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization.
(b) Warning and/or threatening with reprisals the em-
ployees for engaging in union activities or being a member
of, or sympathetic to, a labor organization.
(c) Interrogating employees with respect to their union
membership or activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Rosalie Tyler and Linda Prosch in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy" for losses they suffered as a result of Tyler's
being laid off, and Prosch's having her hours of work re-
duced.
(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, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due and rights of employ-
ment under the terms of this Decision.
(c) Post at its store in Montesano, Washington, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' I Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 19 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, 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 19, Seattle,
Washington, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.12
10 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
11 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."
12 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
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT lay off or reduce the working hours of
employees because they have engaged in protected
concerted activities by assisting or joining or sympa-
thizing with a union.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about wheth-
er they belong to a union or helped a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees if they engage
in union activities.
WE WILL pay to Rosalie Tyler and Linda Prosch the
wages they lost when we laid off Tyler and reduced the
number of hours Prosch worked because they engaged
in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
SPROUSE-REITz Co., INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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
SPROUSE-REITZ CO., INC. 949
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct - 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone
ed to the Board 's Office, 10th Floor, Republic Building , 206-442-5692.