Two Guys Discount Dept. Stores

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

TWO GUYS DISCOLUNT DEPI. SORES
Two Guys Discount Department Stores, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Vornado, Inc. and United Phar-
macists Guild Local 100, Chartered by Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 22-
CA 7502 and 22-RC 6994
June 13, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDAI.L
On February 14, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
and the Charging Party, respectively, filed briefs re-
sponding to Respondent's exceptions and in support
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.3
DE('ISION
MAX Ros!NIR(;. Administrative l.aw Judge: With all
parties represented, this proceeding wa;s heard before me in
Newark. New Jersey, on October 17. 18. 19, 25. and 26.
1977, upon an amended complaint filed by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an
amended answer interposed thereto by Two Guys Discount
Department Stores, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vor-
nado. Inc., herein called the Respondent.' Joined with the
amended complaint are Objections to an election con-
ducted by the Board in Case 22 RC 6994 among an appro-
priate unit of Respondent's employees on February 25.
1977, which were lodged by United Pharmacists Guild o-
cal 100, Chartered by Retail Clerks International Associ-
ation, AFL CIO, herein called the Union, and which, in
the main, find their parallel in the allegations of the
amended complaint. At issue is whether Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1). 3). and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be de-
tailed hereinafter, and, if so, whether an affirmative bar-
gaining order should flow to the Union in consequence of
the aforesaid alleged misconduct. Briefs have been received
from the General Counsel. the Union. and the Respondent
which have been duly considered.
Upon consideration of the entire record made in this pro-
ceeding, including the briefs submitted to me, and upon my
observation of the demeanor of each witness while testify-
ing. I hereby make the following:
FINDIN(iS ()F FT AND CON('I.LSIONS
ORDER
I. THil BUSINSS ()F REISP()NI)IEN
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 Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent. Two Guys Department
Stores, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vornado,
Inc., Garfield, New Jersey, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
in Case 22-RC-6994 be, and it hereby is, set aside,
and the petition for an election filed therein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility un-
less the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that
the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc., 91 NLRB
544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d (3d Cirt. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Member Murphy agrees with the Administrative Law Judge's finding
that the Respondent's promise of a retroactive wage increase and the subse-
quent granting thereof to employee Morris Garber violated Sec. 8(aX 1) of
the Act, but finds it unnecessary to pass on his finding and conclusion that
such conduct also violated Sec. 8(a)3).
Nothing herein shall he construed as requiring the Respondent to rescind
an) benefits granted to its employees. The Charging Part?'s request for liti-
gation and organiational costs is hereby denied.
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, maintains its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Garfield. New Jersey,
and various retail stores in the State of New Jersey, includ-
ing establishments in Delran. Marlton. Lawnside, Cherry
Hill, Bordentown. Manalapan Township. Bricktown,
Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Kearny. Jersey City. Hack-
ensack, Union, Newark. Dover, Lodi, and Totowa. where it
engages in the retail sale of goods and materials. Respon-
dent's Garfield office and the 17 stores enumerated above
are the only facilities involved in this proceeding. During
the annual period material herein. Respondent received
gross revenues in excess of $500.000: shipped and trans-
ported products valued in excess of $50.000 from its place
of business in interstate commerce directly to States of the
United States other than the State of New Jersey; and, re-
ceived goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were trans-
ported to its place of business in interstate commerce di-
rectly from States of the United States other than the State
of New Jersey. The complaint alleges, the answer admits.
and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I The complaint, which issued on April 1. 1977. and as amended on
October 17. 1977. is based upon a charge filed on February 23 1977. and
served on FebruarN 24. 1977. and an amended charge filed and served on
March 2. 1977
242 NLRB No. 161
I 11 39
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11. THE I.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVO()I.VFI)
I find that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11l. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRA(CTICES AND) TIlE
UNION'S OBJECTIONS 10 EI.E(TION
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)() of the Act when, on various dates in the months of
November 1976 through February 1977 and on September
29, 1977, its supervisors and agents indulged in a series of
acts which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its phar-
macists employed at several of Respondent's New Jersey
stores in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under Sec-
tion 7 of the Statute. The complaint also alleges that Re-
spondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act by granting a retroactive wage increase to an employee
in order to wean him away from supporting the Union. The
affirmative pleadings further charge Respondent with hav-
ing violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by rejecting the
Union's request, made on December 20, 1976, to bargain
collectively with it as the majority representative of an ap-
propriate unit of Respondent's employees concerning their
terms and conditions of employment.' Additionally, the
General Counsel asserts that by engaging in the aforesaid
serious and pervasive acts of Statutory misconduct Respon-
dent rendered the holding of a fair and uncoerced represen-
tation election among its employees impossible and, there-
fore, the entry of a remedial order requiring Respondent to
recognize and bargain with the Union is warranted. For its
part, Respondent denies the commission of any labor prac-
tices proscribed by the Act, and urges that the results of the
election, in which the Union was defeated, should stand.
Respondent operates a chain of retail stores in the State
of New Jersey. In 17 of them, which are located in the cities
mentioned textually above, it maintains pharmacies which
are staffed by a total of 42 registered pharmacists. Most
pharmacies in the chain employ two regular pharmacists,
while the higher business-volume stores carry three on the
payroll. Two pharmacists fill in on a part-time basis at sev-
eral of the locations as required and are styled as "floaters."
Respondent's managerial hierarchy consists of Alfred Zas-
loff, who, in August 1976, assumed the presidency of Vor-
nado, Inc., of which Respondent is a subsidiary; Joseph
Scarlett, the assistant vice president and director of person-
nel; Herbert Miller, director of pharmacies; Sam Darata,
assistant director of pharmacies; and James Davis, Ken
Barkett, and Joseph Catlet, personnel representatives.
It is undisputed and I find that, in June 1976, Charles
Bowen, the Union's president, embarked upon a campaign
to organize the 42 pharmacists employed at Respondent's
17 stores in New Jersey. On November 4, 1976, Bowen
dispatched a letter to the pharmacists inviting them to a
2 1 find that all full-time and part-time pharmacists employed by Respon-
dent at its Delran, Marlton, Lawnside, Cherry Hill, Bordentown. Manalapan
Township. Bricktown, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Kearny, Jersey City,
Hackensack, Union, Newark, Dover, Lodi, and Totowa, New Jersey, stores,
excluding all office clerical employees, all other professional employees.
guards, all supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act. See The Bake,' and Taylor Co.. 109 NLRB
245, 246 (1954).
meeting at a motel in East Brunswick to discuss the advan-
tages of collective representation. This meeting was con-
ducted on November 14, 1976, and was attended by 12
pharmacists. After explaining the benefits of unionization,
Bowen distributed blank authorization cards to the men
with instructions to read the contents. Bowen then with-
drew from the conclave so that the pharmacists could pri-
vately discuss the matter. When he returned, Bowen re-
ceived 12 signed authorization cards from them. These
carts, which recited that the signatory "hereby authorize[s]
the [Union] to represent me for the purpose of collective
bargaining, respecting rates of pay. wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, in accordance
with applicable law," were received from the following
pharmacists who were employed at the indicated locations:
David Angert and Morris Garber (Manalapan Township):
Merrill Beyer (Bordentown): Richard Corritore, Jr. (Jersey
City); Murray Lavender and Philmore Saunders (Delran);
Harry Kottler and Herbert Storm (Union) Hilton Nelson
(East Brunswick). Joseph Papik (Newark); and, Paul
Schneider and Walter Stockhoff (Bricktown). Thereafter,
either Bowen or his assistant, Roland Priest, personally ob-
tained authorization cards, which were signed in their pres-
ence, from Robert Fedak (Newark) on November 18. 1976;
Franklin John Pearce and Donald Sayrs (Lawnside) on De-
cember 13, 1976: Arnold Kimmell (Marlton) on November
16. 1976: and, Leo Ginsburg (Totowa) on December 19,
1976. On November 15, 1976, Bowen received in the mail
signed cards from Howard Schwartz (Manalapan Town-
ship) and, on November 18, 1976, from Joseph Gallof(East
Brunswick) and George Nahorny (floater). When called to
the stand as witnesses, Schwartz, Gallof, and Nahorny tes-
tified that they had signed the cards on the dates in question
after reading them.
In an attempt to enlarge the Union's membership, Bowen
sent a letter to the other pharmacists on November 30,
1976, in which he solicited their signatures on enclosed au-
thorization cards.' In response to his solicitation, Bowen
received signed designations from James Robbins (Cherry
Hill) on December 5, 1976, Gerard Bellino (floater) on De-
cember 10, 1976, and Irwin Bromberg (Marlton) on De-
cember 13, 1976. These individuals also testimonially veri-
fied their signatures and the dates of execution of their
designations after perusing those documents.'
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the appropriate
unit of full-time and part-time pharmacists employed at the
17 stores in New Jersey numbered 42. Accordingly, I find
and conclude that, inasmuch as Bowen had obtained 23
valid authorization cards by December 19, 1976, from
pharmacists in that unit, the Union represented a majority
of those employees on that date.
Armed with a majority card showing, the Union mailed a
letter to Respondent on December 20, 1976, in which it
Contrary to Respondent's assertion, I am not persuaded that the letter
which Bowen mailed to the pharmacists on November 30, 1976, evinced any
representation that the signed authorization cards would be used "only" to
obtain a Board election, see Marie Phillips, Inc., 178 NLRB 340, 344 (1969),
or duped the signatories into executing them. See The Great Atlantic & Pa-
cific Tea Compun. Inc, Birmingham Division, 210 NLRB 593 (1974).
4 On January 7, 1977. Irving Silber, a pharmacist at the Union store, ex-
ecuted and mailed his authorization card to the Union. He testified that both
his signature and the date appearing on the designation were authentic.
140
TWO GUYS DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES
expressed its majority representational claim, and de-
manded exclusive recognition for a unit of the pharmacists.
By letter dated December 22, 1976, Respondent declined to
extend recognition to the Union unless and until it proved
its majority status in a Board election. Meanwhile, on De-
cember 21, 1976, the Union filed a petition for an election
with the Board's Regional Office in Case 22-RC-6994. Pur-
suant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Elec-
tion signed by the parties and approved by the Regional
Director on January 11, 1977, an election was conducted by
mail balloting on February 14, 1977. On January 21, 1977,
Union President Bowen dispatched another letter to the
pharmacists advising them that a second Union meeting
would be held on January 30, 1977. At this session, 10 phar-
macists attended. On February 25, 1977, the Board's Re-
gional Office opened and counted the mail ballots, the tally
of which showed that, of the 42 eligible voters, 19 had voted
for, and 23 had voted against, the Union.
The General Counsel contends that, on and after Decem-
ber 20, 1976, when it made its demand for recognition, the
Union represented a clear majority of the pharmacists and,
by refusing to extend recognition to it on December 22,
1976, and thereafter embarking upon a course of conduct
destructive of that majority status, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Alternatively, the General Coun-
sel maintains that, due to the serious and pervasive unfair
labor practices in which Respondent indulged after the
Union filed its petition for an election, Respondent ren-
dered the holding of a free election impossible and, conse-
quently, the election results should be set aside and a bar-
gaining order against Respondent should issue in its favor. I
next turn to a consideration of the alleged misconduct in
which Respondent engaged at its various establishments.
A. Manalapan Township Store
Respondent employs two full-time pharmacists, David
Angert and Morris Garber, and a part-time pharmacist,
Howard Schwartz, at this facility. Angert testified and I
find that he attended the union meeting conducted on No-
vember 14, 1976, and signed a union authorization card on
that date. The day following the meeting, Angert received a
telephone call from Herbert Miller, Respondent's director
of pharmacies. At the outset of this conversation, Miller
posed his usual questions regarding the state of business for
the week. Miller then stated that he had learned that
Angert had attended the union session on the preceding day
and signed a union authorization, and that a total of 12
pharmacists had gone to the meeting. At this juncture,
Miller asked Angert why he had joined that labor organiza-
tion. Angert replied that all of the employees at the union
meeting had done so because they were unhappy with the
treatment which they were receiving from Respondent re-
garding their terms and conditions of employment.
Angert further testified that, on a few occasions following
the filing of the representation petition by the Union on
December 21, 1976, Miller asked Angert how he intended
to vote in the forthcoming election. On each occasion,
Angert replied that he planned to vote against union repre-
sentation. Angert attended the second union meeting con-
ducted on January 30, 1977. About 3 weeks before this
session, Miller telephoned him and inquired if he would go
to this gathering and report back to Miller about the discus-
sions which transpired. Angert informed the director of
pharmacies that he would relay the general tenor of the
meeting but that he refused to serve as Miller's spy. Some-
time later during the month of January 1977. Angert en-
gaged in two conversations with Miller, in one of which
fellow-pharmacist Morris Garber participated. In the first
colloquy, Miller visited the Manalapan store while Angert
was typing prescription labels, and the former remarked
that "if the union gets in they will probably . . . have to
close the pharmacies." On the second occasion, which was
at the end of January 1977, Miller told Garber that Re-
spondent "probably would have to close the pharmacies if
the union got in." Garber replied that this business gesture
would be ridiculous because the Manalapan store was fi-
nancially one of the best enterprises in the New Jersey
chain. After Garber attempted to document his assertion,
Miller stated that Respondent would definitely be com-
pelled to close the stores in the event of a Union victory at
the polls.
On February 12, 1977, 2 days before the mail balloting,
Miller and Angert attended a Bar Mitzvah ceremony to-
gether.5 While they were waiting to be served, Miller volun-
teered that he had attended a meeting with Respondent's
President Zasloff and Chairman of the Board Zissu where
Miller was informed that, if the pharmacists voted for the
Union in the impending election, "they are going to close
the pharmacies." According to Angert, Miller repeated this
admonition on several occasions during the affair.
In his testimony, Angert further reported that he had a
discussion with Miller a few weeks prior to the election
regarding medical benefits. Angert's son had been electro-
cuted a few years earlier and had undergone extensive
medical treatment, in consequence of which Angert had
developed a greater concern for medical coverage than for
wages as an employment emolument, a concern which he
had previously expressed to Miller. During their conversa-
tion, Miller commented that the pharmacists would receive
a better benefits' package if they voted the Union down.
Miller added that, because of the scheduled election, he
could not expand on the benefits that would be made avail-
able.
Angert also recalled a discussion with James Davis, a
personnel representative for Respondent, at the snack bar
in the Manalapan store about a month before the February
14, 1977, election. Davis asked what Angert and his col-
leagues thought about the working conditions Respondent
afforded them, and Angert replied that the pharmacists at a
rival chain were receiving superior benefits. Davis there-
upon stated that, if the men voted against the Union, this
action would afford Respondent another year in which to
improve upon their work benefits. According to Angert,
this was the first occasion in his long history of employment
with Respondent that any member of the personnel depart-
ment had visited his store to converse with him.
Angert further related on the stand that, on February 25,
1977, the day on which the ballots were counted, he over-
' Angert and Miller had been on friendly terms for 14 years. dunng which
period they had worked together as pharmacists for another company. and
Miller had advised Angert regarding the latter's ventures in private business
and had hired Angert at the Manalapan Township store.
1141
I)l('CISIONS OF NATIONAI I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heard a telephone conversation between fellow-pharmacist
Morris Garber and Herbert Miller during which Miller ex-
claimed that "you guys won, or the union won" the elec-
tion. When Garber replied, "that's nice," Miller added,
"now I know how you voted." Miller then announced that
Respondent "won 23 to 19," and warned that "we're going
to weed out ... ," at which point he suddenly fell silent.
Morris Garber had worked at the Manalapan Township
store since 1972. He testified that he attended the first
Union meeting on November 14, 1976, and signed an au-
thorization card on that date. About a week before the
meeting, Director of Pharmacies Miller telephoned to in-
quire whether Garber intended to go to the meeting, and
Garber responded in the affirmative.
Garbert testified that, shortly before Thanksgiving in
1976, Personnel Respresentative James Davis visited the
store and asked if the pharmacists harbored any complaints
about their treatment by management. Despite the fact that
Garber had frequently written letters of complaint to Pres-
ident Zasloff and his predecessor, he had never received any
response to them, and he told Davis that he had many'
objections to his conditions of employment. Garber testi-
monially stated that he had never previously received a visit
at the store from a member of the personnel department.
After the Union filed its representation petition on De-
cember 21, 1976, Garber had several conversations at the
store with Miller in which the latter inquired as to how
Garber planned to vote in the election. Garber answered
that only the Lord, his wife, and his right hand knew. Giar-
ber additionally recalled that, subsequent to the filing of the
Union's petition, Miller reported that he had attended a
meeting at Respondent's headquarters at which President
Zasloff had discussed with his corporate officers the "poten-
tial for closing down all of the pharmacies" or the "possibil-
ity of selectively closing some of the pharmacies."
Garber finally related that he had received a visit in
January 1977 from Joseph Scarlett. Respondent's assistant
vice president in charge of personnel, and James Davis,
personnel representative. During their sojourn, Scarlett re-
marked that President Zasloff had been in charge of West
Coast operations and that, while there, "he had been suc-
cessful in keeping a union organizing attempt out."6
Howard Schwartz, the part-time pharmacist at the
Manalapan Township store, testified that, after he signed a
union authorization card on November 18, 1976, Miller vis-
ited the snack bar in the store and told Schwartz that the
Union's presence had "brought to light the fact that maybe
[Respondentj was not giving the pharmacists what they
really deserve" and that "Possibly in the future there will be
... a better package for the pharmacists." Miller added that
"through the new president we would get a better package."
and that "if the union did win and all, the pharmacists
would be unionized, that the working hours would not be as
flexible as had been in the past." In this connection, it is
uncontroverted and I find that, prior to the advent of the
Union, each pharmacy manager independently scheduled
the pharmacists' working hours to suit their needs.
I Zasloff assumed the presidential reins of Respondent on August 25. 1976.
Prior thereto, he was in charge of the West Coast division of the parent
enterprise. Vornado, Inc.
B. Union Slore
Harry Kottler, Herbert Storm, and Irving Silber work as
full-time pharmacists at the Union store. George Nahorny
and Gerard Bellino are classified as "floaters" who perform
their pharmacy duties at various stores, including Union.
Nahorny, who signed a Union authorization card on No-
vember 18, 1976, testified that, sometime in January 1977,
Herbert Miller came to the Union store and engaged
Nahorny in a conversation in which the director of pharma-
cies asked if Nahorny was aware of the Union's organiza-
tional campaign. When Nahorny gave an equivocal re-
sponse, Miller stated that only a few of the pharmacists had
attended the first Union meeting on November 14. 1976.
Thereupon, Miller reminded Nahorny that Respondent.
and not the Union. paid the employees' wages. and warned
that "if the wages or demands would be exhorbitant and
the company can't pay, might happen something that hap-
pened in California with food stores." an apparent refer-
ence to a union campaign in that State among employees in
stores which President Alfred Zasloff operated for Respon-
dent and which caused the facilities to close down. Miller
further remarked that Nahorny probably would not be in-
terested in the Union because, as a part-time floater, Miller
would be barred from summoning Nahorny to duty on a
sporadic basis because the Union would not permit a non-
member to work in the pharmacies.'
According to Nahorny, Miller further stated in this con-
versation that President Zasloff was interested in his em-
ployees' welfare and would go to any extremes to remedy
their grievances. Miller asked Nahorny whether the latter
had any gripes about his employment and, after the em-
ployee enumerated them, the director stated that Zasloff
was a good fellow who would take care of the pharmacists.
Miller asked Nahorny to give the president a year in which
to change conditions and, if the men were still dissatisfied at
the expiration of that period. they could always embrace
the Union's cause. At the conclusion of the colloquy, Miller
advised Nahorny that, even if the Union succeeded in the
election, Respondent could defer meeting its bargaining de-
mands for at least a year by challenging the Union's victory
in the courts.
Gerard Bellino, another "floater" in Respondent's phar-
macy department, signed a union designation on December
10, 1976. He testified that, in late January or early Febru-
ary 1977, he met Herbert Miller in the snack bar who asked
Bellino how he intended to vote in the election. When Bel-
lino responded that he favored the Union, Miller replied
that "I should stick with the company because they would
offer us reduced hours and increased salary and time and a
half for Sundays and holidays and that it wasn't wise for me
to vote in favor of the Union." Miller continued that "it
was possible that if the union came in some of the pharma-
cies might be would have to be closed, and that several
pharmacists or some pharmacists would be out of work."
Miller added that Respondent's new president Zasloff was
preparing a package which would include reduced hours
and increased pad.
' Nahorny's name was placed on the oting eligibility list by Respondent
and he cast his ballot in the election without challenge
1142
TWO GLYS DISCOUNT DFPI. STORES
Bellino also testified without contradiction and I find
that, in November 1976. he engaged in a conversation for
the first time during his employment stint with Personnel
Representative Joseph Catlet in the snack bar at the store,
during which Catlet reported that Respondent's new man-
agement was working on a package containing increased
pay, reduced hours, and other benefits. Catlet then asked if
Bellino had any complaints to register and advised the
pharmacist to contact him about them.
Finally, Bellino recounted that, sometime prior to the
election, he had a number of conversations with Sam [)a-
rata during which the latter inquired into how Bellino in-
tended to vote in the election and commented that "it
wasn't wise to vote in favor of the union because ... there
was a possibility that if the union came in some of the stores
in the chain might have to be closed, and some pharmacists
would be out of work."
C. Keartnv Store
Gerard Bellino, who was working at the Kearny location
as a "floater" at the time, further testified that, shortly be-
fore the February 14. 1977. representation election. Herbert
Miller came to the store. In an ensuing conversation, Miller
inquired whether Bellino "was still voting es" for the
Union. Bellino replied that he was, whereupon Miller re-
marked that it "wasn't a wise thing to do. that I shouldn't
vote in favor of the union because it wasn't a smart move."
D. Jertse C'it Store
Richard E. Corritore, Jr. worked as a pharmacist in Re-
spondent's Jersey City store for 2 years until he quit on
September 13, 1977. Carritore attended the union meeting
held on November 14, 1976, and signed a union designation
on that day, and also was present at the second session
conducted on January 30. 1977. He testified without contra-
diction and I find that, sometime in January 1977, Director
of Pharmacies Herbert Miller visited the pharmacy and.
during an ensuing conversation, the topic of the upcoming
election arose. In the course of the discussion. Miller stated
that. if a labor organization was chosen to represent the
men, "we would no longer have the flexible [work] schedule
we had" because the Union and management might jointly
set working hours at variance with those then existing.
Miller further remarked that "if the union won, that they
[Respondent] wouldn't have to sit down and bargain with
the union right away. things could be delayed for up to a
year or 18 months." because Respondent "could appeal the
vote or carry it through the courts...." Miller then com-
mented that "we should give the company a year, and that
the company certainly was not going to close their eyes to
what was going on, they wanted to give them a year and if
things didn't get better, then go ahead and vote for a
union." As this conversation continued, Miller mentioned
that he was aware of the identity of the pharmacists who
had gone to the Union meeting on November 14, 1976.
Miller also informed Corritore on January 31. 1977, that
the former had parked his vehicle across the street from the
location of the second union meeting held on the preceding
day and had observed Corritore and nine other pharmacists
attend that session.
Finall. C'orritore testimonially recounted that, before
the election of February 14. 1977, Joseph Scarlett., Respon-
dent's vice president in charge of personnel, paid a visit to
the Jersey City store and, in the presence of fellow-pharma-
cist erbert Storm, asked whether the men had "any sug-
gestions as to how to make the company benefits or things
better for the pharmacists.'' Corritore stated that he desired
better wages. a health plan. and job security, to which Scar-
lett replied that Respondent planned to review the pharma-
cists' terms and conditions of employment in July. When
Corritore asked w hether Scarlett's visit uwas prompted solely
because of the advent of the Union, Scarlett simply
shrugged his shoulders and the conversation ended.
F. Dc/ran St,rc'
Murra, ILavender and Philmore Saunders have worked
as pharmacists tfor approximately 4 ears at Respondent's
Delran store. Both attended the union meeting on Nosem-
ber 14, 1976, and both signed authorization cards on that
date.
Lavender testified that. in late December 1976. he re-
ceived a visit at the store from Personnel Respresentatise
Davis who engaged in a conversation with the pharmacists
regarding the benefits and wage structures in Respondent's
chain. Davis presented Lavender with a copy of the existing
benefits and asked the latter to read it, ater which Davis
asked Lavender to comment on any improvements or addi-
tions which Respondent might aflrd. When Lavender
complained that his annual salary increments were often
delayed for substantial periods of time and were not retro-
active, Davis replied that, in the future, such matters would
be rectified and the increases would be made retroactive.
According to avender. this was the first occasion during
his 4 year employment that a member of the personnel de-
partment had visited his store.
Lavender further testified that, on Januar\ 14, 1977. Her-
bert Miller dropped into the Delran ftacilits and informed
the pharmacist that the Board was in the process of mailing
ballots to the eligible voters. Miller stated that, because of
the pendency of the election, he was forbidden by law as to
what he could or could not discuss at that time. However
Miller then observed that a new corporate president had
come aboard who had been successful in "breaking a
union" on the West Coast, and Miller inquired whether
Lavender knew how to accomplish this objective. When
Lavender responded in the negative, Miller noted that the
new president, Alfred Zaslofl; had "used honeN to sweeten
the pot." Miller went on to state that Zasloff was strongly
opposed to labor organizations, and that "he would do any-
thing to prevent a union of pharmacists from organizing."
Lavender enumerated the various inequities which existed
in the terms and conditions of employment for the pharma-
cists, and Miller promised that these matters would be
straightened out. When Lavender asked what would hap-
pen if the men voted for the Union. Miller retorted that
Respondent could delay contract talks for 12 to 18 months,
that there might be a new and inflexible scheduling of
working time, that certain marginal pharmacists might be
discharged, and that possibly all pharmacies might be
closed.
1143
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lavendar also testified that, subsequent to his conversa-
tion with Miller in January 1977, Joseph Scarlett and James
Davis appeared at his store. In their discussion, Scarlett
told Lavendar that Alfred Zasloff had just assumed the
presidency of Respondent and needed time in which to
solve the pharmacists' problems. Scarlett added that he
could not make any promises, but he beseeched the phar-
macists to afford President Zasloff one year in which to
rectify their outstanding grievances, and he assured them
that the president would do anything he could to make
their employment a happy venture.
Finally. Lavender testified that, on September 29, 1977.
Miller again visited the Delran store and informed Laven-
der that the hours of employment would be reduced, com-
menting, "Well, you asked for it." When Lavender sought
out the purport of this statement, Miller replied, "Well, I
don't mean you personally, but I mean all the pharmacists
with this union activity."
Philmore Saunders testimonially recounted that, in De-
cember 1976, James Davis came to the pharmacy and, after
reviewing the existing benefits which obtained, asked
whether Saunders believed that any improvements should
be made. When Saunders offered his suggestions, Davis
promised that he would submit Saunders' recommenda-
tions to management for implementation. Saunders further
recounted that, in January 1977. Joseph Scarlett also visited
the store. Upon advising Saunders that Zasloff had recently
become the president of Respondent, Scarlett requested
that the pharmacist give Zasloff I year to make improve-
ments in the conditions of employment, and stated that,
after that period, the men would no longer desire collective
representation.
F. East Brunswick Store
Two full-time pharmacists, Joseph Gallof and Hilton
Nelson, who have worked for 5 and 10 years for Respon-
dent, respectively, are employed at this location. Gallof
signed a union authorization card on November 18, 1976.
Nelson attended the Union's initial organizational meeting
on November 14, 1976,8 and joined that labor organization
on the same date.
It is Gallofs testimony that, in November 1976, Herbert
Miller came to the store and, in response to Gallofs query
as to whether the pharmacists would receive a raise if they
voted against the Union, Miller replied that this reward
would not necessarily flow for all the men because some of
the pharmacists had recently received increases. However,
Miller assured Gallof that "everyone would benefit through
[an] improved benefit package." Gallof further testified
that, in the same month, Miller stated that a union victory
would interject a third party into the employer-employee
relationship with the consequence that there would no
longer be as much flexibility in he scheduling of work
hours and vacations.
In December 1976, Personnel Respresentative Davis
called at the pharmacy for the first time and, beckoning
Gallof to the snack bar, Davis reviewed the existing benefits
with the employee, asked about Gallofs employment prob-
lems, and solicited Gallofs suggestions for their improve-
'Nelson mistakenly placed this meeting as occurring in October 1976.
ment. Gallof further testified that, in January 1977, Re-
spondent's Vice President Joseph Scarlett visted the store
and commenced a discussion about the employment prob-
lems which the pharmacists had encountered in the past. In
the course of their conversation, Scarlett remarked that "we
know you have been screwed in the past but we are going to
correct that." According to Gallof, the "main thrust of
[Scarlett's] presentation seemed to be trust us, go along with
us now, and if you vote the union down we have certain
plans that we will be presenting that we were working on
before the union came into the picture."
Prior to the election of February 14, 1977, Herbert Miller
appeared at the store and invited Gallof to lunch. During
their repast, Miller informed the pharmacist that the former
had overheard a conversation between Respondent's Pres-
ident Zasloff and Chairman of the Board Zissu during
which one of them mentioned that "one possibility they
would have to entertain if the union was elected would be
closing some stores."
Hilton Nelson testimonially related that James Davis
made his first visit to the pharmacy in November or De-
cember 1976 and, after introducing himself, asked Nelson
what he would like to see in the way of benefits for the
pharmacists. As Nelson answered the inquiry, Davis made
notes of the responses. Thereafter, on January 27, 1977,
Vice President Joseph Scarlett paid Nelson a call and simi-
larly inquired if there was anything he could do to assist
Nelson in the store.
G. Woodbridge Store
Richard Weiss and Joel Gersten have been employed as
pharmacists at this establishment for 2 and II years, respec-
tively. Neither of these men ever signed union designations.
Weiss testified that Personnel Representative Davis paid
a visit to the pharmacy for the first time either in November
or December 1976 and inquired into any grievances which
Weiss might harbor regarding his conditions of employ-
ment. Weiss suggested that Respondent should improve the
employees' wage and benefits package, whereupon Davis
mentioned that Respondent was in the process of assessing
the wages and other emoluments afforded to the profession-
als with a view toward raising the existing ones to higher
levels. Weiss also recalled that, shortly after the second
union meeting of January 30, 1977, Assistant Director of
Pharmacists Sam Darata came to the Woodbridge phar-
macy and inquired whether Weiss had attended that meet-
ing.
Gersten testified that, in November 1976, Joseph Scarlett
spoke to him in the pharmacy. During the conversation,
Scarlett reported that Respondent's officers were aware of
the inequities which existed in the pay of the pharmacists.
and that they planned to correct the situation. Subsequent
to this conversation. James Davis came to the store and,
after reviewing the current benefits afforded to the profes-
sionals, solicited any changes which Gersten could suggest.
H. Totowa Store
Respondent employs full-time pharmacists Melvin Sea-
gull and Leon Ginsburg at the Totowa pharmacy, who
have worked at the store for 4 years and I year, respec-
1144
TWO GUYS DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES
tively. Ginsburg signed an authorization card on December
19, 1976. Seaqull never joined the Union.
Seagull testified without contradiction and I find that, in
December 1976, while he was visiting some friends in Re-
spondent's Dover establishment he encountered Personnel
Respresentative Joseph Catlet in the snack bar. After Catlet
introduced himself, he informed Seagull that Respondent
was interested in learning how to improve the lot of the
pharmacists and make their salaries more competitive. Cat-
let advised Seagull that Respondent realized that it was not
competitive but that it was devising a salary package to
meet the competition.
Seagull further testified that in late December 1976 or
early January 1977 Joseph Scarlett visited the Totowa store
and told the pharmacist that he had learned from Catlet
about Seagull's suggestions for the betterment of his work-
ing conditions. Scarlett went on to state that Respondent
was working on a pay increment plan with which Seagull
would be highly pleased, and that, if Respondent did not
fulfill its promised improvements in wages, Scarlett would
be the first to urge that Seagull join the Union. Seagull also
testified that, in January 1977, Herbert Miller told him that
if the Union succeeded in the election the satisfactory
scheduling of working hours would be difficult.
Leo Ginsburg testimonially related that he had a conver-
sation at the pharmacy with Herbert Miller in mid-Decem-
ber 1976. During its course, Miller urged Ginsburg not to
vote for the Union in the election and that, if it was success-
ful in the balloting, Respondent would tie the Union up in
litigation. Miller added that Respondent would attempt to
improve wages and working conditions in the parmacies
and if, after a year, they were still dissatisfied, they could
once more seek union representation.
I. Bricktown Store
Paul Schneider and Walter Stockhoff have been em-
ployed for approximately 5 years by Respondent at the
Bricktown location as full-time pharmacists. Both attended
the Union's organizational meeting on November 14, 1976,
and both signed an authorization card at that session.
Schneider testified that he received a visit at the store in
January 1977 from Personnel Representative Davis. During
their encounter, Davis asked whether Schneider harbored
any grievances against Respondent concerning his working
conditions. After Schneider enumerated them, Davis stated
that he would not spell out for the pharmacist any specific
remedies because of the pendency of the election, but he
assured Schneider that Respondent intended to review the
pharmacists' suggestions and "come up with [a] future
package for us."
Schneider further testified that Herbert Miller visited the
pharmacy in January 1977 and, in an ensuing conversation,
Miller remarked that "if the union had won the election
perhaps there would have to be a review of all the opera-
tions and maybe some of the slower units would have to be
closed." Miller implored Schneider to vote against union
representation and allow Respondent an opportunity to de-
velop an attractive employment package, adding that, if the
men were dissatisfied with the ultimate product, they could
select the Union as their bargaining representative a year
hence.
Finally, Schneider testified without contradiction and I
find that, on the day the ballots were counted by the Board,
Miller telephoned Shneider and falsely announced that the
Union had succeeded in the election. When Schneider re-
plied, "that's good," Miller retorted, "now I know you
voted."
J. Lodi Store
Respondent employs two full-time pharmacists, George
Paglia and Bernard Cohen, at this installation. Neither of
these men ever joined the Union.
Paglia testified that, in either December 1976 or January
1977, Herbert Miller entered the store with Personnel Rep-
resentative Ken Barkett, whom Paglia had met for the first
time on this occasion. Paglia's testimony is uncontroverted
and I find that, after being introduced by Miller, Barkett
stated that he was aware that the professionals had long
been ignored, and that he would correct this happenstance.
Thereupon, Barkett solicited any complaints or suggestions
which the pharmacist might have, and Paglia proceeded to
outline them.
Paglia further recounted that, approximately 3 weeks be-
fore the balloting, Miller dropped in at the store to speak
with Paglia. In their conversation, Miller reminded Paglia
that a competitor had become unionized which caused it to
close some of its marginal stores, and Miller observed that
the Lodi facility fell into the same category. Miller subse-
quently told Paglia that, if the Union won the election, the
former would no longer permit the pharmacists to set their
own hours of work and that he, alone, would take over this
chore. Paglia's testimony in this regard was corroborated by
fellow-pharmacist Cohen. A few days before the election,
Miller telephoned Paglia to remind the employee of the
forthcoming election. At the conclusion of their dialogue,
Miller stated, "You know how to vote, don't you?" and
Paglia rejoined, "Yes, I know how to vote."
Bernard Cohen testimonially reported that, a few weeks
prior to the election, he received a visit at the Lodi Store
from Joseph Scarlett. During his stay, Scarlett informed
Cohen that Respondent had come to realize that it had
neglected to make their wages and benefits competitive, and
that, inasmuch as Respondent was under new management,
it desired that the pharmacists give it a chance to improve
the situation during the coming year.
K. Newark Store
Joseph Papik and Robert Fedak were employed at the
Newark pharmacy at the times material herein. Papik, who
had worked for Respondent for 3 years, attended the
Union's initial organizational meeting on November 14,
1976, and joined that entity on that date. Fedak enlisted in
the Union's ranks on November 18, 1976.
Papik testified without contradiction and I find that fol-
lowing the filing of the Union's election petition on Decem-
ber 21, 1976, Personnel Respresentative Barkett visited the
store and, after reviewing the existing benefits which Re-
spondent offered, asked Papik whether the pharmacists
"had any gripes concerning any of these points."
Papik further related that, in January 1977, Miller ap-
peared at the pharmacy and told Papik that the men would
1145
DE( ISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
receive mail ballots from the Board in a few weeks with
which to cast their vote. Miller reminded the employee that
Zasloff had become president of Respondent, that this offi-
cer vehemently objected to the idea that the professionals
had joined the Union, and that Zasloff had "broken the
backs of the unions" on the West Coast where he had pre-
viousl worked. Miller apprised Papik that he was "aware
of certain inequities as fr as the pharmacists were con-
cerned, but until we had gone to the union all of these
things fell onto deaf ears." When Papik inquired as to what
would happen in the event the men chose the Union as
their collective-hbargaining representative, Miller replied
that Respondent could engage in tactics designed to dela\
the bargaining process, or it might close some or all of the
pharmacies. Miller concluded the conversation by advising
Papik to afford Respondent at least a year in which to cor-
rect the current inequities after which, if' the pharmacists
were still dissatisfied, they could then opt for unionization.
Papik also testified that, shortly before the February 14,
1977, election, Joseph Scarlett and Ken Barkett came to the
Newark location. During the visit Scarlett remarked to
Papik and fellow-pharmacist Nahorny that there was "no
sense in joining the union to whom we had to pay specific
dues each month," and that all the men had to do was to
come to management with their problems and they "would
receive more benefits from them then we could from the
union."
.. Bordenllown Store
Merrill Beyer and Albert Mutterperl are employed as
full-time pharmacists at the Bordentown establishment.
Beyer attended the Union meeting on November 14, 1976,
and signed a union designation on that date. Mutterperl did
not go to this session and never executed an authorization
card on behalf of the Union.
Beyer testified that, either before or after the November
meeting, Personnel Representative Davis came to the store
and spoke to Beyer in the snack bar. D)uring their conversa-
tion, Davis systematically reviewed each of the benefits
which Respondent provided to the pharmacists and solic-
ited suggestions from Beyer which the employee then enu-
merated. According to Beyer, this was the first occasion in
his 5 years of employment on which he had ever received a
visit from any representative of the personnel department.
Following Davis' venture to Bordentown Assistant Vice
President Scarlett paid a visit and stated that, because of
the pharmacists' organizational activities, Respondent had
become more sensitive to their economic needs. At this
point, Scarlett reminded Beyer that Respondent had ac-
quired a new president and Scarlett assured the employee
that conditions at the store would improve if the pharma-
cists rejected the Union.
Mutterperl also testimonially recalled that he spoke to
Davis in the snack bar after Beyer had done so. In their
dialogue, Davis also reviewed the existing benefits which
Respondent afforded the men and Davis elicited comments
from Mutterperl regarding their improvement. Mutterperl
further testified without contradiction that, subsequent to
the union meeting of November 14. 1976, Herbert Miller
approached him at the store and inquired whether he had
attended that gathering, and Mutterperl answered in the
negative.
M. Lawn.ide Store
Respondent employs two full-time pharmacists at the
Lawnside facility, Franklin John Pearce and Donald Sayrs.
Pearce. who had been employed at this store for 2 years at
the time of the hearing herein, testified that he had signed
an authorization card on December 13, 1976. at the phar-
macy which had been given to him by Union representa-
tives. Sometime between Christmas of 1976 and the election
date, Respondent's Personnel Representative Davis came to
the store and, during a conversation with Pearce, Davis
announced that he had come to review the benefits which
the company offered, and asked if' Pearce had any questions
regarding them. The pharmacist thereupon inquired
whether Respondent intended to lower the retirement age
of 65, and Davis answered that Respondent probably
would do so. According to Pearce. this was the first occa-
sion on which a member of the personnel department had
visited his store during the course of his employment.
Pearce further testified that, during the period from
Christmas of' 1976 and the election, Respondent's Director
of Pharmacies Herbert Miller visited the store and told
Pearce that "the union election is coming up and that we
should give the company a chance, at least one year, since
they had a new president . . . And give him a chance to
improve the benefits, whatever. And if things didn't im-
prove in a year we could always vote for a union."
N. Marlton Store
Respondent staffs the Marlton pharmacy with two full-
time pharmacists, Arnold Kimmel and Irwin Bromberg.
both of' whom worked there for 4 ears. Kimmel signed an
authorization card at the store at the behest of' Union Pres-
ident Bowen on November 16. 1976. and Bromberg ex-
ecuted his designation on December 13, 1976.
Kimmel testified that, in I)ecember 1976, he received a
visit from Personnel Director Davis. During his stay. Davis
asked whether Kimmel had any suggestions regarding the
improvement of working conditions, and Kimmel advanced
some. In early January 1977, Davis revisited the store, and
Kimmel inquired whether any action had been taken on his
suggestions. Davis responded that he could not give the
pharmacist any specific answer because of the pendenc of
the election.
At the times material herein, Joseph Scarlett occupied
the position of assistant vice president and director of' per-
sonnel for Respondent. In this capacity, he was responsible
for recruiting, training, and monitoring the terms and con-
ditions of employment for all employees, including the
pharmacists, who worked in the East Coast division of Re-
spondent's parent. Vornado, Inc. Because Scarlett was also
charged with supervising the employment relationship of
approximately 13,000 nonprofessional employees in Re-
spondent's chain, he delegated his supervisory functions re-
lating to the pharmacists to Herbert Miller. the Director of
Pharmacies for Respondent. In the fall of 1976, Scarlett
assigned three Personnel Representatives, James Davis.
Ken Barkett. and Joseph Catlet, to monitor the 17 stores
1146
TWO GUYS DIS(COtlNF DFEPI SIORIS
which Respondent operated in New Jersey and which
housed the 42 pharmacists here involved. By Scarlett's own
admission, these individuals had never previously con-
cerned themselves with the day-to-day problems which
arose concerning the pharmacists.
Scarlet testimonially acknowledged that, in the fall of
1976. he received information from Herbert Miller that a
"morale problem" existed among the pharmacists which
arose out of the Union's efforts to organize these employees.
Upon acquiring this intelligence. Scarlett dispatched Per-
sonnel Representative Davis, Barkett. and (atlet to the var-
ious stores to ascertain the extent of the problems and at-
tempt to resolve them. According to Scarlett, these
representatives were instructed to inform the pharmacists
that the new president, Alfred Zasloff. was "very very em-
ployee oriented," and "To put forth the company's position
relative to the election, to point out those things that had
happened in the past that indicated a positive track record
on the part of the company, principally to point out the
wage and benefits improvements that have been made in
the various other non-union areas of the company over the
last several years .... " Scarlett claimed that he, personally,
did not engage in these efforts until after the Union filed its
representation petition on December 21, 1976.
In his testimony, Scarlett confessed that he had spoken
on a number of occasions to pharmacists in which he men-
tioned to them that management could obtain a l-year
grace period in which there could be an abatement of union
activities. In this connection, Scarlett did not deny that he
mentioned to pharmacist Morris Garber at the Manalapan
Township store that President Zasloff "had been successful
in keeping a union organizing attempt out" on the West
Coast. After rendering this testimony, Scarlett was recalled
to the stand as a witness on behalf of Respondent, where-
upon he generally denied that, during his conversations
with the pharmacists, he had asked the men for suggestions
as to how to improve their economic lot or made any repre-
sentation or promise to them that there would be any im-
provement in the wages, benefits, or other terms of employ-
ment. Pharmacists Corritore, Lavender, Saunders, Gallof,
Nelson, Weiss, Seagull, Stockhoff, Cohen. Papik, and Bey-
er, impressed me as sincere and forthright witnesses, and I
credit their testimony insofar as it collides with that of Scar-
lett in this area. I therefore find that shortly before the elec-
tion on February 14, 1977. Scarlett visited the Jersey City
Store and inquired of Richard Corritore whether the latter
had "any suggestions as to how to make the company bene-
fits or things better for the pharmacists," and merely
shrugged his shoulders when Corritore asked whether Scar-
lett's visit was occasioned solely by the Union's presence. I
also find that, in January 1977, Scarlett arrived at the Del-
ran pharmacy and, after reminding Philmore Saunders that
Respondent had acquired a new president, Scarlett re-
quested Saunders to afford that officer a year in which to
make improvements in the terms arid conditions of employ-
ment. I find that, in January 1977. Scarlett had a conversa-
tion with Joseph Gallof in the New Brunswick facilit in
which the Director of Personnel urged Gallof to foresake
union representation on the promise of bettering his work-
ing conditions, and similar representations were made b\
Scarlett to Melvin Seagull at the Totowa store, Bernard
Cohen at the Lodi pharmacy, Merrill Beyer at the Borden-
town location, and Joseph Papik at the NeAark store, as
well as others. Indeed. in his conversation with Papik.
which was overheard by George Nahorny. Scarlett re-
marked that there was "no sense in joining the union" and
paying dues to it each month when all the pharmacists had
to do was to approach management with their problems
and the3 "would receise more benefits from them than we
could fromn the union."
Based upon the foregoing findings of fct. and in the
context of the entire case. I conclude that Respondent.
through the above-chronicled conduct of Scarlett, offended
the provisions of Section (a)(I) of the Act by soliciting
grievances in response to the threat of unionization of its
pharmacies coupled with an implied promise to rectify
them' and by promising various employment benefits to the
pharmacists if they fitailed to support the nion in its or-
ganizational campaign." I also conclude that b the torego-
ing preelection misconduct which occurred at it critical
time" Respondent interfered with the holding of a free and
untrammeled election.
Herbert Miller has been employed by Respondent as the
Director of Pharmacies for 13 years. In this capacity. he
directly supervises the 42 pharmacists employed at the 17
stores in which the pharmacies are housed. In the course of
his duties. Miller visits the pharmacists on a weekl or semi-
monthly basis to distribute merchandise, arrange displays.
hire personnel, and generally deal with the personnel prob-
lems which might arise. Miller testified that, in the fall of
1976. he approached Personnel Director Scarlett and re-
quested the assistance of personnel representatives to moni-
tor the stores under his control. According to Miller. this
request was promped by the circumstance that "the men
had been speaking about a union" and that "there was a
strong feeling of discontent, dissatisfaction among the peo-
ple and I thought it was too big of a job for me to handle
.... .Miller further testified that he was strongly opposed
to the unionization of his pharmacies and that he decided to
embark upon a campaign to counteract the Union's organi-
zational efforts.
Miller recalled that he had a conversation with David
Angert at the Manalapan Township store in mid-Novem-
ber 1976. He testified that he had been a close, personal
friend of Angert for several years and believed that the lat-
ter was unalterably opposed to both labor and professional
organizations as a result of Miller's discussions with Angert
over the years. During the conversation. Angert revealed
that the pharmacists were greatly dissatisfied with their
working conditions. At the time of this discussion. Miller
was fully aware that the Union had embarked upon an
organizational drive at the pharmacies. and he had learned
from several sources that the Union had conducted an or-
ganizational meeting on November 14, 1976. Anxious to
learn whether the pharmacist had attended the meeting.
Miller asked Angert whether he had done so and received a
9See Merle Linde, Cherolet. In,. 231 NRB 478. 483 (1977).
0 See Baker Manmul-turing (o. Inc. 218 N.RB 1295. 1299 (1975).
1 The critical peri.d ,ithin which obhjectionable conduct is deemed to
affect the results of the election commences on the date on which the repre-
sentatlon petition was filed ( ,ododr Ti e ind Ruhhbber (;,nmpn,-, 138 N RB
453, 454 1962) As heretofoire fliund. the petition herein was filed on Decem-
her 21. 1977
147
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negative reply. Miller was also apprised by certain uniden-
tified informants that the Union had scheduled a second
meeting for January 30, 1977. This intelligence prompted
him to seek out Angert and persuade him to attend the
session because, in Miller's words, "I would like to know
what the union is promising, what the men's unrests seem
to be .... "
In his testimony, Miller corroborated Angert's testimo-
nial assertions that they had jointly attended a Bar Mitzvah
on February 12, 1977, 2 days before the election, during
which the subject of the closure of the pharmacies was re-
peatedly touched on. According to Miller, he informed
Angert that he had overheard a conversation at Respon-
dent's headquarters in which President Zasloff "mentioned
the possibility that some, if not all of the pharmacies might
have to be closed," although Miller claimed that Zasloff did
not mention any reason for taking this action. Miller fur-
ther testified that, shortly after the Bar Mitzvah, he visited
the Manalapan Township pharmacy and engaged in a con-
versation with pharmacist Morris Garber relative to this
topic. Surmising that Angert had conveyed President Zas-
loffs prediction that the pharmacists might be phased out
of the stores to Garber, Miller answered Garber's queries
by repeating the admonition to him. Miller also acknowl-
edged that he had discussed Zasloff's forecast of the closure
of the pharmacies in a conversation with Joe Gallof, but
Miller again claimed that he gave no reason for the closure
because "I didn't know why." However, any doubt as to
Miller's knowledge as to the real reason for Zasloffs predic-
tion was completely dispelled by Miller's further testimony
on this subject. When questioned by Respondent's counsel
as to whether he had relayed the president's prediction to
pharmacists other than Angert, Garber, and Gallof, Miller
replied in the affirmative. He then made the surprising com-
ment that his reason for doing so was "Just that it stands to
the good business sense that if the union demands were too
extensive that then the marginal pharmacies would have to
a closed or cut back, just good business sense."
While on the stand, Miller also admitted that, in a con-
versation with pharmacist George Nahorny, he apprised
the latter that Respondent's practice of permitting the men
to schedule their own work shifts and hours might be abol-
ished. In this connection, Miller acknowledged that he not
only told Nahorny, but a number of other pharmacists, that
"after union negotiations and bargaining, it might be due to
their rules, it might be unlikely that they would allow you
to work similarly with the type of schedule that you are
working now."
In addition, Miller confessed that he had implored the
men to give the newly designated President Zasloff a year in
which to rectify any of the outstanding complaints concern-
ing their terms and conditions of employment after which
they could then embrace the Union if Zasloff failed to sat-
isfy their economic needs.
I do not credit Miller's testimony in the limited areas in
which it conflicts with that of the pharmacists because I was
not impressed with his total candor as a witness. Angert's
testimony is undenied, and I find that on the day following
the first Union meeting which was held on November 14,
1976, Miller informed Angert that he knew that Angert and
the other pharmacists had attended the meeting and that
Angert had signed a Union authorization card.' By engag-
ing in the foregoing misconduct, I conclude that Respon-
dent created the impression that it had placed the Union
activities of its employees under surveillance and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(X) of the Act."
Angert, Morris Garber, and Albert Mutterperl also testi-
fied and, I find that on November 15, 1976, Miller ques-
tioned them as to whether they had signed Union designa-
tions; that Miller asked Garber in early November 1976
whether the latter intended to be present to at the first
union meeting; and that on a few occasions following the
filing of the Union's election petition on December 21,
1976, Miller asked both Angert and Garber how they
planned to vote in the impending election. Gerard Bellino's
testimony is uncontroverted and I find that Miller posed the
same question to him in either January or February 1977.
By doing so, I conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Statute.'4
Angert's testimony is also undisputed, and I find that
about 3 weeks prior to the second union meeting on Janu-
ary 30, 1977, Miller telephoned Angert to persuade the
pharmacist to visit the session and report back to Miller
about the discussions which took place. I am convinced and
conclude that Miller's persuasion in this instance was tanta-
mount to requesting an employee to engage in an act of
surveillance of other employees' union activities on Respon-
dent's behalf and was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the controlling legislation.'"
I further find, based upon the undenied and credited tes-
timony of Angert, Garber, Gallof, Nahorny, Schneider, and
Papik, that Director of Pharmacies Miller informed them
on several occasions that Respondent would close the phar-
macies in the event that they selected the Union as their
bargaining representative. I conclude that, by uttering these
threats, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'6
The testimony of Schwartz, Nahorny, Corritore, Laven-
der, Gallof, Paglia, and Cohen is not at significant variance
with that of Miller and I find that, following the launch of
the Union's organizational campaign and continuing until
the Board election, Miller informed them that, if they se-
lected the Union as their bargaining representative, they
would suffer the loss of flexibility in determining their shift
and hours of employment. By these statements, I conclude
that Respondent violated Section 8(aX)() of the Act."
I credit the testimony of Angert, Schwartz, Nahorny,
Bellino, Corritore, Lavender, Gallof, and Ginsburg, and
find that during the election campaign and culminating
with the balloting Miller promised these employees that Re-
spondent intended to fashion an attractive employment
package for the men in the event they rejected the Union
and afforded Respondent a grace period in which to devise
such a package. By engaging in this misconduct, I am per-
2 Based upon the undisputed testimony of Nahorny and Corritore, I find
that Miller also told them that the director of pharmacies knew the identity
of the pharmacists who had gone to the meeting.
3
See Dresser Industries, Inc., 231 NLRB 591, 594 (1977).
' See Trading Port, Inc., 219 NLRB 298, 300 (1975).
'i See Pope Maintenance Corporation, 228 NLRB 326, 332 (1977).
16 See Merchants Delivery Service, Inc., 219 NLRB 1220, 1222 (1975).
'; See Vincent's Steak House, Inc., 216 NLRB 647, 649 (1975).
1148
TWO GUYS DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES
suaded and conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Statute.'"
I further find that, during the period critical to the elec-
tion, Miller informed Nahorny, Corritore, Lavender. Gins-
burg, and Papik that it would be futile for them to select the
Union as the bargaining agent because, in such event, Re-
spondent could delay the bargaining process by appealing
the results of the election through the courts and thus de-
prive them of collective representation for over a year. By
these statements, I conclude that Respondent contravened
the provisions of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.'9
I also find, based on Angert's credited testimony, that on
February 25, 1977, after the election ballots were counted
by the Board, Miller telephonically misled both Angert and
Garber regarding the results of the election in order to elicit
their voting preferences and, when he learned that the men
had favored the Union. he warned them that Respondent
intended to week out the Union supporters from its em-
ployment rolls. I conclude that this conduct was violative of
Section 8(a)() of the Act.20
Finally, I find that, on September 29, 1977. Miller came
to the Delran store and informed Lavender that the remu-
nerative hours of employment would be reduced, implying
that this action was taken to punish the pharmacists for
supporting the Union. I conclude that, by this statement,
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
During his abbreviated stint on the witness stand. Assist-
ant Director of Pharmacies Sam Darata confessed that,
during a visit to the Woodbridge store in January 1977. he
asked pharmacist Richard Weiss "How was the meeting?,"
a reference to the organizational meeting which the Union
had conducted on January 30, 1977. However, Darata dis-
puted Gerard Bellino's testimony by denying that he ever
spoke to the pharmacist about the Union or that he had
promised a beneficial employment package to Bellino.
Darata did not impress me with his sincerity as a witness
and I do not credit his denials. Accordingly, I find that in
January 1977, he coercively interrogated Weiss concerning
his attendance at the Union meeting, and that prior to the
election he spoke with Bellino on a number of occasions
and inquired into how Bellino intended to vote in the elec-
tion. I find that Darata further warned Bellino that it would
be unwise to cast his ballot in favor of the Union because
Respondent might have to close some of the pharmacies in
the event that the Union won the election. By the foregoing
conduct, I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)( ) of the Statute.
James Davis testified that he had been employed by Re-
spondent as a personnel representative for approximately 3
years during the times material herein, and that his supervi-
sor was Director of Personnel Joseph Scarlett. In his testi-
mony, Davis related that the direct management of person-
nel relations among the pharmacists was normally handled
by Herbert Miller, and that, prior to the fall of 1976, there
was only one occasion on which he spoke to a pharmacist
regarding Respondent's employment benefits.
1a See Baker Manufacturing Company, Inc, supra at fn. 10.
" See Kent Brothers Transportation Co., 188 NLRB 53, 59 (1971).
20 See Merchants Delivery Service, Inc., supra at fn. 16.
In the fall of 1976, Scarlett assigned Davis to monitor by
personal visit approximately eight pharmacies because
Miller was incapable of handling the chore alone. Davis
candidly acknowledged that this assignment resulted from
the circumstance that Scarlett had been advised by Miller
that, as a result of the Union's organizational campaign, the
pharmacists had manifested a certain disenchantment to-
wards management. As a result, Scarlett directed Davis to
visit the stores and root out what the problems were. In
conformity with this directive, Davis called at the stores
and discussed the various wage schedules and benefits. Ac-
cording to Davis, he merely explained the benefits which
Respondent had already made available to the pharmacists.
However, Davis denied that he had made any promises or
representations to the men that their benefits would be en-
hanced if they voted against union representation.
I do not credit Davis' denial in this regard because I
deem it unworthy of belief. Davis was assigned by Person-
nel Director Darata to assist Director of Pharmacies Miller
in his efforts to mollify the pharmacists when Miller learned
that they had sought out the Union to represent them.
Miller made it abundantly clear in his testimony that both
President Zasloff and Miller were adamantly opposed to
the Union. and that they would take whatever steps were
necessary to forestall the unionization of Respondent's
pharmacies. I deem it implausible that Miller would have
dispatched Davis on numerous occasions to the eight stores
under his control merely to have him simply parrott infor-
mation about which the pharmacists were already aware
and which was the direct cause of their discontent. In sum,
I am convinced and find that, during his rounds, Davis
solicited grievances from the employees on the promise that
they would be satisfactorily resolved if the men turned their
backs on the Union. I also find, based on uncontroverted
testimony, that Personnel Representatives Barkett and Cat-
let indulged in the same misconduct. Accordingly, I con-
clude that by soliciting grievances from the pharmacists un-
der the circumstances chronicled herein, Respondent
violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act.'
Morris Garber testified without contradiction, and I find
that during a conversation with Davis at the Manalapan
Township pharmacy in November 1976, Garber mentioned
to Davis that he was scheduled to receive a wage increase in
August 1976, but that it had not as yet found its way into
his paycheck. According to Garber, in the past, when the
payment of increases was delayed, it was not made retroac-
tive. In their conversation, Davis promised that the incre-
ment would be paid retroactively. I therefore find that this
promised payment was designed to discourage Garber from
supporting the Union and was therefore violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act."
As indicated above, the vast bulk of Respondent's viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act heretofore found oc-
curred during the critical period spanning from the filing of
the Union's petition on December 21, 1976, and the con-
duct of the election on February 14, 1977. These violations
find their parallel in the Objections to Election filed by the
21 See Baker Manufacturing Co., Inc., supra at fn 10.
22 See Angels Home Improvement Center, Inc. d/h/a Angels Home Center-
San Bernardino, 193 NLRB 217, 220-221 (1971).
1149
D)l('ISIONS OF NA'IIONAI IABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union in support of' its contention that the election results
should he nullified because of' Respondent's misconduct. I
find merit in the Ilnion's Obiections and sustain them. I
shall therefore order that the election in Case 22 R 6994
be set aside.2'
In his complaint. the General Counsel contends that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing the
Union's request for exclusive majority recognition as the
bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of pharma-
cists at Respondent's stores. I find this contention to be
meritorious. I have heretofore found that when the Union
made its demand upon Respondent for recognition on De-
cember 20. 1976. that labor organization represented 23 of
the 42 pharmacists in the unit, a clear majority. On Decem-
ber 22, 1976, Respondent rejected this demand and re-
quested that the Union prove its majority through the pro-
cesses of the Board. The Union honored this request by
filing its petition for an election. As the Supreme Court has
held, an employer has a right to an election so long as he
does not fatally impede the election process. 24 However,
once he had so impeded the process, he forfeits his right to
a Board election and must bargain with the labor organiza-
tion involved on the basis of other cear indications of em-
ployees' desires?27 In the case at hand, Respondent's unfair
labor practices commenced as soon as it became aware of
the union activities of' its pharmacists in early November
1976. This unlawful course of conduct, which affected all of
the pharmacists in one fashion or another, began at the
outset of the nion's organizational campaign and contin-
ued unabated with increasing intensity until the time of the
election. Any objective assessment of Respondent's miscon-
duct clearly indicates that it was intended to, and did in
fact, dissipate the Union's majority status among Respon-
dent's pharmacists.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices in
which Respondent indulged, I am convinced and conclude
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of' the Act by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
majority representative of its pharmacists while cotermi-
nously engaging in conduct which undermined the Union's
majority status and prevented the holding of a fair election.
Inasmuch as the Union's recognitory demand was not
made until December 20. 1976. and as all of Respondent's
unfair labor practices are otherwise remedied under the
terms of this Decision and Order, I conclude that Respon-
dent should be required to recognize and bargain with the
Union as of' December 20. 1976.
IV. fil; FlFT(I ()iF Il IL UNFAIR ABOR P'RA( I('l5 IPON
(O(MMRt(
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the ambit of the Statute I will
order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
23 Dal-7,t Optical ('o. 137 NlRH 1782 (962); Super 7hrilt Markei ta
Enola Super 7hri/, 233 NI.RB 409 (1977).
24 Iinden l.umber Division. Surnmer d (. v. N.LRB. 419 J.S. 301
(1974).
25 See Trading Port. Inc. 219 NLRB 298, 301 (1975)
affirmative action which I deem necessary to effectuate the
policies of' the Act.?2
I have found that on and after December 20, 1976. Re-
spondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union as
the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of
an appropriate unit of pharmacists at certain of its stores in
the State of New Jersey. I shall therefore order that Re-
spondent, upon request, negotiate and bargain with that
labor organization in good faith and, if agreement is
reached, reduce that compact to writing and sign it.
CON(LusIONS oiF LAW
1. Respondent 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 Section 2(5) of' the Act.
3. All full-time and part-time pharmacists employed by
Respondent at its Delran, Marlton, Lawnside, Cherry Hill,
Bordentown, Manalapan Township. Bricktown, Wood-
bridge, East Brunswick, Kearny, Jersey City, Hackensack,
Union, Newark, Dover Lodi, and Totowa. New Jersey,
stores, excluding all office clerical employees. and all other
professional employees, guards, all supervisors as defined in
the Act, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropri-
ate fr the purposes of' collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain with the Union in good faith on
and after December 20, 1976, concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment for the employ-
ees in the unit heretofore found appropriate, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
banned by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By granting retroactive wage increases to employees
in a manner inconsistent with past practice in order to dis-
courage their support for the Union, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices prohib-
ited by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. By soliciting grievances from employees with a design
to encourage them to cease giving support to the Union; by
promising benefits to its employees in an effort to discour-
age their membership in the Union; by threatening to close
its pharmacies in the event the employees selected the
Union as their bargaining representative: by threatening to
deprive employees of existing benefits regarding the sched-
uling of work ift' they continued to support the Union; by
threatening employees with discharge if they persisted in
assisting the Union: by threatening to reduce the hours of
work for its employees because of their adherence to the
Union; by expressing to its employees the futility in their
adherence to the Union because it would deliberately delay
fulfilling its obligation to bargain with it; by coercively in-
terrogating its employees concerning their activities on be-
half of the Union and the manner in which they intended to
vote in the Board election; by creating the impression
among its employees that their Union activities were being
26 In ts remedial prayer. the Union urges that it he awarded aitorne's fees
and the cosis which incurred in he course of its organizatiolnal etfforts. As
the Respondent's defenses were dependent upon resolutions of credibility
and hence were "debatable" rather than "frivlous," I perceive no warrant
under the circumstances of this proceeding for the award of such remedies.
See Ilecis Ir.. 215 NI.RB 765, 768 ( 1974)
1150
IWO GUYS DISCOINT I)EPT. SORES
kept under surveillance: by requesting employees to attend
Union meetings for the purpose of surveilling the engage-
ment of other employees in LInion activities; and, by granlt-
ing retroactive wage increases to employees in order to in-
duce them to cease giving support to the Inioln.
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unflir labor
practices proscribed by Section (a)( 1 ) of' the Act.
7. The atforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of'
the National l.abor Relations Act, as amended. I hereb!
issue the following recommended:
ORDER2 7
The Respondent, Two Gus Discount [)epartment
Stores, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vornado. Inc..
Garfield, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing. upon request, to bargain in good faith with
United Pharmacists Guild L.ocal 100, Chartered by Retail
Clerks International Association, AFI. CIO. regarding
rates of pay. hours of employment. or other terms and con-
ditions of employment of all emplo,ees in the unit herein
found appropriate.
(b) Granting retroactive wage increases to employees in
a manner inconsistent with past practice in order to dis-
courage their support for the Union.
(c) Soliciting grievances from employees with a design to
encourage them to cease giving support to the Union.
(d) Promising benefits to employees in an eftort to dis-
courage their membership in the Union.
(e) Threatening to close its pharmacies in the eent its
employees select the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
(1f) Threatening to deprive employees of existing benefits
regarding the scheduling of work if they continued to sup-
port the Union.
(g) Threatening to discharge employees if they persisted
in assisting the Union.
(h) Threatening to reduce the hours of work for its em-
ployees because of their adherence to the Union.
(i) Expressing to employees the futilit' of their adher-
ence to the Union because it would deliberately dela ful-
filling its obligation to bargain with it.
0j) Coercively interrogating emploNees concerning their
activities on behalf of the U:nion. and the manner in which
they intend to vote in Board electio!,is.
(k) Creating the impression among employees that their
Union activities are being placed under surveillance.
2* In the event no exceptions are filed as proided b Sec. 102.46 the
Rules and Regulations iof he National I.abor Relations Board. the finding,.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as prosrided in Sec 10)248
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted h5 he Bal.lrd and becoine ii,
findings. conclusions. and Order, and ll objecllons hereto, shall he deemed
waled for all purposes.
(I) Requesting employees to attend union meetings or
the purpose of surveilling the engagement of other employ -
ecs in union actiities.
(m) (iranting retroactive wage increases to employees In
order to induce them to cease giving support to the tinion
(n) In ans other manner intterrintg wxith. restraining. or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guarin-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. lake the tfollowing airTnati t actiotn which I deei is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) pon request, bargain in good 'laith with the Union
regarding rates of pa. hours of emplo ment. or other terms
and conditioi of employment of all employees in the unit
herein found appropriate and. if agreement is reached. re-
duce said agreement to writing.
(b) Post at its stores in New Jerse where pharmnacies are
housed, copies of the attached notice marked Appenidix."'
C(opies of said notice, on torms pro ided b the Regional
D[irector for Region 22. ater being duly signed hb Respoln-
dent's representati e. shall be posted bh It immediatel
upon receipt thereoft:, and be maintained hb it tfor 6() con-
secuti\e days thereafter. in conspicuous places,. including ail
places where notices to emploees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, detfaced. or covered hb an.
other mlateria]l.
(c) Noif the Regional I)irector tfr Region 22. in ,rit-
ing. withill 20 days roml the date of this .*halt steps have
been taken to compl herex ith.
I I Is t RI l IIIL:R (ORI RI I tilt te election1 conducted in
(Case 22 (A 6994 be set aside.
i\ PP'N 1)1D X
Not) ll I ()l EM ()i i
Posti t ORI R t ll
NAII(NsxA] I1.tR Rl litos BIo\Ri
An Agenc lf tile nitel States (;rGoernment
Wi- w\ ilI N [ refuse. upon request, t bargain in
good ftiith with the ni on. United Pharmnacists Guild
l ocal 10(X. chartered b Retail Clerks International
Association. AFI. ('(). regarding rates of pa. hours
of employment. or other terms ad conditions of nem-
ployment in the unit of pharmacists Iound appropriate
by the Board in (Case 22 CA 6994. Ift a collective-bar-
gaining agreement is reached. we will sign it.
\Xri: .iI I (l iralnt retroaetie \\age ncreises to
our emplo!ees in a iilnlnner Incoillsistent \ ith past pr.ic-
tice in order to discourage their support l',r the nion.
\tV: I.il No() solicit rie ances tronl our emrployees
with a design to encoutrac thcn to cease gin ing up-
port to Ithe [ iotn.
\'1 \ 1II I \(t pronlmise bcnelfits to eCmploecs in in
effort to diisco ur.age their nlenihershilp i the I nion
In. l the eent that hs (irdcr is cenlored h . .Iud lncni i . t i d
Sllles Court If A\ppea ls thc ords Il the iltlt ri.diiclg ',stcld h rdelr I
ihe Nlional l.abor Relations B.oard"l shill rad led Piirsi.alit l t, Jud
inell ,I the I nited Sta.tes ('ourt l I..i \-pc. l f loi..in 11 ()rlc ci the N.-
lisnul l.abor Rl.alnons Biard
1151
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our pharmacies in
the event our employees select the Union as their bar-
gaining agent.
WE WII.L NOT threaten to deprive our employees of
existing benefits regarding scheduling of work if they
continue to adhere to the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employees if
they persist in supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to reduce the hours of work
for our employees because of their adherence to the
Union.
WE WILL NOT express to our employees the futility
of their support of the Union because we would delib-
erately delay fulfilling our obligation to bargain with it.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their activities on behalf of the Union or
the way in which they intend to vote in Board elec-
tions.
WE WILL NOT create the impression among our em-
ployees that their union activities are being placed un-
der surveillance.
WE WILL NOT request our employees to attend union
meetings for the purpose of spying on the engagement
of other employees in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act. as amended.
Two GuYS DISCOUNT DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF VORNADO, INC.
1152